1Django6924
Henrik Ibsen's status among 19th century playwrights is ne plus ultra and George Bernard Shaw (in)famously declared that Ibsen had surpassed Shakespeare as the world's pre-eminent dramatist (from The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare). Certainly "A Doll's House," "The Wild Duck," "Hedda Gabler," "Rosmersholm," "An Enemy of the People," and "The Master Builder" are more frequently performed today than the plays of any other 19th century playwright with the possible exception of Chekov.
But before these plays, written in prose and dealing with social issues and psychology, he wrote Peer Gynt. Based on themes from Norwegian folklore and written in verse, it is so different from his later work that despite its success, and despite the fact that it is written in a style which seems modern, Ibsen never wrote anything else in the same vein; in the Wikipedia article on the play, the critic Klaus Van Den Berg is quoted:
"its origins are Romantic, but the play also anticipates the fragmentations
of emerging modernism" and the "cinematic script blends poetry with social satire and realistic scenes with surreal ones."
Certainly the work rejects the classical unities of time, place, and action, and some scenes defy whether one is to take them literally, or realize this action is only taking place in the character's imagination. It is definitely an odd play, and one of Ibsen's most popular, which is rather surprising considering the blending of fantasy and reality, the disjointed plot, and the fact Peer is one of the most unlikeable of main characters.
These musings were prompted by a recent listening of the complete incidental music to the play by Edvard Grieg, which is more widely-known, at least in the US, than the play itself. I wonder how many owners of the Limited Editions Club edition who have read the work find the play a more kindred spirit than Ibsen's "problem" plays?
But before these plays, written in prose and dealing with social issues and psychology, he wrote Peer Gynt. Based on themes from Norwegian folklore and written in verse, it is so different from his later work that despite its success, and despite the fact that it is written in a style which seems modern, Ibsen never wrote anything else in the same vein; in the Wikipedia article on the play, the critic Klaus Van Den Berg is quoted:
"its origins are Romantic, but the play also anticipates the fragmentations
of emerging modernism" and the "cinematic script blends poetry with social satire and realistic scenes with surreal ones."
Certainly the work rejects the classical unities of time, place, and action, and some scenes defy whether one is to take them literally, or realize this action is only taking place in the character's imagination. It is definitely an odd play, and one of Ibsen's most popular, which is rather surprising considering the blending of fantasy and reality, the disjointed plot, and the fact Peer is one of the most unlikeable of main characters.
These musings were prompted by a recent listening of the complete incidental music to the play by Edvard Grieg, which is more widely-known, at least in the US, than the play itself. I wonder how many owners of the Limited Editions Club edition who have read the work find the play a more kindred spirit than Ibsen's "problem" plays?
2klamerin
Henrik Ibsen is possibly my favourite dramatist. I'd add "Brand" next to "Peer Gynt" - both are so different than his later plays that they are beyond comparison and stand on their own. The thing I love most about them is the intensity presented so directly via the rhymed verse, I find them both extremely engaging.
The "problem" plays make for a amazing theater experience - one of my favourite performances has been of "The Wild Duck" and conversely, one of the worst - a modern reimagining of "A Doll's House" where actors did not communicate via spoken words, but via text messages instead - the top half of the stage was a projection of several iphone messaging apps, the actors were in a different rooms and all words were projected via text messages, of course this stripped any emotion, no matter how hard the actors (who were all very good) tried to compensate via body language.
On the other hand, reading "Brand" and "Peer Gynt" has been more enjoyable, than seeing even a good performance of "Peer Gynt" - I was not impressed, as the magical elements simply could not be reproduced despite the extravagant stage decors.
I have been tempted to buy the two LEC editions of Ibsen, but the translations in my mother's tongue are so good that I know I would never read the English ones.
The "problem" plays make for a amazing theater experience - one of my favourite performances has been of "The Wild Duck" and conversely, one of the worst - a modern reimagining of "A Doll's House" where actors did not communicate via spoken words, but via text messages instead - the top half of the stage was a projection of several iphone messaging apps, the actors were in a different rooms and all words were projected via text messages, of course this stripped any emotion, no matter how hard the actors (who were all very good) tried to compensate via body language.
On the other hand, reading "Brand" and "Peer Gynt" has been more enjoyable, than seeing even a good performance of "Peer Gynt" - I was not impressed, as the magical elements simply could not be reproduced despite the extravagant stage decors.
I have been tempted to buy the two LEC editions of Ibsen, but the translations in my mother's tongue are so good that I know I would never read the English ones.
3Glacierman
Can't stand Ibsen.
4Django6924
>2 klamerin:
I can't read the play in its original language, but I understand Ibsen's poetic gift was acknowledged by all who could, so I understand why you would probably not be happy with the Archers' prose translation.
Also, the difficulties presented in staging Peer Gynt show why many critics, such as Van Den Berg quoted above, have described the play as "cinematic," and I can easily imagine a successful film adaption, especially with the computer generated imagery possible today. Successful, that is in achieving the fantasy effects and covering the range of locations required. I still don't know whether Peer is a hero audiences would warm to; I think that success would have to depend on the actor's talent and charisma.
I can't read the play in its original language, but I understand Ibsen's poetic gift was acknowledged by all who could, so I understand why you would probably not be happy with the Archers' prose translation.
Also, the difficulties presented in staging Peer Gynt show why many critics, such as Van Den Berg quoted above, have described the play as "cinematic," and I can easily imagine a successful film adaption, especially with the computer generated imagery possible today. Successful, that is in achieving the fantasy effects and covering the range of locations required. I still don't know whether Peer is a hero audiences would warm to; I think that success would have to depend on the actor's talent and charisma.
Join to post
