A Doll's House

Rating:
Summary: Sir Tony was terrific in this!
Review: First off: Anthony Hopkins is in this. Or SIR ANTHONY HOPKINS (the definative Dr. Hannibal Lecter from Silence Of the Lambs) If that were all I saw, I would have purchased this film. But, as it turns out there is further merit in a sophisticated plot. A DOLL'S HOUSE is a thrilling drama. When a woman ( Claire Bloom ) is confronted with a little forgery she did - - signing her husband's signature, she expects that he will stand by her. Matter over. But, her husband and their home take on a terrible twist. Dynamic story twists and excellent performances. Based on a play by Henrik Ibsen.

Rating:
Summary: Sir Tony was terrific in this!
Review: First off: Anthony Hopkins is in this. Or SIR ANTHONY HOPKINS (the definative Dr. Hannibal Lecter from Silence Of the Lambs) If that were all I saw, I would have purchased this film. But, as it turns out there is further merit in a sophisticated plot. A DOLL'S HOUSE is a thrilling drama. When a woman ( Claire Bloom ) is confronted with a little forgery she did - - signing her husband's signature, she expects that he will stand by her. Matter over. But, her husband and their home take on a terrible twist. Dynamic story twists and excellent performances. Based on a play by Henrik Ibsen.

Rating:
Summary: Bloom and Hopkins as Ibsen's tormented couple
Review: In 1973 two theatrical version of Henrik Ibsen's classic play "A Doll's House" were filmed. This version, starring Claire Bloom as Nora, won national release, while the other, with Jane Fonda, ended up on ABC television. No other play from the 19th-century continued to be performed as often as "A Doll's House." The story is of what appears to be a normal family, Torvald Helmer (Anthony Hopkins), a bank lawyer, and his wife Nora, and their three small children. Torvald has blithely assumed his wife to be a flighty little thing, but Nora has been creating a facade to please her husband. Then we discover that in the past Nora forged a signature to get money to save her husband's life. When this act is revealed, Torvald is outraged and renounces his wife. Nora finally sees her husband for the miserable fraud he truly is and walks away from him and her children, leaving a stunned Torvald still trying to figure out who he has been married to all these years. Ibsen's play is a major classic of modern drama, one of the first superb character studies that provided a psychological portrait of an actual human being.

As in any production, this version of "A Doll's House" rests on the actress playing Nora. With Bloom's characterization Nora is presented as being more noble than usual; her habit of lying is played down and we get the sense she is clever and cunningly playing the game of being her husband's "doll." However, the result of this approach is less of an emotional range than I would expect with Nora. Hopkins is, as you would expect, fully up to the pompous, hollow figure of Torvald. Indeed, the final scene succeeds largely on his reactions to Nora's departure. For me, choosing between these two 1973 films is pretty much a toss up since I am not overly enamored with either of the interpretations of Nora, although there are parts of both performances that are quite strong. However, Bloom does have the advantage of a better supporting cast. Christopher Hampton wrote the adaptation from Ibsen's play for this film version, which was directed by Patrick Garland.

Rating:
Summary: Bloom and Hopkins as Ibsen's tormented couple
Review: In 1973 two theatrical version of Henrik Ibsen's classic play "A Doll's House" were filmed. This version, starring Claire Bloom as Nora, won national release, while the other, with Jane Fonda, ended up on ABC television. No other play from the 19th-century continued to be performed as often as "A Doll's House." The story is of what appears to be a normal family, Torvald Helmer (Anthony Hopkins), a bank lawyer, and his wife Nora, and their three small children. Torvald has blithely assumed his wife to be a flighty little thing, but Nora has been creating a facade to please her husband. Then we discover that in the past Nora forged a signature to get money to save her husband's life. When this act is revealed, Torvald is outraged and renounces his wife. Nora finally sees her husband for the miserable fraud he truly is and walks away from him and her children, leaving a stunned Torvald still trying to figure out who he has been married to all these years. Ibsen's play is a major classic of modern drama, one of the first superb character studies that provided a psychological portrait of an actual human being.

As in any production, this version of "A Doll's House" rests on the actress playing Nora. With Bloom's characterization Nora is presented as being more noble than usual; her habit of lying is played down and we get the sense she is clever and cunningly playing the game of being her husband's "doll." However, the result of this approach is less of an emotional range than I would expect with Nora. Hopkins is, as you would expect, fully up to the pompous, hollow figure of Torvald. Indeed, the final scene succeeds largely on his reactions to Nora's departure. For me, choosing between these two 1973 films is pretty much a toss up since I am not overly enamored with either of the interpretations of Nora, although there are parts of both performances that are quite strong. However, Bloom does have the advantage of a better supporting cast. Christopher Hampton wrote the adaptation from Ibsen's play for this film version, which was directed by Patrick Garland.

Rating:
Summary: Horrible
Review: This play is my favorite piece of literature, and I was so excited to hear there was a movie version of this out there. The acting is great; all the characters do an awesome job with their parts, but this adaptation doesn't follow the original script. The part when Torvald finds about Nora's loan, I thought, was weak in building the drama. In the play itself, Linde and Kreogstad don't have any real interaction until the end of the play when they go off with each other. I prefer "wonderful thing" instead of "wonderful miracle."
Then the final scene with Hopkins in the room by himself saying, "The most wondserful miracle of all?" I thought it really lacked any true emotion. The was little extra in this DVD, and watching the introduction was really critical to understanding the buildup of suspense. If you don't watch that, the movie will be really boring. Ibsen's message is powerful and still holds true today, but I think the play is a far better choice than the movie.

Rating:
Summary: Another misinterpretation
Review: When I was in college I had a one-on-one course with a professional actor, Bernie Barrow, who was best known to the television audience as the star of a soap opera called Ryan's Hope. He was Ryan. It is funny to think of him as a soap opera actor. He was actually a lot more Shakespearian.

One of the things we concentrated on was A Doll's House. We took it apart. We worked on the blocking, the intention of each line, even the unstated intention behind each line.

Bernie seemed to be a big fan of Bernard Shaw. And Shaw had a unique interpretation of A Doll's House. Shaw thought of this play as a pure comedy about a pair of endearing and funny people, Nora and her stupid husband. I'm paraphrasing. Perhaps Shaw wouldn't describe it this way. But it is what I took out of Shaw's comments.

In any event, and Bernard Shaw aside, though he was my main influence here, I believe that A Doll's House was written as a comedy more than a social statement. Ibsen himself describes it as a comedy. Sure, there are social lessons to be learned. But the play was meant to be funny, as far as I can tell.

That leaves Claire Bloom out of the lead role. It also leaves Jane Fonda out of it. They are both far too serious, not doll-like enough.

We are "supposed to" see Nora Helmer as cute, doll-like, immature, funny. There is a reason that her father and her husband treat her the way they do. She invites it. She is a bit of a ditz. She is not simply their creation. You don't take a daughter like Claire Bloom or Jane Fonda and treat her like a ditz. This "doll" is childlike. You love her, you treasure her, you respect her, but you enjoy her for the childlike girl she is.

Do you remember the tv series Laugh In? Do you remember Goldie Hawn's role, the tattooed dancing girl with the adorable and silly smile? There's your Nora Helmer. Goldie Hawn in Laugh In. There's your doll.

As for her husband, you need a male version of a ditz, a bit of a pompous fool, someone like the father in Mary Poppins.

I would absolutely love to see a version of this play using my interpretation.