Observer: Knock, knock. You’ll never guess who’s there. Then, again—given it’s A Doll’s House, Part 2—you will: Henrik Ibsen’s Nora has returned to the scene of her crime against domestic life and family values (circa 1879, when she left a doting, adoring spouse and their two small children to find her own voice in the world—outside marriage).
4 comments:
Ibsen's A Doll's House offers a very interesting perspective on feminism in that, at the beginning of Act 1, Nora is not unhappy or unsatisfied with her life. She seemingly lives in a blissful domestic ignorance. Of course, we find out later that, even as she lived the role of a perfect wife, she often went against social restraints and acted on her own independence. Nora is extremely proud of this and, as the play progresses, only becomes angry with her situation once she realizes that those around her do not see her independence in a positive light and wishes to suppress it. The fact that people are condescending and treat Nora as a "doll" is what causes her to slam the door on her domestic life. Hnath continues this narrative as he explores Nora's life after her departure and introduces her return to the family she left behind. With a quick google search, I see that the set of the play is almost barren. There is none of the ornate decorations that I would normally associate with a home of the upper class and it is certainly not a home I would associate with Nora. I think this lends itself to the interpretation that the fun-ness and color of the home was lost when Nora slammed that door. In pt2, the focus of the set is the large white door in the center, showing the interesting connection between Nora's exit and reentrance.
I think the fact that the new cast of ''A Doll's House, Part 2' creates a completely different theatrical experience from the original cast is amazing. It is one of the most awesome things about theatre. Everyone is unique and different so there is no way an actress would be able to mimic the interpretation of another's and still give a truthful performance. A show is a machine. Each person working on it was hand picked to be a part of that machine. When a change comes, it is impossible for that machine to operate in exactly the same way as it used to, which is not a bad thing. The machine still operates, it just does not do so in the same way. Each person brings their own color and theatre is so beautiful in that it allows those colors to be incorporated to create a new and great theatrical experience. There is no point of doing a show if you're just going to copy another's work. No passion will be present and a copy can never be as good as an original. So might as well make another original - though I fully acknowledge that it is probably illogical to make 30 unique versions of piece of paper just because a copy can never be an original.
One major thing that stuck with me is how the producers found it necessary to switch up the feel of the show when switching up the casting. I guess there aren't a lot of straight plays on Broadway or professionally done that almost completely change the casting before the end of the run as they have such short runs so this usually isn't a topic of discussion. It stuck with me how White and Metcalf are described as both strong women who carry themselves in different ways. A lot of times musical replacements are asked to keep a similiar style to the show and to give the performace the same feel as the original cast but thankfully the producers recognized the need to respect the individual actor and unique qualities of each person.
Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” happens to be one of my favorite plays. I was talking to Sasha Mieles the other day about the play and she mentioned that there happened to be a “Doll’s house part two”. To be honest, my initial reaction was to be appaled. I imagined a play in which Nora returned to her birdcage and the beautiful suspense of the ending would be shattered. I feared that the statements from the “sequel” would tarnish my interpretation of Ibsen’s play. I am still fearful of seeing this piece, but I appreciate where the creators are coming from. I believe it is very important to acknowledge the damage to the other characters Nora did with her exit. She essentially ran away from her problems and left her children in the toxic enviornment she fled. In analysis, some people see the abandonment of her children as an enhancement to her sacrifice. I personally view Nora’s actions as selfish and inconsiderate. I still want her to leave, but I want her to acknowledge the consequences of her actions. This was done in my favorite production of the play in 2015 at Oakland University when, instead of slamming the door, Nora closed it more resolutely and paused before exiting. The small difference changed the ending from a desperate escape or a flight of rage into a grim affair. I hope this new play manages to create a similar effect.
I think that "a doll's house part two" is a perfect example of the flexibility of theater and its ability to endlessly adapt and rework stories to address relevant issues. You would never expect this piece to exist, and indeed, it may be considered superfluous to Ibsen's classic. However, the beauty of the theatrical canon is that you may choose to view "part two" as a continuation of "A doll's house" but you can just as easily take it as a piece independent of the original, or, if you wish, you may choose to abstain from watching it entirely. Regardless of your opinion, the existence of the piece itself is an audacious example of theater's uniquely adaptable method of storytelling.
Post a Comment