Interview by Anita Angelova with director Chris Sharkov about Henrik Ibsen’s ‘Public Enemy’, Small City Theatre “Off the Chanel,” part of the Bulgarian Selection and the Showcase.

The theme of the manipulated majority and the pressure on the individual, central to Ibsen’s play, is powerfully highlighted in your production. You put the audience in the position of an invisible witness to the erosion of a community. In your view, how can the language of contemporary theatre contribute to exploring such a process?

The parallels between Public Enemy and the Bulgarian reality, as well as broader contexts, are evident. However, it is not enough to position the audience as victims of some irrational evil labelled as political power or corruption. For me, the more significant theme is that truth is no longer merely hidden or censored but has been rendered meaningless. In the “society of the spectacle” (to quote Guy Debord, referenced in the production), where every social issue sparks two opposing camps with simplistic answers and judgements, truth simply ceases to matter. This, in my opinion, is the most serious problem.

What, in your view, is the role of the actor in a deeply political and socially engaged performance?

In this process, I worked with actors who have a clear awareness of societal absurdities, often holding perspectives that diverge from popular expectations. Much of the rehearsal process involved discussing various issues from our reality and finding the precise means for our theatrical reality.

You incorporate contemporary elements such as rap, social media, and screens. Are these theatrical provocations or a necessary language to reach a new audience that might not read Ibsen? What risks did you take with this stylistic approach?

When creating modern interpretations of Ibsen, it is crucial for me to find an accurate translation of the social and cultural context without diminishing or overshadowing the author’s poetics—quite the contrary. During this period of Ibsen’s work, his plays were deeply tied to the emerging modern world around him. For instance, the rise of journalism as a key factor in democratic society is a central motif in the play, and the newspaper People’s Voice naturally had to include a video podcast and various social media channels alongside its print edition. Since the advent of social media, the problem of truth has become even more tragically intractable.

Regarding rap, I believe hip-hop is today’s music of dissent and protest — or rather, the perception of protest. Composer Asen Avramov had conducted compelling experiments with rap music with his students at NATFA, and I suggested we try this approach here. While working on the first piece for the liberal journalists, the actor Leonid Yovchev devised and wrote his own lyrics, and we later included a response from the municipal councillor. Overall, rap influenced the energy of the production beyond the specific performances.

In the character of Dr Stockmann, honesty, morality, and political naivety collide. How did you work with Mak Marinov to uncover the human dimension of the character beyond his ideological functions?

Throughout the process, we aimed to explore what the uncompromising pursuit of truth means for an ostensibly ordinary person. If any ideologies can be attributed to our Dr Stockmann, they stem from the surrounding context. No matter how genuine one’s intentions, they are inevitably politicised and mediatised, and this is the drama of contemporary society. This is my second collaboration with Mak, and I daresay we work together very well.

You have staged Ibsen multiple times. What new insights did Public Enemy offer in this current interpretation? And what, in your view, keeps the text’s vitality alive — its ability to look us in the eye, challenge us, or even judge us?

This is my fifth Ibsen production and my second of this particular play. The current version differs significantly from the first in many respects. Significant changes that has happened in our society over the past ten years have influenced this production—for example, the COVID crisis, the boom of social media, and the discredited notion of revolution. Broadly speaking, my first version was more idealistic, with a clearer identification with the protagonist and his struggle against the system. The current one is considerably more cynical, incorporating elements of satire and absurd humour from a genre perspective.

We also use a different version of the play. In my earlier Ibsen productions, the directorial interpretation adhered closely to the original text. Here, however, we adopted an approach more akin to what is termed a “new version” of a play in Anglo-Saxon theatre. I believe this works particularly well for Ibsen’s realistic plays and modernist authors in general.

When, in your view, should theatre speak loudly, and when should it let silence resonate more powerfully?

I believe these modes of expression should alternate depending on the context and environment. Before Public Enemy, I worked on several more, shall we say, lyrical projects, and the time came for a more direct form of theatre. In Ostermeier’s recent The Seagull, Trigorin, reflecting on his own futility, says: “Now is not the time for artists but for political activists.” I’m not sure, perhaps that’s true, but the silence of theatre can always be a powerful act that gathers energy.

Watch ‘Public Enemy’ by Henrik Ibsen on 8 June at 8:00 PM, Dramata Theatre –  Secon Stage.