1) August Strindberg's dream plays have received mixed interpretations and confusion, limiting his influence in America compared to contemporaries like Ibsen. 2) Strindberg's plays are difficult to appreciate without understanding his background and psychological insights which he incorporated into his unconventional works. 3) His transition from naturalism to experimentation with dreams, visions, and mysticism in plays like his dream plays led to new dramatic techniques that challenged traditional forms and standards.

1. 1
Erica Starr
12/13/12
Dram 175
Research Paper
The Equivocal Influence of August Strindberg: Confusion Surrounding his Dream Plays
Although August Strindberg‟s contributions as a modern dramatist are well known in
countries such as Germany, his influence is lacking in America due to the presence of mixed
interpretations surrounding his controversial “dream plays”. Contrary to the picture that the
name Henrik Ibsen puts into the minds of Americans, Strindberg never garners the same level of
praise from audiences. Instead, he is seen through an inadequate and distorted picture in which
his aims are both misunderstood and misinterpreted1. Viewed by some to be an “outstanding
Scandinavian genius” and “the most tragic figure in modern European literature and the greatest
dramatist of his generation”2, it is possible that Strindberg‟s influence on German expressionism
should warrant more concern for his influence in America. Through taking interdisciplinary
approaches to organizing the mechanisms behind Strindberg‟s dramas, it may be possible to
provide a framework for understanding his plays that focus on increasing acceptance for his
nontraditional methods of dramatic writing.
One reason for the misconceptions surrounding Strindberg and his works may stem from
his being categorized as a “forbiddingly original writer with whose work it is difficult to become
familiar”3. Thus, the stark contrast between the work of his predecessors and Strindberg‟s own
creations are so radically different that it is difficult to compare them to past works which have
become unequivocal classics. Strindberg was extremely in tune with his own psychological self,
1
Arthur Burkhard. “August Strindberg and Modern German Drama”.The German Quarterly 6:4 (Nov. 1933): 163.
2
Burkhard, p. 163.
3
Burkhard, p. 163.

2. 2
and he utilized his insights to bring life to his pieces, especially his so-called dream plays. At
extremes, Strindberg could be at any one time “bourgeois, now bohemian, today monkish and
mystic, tomorrow indulgent and diabolical, yet always theatrical and exhibitionistic”4, and
Strindberg‟s ability to change his view of the world on a dime is onthe one hand disturbing due
to a lack of consistency in his sense of self. On the other hand, it shows an incredible tendency
to make use of a thought process which is centered on adapting to the outside world when
necessary and ignoring it when introspection provides inspiration.
Thus, it can be argued that Strindberg‟s works are difficult to appreciate unless a
thorough examination of his background is discussed in accordance with reading his plays,
especially for those which seem to carry with them remnants of his own life and glimpses into
the life of the “character” of Strindberg. To put it plainly, Strindberg is thought to have lacked
steadfastness because he could never make up his mind concerning which profession suited him
best. He dabbled as a tutor and medical student, tried his hand as a telegraph operator, and
worked as a librarian, chemist, and alchemist in addition to devoting his time to being an actor,
journalist, poet, and author5. Still, despite these inconsistencies, Strindberg regarded himself
first and foremost as a dramatist, and he considered the writing of dramas to be his life‟s work6.
Confused by Strindberg‟s strange tendency to do a little bit of everything yet call himself
primarily a dramatist, the general public which studies his work find his stories to be disturbed,
difficult to follow, and disorderly, especially when comparing his works to those of Ibsen, his
methodical contemporary7. Strindberg has been by far less influential due to his affinity for
unusual subjective works and an erratic sense of productivity. His irrational approach to drama
4
Burkhard, p. 165.
5
Burkhard, p. 166.
6
Burkhard, p. 166.
7
Burkhard, p. 166-67.

