By Christian Viveros-Fauné
By Miriam Felton-Dansky
By Tom Sellar
By Tom Sellar
By Jessica Dawson
By Tom Sellar
By R. C. Baker
By Tom Sellar
Not that Bergman's achievement was perfectwhose is? The one new Swedish play in this sequence was a drama so undistinguished I've forgotten its title. Then, too, New York missed his production of The Misanthrope, apparently only through his captiousness about the state of the performance at the end of its Stockholm run; a man of 80 can be captious. And there have been aspects to each of the productions we did see that made this or that sector of the audience object. Not everyone feels that Claudius and Gertrude should simulate copulation with the whole Danish court watching, or that Krogstad would punch Nora when she calls him a criminal, or that the Autolycus scenes in The Winter's Tale need rewriting. But that's all right: Art is an awakening process, not a plea for consensus.
The main point is that these and countless other Bergmanite shocks, big and little, came about through an intense scrutiny of, and a passionate connection to, the text. The one thing you could never accuse Bergman of, in all the years of this extraordinary late blooming, was the Eurotrash directorial gimmick, glibly applied to a script on superficial acquaintance, that makes most productions by younger directors, on the international festival circuit, look just like each other. Bergman's productions all accomplished the neat double act that is the height of directorial art: They all conveyed the dramatic essence of the play, argue as you might about the details, and at the same time they all looked and sounded and felt like Bergman. Nobody else could have created them. And when they latched onto the dramatic essence, they revealed images that struck you viscerally, driving home an understanding of the play that linked it permanently to Bergman in your heart. I can't help it: From now on I will always think of mad Ophelia's flowers as rusty bolts that clatter on the floor when Laertes touches her; of Leontes with his booted foot over the infant Perdita's cradle; of Nora slamming the auditorium door behind her, destroying the illusionist stage and her marriage in the same act; of James Tyrone pulling the night's last whiskey bottle from the base of a statue of the Virgin. These gestures and twenty dozen more like them were not gimmicks or even images; they were the life and meaning of the play's action in the theater, in our culture, in history. Visibly, Bergman's overriding motive has been to connect us to that, and through it to each other.
And so we arrive at Ghosts, a play that is both overfamiliar and unknown, quaintly archaic and frantically up to date, the burning scandal and censorable object of 120 years ago made white-hot again by our own moral backsliding and technological progress. Ghosts is an American play. It had its world premiere in Chicago, when it was still banned in every European city. The characters are evangelical Christians, affluent, prudish, and stuffy, whited sepulchers living in deep denial of every truth inside or around them; they might as well be Bush-era Republicans. Adultery, alcoholism, arson, assisted suicide, blasphemy, child abuse, fiscal malfeasance, hypocrisy, incest, marital rape, pimping, prostitution, and, for a big finish, dementia arising from sexually transmitted disease. You name it, Ibsen's play has it. No wonder the weather outside is so rotten.
This material needed no enlivening from Bergman, and in fact his greatest achievement was to infuse it, in both fast and slow passages, with an eerie gravitas that seemed ethereal, not solemn. The name Alving evokes the Norwegian word for "elfin," and there is something faintly supernatural about the goings-on in the widow Alving's household. (The more common name "Manders," in contrast, comes from the root word "man.") Bergman put the ghostly back into Ghosts, tweaking the text and setting up the scenes to underscore the hideous inevitability of Mrs. Alving's position, trapped in recapitulating with Oswald the agony she had lived through with her husband. Unlike Manders and Engstrand, the Alvings and Regina had red hair; Oswald's was heightened by a bloody streak in it. In whiteface and baggy clothes suggestive of rapid weight loss, he circled the playing area like a wraith. Our word "ghost" comes from the German Geist, which means spirit in the inner as well as the Halloween sense; the Scandinavian word at the top of Ibsen's text is more specific. Our equivalent for it would be revenants, things that walk again at the scene of their tragedy. Oswald, with his father's pipe, lechery, and disease, walked againan off-balance, reeling walk. Understandably, since the set's handsome late-Victorian furnitureall green plush, in contrast to the red-haired figureswas on a revolve. The room, like Mrs. Alving's fate, circled back on her. Her books that shocked Manders, of course, were red; she herself wore blue and then crimson; Oswald wore pale green, a sickly child of the room. Manders was in plum, Engstrand in black and gray, Regina in red (to Mrs. Alving's blue) and then black.