GHOSTS - Henrik Ibsen

 

All of the plays I’m looking at are either widely acclaimed as among the greats of all time, or well-regarded recent works. So it feels a bit arrogant to say there were some plotting and pacing aspects of “Ghosts” by Henrik Ibsen that I struggled with, because it’s a great play and widely regarded, right? But I’ll get to that.

By the time Henrik Ibsen had written A Doll’s House in 1879, he was already 20 years deep into his playwriting career and already had 14 plays under his belt. No doubt many of them were quite good. I notice one of them is called “Peer Gynt” (a play with no less than 47 characters - gasp) which I’m guessing the piece of music “Peer Gynt’s Suite” is related to.

Anyway, “A Doll’s House” certainly cranked things up to the next level for Ibsen as it signified his international breakthrough. And, as stated separately, it was met with much controversy. So much in fact, that it was debated in newspapers and guests attending parties were sometimes advised NOT to mention it because of the heated arguments that ensued.

So Ibsen - whose name I thought for some time was Henry Gibson due to mishearing / mislistening - could have been forgiven for resting on his laurels and dialed back the controversy? You’d think. Au contraire, said our Henry (which coincidentally were literally his final words before he kicked the bucket 25 years later, only in his native tongue). You think “A Doll’s House” was controversial? Hold my Norwegian lager, he effectively said. 

How about the story of an intergenerational syphilis sufferer who hooks up with his half-sister and then begs his mother to euthanise him, all of this against the backdrop of women’s mistreatment by the patriarchy, society’s invasion of private lives, prioritising public appearances, hypocrisy, and the pious disingenuity of the church. I know what you’re thinking… seen it all before, it’s a tale as old as time. But no, the story itself is quite new and original. It’s the pacing and the plot near the end that I found problematic… but I’m jumping ahead again.

The story

Digging into the story (and there will be SPOILERS), Mrs Helen Alving has survived her unfaithful husband, the drunken and philandering Captain Alving, who died ten years prior due to complications of syphilis. Despite his poor treatment of her, she is concerned with the public appearance of both her husband and how that will cascade down to her and to Oswald, her son. To protect / rehabilitate his reputation and avoid familial scandal, she decides to fund an orphanage in his name. To do this, she finds herself living a lie to sell the fiction. 

She has enlisted the help of Pastor Manders, a hypocritical, self-righteous clergyman who believes that duty to religion, society, and public appearances trump personal happiness, even if it means living a life of lies. Mrs Alving shares some back story with the good pastor. He was aware of and witness to Captain Alving’s behaviour, had pushed for Mrs Alving to stay with him even when she wanted to leave, and even knew the back story behind the family maid Regina Engstrand (hang in there, I’m getting to that).

Focused as he was on appearances, when the orphanage is built he advises Mrs Alving NOT to insure it as it’s a house of God and would send a mixed message about their faith that God would protect the building. She agrees. Pastor Manders celebrates a prayer meeting at the orphanage that same evening as they decided NOT to insure it and while the forensics haven’t been officially returned, it appears that the candles used at that service started a fire that destroyed the brand-spanking new building in record time for a karmic actions-consequences outcome.

Meanwhile, Oswald has fallen for the house maid Regina, who we discover is really Oswald’s half-sister due to his philandering dad impregnating her mother, the previous maid. Oswald had expressed his love for her and his desire to marry her, and she is all in. But finding out they are siblings puts a damper on that (they are Norwegian, not Tasmanian after all). The marriage and the relationship is off.

Meanwhile, Regina’s erstwhile dad Jacob Engstrand (who was unaware of her biological parentage) offers Pastor Manders a way out of being held responsible for the fire by taking the blame so long as the pastor and his church pays for the Hostel for Sailors he’d long dreamed of creating. To save face, the Pastor agrees. 

And one more meanwhile, we discover that Oswald is now experiencing pronounced symptoms of syphilis and asks his mother that, should the symptoms become unbearable, to assist his dying. She argues against this for a while before finally agreeing, only for Oswald’s state to deteriorate swiftly putting her in a position to follow his request, and her agreement, or not.

Themes and quotes

So there’s a stack to unpack.

The name of the play is particularly well chosen. The direct translation from the Danish isn’t actually Ghosts so much as revenants, or those who return, and in this case it isn’t only referring to returning humans, but the ghosts of ideas and thoughts and beliefs that keep coming back to haunt us.

