A Muddled Interpretation

IT COULD HAVE BEEN a satire, signifying the fallibility of man. Or it could have been a serious political statement, detailing the irresponsibility of the masses. But the Leverett House production of Henrik Ibsen's An Enemy of the People incorporates both interpretations.

And yet neither.

The 1882 play, set originally in Small Town, Norway, involves primarily a philosophical battle, with a single social-reformist intellectual and eventually his society cast at opposing ends. The intellectual, Dr. Thomas Stockmann (Jim Caudle) unearths political corruption within the lifesblood financial enterprise of the town, and with the overwhelming support of the townspeople, confronts the local authorities. But the doctor's brother, Town Mayor Peter Stockmann (Michael Waxenberg), through questionable machinations, reverses the tide of public support, thereby casting the well-intentioned brother as "an enemy of the people."

Had the Leverett production interpreted An Enemy of the People lightly, and seasoned the play with a cast of stereotypes, a forceful satirical piece could have been effected. Similarly, a serious interpretation, though ambitious, considering the play's outdated political theories and melodramatic tendencies, could have provided an effective dramatization. The cast, however, chooses simply to not interpret the play, instead incorporating stereotypes, political theory and melodrama indiscriminately, thereby presenting a chaotic version of Ibsen's vision.

The play, though plagued with various and sundry other difficulties--poor lighting and makeup, intrusive set design, tacky costuming--fails primarily in this interpretive aspect. The Leverett House production, furthermore, provides its own unsolicited deathblow -- in setting the already outdated play in present-day upstate New York. The set, dialogue and actors prove inadequate with respect to this ambitious innovation, and are eventually unable to carry the additional burden.

Manyof the actors manage mediocre-to-good performances despite the interpretive and technical difficulties. Waxenberg provides the play with its only redeeming qualities. His excellent and evocative characterization of a small-town Huey Long is, however, diminished by the inconsistency of other actors' interpretations.

DESPITE HIS EFFECTIVE performance, Waxenberg's Mayor, a strong, satirical stereotype, epitomizes much of the inter-character inconsistency. In An Enemy of the People each actor chooses a separate interpretation--either stereotypical, or realistic, or a combination of the two And although a few of the characters succeed--separately--this somewhat egotistical method of character-development eventually prevents the success of the whole. Few actors act well. Even fewer manage to interact. The play suffers accordingly.

Performers Betty McNally (Mrs. Stockmann), Jim Caudle (Dr. Stockmann), and Colette Auerswald (Petra Stockmann), each fall prey to a common inconsistency--switching indiscriminately from stereotypes to realism, not having developed the characters sufficiently to manage such a switch. Will Johnston (Captain Horster), Erik Corwin (Morten Kitty), and Roger Rignack (Aslaksen), however, are not inconsistent. They simply choose to not develop their characters--period.

Randy McGrorty (Billing) overdevelops. Although his portrayal is uproariously satiric, he effects the level of uproar to an extravagant degree--a degree even satire cannot stomach. Jody Barrett (Hovstadt), while an excellent actress, occasionally applies histrionics and melodrama to cautious scenes, underrating the dramatic ones.

But the fault, perhaps, should not lie with the actors--for each possesses a certain degree of talent. Director Kevin Jennings simply does not allot the performers a sphere of sufficient directional interpretation in which to act well, nor a set on which to act well, nor a...etc.

"Complexity of interpretation," the program reads, "is perhaps the highest tribute one can pay to a playwright, for it reveals the depth of his work." There exists little depth in the Leverett House production, and much, much less interpretation.

Perhaps a little thought might have helped.