3. 3
mimics synthetic, cosmic, and Dionysian self-expression8, which have also been criticized for
being too open to uncertainties and for allowing one to behave in haphazard manners. Much of
American criticism of European drama, which sides in favor of naturalism, fails to realize what
is thought to be the importance of Strindberg‟s dramatic expressionism, which was actually
derived from the focused attention he paid to naturalism in his earlier plays9.
Strindberg‟s transition from portraying the finite and real world to his gravitation toward
the infinite and eternal brought with it heavy focus on the differences between the logical world
of the everyday and the dream world of imagination, which is littered with poetic miracles and
religious mysticism10. Turning away from the literal world in front of him, Strindberg began to
experiment with forming dramas from a combination of dreams, visions, premonitions, and
concepts stemming from his own personal experiences11. Strindberg‟s characters resemble
himself in that they are all capable of living through emotional extremes, which presents the
possibility of having characters who can only function in states of disarray. Though diverse in
his activities, Strindberg held onto a “restless drive to seek out yet unexplored territories and to
experiment with the newest media of his time, a drive that stemmed from his need to find
adequate expression to his ever-changing perception of an elusive reality and his sense of split
and fragmented consciousness in a crumbling and metamorphosing culture”12. This interesting
take on Strindberg‟s vast amount of hobbies (or maybe obsessions) suggests that there may have
been a method to his madness. If Strindberg wished to escape a culture that was not satisfying
his need to abandon objective for subjective realities, his behavior is not only warranted, but
8
Burkhard, p. 167.
9
Burkhard, p. 170.
10
Burkhard, p. 170.
11
Burkhard, p. 170.
12
EszterSzalczer. “Strindberg & the Visual Arts”.PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art 25:3 (Sep. 2003): 42.

4. 4
perhaps encouraged. Out of an experience of crisis, Strindberg developed into one of the first
playwrights to have a truly modern sensibility13, which allowed for not only redefining drama,
but for redefining the way he looked at the world and at other types of art as well.
Having given up writing during a particularly stressful time in his life, known as the
Inferno period, Strindberg took up observing nature, painting, photography, and optical
experimentation14. No matter which medium he worked in, Strindberg began to approach his
work with a sense of visual perception that could not be matched. While observing the natural,
spiritual, and social world, he made great use of visual analogies that permeated his paintings
and photographs, and upon returning to the written word, he incorporated highly verbal and
scenic imagery, color symbolism, and attention to spatial composition15 into his works,
techniques which are most notably components of his dream plays. In addition to these
elements, Strindberg began to experiment with replacing “causal plot-construction, rational
linguistic patterns, and realistic character motivation with a “dream-logic” of perceptual
associations, in which images, sound effects, and verbal fragments are interwoven into a
collage”16. These new features brought forth the need to create new, unconventional stage
technologies which proposed many challenges not only to directors during Strindberg‟s time, but
also to contemporary directors who are intimidated by the thought of attempting to produce his
work without skewing the supposed intended meaning of the plays.
Those who do take on the challenge of putting on one of Strindberg‟s plays wrestle with
his being known as the father of modern drama. Contemporary critics have not yet been able to
13
Szalczer, p. 43.
14
Szalczer, p. 43.
15
Szalczer, p. 43.
16
Szalczer, p. 43.

5. 5
approach Strindberg‟s “dream plays” with confidence17. As mentioned, many people find
difficulty in relating to his works because of the striking autobiographical nature of the plays.
Others turn away from his plays because they cannot be judged using traditional standards as far
as drama is concerned, and still others find fault in the inherent esthetic of the dream-art
relationship. This relationship has the greatest influence on contemporary critics, such that
Strindberg‟s dream plays have been considered failures18. If the supposed failure of these plays
is due in part to the mental illness Strindberg suffered during his Inferno period, there is
reasonable explanation for the fact that these plays are inherently difficult to comprehend or
relate to easily. However, taking into consideration Strindberg‟s capacity for producing art even
in his darkest times, it is possible that Strindberg made a conscious effort to create a new form of
drama with his dream plays that would express how sick and irrational the world around him was
in a way in which no one had done before him19. Breaking away from rational thought provided
Strindberg with the freedom to introduce psychology and expressionism into his dramas, which
would ultimately lead to a new style of play that still causes arguments among artists today.
The dream play technique, which Strindberg worked to perfect, tried to balance the
necessary presence of language in drama with poeticized language that operates on both a
musical and a visual level, as opposed to a conceptual one20. Suggestive in nature, Strindberg‟s
use of language is coupled with imagery that provides opposition to normally informative,
surface text. An example of this phenomenon occurs in The Ghost Sonata, in which the
character of the Old Man says, “I prefer silence. Then you can hear thoughts and see into the
17
John R. Milton. “The Esthetic Fault of Strindberg‟s “Dream Plays””. The Tulane Drama Review 4:3 (Mar. 1960):
108.
18
Milton, p. 108.
19
Milton, p. 108.
20
Szalczer, p. 46.