It was obviously a brave play tackling so many themes and issues in one big basket. 

• Incest

• Church hypocrisy

• Sins of the father (or mother)

• Keeping up appearances

• Sexual promiscuity and syphilis

• Assisted dying

Any one of these could probably score you a decent argument back in the day. Maybe even still. And Ibsen dealt with each quite well. The dialog and discussions flesh out a lot of the philosophical points you’d want to make under each.

Here are some great illustrative quotes from the play:

But this is the very essence of the rebellious spirit, to crave happiness here in this life. What right have we human beings to happiness? No, we must do our duty, Mrs. Alving! 

Pastor Manders

We mustn't stir up any scandal.

Pastor Manders

But I can't stand it any longer, with all these webs of obligation. I can't stand it! I've got to work my way out to freedom

Mrs Alving

When I heard Regina and Osvald in there, it was as if I was seeing ghosts. But I almost believe we are ghosts, all of us, Pastor. It's not only what we inherit from our fathers and mothers that keeps on returning in us. It's all kinds of old dead doctrines and opinions and beliefs, that sort of thing.

Mrs Alving

The sins of the father are visited upon the children.

Oswald Alving

There's the first light of dawn already on the mountains. It's going to be clear, Osvald! In a little while you'll see the sun. 

Mrs Alving

My notes

I liked the play (not that that is important to its quality) but I had some real issues with the pacing, particularly as the play reaches its denouement. I know that this is “stage” and you have around two hours to achieve a lot but some of the story arcs and loops were, for me, too rushed. Here are some examples.

• The timeline of the orphanage being completed, on that same day the decision is made not to insure it and that same night it burning down is a bit… it’s kind of obvious when they decide let’s not insure the place that it’s foreshadowing and the audience is directed to ponder “I wonder if that’s going to come back to bite them.” Yes it does. Very quickly.

• Oswald’s intense love of Regina (intense enough to wish to marry her), and her similar feelings, drift off immediately upon learning they are half-siblings. There is no indication they had acted upon any physical attraction yet, and clearly it’s wise they don’t proceed with the relationship, but they both walk away from the idea largely unupset and not wishing to at least build a strong sibling relationship. If Romeo and Juliet is the supreme case of developing enduring “love” ridiculously quickly and doing anything rather than let it go, Ghosts is the opposite.

• Oswald’s urgency to convince his mum to assist with his dying if the symptoms overcome him was relatively short. She didn’t take a lot of convincing. Even if she WAS to finally arrive at such a dramatic conclusion, surely it would take her a bit to get there?

• Then, having made that decision to assist Oswald with his dying if his health deteriorated dramatically, Oswald’s health deteriorates dramatically, I mean, REALLY quickly, and she is forced to make the call. It felt really rushed.

Condensing those thoughts

Despite those concerns, I quite liked the play. I think all of these scripted options are defensible, don’t need scripting changes and can be solved with acting and directorial choices in how you present them, however I do think the writing choices were dictated by format, and across a longer form (short mini-series?) there would be more realism.

Speaking of which, this play continues Ibsen’s work in realism and naturalism. Like “A Doll’s House” it is set in the middle class… more about people who have servants rather than the servants themselves… but isn’t uncommon given the adage of “write what you know” and middle class is what a lot of playwrights of the day knew. 

There were other criticisms of this play at the time, one being that syphilis cannot be passed from father to child… but there has been a counter argument that it can be passed to the mother as a carrier, with symptoms, who can pass it on to the child. Either way it’s not super important except to the medically inclined and is a maguffin to provide Oswald with his illness and emphasise the concept of the sins of the father being foisted upon the children.

Initial reviews of the shows were damning, and then some. Wrote the Daily Telegraph (the British one) at the time: "Ibsen's positively abominable play entitled Ghosts.... An open drain: a loathsome sore unbandaged; a dirty act done publicly.... Literary carrion... Crapulous stuff.” Geez, don't hold back. And while this contained especially crafted invective, many other reviews leaned in the same direction.

On top of the written script, I watched two versions of this.

On video

The first was the 1987 BBC production with (Dame) Judi Dench as Mrs Alving, a very Stephen Fry sounding Michael Gambon as the Pastor, Kenneth Branagh as Oswald and Natasha Richardson as Regina. It’s available freely on Youtube and is a fairly sombre piece as the subject matter requires.

