Elections in Weston Springs are so easy. When a query comes earlier than the townspeople, they confer in small teams, attain a consensus, press a button marked “X” or “O” and get the outcome, all inside a minute. To a New Yorker, that sounds good proper about now.
However alas, Weston Springs, with its world-famous hot-water baths and grass-roots democracy, isn’t actual. It’s the invented setting for “Enemy of the Individuals,” Robert Icke’s pleasant if gimmicky rewrite of the 1882 Ibsen drama initially referred to as “En Folkefiende.” That play, structured historically in 5 acts, had 11 talking roles and heaps of extras; Icke’s 95-minute model, which opened Wednesday night time at the Park Avenue Armory, is a shiny one-woman present starring the formidable Ann Dowd as everybody.
Properly, not fairly everybody. For the event, the Armory’s 55,000-square-foot Drill Corridor has been arrange as a form of laboratory of democracy, with a map of Weston Springs painted on the ground and 45 tables, seating two to 5 residents every, deployed at completely different “addresses.” My pod of 4 was at Desk 16, in any other case often known as 16 Waivers Approach.
So the viewers performs the extras, every desk getting one vote. As Dowd explains in a quick prologue, the outcomes of the 5 “elections” that happen throughout the efficiency will have an effect on the course and even the content material of the play, and assist us reply its overriding query: “What does this group assume?”
I’m unsure that objective was ever achieved. True, we voted on points raised by the plot, which entails a public well being disaster that butts up towards an financial one when Professor Joan Stockman, chief scientific officer of the Weston baths, discovers lead within the water at ranges even larger than the degrees present in Flint, Mich., in 2015. (Within the Ibsen model, the pollutant was apparently salmonella, which precipitated typhoid.) Absolutely the factor to do, Joan assumes, is to close down the joint till new pipes could be laid, no matter value.
However the mayor — who, because it occurs, is Joan’s older brother, Peter — doesn’t see it that method, or can’t afford to. The baths aren’t merely profitable in themselves however have introduced prosperity to the city as a complete. Because the advanced was refurbished, tourism has elevated ninefold, drawing individuals to its swimming pools and potations whereas additionally creating an ancillary trade of high-end resorts and candle outlets. When Peter learns that remediating the issue will take a minimum of 5 years, and untold hundreds of thousands, he conveniently begins to suspect that the science is improper.
That each siblings are performed by Dowd is an issue, and a plus. The plus is that Dowd is, as followers of “The Leftovers” and “The Handmaid’s Story” know, an endlessly and effortlessly compelling actor, apparently unafraid of any excessive of human depravity. Her baseline naturalism — simply her face, taking in her posture, you consider that whomever she’s taking part in exists — permits for some terrifying flights into surreal psychology.
That’s the issue, too. Ibsen already loaded the deck in creating the contrasting siblings: Thomas — as Joan was initially recognized — was candid however excitable and boastful; Peter, devious however phlegmatic and cordial. As a result of Dowd is taking part in each, and since she is a tiny determine on Hildegard Bechtler’s big catwalk of a stage because it branches out amid the tables, she should push each characterizations to extremes.
So Peter, as projected stay on jumbo screens, is now not a worm however a snake, making arguments that (it appeared to me) had been totally clear of their hypocrisy. And Joan, in return, is a mad fury as a substitute of a mere idealist. As she bullies her brother, she undermines her positions by making them appear private and even pathological. (She’s nasty to her husband, too, as Ibsen’s character by no means was to his spouse.) Removed from receiving the gratitude she expects for saving lives, she manages to make a mayor who’s keen to sacrifice individuals for revenue appear virtually prudent and cheap.
I suppose that isn’t so excessive. We have now solely to have a look at Flint — or at Covid-19 or the constructing collapse in Surfside, Fla. — to see how typically, in actual life, the recommendation of consultants could also be perverted by political and even democratic means. (Condominium boards, a minimum of municipal officers, are elected.) Biologists, virologists and engineers are simply a few of the modern-day scientists who turn out to be “enemies of the individuals” by making an attempt to avoid wasting them.
However neither Ibsen’s Joan nor Icke’s Thomas is ready to cease at advancing a lifesaving campaign; each prolong their arguments into bizarre, troubling territory. Enraged, Joan shouts that “molecules aren’t topic to majorities” and “information aren’t a democracy” — viewpoints that quickly merge right into a profoundly elitist and even eugenicist worldview. In a correctly organized society, she suggests, solely consultants can be allowed to vote. Or possibly solely her.
In writing Joan this fashion, Icke, the director of the acclaimed Andrew Scott “Hamlet” in London and the excessively brutal “1984” on Broadway, places a fair heavier thumb on the scales than Ibsen, by no means a light-weight contact, did. Clearly the try is to steadiness the arguments, or a minimum of to steadiness our antipathy towards them. The voting likewise forces our fingers, because the poll points are worded tendentiously. The final of them — “Who’s the enemy of the individuals?” — requires you to decide on between Peter and Joan, as if that had been how democracy labored or was even, a minimum of at Desk 16, a query.
The voting idea is additional trivialized by the doomy “quiz” music that performs as you deliberate, and, extra fatally, by the end result’s barely altering the expertise of the play. Apparently, Dowd performs completely different scenes at two factors, relying on the tally; on Wednesday, we met an area doctor and the mayor’s public relations chief, whereas different audiences could spend time with Joan’s husband and a newspaper editor. However anyone viewers can solely know the one sequence it sees, so the dramatic worth of the gimmick is moot.
Which isn’t to say that “Enemy of the Individuals” is simply too. Although it has stripped away a lot of the element that Ibsen makes use of to dramatize the way in which civic crises come up from (and filter again right down to) home ones, it affords a compensatory problem. Icke asks us to dramatize these points for ourselves, at our personal tables. Communally, we’re compelled to contemplate: Is democracy the identical as consensus? Is the poll the perfect guarantor of excellent coverage?
I ask as a result of the 4 residents of 16 Waivers Approach, cut up 2-2 on a key subject and unable to resolve how you can resolve, ran out of time with out hitting “X” or “O.” Ranked voting, anybody?
Enemy of the Individuals
By means of Aug. 8 on the Park Avenue Armory, Manhattan; 212-933-5812, armoryonpark.org. Operating time: 1 hour 35 minutes.