According to a illustration by Judith Thurman successful this magazine, Reza finished “Art” successful six weeks due to the fact that she writes “improvising arsenic I spell along, not reasoning excessively much.” That’s sometimes apparent. The play grows repetitive, and we person clip to reason that, if it were a existent situation, idiosyncratic would surely permission specified a tiresome conflict royale. To support the melee going, Reza indispensable continually propulsion her characters astatine 1 another, similar a cockfighter pushing her birds backmost into the ring. Harris and Cannavale are flatter and little assured present than I’ve ever seen them. Only Corden, whose past signifier show successful New York was successful the hyperkinetic Richard Bean commedia dell’arte adaptation “One Man, Two Guvnors,” has the clowning chops to propulsion disconnected what, successful its bones, is simply a farce. At 1 point, Yvan decides that helium ought to leave, but he’s not rather definite whether helium will, and Corden puts him into a hilariously indecisive spin, arsenic if Yvan is stuck successful an invisible revolving door.
In 1994, Reza was making hay from the thought that determination is nary inherent, pre-social aforesaid that genuinely “likes” an object. She was penning successful an intelligence ambiance profoundly influenced by the literate professional René Girard, who projected the mentation of mimetic desire. “Man is the carnal who does not cognize what to desire, and helium turns to others successful bid to marque up his mind,” Girard observed. Yet she could conscionable arsenic easy person been composing “Art” today, staring down astatine her achromatic leafage nether the harsh glare of the net panopticon. Online, you perceive changeless echoes of Marc’s suspicion that sentiment is conscionable different currency to garner status. To similar oregon not to like? Perhaps you tin archer that I didn’t overmuch similar “Art,” but I was intrigued, astatine least, by the feeling that Reza and her spiky play couldn’t attraction less.
Dial the timepiece backmost different 100 years oregon truthful and you find the ne positive ultra successful utilizing the theatre arsenic a boxing ring: Henrik Ibsen, the begetter of some theatrical realism and the play of ideas, who crashed opposing paradigms unneurotic successful his dramas to spot which would win. In “A Doll’s House,” helium acceptable a woman’s work to her household against the needs of her unconstrained spirit; successful “An Enemy of the People,” helium pitched a doctor’s work to nationalist wellness against a community’s economical comfort. In those 2 well-known plays, Ibsen favored the individuals implicit society, and truthful we deliberation of him arsenic the creator of truthful, uncompromising heroes, puncturing the hypocrisy of nineteenth-century Norway.
But Ibsen ne'er settled connected a azygous thesis. In “The Wild Duck,” from 1884, helium made the truthful, uncompromising quality into the monster of the piece. That monster is Gregers Werle (Alexander Hurt), who returns to his location municipality lone to find that his puerility person Hjalmar Ekdal (a superbly comic Nick Westrate) has been surviving successful a fool’s paradise. Hjalmar’s wife, Gina (Melanie Field), has agelong hidden a past entanglement with Werle’s affluent father, Håkon (Robert Stanton), the revelation of which would teardrop their matrimony apart. Their adoring fourteen-year-old daughter, Hedvig (Maaike Laanstra-Corn), believes her layabout begetter to beryllium a large inventor, but this, too, is simply a comforting lie. Ibsen present paints 1 of his astir beauteous (and strange) portraits of a delusional but profoundly loving household. Inside a country successful their apartment, Hjalmar, his begetter (David Patrick Kelly), and Hedvig person built a shabby, shadowy simulacrum of the bluish woods for a chaotic duck with a damaged wing. This hidden Eden satisfies them all—at slightest until the zealot Gregers, intent connected exposing Hjalmar’s illusions, slithers in.
The production, directed by Simon Godwin from a mentation by David Eldridge, takes a portion to find itself, possibly due to the fact that Ibsen dumps exposition into an unbearably clunky archetypal country oregon due to the fact that the play doesn’t present its heart, Hedvig, for astir fractional an hour. The child, of course, volition beryllium the 1 who pays the terms for Gregers’s truth-telling, arsenic helium destroys the instauration of her parents’ relationship. The astonishing Laanstra-Corn does not play Hedvig purely arsenic an innocent; there’s thing arsenic unsafe and emotionally labile successful her shocked look arsenic determination is successful Gregers’s explosive outbursts. Yet lone the assemblage seems to beryllium capable to spot however the adults’ toxicity is gathering up wrong her caput and how—since she volition not hatred her father—she is coming to hatred herself.
Theatres don’t execute “The Wild Duck” arsenic overmuch as, say, “A Doll’s House,” possibly due to the fact that it’s terribly, terribly sad. To me, though, it’s the astir honorable of Ibsen’s plays. Here, the large theatrical advocator of wisdom-through-argument admits that statement itself has treacherous ramifications. Debate’s chopped and thrust tin beryllium easy misunderstood by the young, Ibsen says—especially by those who crook its unit connected themselves. ♦
English (CA) · 
English (US) · 
Spanish (MX) ·