Download Henrik Ibsen and the theatre of the 1850s

Henrik Ibsen’s dramaturgy in the theatre of the 1850s
In my PhD-project the field of research is Henrik Ibsen’s dramaturgy during his
employment at the Det norske Theater in Bergen, where he worked from the beginning of
November 1851 until the end of July 1857. The word dramaturgy can literally be
understood as meaning how to create or employ action. The project’s understanding of
the concept is dramaturgy as an interest in how one practically implements theatrical
means in order to create action in the theatre. In my project I will study Ibsen’s
dramaturgical practice between 1851 and 1857, because I want to find out how this
practice was shaped by the cultural context in which it took place, and what tangible
consequences the specific theatre culture had for Ibsen’s dramaturgy – specifically
regarding the creation and use of theatrical space in the plays he produced during these
years.
What follows is an excerpt from an outline for a chapter devoted to presenting a
context for Ibsen’s work in the theatre in Bergen.
Henrik Ibsen and the theatre of the 1850s
Ibsen’s workload soon increased from his initial job as dramatic writer, as he in
April 1852 was appointed stage director. As Ibsen on the 7th of May 1853 also would
become stage manager, he was about to be in charge of almost everything connected with
the stage and the staging at Det norske Theater (DNT).
Before Ibsen could start his new job as stage director however, the theatre board
found that he needed a crash course in what his new responsibilities were. The board sent
him on a study tour to Copenhagen and Dresden, via Hamburg. The orders from the
1
board were clear; the journey was to make Ibsen familiar with everything connected with
the practical equipment, décor and costume that would be helpful to him as director
(Figueiredo, 2006).
What kind of theatre culture did he come in contact with on the continent? It was
a theatre culture operating more or less solely in the public sphere, and thus subject to
market forces – as royal privileges and patronage had dwindled. The theatre was adapting
to new economical and legal realities, but also to a new artistic degree of reality
noticeable in the current ideas and ideals on acting, staging and repertory in the early
1850s. What was the state of the art, as Ibsen encountered it the summer of 1852?
Repertory
The repertory of the 1850s was to some extent shaped by the theatre legislation of
the past. Historically it had not been uncommon for the repertory to be decided legally, as
privileges could specifically delimit what genres each theatre was allowed to perform. In
France, for example, Napoleon’s theatre laws of 1807 granted four large and four small
theatres privileges to perform in Paris. The difference between the large and the small
theatres were stated as to what kind of genres they were allowed to perform. At the four
large theatres genres such as tragedy and comedy was on the playbill, whereas the small
theatres “/…/ were restricted to minor genres” (Brockett, 1991:385). One such “minor”
genre was the romantic genre of melodrama.
As a consequence of this legislation, it was soon perceived that art was performed
at the large theatres, whereas the smaller theatres offered entertainment (Gladsø et al.,
2005). This made for “/…/ a division of culture into ‘high art’ on one hand and mass
2
entertainment on the other, a division that became consolidated in the romantic era and
still plays an important role in how we value cultural phenomena” (Aslaksen 1997:37).
Both in the 1850s and later, the critics have waged a war on the consumer art (Linneberg,
1992). This war can be detected both in Bergen during Ibsen’s employment there, and in
the critical assessment performed retrospectively of the theatre repertory of the 1850s
both in Bergen and in European as such. For instance does the Ibsen biographer Michael
Meyer claim that: “It was an exceptionally bad period for the drama throughout Europe.
During the half-century that had elapsed since the death of Schiller in 1805, a gap had
opened between the theatre and the serious playwright” (Meyer, 1967:122).
Meyer bases this gap and his judgement of the period, on an assessment of what
kind of plays that made up the repertory of European theatres at the time. In quantity the
“minor” genres dominated, more specifically plays of the romantic genre melodrama.
This does however not automatically make it a bad period for drama, although it did
perhaps make for a less prosperous period for what Meyer refer to as “high” or “serious”
drama.1
The dominance of melodrama in the repertory of the 1850s also had an
economical aspect. As the theatre institution relocated from the private to the public
sphere, it became a matter of survival of the fittest economically. Market dependency was
perhaps not a totally new reality for theatres, but as theatre legislation became more
permissive the competition became fiercer due to an increased number of theatres. In this
1
Meyer points out that many dramas written during this period had to wait for their production in the
theatre. His examples are largely of early realistic works, such as Büchner and Turgenev. But Meyer could
just as well have given romantic “high” dramas as examples of plays waiting to be produced at the time.
