HEDDA GABLER - Henrik Ibsen

One of the things I liked about this play, even before I read it or saw it, was the title.

Even if you knew nothing about the content of Ibsen’s plays going into them, and that was true for me, you might conceivably be able to have a stab in the dark at what they might be about from the title. 

You probably wouldn’t be able to guess much, because they are complex works, but in retrospect the titles of “A Doll’s House,” “Ghosts” and “The Wild Duck” are quite symbolic of the themes and content within, and “An Enemy of the People” is even more straightforward.

But with Hedda Gabler (and the last name is apparently pronounced Garbler if a whole bunch of actors are to be relied upon) I had nothing. Nada… ikke noe (in Norwegian)… intet (Danish).

It’s a woman’s name? Maybe? So the play strong features a woman called Hedda Gabler, obviously. Bomp Bow! Close. Her name is actually Hedda Tesman… her MAIDEN name had been Hedda Gabler. But even that choice of title gives a meaningful heads up that this is a woman feeling trapped, diminished and controlled and not satisfied with the life she now leads.

I’m not sure if summarising some of Ibsen’s other pieces in my previous blogs has been useful (you can learn most of it from Wikipedia) but I’m not going to be as detailed this time. There’ll be spoilers still, but there’s so much good stuff to encounter in this play I want to leave a lot of it for you to discover.

I will start with this… I think Hedda Gabler is the stand out play of the five Ibsen plays I’ve read and watched. I liked all of them (well not so much “The Wild Duck”) but this one I feel is much more cohesive, largely the reveals and plot elements are better constructed and earned, and it’s an amazing piece of theatre particularly for the person (may not be someone who identifies as a woman) who finds themselves in the lead role.

As an aside, “Hedda Gabler” has a reputation in theatrical circles as being the female “Hamlet”. The plays of course are very different. At the very least, this is far shorter… not even half as long. And the roles are very different, the storyline very different, but each involves a very flawed lead character and this role is a standout (and a particularly brave role to write form women in theatre at its time) and so it’s unsurprising that many great and/or famous actresses have played the title role. A very abbreviated list of just some of those actresses includes:

Ingrid Bergmann, Peggy Ashcrodt, Janet Suzman, Diana Rigg, Glenda Jackson, Claire Bloom, Kate Mulgrew, Maggie Smith, Jane Fonda, Annette Bening, Judy Davis, Emmanuelle Seigner, Mary Louise Parker, Rosamund Pike, Ruth Wilson, Cate Blanchett and Tessa Thompson.

So what’s it about

Hedda Gabler is a woman stuck in a life, a house and a relationship she doesn’t want to be in. She dreams of greater wealth, luxury and position, but she is no mere tag-along Lady Macbeth. She refuses to be a victim and displays her agency at every opportunity.

She is, in turn, enigmatic, domineering, vulnerable, manipulative, spiteful and fragile. And in at least one production I watched there is quite a hint that she is battling with her mental health.

As the play starts, she is newly married and already over it. She longs for adventure, misses the prestige of being General Gabler’s daughter, and with having significant influence in life. Out of a mix of boredom, curiosity, vindictiveness and opportunity, she is more than happy to use her influence on those in her immediate proximity, mostly at their detriment.

She insults her husband George’s close Aunt out of petty vindictiveness, toys with and tortures (figuratively speaking) an old schoolmate just for sport, and flirts with two potential love interests to satisfy her ego, setting up antagonisms and conflicts as she goes.

Plot elements include her husband (George Tesman) and an old friend of his (Eilert Lovborg) who now compete for the same position, an unscrupulous family friend (Judge Brack) who has assisted the family in the past but no seeks to control Hedda. There’s an old schoolfriend of Hedda’s (Thea Elvsted), who doesn’t remember it being all that friendly and whose presence and love interests taunt Hedda, there’s a maid (Berte) that hedda has little time for and and the Aunt (Juliana Tesman) who played a large part in raising George and whom Hedda has even less time for.

Henrik Ibsen’s Greatest Hits

Hnbrik Ibsen was way ahead of the recycling and sustainability trend, reusing plot elements a number of times. I’m not having a shot at him (although guns come up a bit). In fact I am a huge fan of songwriter Jim Steinman who has been known to cut and paste entire songs and reuse them (check out Bad for Good and Nowhere Fast and get back to me). And for both writers that’s fine.. It’s their own original work after all and they can do what they like.

