When we look at the original A Doll’s House we see a classic work, one that changed the shape and style of theatre and one that brought a different viewpoint of women to the stage. It is a work full of emotion and with a clear arc. As an audience we are engaged, we connect and feel the desperation, the struggle, and the emotions of Nora and all the characters.
To write a sequel to this work is a big ask and begs the question, why? What is it you feel needs to be said? As pointed out by the playwright Lucas Hnath in the program,
“ All of the things we debate and negotiate in A Doll’s House are still topics that are debated and negotiated now. So one of the first ideas that I had about A Doll’s House part 2 is it’s a play about how much we’ve changed and how much we haven’t in terms of equality between men and women.”
Some things have changed and many have not. A Doll’s House is about the transformation of Nora. This is the premise of the original work. Where do you go with that 15 years on? Apparently it’s to have a tired old soap box litany of things that we all know and have heard again and again with no real fresh take on it. We are passionlessly lectured to by Nora. If the work had been done 20 years ago maybe, but now in 2018 we need something stronger.
The dialogue is contemporary as are the attitudes and physicality that makes it difficult to grasp why they are in period dress. Is this meant to be a farce? You are writing a sequel to what is considered to be an expertly crafted work that stands up to many forms of translation. The dialogue for this work is predictable and forgettable, and frankly uninspired.
Les Waters, the director in the program notes,
“I just found the writing very exciting and rather ferocious. Lucas sometimes talks to me about things he is thinking about writing, but they always surprise me. That’s terrific because most things aren’t surprising. With Lucas, I never know what’s coming next.”
I am bewildered—because not only was there nothing ferocious about the dialog I could tell what was coming next at every turn, so much so, that I left halfway through. The actors were all very accomplished, the set, costumes and the lighting beautiful. There was absolutely no emotional engagement within the text, no arc, and no raised stakes. If A Doll’s House is a symphony this was elevator music. Trope after trope is lectured to us from an older sophisticated Nora, and Torval, still in love with her gives us a tired viewpoint that still exists today but leaves us flat.
We will never clearly know what Ibsen intended but the work has surpassed what that may have been. A Doll’s House still resonates. ‘Why’ is the big question not being asked of the playwright and the director. This is a polite work sprinkled with humor. The audience can nod and say to themselves “oh yes, things then and things now…”
In today’s climate with a head of state talking about grabbing women by the pussy, the Weinstein affair, the imprisonment and disappearance of Pussy Riot and the vilification of the women coming forward, this hollow work simply doesn’t do anything to engage in the debate.
What would this work look like if a woman had written it?
What would this work look like if a woman had directed it?
Does the playwright think we are less passionate, as we get older?
What are you saying that hasn’t already been said in the original? Where is the fire and desperation of the original? Where are the traces of her transformation? Where is the arc of the work? What are you bringing forward in the work that makes us see it with new eyes?
None of these questions are answered or even addressed. Who has Nora become and what has brought her back? The premise of the work is something I would expect in a drawing room comedy not something that brings us Nora after 15 years of being independent. Her passion and fire are gone, as is the point of the sequel.