Arthur Miller's adaptation of An Enemy of the People [Paperback]

Miller's version of Ibsen's famous play sets it in language and circumstances that one can connect with better than the original - which was full of allusions to things and times which are arcane - but the original's power still remains and is enhanced by Miller. The theme comes up in the newspaper every month - a community threatened by pollution, a media crusading against power - until the power threatens to pull the plug on the media - "science" being portrayed as both the question and the answer - and friends, family and enemies in couplings and cabals to work against each other "for the common good". Read it with friends and see what it does to friendships.

In his own words, Arthur Miller never intended to rewrite "An Enemy of the People", Miller only wanted to revise or Americanize what was lost in the original translation. Ibsen is often verbose to a point where readers may lose a relevant point. In overcoming this problem, Miller may have perfected this play.

When Dr. Stockmann discovers a poison in the town's water supply, he believes he will be seen as a hero. However his brother Mayor Peter Stockmann sees things differently. Seeing the potential for an unpopular tax hike, Peter rallies the people against Dr. Stockmann's "irresponsible research". This comes to a climax at a town meeting at which Dr. Stockmann is labeled an enemy of the people. Even with seemingly factual research, the majority of the population spurns Dr. Stockmann as a liar.

Dr. Stockmann has one last chance to "clear his name". With a donation, the newspaper believes they can clear his name. With a family that suffers the same label as him, Dr. Stockmann begins a new life. Yet his new beginning is somewhat unexpected.

Much of the plot must be creditted to the work of Isben. In its original form, "An Enemy of the People" was not one of Isben's better known works. With Miller's polish, this work of Isben now shines.

Although I've never read or seen Ibsen's version of this play, it is evident that Miller is, as he puts it, "ventur[ing] into another's chickencoop". This work lacks Miller's distinctive air of mystery found in works such as "Death of a Salesman" and "After the Fall" in which subtle but devastating details are revealed slowly throughout the play until the whole stinking onion has been peeled. The course of this play is evident from the beginning. And even in a work like "The Crucible" which, being based on actual historical events, doesn't allow for so much gradual unfolding, Miller still manages to bring in subtle drama to engage the reader's/viewer's suspense. While this work is certainly filled with bombast, it lacks drama.

Dr. Thomas Stockmann is a knowledgeable, competent, and basically respected scientist. He is also rather liberal and known as a bit of a non-conformist and rabble-rouser. And he also has a wife and two kids to support. His brother Peter is the mayor of the town, the director of the Institute at which Dr. Stockmann is employed, and decidedly more conservative.

When Dr. Stockmann discovers poison in the town's water supply from a tannery upstream, he expects a hero's reception for saving the town and its major attraction, Kirsten Springs. And indeed, initially he is regarded as a hero, not only by his wife, but also by some allegedly radical newspapermen who vow to publish his findings.

But as it turns out, Mayor Stockmann and other town leaders have vested interests in the findings not being revealed. The repairs to the water supply will cost too much and take too long. Meanwhile, tourism, the town's major business and income source, will dry up.

Inexorably, the forces of moneyed interests begin to encircle Dr. Stockmann and his family. People who initially greeted his discovery with joy and predicted that it would bring down the wealthy bureaucrats begin to turn against him and side with the mayor and the other elites. Dr. Stockmann's position at the Institute is threatened. Townspeople refuse to listen to what he has to say and, indeed, refuse to even do business with him. And his mysterious father-in-law Kiil delivers the final blow by buying up cheap shares of Kirsten Springs in his name, making it look as if Dr. Stockmann set the whole thing up for profit and giving Dr. Stockmann (whose financial prospects are now in tatters) and economic stake in the springs.

In a Faustian bargain reminiscent of Proctor's in "The Crucible", Dr. Stockmann is given the chance to save his job, his "reputation" and his standing in the community if only he will renounce his findings. Will he take the "easy" way out for himself and his family and allow others to suffer when he knows the truth? Or will he stand up for what he believes in, regardless of personal cost.

Thy dynamic set up in "An Enemy of the People" is as valid and common now as it was when Ibsen wrote it and when Miller updated it. The book is an indictment of a society which will throttle its own interests - indeed, even its own life - to adamantly support the interests of the rich and powerful few. It is as relevant for today's working class Tea Partiers as it was for the people of Ibsen's small Norwegian town.

Unfortunately, on a literary level, this play does not live up to its political import. The dialogue is stilted, bombastic and exaggerated. Dr. Stockmann is an unlikeable, sexist, narcissist who, despite his claims to liberalism, can't be bothered to remember his housekeeper's name. His wife is all over the map, at times a strong and stalwart devoted wife, at other times piteously weak, deferential, and basically stupid. Mayor Stockmann is too heavy-handed to be believable. It is subtlety and subterfuge which win the population to support the elite moneyed interest at the expense of their own interests. Too much heavy-handedness gives the game away and risks rousing the common rabble against the elite. The other characters are either flat (Stockmann's children, Horster) or so conflicted and inconsistent that they aren't believable (the newspapermen). Overall, the book simply lacks the finely-tuned sense of character that Miller usually brings to his work.

The play is still very much worth reading, however, if only for the political message alone.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 9 reviews  4.8 out of 5 stars