A Doll’s House:

A Critical Introduction
Catherine Love

© Digital Theatre+ | Published: September 8, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
● Playwright: Henrik Ibsen .............................................................................................. 3
o Ibsen’s Life and Work ....................................................................................... 3
o New Version by Simon Stephens ................................................................. 3
● Contexts ........................................................................................................................... 5
o Original Performance Context ....................................................................... 5
o Production History ............................................................................................ 5
● A Doll’s House in the 21st Century ............................................................................ 8
● Textual Analysis............................................................................................................ 10
o Structure ............................................................................................................ 10
o Naturalism .......................................................................................................... 11
o Simon Stephens’ Version .............................................................................. 12
● A Doll’s House in Performance ................................................................................ 13
o Direction ............................................................................................................ 13
o Performances ................................................................................................... 13
o Design ................................................................................................................ 15
o Theatricality ...................................................................................................... 16
● Study Questions ........................................................................................................... 18
● References ..................................................................................................................... 19

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 2

PLAYWRIGHT: HENRIK IBSEN

IBSEN’S LIFE AND WORK

Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906) was a Norwegian playwright who heavily influenced the
development of theatrical Naturalism and whose plays are among the most
regularly produced texts in the Western dramatic canon. Ibsen worked as a director
and producer of plays, as well as writing his own scripts. He completed his first
published play, Catiline, in 1850, but he did not have major success as a playwright
until the 1860s. In his earlier plays, Ibsen drew from a range of genres and traditions,
including romance, melodrama, folk tales, and fantasy — sometimes combining
these in one play, as he did in Peer Gynt (1867). It was in the 1870s that he began
writing the naturalistic plays for which he remains most well-known, including Pillars
of Society (1877), A Doll’s House (1879), Ghosts (1881), An Enemy of the People (1882),
and Hedda Gabler (1890). Many of these plays challenged the social values of the
time and caused controversy when they were first written and performed. Ibsen
became a significant intellectual figure throughout Europe during his lifetime and his
plays have continued to be performed all over the world. His work has gone on to
influence many other major playwrights, such as George Bernard Shaw, Arthur
Miller, and Tennessee Williams.

To find out more about the playwright, read A Concise Introduction to Henrik Ibsen.

NEW VERSION BY SIMON STEPHENS

The English-language version of the script used in the Young Vic production was
written by Simon Stephens. Stephens is a regularly-produced contemporary British
playwright, who has written many of his own plays in addition to adaptations and
new versions of classic plays. Alongside A Doll’s House, he has also written English-
language versions of The Cherry Orchard (2014) and The Seagull (2017) by Anton
Chekhov as well as The Threepenny Opera (2016), Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill’s
musical. His plays include Port (2002), Motortown (2006), Punk Rock (2009), Three
Kingdoms (2012), Carmen Disruption (2014), and Fatherland (2017). He has also
written adaptations of the novels The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time
(2012) by Mark Haddon and Blindness (2020) by José Saramango. As well as

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 3

working extensively in Britain, Stephens’ plays have been widely performed in
continental Europe and he has regularly collaborated with European theatre-makers.

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 4

CONTEXTS

ORIGINAL PERFORMANCE CONTEXT

By the time Ibsen wrote A Doll’s House, he had already spent several years
experimenting with theatrical form and trying to reform the theatre in his native
Norway. Frustrated by the lukewarm Norwegian response to his attempts to create
serious drama, he left the country, moving first to Italy in 1864 and then to Germany
from 1868. In Germany, Ibsen was influenced by the innovative theatrical work of the
Duke of Saxe-Meiningen and his Meiningen Company, whose production of The
Pretenders he saw in 1876. The Meiningen Company’s shows placed an emphasis on
realistic characterization, authentic set and costumes, and lengthy ensemble
rehearsal, influencing the aesthetic of later naturalist theatre practitioners such as
Konstantin Stanislavsky and André Antoine.

A Doll’s House was written during the summer of 1879, while Ibsen was in Rome and
Amalfi. The play premiered on December 21 that same year at the Royal Theatre,
Copenhagen, directed by H. P. Holst. While the premiere production of the play was
pioneering in some ways, it still made use of relatively traditional stagecraft and had
a very limited rehearsal period, in contrast to the long rehearsals of the Meiningen
Company. It therefore represents a partial embrace of the naturalist theatrical
movement which was just beginning to develop across Europe at this time.