The gap between the theatre and both “serious” romantic drama and early realistic plays were not
necessarily only due to a gap in taste, but to a technical gap as well. The theatres were not equipped to
produce either type of plays in a way that would make sense to its audiences.
3
market dependency, the romantic genre of melodrama came to play an important role – as
a commercial entertainment art (Linneberg, 1992). The economical reality for most
theatres was that they earned their keep at the box office, so the preferences of the
majority of its audiences would shape their repertory.
From the 20th of April to the 6th of June 1851, Ibsen was in Copenhagen. What
was on the repertory in the Danish capital during his stay? Ibsen was given free
admission to all performances as the Royal Theatre, which meant that Ibsen could see
plays by William Shakespeare, Ludvig Holberg, Johan Ludvig Heiberg, Johanne Louise
Heiberg, Thomas Overskou, Henrik Hertz, and Eugène Scribe. At least some of the plays
by both Mr. and Mrs. Heiberg, as well as the two plays he saw by Hertz, would make the
transition to the repertory in Bergen. In addition we know that Ibsen went to
performances at the Royal Court Theatre and the Casino Theatre as well. At Casino he
saw “Master and pupil” by Jens Christian Hostrup, a play he was very impressed by and
which he would later stage at the theatre in Bergen. Where these play typical of the
Bergen repertory?
Of the 122 new plays that were produced during Ibsen’s employment as stage
director, between autumn 1852 and spring 1857, 52 were French plays and another 10
were based on French originals. Consequently was half of the repertory of French origin,
and consisted of plays by for instance Augier, Sandeau and Scribe. The 28 Danish plays
on the bill were largely vaudevilles by Heiberg, Hostrup, Overskou and Bøgh. It was the
role instructor Hermann Laading that had the main responsibility for picking the
repertory, and he “/…/ choose plays that could entertain the audience without
overexerting the actors” (Lorentzen, 1949: 125). The repertory in Bergen seems thus to
4
be interconnected with the repertory in Copenhagen and Europe as such, adapting to the
cultural climate and the laws of supply and demand.
Acting
The European theatre of the 1850s was posed between the old neo-classical
ideals, the romantic currents of the day and budding realism. Nowhere perhaps was this
more perceptible than within the rivalling acting styles of the day. Ibsen would first
witness the opposing acting styles while in Copenhagen.
At the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen the 51/52-season was marked by a tension
between the director Johan Ludvig Heiberg and the actor Fredrik Høedt, regarding acting
styles. What were their respective positions?
Heiberg stood for the currently prevailing acting style, where: “/…/ nature should
be portrayed beautified and the ideal should be visible in the art always” (Kvam et al.,
1992:17). This was an acting style aiming for idealized harmony, based on the principles
of classical rhetoric.
Classical rhetoric has laid the foundation for diverse acting styles dominating
European theatre through the centuries, especially in the genre of tragedy. Patrice Pavis
defines rhetoric as the art of persuasive or impressive speaking or writing, and claims that
in the theatre it “/…/constitutes a body of rules intended to transmit a textual and scenic
message to the spectator as effectively as possible” (Pavis, 1998: 311).
Although rhetorical acting thus had its principal focus on the actor’s eloquence
and declamation – on the delivery of lines – the body of rules concerned themselves
chiefly with the portrayal of passions. This due to the belief that in order to be able to
5
speak as effectively as possible, the portrayal of feelings – i.e. passions – were necessary.
These passions were conveyed through conventional combinations of posture, gesture,
facial expression and head inclination. However, the passions were used rhetorically – to
underline the words (Christiansen, 1975). Within a rhetorical acting style displays of
emotion were used depictive, and not to underline the situation, the character or to
portray actions.
Heiberg would follow this ideal, advocating an epic-declamatory deliverance of
lines. As others following this neo-classical version of rhetorical acting, Heiberg would
let his actors deliver their lines standing in a semi-circle by the prompter’s box. The
emotional outbursts, the rhetorical expression of emotion, would make the actors break
the semi-circle every now and then. The audience – unused to any action – was easily
impressed by this (Christiansen, 1975).
