 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2/10/2006 12:21:00 PM | Email this article • Print this article | Awakening the dead
“When We Dead Awaken” is a lesser work by a great playwright
By Bonnie Prinsen
During the intermission of the preview of When We Dead Awaken, I heard another theater patron say, in a puzzled tone, “I think there must be a lot of universal themes in this play.” His companion shrugged. I couldn’t help but wonder—if you don’t know what they are, how universal can the themes be?
When We Dead Awaken (1899) was the last play written by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, and is this year’s offering to the Ibsen Festival and the celebration of Norwegian heritage, from the Commonweal Theater of Lanesboro. The play will run through May 21.
The story seems to have a simple premise. Older artist husband, young wife. Marriage on the skids. He longs for the ephemeral model who, years ago, helped him make a name for himself as a sculptor. His wife longs for...something. Along comes an earthy bear hunter and the wife can’t help but be smitten by this contrast to her brooding, often unpleasant husband. At the same time, along comes the model from the artist’s past, only she’s now insane (can’t appear in public without her nurse) and wears a gauzy gown that makes her look like something that either adorned the outside or inside of a tomb. Ah...symbolism.
While the premise is not complex, the problem is the dialogue, which is stilted and largely unfathomable. The last few years of Ibsen’s life, he was the victim of poor health and a mental breakdown. There has even been speculation over the years that his breakdown might have actually preceded the writing of this play rather than coming afterward. The characters offer truly odd philosophical comments, or speak in ciphers, making it nearly impossible for the audience to keep track of the surface reality and how the characters are reacting to the plot.
A contemporary of Ibsen’s, and a dedicated promoter of Ibsen’s work, William Archer, found this play to be sadly lacking in the greatness found in some earlier plays, and concluded that with When We Dead Awaken, “in his treatment of his symbolic motives, Ibsen did exactly what he had hitherto, with perfect justice, plumed himself upon never doing: he sacrificed the surface reality to the underlying meaning.”
I agree with Archer, and would add that just because you can’t figure something out doesn’t mean it is “deep.” It might just be messed up.
I am not questioning Ibsen’s status as a great artist. The best Ibsen plays leave one with a feeling of having been shaken up and brought to a new level of understanding—of seeing something for the first time that you’ve really known all along.
But what about those whose first ever Ibsen play is When We Dead Awaken, or Rosmersholm, or Master Builder? Will they be motivated to see more Ibsen?
It’s not just that it’s difficult to make sense of Ibsen’s lesser plays, but there’s also something almost insulting about having them presented to you. A friend who sat with me at Rosmersholm two years ago (and won’t likely attend another Ibsen play) said it this way: “Ibsen is the literary equivalent of a colonoscopy--you leave feeling slightly depressed with a vague sense that you may have been abused.”
None of this is to fault the cast and crew of the current play. They do an admirable job with a script that is largely impenetrable. It’s always a treat to see what Janis Martin does with costuming, and, as always, the company deserves to be commended for what they’re able to do with such a small stage space. (Just think what we can expect when they move into their new, larger space.)
But why not go with, if not a sure thing, a much more likely thing, and produce his greatest works? In my humble opinion, this would surely include A Doll’s House, Enemy of the People, Hedda Gabler, and Ghosts. But there’s no need for anyone to take my word for it. A little research shows which of his plays are generally the most well-regarded, with successful track records.
How about a shorter run of the Ibsen plays?
For a change of pace, are there other, perhaps more contemporary Norwegian writers whose work might be worth producing as a way of honoring the area’s Norwegian heritage?
Along with others, I’m grateful for the Commonweal’s dedication to Ibsen and the fact that I’ve been able to experience six of his plays that I otherwise might not have seen. But I’m a certified “nerd” with a strong interest in anything literary, and I wouldn’t claim that my interest is typical. I know of more and more people each year, theater fans, who are practicing Ibsen avoidance.
While it may not sound like it here, I’m an Ibsen fan—a fan who believes that four-month runs of his lesser, difficult plays does more harm than good.
William Archer had a high opinion of Ibsen’s talent, but wrote the following regarding Ibsen’s When We Dead Awaken:
“To pretend to rank it with his masterpieces is to show a very imperfect sense of the nature of their mastery... it is purely pathological. To deny this is, in my opinion, to cast a slur over all the poet’s previous work, and in great measure to justify the criticisms of his most violent detractors.”
All of this leads to what I really want to say. It’s time for Commonweal to seriously analyze and “think outside the box” regarding their productions of Ibsen. I know I’m in danger of angering diehard Ibsen fans, but consider this: How does it honor the playwright to produce his lesser quality works?
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