PRODUCTION HISTORY
The first production of A Doll’s House stayed in the repertory of the Royal Theatre in
Copenhagen for 28 years, demonstrating its enduring popularity. The play was first
produced in Norway at the Christiana Theatre in 1880 and received premieres in
Sweden and Germany in the same year. For German audiences, Ibsen was
persuaded to write an alternative ending, in which Nora’s decision to leave is
reversed after Torvald forces her to look at their sleeping children and consider what
it would mean to abandon them. This rewritten ending, however, was not successful
and was eventually abandoned.

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 5

A Doll’s House received its first professional British production in 1889, in a
translation by critic, essayist, and Ibsen champion William Archer, who translated
many of Ibsen’s plays into English. Despite an initially hostile reception from much of
the British press, the play has gone on to be regularly produced by British theaters.
In the premiere British production, Nora was played by Janet Achurch, who went on
to reprise the role numerous times, right up until 1911. Over the years, the central role
has been taken on by British actors including Claire Bloom, Cheryl Campbell, Janet
McTeer, Brenda Blethyn, and Anne-Marie Duff. The play was first seen on Broadway
in 1899, with Beatrice Cameron starring as Nora, and subsequent US productions
have featured actors including Ethel Barrymore, Ruth Gordon, and Dianne Wiest.
Across both sides of the Atlantic, A Doll’s House remains frequently revived.

Several more recent versions have sought to reimagine A Doll’s House, allowing
audiences to see this popular play afresh. American theatre company Mabou Mines
famously staged the play in 2003 with all the male characters played by actors
under five feet, leaving the women towering over them and contorting themselves to
fit the small furniture of the set. By subverting expectations in this way, the
production re-interrogated the play’s gender politics. Other adaptations have
brought a new perspective to the play by shifting Nora out of her original time and
place. Tanika Gupta (2019), for example, transposed the play to 19th-century India
and used it to interrogate British colonialism. Stef Smith’s version, Nora: A Doll’s
House (2019), located Ibsen’s drama in three simultaneous time periods – 1918, 1968
and 2018 – as a way of exploring the evolution of women’s rights over time.
Similarly, Nick Payne’s short film Nora (2012), commissioned to be released
alongside the Young Vic’s production of the play, imagines the central character as a
21st-century woman. Lucas Hnath’s A Doll’s House, Part 2 (2017), meanwhile, asks
what might have happened after the end of Ibsen’s play, showing Nora’s return to
her family after 15 years.

The production that you are watching was staged at the Young Vic Theatre in
London in 2012, directed by Carrie Cracknell. This theater has a reputation for
staging bold versions of the dramatic canon. In the same year as A Doll’s House, for
example, the theater produced a version of Hamlet set in a psychiatric hospital
(directed by Ian Rickson), a reshaped and cut-down revival of The Changeling
(directed by Joe Hill-Gibbins), and Benedict Andrews’ stripped-back, strikingly
contemporary Three Sisters. Unlike the adaptations cited above, Cracknell’s

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 6

production does not radically relocate Ibsen’s play, but it does allow the drama to
reach beyond its original context.

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 7

A DOLL’S HOUSE IN THE 21ST CENTURY
As with any contemporary revival of a text written in the past, the Young Vic’s
production of A Doll’s House raises the question of what resonances the play might
have with 21st-century audiences. Given its ongoing popularity, Ibsen’s drama
clearly continues to speak to readers and spectators over a century on from when it
was first written. Reflecting on the meaning of A Doll’s House in 2012, when the
Young Vic production was first staged, Simon Stephens suggested that it was:

“a really fascinating time to be considering a play which the writer perceived

to be about celebration of the autonomy and a call for the emancipation of
individuals and individual free will because, it strikes me, so many of the
political and socio-economic catastrophes facing us as a species now are, if
anything, born out of an over-indulgence in individual emancipation and
autonomy and a refusal to take a collective responsibility.” (Radosavljević,
2014, p.263)

He pointed to current economic and ecological crises as examples of where this

celebration of individuality has led us as a society. This connection between the
play’s focus on individual emancipation and the neoliberal over-emphasis on
individualism is made clear in Nora’s line “I don’t even really know what society is. I
don’t know if there’s any such thing” (Ibsen [Stephens] 2012, p.106). In Stephens’
version, this line has a clear echo of Margaret Thatcher’s famous statement that
“there’s no such thing as society” – an argument that was used to erode a sense of
community in favor of individual competition. While Stephens’ and Cracknell’s
version does not explicitly take a stance on the individualism espoused through
Nora’s final decision to take control over her destiny, it does perhaps cast the
protagonist’s emancipation in a slightly different light.

