Maison de poupée

This film version of Henrik Ibsen's classic dramatizes events only spoken about in the play, which makes the opening very slow. They do get down to the business of plot, but you don't get an immediate sense for the story and characters. Additionally, there are location scenes which distract from the characterizations. So, you could say "A Doll's House" with Jane Fonda (as Nora) spends too little time in the house. Director Joseph Losey sometimes has cinematographer Gerry Fisher's camera glide (but not dance) like Ms. Fonda.

Another version, with Claire Bloom in the "Nora" role, was released earlier in the year. Filmmakers were correct in assuming moviegoers might not be interested in seeing this material twice. Although Fonda was a relatively good box office draw (and excellent actress) her version misses the target, and was sent directly to US television. Delphine Seyrig, herein playing "Kristine Linde", would probably have better played the elusive Nora; if Greta Garbo hadn't retired, her hoped-for version would have proved unassailable.

***** A Doll's House (8/24/73) Joseph Losey ~ Jane Fonda, David Warner, Edward Fox, Delphine Seyrig

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.

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.

Director Joseph Losey and screenwriter David Mercer's adaptation of Ibsen's symbolism-heavy play was an independent co-production between the UK and France. "A Doll's House" premiered in the US at the New York Film Festival in October 1973, but a month later was already making its debut on American television. One can see right away why no one was duly impressed: squarely-filmed on-location in Roros, Norway, it's a pasty-looking enterprise, enervating and unevenly performed. The story of marriage, morals and money matters in 1890s Norway is an interesting one, but here the central character doesn't come off. As Nora, the bank manager's wife who secretly owes money to another man, Jane Fonda is fluttery-dull and one-dimensional (this was during her "box office poison" years following her protest of the Vietnam War, and Fonda just phones it in). Feminists of the time gravitated towards Nora because of her third-act decision to leave her husband and children in order to find herself; however, when Fonda gives her big speech at the end, she doesn't sound assured, coming off instead as muddled and wifey-foolish. Stage actresses for decades have longed for a part like Nora, but Fonda does nothing special with her. In support, dying doctor Trevor Howard seems chilled by the location's climate (he's always bundled up and walking woodenly), while David Warner is way over-the-top as Nora's spouse (he bellows, capitulates, and then falls into a condescending whisper). Delphine Seyrig upstages all three of the "star names" playing Nora's widowed girlfriend (consequently, the bank manager's put-down of her in private sounds particularly ugly). The film is a personal disaster for Losey, who tries disguising the material's stage origins by giving us intermittent shots of the snowy streets and bustling crowds, yet the whole thing looks tatty and rings false. Losey was beaten to the punch, anyway, by a competing British production starring Claire Bloom, which opened four months prior, garnering positive reviews. *1/2 from ****

"A Doll's House" is a film based on the play by Henrik Ibsen. The story focuses on the lives of Nora and Torvald Helmer and those around them and challenges the norms of marriage in the Victorian era.

This adaptation features a notable cast. Jane Fonda effectively captured the fluttery yet ultimately strong character of Nora. David Warner was appropriate to play the villain role as he often does. Trevor Howard is excellent as Dr. Rank and likewise Edward Fox and Delphine Seyrig were solid as Krogstad and Kristine.

As an adaptation of a great play, though, this film leaves something to be desired. Many unnecessary scenes were added that were not in the play, which led to problems. In added scenes, information is revealed at the start of the film which is not normally learned until later in the play. Ibsen wrote the play in such a way that the history of the characters is ambiguous and slowly revealed. Providing background information on the characters before the main events of the play dampened the element of surprise that adds a lot of interest to the play.

Another problem was that adding scenes or drawing out sequences lowered the tension compared to Ibsen's play, particularly toward the end. Also unfortunate was the fact that they unnecessarily added a handful of extra locations not seen in the play and modified a lot of the dialogue. The original structure and dialogue of the play is already perfect, so any changes only made this film worse. It would have been nice to see the cast of this film with a script that closely followed Ibsen's original work. Despite these flaws the main ideas of the story were intact and this is a watchable adaptation, but disappointing given its deviations from the original play.