Heiberg’s harmonized and beautified ideal of reality on stage jarred with the new
currents of realism – which to him was simply tasteless (Kvam et.al., 1992). However,
the genre/repertory that Heiberg advocated, the new romantic genre of the vaudeville,
would help pave the way for a more realistic acting style. The melodrama demanded
feelings rather than eloquence from its performers in order to succeed. As the
declamatory style began to loose its footing, the new demand was to react as the character
in the given situation (Erbe, 1976). The importance was placed in acting out the reactions
and feelings of the characters in a given situation, rather than illustrating their lines. This
acting style required a more individualized and specific work with the given character
(Gjervan, 1998). In Copenhagen Hødt was the actor advocating this style.
6
Also in Dresden would Ibsen, who arrived there early in June 1852, witness
different acting styles at the Royal Court Theatre.
The acting style at this theatre was under the influence of Goethe’s preferred
acting style, and thus under the influence of German neo-classicism as such (Rudler,
1966). According to Goethe the actors were “/…/ not to portray ordinary people, but to
portray universal types” (Rudler, 1966:238). The harmonizing acting ideal was the
dominating one here as well. The leading actor, Emil Devrient, was however away during
Ibsen’s stay in Dresden. As his substitute the theatre had hired Bogumil Dawison – the
leading actor at the theatre in Vienna.
It was with Dawison that a different acting style was introduced in Dresden this
summer, an acting style attentively discussed in the press. Dawison did for instance
advocate a swift deliverance of lines that was previously unheard of in Dresden (Rudler,
1966). He also varied his speech in regards to tempo and volume, an effect not always
met with approval. His natural plasticity and gestures was however much admired,
although some felt he went to far with his natural portrayal of human behaviour (Rudler,
1966). The actors Høedt and Dawison thus both pointed towards a break with the existing
conventions in acting and towards a more realistic, individualized and psychological art
of the theatre (Figueiredo, 2006).
Staging
The traditional way of performing a play at the time was, as mentioned above,
with the actors forming a semi-circle at the front of the stage. This had been the practice
at the Dramatic Society in Bergen, just as it now was the practice at DNT and in
7
Copenhagen, as well as in most theatres throughout Europe. There were several reasons
for this convention.
Kirsten Broch claims that this staging practice had become convention due to
lighting (Broch, 1994). The light sources of the day were mostly tallow candles and oil
lamps, placed in candelabras, chandeliers, wing lamps and footlights (Bergman, 1977).
Most of the lights were placed around or in front of the proscenium opening. Whereas the
wing lamps lit the scenery and the chandeliers lit the audience just as much as the stage, it
was principally the foot lights that the actors sought out in order to be seen by the
audience. Consequently the semi-circle would form down stage centre in close proximity
to these lights.
Another reason for this staging practice has to do with the conventional scenery,
i.e. how the stage was fitted in order to represent the place where the action took place.2
The staging built on the perspective stage setting, resulting in the effect of the perspective
being distorted if the players interacted to closely with the scenery. Thus it was that the
conventional scenery promoted a staging practice where the actors performed in front of
what was more or less a background picture for the play.
The pictorial perspective stage setting was a product of the Baroque court theatres
and the flat-wing stage. The term ‘flat-wing stage’ is a description focusing on how the
setting is created on such a stage. On a flat-wing stage painted borders, wings, backdrops
and flats are the types of scenery that can be used to create the setting. Today we would
refer to this aspect of a theatre production as scenography. Within the 300 years that the
“The scenery establishes the frame of action on stage, using pictorial, plastic, architectural and other
means” (Pavis 1998: 322).
2
8
staging practices of the flat-wing stage set the agenda, this aspect of a production was
however called scenery.
The flat-wing stage had well-developed stage machinery, specifically developed
for the growing number of spectacular and visible scene changes that the Baroque court
theatres had been expected to perform. The stage machinery was based on a carriage-andframe system for changing scenery, a system developed in order to be able to change the
whole scenery simultaneously (Leacroft and Leacroft, 1984). The general approach was
to make slots in the stage under each wing position. Each wing was then fastened to a
carriage “/…/ which projected through the stage and ran on rails beneath” (Leacroft and
Leacroft, 1984:63).
For each wing position there would have been at least two sets of wings, slots and
carriages, as the whole point was for the new scenery to replace the previous scenery as it
disappeared from view. In this fashion, the stagehands could change the scenery off
stage, and prepare the “spare” wings for the next change unseen. For this to happen
smoothly and simultaneously the carriages had to be connected by ropes to a central drum
placed beneath the stage: “/…/ when the drum was turned by hand or counterweights, all
the carriages were drawn on or off stage in concert” (Leacroft and Leacroft, 1984: 63).
