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.