This critical examination of the play as an argument for individual autonomy stands
in contrast to interpretations which position it as a feminist piece. There has been a
long-standing debate over whether Nora’s decision to leave can be understood as a
feminist gesture or as a statement about the freedom and rights of every individual.
Ibsen himself strongly denied that the play made any argument about women’s
rights, but A Doll’s House has frequently been viewed through a feminist lens. While
Cracknell’s production emphasizes the idea of the individual and their rights, it does

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 8

also offer a critical representation of the gender politics inherent in the power
dynamic between Torvald and Nora. In this version, Cracknell underlines the ways in
which Torvald infantilizes his wife and makes it clear that the only way in which Nora
can exert any kind of power in this relationship is through using her sexuality.

Cracknell has explained how, while retaining the play’s 19th-century setting, her
production engages with 21st-century concerns:

“Nora’s story is uniquely placed to explore the intricacies of marriage—the

way in which people play roles with each other, the way in which men and
women lie to each other, and the sort of multi-faceted, multi-layered
construction that a marriage can become over a lifetime. This opens out a
series of questions about progress, specifically in relation to gender politics,
and about how far we think women have come.” (Cracknell, 2014)

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 9

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

STRUCTURE
A Doll’s House is an early example of Ibsen’s naturalistic social drama and displays
structural features that can also be seen across several of his later plays. A key
aspect of the play’s structure is its gradual disclosure of information about the
characters’ pasts in a way that heightens suspense and drives the drama. The
apparent comfort and stability of the present is ruptured by the emergence of long-
buried secrets, which also serve to explain the ways in which characters act. Nora’s
apparent frivolity is shown to be a tactic of deception and manipulation, necessitated
by her fraudulent borrowing of money; Torvald’s desire to maintain control over his
household might be seen as compensating for the lack of control he experienced
during his past illness.

This use of revelations both borrows from and adapts the ‘well-made play’: a formula
associated with prolific French playwright Eugène Scribe. The well-made play is
driven by plot, with characters who serve this plot, and its action builds to a dramatic
climax followed by a neat resolution. As well as establishing complex characters
who are more than mere functions of the plot, A Doll’s House subverts the
conventions of the well-made play by upsetting the expected resolution. The arrival
of Krogstad’s second letter would appear to settle things for both Nora and Torvald,
allowing their household to return to its status quo. But rather than resolving the
drama, this turn of events instigates Nora’s departure. The play’s ending is therefore
its most revolutionary element — both in terms of its challenge to social values at the
time, and in terms of its structure. As pointed out by Dominic Rowan, who plays
Torvald in the Young Vic production, the conclusion leaves things radically
unresolved:

“The play operates as some sort of pre-history, clearing the rubble. At the end
of it you go ‘and now… what?’ What do we do now? Now that we’ve exposed
all these structures and these oppressive ways of behaving, where do we
go?” (Rowan, 2013, On Acting)

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 10

The play closes with a new beginning, leaving audiences to wonder what might
become of both Nora and Torvald after that final door slam. There is no happy
ending and there are no easy answers.

NATURALISM
A Doll’s House is one of the earliest plays in the naturalist movement and was part of
a body of work that had a huge influence on European playwriting and stagecraft.
While Naturalism is now a familiar convention, at the time Ibsen was writing, it was a
radical rejection of the theatrical status quo. As opposed to melodramatic or
romantic dramas, which typically relied upon character types and sensational plots,
naturalistic plays focused on psychologically realistic characters in detailed
domestic settings, and they often addressed gritty contemporary realities and social
issues. Other well-known naturalist playwrights from this period include Anton
Chekhov and August Strindberg.

The term ‘Naturalism’ was coined in 1866 by French novelist, playwright, and
journalist Émile Zola. While Zola is best remembered for his novels, he was also
influential in the development of naturalistic theatre. In his essay ‘Naturalism in the
Theatre’, written two years after the premiere of A Doll’s House, he identifies some of
his desires and goals for this emerging form, which he characterizes as “real human
drama” (Zola, in Gale and Deeney, 2016, p.124). The ‘naturalistic evolution’ that Zola
claims is necessary for theatre in the late 19th century involves “the gradual
substitution of physiological man for metaphysical man” (p.133), while naturalistic
staging calls for “detailed reproduction” (p.134) and the use of lifelike costumes, sets,
and acting.

