The Play The Dolls House by Ibsen - Essay Example

The play “The Doll’s House” by Ibsen basically tells a story of Nora, the wife to Torvald Helmer who despite being an adult lives like a child while being treated by her husband as a doll. In this regard, her husband expects her to be happy living the kind of life her husband has created for her. Since its first performance, the play “the Doll House” has seen various productions as a play, all of which have occasioned a number of changes either in the original play’s setting, characters or even flow. In this article, I will be contrasting and comparing the original written version with a number of its subsequent live performances. In doing so, I will endeavor to analyze a number of aspects touching on the variation of those live performances from the original written version. In this regard, I will look at the variations that exist between the original Ibsen’s version and two of its subsequent productions. The two, a Churchill production that was performed at the Tivoli, Wimborne in 2010 and the Zinnie Harris production that was performed in Donmar, London, have their own inherent variations that can best be explained by a number of factors but most prominently, the time that they were set. Of particular interest will be the exploration of the probably reasons behind those variations. Churchill production performed on 2010 in Tivoli, Wimborne Churchill production which was performed at the Tivoli in Wimborne 2010 is a better starting point in this analysis has it is one of the few brilliant performances of this play that have received the publicity and prominence similar to that of the original version. In this onstage adaptation of the “Doll House,” Jan Wyld, true to his form, provides a more feted performance this time as Nora Helmer. Mark Ritchie on the other hand captures the character Torvald Helmer to perfection – demanding, patronizing, and completely egocentric with absolutely no understanding of his wife on a person basis, but just a charming possession. Frances Aspinal on the other hand made Kristine more intelligent and sensitive than majority of subsequent versions. Graham Haigh performance as the ailing Dr. Rank also ought to be commended, not to mention Andy Oldfield depiction of the complex character of Krogstad. In this performance, both Andy (Krogstad) and Graham (Dr. Rank) appears to speak in short bursts. However, these stunted bursts seem to disappear as the plays continues probably because they continue to relax as the play proceeds. Of particular interest in this performance is the way Torvald treat her wife Nora as a plaything, even addressing her either as “squirrel” or “lark,” which shockingly Nora seems to play along. Of the many differences between the two, the most obvious of them can be found in both the character introduction and the wording. Another obvious difference is the number of acts in both of them. While Ibsen’s written version has three acts, Churchill production performance has two. The settings in both versions are however remarkably similar with minimal notable differences. While Ibsen written version introduces the three children of Helmer later in the play, Churchill production performance introduces them almost immediately the first acts kicks-off. In Schaefer’s film version the three children appears almost simultaneously with their mother Nora who is arriving from shopping at which point she gives them chocolate macaroons that she has brought them from her shopping. As for Ibsen’s written version, we see Nora arriving home at which point she sneaks a chocolate macaroon with no sight of the children. In the first act of Ibsen’s written version, we see Nora telling the delivery boy “there’s a crown. No, keep the change (Ibsen, 1, 3).” In the film, we only see the delivery boy carrying the Christmas tree with absolutely no conversation between the two taking place. Another remarkable difference between the two can be seen in Ibsen written version, where we have Torvald offering Nora some money ostensibly so that she does not become “sulky squirrel (Ibsen, 1, 24), a part that has been omitted in the Churchill production performance. The wordings used in the two versions can also be used to expose another source of variation, and especially between the characters; Nora and Kristine. In Ibsen’s written version, Kristine is heard explaining how his late husband left her absolutely nothing, “not even a sense of loss to feed on (Ibsen, 1,108).” This is slightly different to Churchill production performance is Kristine words to the effect that “not even grief” are anything to go by. This difference however can be downplayed as the sentences involved carry almost similar meaning despite their difference in wording. Another difference can be found in the confrontation between Kristine and Nora. Throughout this confrontation in Churchill production performance nowhere do we have Kristine walking towards the window, nor the two (Kristine and Nora) of them telling each other to maintain each other calm. Instead, their entire conversation is conducted while they are sitting down. In fact, nowhere in the entire conversations that Nora makes to the women in the Churchill production performance do we see her going into details, all what we hear is her explanation that go like, “I found new ways of making money......like copying, (Ibsen, 1 112)” which is not the case with Ibsen’s written version. While Ibsen’s written version has Nora detailing the story of an elderly man leaving behind his money, Churchill production performance does not have such a scene. When Krogstad is introduced in the Churchill production performance, all what he does is to acknowledge Nora before being ushered in to see Nora’s husband, with absolutely no presentation of a clue of Nora and Krogstad relationship as is the case with Ibsen’s written version if words from Nora like “You? What is it? Why do you want to speak to my husband? (Ibsen, 1,219)” that she uttered to Krogstad are anything to go by. In the Ibsen written version, we have Kristine saying that she came to know of Krogstad ages ago with absolutely no reference of Nora. However, in the Churchill production performance, Kristine just says that both she and Nora came to know of Krogstad ages ago. The portrayal of the character Krogstad in the