I really don’t want to spoil this play for newcomers, but I can say that some of Ibsen’s greatest hits are in the mix. Again, not all of these elements are in “Hedda Gabler” but some trademark Ibsen faves I’ve encountered in the five plays I’ve read or watched include:

• Most of the lead characters HAVE servants rather than ARE servants. Four plays. (Understandable that a middle-class raised Ibsen wrote about life experiences).

• Suicide of a key character very near the end of the book as an emphatic moral to the story. Two plays (and a third one, an assisted suicide).

• A child born out of wedlock whose true parentage (someone the audience has already met) is revealed near the end as a plot twist. Two plays.

• A woman leaving her husband and her children. Two plays.

Again, not saying what elements are used in “Hedda Gabler”, but I found that their use, and the user of other previously unused elements, was more effective, better scripted and better earned in this chronologically fifth of the five plays I’ve looked at.

The Play is the Thing

I liked the play from reading it, and that’s not always easy because some days your imagination and interest don’t want to come and play, but on this occasion the planet aligned. And I would have praised the play based just on that. But watching the ting come together can be a wholly more resounding experience.

As with “The Wild Duck,” I watched three different movies/videos of the play, although with that play I was hoping to see just one that I liked whereas with “Hedda Gabler” I was enjoying each so much I wanted more.

Because it’s been performed, and recorded, so often, I was spoiled for choice and so I went with options that featured actresses I really wanted to see.

The 1962 BBC Telemovie featured Ingrid Bergmann, just one of the greatest actresses of all time (personal bias… feel free to have your own opinions), along with Michael Redgrave, Trevor Howard and others. Very enjoyable… Ingrid has such almost royal presence and played the role quite aristocratically. She was still able to give indications of cruelty while seeming dignified and aloof, and Trevor Howard as the Judge was quite sinsiter when his moment arrives. Well worth a watch.

The 1981 ITV Telemovie featured Diana Rigg (who played opposite Goulburn’s own George Lazenby in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, the very sexy Emma Peel in the British Avengers (go write your own blog if you don’t like my descriptions) and also a quite majestic role in Game of Thrones… so I wasn’t going to skip this version. Diana Rigg played the role not dissimilarly to Ingrid Bergmann although seemed to always have a bit of something concerning bubbling just below the surface. She played it more sneakily and more manipulatively than Bergmann, but otherwise the set and directorial decisions were very similar and it was also great to watch.

Quite literally, the best version I saw was left to last. It was a pro-shot video on National Theatre at Home performed and recorded in 2017. I felt in this version I saw the play in all of its potential and became passionate about seeing it performed locally. The stage was extremely bare… and while I’ve started to become a fan of simple staging it leaned into the “come on mate, have a bit of a go” territory. But it did work effectively in giving the cast plenty of freedom of movement and self expression.

And what a cast. Really. I didn’t recognise many of the actors (other than Ruth Wilson as Hewdda and Rafe Spall as Judge Brack), but they all seemed to find a way to stamp their characters more personally and more substantially than in the other two versions I saw. 

But it was a tour de Force for Ruth Wilson. She was hanging on to her sanity by a thread at times (her character that is). Her outbursts were bigger and louder. She was at times more charming than the others I saw (sorry Ingy and Di) and while all of them did great work with the domineering, manipulative and nasty elements, Ruth brought a whole other layer in the vulnerability stakes. 

AND huge praise for Rafe Spall who showed the most ominous and even terrifying of the Judges I saw. Man did he own that role. You could absolutely feel how trapped and fearful Hedda was and despite her being very much an architect of her own situation STILL find sympathy for her. His scene with the can of Big Tom tomato juice is very unsettling in a kind of “Reservoir Dogs” kind of way. And speaking of that film, this production also made great use of incorporate music, including “Blue” by Jonie Mitchell, “Hallelujah” (the Jeff Buckley version) and “Wild is the Wind” sung by Nina Simone

There were many staging differences (and the work is described as being Patrick Marber’s adaptation) but I don’t think there were any major plot/script changes. Just finessing. In short, this emotional, engaging, aggravating yet satisfying rendition was absolutely brilliant. 

