The Shakeaspears, the Chekovs, the Ibsens, they are greats because their work transcends time. But I get the urge to modernise them for today’s context – when done well, not only can existing themes be amplified, but new perspectives can also be woven through. That is the genius of some of the books within the Hogarth series. But when done poorly, it shows up the author for not having the intellectual prowess to work the consequences of the change across the entire piece. A prime example of such a failure being Anya Reiss’s adaptation of the Seagull, where the aspiring actress is shunned for having a child out of wedlock – something that would have rung true in Chekov’s days, but today is simply absurd.

This performance lands somewhere in between. There is a fundamental flaw in the narrative – in today’s world, an enterprise found to be polluting a community water source in Western Europe would have broken so many laws and regulations that there would have been no argument that the community was liable for the damages. Either the factory would have been shut down, or it would been forced to rectify the problem. And gone then is the core premise of the conflict in this modernised version. Furthermore, the idea that one is resigned to reside forever in the village where one was born, is hard to fathom today. A teacher and a doctor would have little problem setting up anew and finding work elsewhere. So the premise that the good doctor is somehow putting his entire livelihood in jeopardy, is somewhat incredulous.

There is also the obvious issue of ignoring the role social media would have played in this situation – there is an attempt to stave it off by pooh-poohing the notion that that the doctor could publish an on-line blog as it would have no reach. The matter of fact is that he could and that in reality, that is exactly what he would have done – instead of calling a town hall….

But there are also many things that work extremely well. The opening scenes, where the actors are together in a band, sharing evenings in camaraderie, are followed by scenes where they are pitted against one another, seething with contempt and aggression. This is a perfect illustration of the multitude of issues today that are so polarising, they tear even families, let alone friendships, apart.

This performance also uses an interesting mechanism – when the townhall is held and the doctor delivers his tirade that finishes in a call for the extermination of the liberal majority, the audience is asked, through a show of hands, whether it agrees with the points the doctor made. It is then asked to explain why.

I must say I looked around me at all the raised hands in complete disbelief – I might have agreed with some, not all, of the points, but I most certainly drew the line at extermination. Generally, I am not supportive of mass executions, but in this case it felt that the audience had overwhelmingly missed the point that we, the audience, were the liberal majority that the doctor was suggesting should be exterminated. Anyone who raised their hand was effectively a turkey voting for Christmas.

Maybe part of the problem was Matt Smith’s delivery of his speech. It was passionate, but it was also extremely fast. There was so much to unpick and unpack, it was hard to follow and not forget the words that came before the statement that followed. Some of it probably rang true, some of it, like the attack on the very premise of democracy, did not. That may have worked in the original – but it did not lend itself to the debate that was expected of us as the audience.

And maybe that is why, some of the responses that followed where random at best and had little to do with the content of the speech. Some were very naïve and yet left unchallenged. Many seemed to get on the high-horse of capitalism-bashing offering no credible alternative. But one truth did ring out loud and clear – people in the audience became quite hurt and offended the moment their response was questioned. And that to me was the perfect illustration of the fundamental problem we are facing today – free speech is seen as something hurtful – individuals feel that they have a right to express an opinion, but nobody has the right to question its validity.

It was an interesting experiment, but it did go on for a bit too long and some of the very eloquent answers seem to be planted to allow the intended message of the author to come across. In between the plants it at times descended into unchecked ranting. But also – there was one further problem. The audience was asked to talk to the points on which they agreed with the doctor – but what follows in the play is an attack on the doctor and a destruction of his home, presumably perpetrated by the towns folk. Feels like the question should have been – hands up if you disagree…

What I really enjoyed about the performance was its fluidity. I saw it on international woman’s day – and there were some quips made about that. There were other small elements of audience participation, that made it all feel just that tad bit more “in the moment.” Whilst this is an English translation of a German modernisation, there were clearly elements added to make it more locally relevant – Post office scandal references to give just one example. At the same time however, the Alsatian seemed completely out of place. This may have been a good fascist parallel in the German production – drawing on the Nazi officer’s dog of preference – but felt very cute and completely unnecessary here.

What I did find quite clever was that the staging is all black and white – whereas the issues in fact are all shades of grey. We are today faced with the issue of climate change and global warming. As a society, we need to take action or face dire consequences. But we recognise the need for a just transition. Crazy ‘just stop oil’ protesters in their oil-derived eco-leather fail to acknowledge the harm that would be caused if we all went cold turkey on the black gold. Where the right balance lies, I have no clue, but just as much as I do not want islanders under water, I also do not want children freezing to death.

Complex problems rarely have simple solutions, and it feels like the doctor does not at all recognise that there is at least some dilemma here to be considered. Instead, he descends into a notion that only his perspective matters, lashing out at everyone else – the righteous underdog dictating unequivocally what has to happen, regardless of anyone’s concerns. In the original, Dr. Stockmann is determined to stand strong; in the modernisation – the perspective of increased share value seems to have won him over to the other side. That in itself causes a re-evaluation of the entire narrative.

With all its shortcomings, this is a very thought provoking production. I am really glad I went to see it. It was different, it was engaging, it was something I will not quickly forget.