Churchill production performance is that of a relatable character which is slightly different with Ibsen’s written version where we see him as more of a blackmailer who is desperate to keeping his job. In the Churchill production performance one can see Krogstad explaining to Nora how his involvement in shady deal at the bank was occasioned by a desire to provide for his four kids after the death of their mother. This kind of an explanation is however lacking in Churchill production performance. In fact, the menacing character of Krogstad in the plays version does not appear like it can have time for an explanation similar to the one in Churchill production performance. The Churchill production performance also lacks the second confrontation, which has been perfectly captured in the Ibsen’s written version. Another source of difference between Ibsen written version and Churchill production performance can be found in the nature of relationship that Dr. Rank and Nora have. In the case of the play, the relationship of the two is more immoral which is different with the Churchill production’s innocent mien that the relationship assumes (Churchill Production, 2010, 1). While we have Nora showing Dr. Rank her stocking in the Ibsen’s play version, nothing of that nature happens in the Churchill production performance. In the play version we have Nora explaining to Dr. Rank how her husband is comparable to his father particularly because of the love that he has showered her with (Churchill Production, 2010, 1). She however point out how his husband is always trying to change her according to his desire before finally stating how she has always taken Dr. Rank more of a maid than a person who can be considered for a serious romantic relationship. Looking at the film version one cannot fail to note the omission of this comparing dialogue, which I attribute it to the Churchill production version desire of not being interested in giving the relationship of Nora and Dr. Rank a lot of attention, but instead giving it increased focus on Nora evolution as an individual. Despite all these differences in both the Churchill production performance and Ibsen’s written version it is surprising to note how similar their endings are. In this regard, the film version has ensured an almost word to word dialogue with the play version in the final section. The film has also managed to expertly depict an almost perfect evolution of Nora just as Ibsen constructed it in Ibsen’s written version. The Churchill production performance interprets an excellent visual aspect of the final act of epiphany as far as Nora is concerned. There is no doubt that the Churchill production performance is an excellent adaptation of Ibsen’s written version, which can also be said of the setting in the Churchill production. Zinnie Harris 1909 adaptation performed in London Just as with majority of its adaptation, the Zinnie Harris adaptation of Ibsen’s Doll’s House is intimate. There is no doubt that the setting and also the costume in this adaptation are excellent. Changed from the 1800’s Norway to 1909 Edwardian England, the setting is particularly excellent. It is also fair to say that the “sense of reaching for more,” which is a common phenomenon in acting, has been suppressed to acceptable levels in this particular adaptation which is slightly different from Churchill production performance. The phenomenal performance of Gillian Anderson as Nora in this particular adaptation is one thing that has been a subject of intense discussion. From the first scene all the way the last minute, Gillian remains Nora as was conceive by Ibsen. Each and every nuance, movement and even vocal inflection is no doubt very much in tandem with Ibsen’s conception. Gillian remains Nora in the entire play, not even once does she gives the audience reasons to think of herself as Gillian. She is faithful to the character Nora in the entire plays in an amazing way, especially considering the performance of others, and particularly Churchill production performance, who have played that character in a subsequent adaptation. In my opinion, that was superb and also very rare. No one can dispute the idea that she was able to own her performance while still managing to command the stage, which ironically is the one area that has been greeted with the most intense criticism in the whole adaptation (Churchill Production, 2010, 1). Tara Fitzgerald performance as Kristine Linde in this play is also commendable. However, that of the rests of the character in this production appeared stilted when put next to Gillian’s pitch-perfect-performance. Zinnie Harris adaptation also encountered problems with offering a three side. In some seats, audience in those seats could only see the back of certain characters which was unfortunate especially bearing in mind the perfection that a number of subsequent versions and particularly Churchill production performance, have adapted. The jarring differences between this particular production and the written one by Ibsen are clear, which can be attributed to the variation in acting training. This is because the formal acting training that majority of actors in this adaptation had gotten had to have an effect on this play. In fact, almost all plays that were being staged in UK at the time of this adaptation were products of very modern acting training. Although a wonderful thing to have a touch of formal acting training, UK actors in the case of Zinnie Harris adaptation have been accused of lacking what we can only call “true emotion (Templeton, 2001, 36).” Unlike the case with Churchill production performance, this particular adaptation can be said to have “true emotion,” which is basically a connection with the characters’ emotions that guarantees an honest portrayal of the play that is truthful not only to the characters emotions but also the reactions to surroundings, other characters and situations. Work Cited: Churchill Production, A doll’s House by Ibsen. 18th November 2010. Retrieved on 2nd May 2012 from http://inside.churchillproductions.co.uk/post/1609450511/a-dolls- house-by-henrick-ibsen Ibsen, Henrik. “A Doll’s House.”London: J.M. Dent & Sons LTD, 1958. Templeton, Joan. “The Doll House Backlash: Criticism, Feminism, and Ibsen”. Modern Language Association of America. 104. 1 (2001): 28-40 Read More