a doll's house

Photo: https://www.instagram.com/p/DVrAsMqDIsN/?img_index=4

It’s interesting to interrogate what you think about an adaptation, knowing that you’ve only seen it because you love the original. The question of how the writer has responded to the material and to what extent they are ‘changing’ the story or characters is important to ask because there is also the argument of reviewing the play based on what is presented to you on the night and not how respectful they were to the play that you love. In that respect, ‘A Doll’s House’ at the Almeida is an excellent exploration of how and who we love and how our relationships are affected by external factors. With our world in a fraught economic state, can our relationships exist separately or are they, like everything, subject to the markets? However, it felt like I was forced to do a lot of academic interrogation of this production in order to get to understand what they were exploring.

The writing feels as though Anya Reiss could have done more to interrogate what she found in Ibsen's original piece that speaks to our modern audience in order for it to have more of an effect on us, or to be more specific about the questions that want us to ask. Time-travelling almost copies of the original characters into what we see as 2026 is not always justifiable, and although I recognised how Reiss' Nora and Torvald were characters from today's society, this didn't necessarily justify their ending. The societal restrictions on their relationship are so integral to the plot and to the effect on the audience in the original, and there is not enough done by either writer or director to transpose the relationship between these two characters onto modern laws and societal expectations of husband and wife, especially when it comes to money and control.

Romala Garai's portrayal of such a fascinating character was incredibly compelling. At every moment she was commanding the stage, experiencing a range of emotions and displaying such a deep understanding of Nora. At times it felt as though she had been constrained by the directing, that her instincts as an actor were being held back by Joe Hill-Gibbons. Nora's change of heart is so shocking in Ibsen, and it is hard to find it so shocking watching it as a feminist. After an onslaught of violent, misogynistic language from her husband that she had fought to save, any enlightened feminist would expect a modern woman to walk away, so it is not shocking when Garai returns to the stage, almost as a new woman. Perhaps it is the gratuitous use of language that Reiss wants us to find shocking? (A warning at this point to anyone triggered by suicidal language or ideation). I am sad to say that I am not shocked by this language anymore - it has become so common to hear this language and be subject to it as women that I am unable to immerse myself in the horror of it, perhaps as self-preservation.

Across it all, I was glad to see a production that was clearly attempting to stand out from the crowd. There could have been more intentional design choices and more consistent character development as a result of better interrogation of the source material but I am always glad to see bold choices being made, and although it won't be to everyone's taste, everyone should feel glad to have seen it. Productions like this always remind me of why British theatre is so keen to remake classics.