Ibsen's play about the revelation of truth and the destruction of shameful lies is brought to the movie screen by Thanhouser. It was one of three Ibsen plays his company adapted to the screen in 1911; Edwin Thanhouser had staged it in Chicago shortly before he founded his film company.
Ibsen's play takes place at the time of revelation, offering the chance for the Aristotlean unities of time and space to take place. However, in the play, the older events are spoken of. That would require far more titles, which was uncinematic; the events had to be shown. At other companies, the events might have been shown in a flashback, or in a small portion of the screen. Thankhouser preferred to show the events in chronological order. This, alas, has the result of disrupting the revelatory nature of the play, and ends in compressing the current events into half a reel, during which titles explain what we are about to see, and then the cast reacts in a most theatrical manner.
It's hard to blame the producers from adopting this rather dull method. Even in 1911, a third of a century after the first performance, this was a shocking play; today we might snigger at the naivetee of its audience that it implies.
Despite these knocks, there's no faulting the technical prowess of Thanhouser's cameramen, costumes, sets and designs.
Ibsen's play takes place at the time of revelation, offering the chance for the Aristotlean unities of time and space to take place. However, in the play, the older events are spoken of. That would require far more titles, which was uncinematic; the events had to be shown. At other companies, the events might have been shown in a flashback, or in a small portion of the screen. Thankhouser preferred to show the events in chronological order. This, alas, has the result of disrupting the revelatory nature of the play, and ends in compressing the current events into half a reel, during which titles explain what we are about to see, and then the cast reacts in a most theatrical manner.
It's hard to blame the producers from adopting this rather dull method. Even in 1911, a third of a century after the first performance, this was a shocking play; today we might snigger at the naivetee of its audience that it implies.
Despite these knocks, there's no faulting the technical prowess of Thanhouser's cameramen, costumes, sets and designs.
