“Ghosts” caused scandal and outrage when it was first staged in 1882 in Norway. Even in our enlightened times, the taboo subject matter (sexually transmitted disease) still causes discomfort and distaste in the audience. Ibsen wrote that he wanted the audience to take part in the experience, but many people of his day must have baulked at that. Ian Glen has attempted to recreate Nineteenth Century culture through the use of costume and melodramatic delivery, however, the juxtaposition of these elements with the naturalistic chorography and scenery was, for me, a contradiction and alienated me as a spectator. Despite the fact that this play is gloomy, there were aspects to admire. The simplicity of the set was a triumph, the few props providing a plain back-drop which never detracted from the action.
Oliver Fenwick deserves recognition for his ingenious lighting, which was used to great effect. As well as symbolising the movement of time throughout the play, it was also used to highlight abstract ideas, such as birth (the light portrayed early dawn), and the dramatic event of the orphanage burning down (red flickering). The play itself is fairly static, and much of the action is merely verbal. However, this clever use of lighting engaged the spectator. The final climax of the play was enhanced by the beat change of light levels dropping as Oswald descended into despair and pain and his mother became increasingly desperate to put him out of his misery. The Duchess Theatre has a sound system which Richard Hammarton exploited to its utmost. Just as the dialogue was becoming rather tedious, the sudden introduction of burning wood and crackling flames surrounded us. Another small but very effective audio element was the playing of appropriate music as the audience gathered, which set the scene and the mood of the piece. Other productions could benefit from a similar approach.
The idea of simplicity was continued in the choice of costuming, which was Nineteenth Century, placing it clearly in the time in which it was written. I recognise that the colouring of the clothing was possibly chosen to enhance the sombre mood of the play and its subject matter. However, I feel that this was taken too far, and the overall effect was dull and depressing. Even the character of Regine, who was innocent of all the rottenness, was dressed in very dark colours. Ultimately I was left with the impression that the choice of wardrobe was governed more by a restricted budget than by aesthetic consideration.
Despite the fact the set was simple, it still left me confused. While the chaise longue was still definitely reminiscent of the dated era, the table and chairs appeared to be a lot more contemporary and were out of place. I again wondered whether this was a low budget affair. Surely it would have been more in keeping with the period feel to have sourced heavy dark furniture?
The acting was disappointing. Instead of being full of energy, it just came across as melodramatic. Mrs Alving’s final realisation of her son’s slow and painful death was cringe-worthy. She certainly had enthusiasm for the piece but it came across as more panto than real acting. She played the scene hysterically, whereas I would have liked to have seen more emotional depth and sincerity. In fact, I had a problem with her lack of passion throughout the play. The script implies a past emotional relationship between her character and Pastor Manders, but both delivered their lines with detachment, their interaction failing to convince me. I am not sure whether this interpretation was dictated by the directing or whether it was due to a lack of acting ability.
Ian Glen has acted in and directed this play, and may have bitten off more than he can chew. The pace of the performance built well, until I was convinced that Oswald had a future, painting in France. It therefore came as an unexpected shock to me when he suddenly died. This should have meant that I was deeply moved by this sudden turn of events. However, this final scene left me cold. Lesley Sharp’s acting was over the top and not supported well by other elements that I noticed. The only visual and aural elements were provided by the actors themselves, and the lighting dimmed. A more dramatic change in lighting quality and less over stated acting might have made the moment more poignant, leaving a lasting impression on the audience.
My general confusion continued to the end of the play, and was shared by several others in the audience. I was left with questions unanswered. Pastor Manders seemed to just drift away into oblivion; it was unclear whether Mrs Alving was trying to assist her son to die or whether she merely wished to take away his pain; and the audience was left speculating as to just how corrupted the previously sweet and innocent Regine had been left by the whole experience!
Ibsen would have been disappointed in my reaction to his play, and I am sorry that my reaction has been so negative. This production should have left me emotionally drained, with its exploration of the unfortunate repercussions of syphilis, the corruption of Regine, the death of Oswald, and the despair and panic of his mother. Instead our group left the theatre laughing at the melodramatic performances delivered. Not all the audience felt this way, as evidenced by the four men at the front who gave a standing ovation during the applause. The playwright wanted me to take part in the experience but this play failed to engage my sympathies.
