Of course I know OF Ibsen. I have been to college. But WHAT I know of Ibsen is next to nothing beyond he wrote plays, lived a long time ago and was from Norway. Last year I saw an up-dated version of "The Doll's House" which is perhaps his most famous play. Having never seen the original, the up-date seemed okay to me. Of course, it was performed as a period piece and it felt like a period piece. Enter "The Wild Duck." Wow.
To understand it better, I did a little research on Ibsen--a LITTLE, just wee bit. It helped to place his life on a timeline, born in 1828 and died in 1906. So he was a contemporary of writers like Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman, both of whom are credited for revolutionizing poetry in the same way that Ibsen is said to have revolutionized play writing. They took a genre that was ensconced in protocols and simply broke all the rules. I can see how it can be said that all we have of contemporary poetry or plays is built up on their heresies. For Ibsen, it was writing the complex and compelling truths of the lives of average folk. Not the peasantry. Not the kings and queens. But those somewhere in the middle. The budding professional class and the people who lived in concert with them.
Hallmarks of "The Wild Duck" have to be complex, flawed yet redeemable characters with idiosyncrasies that fascinate. Inclusion of religious/philosophical ideas of the times with morally ambiguous intentions. An enabled roll for women, often at the expense of the flawed habits of men.
The story in its simplest version is that of two young men, once best friends, who reunite after years of separation. The one blames his father for their estrangement and then gathers evidence to confirm his beliefs. Seeing the state of his old friends life and realizing just how much influence his conniving father has had over it, he sets out to reveal a series of damning truths to his newly re-found friend about his life, his marriage, his father, and even his daughter. He seeks to create a moral purge out of which his friend may arise with a purer, truer, more "ideal" life; however, the revelations only bring chaos and lead ultimately to the sacrifice of the most innocent member of the family... "the wild duck."
It is an ambitious construction. As fate would have it a young man (I'll guess in his late 30's, early 40's) had the seat next to mine and we struck up a conversation. He had read Ibsen's plays, but never seen one performed. He came to his production at the urging of his brother-in-law, who produces works for one of the local Irish Theatre troops: "Solas Nua". It was really nice discussing the play with him and his added understanding of Ibsen. At one point we were talking about the sets. I pointed out that the original set, the one that up and out when we arrived, was of the wealthy father's home, and yet it's walls were flimsy, it furnishings tawdry looking. Then when we transformed to the working class home, while there was no fancy wallpaper for velvet davenports, the whole structure was solid, and filled with meaningful furnishings and props--nothing that wasn't actually used by the actors at some point or another. I felt it was meant as a subtle dig between a "fake" life and a real one--perhaps even an unconscious nod to an "ideal" one.
The house set also featured an over-sized window that seemed to emphasize the changing of time sunlight to moonlight. He asked if I thought it was meant to emphasize the loft-nature of the hidden upper floor. This was during intermission. I thought about it, and then I said, "I dunno. I feel like it has more to do with the way it casts shadows into the lower room. Like bars on a cage. Or a spider's web." The second act had barely begun when the lead male character burst out saying to his wife that their lives were a lie, and that she had trapped him in a spider's web. Result! I nearly laughed out loud.
Of the actors, all were New York based, which makes sense since this is basically the Off-Broadway production lifted out of the Big Apply and dropped down here in the Nation's Capital. Robert Stanton, one of my Law & Order peeps played the old father. His second turn on a DC stage in as many years. All were very capable and gave well rounded performances. I have to say that I developed a soft spot for Melanie Field who played Gina Ekdal, the wife of the protagonist. I'm sure my affinity was a mixture of her talent as an actor and the character's moxie and exceptional rationality in the face of her husband's ridiculous expectations. Which is another thing and my anonymous friend and I talk about. Hjalmar Ekdal was a ridiculous man. The audience thought so, too. Many times his lines drew polite laughter. But in 1884, when the play was first presented, I'm certain that NO ONE thought his fears and anger over the loss of his moral compass was in the least bit funny. Between that and his wife's assertive competencies, it must have jarring for entirely other reasons. How can we hope to appreciate a thing for what it fully is, if all we have at our disposal is what we see in the here and now?
My friend thanked me for the interesting conversation, and I returned the compliment. Then we went our separate ways after he added, "There is a lot to think about." Indeed.
Old Friends: Gregers Werle (Alexander Hurt) and Hjalmar Ekdal (Nick Westrate)
Around the family table: L-R standing, Hedvig (Maaike Laanstra-Corn); seated Old Ekdal (David Patrick Kelly), Hjalmar Ekdal, Gina Ekdal (Melanie Field), and Gregers Werle.
Gregers with his father Hakon Werle (Robert Stanton)
Gina and Hjalmar
Old Ekdal
Mrs Sorby (Mahira Kakkar) and Captain Balle (Matthew Saldivar)
Matthew Saldiver as Dr. Relling