6. 6
past. In silence you can‟t hide anything…as you can in words. The other day I read that the
reason different languages developed was because primitive tribes tried to keep secrets from
each other”21. This statement makes use of mysterious language that highlights the mysteries of
language, which provides multiple levels upon which to consider the sensory experience of the
event. The process of duplicating this type of layered imagery involving language brings with it
a new interdisciplinary approach to presenting his work, which also involves discussing the often
neglected non-literary dimensions of Strindberg‟s works, which often jump traditional
boundaries of genre, art forms, and disciplines22.
Of the Strindberg dream plays that have been performed, The Ghost Sonatahas received
much attention, in particular from Swedish director Ingmar Bergman. Both Strindberg and
Bergman are said to have stripped away the illusions that becloud the “hopeless dream of
„being‟”23. Known for utilizing iconic displays, Bergman staged The Ghost Sonatawith an acute
awareness of moral goodness counterbalanced by inescapable bodily needs. The addition to
Strindberg‟s script of blood on both Hummel and The Young Lady, as well as the presence of
stage business that is not mentioned in the text of the play is characteristic of a production that is
rendered much more ominous in its staging than in the actual reading of the play24. Keeping in
line with Strindberg‟s preoccupation with the human condition, Bergman focused on the
importance of class warfare in his production. Having started out as a young director, Bergman
produced four stagings of The Ghost Sonata(as well as other works of Strindberg) over a period
of five decades, leading one to wonder if an obsession with the many layers of Strindberg‟s
dream plays guided his choice to repeatedly stage this one.
21
Strindberg: Five Plays, trans. Harry G. Carlson (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 286.
22
Szalczer, p. 47.
23
GautamDasgupta. “The Hopeless Dream of “Being”: Ingmar Bergman‟s “The Ghost Sonata”. PAJ: A Journal of
Performance and Art 23:3 (Sep. 2001): 64.

7. 7
Bergman‟s production utilized “utterly simplified staging, a combination of the
Shakespearean platform stage and Peter Brook‟s empty space, emphasizing stunning visual
connections between physical signs and interior decay”25. The main acting area contained a
rectangular carpet, a few chairs, a pendulum clock, and a statue atop a pedestal on either side of
the stage. On the side walls, which were bare, the façade of a bourgeois house could be seen,
and an image of hyacinths added depth to the imaginary building. The minimalistic stage
conveyed a sense of gloominess, which could be related to both the exterior of the house and the
interior simultaneously. This presence extended to the characters in the play as well. Bergman
created meaning for this complex play through providing visual consistencies between the
actors‟ body language, the costumes and makeup, relationships to the playing space, and layered
imagery imposed by numerous projections26.
This simplified, yet meaningful description of Bergman‟s production of The Ghost
Sonatasounds appropriate for the piece and feels promising when it is read on the page
independent of seeing the play. However, looking at the photos depicting Bergman‟s staging27,
they portray a play that is markedly different from an initial interpretation made after reading the
physical play sans contemporary staging. The costumes are too realistically rendered, which
subtracts from the dream technique, and the ages of The Student and The Young Lady appear to
be an overestimate based on the emotions, innocence, and naiveté conveyed by the characters in
the original play. In addition, even if class warfare is supposed to make an appearance as a
character in this play, the overarching formalities of the clothing depicted destroy the subtle
vision created by the play itself through language alone.
24
Dasgupta, p. 66.
25
Szalczer, p. 46.
26
Szalczer, p. 46.
27
Dasgupta, p. 67.

8. 8
The most striking difference between Bergman and Strindberg‟s versions of The Ghost
Sonataconcerns the ending of the play, for which Bergman employed a viewing of the Milkmaid
dancing before she retreats into the shadows. This imagery was constructed to mimic the
opening of the production, in which all appearances, including the façade of the house, are meant
to be deceptive and seem like they are fading away28. At the end of the play, Strindberg brings
the audience out of the world of The Ghost Sonataby replacing the three dimensional scene with
the famous two-dimensional representation of Arnold Böcklin‟s painting The Island of the
Dead29, coupled with calm, melancholy music. This allusion to a real work of art, especially one
with much significance related to the themes of the play, provides a beautiful last moment to
focus on following the completion of the drama. Simple, yet full of some kind of meaning,
Strindberg hit upon the perfect ending for his play. Bergman‟s decision to do away with it,
although backed by artistic freedom, brings too much closure to what should resemble a dream in
which the ending is often unclear and up for interpretation.
The trouble with accepting not only Bergman‟s staging of The Ghost Sonata, but other
possible takes on it as well may be due to the abundance of situations in the play in which the
“main characters reveal themselves in facets that fail to harmonize to form a single rounded
image”30. Meant to put on display a sort of dream-like state, this play contains fragments of
thoughts and ideas that are scattered amongst different characters with entirely different
subjective viewpoints. Whether looking at the Old Man, The Student, or The Mummy, it is
unclear as to exactly what these characters are motivated to do, due to a lack of an omnipotent
narrator within this play or clarification from Strindberg‟s perspective. In this respect, the dream
play offers extreme flexibility as it relates to the form of drama, but not without cost to the
28
Dasgupta, p. 68.
29
Dasgupta, p. 68, Strindberg: Five Plays,p. 297.
30
Milton, p. 108.

