Erika Lloyd

Dr. Clayton

Modern Drama Term Paper

April 24, 2011

Setting a Symbol: How Strindberg Changed Melodramatic Theater into Absurdism

Strindberg once wrote these lines in The Confession of a Fool: "At last everything was

satisfactorily arranged, and I could not help admiring the setting: these mingled touches betrayed

on a small scale the inspiration of a poet, the research of a scientist, the good taste of an artist,

the gourmet’s fondness for good food, and the love of flowers, which concealed in their delicate

shadows a hint of the love of women” (Strindberg 66). As Strindberg points out, the setting of a

play conveys much of the emotion and character of the play, from the hidden desires to the

subvert plot points. For this reason, any person that attempts to analyze a piece of dramatic

literature should not ignore the setting and characterization of a play, for she would miss many

subverts points and suggestions present throughout the play. In the 1880s, a dramatic change in

setting and style was sweeping across the theaters of Europe. The melodramatic theater was

slowly disappearing, to be replaced by absurdist, even existentialist, theater by the 1920s. Two

major dramatists, Ibsen and Strindberg, were largely responsible for this change in dramatic

interpretation. Through Strindberg’s works, the reader can see the largest and clearest change in

dramatic interpretation from the 1880s to the 1920s. These two “transitional” artists redefined

theater and the stage, which in effect revolutionized the melodramatic world, producing in its

place an absurd, existentialist interpretation of modern theater.

Ibsen and Strindberg had to have been familiar with each other in this time period.

George Bernard Shaw, according to Gretchen P. Ackerman, recognized the connection between

Strindberg and Ibsen, stating that Shaw recognized that “Strindberg and Ibsen were partners in a

crusade of liberation” and that Shaw treats “Strindberg’s work as a body of doctrine

complementary to Ibsen’s” (Ackerman 455). When comparing the two authors, it is important

for the reader to recognize Strindberg’s works as “complementary” to Ibsen’s, and perhaps

undercut by Ibsen’s productions. Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” was performed a few years before

Strindberg’s “Miss Julie” and its translations, which undercut the publicity and fame for

Strindberg. Many of the papers hailed Ibsen’s work as a masterpiece, but because Strindberg’s

“Miss Julie” was produced later, it did not receive the praise it would have in another time. The

New York Times in 1889 published an article called “Amusements: A Play by Ibsen,” in which

the author had recently viewed the first production of “A Doll’s House” and hailed Ibsen’s

accomplishments, saying that Ibsen seemed to “belong with the dramatists of the old style,

whose plays are still much heard on the German stage and who make their characters talk a great

deal, but give them little chance to act.” In many ways, the audience of Europe in the early 1890s

still clung to the melodramatic theater. Ibsen clung closer to the ways of the “old style” and

therefore retained more popularity than Strindberg. Strindberg tried for new and innovative

dramatic interpretation by ignoring the old style, which led to Ibsen’s plays being more popular.

Ibsen’s earlier plays can be considered part of the “old style,” namely the melodramatic;

the characters are basic stock characters throughout his collection of plays, such as Nora is the

“stock” wife figure, Helmer the standard Victorian period husband, and Mrs. Linde, the stock

“woman with a past.” Because the readers could relate more to the characters of Ibsen than with

Strindberg, Ibsen’s plays became more popular. In other ways, Ibsen’s collection closely holds to

the conventions of melodrama, but he attempts to use them in innovative ways. Furthermore, the

situation with Nora is the classic melodramatic situation in which the secret is contained until the

very end, when it affects the entire family as Nora reveals it. However, the interesting aspect of

Ibsen’s melodrama, “A Doll’s House,” more commonly referred to by Ibsen as “A Doll’s Nest,”

is the setting. The setting is an important aspect of any play, as discussed earlier in the essay. For

example, in “A Doll’s House,” Ibsen states the setting as:

A room furnished comfortably and tastefully, but not extravagantly. At the back, a door to the right leads to the entrance-hall, another to the left leads to Helmer’s study. Between the doors stands a piano. In the middle of the left-hand wall is a door, and beyond is a window. Near the window are a round table, arm-chairs and a small sofa. In the right-hand wall, at the farther end, another door; and on the same side, nearer the footlights, a stove, two easy chairs and a rocking-chair; between the stove and the door, a small table. Engravings on the walls; a cabinet with china and other small objects; a small book-case with well-bound books. The floors are carpeted, and a fire burns in the stove. Ibsen, A Doll’s House 1

The interesting thing to note about the setting of “A Doll’s House” is the unimportant way in

which the items are listed, and the commonality of the mainly Victorian items. Ibsen writes that

the room is “furnished comfortably and tastefully, but not extravagantly” which sets a realistic

tone, a tone common to melodramatic theater (Ibsen, A Doll’s House 1). The house is not

anything more than a middle class, common, everyday house. Common Victorian household

items are listed, such as “a piano,” “round table,” “a small sofa,” and even a “rocking-chair”

(Ibsen, A Doll’s House 1). Ibsen later uses the setting as a metaphor for Nora and her trapped

emotions. The selection of items and the style in which the items are listed reflects Ibsen’s style,

a melodramatic style that the audience of Europe and America raved over. All the props and

setting are listed to a concise, well-detailed, and realistic list that leaves little for the reader to

imagine.

