A Doll’s House, Part II
A Doll’s House, Part II, while technically a “part 2,” is not so much a sequel as it is a response. It’s misleading to think that the premise is that it reinvents an imaginary, new problem 15 years post-A Doll’s House. I might be biased (Lucas Hnath, also an NYU graduate, is one of my favourite playwrights), but Hnath has skillfully unpacked a host of problems that Ibsen’s original only touches upon in the final 10 minutes of the play.
The most obvious is the issue of a woman initiating a divorce in 1879. Nora takes time here to point out that the only way she could get a divorce is if her life was genuinely threatened, or some other, equally dramatic equivalent. Then there is the other issue of the children—a subject that was touchy with Ibsen’s original audience. Here, Nora notes how when a man abandons his children, it’s seen as just another thing that happens. When a woman does? She is a monster. When I first saw the play in 2017, I’ll be honest… I didn’t give a shit about the children. To be fair, I was 19 years old, and the prospect of children was something very alien to me. In Hnath’s version, weirdly enough, I now find myself sympathizing with Torvald through the children. Perhaps, it’s more so Anne Marie, who is adorably and fiercely played in this version by June Watson. She has sacrificed much to raise Nora as her own and, upon Nora’s departure, she felt a duty to her three children as well.
It's a tricky problem. On the one hand, we respect Nora for doing the difficult thing- leaving- and building herself back up. On the other, there must have been a way for her to retain some sort of relationship with her children instead of abandoning them altogether? And on an unexpected third hand, Nora’s material circumstances (economic and social) were perhaps not conducive for any sort of relationships to be had in the first place. Through the casting of Noma Dumezweni as Nora, we are perhaps more in touch with these material circumstances than if the role were to be played by a white woman. Black women still face endless social pressures today, and so, when this Nora says, “Do you think I had an easy time?,” this adds even more resonance.
Aside from small bits like this one, the text remains true to the American Hnath’s original, and it doesn’t directly address the material concerns this Nora might face as a Black woman. I’m not really in a position to say which version would be better (address it, or let the text do the work), but I would be curious to hear what position the cast and creative team takes on this issue, if they take a position at all. I’m more so focused on this dilemma because, like most of Hnath’s work, this is a play about big issues and big questions. It’s a very “talky” play, and I could sense that the audience may have been getting restless at some points. The visual elements are sparse. The most dramatic element is the set: an enormous, wooden shed. The roof detaches and raises up at the beginning of the action to reveal a few chairs, a small table, a modest sitting room. And this is really all the set needs. Like Ibsen’s original, it shows a modest home. Not too rich, not too poor.
Director James Macdonald makes great use of what “little” there is on stage. One of the more notable moments, for instance, was when Nora sets up a tete a tete with Torvald. Torvald, though, chooses to sit in the corner and face away from her entirely. A simple choice, and yet, so much is said. I was surprised, too, at how well Hnath’s text translated to a British audience. Laughter wasn’t sparse in this performance, even though I expected the playwright’s signature, casual language to perhaps be more isolating than laugh out loud funny. All in all, the issues raised by Hnath (marriage, independence, attachments both healthy and toxic) remain timely even five years later. Are they urgent? I think it depends on the person. For me, the play was certainly a throwback to a very strange time in my life. When I see it again, another five years from now, that may be a different story.