The other version I saw was the 2013 Almeida Theatre Production performed at Trafalgar Studios, with Lesley Manville as Mrs Alving, Jack Lowden (from Slow Horses) as Oswald. To be honest, I nearly gave up on it in the first 15 minutes with the combination of Brian McCardie’s thick Scottish accent (sorry ancestors) and Charlene McKenna’s high pitched voice I couldn’t make out what they were saying.

But as it progressed I really started to see the potential for a modern, local rendition thanks to the franticness of Manville’s Mrs ALving, and likewise of Lowden’s Oswald, particularly in his final scene. Also, I thought Will Keen’s Pastor Manders highlighted his flaws and character weaknesses better and I thought the staging with translucent rear wall to the kitchen and reflective walls on the sides was very clever.

So, would it work in Goulburn today? I think so. It has such strong themes and debates and some of the dialog is kick-arse. I think it would all come down to the presentation and direction (the two version I saw highlighted how one version may have a significantly different impact on you than another, and making sure you choose the most sympathetic translation available. 

It was, when it came out, a powerful piece of subversive theatre, questioning many of the pillars of society of its time, as good theatre often does. And it still asks questions of some of those matters that are with us still today.

It remains a great work - certainly provocative in its day and potentially still now.

Materials Accessed:

• “Ghosts” script - available many places including at the UK Public Library for free.
• “Ghosts” 1987 BBC production - on Youtube for free.
• “Ghosts” 2013 pro-shot video - performed at the Trafalgar Studios in London and available by subscription at Digital Theatre streaming service.

THINGS I KNOW TO BE TRUE - Andrew Bovell

 

I had expected to go through my list of 100 Great Plays chronologically. There’s some sense to that. The journey would, to some degree, graph the cultural changes in society as it progressed ... discover new techniques and approaches as they are initiated … follow a structure.

BUT… a friend of mine linked me up with the “Australian Plays Transform” website where you can find a bunch of great Aussie Plays. And you can get a free one week trial, and I clicked that button, so here’s me being a cheap skate and trying to squeeze a few plays into that period.

I have to say, I’m VERY glad I watched this play. Quite deliberately, I have ostensibly chosen plays that are new to me which is kind of the point of this as a self-educational process. But as it turned out, “THINGS I KNOW TO BE TRUE” By Andrew Bovell was exactly what I needed at just the right time. And maybe I’ll return to a chronological order, and maybe I won’t, but seeing this in this order worked for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, it followed on from my previous perusal, Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, stylistically as a great example of realism and naturalism (at least in terms of the script and the dialog, presentation can be another thing). And secondly it was a timely reminder to me of a trait I appear to have whereby I can be blown away by something new to me and feel at the time it’s one of the best damn things I’ve seen, only to re-encounter something I’ve seen before and remember how great it was and how big the feels I got from it.

And I REALLY like this trait. It’s kind of the opposite of the junkie-level high-chasing experience I have with movies, where I am forever chasing the hits I got from seminal movie experiences like Star Wars (back before it had episode numbers), spending a lifetime wanting to experience those early experiences of wonder and amazement and just being blown away.

But it seems in theatre I am FREQUENTLY blown away (a by-product of a continued run of great plays and sensational performances that have been equal to the scripts) and often walk away thinking that’s one of the best things I’ve seen. Even if it involves a temporary sense of “no, THIS is the best”, I think I’d rather retain this reaction to always waiting in vain to be blown away again.

To the play

Which brings me to “Things I know to be true,” and the particular emotional attachment I have to it.

I saw this play on 24 August 2022 at the Goulburn Performing Arts Theatre performed by the erstwhile Bladwell Productions troupe, that formed specifically to do this show as a one off, only (to Goulburn’s great fortune) continue for six more plays).

It was the first full length local dramatic (non-musical) production to be staged at GPAC and was all very exciting. It featured several actors I knew a little, and I was especially enthused for my mate Anthony Lewis to have a crack in a non-musical role, having observed his substantial acting chops in that other format for a while.

It was a new show to me (and having experienced very little theatre many shows are) and I had no pre-conceived ideas - and it knocked me over. So emotional, such committed performances… but the words!!! I had thought about cutting pasting samples of dialog here but there’s just so much quality stuff.

Seeing this play was a complete road to Damascus eye opener for me. I probably hadn’t gone out of my way to see unknown (to me) works, the outcome of which is that I was circling around familiar tales and preventing the opportunity for new experiences. Seeing this made me hungry for more.

