Drama: \"A Doll\'s House,\" by Henrik Ibsen

DOLL'S HOUSE: FILM AND TEXT

The one play that seriously endured criticism and lasted much longer than anticipated was Henrik Ibsen's Doll's house. For some strange reason, people continue to read this play and directors/producers enjoy enthralling the viewers with cinematic versions of this play. And if that is not enough, the play is regularly played on Broadway. There indeed is an enduring quality about the play that gives it a universal meaning and every woman especially married ones feel they can relate to the central character Nora. But as with all cinematic adaptations of play, Doll's house's various versions have shown inconsistencies in the depiction of the central character. The husband's character has remained more or less static primarily because it doesn't undergo a transformation in the play and basically doesn't evolve. On the other hand, Nora's character takes a 360-degree turn at the end and we see a new completely transformed version of once subdued wife of Helmer.

The story is brilliantly built up for the twist near the end of the play. Nora, the simple and rather naive wife, of Torvald Helmer considers herself lucky to have married a man who adores her and whom she loves dearly. On the surface, everything is absolutely as it should be, two people are deeply in love with each other and they are leading a peaceful life. But it is when the story progresses that one realizes how the male leading character is taking advantage of his wife. Poor Nora is always made to believe that she should consider herself fortunate for having found a husband as perfect as Helmer and Nora worships him believing that he was like a god who could not do anything wrong. She is of the view that her husband is the perfect example of a man with upright shining morals, as Helmer was never seen doing anything socially unacceptable.

But as the story progresses, we notice dramatic contradictions in the character of Helmer unfolds slowly and gradually. The wife realizes that the on man whom everyone despised in the area was not being thrown out of the bank where her husband was the supervisor because of his immoral character but because her husband had some old grudge against him. Nils Krogstad was a man with a rather checkered past but he was trying to make up for his past mistakes. A job at the bank was his first step in the right direction but Helmer, for his own selfish reason, tries to throw him out of work.

That is when Nora realizes how naive and absolutely foolish she had been about her husband and her duties. "You and father have done me a great wrong. It's your fault that my life has been wasted."

In the 1973 film version of the play, Claire Bloom played the central lead role of Nora while Anthony Hopkins played Helmer. Patrick Garland directed the movie and Christopher Hampton wrote its screenplay. This was a time when women's movement was at its peak so the director knew the film version would appeal to the people. In the same year, Jane Fonda starred in the competing cinematic version of this play making it harder for people to understand which portrayal of Nora was more faithful to the actual character. Hilard Elkins produced the film who was incidentally also Claire Bloom's husband.

The screenplay by Hampton was extremely close to the actual play since screenwriter had already worked on the stage version of the play. The film was nicely shot though there were some additions and subtractions that were meant to highlight the final message. The film is restricted to the interiors and manages to capture the one-day action of the play properly. Camera shots move from one room to another but mainly remain within the interiors of the house, and the director chose to add a Christmas ball scene too where Nora is shown dancing the tarantella.

Good camera work is obvious from the some amazing shots of the dancing Nora that depict her inner turmoil. Since all emotions were to be captured on the screen, the camera takes the responsibility for depicting the transforming relationship between Helmer and his wife. In some early shots, the frame shows both characters together but as they start drifting apart, we notice only one of the two in the frame at a given time. Helmer's character was more or less static in the play, the director tried to give it better range by showing the warmer side of him. he is emotionally more alive and less distant than Helmer of Ibsen's text.

Anthony Hopkins gave an impressive performance in this role and the audiences were shocked when they saw him striking Nora after he discovers her forgery. Bloom on the other hand is shown as a child in the body of a woman who has failed to grow up at all. She is totally dependent on her husband and thus her transformation is more shocking and less predictable.

In the other film version, Jane Fonda played Nora while David Warner was seen in the role of Helmer. Joseph Losey who also adapted it for the screen directed the film. This version was restricted to ABC channel while the other was accorded national release. Losey adds a sequel in the movie which helps in understanding the complex plot. Nora forges her father's signature to withdraw money for her husband. The only person who knows this is Krogstad who reveals the crime to Helmer when the latter terminates his job at the bank. While major part of entire movie is shot in one room, which depicts the restrictive movements of Nora's mind and body, the sequel itself is shot near a lake where Nora and Kristine skate and then enter a restaurant where they meet Krogstad. This sequel helps in explaining why Krogstad and Kristine are at odds. Kristine had married a rich man to support her family leaving Krogstad in the cold. Eight years later, the actual actions begins that takes place in just one single day. Losey's version is less faithful to the text because director carefully moves away from space and time restrictions as he takes his work outside and thus gives it a deep cinematic touch missing from Garland's version.