AN ANALISIS AND PRODUCTION OF ARTHUR MILLER'S ADI\PTATION Of AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE ._. -~ BY HENRIK IBSEN By DENNIS LEROY SCllNEIDER qi Bachelor of .Arts Oklahoma Stat~ Univer!;!ity Stillwa. ter, Oklahoma 1968 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial f'Q.lfilllnent of the,requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARrS May, 1970 ,· ·' .v z_.,l AN ANALYSIS AND PRODUCTION OF ARTHUR MILLER~~""· ····,.,..,,,,,,. ADAPI'ATION OF~ ENEMY~ m PmPLE "·"·,,,,~ '·':'" BY HENRIK IRSEN .. ,, ···~ ~, ~ The~is Approved: ',.~Q~ / ii PREFACE; The purpose of this thesi1;1 is to do a comprehensive study ot Arthur Miller's adaptation of ,!!i Ene& ,2! ~ People by Henr~k Ibsen, as well as prepare a PrQduction Book descriptive of all the techrl.iques involved I in this production. I would iike to take this opportunity ~o express my appreciation for the assistance and gllidance given me by the following memoers of my coI11X11ittee: Professor Vivia Locke, chairman of the theatre division of the Department of Speech, .and my major adviser; and Dr. Fred 'l'ewe+l, head of the Department of Speech. I would iµ.so like to thank the members of Towr,i. and Gown Comm"Unity Theatre for their continued willing assistance in making the production of An ~ne5Y .2!~ Peo;e!e possible. In addj,tion, I would like to express ~y appreciation to my wife, Karen, for her patience and understanding while this work was being com- plated. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTROOOCTION • . • • 1 Pu:rpose . • • • • • • . • 1 Procedures. • l II. ANALYSIS OF -AN ENEMY --OF THE PEOPLE • • • • 4 Act I, Scene 1. • • • 5 Analysis of Act I, Scene 1. • 7 Act I, Scene 2. • • • 8 Analysis of Act I, Scene 2. • • • . 10 Act II, Scene 1. • • • 12 Analysis of Act II, Scene 1 • • • • 13 Act II, Scene 2. • • • • • 14 16 Analys~s of Act II, Scene 2 • ' • • • Act III. 0 • • • 17 Analysis of Act III. • • • • • • • 19 Theme. • . • • • • • • 19 Characterization. • • • • . • • 22 Morten Kill. • • . • • • . • • • 22 Catherine Stockmann.' • • • • 22 Billing. • • • • • • . • • 23 Peter Stocl<:mann. • • • • • • • • 23 Hovstad • ' . • • • • 24 Doctor Stockmann. • • • • • • ~ Captain Horster. • •. • • 25 Petra. • • • • • • 25 Aslaksen. • • • 25 25 Summary • ' • • FOOTNOTES • • • • 0 27 III. HENRIK IBSEN AND AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE. • • • • • 29 - ~~ Henrik Ibsen. • • • 29 ~ Enemy 2f !:.h.2 People. • • • • • 32 Reviews of Productions. • • • • • • • • 33 The 1883 Production. • 33 The 1887 ProductiQn. • • • 34 The 1893 Production. ' • • • • 34 The 1905 Production. • • 34 Literary Criticism.. • • • • 35 Summary. • • 37 FOOTNOTES • . 38 iv Chapter Page IV. AN EXAMINATION OF ARTHUR MILLER'S ADAPTATION • • • • • • 39 Introduction. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . 39 Thetne • • • • o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 40 Translation ••••••••••••••• . ~ 42 Structure • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • ~ Conclusion. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 50 fOOTNOTES •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • .52 v. PRODUCTION OF -AN ENEMY --OF THE PEDPLE • • 8 • • • • • • • .54 Production Script •••••••••• o • o • • • • .58 Light and Sound Cue Sheet o • • • • • • • • • • • • 13.5 Property Plot and Cue Sheet •• o • • • • • • • • • 136 Set Plot and Cu,e Sheet •• o • • • • • • • • • • • • 138 Rehearsal Schedule. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 142 Publicity •••• o • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14.5 FOOTNOTES •••• a •• • • • 0 • • • • • • • • o • • e e • • • 160 A SEC.,ID:TED BIBLIOGRAPHY. 0 0 O • • • • •· o e e • ~ • • • 0 • • 161 APPENDIX - PROGRAM FOR !_! ENEMY .Q[ ,I!!! ....,PEO...,P..,..LE..., e O e e • • e O e 16.5 V LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Set Design for Act I and Act III Dt-. Stockmann' s Living Room •• • • • • • • • • • • • • 55 2. Set Design for Act II, Scene 1 Editorial Office of the People's Dail~ Messenger. • • • 56 3. Set Design for Act II, Scene 2 A Room in Captain Horster's House • • • • • • • • • • • 57 4. Lighting Plot Layout ••• • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 133 5. Light Plot•• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . ~ . • • 134 6. Costume Plot. • . • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • 140 Production Time Sheet . 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 144 8, Production Photograph from Act I, Scene 1. • • • • • • • 156 9. Production Photograph from Act I, Scene 2 •• • • • • • • 157 10. Production Photograph from Act II, Scene 1. • • • • • • • 158 llo Production Photograph from Act III••••• • • • • • • • 159 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In 1882, Henrik Ibsen, in a career of playwrighting, presented!!:, Enemy£!.