I recently spoke with David Irvin, the author of The Plays of Henrik Ibsen (recently published by Troubadour), about Ibsen, modern adaptations, and why his work is still popular today.
We’re going to talk about your book, The Plays of Henrik Ibsen, and Ibsen more generally today. Let’s start with adaptations. BBCiPlayer currently has a collection available of TV plays, and there have been plenty of stage and TV versions over the years. What have you made of those?
I’ve seen the two most recent West End productions – The Master Builder and The Lady from the Sea – and I was very disappointed with both, especially The Lady from the Sea. It relied heavily on gimmicks: showers pouring from the ceiling, actors getting drenched, and, eventually, a pool forming onstage that one of the characters swam across at the end. It got a big round of applause, but for me, it was an absolute travesty.
More importantly, it strayed a long way from Ibsen’s text—by as much as 30%, I’d say. I’m not entirely against adaptation, but the text matters. In the original, the heroine is given freedom and chooses to stay. In this version, she leaves to “find herself”, which completely changes the meaning.
So it misses the point of the play?
Exactly. I didn’t feel the director really understood it. The other production wasn’t as problematic, but it didn’t leave much of an impression either.
On television, though, there have been some excellent versions. I recently saw Hedda Gabler from the BBC collection, which was superb, but it’s hard to beat Janet Suzman’s performance. The older BBC productions still set the standard for me, particularly those featuring Suzman and Diana Rigg.
That’s interesting, because that version was missing from the Ibsen at the BBC DVD box set a few years ago.
Really? I didn’t realise that. I’ve also seen The Wild Duck, and while I have some reservations about the casting, I do appreciate that it stays close to the text. That’s what matters most.
Moving on, I know some sources like The Norwegian Ibsen Company describe Ibsen as “Norway’s Shakespeare.” Do you think anything is lost in translation?
I suspect so, although I don’t speak Norwegian, so I can’t say for certain. I’m told his later plays have very distinct, culturally specific voices, and that must be difficult to translate fully. But then, the same is true of Shakespeare.
The difference is that Ibsen isn’t primarily a poet. His strength lies more in structure, character, and ideas.
You mention in your book that his early plays were written in verse. They don’t tend to be revived much, do they?
No, and that’s understandable. He was still learning his craft. I’d be interested to see Emperor and Galilean, but generally, those early plays are weaker. Still, they’re not without interest, as you can see his ideas beginning to emerge.
Why do you think Ibsen is still so popular now?
Because he’s still relevant. An Enemy of the People, for instance, deals with pollution and the tension between capitalism and the public good. That feels very contemporary.
And then there’s his portrayal of women. He was ahead of his time in presenting women as individuals seeking independence and identity, even if he rejected the label of feminist. His focus was really on human liberation.
Nora in A Doll’s House is the obvious example. Her decision to leave at the end was extraordinary for its time; it really marks the beginning of modern social drama.
That was the first Ibsen play I connected with. I saw it in my early twenties, and Nora’s strength really struck me.
Yes, and Ibsen is remarkably fair. Even when he leans towards liberal ideas, he presents opposing viewpoints seriously. That balance is one of his great strengths.
When researching the book, did anything about his life surprise you?
Quite a lot. There are striking details, like fathering a child at sixteen, and his relationships with younger women, who seem to have inspired him creatively.
And his son becoming Prime Minister of Norway—that’s extraordinary.
I was also surprised that he wasn’t a great reader. He read newspapers rather than books, which perhaps explains why his plays feel so grounded in contemporary life.
Was he as popular in his own time as he is now?
Not always. Plays like Ghosts were highly controversial and received terrible reviews. He spent much of his life abroad, and many of his plays were first performed in Germany.
It wasn’t his ability that was in question; it was the subject matter. He tackled things people didn’t want to confront.
Even now, Ghosts and An Enemy of the People can feel quite shocking.
Yes, they still have that impact. And interestingly, his plays were often published before they were staged, so audiences came to them with pre-formed opinions.
Why do you think we’re seeing so many Ibsen revivals now?
Because he still speaks to us – not just socially, but psychologically. His work feels almost pre-Freudian. He understood his characters in great depth, often spending years developing them.
That’s why they feel so real. Even when an ending seems hopeful, you often sense it won’t work. He knew his characters inside out.
And they’re not exactly cheerful plays.
No! They’re often bleak, but truthful.
Is there anything else you’d like to say about the book?
It’s not an academic study. My own voice is present, including some personal and political perspectives. But fundamentally, I believe literature makes us more human. It broadens our understanding and tolerance.
That’s what Ibsen does. Like Shakespeare, he helps us understand others, and ourselves.
It’s a very readable book. I’ve really enjoyed it. A final question: do you have a favourite play?
It changes, but I’ve always had a soft spot for The Master Builder. It was the first Ibsen play I saw, and it made a strong impression.
The Plays of Henrik Ibsen, by David Irvin, is available now.
You can access the BBC iPlayer collection of archive TV plays by Ibsen for the next 9 months.
A Doll’s House is currently playing at the Almeida Theatre.