Customer Reviews

Enemy of the People (Theatre Classics)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Henrik Ibsen is the father of modern drama and his 1882 drama "An Enemy of the People" ("En folkefiende") was one of his more controversial works. In the play Dr. Stockmann discovers that the new baths built in his town are infected with a deadly disease that requires they should be closed until they can be repaired. However, the mayor of the town (the Burgomaster), who is Stockmann's brother Peter, rejects the report and refuses to close the baths because it will bring about the financial ruin of the town. When Dr. Stockmann tries to make his case to the people of the town, the mayor counters by pointing out how expensive it would be to repair the baths and dismisses the doctor for having wild, fanciful ideas. At the public meeting Dr. Stockmann is declared "an enemy of the people" by the Burgomaster.

To really appreciate this particular Ibsen play you have to look at it in the context of his previous dramas, because they all represent a conflict between the playwright and his critics. In 1879 Ibsen's play "A Doll's House" ("Et dukkehjem") was produced, wherein the character of Nora pretends to be a silly little wife in order to flatter her husband, who is revealed to be a hypocritical fraud. The idea that a woman would leave her husband and children was seen as being outrageous and basically obscene. Ibsen upset his audience and critics even more in his next play, "Ghosts" ("Gengangere"), an 1881 drama that again attacks conventional morality and hypocrisy. The topic is of congenital venereal disease but the true subject is moral contamination. Mrs. Alving has buried her husband, a degenerate who has left behind a son dying from syphilis and an illegitimate daughter who is probably going to end up being a prostitute. The play ends with Mrs. Alving having to decide if she should poison her son to put him out of his misery or let his agonies persist.

Again, Ibsen was attacked for outraging conventional morality. The following year after "Ghosts" the playwright responded with "An Enemy of the People" and the character that is most identified with representing Ibsen on stage in Dr. Stockmann. The allegory is quite plain when the play is considered within the context of Ibsen's work during this period, although while Stockmann is portrayed as a victim there is a sense of destructiveness to his behavior. At the end of the play Stockman has decided to leave the town, but then changes his mind to stay and fight for those things he believes are right.

As is the case with most of Ibsen's classic works, "An Enemy of the People" speaks to larger issues than those in conflict in the play. The debate is over the bad water pipes at the new baths, but the true conflict is over the clash of private and public morality. Dr. Stockmann is by far the most idealistic of Ibsen's characters, and that fact that he is opposed by his own brother, the Burgomaster, harkens back to Genesis and the fight between Cain and Able. As was the case with "Ghosts," there is an ambiguous ending where what happens next can be seen as going either way given your own inclinations as a member of the audience.

Both of the Stockman brothers are flawed. Dr. Stockman's idealism is at odds with the practical realities of the world in which he lives while the Burgomaster ignores ethical concerns. Ultimately, Ibsen is not forcing us to choose between the two but rather to reject both in terms of some middle ground. The Burgomaster is certainly old school, believing those in authority get to make all the decisions and that the people must subordinate themselves to the society. But he was the one who made the mistake of putting the new water pipes in the wrong place, so even his claims that he is looking out for the welfare of the community are dishonest. Dr. Stockman argues for individual freedom and the right of free expression, but his attempt to fix the problem ignores any effort at persuasion or building public support. He also seems to take pleasure in be able to show that his brother made a mistake. Still, in the end we have to favor the doctor over the mayor because his integrity is clearly stronger, while still recognizing that his idealism is tragically flawed.

This powerful play is my first experience reading Henrik Ibsen and WOW! The conflict is timeless and the leading character Dr. Stockmann reminded me of Sir Thomas More.

After I read the play I did not want to put the book down and wanted more. I flipped to the front of my edition translated by Christpher Hampton and read his nihilistic introduction. Mr. Hampton missed the whole point and somehow thought Dr. Stockman really WAS the "enemy of the people". Hampton sounded like one of the townspeople from the mob in Act Four when he wrote:

"This is to simplify Ibsen's intent; because however sympathetic Ibsen feels towards Dr Stockmann's cause, he is too subtle and profound a dramatist not to know that there are few figures more infuriating than the man who is always right. Stockmann's sincerity, naivety and courage co-exist with an innocent vanity, an inability to compromise and an indifference to the havoc caused in the lives of his family and friends, as well as his own, by his dogged pursuit of principle."

Hampton's edition is a nice size with print that is easy to read. I loved the story and the characters and I highly recommend it to all. I have lived the experience and have been "the enemy" so I understood Dr. Stockmann but I learned from Christopher Hampton and my own experience not everyone will "get it."

Well written, and realistic. Thomas is a well-meaning but rather tactless environmentalist. His brother Peter is more concerned about Thomas making a fool out of himself than trying to fix the situation. Just like in real life, there are no easy solutions but there are plenty of alibis and irrational negotiations from politicians ("If you'll just take back what you said..."). The only friend Thomas really has is the reader.