~ People at the Christiania Theatre. The Christiania, as well as all the Scandinavian theatres, seized with avidity upon the play, with the critics claiming the work as a dramatic defense of his previous play, Ghosts. It was felt a closer analytical look was needed, not only due to the response provoked by the play, but because the .American playwright Arthur Miller, a great admirer of Ibsen's, presented an adaptation of:!£ Enem.y ,2! ~ People in 1951. Purpose The purpose of this thesis is to do a comprehensive study of Arthur Miller's adaptation of!!! Enemy_£! the People by Henrik Ibsen, as well as prepare a Production Book descriptive of all the techniques involved in this productiono This study has been prompted by an interest in the profession of play direction. This is a production book in which the research, the analysis and the directing techniques are examined in the light of con­ temporary theatre practice. Procedures Four production theses were examined so as to gain an understanding 1 2 of a production thesis. The unpublished theses studied are as follows: 1. Ferzacoa, James B. "A Question of Responsibility, T!).e ,Ieputy: An Analysis and Adaptation," Michigan State University, 196?. 2. Jameson, Jamie George. "A Creative Production Thesis: ~ Great Cathrine, a Play by George Bernard Shaw," Ohio State University, 1964. · J. Murphy, Patrick. "Analysis and Production of Juno and ~ Paycock," University of WS.shington, 196.5e - - 4. Spelman, Jon W. "Direction of Eugene O'Neill's Desire !mder ~ ~," Purdue University, 196? o Although these four theses differed in style, procedure, and content, each contributed to the best approach for this particular play. An analysis of Miller's ,!a Enemy; .2!, ~ People was made in order to gain an understanding of the play and prepare it for direction. A study of the life and personality of Henrik Ibsen and its influ~ ence on!!! Enemy .2f.~ People was considered basic to the purpose. Augmenting this was an evaluation of selected professional productions, as well as a study of the literary criticism. Since it is Arthur Miller's adaptation that the writer directed, an examination of the adaptation was also necessary. By comparing Miller's work with that of Ibsen's, the writer determined the reasons for Miller's adaptation decisionse This involved the ex.amination of a modern play- wright's philosophy in attempting to make a dated work pertinent today. This study also consists of the acting script, the technical plots, and other materials related to the production. Tryouts for!!! Enemy .2!,~ People were held on March 1, 2, and 6, 19?0, at the Town and Gown Connnunity Theatre in stillwa.ter, Oklahoma. After the play was cast, rehearsals began on March 11 and eight public performances were given on April 16, l?, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 25, 3 1970. It was during the rehearsal period that the production script was prepared. CHAPl'ER II ANALISIS OF -AN ENEMY --OF THE PIDPLE The purpose of this chapter is to make a pre-production analysis of Arthur Miller's adaptation of !!l Enemy ,2! ~ People by Henrik Ibsen. In order to expedite the analysis of the play, the writer examined the criteria and made analytical decisions as the play was summarized. John Eo Dietrich, in Play Direction, bases his discussion of play structure on Gustav Freytag and the Aristotelian principles. He states: For over two thousand years, dramatic structure has re­ mained essentially unchanged. Aristotle, in his analy­ sis of the best plays of his day, defined a play as having two parts, the complication and unraveling. In­ terpretation of Aristotle's writings have led to a definition of play structure including five parts: the exposition, the complication, the climax, the resolution or denouement, and the conclusion or catastrophe. · In 1863, Gustav Freytag, the noted Gennan dramatist, diagrammed the action of a play in his 1'.h!. Technique if. ~ Drama. His pyramid of action employed the five Aristotelan divisions to indicate a rise in the dramatic action to the climax and a falling away of the action to a conclusion. Note that this definition is based upon the two major divisions se! up by Aristotle, the compli­ cation and the unraveling. It is the intention of the writer to use Gustav Freytag's analysis of play structure, as well as Lane Cooper's interpretation of Aristotle in Aristotle: ~ ~ !!:! ~ Poett7. D9finitions of terms are made as they are used in the text. fill Ene!!!l 2f ~ People is structured into three acts with five di.. vided scenes. The sequence of scenes, and the time and place of each 4 .5 is as follows: Act I Scene 1: Dt-. Stockmann•s living room. Evening. Early Spring, late 1800's. Scene 2: Dr. Stockmann's living room. The following morning. Act II Scene 1: F.clitorial office of the People's Daily Messenger. Immediately following. Scene 2: A room in Captain Horster's house. That evening. Act III Scene: Dro Stockmann's living room. The following morning. Act I, Scene 1 As noted previously, Dietrich stated that