There were other versions I wanted to see, including the 1972 version with Janet Suzman and a young up and coming actor called Ian McKellan, and the latest riff, “Hedda” starring Tessa Thompson while I expect I’ll watch soon, but if I didn’t draw the line this blog would become 100 versions of the same play in 365 days.

Final thoughts

Firstly, YES it would work in Goulburn. Could I please direct it? Actually maybe it would benefit from a female director’s perspective. Either way, I’m very keen to see it and already fan casting the thing.

This is a very strong play with plenty of bits of meat in it that keeps it relevant all these 140 odd years later. Obviously how trailblazing it must have been to have an anti-heroine in such a strong and commanding role in the way back machine, but it’s still attracting actors, still attracting audiences.

If I haven’t been clear enough, I was very impressed. 

And so ends my five-play quick visit to the works of Henrik Ibsen. I totally get the significance of his influence on realism in theatre. In several plays I found on very rare occasions a rushed timing of events leading to the denouement, or in a few occasions a slightly implausible motive a little frustrating, but these are all very clever, multi-faceted, multi-themed works. 

Ibsen was, against considerable negative publicity and public reception, forging his own path and setting theatre in a new direction. People aren’t simply redoing so many of his plays all of these years later out of kindness… they are loved, respected and they work. I’ve very much enjoyed getting to know more about Ibsen and a handful of his works… now on the Mr Chekhov (and no, not on the deck of the USS Enterprise).

Materials accessed:

• “Hedda Gabler” – script. Available at various places including The Internet Archive.

• “Hedda Gabler” – Telemovie (1962). BBC Telemovie available on Youtube.

• “Hedda Gabler”  - Telemovie (1980). ITV telemovie on Youtube.

• “National Theatre Live: Hedda Gabler” – Pro-shot video (2017). National Live Theatre production. Available on National Theatre at Home by subscription.

THE WILD DUCK - Henrik Ibsen

I’ve got to say, this play - “The Wild Duck” by Henrik Ibsen - was a struggle.

Obviously, from reading three of his other plays and reading about Ibsen, I know that he (and his plays) are venerated.

And I know that this play is regarded as among his best.

Thing is… I really don’t care for it.

And I tried. I REALLY tried. After reading it, I scoured around online to find a video of a staged performance. Then, still very disappointed, I watched a movie version of the story (a bit better), and then another movie based on the play but with significant differences (VERY good). But the play itself I found didn't quite do it for me.

My main criticism, and I’ll get more specific, is that for a play by the father of theatre realism… I didn’t find it very bloody realistic. Broadly speaking, people’s motivations seemed poorly established, plotted actions didn’t seem to follow logically or with great likelihood, several key characters are poorly fleshed out and (again, in my mind) it reduced a key issue to a throw away plot device.

The elements I liked

But I’ll begin with what I liked or thought worked.

Like the other three other Ibsen plays I’ve reviewed, the title of “The Wild Duck” does pretty good job of summarising a key theme. Several key characters but especially Hedvig, daughter of protagonist Hjalmar Ekdal, felt like a wild duck… like a creature that didn’t belong. 

But probably the key theme was that of living a life of truth versus living a lie. This is cleverly supported by the motif of blindness. Two characters are losing their eyesight, and there is a game of blind man’s bluff, underscoring the contention that Hjalmar and his family are living less than a complete life because it is based on lies that some of them are unaware of. And it also serves as a clue to a plot point, so triple threat!

Another element that I thought well was the contrasting of Hjalmar’s returned bestie, Gregers Werle, and a doctor called Relling who lives below the Ekdal’s apartment. Gregers champions the primacy of truth in all things, whereas. Relling (like Orr in catch 22) provides an alternative and believes lies and fantasies can build hope that cold hard realities may not. Relling’s discussion where he explains several of the lies he has told, to Hjalmar and Molvik in particular, were deliberately created to provide comfort.

The play returns to some of Ibsen’s previously used themes… keeping up appearances, hope and idealism versus acceptance of one’s fate, the vapidness of society events. It features the clever recurring use of symbols and motifs and even drops a few hints to points later revealed so the audience feels the reveals have been provided fairly.

