GHOSTS - Henrik Ibsen

 

All of the plays I’m looking at are either widely acclaimed as among the greats of all time, or well-regarded recent works. So it feels a bit arrogant to say there were some plotting and pacing aspects of “Ghosts” by Henrik Ibsen that I struggled with, because it’s a great play and widely regarded, right? But I’ll get to that.

By the time Henrik Ibsen had written A Doll’s House in 1879, he was already 20 years deep into his playwriting career and already had 14 plays under his belt. No doubt many of them were quite good. I notice one of them is called “Peer Gynt” (a play with no less than 47 characters - gasp) which I’m guessing the piece of music “Peer Gynt’s Suite” is related to.

Anyway, “A Doll’s House” certainly cranked things up to the next level for Ibsen as it signified his international breakthrough. And, as stated separately, it was met with much controversy. So much in fact, that it was debated in newspapers and guests attending parties were sometimes advised NOT to mention it because of the heated arguments that ensued.

So Ibsen - whose name I thought for some time was Henry Gibson due to mishearing / mislistening - could have been forgiven for resting on his laurels and dialed back the controversy? You’d think. Au contraire, said our Henry (which coincidentally were literally his final words before he kicked the bucket 25 years later, only in his native tongue). You think “A Doll’s House” was controversial? Hold my Norwegian lager, he effectively said. 

How about the story of an intergenerational syphilis sufferer who hooks up with his half-sister and then begs his mother to euthanise him, all of this against the backdrop of women’s mistreatment by the patriarchy, society’s invasion of private lives, prioritising public appearances, hypocrisy, and the pious disingenuity of the church. I know what you’re thinking… seen it all before, it’s a tale as old as time. But no, the story itself is quite new and original. It’s the pacing and the plot near the end that I found problematic… but I’m jumping ahead again.

The story

Digging into the story (and there will be SPOILERS), Mrs Helen Alving has survived her unfaithful husband, the drunken and philandering Captain Alving, who died ten years prior due to complications of syphilis. Despite his poor treatment of her, she is concerned with the public appearance of both her husband and how that will cascade down to her and to Oswald, her son. To protect / rehabilitate his reputation and avoid familial scandal, she decides to fund an orphanage in his name. To do this, she finds herself living a lie to sell the fiction. 

She has enlisted the help of Pastor Manders, a hypocritical, self-righteous clergyman who believes that duty to religion, society, and public appearances trump personal happiness, even if it means living a life of lies. Mrs Alving shares some back story with the good pastor. He was aware of and witness to Captain Alving’s behaviour, had pushed for Mrs Alving to stay with him even when she wanted to leave, and even knew the back story behind the family maid Regina Engstrand (hang in there, I’m getting to that).

Focused as he was on appearances, when the orphanage is built he advises Mrs Alving NOT to insure it as it’s a house of God and would send a mixed message about their faith that God would protect the building. She agrees. Pastor Manders celebrates a prayer meeting at the orphanage that same evening as they decided NOT to insure it and while the forensics haven’t been officially returned, it appears that the candles used at that service started a fire that destroyed the brand-spanking new building in record time for a karmic actions-consequences outcome.

Meanwhile, Oswald has fallen for the house maid Regina, who we discover is really Oswald’s half-sister due to his philandering dad impregnating her mother, the previous maid. Oswald had expressed his love for her and his desire to marry her, and she is all in. But finding out they are siblings puts a damper on that (they are Norwegian, not Tasmanian after all). The marriage and the relationship is off.

Meanwhile, Regina’s erstwhile dad Jacob Engstrand (who was unaware of her biological parentage) offers Pastor Manders a way out of being held responsible for the fire by taking the blame so long as the pastor and his church pays for the Hostel for Sailors he’d long dreamed of creating. To save face, the Pastor agrees. 

And one more meanwhile, we discover that Oswald is now experiencing pronounced symptoms of syphilis and asks his mother that, should the symptoms become unbearable, to assist his dying. She argues against this for a while before finally agreeing, only for Oswald’s state to deteriorate swiftly putting her in a position to follow his request, and her agreement, or not.

Themes and quotes

So there’s a stack to unpack.

The name of the play is particularly well chosen. The direct translation from the Danish isn’t actually Ghosts so much as revenants, or those who return, and in this case it isn’t only referring to returning humans, but the ghosts of ideas and thoughts and beliefs that keep coming back to haunt us.

It was obviously a brave play tackling so many themes and issues in one big basket. 

• Incest

• Church hypocrisy

• Sins of the father (or mother)

• Keeping up appearances

• Sexual promiscuity and syphilis

• Assisted dying

Any one of these could probably score you a decent argument back in the day. Maybe even still. And Ibsen dealt with each quite well. The dialog and discussions flesh out a lot of the philosophical points you’d want to make under each.

Here are some great illustrative quotes from the play:

But this is the very essence of the rebellious spirit, to crave happiness here in this life. What right have we human beings to happiness? No, we must do our duty, Mrs. Alving! 

Pastor Manders

We mustn't stir up any scandal.