However, like Strindberg and Wilde, Ibsen innovates the common practices of theater and

takes his setting a step farther, and turns the setting into a metaphor. He changes it not only in “A

Doll’s House,” but also in “Hedda Gabler” and “Master Builder.” In “Hedda Gabler” the house

also starts off as a classic Victorian home, with an inner room and an outer room, which lends to

the melodramatic realism (Hedda Gabler 1). However, later the reader can see how the inner

room reflects Hedda’s emotions and inner conscience, as a place where she laughs, jokes, cries,

and hangs things precious to her. The outer room then becomes a metaphor for what she shows

people and of what society demands of her. The gun and the eventual place of her suicide are in

the inner room, which again furthers the metaphor in the setting of “Hedda Gabler.” The

innovative way in which Ibsen uses the stage in “A Doll’s House” and “Hedda Gabler” is the

reason the essay refers to Ibsen as a “transitional” artist of modern theater.

Strindberg innovates theater in a way different from Ibsen’s subtle, and often

metaphorical, advances. Strindberg chose to be more direct with his settings, often telling the

reader that a piece is metaphorical. Strindberg’s earlier works, such as “Miss Julie” in 1888, are

more like Ibsen’s works, in that Strindberg sticks closely to melodramatic elements of theater

and often borrows from Ibsen’s successes. The setting of “Miss Julie” is different, because

Strindberg appears to take a lesson from Ibsen and makes the setting metaphorical. The setting of

“Miss Julie” is described as:

The action of the play takes place on Midsummer Night, in the Count’s kitchen. Christine stands on the left, by the hearth, and fries’ something in a pan. She has on a light blouse and a kitchen apron. John comes in through the glass door in livery. He holds in his hand a pair of big riding boots with spurs, which he places on the door at the back, in a visibile position. Strindberg, Miss Julie 1

The reader should pay attention to the fact that Strindberg’s list of stage props and setting is

short, much like later absurdist plays. However, even though the list of stage props is short, the

list shows a level of complexity that is similar to Ibsen’s lists.

Another thing for the reader to realize is that Julie, the protagonist, is not in her

element and realistic position, but in the servant’s quarters. This element of the setting is unusual

because a realistic, melodramatic play would have set her in her own setting, up in the court of

the castle, not in the servant’s quarters; a good Victorian woman would not be placed in common

lower class settings during the melodramatic time period. Another factor of interest is that all the

action takes place on “Midsummer Night,” a night which is mystical for most of Europe and

adds an element of absurdity, especially when Strindberg reveals that Julie has taken part in the

festivities with the servants (Strindberg, Miss Julie 2). Also, the boots serve as both a prop and a

bridge between Ibsen’s settings and the newer, absurdist settings. All of Ibsen’s settings have

what some critics call a “smoking gun” in them in the form of a prop. In “Hedda Gabler” the

“smoking gun” was in fact an actual gun that taunted Hedda the entire play. In Strindberg’s

“Miss Julie,” the “smoking gun” could be John’s boots hanging over the door, which are never

really mentioned but serve as a metaphor for when John leaves his position and assumes a role

over Julie. These items are things the audience would see but the reader would not think twice

about, which is why the setting of the play is so important to analysis.

Strindberg’s later plays are more focused on absurdity and mysticism, especially the

“Dance of Death,” where the setting is a house that was a prison and the two are imprisoned

together. Later existentialist or absurdist artists like Wilde and Shaw tend to have narrowly

described, and often absurd, scenes that resemble Strindberg’s setting in “Dance of Death”; most

of the time Shaw or Wilde will write about an absurd setting, such as George Bernard Shaw’s

“Heartbreak House” in which the setting is a house that has been made from “the after part of an

old-fashioned high-pooped ship” (Shaw 1). The strange scene then can become a metaphor for

the change and movement in the protagonist’s dilemma; while the roots of the setting are

realistic, the ideas and thoughts behind them become more absurd. Strindberg’s later plays

directly relay to the reader that the setting represents something else, especially in “A Dream

Play” where he writes:

The background represents a forest of gigantic Hollyhocks in bloom…and above their tier tops is seen the gilded roof of a castle, the apex of which is formed by a bud resembling a crown. At the foot of the castle walls stand a number of straw ricks, and around these stables litter is scattered. The side-scenes, which remain unchanged throughout the play, show unconventionalised frescoes, suggesting at once internal decoration, architecture, and landscape. Strindberg, A Dream Play 1

This paragraph is important because Strindberg never directly leaves anything in detail and

straight forward, which is different from his previous plays. He even calls some of the props

“unconventionalised” and says that the forest “represents” a giant forest of flowers in bloom.