I like the themes and the ideas… so why didn’t it work for me? In my opinion, it fell over in the story telling

In summary (including spoilers)

Gregers has been away from home for some time on a self-imposed exile, and catches up with his father, Hakon (the local richie rich land baron). Hakon advises that Greger’s old mate Hjalmar married Hakon’s former maid Gina, whom Greger’s deceased mum thought Hakon was having an affair with. Hakon had even helped set Hjalmar’s relationship with Gina in place, resulting in (for reasons that I don’t think were made abundantly clear in the text) Gregers, in a fit of idealistic fervour, deciding to commence a “truth at all costs” crusade.

Gregers heads off to stay at Hjalmar’s place to start hammering home some home truths, whether the Ekbal’s like it or not.

So let’s set up their home. Hjalmar lives with his wife Gina, his daughter Hedvig, and his slightly doddering dad “Old Ekdal” Living below them are a doctor (Relling) and a theological student (Molvik). Old Ekdal spends most of his time in the attic where there are animals including pigeons, rabbits and a Wild Duck that has become Hedviog’s de facto pet which she loves dearly. The duck was shot some years ago by Hakon but it survived and he gave it to Old Ekdal to look after. 

SIDENOTE: They tell the story that wild ducks, when injured, dive to the bottom of the pond/like/river and grab hold of a reed or branch to drown themselves rather than live on injured. This is used as a central plot device but I’ve looked it up and it’s not true. Myth busted!

The story from this point is more confusing with a bunch of slightly extraneous elements and I think that’s part of the reason motivations were insufficiently established and reasonable responses were poorly earned, so I’ll shorten it. 

Gregers lets his old mate know that his wife had had an affair with Greger’s dad, Hakon, before Hakon set her up with Hjalmar. The script keeps the timing of the affair frustratingly vague, but Hjalmar is upset at this secret being kept from him. Then, shortly after… and I mean unbelievably shortly after… a letter from Hakon arrives offering to pay a pension to Old Ekbal for the remainder of his days (there’s a side story that Hakon and Old Ekbal had done some wrong together for which Old Ekbal took the fall, and the jail time) AND once he passes away, to financially assist Hedvig. 

I should mention, the suddenly generous old Hakon is losing his sight, and so too is Hedvig with a hereditary disease neither of her parents appear to have. Hjalmar wonders why Hakon would suddenly want to pay for… hey, wait a second. Is Hedvig my daughter, he asks his wife. Umm, maybe? Hard to be sure, she replies. Hjalmar storms out, I can’t keep living this lie. He tells his Hedvig he can’t bear to even look at her now and storms off.

Hedvig is confused. Why doesn’t dad love me any more. He even said he wanted to kill Ducky. Enter Captain Truthypants Gregers who tells her she should make some meaningful sacrifice, like killing her duck, to prove her love for her dad. She makes a different sacrifice and takes her own life shortly after overhearing Hjalmar ask “would she lay down her life for me.”

What I didn’t like

The first thing I didn’t buy was the rapidity and largely unprompted and unearned epiphany by Gregers that he must start spreading the Gospel of truth everywhere. Was it because his dad used to date his mate’s current wife? Or even that his dad set the pair up. I read it a few times feeling I’d missed something that led to his dramatic response but if it’s there I didn’t see it.

I felt the kind of restrained response Hjalmar had when he was first advised about his wife’s affair with Hakon was in stark contrast to his sudden revulsion at his daughter when the other shoe dropped and he figured out he may not be the biological father of Hedvig. Yep, upset I get. Needing to get his head straight, I get. But his onslaught of aggression seemed pretty OTT. Still, that’s not as big a concern as the previous point though. Or the next one.

The whole final sequence around Hedvig’s suicide seems poorly assembled. Her decision didn’t to take her didn’t seem at all earned and seemed a bit of a “girlfriend in the fridge”. Let me explain. There is a pop culture term called “fridging”, “girlfriend in a fridge” or “woman in a fridge.” It comes from, of all places, graphic novels/comics where a young superhero Kyle Rayner (Green lantern) had a girlfriend written into his storyline, whom he fell madly in love with, and then in a short period of time came home to find a really bad guy had killed her and placed her body in Kyle’s fridge. 

