In any modernization, adaptation, or performance of a story, I believe the most important thing is preserving its central themes. I went into this play completely blind, unaware of what was about to unfold. As the show went on, I found myself surprised, confused, and a bit unsettled by some of the choices (hello freaky dance scene!), but still intrigued by the story and impressed by the outstanding acting. I mean, truly, impeccable performances. At intermission, I asked friends who had read the original how this version compared, and they told me confidently that it was almost nothing like Ibsen’s play. Which was a bit initially disappointing for me since I have loved his work in Hedda Gabler and the modern performance of that play I had seen last year!
Now after reading the original script, I understand why A Doll’s House was so ahead of its time. Ibsen daringly exposed the toxic expectations that shaped many marriages through the dialogue and unspoken social rules behind every interaction. In the 1800s, the idea of a woman being trapped, controlled, and treated like a doll was evidently clear. However, bringing that message into a modern setting requires a delicate balance. Today, many women have more visible choices, so an adaptation must show not only what has changed, but also what struggles have lingered and still remain.
I am glad I read the original script after seeing the production because it helped fill in a few of the gaps I felt while watching, as well as expanded the intention of the theme.
That being said, the message is still powerful. When a woman is reduced only to a wife or mother, she is stripped of her autonomy and humanity. Often, society teaches men to see women this way, while also convincing women that it is all they are meant to be. I thought the production made some interesting choices to explore this. The lack of furniture created a stripped-down stage that forced us to focus on the dialogue, blocking, and physical movement. I especially noticed how often Nora sat on the ground while speaking to Torvald, physically beneath him. In the final scene, though, Torvald is the one on the ground, holding the monitor with their children’s laughter, while Nora stands above him. To me, this reversal and ambiguous ending suggested that Nora now has a choice. She is not necessarily penniless or completely ruined if she leaves (like how it would have been in the 1800s etc); she can make her own way in the world.
Still, I felt that the adaptation weakened some of the original’s meaning. In Ibsen’s version, Nora’s entrapment is tied to her father, her husband, and the role she has been TAUGHT to perform. In this version, the doll imagery was clear through the nurse’s costume, but a bit less effective because Nora seemed to choose it herself. I would have loved to see a bit more of how this action was manifested into her own will. Just like how women were taught to behave like perfect gentlewomen back in the 1800s, many women today are given the impression they must perform to get what they want from men. I thought the play could have explored this just a bit more. After reading the original and understanding how Nora’s father also controlled her and treated her like a doll, I wish the adaptation had included more of that dialogue and more clearly shown why Nora felt pressured to perform in order to keep her place as a wife/mother. (I did think that the inclusion of sex as the main appeal of their love/marriage versus societal expectations to have a family was a clever and tasteful modern take!)
Overall, it was an interesting and entertaining adaptation. Now seeing this show, I’d love to see a true version of the play with it’s proper blocking and set design, and compare them, as I am still a bit unsure of where I stand as far as how it is portrayed as an adaptation. Nevertheless, it was a thoughtful and compelling performance.
Theatre in London U of A 