9. 9
possible overall success of the work. Still, it cannot be said that there is no possibility that the
character of The Student serves as an external dreamer as well as an internal driving force within
the play toward some end. In the very beginning of the play, The Student converses with the
dead Milkmaid and offers her compensation for helping him clean his eyes, which she refuses.
He says to her, “Forgive me, that was thoughtless, but I‟m not really awake”31, which is an
interesting remark that receives no clarification as it relates to his actually being awake or asleep
for the duration of the play. The Student also admits to being a student of languages, but does
not really know what he wants to be. This uncertainty concerning his identity may mimic the
feeling of wanting to move toward something in a dream because it is attractive, but to no avail,
as the dream world never quite satisfies realistic expectations. The subtle suggestions that an
unusual situation or even a dream may be occurring remains empty throughout the play, and no
definite conclusions are ever drawn.
This type of confusion surrounding Strindberg‟s dream plays has led to criticism that
suggests that “the substance which actually makes up great drama and which appeals to the
audience” is missing from these plays. This substance is the idea that an audience can share in
an experience with the characters in a play, as opposed to being witnesses to ideas so subjective
and so personal to the characters and the author that the audience cannot intrude or hope to land
on equal ground32. With the inclusion of extremely personal circumstances comes an inability
for an audience to experience a break from objective reality, such that they cannot participate or
be drawn into the world of the play. This distancing effect too brings with it a problem of form
as it relates to the dream plays. Even if Strindberg knew he wanted to use a new form of drama
to convey his ideas, the success of his plays still rests upon the audience understanding the need
31
Strindberg: Five Plays,p. 267.
32
Milton, p. 109.

10. 10
for this form. Going back to the idea that it is difficult to appreciate Strindberg‟s work without
knowing his background, comments have been made suggesting that Strindberg‟s choice of form
to express his concepts was appropriate for himself, however, they remain far from being
accepted as a general dramatic form for which other dramatists can utilize on the same level of
seriousness33. If this is true, it is highly unlikely that any dramatist other than Strindberg could
construct what could be called a true dream play, at least as Strindberg would have seen it.
It is possible then, that drama and dreams were never meant to be combined successfully
into one form that could be objectively replicated, at least on stage. Looking again at form, it
can be argued that, “form is meaningful only because the spectator projects his activities or
feelings into the form. The meaning which a drama possesses, then, is not inherent in the drama
but is put there by the spectator in the act of contemplation”34. This argument provides hope for
a greater appreciation of Strindberg‟s dream plays, as it suggests that readers can layer their own
interpretations on top of what is already being subjectively presented in the script, provided that
the play is not being performed onstage. By eliminating the realistic attempt at conveying what
is meant to be dream-logic, plays such as The Ghost Sonata can be looked at from the
perspective of more than one viewer or dreamer, rather than just the subjective mind of
Strindberg or one of his characters within the play, such as The Student.
Problems arise when we try to share our dreams with others, because we will never truly
understand one another on the same subjective level. Translating our dreams into more realistic
terms automatically adds a layer of objectivity to the situation that clouds the beauty of the
dream experience, which is that no clear meaning can or should ever try to be discovered, as any
seemingly final interpretation cannot be made by anyone other than the original dreamer. Left to
33
Milton, p. 109.
34
Milton, p. 110.

11. 11
examine dream-like situations such as the ones that take place in the house in Strindberg‟s The
Ghost Sonataby means of reading the play in textual form, the issue of not being able to share in
the personal experience that created the play becomes less noticeable. If there is a desire to
decrease the subjective distance between author and audience, having knowledge of Strindberg‟s
life and where his dramatic choices may have been derived may offer closure for some people.
For others, maintaining the magic of the dream plays by accepting its unusual form is more
important than maintaining a relationship with the dramatist himself.
It is true that if we treat Strindberg‟s dream plays as being his actual dreams, we will
never truly understand them, because dreams cannot be transferred to others without failing to
remain completely subjective. If a character in the play is made to be the dreamer, then the form
of what is known as a “dream play” is lost to a form familiar to traditional drama. If these dream
plays fail by means of what is considered to be a correct use of dramatic technique35, the
question that remains is whether it is still possible to put the harsh criticism of Strindberg‟s
ambiguous methods of dramatic expression aside long enough to consider the merits of his
approaches. If nothing else, Strindberg‟s dream plays have forced us to think more open-
mindedly about how we can best communicate our experiences to each other regarding real life
as well as our dreams.
35
Milton, p. 116.