This generic use of wording leaves a lot to absurdity, especially since it is a castle in the middle

of the forest, an unconventional setting for the melodramatic era. The generic diction and choice

of wording is very different from the first plays Strindberg wrote, and from Ibsen’s collection

because Strindberg leaves a lot to the imagination.

Strindberg seemed to have difficulty in spreading his plays across the world. Eszter

Szalczer writes in her essay “Nature’s Dream Play: Modes of Vision and August Strindberg’s

Re-Definition of the Theater” that “in the English-speaking world such limited familiarity with

the scope of Strindberg’s work and interests might be attributed to the scarcity of translations”

which would explain to the reader why Strindberg’s works are not considered greater than

Ibsen’s works. Due to the “scarcity of translations” most of Strindberg’s work remains in

Swedish, which leaves the modern world oblivious to the innovations Strindberg achieves in

modern drama. Szalczer also points out that the things that make Strindberg unique are not his

achievements, namely 500 works in print, but “his eagerness to experiment and to break down

barriers between genres, views, and fields of experience” (Szalczer 34). This point is vital for

understanding Strindberg as an innovator of modern drama, because it shows Strindberg’s worth

not in the amount of works he produced, but as a critical mastermind in dramatic interpretation.

Unlike Ibsen, who preferred to work within the bounds of feminism, Strindberg chose to work in

a male dominated society. Strindberg also chose to dabble in areas that were not considered by

the followers of Ibsen to be appropriate for the modern stage, especially when it came to the

topics and style of directing. Arthur Burkhard in The German Quarterly discusses the effect

Strindberg had on early American interpretation of the play, and says:

Confronted by literary production so comprehensive and diverse, so surprising and personal, so troubled and indiscreet, foreign critics at first, not unnaturally, floundered in helpless confusion. The general public still finds Strindberg’s dramas disturbed and difficult to follow and his development disorderly, especially when compared to the methodical manner of production and the measured accomplishment of his Norwegian contemporary, Ibsen. Burkhard 166-7

This detailed description of the reception of Strindberg’s works by foreign critics helps the

reader to understand how Strindberg is underestimated as a dramatist. Ibsen’s plays are largely

organized according to traditional theatrical rules and maintain a sense of order that Strindberg’s

plays do not even in modern times. Foreign critics who watched “A Doll’s House” in 1879

would not understand the weird staging and directing done for a “Miss Julie” translation in 1888,

due to the complex manner in which Strindberg changed the directing style of his plays. The

effect of Strindberg’s change in staging would be disconcerting for the average audience member

in the least, and a horrible theatrical experience at the worst.

The changes Strindberg makes in theater can be seen as attempts at redefining the

conventions of theater in 1890 into the modern conventions of existentialist theater. Craig Lucas

writes that “most of Strindberg’s plays can be viewed in this manner, as one views one’s own

dreams: the myriad selves parading through a self-created, ever-shifting landscape” (Lucas 5).

This feeling of mysticism is present in many of Strindberg’s plays, which leans him away from

melodramatic realism and into existentialism. When “Miss Julie” premiered in Paris in 1893, The

New York Times interviewed Strindberg, and wrote in the article “Mrs. Julia in Paris” that “the

argument of our author is that religion and the theatre are becoming old-fashioned; both require

new development and practice; to this he attributes the so-called ‘theatrical crisis’” (Miss Julia in

Paris 1893). Around the turn of the century, Strindberg did become more interested in the

“theatrical crisis” or the crisis in representation of modern theater. In fact, The New York Times

states that in the 1893 production of Miss Julie “there were no footlights, which the author states

make the features appear distorted and swollen and cause fatigue to the eyes of the actor, and

prevent all possibility of eye expression. The light should always come from the sides.” This

development of lighting is the first signs of Strindberg’s development of modern day “black box”

theater. Strindberg ceased productions for a few years, and instead turned his talents to producing

his very own Intima Theater, which produced plays in the style he desired them.