The Royal Theatre in Copenhagen had upgraded their machinery to handle three
sets of wings in each position in 1826 (Marker and Marker, 1996). According to Knut
Nygaard the DS in Bergen had fitted their stage with three slots per wing position already
in 1825 (Nygaard, 1984: 66). This was the year the DS installed what was then – and still
for years to come – top modern stage machinery, with five pair of wings on stage and the
9
drum conveniently placed under the floorboards of the stage in Comediehuset (Nygaard,
1984).
So the theatre technology of the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen would have been
familiar to Ibsen, so was the tradition regarding scenery. Were there anything new, or
something to learn from Copenhagen in respect to staging?
Ibsen was in Copenhagen given tours of the machinery and stage equipment with
stage director Thomas Overskou as his guide. Ibsen reports of the first tour in a letter,
written the 16th of May 1852, that: “With reference to the theatre’s internal arrangements,
I have been familiarized with them by Herr Overskou, as well as with the stage
management side, the machinery etc.” (McFarlane and Orton, 1970:633). In a second
letter, written the 30th of May 1852, Ibsen relates that: “Herr Overskou has promised to
show me something of the theatre’s machinery, etc. – something which was no possible
during the season. In any case the machinery of the Copenhagen Theatre is not of the
best, and I hope in this respect to be able to draw much greater profit from the German
theatres” (McFarlane and Orton, 1970:634).
Ibsen was not impressed, and he was not alone in these sentiments towards the
technical situation at the theatre in Copenhagen. The lighting of the theatre was not as
updated as it could have been. By the 1840s many theatres in Germany had replaced their
source of lighting – i.e. candles and oil – with gaslights (Bergman, 1977). At Christiania
Theatre in Norway they had started using gaslight already in 1848 (Figueiredo, 2006). At
the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen they used candles and oil until 1857/58 (Marker and
Marker, 1996). By that year, even the theatre in Bergen had had gaslight since 1856.
10
The reasons for holding back a change of lighting source, seems to have been
artistic rather than economic. Heiberg was interested in portraying the ideal rather than
the real. Heiberg seems to not have been particularly interested in the plastic art of the
theatre, of the visual aspects such as costumes and scenery. The same scenery was used
over and over again (Figueiredo, 2006). The plays were furnished in a stylistic confusion.
The same trend was obvious when it came to costuming as well, a multitude of styles and
periods were at display within the same production (Figueiredo, 2006).
In Dresden Ibsen could see a more consistent style in the costumes and scenery
used in a production. The scenery was used evocative and “true to nature” (Figueiredo,
2006:137). The difference between Dresden and Copenhagen seems not to have been due
to difference in stage technique. The Royal Court Theatre was equipped as a flat-wing
stage, able to use the same scenery in the same way as in Copenhagen (Tennant, 1948).
Still something was different in Dresden.
Edward Devrient, the brother of the actor, had been given a chance as instructor at
the Dresden theatre in the 1840s. His work towards ensemble acting and artistic totality
was not forgotten by the press – which brought him up as an example to follow in a series
of critical articles the summer of 1852 (Rudler, 1966). Devrient had however not been
permitted to take full control of the staging of the plays while employed, so he had
limited his work to the “exterior aspects of staging” (Rudler, 1966: 241). Devrient had
worked with costumes and scenery, in order to create an overall impression of a uniform
style in the play in question. Choosing period costumes for all the parts in the play and
coupling this with historically and environmentally correct scenery, he aimed for the
artistic totality of the play. The changes Devrient introduced must have meant more
11
rehearsals devoted to the staging of plays. This finally became too much for his brother
Emil, the star actor, and Edward Devrient was fired (Rudler, 1966).
The seed was however sown, and according to Rudler Ibsen might have noticed
how the stage was used differently in Dresden. The scenery was used evocatively, in
order to create an effect – a mood. The development towards plasticity of the scenery was
another development that Ibsen could have picked up on while in Dresden. Rudler point
out how the scenery was arranged to increase the effect of illusion for all members of the
audience, not just those seated along the lines of the central perspective (Rudler, 1966).
