Ghosts @ Marloo

I’ll keep this brief, as it is not a review, but more a congratulation. To the director, cast and crew of ‘Ghosts’. Congratulations on a fantastic adaptation of the classic. I was thoroughly entertained, confronted and inspired… Thank you.

How can a play be an adaptation of itself?

Encarta Dictionary: English (U.K.) Adaptation (noun) 1.adapting the process or state of changing to fit a new environment or different conditions, or the resulting change

Yes, that is an apt description of adapting. However, this is a definition I found for 'adaptation'. - something produced by adapting: an adaptation of a play for television. So, who wrote the adaptation of the play, which was originally a play, other than Henrik Ibsen? I will have to go see this production to see what you mean.

The translations of Henrik Ibsen’s Ghosts with which I am familiar are rather more circumspect in their exploration of the author’s dark themes than is Richard Harris’ ‘adaptation’ now playing at Marloo, directed by Peter Clark. Not having read the latter, I will not attempt to judge the extent to which this production is faithful to Harris except to say that, however the issues of marital infidelity, incest, syphilis (whether inherited or contracted) hubris, greed and female emancipation (or its lack) are treated, the plot, characters and outcomes remain faithful to the original as far as I, unfamiliar as I am with the Norwegian language, can judge. So I limit my comments to the play as staged, rather than how it matches up to my preconceived notions – and, with this production, that can be no bad thing. The brio with which Clark ignores such preconceptions leaves us breathless and with no option but to accept or reject his overt treatment of the infidelities, the incest, the social and physical syphilis which riddle these characters. It must surely be the way in which this production turns the original translations inside-out, displaying the cancerous growth within, that has apparently inspired some members of the audience to walk out. Peter Clark’s crisp interior set reflects well the hermetically sealed life of Mrs Alving, threatened by the sinuously writhing and forbidding forest beyond the fragile french windows. I was particularly impressed by one small but significant detail: where the door frames stand out from the wall, creating a tardis-like disjunction between Ibsen’s past and Clark’s present, between the real world and the grimly-held fantasies of the Alving menagerie. Clark also plays the time-warp with his eclectic choice of music, which will jar with many in the audience, while evincing gasps of surprised recognition from, perhaps, the younger viewers. Clark has chosen a cast of accomplished actors who, clearly enthused by his modern approach, throw their inhibitions out the french windows to allow their contorted characters to play the games with such vigour and subtlety as may be required. The most juicy character is the rancid Engstrand and Adrian Wood makes the most of him, but he is well balanced, and will be bested, by the machinations of Kerri-Ann Head’s Regina (rhyming slang, Mr Ibsen?). Mike Balmer’s Manders is well set up as a starched, bigoted do-gooder who knows nothing of the people he is dealing with, even when Helen Angell’s taut and tortured Helena Alving clarifies a few things for him – and for the audience. Lastly, but no less effectively, is David Gregory’s Oswald, mewling and puking his way back into his mother’s indulgent womb. This ensemble takes no prisoners in demanding the audience’s attention while labouring mightily to prise the lid from the can of corseted Victorian hypocrisy which Ibsen so assiduously exposed in this and his other plays. In 2008, this play has strong resonance with issues of sexual fidelity and the lies told within marriage, STDs, dementia and (unrecognised in Ibsen’s time) Alzheimer’s syndrome. Fortunately, the debate about the role of women in society and in the family has moved on somewhat from the time Ibsen first put it at the forefront of his writing. While there are few laughs, there are many sharp points, which will stimulate discussion long after the house lights come up. Marloo is to be congratulated for giving Clark his head in this production. FLIPMAC

A few quotes to sum up Richard Harris' translation: 'Never has Ibsen's Ghosts felt so remorselessly unforgiving or as unremitingly tragic...an exciting new translation by Richard Harris.' What's On 'If you want to be moved and angered, rather than paying polite attention to a courageous classic, then this is the version.' Daily Mail I hope you will enjoy it.

I agree with Phillip's reveiew of this show - certainly well worth seeing. I saw this show with my husband last Saturday and we are still discussing/arguing about it now! Not for the faint hearted BUT truly wonderful theatre as it should be. Congratulations to Peter Clark for an outstanding production/interpretation; and to the cast who made it work. Marloo theatre - thank you for something different;m if only other theatre's followed your lead. Sarah

I hated it

Can I just point out that the post purporting to be from Stephen Lee is not from myself (well known actor/director/bon viveur)but from someone else of the same name, or someone hiding behind mine. I never post reviews or comments about productions I have seen and certainly would never be as rude or terse as my namesake. Apologies to anyone who saw this piece of @#$# and thought it might have originated from me. Good luck to everyone in "Ghosts" for their final week.

Adaptation is correct in terms of Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen, as the original work is in Norwegian, adaptation is used in the sense of translation for want of a better term. As more than one translation is in existence (obviously) this is the sense in which the term adaptation is used. Perhaps if you actually got off your date and actually did a bit of research into the playwright, instead of being the grammar police, you may have ascertained this fact.

I know who Henrik Ibsen is, thank you for the condescending remarks Robert. And I also know that a translation is NOT an adaptation. An adaptation is a change of the original form. For example, you can call a chair a chair or a whatjamecallit, but it is still a chair. But you might want to change some things about that chair and make it into a sofa. That would be a adaptation of a chair. See Plato. Since the original form of Ghosts was a play it has not under gone an adaptation, even though its been translated, because it is still a play. Thanks for this little discussion about semiotics. It's been fun. I'm going to the play on Friday.

Semiotics or semantics?

Semiotic: of or pertaining to signs. Moppet eyes now on sale at Puppets in Melbourne