The term has expanded to other areas of literature, cinema, TV etc to refer to the creation of a character who is not fleshed out and given no agency to then suffer or be killed as a plot device just so a major character can be affected. I feel that’s what Hedvig is to this play. And while I know very well that suicides can come undetected, unexpected and with few signs, I don’t feel this is that… this death seems to happen solely for the emotional gut punch. 

Also, the reactions afterwards are rushed and a bit odd, and the discussion (again by the increasingly heartless Gregers) just minutes after Hedvig’s death, that this will give Hjalmar great emotional and philosophical clarity and will be the making of him, and that it won’t be long before he forgets she even existed. 

I realise… I think I realise.. that Ibsen is choosing to remind us of the heartlessness of truth over compassionate lies, but I found it a ghoulish choice for the end. And I guess that’s the note the playwright wanted people to walk away with, so fair enough I suppose.

I even read up on some essays about the various themes, some of hich I understood, or agreed with… quite a few I missed completely… and I could reproduce some of their points, but these were the ones that stuck out for me.

Filmed versions

So for various reasons this didn’t sit so well with me. And I actually felt a mix of being dopey or guilty for not enjoying this more. It IS a highly regarded play. So I watched from start to finish three complete versions to see if it worked (for me) on stage.

The first I saw was the 1971 BBC Play of the Month version directed by Alan Bridges and starring Denholm Elliott as Hjalmar and a very young Jenny Agutter as Hedvig. The acting was very good, so too the staging and it was very faithful to the original play script. But I still didn’t love it for the same reasons.

The next version, working my way through them chronologically, was the 1983 Australian movie with specially imported stars Jeremy Irons as Hjalmar (called Harold in this) and Liv Ullmann as Gina. Ullman actually IS Norwegian … not sure what that adds to an Australian interpretation but she’s very good. This version was pretty close to the original. Obviously the place and time period had changed. Old Ekbaln (Old Ackland), played by John Mellion, was no longer doddering and Hakon (now Wardle), played by former Matlock Police boss Michael Pate, seemed a bit more likeable. Still, the arcs of Gregers and Hedvig seemed short of what they needed to be and those are pretty important roles to flesh out.

Almost giving up hope, I discovered that a second Aussie version existed. Called “The Daughter” and made in 2015 and featuring an all-star cast (Sam Neill, Geoffrey Rush, Anna Torv, Miranda Otto and others), THIS version redeemed the story for me. As the title indicates, it was NOT an entirely faithful version of the original play by Ibsen. But by moving things around a little, editing out some bits that added little and by building motivation into all of the key arcs this version really worked for me (I gave it 9/10, not that that means anything). Sam Neill in particular in the Old Ekbal character was even further away from doddering than John Meillion’s portrayal. Greger’s motivation made sense, Hedvig’s decision seemed more realistic… so many of the core great ideas by Ibsen worked in this rendition.

Would it work in Goulburn today?

I have used this final section to wrap up the previous reviews I’ve written. And as this is an evolving project I realise how stupid and arrogant that question is. Anything that has worked elsewhere can work in Goulburn today. Some shows that haven’t worked anywhere could work in Goulburn today. And if I say it couldn’t, there’s bound to be someone rubbing their hands together in the knowledge they could make it work, and they’d probably be right. And of course who am I to say what could work.

At the end of the day, theatre (like any of the arts we consume) is in the eye of the beholder. I didn’t love this play because I thought the playwright didn’t earn the motivations and outcomes … that some choices seemed discordant and distracting.

But this show has worked in many places, for nigh on 150 years. So yeah, it could work here. But you’d need to do a lot of script analysis, figure out directorial and acting choices that make the arcs seem less stark, jarring and sudden. And even though I’m pretty committed to letting the play be the play and not defying the writers intent, maybe shop around for the most suitable translation or consider (as people have to when they regularly shorten the 4 hour hamlet) if minor edits can allow people greater access to the central themes and meanings that are really quite striking.

Materials accessed:

• “The Wild Duck,” - script. Various places, here’s one - the UK Public Library.
• “The Wild Duck,” - Video (1971) BBC Play of the Month version.
• “The Wild Duck,” - Video (1983) Australian movie.
• “The Daughter” - Video (2015) An Australian movie inspired by The Wild Duck, available by subscription on Stan.

AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE - Henrik Ibsen

 Three years after “A Doll’s House” and just a year after “Ghosts”, Ibsen may well have been feeling the weight of people’s wrath and indignation when he set pen to paper with “An Enemy of the People.” Thematically, the play was largely new ground for him but the controversy, criticism and personal attacks from those other two plays may well have been an ingredient in his creative soup when he tried to envisage what villagers with pitchforks and torches might look like in his world.

As with “Ghosts” (and to a lesser degree “A Doll’s House”) I found this play slow to grab me. It didn’t initially seem to be about anything terribly substantial or significant,  but as it reached its midpoint and the stakes, reactions and motivations became clearer, its grabbing had well and truly taken hold.

I’ll briefly canvas some of those themes:

• Truth versus majority opinion

• Personal integrity versus the will of the people

• Whistleblowing

• Truth to power

• The cost of making a stand

• The role of the media and propaganda

• Authority, power and corruption

• Economic development versus health and wellbeing

Now I don’t for a minute expect anyone to know much about the play “Vox Populi,” which is very dear to my own heart and will debut this year, but the themes are almost a perfect match (I swear I didn’t copy it) and so I’m very much part of the target audience for this play.

Interestingly enough, Enemy of the People is not a term invented by Ibsen. The Ancient Romans referred to someone as hostis publicus if they were a public enemy. In the French Revolution, Robespierre and others referred to subversives as ennemi du peuple. Dictators throughout history… including Stalin, Mao, Goebbels and Trump (there, I said it)… have used the term to label and sideline those who get in the way of their plans. But Ibsen’s play has definitely given the term renewed currency.

The story (includes spoilers)

Dr Thomas Stockmann has been noticing people getting a bit sick in his small town, and believes it may be to those using the local municipal baths/spa owned by the city and some businesses. He gets the water tested and finds it’s heavily contaminated with bacteria. It is discovered that the chief cause is likely tannery owned by the Doctor’s father in law, but he decides to proceed. He writes a report for the local paper as a matter of public safety and the editor and publisher are totally on board with publishing it. But then the good doctor’s brother, the mayor of the town, who tells him that if he publishes the report it will badly hurt local businesses. But Doctor Stockmann I more concerned with public health and proceeds.

The publisher and editor remain gung-ho but when the mayor visits them and threatens them personally, they decide not to run the report. Finding all of his other avenues to advise the public shut down, he secures a room for a public forum. The mayor gets wind of this, selects a supposedly unbiased meeting chairman (the publisher) and they not only prevent Dr Stockman from talking but advise the meeting that he plans to cause great economic damage to the community by closing down the spa, and a vote is called to ostracise Dr Stockmann in the community as an enemy of the people.

Returning home, rocks are thrown through windows at Dr Stockmann’s home. His daughter as sacked as a teacher, he is sacked as a Doctor, his daughter is sacked as a teacher, one of his children is bashed at school. He follows up plans to buy tickets on a boat to take him overseas but that avenue is also blocked. Then the Doctor’s brother, the mayor, visits with more threats (fearing Dr Stockmann could still publish his details outside of the town). The mayor advises Dr Stockmann that the Doctor’s father-in-law had bought up shares in the spa due to word of mouth about its health concerns and that if Dr Stockmann continues to fight his cause he’ll let everyone know that was the scheme all along. The Doctor had been unaware of that and confronts his father in law who says news that the tannery had caused the contamination would destroy his businesses so he spent the money he would have given to his daughter to leverage his silence. 

And amongst all this, the publisher and editor visit and apologise, but quickly turn back to threat mode and tell him to sign a bit of paper to say he got it all wrong and they will help defend him. The Doctor tells them where they can stick it. And as the threatening hordes gather outside, the Doctor brings his family together and vows to not back down, to slowly build a trusting community around him to break through this authoritarian control.

End spoilers.

Current relevance

See what I mean? Once it gets cranking there are a lot of very relevant themes in the mix. Unsurprisingly, it’s a play that finds particular peaks in times of relevance. It just so happens that this 143 year old play has found just such a time now.

The costs of making a stand, how public opinion can be weaponised and directed, economic success versus wellbeing, the punishment and ostracising of people who speak up, the role of the media and propaganda and the flexibility of truth are all very pertinent today. 