This was done by arranging the scenery differently than before. Flats bridged the opening
between wings, or they could bridge the background. If one used both things at the same
time, the result was a ‘closed set’ – better known today as the box set. First seen in use in
Germany in the 1790s, Devrient had started using these during his employment at the
Royal Court Theatre in Dresden.
Now Ibsen was not unfamiliar with the ‘closed set’, as the theatre in Bergen had
three such sets in their possession: a blue, a red and a yellow “closed room” (Ms
230b/44b/1). But still, in respect to staging, and the visual and plastic aspects of a
production, the stay in Dresden had offered Ibsen something else than what he had
previously seen.
In Dresden the different theatrical means were to a larger degree than in
Copenhagen and Bergen used in order to convey an overall artistic illusion. Ibsen’s
attention to costume, and stylistic accuracy, was awakened (Rudler, 1966). Likewise was
his attention turned to the evocative use of scenery, it could be used as an artistic effect
and not just as a depiction of where the action took place (Rudler, 1966). Ibsen would
12
also have noted how the new, realistic tendencies in the art of the theatre increased the
demands on the staging of a play (Rudler, 1966).
Through the trip, his respect for and understanding of his new metier had
increased. Ibsen were over the next years, from his return form the study trip in August
1952 till his departure for Christiania in 1857, employed to take charge of more or less
anything relating with the staging, scenery and machinery for the productions of DNT.
Although the productions Ibsen staged are long lost in the mists of time, Ibsen wrote
production notes for 52 of his productions. These notes were entered into three different
staging manuals, now deposited in the Bergen Theatre Archives. It is to these manuals
that I now turn my attention, in order to examine Ibsen’s dramaturgical practice.
Literature
Aslaksen, K. (1997) Ibsen and melodrama. Nordic Theatre Studies, 10, 36-50.
Bergman, G. M. (1977) Lighting in the theatre, Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell
International.
Broch, K. (1994) Komedianter og kremmere: Det dramatiske Selskab i Bergen 17941994, Bergen, Alma mater.
Brockett, O. G. (1991) History of the theatre, Boston, Allyn and Bacon.
Christiansen, S. (1975) Klassisk skuespilkunst: stabile konventioner i skuespilkunsten
1700-1900, [København], Akademisk Forlag.
Erbe, B. (1976) Skuespillerkunstens virkelighetsproblem set i relation til
teaterkonventioner. IN ANDERSEN, K., LASSEN, B. S., TVEDT, K. &
SVENDSEN, A. S. (Eds.) Tanke og tone: til Knut Tvedt. Oslo, Aschehoug.
Figueiredo, I. D. (2006) Henrik Ibsen: mennesket, Oslo, Aschehoug.
13
Gjervan, E. K. (1998) Tretten år i teatret - triumf eller tragedie? Department of Art and
Media Studies. Trondheim, NTNU.
Gladsø, S., Gjervan, E. K., Hovik, L. & Skagen, A. (2005) Dramaturgi: forestillinger om
teater, Oslo, Universitetsforlaget.
Kvam, K., Risum, J. & Wiingaard, J. (1992) Dansk teaterhistorie, Copenhagen,
Gyldendal.
Leacroft, R. & Leacroft, H. (1984) Theatre and playhouse: an illustrated survey of
theatre building from Ancient Greece to the present day, London, Methuen.
Linneberg, A. (1992) Norsk litteraturkritikks historie, 1848-1870, Oslo,
Universitetsforlaget.
Lorentzen, B. (1949) Det første norske teater, Bergen, John Griegs forlag.
Marker, F. J. & Marker, L.-L. (1996) A history of Scandinavian theatre, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
McFarlane, J. & Orton, G. (1970) Early plays, London, Oxford University Press.
Meyer, M. (1967) The making of a dramatist 1828-1864, London, Rupert Hart-Davis Ltd.
Nygaard, K. (1984) Holbergs teaterarv: fra dramatiske amatørselskaper og
morskapsteater til Norges første nasjonale scene, Bergen, Eide.
Pavis, P. (1998) Dictionary of the theatre: terms, concepts and analysis, Toronto,
University of Toronto Press.
Rudler, R. (1966) Ibsen som teaterstipendiat i Dresden. Edda, 66, 236-245.
Tennant, P. F. D. (1948) Ibsen's dramatic technique, Cambridge, Bowes & Bowes.
Bergen Theatre Archives at the University in Bergen:
Theatrets decorationer - Ms230b/44B/1
14