Throughout history, women were expected to accommodate the patriarchal perception of gender roles in society. Females had to be perfect as dolls, never complain, procreate with their husbands, and foster flawless ‘doll children’. In the play Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, the exact theme of poor female treatment and marriage as the oppressive machine was explored. Ibsen showcased how marriage bounded women to their husbands, hurting them in the process. In the 1970s, Joseph Losey converted Ibsen’s play into a movie, a different in details and some alterations, but the same in the core idea.
The movie lived up to my expectations because the main female character, Nora, was portrayed as more caring as a mother. It seemed strange in the play when the woman who bore and cared for her offspring for so long, just left them with no regrets and second thoughts. The message is more effectively augmented through the movie because Nora appears more likable as a character. The film evokes more sympathy towards the main female character and her children, who are left without a mother at one moment.
Furthermore, as I envisioned the play, all characters went through the intellectual transaction, except for conservative Torvald. The film showcased that same transaction with mastery and grace. Nora grows from her ‘doll’ phase into an independent woman who willingly leaves her marriage’s comfort. The movie depicted how Torvald first treated her as a pet, or a silly child, which can be observed through acting (A Doll’s House, 1973). The film showcases their relationship through a different perspective, which may seem unusual at first, but it is ultimately better conveyed than through paper. What is also similar between my vision, the filmed world, and the characters is the image of Torvald, his ‘caring’ character at the beginning, the scene of blind rage at the end, and the desperate attempts to return everything to the previous state. This portrays him as an abusive and controlling husband who did not want a wife but wanted a soulless doll. When he realized that his ‘bird’, Nora, did something without him knowing, it enraged him and made him show his real face to the viewer and the wife.
The differences were in some small details such as Ellen’s silence for a good portion of the movie, the lack of dialogue where Torvald expresses economic abuse towards Nora, the female protagonist’s caring behavior towards her children, and other changes. Some of the dissimilarities did not influence the final story, like short dialogues, but some did have a significant impact on its course. For example, the film had evaded Torvald’s part in explaining to his wife her spending habits, revealing his controlling and abusive side. Moreover, the film added more character to Nora when she appeared more caring towards her children, while in the play, her distant behavior seemed unnatural. However, overall, I prefer the film to the play text since it is easier to comprehend and it puts the text relationship into a visual perspective.
Moreover, the documents play a crucial part both in the text and in the film. For example, the money accommodation’s initial record was the same document that opened Nora’s eyes to her husband’s faults and oppressive nature. The paper about her father’s death was the one that could potentially leave her in her golden cage forever, but it had saved her from an unhappy life. In my opinion, each document, despite the initial dread, had helped Nora to free herself from the ‘doll life’. After their rage at Torvald, she finally understood that she had been living as a soulless plastic figure instead of being a real woman. She opened her eyes for the first time and realized that her husband is manipulative and abusive and her children are also unnatural dolls; she did not want them. Although in the film, she lovingly said goodbye to them, in the text, she understood that she wanted to be free more than anything else in the world.
Nevertheless, after Nora left, she finally felt the desired freedom, even though the social standing of a woman who left her husband in the patriarchal world was the lowest. I think she became happier when she did not have to conceal her real character, deeds, and wishes. Moreover, as a female could not live without a man in her life, I believe she remarried but did so with a man who respects her as a person and does not see a dolly before him. She would respect herself more and have the nerve to oppose her new husband if something goes wrong.
As for Torvald, I think he will be devastated by the destruction of the perfect ‘dollhouse’ he had built around himself. He would become angrier and would pour this emotion onto their children. Furthermore, after the illusion of ideal life had been destroyed, he would most likely engage in substance abuse such as morphine, alcohol, or opium, which would make his emotional wellbeing even more unstable. His children would suffer, as their father would turn into a shallow copy of the man he used to be, he would abuse his children, who would run away from home as soon as they would be able to do this. I think the initial response to the finale would be heartbreak and abandonment issues in the future, which could lead to more psychological problems.
Reference
A Doll’s House. Directed by Patrick Garland, performances by Claire Bloom, Anthony Hopkins, Ralph Richardson, Denholm Elliott, Anna Massey, and Edith Evans. Les Films de la Boétie World Film Services, 1973.