Bovell’s use of individual monologues for each main character, dotted at almost equal intervals throughout, ensures every character has a role of significance, and counter-balances the many internal tiffs and misunderstandings and explosions of withheld grievances that fill the play. 

The structure of the “Things I know to be true”  is another ingredient in the play’s coherence and poignancy. The sections of the show are broken into the seasons with the appearance of the garden and the work being done on it echoing each season in turn, and the play as a whole is bookended by a phone call that you are tempted to forget about as you are dragged into the story, until it comes back to kick you in the guts. 

On the page, It’s all very well crafted around Bovell’s superb grasp and usage of dialog, Australian (but not jingoistic) vernacular and even the offsetting comic moments (like Bob’s perpetual inability to learn how to use the coffee machine - weaponised ignorance?) that are dropped organically and always successfully,  like the perfect amount of seasoning to enhance but not overpower a meal.

The play deals with the bumpy, messy, loving, hurting and enduring nature of relationships and how we are both nurtured and tortured by them And the title itself is a succinct summary of how, in a world where even the things we know become un known, and we don’t know what to believe, that it leaves us taking stock of the things we know to be true.

To the performances

For me at least, in this play, his words were glorious and as a formative writer, inspiring and the cause of great envy. As I’ve seen this before I can probably just refer to the previous review I did of its powerful Bladwell Productions performance for more information about the story set up and characterisations and themes. 

But as much as I liked that first production… loved it in fact… bugger me dead if the version I saw from the Lyric at Hammersmith didn’t knock me on my arse again, full feels and full tears. Just as powerful, just as affecting, all over again.

Without making comparisons, I think one of the elements that worked extremely well in both productions is that the heavy-on-realism and naturalism script was accompanied by quite symbolic movement and staging, making it all that much more theatrical and enthralling.

There’s no real point in me offering an opinion on whether this could work in Goulburn today. Yes it did. Brilliantly. I’ve seen several other Bovell plays. All of them have been good. Several have been exceptional, including this one.

Materials accessed:

• "Things I know to be true" script - Australian Plays Transform website, free if using one week trial.
• "Things I know to be true" pro-shot video - performed at the Lyric Hammersmith in London and available by subscription at Digital Theatre streaming service.
• "Things I know to be true" theatrical review of the Bladwell Productions performance at the GPAC in Goulburn in August 2022 (and written by me).

A DOLL'S HOUSE - Henrik Ibsen

I started the “100 Plays in 365 Days” with the first, and oldest, play on the list - A DOLL’S HOUSE (1879) by Henrik Ibsen. It seemed appropriate as the story opens on Christmas Eve and continues into Christmas. Early warning, there will be SPOILERS but as the play is 146 years old I imagine people can’t say “Oh but I was going to read that.” Also, this is FAR beyond the detail I will include for most of the 100 Plays. Some may just get two sentences. Or nothing. Put this one down to initial exuberance. And if you're gluttons for punishment, hit the follow button at the top of the right hand column to be alerted when there are new posts.

Ibsen is regarded as “the father of realistic drama” as he valued realistic representations of the world as it is. That realism aims to represent unheroic contemporary life with characters speaking in a close approximation of everyday language, rather than the (at the time) more frequent benighted and heightened depictions in theatre of how things should be. Realistic or not, however, this was still almost 150 years ago so one of my concerns with A Doll’s House was whether it might not work so well in a contemporary setting due to dated dialog, structure and societal norms. Would it work, for instance, in Goulburn today. I’ll get to that.

To study the play I also looked at the  2013 Pro-Shot video of the play staged at the Old Vic, the 1973 Losey film starring Jane Fonda, and the written text.

Starting with the Script

One of the first things that jumps off the page from A Doll’s House is the very detailed list of stage directions. He describes very specific room settings and prop placements from the very first page. I guess it’s an ongoing debate/discussion in theatre circles about overdoing stage directions… many of “the greats” are quite elaborate (Tennessee Williams, Beckett, Shaw, O’Neill and Pinter among others). Actors and Directors will often prefer the ability to make their own undictated decisions. In my ignorance, I wonder if Ibsen’s approach was typical of his time, although there are many who have continued that practice since.

I’ll start with the written play. Bear in mind that the original was written in Norwegian so any version of it I’d read would be a translation.

