The water is supposed to heal, yet it makes people ill. This contradiction sets the political conflict in motion in Henrik Ibsen’s “An Enemy of the People”: the spa doctor Thomas Stockmann discovers that the local spa’s water is contaminated. What calls for a clear medical response threatens an entire town’s economy. Who is protecting the common good here – the man raising the alarm or those seeking to preserve prosperity?
The drama opens at the Münchner Volkstheater on 30 October 2026, directed by Sapir Heller. The play, written in 1882, offers more than the comfortable scenario of an upright individual confronting an intransigent community. It invites us to ask where the legitimate claim to be heard turns into the certainty that one alone has the right to speak for everyone.
A finding is not a mandate
First, two things need to be kept separate: whether Stockmann’s investigation is sound, and what political conclusions follow from it. Contaminated water does not become clean because a majority declares it safe. Conversely, an accurate finding does not answer every question about costs, responsibility and the path to change. Ibsen’s conflict can be read as occupying precisely the space between these two levels.
The spa is a shared source of livelihood. As mayor, Stockmann’s brother Peter represents both the town’s civic order and its economic interests. Nor does the newspaper stand outside this web. Ibsen thus spreads the dispute across institutions, family relationships and material dependencies. Here, the common good is not a neutral possession that someone need only articulate.
For a contemporary reading, this offers a productive distinction: dissent requires the possibility of asserting facts regardless of popular approval. A claim to exclusive possession of the truth, by contrast, turns being right into a sense of all-encompassing superiority. The interesting question is therefore not simply whether Stockmann is right, but what authority he is entitled to derive from that. This is a question addressed to the play, not yet a finding about Heller’s production.
Public debate as theatrical form
The Munich production promises an extension of the drama. In a conversation published by the theatre, actor Carolin Hartmann explains that Heller has added a talk-show format, with Hartmann as host. According to her account, rehearsals also explored the question of what truth people actually want to hear. This raises an expectation: not only arguments, but also the conditions under which they are presented to the public, could become part of the subject matter.
A talk show allocates speaking time, sets topics and places positions in a particular sequence. For this Ibsen production, the question would therefore be whether the format makes evidence distinguishable from assertions or gives them equal standing. How Heller approaches this remains to be seen. The announced form alone does not establish the production’s stance.
Who plays out the dispute
Silas Breiding plays Thomas Stockmann, Pascal Fligg his brother Peter and Genet Zegay Katrine Stockmann. The cast also includes Cedric Stern as Hovstad, Henriette Nagel as Aslaksen and Alexandros Koutsoulis as Billing. The Münchner Kneipenchor adds a collective voice. Anna van Leen is responsible for set and costume design, Gustavo Strauß for composition and music, and David Jäkel for lighting design. The production uses Hinrich Schmidt-Henkel’s translation.
Heller already knows the theatre, not least through “Das hässliche Universum” (The Ugly Universe) by Laura Naumann. Her new production begins at 7.30pm on Bühne 1, Tumblingerstraße 29; further performances are scheduled for dates including 31 October and 4 and 11 November. Ahead of the premiere, the crucial theatrical question remains open: how do positions become people whose claims to what they hold in common contradict one another?
Original reviewed by the editors · 30 October 2026
