A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, was originally a play, but then later made into a movie. The movie being a 1973-film really exposes the poor qualities of early American films and plays.
The play starts off with the main character, Nora, playing the role of a typical wife during the era. She is treated as if her husband owns her, this is exemplified when he gives her some of 'his' money as if he's giving her an allowance. We then find out that she signed a loan statement in her father's name in order to get money to save her husband. This then comes back to bite her in the bum when her husband finds out, he becomes furious at her. This is when you realize that Nora is not just the typical wife of the 1800's we had believed her to be. She comes back at him with rage of her own and then decides to leave him and her family. The play ends with a door slamming.
The play itself I found to be rather bland, containing one of the worst conflicts in any movie ever. I know that it was written in an earlier time, when I'm sure this was a rather exciting play. In the present context however, I would compare it to the plot of one of those low-budget parody films like Epic Movie or Scary Movie. A conflict, in my opinion, should have more severe consequences than a scolding from a husband. As for the plot, the side story with Mr. Krogstad and Mrs. Linde was alright. I couldn't really ask for more because the play can only be so long. I think the most valuable thing that this movie did was expose the patriarchy, a social norm at the time. The patriarchy, in a nutshell, is the idea that the father rules the household and the mother is beneath him. This is important because it was the first of its kind, it really exposed this social system for what it was, immoral.
As for the play itself, not the story, I think it was well made for the most part. Unfortunately it wasn't a very high budget production. When you look at it compared to say The Godfather (1972), it does not look that bad. As for the acting I thought the actress playing Nora, Claire Bloom, did a very nice job portraying her character.
With a bad production value and a ridiculous conflict, I conclude that the only reason to watch this play would be to capture the true themes of the play. To appreciate what it was like in a household during the 19th century.
The play starts off with the main character, Nora, playing the role of a typical wife during the era. She is treated as if her husband owns her, this is exemplified when he gives her some of 'his' money as if he's giving her an allowance. We then find out that she signed a loan statement in her father's name in order to get money to save her husband. This then comes back to bite her in the bum when her husband finds out, he becomes furious at her. This is when you realize that Nora is not just the typical wife of the 1800's we had believed her to be. She comes back at him with rage of her own and then decides to leave him and her family. The play ends with a door slamming.
The play itself I found to be rather bland, containing one of the worst conflicts in any movie ever. I know that it was written in an earlier time, when I'm sure this was a rather exciting play. In the present context however, I would compare it to the plot of one of those low-budget parody films like Epic Movie or Scary Movie. A conflict, in my opinion, should have more severe consequences than a scolding from a husband. As for the plot, the side story with Mr. Krogstad and Mrs. Linde was alright. I couldn't really ask for more because the play can only be so long. I think the most valuable thing that this movie did was expose the patriarchy, a social norm at the time. The patriarchy, in a nutshell, is the idea that the father rules the household and the mother is beneath him. This is important because it was the first of its kind, it really exposed this social system for what it was, immoral.
As for the play itself, not the story, I think it was well made for the most part. Unfortunately it wasn't a very high budget production. When you look at it compared to say The Godfather (1972), it does not look that bad. As for the acting I thought the actress playing Nora, Claire Bloom, did a very nice job portraying her character.
With a bad production value and a ridiculous conflict, I conclude that the only reason to watch this play would be to capture the true themes of the play. To appreciate what it was like in a household during the 19th century.