The beauty of seeing several iterations of the story are the differences of interpretations. Each provides a very different vibe and feel. I was actually pleasantly surprised at how the dialog stands up. The conversations, particularly between Torvald and Nora, wouldn’t for the most part be out of place in more modern pieces, if perhaps a bit trad-wifey 

The setup (pre-play)... Torvald had taken ill and needed to move somewhere warmer than Norway (ie anywhere) as the cold was endangering his health. With no money to make this happen, Nora uses extraordinary methods (she forges her father’s signature) to secure a loan and then years later, upon return, solicits money from Torvald and any means she can find to make repayments. Generally it is believed that her father helped her out financially and the first we find out differently is when her slightly accusatory friend diminishes how easily life has gone for Nora with everything landing at her feet.

A slow start

As an audience member, I felt the story seemed a bit dry and unengaging for much of the first act… a slice of life for Nora and Torvald and a bit of a non-story to be honest. But once the stakes increase, as Nora begins to feel increasingly trapped, it becomes more compelling.

Ibsen punctuates the rising conflict with Nora frantically dancing the tarantella before her husband, partly to distract him from checking his mail that contains a letter that threatens to expose her, and partly to visually display the tension she is experiencing. It’s a clever use of movement that echoes her emotional state and elevates audience engagement at an important moment.

The final portion of the play comes at the audience thick and fast. Torvald’s proclamation of endearing love for his wife, followed by his judgement on how terrible Krogstad’s deceit had been, rapidly followed by Torvald’s even judgier turn on Nora complete with the punishment he would mete out to her (his first 180 turn) - letting her know she would not be allowed to be involved with her children, or play an active role in society, or have a say in HIS house at all.

But then it turns again. When a subsequent letter reveals there will be no blackmail or retribution regarding the loan and forged signature, Torvald performs another Olympic level 180. Whoops, silly me, did I really say all of those horrible things to you Nora? Just overlook that. Got a bit carried away. We’re all good?

But they are not all good. Nora had been feeling tightly constrained and controlled for the whole play (and through exposition, under her father and throughout all of her married life). The full-bore version of Torvald’s control and judgement fully stated, coupled with the removal of the blackmail and debt she had been fearing for many years, led her to a sudden but complete epiphany. 

In short, she realised “I don’t need this s#^t.” The latter part of the second act is peppered with criticisms and diminishment of Nora by Torvald.The control she had received all of her life. The constrictions, the control, the removal of agency… it had all been swirling in her mind but just at arm’s length but was now brought into stark focus.

Nora decided then and there that she was leaving. Torvald tries his best, begs her to change her mind. Nope, I’m outta here. She leaves him and the kids and says never contact me again as she sets about discovering who she really is.

Controversy and quotes

Not being an expert on 19th century Norwegian societal norms I can’t really say with certainty what would or would not have been shocking at the original time of performance. I imagine a woman wanting independence and agency and to not be controlled by a man at that time (and in ANY place) would have been controversial. Leaving your kids behind would still be controversial and I can only imagine even moreso then.

It was apparently so controversial when it was first being performed that it was not uncommon for people attending parties to be advised to NOT bring up A Doll's House. Amazingly, some of it's questions still ruffle feathers all of these years later.

Stirring up that controversy are some absolute bangers of dialog in the play, with many of the lines that highlight what Nora was up against belonging to Torvald:

“The Christmas tree must be beautiful. I’ll do everything that you like, Torvald. I’ll sing for you, dance for you… (Nora accepting that she must continually sacrifice herself for Torvald’s happiness).

 

“From now on happiness doesn’t matter; all that matters is the appearance.” (Torvald letting Nora know her punishment and how things are going to be from now on).

 

“I understand… you can’t believe I’ve forgiven you.” (An unironically condescending Torvald after he has ripped into her and then feels he deserves praise for his forgiveness).

“When a husband forgives his wife, she becomes his in a double sense. She becomes his wife and his child.” (Again, Torvald saying Torvald things).

 

“You’re dancing as if your life depended on it.” (Torvald again - underscoring exactly what Nora is experiencing).

“You have a sacred duty… to your husband, to your children, to your position as a mother and wife. (Torvald in a tanty near the end when his control of Nora fails).

“I have another, equally sacred duty. My duty to myself. (BANG. Nora nailing her response).

