A Doll's House

When I first watched this movie, it was with my mom, and she brought up a good point. While not condoning Torvald's attitude (personally, I couldn't stand him), she said that he couldn't treat Nora like a woman when she acted so much like a child. While it's true, he seemed to prefer it that way, the fact remains that if she had behaved like a mature woman, a wife and mother of two young children, he would have been forced to acknowledge that and most likely wouldn't have referred to her in front of company as "my little songbird", and the like.

Too often Nora comes off as silly, like when she's showing off the clothes she's going to wear on her trip with Torvald to her friend, Kristine, it comes off more as a kid sister showing off her dress for the dance, than two friends of around the same age having a talk. Later, when the family physician, Dr. Rank, whom Nora regarded as an uncle (again showing her little girl persona), reveals his love for her (as a woman, not a niece), she can't handle it and wants to pretend it doesn't exist. She wants nothing to upset her applecart.

The apples are forced to tumble when she's confronted by how Torvald really feels about her actions, which were done out of love, but he refuses to give her a break, to even try to understand. Suddenly, the little girl has to grow up.

I would have liked the story better if the children had been Torvald's from a first marriage, so Nora wouldn't actually be leaving her own children, and this to me weakened the story. Unless it's meant to show that Nora was so childlike that she didn't have actual maternal feelings for her children, they were just sources of amusement, like toys.

My real interest in this movie was the relationship between Nils and Kristene. Nils starts out as the villain and ends up as the lovelorn hero. Kristene was seen to have made a heartbreaking sacrifice for her family and was not the gold-digger Nils thought her to be.

A good movie, based on Ibsen's good play, and both give you things to think about.

I saw both the Claire Bloom and Jane Fonda versions, and there is simply no comparison.

Bloom - No monotone in her voice, voice is NOT flat and emotionless, you can understand what she is saying because she doesn't speak at a hundred miles an hour, and her performance is believable. She changes her voice's intonation so it doesn't sound like a robot recording.

Fonda - Exact opposite I was stunned to find out that Fonda actually got good reviews for her performance. Let's take the final scene for example. When she tells Torvald to check his mail, she says very flatly, "YoushouldcheckyourmailTorvald." Had I not known what she was saying from having discussed this play in class and seen the Claire Bloom version, there is no way I would have known what she said. This pattern continues. I was ready to shoot myself having to watch such an emotionless failure that Fonda presents.

And as for Hollywood changing the scenes around, can't they simply leave a story alone? They didn't write A Doll House (NOT A Doll's House, this implies possession, and Nora - the doll - possesses NOTHING) so why can't they just leave the script alone? Watch the Claire Bloom version. She and Anthony Hopkins played their roles very well. My only complaint about that version is the mistake in the title

This film version of "A Doll's House" was made around the same time as the (somewhat better) one with Claire Bloom and Anthony Hopkins. As Bloom's film wound up in limited theatrical release, the Losey/Fonda version was only shown on TV.

Losey's film is not a typical filmed play (like the Bloom version), and fills in scenes only referred to in Ibsen's text. Fonda's performance is interesting in that her Nora displays a self-awareness of the role she is playing to her husband, which makes her final scene quite believable. However, Fonda's overall manner is too contemporary for a 19th Century wife.

The rest of the cast is variable. Torvald needs to be played by someone with some surface charm, but David Warner is one of the least charming actors alive. Delphine Seyrig and Tervor Howard are wonderful.

A mixed bag, but worth a look. The Claire Bloom film is better acted overall.

With a feminist Nora, an icy Torvald, and a drunken Dr Rank, this adaptation perhaps tries too far to be a film version of the classic Ibsen play, setting scenes before and outside of the play (such as Nora's loan and Christina's past) rather than keeping strictly to the text.

Jane Fonda is a 1970s Nora, not as flighty as other actresses have played her, but still as determined in the final scenes. David Warner is an emotionless Torvald, which makes his awakening to the realities of his marriage hit home, while Trevor Howard is a less cultured Rank than Ralph Richardson in the other 1973 version of the play.

Well-worth watching, and with beautiful settings deep in the Scandanavian snow, this 'Doll's House' is just as interesting as any filmed play, and sits well alongside the Claire Bloom/Anthony Hopkins version.

I have been using this film to supplement my teaching of the play to literature classes for a dozen or more years, and it has always been my contention that Jane Fonda was born to play Nora Helmer. She is, as another reviewer has observed, most convincing in the final scene, when Ibsen metaphorically slams the door on conventional marriage--in 19th century Europe, at least. But Fonda's take on Nora is always fascinating, whether she is sneaking macaroons, flirting with Dr. Rank, or dancing the tarantella. Clare Bloom as Nora, in the other film version of the play, is also worth a look, but less is demanded of her than of Fonda, who must convey Nora's progress from schoolgirl to child bride to fully enfranchised adult. One reservation, however: while I don't mind Losey's tampering with the sequencing of the play--such is the license accorded to filmmakers--I do feel that the dialogue in the early scenes, absent from Ibsen's text except as exposition, is awkwardly scripted. Otherwise, this is a winner all around.