I’ll cut straight to the point and say I did not like this play. Which is rather unfortunate, because I was excited to see this. I chose to do my scene analysis on this play during our first week of class because I was fascinated by the character Halvard Solness and his obvious narcissistic tendencies. He is a MESS of a person, and I was really interested in seeing that portrayed on stage. I was excited to get down and dirty with complex characters and their questionable actions. However, I left a little disappointed. Okay. A lot. (I feel so pretentious saying that, do I sound pretentious? Wait don’t answer that). Let’s dive in!
First, the dinner table. The table –and the upcoming dinner of the evening– was made to be a big deal. That’s some of the first information we get. Elena is putting name cards down and debating who to seat next to each other. She and Kaia discuss the consequences of putting certain people next to each other. This entire conversation implies (to me, at least) that we’ll get a dramatic moment later on, with juicy conflict over dinner. It seems set up, like that will be the climax of the evening. Nope. This table appears multiple times, dressed and ready for a scene it never gets. It spends the whole play making a suggestion that there will be a dinner later, and it never happens. Which, you know, is fine and all, but I wanted to see that dinner!
The relationships between the characters were also changed, and that’s fine to do, but I feel like there needs to be significance to it? Like it should add more to the play. Right?? What does the wife’s interest in Ragnar add to the story, rather than Halvard –excuse me, Henry– manipulating Kaia for his own gains? And Ragnar and Kaia’s relationship gave me questions that were never answered. Why didn’t Ragnar not tell Elena about being with Kaia? He didn’t seem like he actually enjoyed Elena’s affections, so wanting to avoid losing that doesn’t make sense to me. What was he gaining? Or is he simply a flirtatious man? Elenor’s actions did not make total sense to me either. Her demeanor was so hot and cold, I could not tell if she was complex or poorly written. At the beginning she genuinely seemed like she was relieved to be serving divorce papers to Henry. She was so spiteful and cold, yet at the end she randomly decided she… loved him? And this was all to get him to care? Okay sure, but then why keep the divorce papers a secret? Why not threaten divorce openly to elicit a reaction from him? Am I missing something? I feel like I’m missing something.
I mentioned this briefly before, but I was also bothered by the fact that Henry’s entire personality was wiped clean. There were hardly any negative traits. No real flaws, not to the degree that was seen in the original play. No narcissism, no psychosis, no manipulation. No fun. He was no longer this driving force strong-arming Ragnar into being a docile apprentice, rather than competition in the workfield. He lost this desire to stay at the top due to fear of becoming obsolete. He lost his skewed understanding of the world in which the youth are coming to replace him. He lost his passion for what he does for a living. Which brings me to my next point. An original theme (that I gathered from reading the play, at least) is completely missing. This idea of sacrificing (relationships, your own well being etc.) in the name of your own personal goals is no longer explored within the play. The idea of ambition and its consequences, both good and bad, is nonexistent. This play is no longer about climbing to the tob of a tower and grossly disregarding what it actually takes to get there. Instead it’s a story about love, and the complexities of relationships. Which is fine, it can be that if the playwright wants it to be, but I am incredibly disappointed.
Movement and dialogue also seemed unnatural at times. The way Hilda walked specifically caught my attention. It seemed almost mechanical. Is she okay?? And the dialogue took me out of the show at times. They seemed like they were delivering speeches at each other, rather than having a conversation. There was hardly any connection. It’s like they were regurgitating poetic lines at each other, which again, is fine, except I don’t think it’s intentional??
I also HAVE to talk about the camera bits. Whenever Henry was delivering a speech, there was the sound of a single camera taking a photo, yet the onslaught of flashing lights indicated far more than one. It reminded me of a high school play. Except I was not sitting in a high school.
The most interesting part of this experience was being able to talk to a few other audience members after the show. They shared similar opinions, which was incredibly reliving as I was beginning to gaslight myself into thinking I perhaps just did a poor job of understanding the play I just watched.
Overall, this was. Something. I will say there were things to like about it, and I think If I hadn’t read the play first I might have liked it more. I think being excited to see Henry’s character as written is what messed with me and caused my opinion to be as negative as it is. I just left disappointed, and I don’t think I’ve ever left a show disappointed before. This WAS a learning experience though, and I’m really glad we went to see this. However, Henry will forever exist as a messy, narcissistic, tortured artist in my mind.
As for my art obligation (Self-imposed, might I add. Why did I do this to myself.) I only have a little watercolor study of a window to offer. It was quick, it was messy, and it’s NOT accurate in any way. Art is hard, man.
I also… forgot to actually consistently update with the running bit I’ve been doing so I’m just going to dump all the photos I took here. (This is definitely only funny to me but I’m adding it in the name of documentation.)
Okay, that’s all. Peace!
Theatre in London U of A 