“I believe that I am first and foremost a human being, like you – or anyway, that I must try to become one. I know most people think as you do, Torvald, and I know there’s something of the sort to be found in books. But I’m no longer prepared to accept what people say and what’s written in books. I must think things out for myself, and try to find my own answer. (Nora’s eventual new life manifesto).

Does the text stand up?

As to the written word, I think the translated dialog stands up very well all these years later. I think the increase of put-downs and diminishments by Torvald towards the end was well-timed by the writer. If it had been so heavily overlaid early in the play I’d imagine the audience would be yelling out “leave him.”

The criticisms and destabilisation increases towards the denouement however Torvaled does use variations of the pretty display bird description… skylark, sparrow and dove… repeatedly throughout, symbolising Torvald’s minimisation and objectification of Nora as little more than a possession, a doll.

It’s a slow starter, and some of the customs and attitudes are historical artefacts. Some may struggle with the sudden certainty of Nora’s decision, and I found the relationship between Kristine and Krogstad rushed, but really there’s not much I could think of that didn’t work.

Mostly the themes still hold true today, which is a bit of an indictment when so many of them are rooted in very dated societal expectations for women such as the disparity in power, say and agency between married men and women.

Among the themes are the role of patriarchal and patronising relationships and marriage, the sacrificial role of women, the lack of independence of women, coercive control, forced conforming of women, parental responsibilities, the sacrifice of dreams in subordination to partners, the imbalance in financial say in some relationships and the stifling of hidden ability. As Ibsen lived in a very patriarchal society he may not have intended to address women’s rights but regardless of his intent this is at least a proto-feminist play.

Do modern performances stand up?

But that all refers to the written (and translated) script. Performances of the show can provide greater insight into its performance opportunities. Overall, to the question of whether this could work and be enjoyed by audiences in Goulburn today, I think it could be. Particularly if the production borrowed heavily from the Young Vic production.

I was lucky enough to see two different versions of this which give some bearing on how it could be performed in more modern times. There have been 10 films and five television adaptations. There has even been a sequel, “A Doll’s House, Part 2” written in 2017. The two performances I was able to get my hands on were the 1973 film directed by Joseph Losey, and the 2012 pro-shot by the Young Vic theatre in London.

The Losey version takes a few liberties with the script. The first 20 minutes shows things that have already happened before the play, and also quite a few scenes are set in the snow covered streets and fields of Norway (might as well use them if you’re there, right).

This version featured Jane Fonda as Nora and David Warner as Torvald. Fonda had already made 20 films before this including the Academy Award / Golden Globe winning role in Klute and, despite being something of a Hollywood “It” girl, was very much of a mind to challenge herself with weighty roles.

It’s a fine performance by her, and David Warner against her gave a very commendable turn as a very cold and distant interpretation of Torvald.

I found the Young Vic performance much more nuanced and engaging.Firstly the set is amazing. I’ve become a fan of simple sets in recent years but this set, an actual replication of an entire unit that can turn on a very large revolve showing perspective from the different rooms… very much like a Doll’s House. It’s a superb accomplishment and adds substantially to the claustrophobia of Nora’s existence and the overall story telling. 

Hattie Morahan, as Nora, is mesmerising. Partly playing the role as a provocative temptress driven in mood from silliness to defensiveness, she is at times a flibbertigibbet and a will-o-the-wisp, if not a clown. Opposite her is Dominic Rowan, who plays a less cold but equally distracted version of Torvald, reminiscent of Colin Firth’s Mark Darcy in the Bridget Jones Diary films, while sounding all the while exactly like Kenneth Branagh.

Other significant aspects of this version: 

• it plays up Nora’s flirtation with, and the declaration of love by Dr Rank

• Nora’s tarantella is more frantic and more closely echoes her internal turmoil.

• While Torvald’s as a more distracted rather than cold husband makes his character more palatable in the early stages, it makes for a delicious turn when his coercive control becomes blatant by the end.

Final thoughts

So… A Doll’s House is still a play with performing and watching. While dated, its themes are still relatable and relevant. It IS in my opinion worthy of being called one of the great plays, not only for its initial impact and influence, but on its worth to be performed today.

Materials utilised.

• A Doll's House script - available for free online at Amazon Australia and elsewhere
• A Doll's House (1973) - movie version available on Tubi streaming service for free.
• A Doll's House (2013) - Pro-shot capture of the stage performance at the Young Vic in London, viewable by subscription to Digital Theatre.