Recently the show has seen revivals around the theatrical world. Matt Smith (the 11th Doctor Who… once I doctor I guess) has led a show on the West End, Jeremy Strong (of Succession) recently delivered a Tony winning performance in the lead role. Alex Kingston (Dr Who’s sometimes paramour River Song) led a British cast in a gender-swapped remake and Australia’s Kate Mulvaney did the same at the Belvoir Theatre.

Ibsen has quite cleverly used a seemingly minor issue as the springboard for how overwhelming a response can be, and by extension how much bigger the response would be to larger issues. Which isn’t to diminish the size of this issue or the importance of Dr Strockmann’s stand. He stands for keeping people safe… for abiding by the Hypocratic Oath… despite the eventual significant cost to himself. And his refusal to put his name to the lie may well have inspired Arthur Miller when a similar safe exit is offered to John Proctor in “The Crucible.”

How quickly and easily the crowd, or even the majority, can be turned against someone (and in this case a truthsayer and whistleblower) couldn’t be more relevant. Talk Show hosts/comedians being cut, news stories on shows like 60 minutes being cut, journalists and subject experts being ridiculed and labelled as enemies of the people… and the way in which ostracisation is used to shut down unpopular views is absolutely centre stage in the world today. 

I’d suggest, however, from my own experience on attempts to silence me on a much smaller scale, that instead of pitchforks and torches, opinions and movements deemed unpopular or inconvenient by inner circles and powers that be are met in the sewer of the social media public square with unfriending, dislikes, public denouncements and even phone calls.

Video versions

Despite the renewed interest in this play, it’s hard to find video productions to watch (which ideally I’m trying to do with each play as a comparison against the script). No doubt some of the ones I mentioned here will find their way to Digital Theatre, or National Theatre at Home, or Marquee TV before long. There’s also a Steve McQueen version floating about somewhere (couldn’t find it) and a version was also produced for Australia’s ABC in 1958. Good luck finding that.

I did manage to find two. One was a contemporary Scottish take from 1980 on the BBC, but it was all a bit Father Ted meets Coronation Street for me so I gave up on it rather early. Maybe it deserves better attention than I gave it.

The other version I found was (speak of the devil) Arthur Miller’s adaptation presented on National Education Television in 1966, with James Daly in the lead (and reasonably well known current actor Timothy Daly, his 10 year old son, playing his 10 year old son in his first TV acting gig). 

It’s a great production although your remote control hand will be kept busy (it’s in 12 parts, and the volume is quite low so every time a part finishes, your TV is yelling at you again). But it’s worth seeing. Very simple, unadorned staging but it displays the characters, the themes, the stakes and the outcome quite clearly.

Would it work in Goulburn today

Yes. Absolutely. Well it certainly could, and I’d love to give it a shake. It would at the very least be controversial, as good theatre so very often is, with some people saying “hey this is like such and such”, and counter arguments suggesting “no, it’s nothing like that at all.” And there’s always the chance that those being reflected on stage may not recognise that reflection.

As much as I’m a big fan of the script being the script being the script, there are some bits that are regularly modified and in my opinion should be. Some small amounts of text are into eugenics, and the advanced abilities of some races, and while it’s useful to hold the playwright accountable for all of the words, these are points he makes infrequently and in passing and diminish his portrayal as a good and decent man. But as others have shown, you can set it in a Scottish village, have it about a mum rather than a dad, you can make a lot of these changes without changing the dialog very much at all (and of course you are free to pick the translation you prefer).

On a personal note, many of the issues that inspired me to write “Vox Populi” are present in this work. Some elements are uncannily similar, and again I have never read, seen or heard summarised this work before. But I HAVE read and seen the Crucible a number of times. And I have been inspired by many works that deal with corrupt authority, making a stand and the cost of integrity. Those things are in my play, but they are also very much in the play. 

Certainly one of the Great Plays, deceptively wrapped in a small town dilemma, and a play that … as long as power, corruption and silencing the truth exist … won’t be retired any time soon.

Materials accessed:

“An Enemy of the People” - script. Available many places. Here’s a copy from coldreads.wordpress.com.

“An Enemy of the People” - film (1966). NET - In 12 parts on youtube starting with Part 1.

“An Enemy of the People” -  film (1980). BBC - I didn’t finish watching this version, but here is the link.