The Intima Theater was Strindberg’s project for the remainder of his life. According to

the theater, which was reopened in 1907, the theater was only six by six meters in size. This

“intimate” feel was how the theater got its name. In the preface to “Miss Julie,” Strindberg states

his stage techniques, which he incorporated into the development of the theater. One technique

Strindberg states is “the experiment of doing away with the division into acts. I have noticed that

the illusion of the play is sustained with ever-increasing difficulty, and this I think, is caused by

the interludes during which the spectator has time to think of other things.” By doing away with

the acts, Strindberg creates one of the reoccurring conventions of existentialist modern drama:

the theater of illusion. The illusion, Strindberg believed, was important to theater attraction and

for intellectuals to enjoy theater at its finest. The crisis in representation was the main concern of

Strindberg; he wanted to develop theater, mainly his Intima Theater, into a complete illusion of

real life. The representation presented by melodrama was unsatisfying to Strindberg. Strindberg

also wrote in the preface that “as to the scenery, I would displace the present elaborate stage

settings… I believe by this means complete illusion could be obtained.” Strindberg believed that

a cluttered stage, such as the settings in the works of Anton Chekhov and Henrik Ibsen, created

too much for the audience to be able to imagine. Furthermore, a clean, empty stage produced the

effect of illusion, leaving more to the imagination and more for the audience to think about by

the end of the play. He establishes this further in the preface, and says that “moreover, I believe

in one setting only, both to identify the actors with place of action and to do away with luxury of

mise-en-scene.” He explains that for theater, there is no way to create a room to look like a real

room. This “crisis” was what Strindberg was trying to solve, and eventually did solve in the

setting of “A Dream Play.” Strindberg concludes his argument in the preface to Miss Julie:

If we could do away with the visible orchestra with its tiresome lamps and musicians’ faces turned toward the public;… if we did away with the boxes, with their noisy occupants, and if we plunged the auditorium into complete darkness during the performance, then perhaps a new dramatic era would begin for us and the theatre would once more become a place where enlightened people could find pleasure. Strindberg, Miss Julie Preface

Strindberg, by recreating the modern stage, planned to usher in a “new dramatic era” so that

“enlightened people” could find enjoyment from theater once again. His creation of “black box

theater” or “intimate theater” helped to usher in the new dramatic era; the absurdist and

existentialist era began based on the teachings of Strindberg, but not necessarily Ibsen. Ibsen is

hailed as the greatest dramatists of his time, but one could argue that it was in fact Strindberg

who had the most influence.

The change from realism to absurdity happened slowly, and methodically, mostly

affecting the settings and styles in which the plays were performed, and the ways in which the

audience receives information from the play. Strindberg was a main proponent of the movement

of absurdist and existentialist modern theater. He changed much of the way the setting and ideas

on the stage are represented, and tried desperately throughout his life to solve the crisis in

representation present in melodramatic theater. However, it is the change in setting that allowed

the change to happen in modern theater, through the influences of August Strindberg. Although

Strindberg was rarely translated and lost appeal with many foreign critics and audiences, his

works stand as an evolution of “black box” theater and intimate theater, which heavily

influenced the modernist period.

Works Cited

Ackerman, Gretchen P. Ibsen and the English Stage, 1889-1903. New York: Garland Publishing

Inc., 1987. Print.

Bantorget, Norra. “The Old Theater.” strindbergsintimateater.se. Strindberg’s Intima Theater,

n.d. Web. 28 Apr 2011.

Barstow, Susan Torrey. “‘Hedda Is All of Us’: Late-Victorian Women at the Matinee.” Victorian

Studies 43.3 (2001): 387-411.

Burkhard, Arthur. “August Strindberg and Modern German Drama”. The German Quarterly 6.4

(1933): 163-174.

Ibsen, Henrik. Four Major Plays. Trans. James McFarlane, and Jens Arup. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2006. Print.

---. A Doll’s House. 39-114.

---. Hedda Gabler. 217-304.

Lucas, Craig. “Theater; The Disturbing Truths Told by Strindberg.” The New York Times 7 Oct

2001.

Shaw, George Bernard. Heartbreak House. Gutenberg.org. Champaign, Ill: Project

Gutenberg, 2009. Web. 28 Apr 2011.

Strindberg, August. Strindberg: Five Plays. Trans. Harry G. Carlson. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1983. Print.

---. A Dream Play. 205-264.

---. Dance of Death. 113, 166-204.

---. Miss Julie. 63-112.

Strindberg, August. The Confession of a Fool. Trans. Ellie Schleussner. London: Stephen Swift

and Company Limited, 1912. Print.

Szalczer, Eszter. "Nature's Dream Play: Modes of Vision and August Strindberg's Re-Definition

of the Theatre." Theatre Journal 53.1 (2001): 33-52.

Unknown. “Amusements. A Play By Ibsen.” Rev. of A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen. The New

York Times 27 Sep 1889.

Unknown. “‘Miss Julia’ in Paris.” Rev. of Miss Julie, by August Strindberg. The New York

Times 5 Feb 1893.

Unknown. “Strindberg’s Odd Views; The Scandinavian Dramatist Who Wrote ‘Miss Julia’.” The

New York Times 5 Feb 1893.