A Doll's House

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

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.

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 ****

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

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.