A Doll's House (1973) Poster

(II) (1973)

User Reviews

Review this title
9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Fine performances but flawed adaptation
dkncd10 October 2007
"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.
16 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not Bad Ibsen; Interesting Fonda
baker-924 October 2000
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.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Jane Fonda Plays in a Doll's House
wes-connors5 April 2010
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
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
set in the snow, this chilly adaptation dazzles
didi-52 July 2008
With a feminist Nora, an icy Torvald, and a drunken Dr Rank, this adaptation perhaps tries too far to be a film version of the classic Ibsen play, setting scenes before and outside of the play (such as Nora's loan and Christina's past) rather than keeping strictly to the text.

Jane Fonda is a 1970s Nora, not as flighty as other actresses have played her, but still as determined in the final scenes. David Warner is an emotionless Torvald, which makes his awakening to the realities of his marriage hit home, while Trevor Howard is a less cultured Rank than Ralph Richardson in the other 1973 version of the play.

Well-worth watching, and with beautiful settings deep in the Scandanavian snow, this 'Doll's House' is just as interesting as any filmed play, and sits well alongside the Claire Bloom/Anthony Hopkins version.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
This Movie Makes You Think
ldeangelis-7570812 December 2022
When I first watched this movie, it was with my mom, and she brought up a good point. While not condoning Torvald's attitude (personally, I couldn't stand him), she said that he couldn't treat Nora like a woman when she acted so much like a child. While it's true, he seemed to prefer it that way, the fact remains that if she had behaved like a mature woman, a wife and mother of two young children, he would have been forced to acknowledge that and most likely wouldn't have referred to her in front of company as "my little songbird", and the like.

Too often Nora comes off as silly, like when she's showing off the clothes she's going to wear on her trip with Torvald to her friend, Kristine, it comes off more as a kid sister showing off her dress for the dance, than two friends of around the same age having a talk. Later, when the family physician, Dr. Rank, whom Nora regarded as an uncle (again showing her little girl persona), reveals his love for her (as a woman, not a niece), she can't handle it and wants to pretend it doesn't exist. She wants nothing to upset her applecart.

The apples are forced to tumble when she's confronted by how Torvald really feels about her actions, which were done out of love, but he refuses to give her a break, to even try to understand. Suddenly, the little girl has to grow up.

I would have liked the story better if the children had been Torvald's from a first marriage, so Nora wouldn't actually be leaving her own children, and this to me weakened the story. Unless it's meant to show that Nora was so childlike that she didn't have actual maternal feelings for her children, they were just sources of amusement, like toys.

My real interest in this movie was the relationship between Nils and Kristene. Nils starts out as the villain and ends up as the lovelorn hero. Kristene was seen to have made a heartbreaking sacrifice for her family and was not the gold-digger Nils thought her to be.

A good movie, based on Ibsen's good play, and both give you things to think about.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Jane's more Hedda than Nora.
mark.waltz4 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
A very handsome TV version of the Ibsen play has Jane Fonda cast against type as the not So independent heroine who must face her mistakes and stand up to fix an element of fraud she committed to gain some money from her father's estate, something that in 1800's Norway wasn't possible. She is basically coddled and put on a pedestal but not really appreciated or taken seriously by husband David Warner, and on the surface, she does seem flamboyant and flighty.

That's not something that you associate with the very independent-minded Jane Fonda, appearing here in one of two versions of the play made that year, this one released for TV and looking like it should have been on PBS rather than the more mainstream networks. When she returns home with a large number of Christmas gifts, she must explain each of them to her husband, and he looks at her like a doll, one that is amusing but you put aside when you tire of it. The arrival of a recently divorced friend stirs up the independence in Nora, and the challenge of getting out of her legal mess makes her aware that she does have a clever brain no matter how she's been manipulated to feel.

Excellent as Nora's independent thinking friend, Delphine Seyrig is the best part of this movie, directed by the very art house themed legend Joseph Losey. Warner is in so much domineering as just an absolute bore, and other male characters played by Edward Fox and Trevor Howard are just further archetypes of the male dominance of that era. Artistically, it is beautiful to look at, and the scenery and costumes are delicious.

The best moments are between Fonda and Seyrig. There are other actresses who were popular in the 1970's who would have been more right for the role of Nora, and it's not to say that Fonda was bad. Either Liv Ullman or Julie Christie, and maybe either Vanessa Redgrave or Maggie Smith, could have played Nora's eruption into Independence a lot more realistically. For Fonda, it's obvious that she's play acting rather than really becoming the character that she's been asked to portray.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Jane Fonda is NOT Nora
cbrinkm18 April 2005
I saw both the Claire Bloom and Jane Fonda versions, and there is simply no comparison.

Bloom - No monotone in her voice, voice is NOT flat and emotionless, you can understand what she is saying because she doesn't speak at a hundred miles an hour, and her performance is believable. She changes her voice's intonation so it doesn't sound like a robot recording.

Fonda - Exact opposite I was stunned to find out that Fonda actually got good reviews for her performance. Let's take the final scene for example. When she tells Torvald to check his mail, she says very flatly, "YoushouldcheckyourmailTorvald." Had I not known what she was saying from having discussed this play in class and seen the Claire Bloom version, there is no way I would have known what she said. This pattern continues. I was ready to shoot myself having to watch such an emotionless failure that Fonda presents.

And as for Hollywood changing the scenes around, can't they simply leave a story alone? They didn't write A Doll House (NOT A Doll's House, this implies possession, and Nora - the doll - possesses NOTHING) so why can't they just leave the script alone? Watch the Claire Bloom version. She and Anthony Hopkins played their roles very well. My only complaint about that version is the mistake in the title
13 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
So plastic, one can't even get a read on the filmmakers' intent...
moonspinner557 March 2022
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 ****
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Jane Fonda IS Nora
afhick24 June 2003
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.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed