Just read this play in the library. It's engaging and powerful as a piece of writing but the confrontation scene towards the end between Nora and Torvald with all the capital letters seemed a bit much. I haven't seen it but I hope the actors don't literally yell every line placed in all caps. The complexity and ambiguity of the characters worked well and did justice to the psychological and social realism of Ibsen's style. But I can't help but feel that the raw emotive sense of anguish and questioning that finishes the original play is the essence of the piece and humor is best kept away from a tragic masterwork such as this. I hope there weren't too many funny moments as it is really a serious drama and the epic nature of it is grounded in lovably flawed characters trying their best to resolve things peaceably. I wish I'd seen it as I'm curious as to how the actors made the caps lock dialog work - if it came off as over the top scenery chewing or believable, earned emotion.
1
I went to see this tonight and found it to be a big let down.
The play was one-dimensional and the characters are not very believable.
I'm not quite sure what the audience was tittering about throughout; I thought at best there were 3-4 funny moments.
As someone who has experienced a parent walking out, I can tell you that the reactions set forth in the play when she reappears are entirely unrealistic.
3
Why, why, why...do the critics at the Times give the reader a full synopsis of the play? This robs the theater goer of the elements of discovery? Mr. Brantley is so enamored of his own words, he cannot resist going on and on and on... Shame on you!
1
Every time a TV or film actor makes the leap to Broadway, Brantley seems to fall in love. I thoroughly enjoyed this play and its cast, but I don't make the mistake of thinking it was a great production. Sam Gold directed as if itwas a sitcom with a few affecting moments. Like Roseanne. I wish he had given his cast more credit and really allowed this play 's humor to illuminate rather than distract. Hated the music playing before the play began, although still not as jarring as the Philip Glass "score" for The Crucible, another play Brantley loved.
1
Quasi-disappointed at today's performance.
The script was excellent, but what were they thinking of performaning on such a bare stage? Whose idea was it to infuse 21st century props around?
And was Laurie Metcalf really acting when she appeared like the same character in a short lived hospital-based TV series?
Lastly, the ending still has me wondering what happened?
The script was excellent, but what were they thinking of performaning on such a bare stage? Whose idea was it to infuse 21st century props around?
And was Laurie Metcalf really acting when she appeared like the same character in a short lived hospital-based TV series?
Lastly, the ending still has me wondering what happened?
Boring. Boring. Boring. Utterly engrossing? About as much as The Emperor's New Clothes. The ninety minutes was the only redeeming quality. Silly, pointless anachronisms. How could this be described as brilliant and illuminating? Forced audience laughing. Why? Because someone said it's funny? Rashad "stunningly subtle and controlled performance?" Obviously I attended some alter-world theatre. As Concerned Mother said: A terrible play.
4
THAT is the new Nora? Really? This mean self-infatuated sharp-elbowed sarcastic shrew? Who gets the backs up of the other three, and achieves nothing else? Had the playwright, director and actor even seen a good version of the play? Did they realize SHE left HIM and not the other way around? Contrast this with the amazing Claire Bloom, whose Nora made real tragic sense and really made hearts melt. See that version and it will shock how daft this one is.
6
Just a terrible play. It is mystifying what the fuss is about. The acting is terrific, but it's an immature take on Nora's predicament and choices, by a young male playwright who knows pretty much nothing about what he is writing about. We sat stupefied. By the mid-point, two people in the row we were sitting in had fallen asleep.
11
Wouldn't it be fun if Bette Midler swapped roles with Laurie Metcalf in DOLLY and DOLL'S ? And Chris Cooper And David Hyde P. did too ?
You could call it BAIT & SWITCH.
You could call it BAIT & SWITCH.
2
This fine production was overshadowed by Ms. Metcalf's overacting and shrill tone during most of the play. While I enjoyed the play immensely, I was distracted by Ms. Metcalf's shrew like interpretation of Nora and felt it detracted from her very legitimate argument for leaving Torvald. I also could not understand her clumsy postures as she sat in the chairs talking to Ms. Houdyshell's Anne Marie and her husband, elegantly played by a disciplined and genuine Chris Cooper. I am also confused by the audience's raucous laughter at some of the early lines. While some dialogue was "chuckle worthy," Wednesday matinee audiences seem to find humor in some of the most bizarre moments of plays I've attended lately. Writing a sequel to Ibsen is no small feat but Mr. Hnath has composed a thought provoking and entertaining "what if," that allows us to also view the emotional impact on Torvald and thus afford him some sympathy in this marital saga as well.
2
I disagree in that I thought Ms. Metcalf put on a stunning performance, but like you I was mystified at why the audience laughed at practically every line.
3
Saw this last night but did not read a single review until now. I thought the outstanding performances elevated a predictable plot. The ending is revealed in the first 10 minutes.
I love Laurie Metcalf and would see anything she is in. I frequently check the Times for theatre reviews and was delighted to see this one.
Matter of fact, along with Ms. Metcalf, Broadway currently and coincidentally has most of the actors I've dreamed of seeing on the stage, e.g. Christine Ebersole, Richard Thomas, David Hyde Pierce, etc. Anyone know when holograph technology is supposed to materialize?
Anyway, New Yorkers are very fortunate to have the arts at their fingertips, and I suspect much of the reason for it is due to public insistence.
Well done, ya'll.
Matter of fact, along with Ms. Metcalf, Broadway currently and coincidentally has most of the actors I've dreamed of seeing on the stage, e.g. Christine Ebersole, Richard Thomas, David Hyde Pierce, etc. Anyone know when holograph technology is supposed to materialize?
Anyway, New Yorkers are very fortunate to have the arts at their fingertips, and I suspect much of the reason for it is due to public insistence.
Well done, ya'll.
4
What a disappointment. What a lost opportunity to explore this "what-if." The production initially felt like broad comedy--with Houdyshell doing her usual schticky stuff and Metcalf acting away grandly like gangbusters. It wasn't until Chris Cooper entered that the production gained some gravitas and some sense of this momentous occasion, and the play started to feel honest. But unfortunately his gravitas didn't lead to anything. They talked and talked about what they thought and felt, but there was no emotional connection. I was not moved for a single moment. I felt cheated. I wonder what Ibsen would've thought.
16
"'A Doll’s House, Part 2' gives vibrant theatrical life to the conversations that many of us had after first reading or seeing its prototype, conducted in our own minds or perhaps over blunts and beers in dorm rooms."
Um, that was pretty much what I thought as I exited the theater--that DH2 seems to have been written by an undergrad, a very talented one but still an undergrad, to be done in some black box theater on campus. I enjoyed "The Christians" but DH2 simply is not Bway worthy. Nor is it in the same league, at all, of the absolutely brilliant and wholly original "Antipodes".
Um, that was pretty much what I thought as I exited the theater--that DH2 seems to have been written by an undergrad, a very talented one but still an undergrad, to be done in some black box theater on campus. I enjoyed "The Christians" but DH2 simply is not Bway worthy. Nor is it in the same league, at all, of the absolutely brilliant and wholly original "Antipodes".
11
Yes anything by Annie Baker is good. No need to compare though. I think this is probably a good play for Ibsen fans - they're such great characters.
The worst play I've seen in months. Really, Mr. Brantley? This is like a college drama production for an assignment to write 'the next act" of a famous play.
Without nuance, without interest, pedantic--but as "Sweat" has won a nomination too in this season, I guess the fashion is for pedantic, civics lessons plays.
More shameful and sad, as these are all immensely talented actors, who should have shown this dull script the door.
Without nuance, without interest, pedantic--but as "Sweat" has won a nomination too in this season, I guess the fashion is for pedantic, civics lessons plays.
More shameful and sad, as these are all immensely talented actors, who should have shown this dull script the door.
17
While I enjoyed it (loved seeing Chris Cooper on Broadway!), this play seemed so...odd and not in its proper venue. The anachronisms, the cursing, the drinking out of a water bottle by Laurie Metcalf (was she ill?) were all rather bizarre. Her plopping down in the most unfeminine ways in her very feminine outfit were incomprehensible. The tissue box was the least of the strangeness. You couldn't understand how Torvald could have borne her as she was. She seemed to have completely forgotten how to get what she wanted by cajoling, flattery, feminine wiles, etc. (like her daughter, like she was in the original play). Metcalf's over the top performance bordered on parody with her continual eyes-popping-out-of-her-head deer-in-the-headlights acting. Contrasted with a fine controlled sensitive performance by Chris Cooper, it was bizarre. I couldn't tell if her acting was a joke or just poor direction. And a biological daughter of two white Swedish people portrayed by a black actress? I know it's P.C. but it was still weird. Chris Cooper was terrific, as was Jayne Houdyshell. The Issues were cogent, but this felt like it should have been an off-Broadway production.
16
Why? Because you want Broadway to be nothing but jukebox musicals? What do you have against serious theater on Broadway?
The play is very much a missed opportunity. The text is present within Hnath’s play to intelligently explore the conflicts between individual fulfillment and responsibility, and between the expression of the self and the consensual suppression of self in the service of marriage. If only the director Sam Gold had chosen to do so. Instead, he milks the audience for laugh lines. Laurie Metcalf does well with what she has been given, and Chris Cooper and Jayne Houdyshell perform professionally but they are trapped in a sitcom. The play left me angry that a potentially worthy drama had been played for cheap laughs on Broadway instead of a serious performance in a more intimate Off Broadway venue.
17
Broadway audiences are determined to laugh. They laugh from the get-go, before they have a clue what’s going on, and at lines that in a movie wouldn't even get a smile. I guess people have paid a lot and want their money’s worth; they want to show they get the play; and sarcasm makes them feel superior. I don't think the director was milking for laughs at all; this laughter can have little relation to what the actors are doing. Luckily, this excellent play and AMAZING cast wove such a complex web of argument and emotion that - eventually - everyone fell silent.
3
You're totally right of course about Broadway audiences but I'm surprised you didn't feel that the director was playing to this. Ostensibly the play is about a woman who walked out on her husband and child 15 years earlier and is now returning in desperation to get the divorce she needs to hold her life together. Imagine what she would be feeling in such a moment. Yet Metcalf is on stage making amusing faces and acting in a detached, ironic manner. Her body language and attitude keeps saying to the audience "Here is where you are supposed to laugh", no matter that there is barely anything in the text worthy of cracking a smile. The play is filled with potent emotion and poignancy but the director made no effort to convey to the audience that this is not a joke, that this is about real people grappling with real issues. He sabotaged what might have been a very memorable performance.
11
Girl, they laughed not because the laughs were being milked, but because they were genuinely earned. The first part is hilarious. Just because YOU didn't get it doesn't mean the rest of us didn't; and we fell silent at the end because the play earned THAT as well.
8
"That’s because Mr. Hnath hasn’t written a feminist play." As if, what? Writing a feminist play is a strike against the playwright or the play. Or, if it were a feminist play, the audience should be warned?? Really? Is this where we're still at?
7
Part 1 is widely seen as feminist - one of the most compelling statements on stage, both now and way back then, tho Ibsen did take some heat.
2
While I'd long looked forward to Two I left the theater feeling cheated. This is an outline of a play wanting to be written --- ....no depth of emotion...not one "wow" moment. If a woman had written it, one might better understand Nora's anguish...like when she spoke of buying gifts for the children, for example.....so much could have been expanded more dramatically. We needed some scenes of her life during those fifteen years away. Perhaps it is in Ben Bradleys interest to play nice with NY theater but I think he's lost his critical sense with DH2. Just one sentence verifies my own feeling: "you can't help worrying that it's just a bright quick sketch concept doomed to dim long before the end of its 90 minutes." The daughter is a total anachronism -- a 2017 woman back a century. Phyllis Spiegel Plainsboro NJ
Alas, what a missed opportunity for the playwrite. Now I'd like to track down what any woman reviewers have to say.. Remembering Frank Rich as Times critic, I think he might have seen its flimsiness too.
Alas, what a missed opportunity for the playwrite. Now I'd like to track down what any woman reviewers have to say.. Remembering Frank Rich as Times critic, I think he might have seen its flimsiness too.
13
Wait: How is a daughter who wishes to be "unliberated" a 2017 woman? She seems more of the period than her mom, so I don't get your charges of anachronism.
3
Writing, actors and acting all sterling. Never wondered or needed closure on Doll House. Plays where everything is not spelled out and have loose ends work for me. That Doll House 2 is a reimagining of what might have happened after Nora walked out, is as fine an inference as any. You still were not given closure
at the end of DH 2, and it was complete enough for me.
at the end of DH 2, and it was complete enough for me.
14
The wheels of Torvald's downfall have been in motion for 15 years and were accelerated by the lawsuit against Nora; his disgrace for lying about Nora’s “death” is inevitable. Nora can survive her indictment but only if her divorce is (fraudulently) dated 1879; a current one dated 1894 doesn’t help. Torvald’s life went downhill after she left; he sowed the seeds of his own demise by not filing for divorce immediately. Nora’s return only shows that she continues to ruin his life. Her tearing up the divorce papers may be an act emotionally equivalent to walking out the door 15 years earlier, but with the wrong date on it, it’s a Pyrrhic victory. (She could get another copy at the town hall). No one in the play seems aware of any of this; if they were, it would change the plot and some but not all of the discussions and likely make “A Doll’s House Part 2” Torvald’s rather than Nora’s play.
All the scenes consist of exchanges between only two characters, except around the edges, and one of the characters is always Nora. I wonder what sparks might have flared had Nora, Torvald, and Emmy wrangled all at once.
All the scenes consist of exchanges between only two characters, except around the edges, and one of the characters is always Nora. I wonder what sparks might have flared had Nora, Torvald, and Emmy wrangled all at once.
6
Good comment but a note on this. "Nora’s return only shows that she continues to ruin his life." Actually in Part One it was the other way around, and it was why she left. It was THAT Nora that for over 100 years has made so many women cheer.
Gesualdo you are so right. Wouldn't that have been exciting. I think the Nora/Emmy scene was the "test" for Nora in what is basically Nora's play. The problem is that if you shift the dramatic focus to Torvald you lose the heroic character arc of Nora which is so moving. In the original script, he is arguably as much of a victim to crushing social pressures and expectations as she is; he's even willing to try to understand her in the very last scene. But he's just not as dramatically interesting a character and centering the play on him would have been difficult. But yeah, I longed for a Nora/Torvald/Emmy scene. It almost felt as though Nora got off too easy for her choice in walking away....she faces shame/criticism from Anne Marie/Emmy but her reputation is surprisingly undamaged.
Saw the show in previews a few weeks ago. I though the cast was great but was surprised at the use of the "F" word so often; didn't fit into the context of a turn of the 20th century play. Also, was distracted by the "pop-up" tissue box; this was not invented/available in this time period; why not a handkerchief. Final thought in the performance we saw Laurie Metcalf drank out a "water bottle" twice; again out of place with time period. But the entire cast was excellent and the play well written.
what about their use of electric lights to light the actors?
9
A clue to the approach of the playwright and director might have been the four chairs in two styles of Scandinavian Modern, just like you might find in an upscale house in Norway today (except they would be in the dining room).
4
Michael. By 1894 there were electric lights in wealthier homes.
This imagined momentous encounter between a woman who 15 years earlier left not only her husband but her young children (and with whom she has not communicated since) and her once cold, self-centered and self-righteous spouse left devasted, embittered and lonely for all those long years just did not ring true at all for me. The ever delightful Laurie Metcalf delivers a tour de force performance that in and of itself makes the show worthing seeing. However, her character constantly crisscrosses between being hysterically funny and quite serious, somber and deadly insightful. The result for me was that her character seemed less real over time. It was as if her character showed up, did her shtick while mounting a soap box, delivered a few sermons and then quickly exited stage right but not before sticking it to her husband one last time. Perhaps in the past her husband did not deserve anything better but Chris Cooper effectively plays him as a man who has looked long and hard in the mirror and become a more rational, thoughtful and perhaps even a sympathetic figure. As a result, his wife ends up looking a lot less like a survivor of an abusive relationship who blazes radical new social trails but a hedonistic user of others. Not at all what I expected.
6
Oh, good. Another play about the theatre. Just what we need.
1
One of the best plays I saw this season with one of the most impressive casts. It sublimely explores serious questions with comic overtones integrated throughout. A fantastic night at the theater.
18
To me Rashad did not seem to be quite on the same acting level as the other three actors. I don't think her Emmy is quite the image of Nora before enlightenment so much as an actor who is just a little opaque and figured out and not quite there, acting like, not acting. Yes, we know theater is a fake. Actors know theater is a fake. But good actors are in the moment on one level, allowing us to think of their characters as real people. If Rashad's Emmy was a real person, she was one who is thinking more about her effect and appearance than just being there, a little calculated and simple and uninteresting. Her character is younger, but in the context of the play should be a youthful equal of the others, and her shortcomings at this point as an actor that made her seem less than them, not just younger.
8
I disagree that Rashad was inferior. This play isn't really realistic at all (somewhat to its detriment), and Rashad's distant affect played wonderfully against the others' very different dispositions. If I had a problem with anyone's performance, it was Metcalf's in which Nora was engaging in too much broad comedy.
4
My thoughts EXACTLY. Rashad's performance is so calculated it fails to be human in any recognizable way, which makes her performance suffer in comparison to Houdyshell and Metcalf, both of whom manage to play the comedy by bringing themselves to the roles. Metcalf in particular is on a totally different planet in this show; it's one of the finest performances I've seen in a very long time and I feel so fortunate to have seen it. It's a wonderful example of two styles of acting next to each other on the stage, and I urge anyone who can to check it out. Even if you don't like Rashad (and you might!), Metcalf pulls off something that's almost unbelievable.
4
Rashad's Emmy reminded me of many (often passive-aggressive) millenials and I thought her performance both funny and real.
9
Why choose a photo in which the character is bleeding -- inexplicably -- from the head? It's jarring, to say the least, and disconcerting in the context of this mostly lighthearted review.
7
Agreed. I can't believe there is a better ensemble cast on stage in NYC at the moment. Each has their moment or several moments in a 90 minute play without intermission that flies by and has one marvelling that the time has passed. And there is plenty of laughter too. Thanks to Mr. Brantley for giving it proper praise. I'd love to see it again.
16
Doing an autopsy on a classic play then giving it a new engine is not igniting fresh, innovative theater. What next? "Oedipus, Part 2" after rehab & eye surgery? This Sam Gold is a destructive poseur. a theatrical coroner. The mutilation of "The Glass Menagerie" cannot soon be forgiven. I must admit the musicalization of "A Doll s Life" was underrated. But of course its composers were long term geniuses not flavor of the week interlopers. Let s have a few more Gold interpretations so he can then be gone. Until then Netflix with some fine acting will suffice for this 50 year theater attendee.
6
Sophocles has already given us two follow-ups to Oedipus. They are Oedipus at Colonus and Antigone.
19
Please read carefully. Mr Movie Phone. I was referring to follow-ups written not by the original dramatist. I' ve experienced both Colonus & Antigone performed by first rate classical actors. I also have seen Seneca' s Oedipus staged & a vile musical of Colonus by Lee Breure.
2
Thank you dramaman for exposing the director with no clothes - ruined The Glass Menagerie and now this - why anachronisitc touches? They take away from the power of the story -
5
When I saw the West Coast version of this, the actors laying Torvald and Nora left a little bit to be desired. Perhaps this cast does the play the most justice.
2
This is sure to become a staple in repertoire across the nation. I shudder to think that this will become in the hands of so-so actors and directors. This fluffy soufflé of a play could sink into a gooey mess.
1
Great review! And imagining the great cross-promotional ad possibilities for two new smash hits.
tune of Hello Dolly!
Hello Doll’s House
Well, hello Doll’s House
It’s so great to have you back here on the boards
We hear you’re new, Doll’s House
You’re Part Two, Doll’s House
And today you’re on the way to get the big awards
The door had slammed, Doll’s House (last week, free tickets)
We’ll be damned, Doll’s House (this week, no tickets)
Just last weekend, there were freebies in row N
So -
Golly gee, Doll’s House
Since we all played wait-and-see, Doll’s House
Now it seems we won’t see cheap seats again!
tune of Hello Dolly!
Hello Doll’s House
Well, hello Doll’s House
It’s so great to have you back here on the boards
We hear you’re new, Doll’s House
You’re Part Two, Doll’s House
And today you’re on the way to get the big awards
The door had slammed, Doll’s House (last week, free tickets)
We’ll be damned, Doll’s House (this week, no tickets)
Just last weekend, there were freebies in row N
So -
Golly gee, Doll’s House
Since we all played wait-and-see, Doll’s House
Now it seems we won’t see cheap seats again!
10
same producers.
3
To sweetkeeper - Good point. I just looked at ibdb, and can't help thinking: wouldn't it be wonderful if a lot of the same investors who risked and lost on the tremendous daring of "Shuffle Along..." last year are among those making back their money (and more?) on the successes of this season?
3
It isn't just the tissues on the set that are anachronistic; as you can see in the photo the four chairs are two styles of what you might call Danish Modern. Very nice examples actually. The set pieces make the set in tune with the period dressed characters who talk with a very modern speech style.
Rashad was really not at all in the same league as the other three actors in this production. Yes, her performance was carefully thought out but she came off as a little more presentational and a little less really there than the others. A little too much university acting classes and not enough real world. You could chalk it up to youth and inexperience, but there are young actors who don't have the same shortcomings.
I'd like to read some comments on the ending of the play. I'm not quite sure about it myself.
Rashad was really not at all in the same league as the other three actors in this production. Yes, her performance was carefully thought out but she came off as a little more presentational and a little less really there than the others. A little too much university acting classes and not enough real world. You could chalk it up to youth and inexperience, but there are young actors who don't have the same shortcomings.
I'd like to read some comments on the ending of the play. I'm not quite sure about it myself.
"Presentational" Is a good description for Rashad's acting in Billions, too. I haven't been able to put my finger on what it is about her, in that role, that seems a tad off. She's very likable, but somehow not really into it. Youth and inexperience, yes.
2
Having famous parents in the industry and being able to walk and talk at the same time is all you need to have a career as an actor. Rashad, Hurt, Gummer, Rabe...the list goes on and productions keep suffering for it.
4
Wow. I thought Rashad was fantastic. Can y'all keep the snark from COMPLETELY consuming yourselves?
5