The action centres around a feud between two brothers -- Dr. Stockmann and his brother, the mayor of a small town in the northern part of Norway. The issue is the contamination of the local baths by bacilli supposed to cause typhoid fever. The Mayor -- (who is an impossible dolt, whose like can hardly be conceived to be a mayor in any European town) -- argues for piecemeal improvements in the bathing facility. Stockmann, whose name is roughly translated into "The Chastiser", urges the drastic closure of the premisses. The disagreement escalates into a violent altercation, in which the angry townspeople, in support of their mayor, unite and denounce the self-willed Stockmann as "an enemy of the people". Stockmann is presented by Ibsen as a fiery, stubborn, brutally honest egoist who would "rather ruin his community than see it thrive on lies and fraud" -- an embattled individual who sees himself as a champion of truth in opposition to the stupidity of the herd of cattle. The last act is a highly tense illustration of the follies and indignities to which anyone can be subject for daring to oppose the social norm. Ibsen has Stockmann eventually succeed in discovering that "the strongest man is mightiest alone", though this is a naively Romantic notion, the consolation of the defeated in the light of the colossal ignorance of one's fellow beings. Overall, an interesting dramatisation of an individual's case against public opinion.

I saw the play in London at Royal National Theatre and bought the script. (By the way, the same RNT production, directed by Trevor Nunn with sets by John Napier -- the same director/design team for Les Miserables -- with Ian McKellen in the lead role is coming to the Ahmanson Theatre in Los Angeles, July 14 to Sept 6, 1998. Hampton has created a new version not a literal translation of the late 19th-century classic play -- as Arthur Miller did some years ago. And it works perfectly as a great theatre piece should. The language feels modern and natural which makes the subject matter all the more vital -- particularly as our culture deals with the same environmental issues; and in many ways the same types of reactions from people in authority, including the engineering of mass hysteria and fear. The critic for London's News of the World said of the RNT production, "a tale of corruption, greed and the responsibility of the press...as up to date as this morning's headlines." I agree. See the play, get the script.

Henrik Ibsen wrote this play immediately after his play Ghosts was greeted by mass outcries (see my review of Ghosts). Rather than defend himself against charges of immorality, he pointed out that the multitude are wrong.

Dr. Stockmann, a stand-in for Ibsen's views, wants to do the right thing, the moral thing, to tell the truth to the people of his town, a truth that they do not want to hear. He is the medical advisor of the town's health baths, baths that brings wealth to the community. He discovers that the bath water is contaminated because the town officials, against his advice, set the pipes in a wrong place, and the water flowing through the area is causing bathers to become sick. The cost of repairing the pipes is enormous and it would take two years to fix them. The doctor is stopped from revealing the problem to his community by the Mayor, his older brother, who was interested in his health, but not in the health of others, who insisted that the doctor be silent because the community wants the money that the baths will bring, doesn't want to pay the large repair costs, and leaving the baths unused for two years would result in a large financial loss to the community.

Ibsen dramatizes the situation by making Dr. Stockmann somewhat flawed. The doctor naively persues his quest without using persuasive techniques to win over the town.

The town newspaper and the home owners are behind the doctor until the Mayor explains the enormous loss to them. Then, as with Ibsen who described moral problems in Ghosts, the entire town turns against Dr. Stockmann and vilifies him, calling him a lunatic and an enemy of the people. He tries to explain that he is telling the truth, but the town people refuse to see it. The town argues that they are the majority and they determine what is right. This is reminiscent of the Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas, who is not mentioned in the play, who insisted on holding the community and the church above the individual.

Stockmann responds that in matters of right and wrong, the individual is superior to the will of the many. In a memorable line, he says, "A minority may be right; a majority is always wrong."

One of Ibsen's main themes throughout his works is the conflict between the realist and the idealist. Once again in this play Ibsen sets his conflict up beautifully. His main character Dr. Stockmann is realistically created, and opposed ironically by his brother the mayor. The fun truly begins when we get to watch the two brothers fight-one on the side of the public good, the other on the side of personal morality. Throughout the entire book, you question what makes each character tick, and the reading was really an enjoyable experience.

It is very ambitious to make a review of a book from Ibsen or other authors. Never mind, for those folks who are not familiar with this story, it is a must to read it. It happened in the past in a Nordic country, but the story could happen (and it happened already) in any place.
However, regardless of the story and other details, the key concept is about the ideas of: courage, trueness, friendship, family, conflict of interests, ethics and many other fundamental life's concepts. It is a short book, therefore many people can read it, without considering it as a "waste of time". I saw the movie couple of year ago, but reading the book will help you to stop and think about the situations.
In a nutshell, it is highly recommded to read this classic book.

Ibsen is often revered as the father of modern drama, and his influence has been compared to that of Shakespeare's influence in 16th century England. This particular play is a treatise on Ibsen's ideology. In it Ibsen is putting forth his very liberal ideas and he does not spare anyone. Both liberals and conservatives are blasted in this play that points out clearly that any individual does not stand a chance if he tries to go public with his ideas, especially if those ideas go against the majority opinion. Yes, it is a militant play, but it is also a comedy that shows real pathos and warm humour.

Henrik Ibsen wrote An Enemy of the People in fury, after how the critics treated his previous play Ghosts. He had expected the so called Liberal press to receive Ghosts with a some what greater understanding. Instead he found himself "fighting at the outposts of thought", while the Liberal press were slaves of their subscribers' opinions and following them instead of leading them. An Enemy of the People were written with satirical intention, but became one of his most brilliantly crafted social dramas. I have read it several times and admire every page of it. Ibsen was ahead of his time then, and in many respects still ahead of our time. A solid five stars!