Pastor Manders

But I can't stand it any longer, with all these webs of obligation. I can't stand it! I've got to work my way out to freedom

Mrs Alving

When I heard Regina and Osvald in there, it was as if I was seeing ghosts. But I almost believe we are ghosts, all of us, Pastor. It's not only what we inherit from our fathers and mothers that keeps on returning in us. It's all kinds of old dead doctrines and opinions and beliefs, that sort of thing.

Mrs Alving

The sins of the father are visited upon the children.

Oswald Alving

There's the first light of dawn already on the mountains. It's going to be clear, Osvald! In a little while you'll see the sun. 

Mrs Alving

My notes

I liked the play (not that that is important to its quality) but I had some real issues with the pacing, particularly as the play reaches its denouement. I know that this is “stage” and you have around two hours to achieve a lot but some of the story arcs and loops were, for me, too rushed. Here are some examples.

• The timeline of the orphanage being completed, on that same day the decision is made not to insure it and that same night it burning down is a bit… it’s kind of obvious when they decide let’s not insure the place that it’s foreshadowing and the audience is directed to ponder “I wonder if that’s going to come back to bite them.” Yes it does. Very quickly.

• Oswald’s intense love of Regina (intense enough to wish to marry her), and her similar feelings, drift off immediately upon learning they are half-siblings. There is no indication they had acted upon any physical attraction yet, and clearly it’s wise they don’t proceed with the relationship, but they both walk away from the idea largely unupset and not wishing to at least build a strong sibling relationship. If Romeo and Juliet is the supreme case of developing enduring “love” ridiculously quickly and doing anything rather than let it go, Ghosts is the opposite.

• Oswald’s urgency to convince his mum to assist with his dying if the symptoms overcome him was relatively short. She didn’t take a lot of convincing. Even if she WAS to finally arrive at such a dramatic conclusion, surely it would take her a bit to get there?

• Then, having made that decision to assist Oswald with his dying if his health deteriorated dramatically, Oswald’s health deteriorates dramatically, I mean, REALLY quickly, and she is forced to make the call. It felt really rushed.

Condensing those thoughts

Despite those concerns, I quite liked the play. I think all of these scripted options are defensible, don’t need scripting changes and can be solved with acting and directorial choices in how you present them, however I do think the writing choices were dictated by format, and across a longer form (short mini-series?) there would be more realism.

Speaking of which, this play continues Ibsen’s work in realism and naturalism. Like “A Doll’s House” it is set in the middle class… more about people who have servants rather than the servants themselves… but isn’t uncommon given the adage of “write what you know” and middle class is what a lot of playwrights of the day knew. 

There were other criticisms of this play at the time, one being that syphilis cannot be passed from father to child… but there has been a counter argument that it can be passed to the mother as a carrier, with symptoms, who can pass it on to the child. Either way it’s not super important except to the medically inclined and is a maguffin to provide Oswald with his illness and emphasise the concept of the sins of the father being foisted upon the children.

Initial reviews of the shows were damning, and then some. Wrote the Daily Telegraph (the British one) at the time: "Ibsen's positively abominable play entitled Ghosts.... An open drain: a loathsome sore unbandaged; a dirty act done publicly.... Literary carrion... Crapulous stuff.” Geez, don't hold back. And while this contained especially crafted invective, many other reviews leaned in the same direction.

On top of the written script, I watched two versions of this.

On video

The first was the 1987 BBC production with (Dame) Judi Dench as Mrs Alving, a very Stephen Fry sounding Michael Gambon as the Pastor, Kenneth Branagh as Oswald and Natasha Richardson as Regina. It’s available freely on Youtube and is a fairly sombre piece as the subject matter requires.

The other version I saw was the 2013 Almeida Theatre Production performed at Trafalgar Studios, with Lesley Manville as Mrs Alving, Jack Lowden (from Slow Horses) as Oswald. To be honest, I nearly gave up on it in the first 15 minutes with the combination of Brian McCardie’s thick Scottish accent (sorry ancestors) and Charlene McKenna’s high pitched voice I couldn’t make out what they were saying.

But as it progressed I really started to see the potential for a modern, local rendition thanks to the franticness of Manville’s Mrs ALving, and likewise of Lowden’s Oswald, particularly in his final scene. Also, I thought Will Keen’s Pastor Manders highlighted his flaws and character weaknesses better and I thought the staging with translucent rear wall to the kitchen and reflective walls on the sides was very clever.

So, would it work in Goulburn today? I think so. It has such strong themes and debates and some of the dialog is kick-arse. I think it would all come down to the presentation and direction (the two version I saw highlighted how one version may have a significantly different impact on you than another, and making sure you choose the most sympathetic translation available. 

It was, when it came out, a powerful piece of subversive theatre, questioning many of the pillars of society of its time, as good theatre often does. And it still asks questions of some of those matters that are with us still today.

It remains a great work - certainly provocative in its day and potentially still now.

Materials Accessed:

• “Ghosts” script - available many places including at the UK Public Library for free.
• “Ghosts” 1987 BBC production - on Youtube for free.
• “Ghosts” 2013 pro-shot video - performed at the Trafalgar Studios in London and available by subscription at Digital Theatre streaming service.