
Henrik Ibsen invented realistic theater, and now he bores. Why? - dang
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/henrik-ibsen-part-2/
======
pjc50
> “theater of concurrence,” a genre whose practitioners take for granted that
> their liberal audiences already agree with them about everything

Bit of an ideological record scratch moment there, so I went to look for an
"about commentary magazine" (there isn't one?) and an overview of their work:
[https://www.commentarymagazine.com/issues/](https://www.commentarymagazine.com/issues/)
which is clearly coming from a very ideological place.

Nonetheless the central thesis of the piece is sound; what was shockingly
progressive now looks mundane, because society has changed.

> Therein, however, lies the source of our latter-day discontent with Ibsen,
> which is that the people who go to see serious plays today are no longer
> horrified by anything in A Doll’s House or Ghosts. To the contrary, they
> sympathize with Nora and her fellow transgressors, and this sympathy cannot
> help but diminish the impact of Ibsen’s work.

For similar reasons nobody reads Stendhal any more, Tolkein looks cliched and
oddly paced if you are exposed to any modern fantasy before reading him, and
landmark films like _Citizen Kane_ and _2001_ are entertainment only to very
specific audiences.

~~~
mannykannot
Coincidentally, just a couple of hours ago, I heard an interview of 'Ink'
playwright James Graham talking about audiences expecting Rupert Murdoch to be
presented as a straightforward villain.

~~~
vr46
One of the many excellent things about Ink was how it forced audiences to
revise - rapidly - their notions of Murdoch, even if after the play, we were
left to reflect on the corrupting effects of power.

------
leftyted
I read A Doll's House and Ghosts in high school. Ghosts ends with the main
character's son, who has inherited syphilis from his father, insanely chanting
"The sun, the sun, the sun, the sun."

That ending is something that my brother and I reference today as an example
of how art can become top-heavy and unconvincing (The sun is the "source,"
which in this case is the father, who has passed his disease literally and
figuratively on to his son).

The ultimate problem I have with Ibsen is that his plays feel pre-configured,
even fake. He's never searching for a thesis or questioning. He has an opinion
to unload (e.g. the sins of the father shall be visited upon the son) and he's
decided to use a play to do it. The result feels sterile, boring, lacking in
wit, pointless.

I would unfavorably compare Ibsen to Raymond Carver. Carver also deals with
disintegrating families, marital tension, poverty, alcoholism and the rest.
But Carver somehow feels vital and real. His writing never resembles
overwrought tragedy even though there's plenty of unhappiness. You never get
the feeling that Carver has the answers or that he's talking down to you.

~~~
chungleong
Have you read or seen the Wild Duck? I think it's much superior to Ibsen's
better known plays.

~~~
highesttide
As in Norwegian, I have to ask... is Vildanden (the wild duck) not one of his
most known/iconic plays outside of Norway? I would say it's easily one of the
three defining plays people would know about over here, so it confuses me to
see it mentioned like this.

~~~
chungleong
My impression is that a Doll's House and Ghosts are much better known in the
English speaking world. Enemy of the People too--probably because of the
punchy title.

~~~
highesttide
Interesting, over here I would say et Dukkehjem (a doll's house), Vildanden
(the wild duck), and Peer Gynt are his most known works, probably not-very-
closely followed by en folkefiende (Enemy of the people). Fascinating.

~~~
chungleong
The message of the Wild Duck is sort of unpopular. If we could somehow stage
the play on HN, it'd probably get massively downvoted :-)

------
nailer
> Whenever you see a new play that purports to indict the spiritual emptiness
> of the bourgeoisie—and most latter-day British and American dramas do just
> that—you are seeing his influence at work. From Shaw to Arthur Miller to
> Tony Kushner, he is the great forerunner, the prophet of modern drama. Yet
> fewer directors and actors are showing any interest in his own plays

This is the peril of artistic innovation. Sonic Youth inspired most nineties
bands, but they now sound like generic nineties grunge, only becoming amazing
when you realise the track was written ten years beforehand.

Same with JMW Turner. To me personally his landscapes seem incredibly bland,
but now I realise he was one of the people who inspired so many others to look
at the beauty of nature to the level it became an Ikea cliché.

~~~
viburnum
I’m old enough to remember when SY and Pixies were new, and even as a music
fan they sounded like a revolution. But within ten years it seemed normal, and
ten years after that it was just boring. That’s just how music is. Still great
bands though.

~~~
mruts
I agree that Sonic Youth sounds a little dated at this point. But a lot of
classic rock (not all, but a lot) still sounds pretty revolutionary to me, The
Doors in particular.

~~~
sonnyblarney
I think Sonic Youth won't stand the test of time, like a few other bands,
because they weren't very good. They were basically 'abstract art in sound' \-
and essentially their sound was 'breaking moulds'. It was very different,
hyper alt. But it wasn't necessarily, in and of itself, very great.

So, Sonic Youth 'works' in the culture of the late 1980's and early 1990's.
But it doesn't work beyond that.

Very timely, but not timeless.

So Van Halen, kind of the opposite of Sonic Youth ... I was never a fan but
dragged to see them live a few years ago - it was monumental. A sound created
to fill a stadium, just 4 dudes and not a lot of fuss/electronics or gear. A
clean big sound from just them playing. A little like Chilli Peppers in terms
of 'just four guys without much else'. Ironically I only ever saw them with
Pixies opening.

------
kazinator
> _Whenever you see a new play that purports to indict the spiritual emptiness
> of the bourgeoisie—and most latter-day British and American dramas do just
> that—you are seeing his influence at work._

Right, just like if you hear someone sneeze, you're witnessing the influence
of the first human that sneezed.

As if nobody could independently get the brilliant idea to criticize the
bourgeoise?

~~~
mannykannot
Indeed - and more recent incarnations of the genre, if well done, are more
likely to supplant the original as influences, simply because they address
more contemporary, less settled issues.

~~~
kazinator
Also, there was a theme in art of the 1800's of critizing the bourgeoise
before Ibsen. Maybe not in plays, but certainly in painting.

E.g.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Awakening_Conscience](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Awakening_Conscience)

The woman in that painting, 26 years before _A Doll 's House_ could well be
"Nora".

~~~
dash2
Hmm, but that is criticising bourgeois behaviour in the name of bourgeois
and/or Christian values, no? Whereas Ibsen criticises the values themselves….
Of course, this dichotomy is too simple, and tags like "bourgeois values" are
shortcut descriptions of a moral world with as much complexity and
contradictions as the present day's….

------
vr46
An indictment of American theatre more than Ibsen. In London, Ibsen
adaptations have been shocking as ever. Robert Icke’s phenomenal Wild Duck was
one of the best plays I saw last year. The fact that Ibsen can be hit or miss
is down to the production, not the writer.

