NOTES
Ian Macneil British designer (1960)
Revolving set:
o Metaphor of how unsettled Nora’s world is
o View of all the rooms of the house in contrast to original where all the play takes part in
the living room
o Claustrophobic environment (shows how Nora is trapped in this spinning wheel)
o Corridor as a non-acting space
o Torvald’s studio shown as the manly world Nora is not allowed in
o Final scene in the bedroom gives Nora’s departure a more nuanced meaning (MAYBE
YOU HAVE SOME NOTES ON WHY THEY DECIDED ON THIS)
Flat instead of house makes it feel relatable for the audience and shows their financial
situation
Scale smaller than average adult scale to make it feel like an actual doll’s house
Setting moved 25 years ahead (electric Christmas lights) (IF YOU HAVE ANY NOTES ON WHY
THEY DID THIS COOL)
EXPLAINED
The intention of Ian Macneil, who is a British scenic designer born in 1960, with this set design
was to make something metaphorical that would mean something for the play by itself. The
most particular thing about this design is that is a revolving set which showing us a 360º angle.
The constant movement stresses the fact that Nora is trapped in that house and how unsettled
her world is, the world is literally spinning around her (Digital Theatre Plus)
In Stephen’s translation Torvald refers to Nora as a hamster. This and the resemblance of the
set to a spinning wheel was makes Nora look like a cage wife and makes the whole
environment claustrophobic (Brantley, 2014).
This revolving set allows the audience to see all the house instead of just one room as it was
meant to be in Ibsen’s original play. This way the audience can have a better idea of how
Nora’s world is. The set lets the audience see Torvald’s studio which, even though it is a room
where no dialogue is carried out, helps to see the differentiation between the male world of
business that is portrayed in Torvald’s studio and the clearly different environment more
domestic and female of the living room where Nora spends her time. As we can see during the
play Nora never goes into Torvald’s studio just as she is not allowed in this manly world (Bull,
2018).
The fact that the whole house is portrayed with different rooms brings into the play a realism
that wouldn’t be the same with only one room. As Ian Macneil says in his interview in Digital
Theatre Plus that in real life you can have a conversation with your maid in any part of the
house instead of just the living room, so the whole house being on stage makes some
conversations more natural.
One of the new spaces in this production is the corridor. Just as Torvald’s studio it is not meant
for the acting to take place. This is a place that Ian Macneil refers to as a non-acting space. A
part of the set where the actors feel they are not acting, which gives the play a more realistic
sense, bringing their own emotions to the stage (Digital Theatre Plus).
One of the other rooms that is new to this production is the bedroom, where in contrast to the
original play, the last scene takes place. Nora leaving from the bedroom instead of from the
living room gives her departure a much more significant meaning that can be read by the
audience in different ways (Bull, 2018).
This house that we see on stage has different peculiarities that make this design unique. First
of all, even though the name of the play is “A doll’s house” what we can see in the stage,
because of the stairs on the left side, is that it is a flat instead, giving it that claustrophobic feel
(Kellaway, 2013). This, added to the fact that it is a bijou apartment, makes the place relatable
and therefor desirable for the audience. Moreover, it shows Nora and Torvald’s financial
status, which allows them to have a nice flat without it being excessively ornate (Digital
Theatre Plus)
This whole sense of claustrophobia and of Nora being a doll is intensified by the fact that this
cutaway model of Torvald’s flat is slightly smaller than an average adult scale. It looks indeed
like a doll’s house because of the proportions (Green, 2014)
Another way the idea of Nora being treated like a doll is emphasized is by moving the setting
forward 25 years. We can know this because of the electric Christmas lights and other details
that would have been out of place in 1880. This more modern setting makes Nora’s ignorance
even more pronounced in this new time, when universal suffrage in Norway was just about to
be settled (Brantley, 2014).
REFERENCES (I DON’T KNOW IF WE NEED THEM BUT JUST IN CASE)
Brantley, Ben. “A Caged Wife, Desperatly Spinning Her Wheel.” New York Times, February 28,
2014.
Bull, John. “Add-Aptation: Simon Stephens, Carrie Cracknell and Katie Mitchell’s ‘Dialogues’
with the Classic Canon.” Journal of Contemporary Drama in English 6, no. 2 (2018): 280–
99. https://doi.org/10.1515/jcde-2018-0026.
Kellaway, Kate. “Carrie Cracknell: 'It's like Bringing People into Your Dream' | Interview.” The
Guardian. Guardian News and Media, July 20, 2013.
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2013/jul/21/carrie-cracknell-dolls-house-
interview.
Green, Jesse. “Theater Review: A Doll's House, Blessedly Un-Reinvented.” Vulture. Vulture,
February 27, 2014. https://www.vulture.com/2014/02/theater-review-a-dolls-
house.html.
Ian Macneil Interview - A Doll's House. Digital Theatre Plus, n.d.