But the aims of Naturalism go beyond simply replicating real life in the theater.
Influenced by scientific developments at the time, naturalist writers were interested in
the effects of heredity and environment upon individuals and explored this through
the characters they created for the stage. We can see this in A Doll’s House, in which
Nora’s character has been conditioned by her upbringing, the expectations of the
society she lives within, and the immediate environment of the marital home
depicted in the play. Her transformation at the end of the play is partly brought
about by a realization of the ways in which her personality has been shaped by
these forces, to the extent that she does not even know herself.

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 11

To find out more about Naturalism, read A Concise Introduction to Naturalism.

SIMON STEPHENS’ VERSION

The version of the play written by Simon Stephens has been created from a literal
translation of the original Norwegian by Charlotte Barslund. The playwright has not,
therefore, directly translated the play himself, unlike some of the writers of other
English-language versions of Ibsen. Stephens has explained that, when writing
versions of plays like A Doll’s House, he sees his task as creating “a text that sits
happily in actors’ mouths” (Stephens, 2014). He explains that his ‘sole concern’ in this
process is linguistic: “I have kept the characters the same and the structure the same
and the story the same on all occasions” (Stephens, 2014). Stephens sees play texts
as “starting points for a night in the theatre” (Stephens, 2014), and therefore his
approach is driven by a desire to make the script as actable as possible for a 21st-
century production, rather than concerning himself with the minutiae of linguistic
fidelity.

Scholar John Bull has described the process of creating this version of A Doll’s
House as one of what he calls ‘Add-Aptation.’ This term, coined by Bull, refers to “a
position somewhere between adaptation and appropriation” (Bull, 2018, p.283).
These new versions of classic plays contain additions that are “both deliberate and
significant” (Bull, p.284), without radically overhauling the source material. One
example of this is the expansion of the scenes between Nora and her children, which
is discussed further in the next section. In her interview On Directing, Cracknell
similarly describes the version that she created with Stephens as “true to the heart
and the spirit of the original play,” but with “increased resonance for a contemporary
audience” (Cracknell, 2013).

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 12

A DOLL’S HOUSE IN PERFORMANCE

DIRECTION
As Cracknell discusses in her interview On Directing, she sees her role as creating a
solid structure for the production based on detailed analysis of the play text. The
actors can then work within this structure for performance after performance over the
length of the run, making new discoveries, and evolving their roles over time. As part
of this work building a structure, Cracknell used improvisation with actors in the
rehearsal room as a tool to build more naturalistic performances. Hattie Morahan,
who played Nora, notes that “a lot of the characters in the play are essentially
products of their history” (Morahan, 2013, On Acting); or, as Zola would put it, they
are shaped by their pasts and the environments they have lived within. It was
therefore important to improvise these moments from the characters’ pasts as part of
the rehearsal process, so that this history could inform the performances.

Two aspects of the play that have been expanded or emphasized in Cracknell’s
production are the sexual dynamic between Torvald and Nora and the relationship
that Nora has with her children. In this version, Torvald’s desire for Nora is stressed
throughout, as is the way in which she exploits this to distract him from her secrets.
This is made apparent from early in the first act, when Torvald kisses Nora
passionately before the interruption of Dr. Rank’s and Mrs. Linde’s arrivals. Working
with Stephens, meanwhile, Cracknell has extended the short scenes in the play
between Nora and her children and has made the decision to depict her youngest
child as a baby. As a result of this directorial choice, Nora’s role as a mother and her
complex feelings about this role are foregrounded, making her eventual departure
even more of a dramatic rupture.

PERFORMANCES
The character of Nora is at the heart of A Doll’s House, and therefore the
performance of this central role is vital for any production. As played by Hattie
Morahan, Nora is nervous and excitable on the surface, yet she is shown to have
greater control over her own self-presentation and others’ responses to her than it
might initially appear. Her neuroses are brought to the surface by Morahan’s

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 13

constant, restless movement — fluttering her hands, twisting her wedding ring around
her finger, moving back and forth across the space. Yet we also see how she is
capable of deceiving and manipulating those around her — especially Torvald —
through her performance of girlish excitement. Both her anxiety and her artificiality
come to a head in her performance of the tarantella, which simultaneously acts as a
desperate distraction from the secret that is about to be revealed and channels her
rising panic through the frantic steps. When Nora’s performance finally crumbles at
the end of the play, Morahan is startlingly still, barely moving while Torvald speaks
to her. This contrast with her previous restlessness makes the shift in her character
clear before she has uttered a single word in response. In her interview On Acting,
Morahan explains that she interpreted Nora’s realizations in the final scenes as
unfolding in the moment. “For me,” she says, “the moment where she says ‘that’s
why I’m leaving you’ is the first moment that she knows that she’s leaving him”
(Morahan, 2013). This process of reasoning is played out in Morahan’s expressions
and movements — or lack thereof — throughout this section of the performance.

This production’s interpretation of Torvald is equally complex, never turning him into
a straightforward antagonist. As Cracknell explains, while writing his new version of
the play, Stephens made the discovery that Torvald has two contradictory drivers
behind his character: “he has a very strong sexual drive, which is at the heart of him
as a man and as a human, but that in some ways is in conflict with his sense of
morality and his sense of what is right and proper in the society that he lives in”
(Cracknell, 2013, On Directing). He is also haunted by the illness that prompted
Nora’s act of fraudulently borrowing money, which in this version is interpreted as a
mental breakdown. Dominic Rowan explains:

“[Torvald’s anxiety] is never too far away from him […] any mental health issue
or physical breakdown undermines his sense of who he should be and the
responsibilities he should have, so he has to caretake that very closely in
order to maintain his position in society and who he feels he should be as a
man.” (Rowan, 2013, On Acting)

Rowan’s Torvald often seems to be in thrall to Nora’s beauty and motivated by his
desire for her. Their relationship in this production is a strikingly tactile one; he
frequently finds excuses to touch her. Yet this flirtatious behavior is quickly dropped
in favor of rigid self-control whenever Torvald feels that his reputation might be
under threat. In Rowan’s performance, this defensive response to perceived danger

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 14

is most evident towards the end of the play when he reads Krogstad’s first letter. But
just as quickly, this contained anger melts away once the threat has passed, and
Torvald returns to the infantilizing tenderness with which he has previously treated
his wife. Unlike Nora, his character has not significantly developed over the course of
the play’s events.

DESIGN
One of the most striking aspects of this version of A Doll’s House is its revolving set,
designed by Ian MacNeil. When the lights come up, this set is in motion, showing us a
360-degree view of the Helmers’ home as Nora moves busily around it. MacNeil’s
design contains the living room, the dining room, Nora’s bedroom, Torvald’s study,
and the all-important front door, all connected by a central hallway, as well as an
external staircase off to stage right. Whereas each of Ibsen’s acts is written to be
contained within the single space of the living room, Cracknell’s production allows
for the action to move around the apartment. Between scenes, meanwhile,
performers flit from room to room, creating vignettes that flesh out the life of this
household. We see the Torvalds at their Christmas dinner, or the servants keeping
things in order.

The choice of rooms to show is significant in itself. It is clear from context that this
design does not depict the whole apartment; we do not see the children’s bedrooms,
for example, or the kitchen. It’s worth paying attention, then, to what we do see. Most
of the play takes place in the living room, as envisaged by Ibsen. The addition of the
dining room provides another entertaining space in which characters can speak to
one another, while Nora’s bedroom offers a more private location for intimate
discussions and the sharing of secrets. Torvald’s study, meanwhile, is never entirely
opened up to the audience. We only see it in glimpses when the stage revolves,
revealing Torvald at work or in conversation with other men. It comes to represent a
sealed-off, male space, to which neither Nora nor the audience are granted full
access. The hallway, while seemingly just a transitional space, is also crucial, as
MacNeil explains: “I hit on something where I thought, when they’re in the corridor
they’re not acting […] they’re relieved of some pressure to perform” (MacNeil, 2012,
On Design).

These various spaces are dissected by windowed walls, allowing the audience a
partial view from one room into another. Seen through these windows as the set

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 15

rotates, Nora appears like an inhabitant of the doll’s house of the play’s title — a
pretty plaything trapped behind glass. Or perhaps she is reminiscent of a bird in a
cage, picking up on Torvald’s many references to his wife as a swallow, a skylark, a
chaffinch. This makes it all the more significant when she escapes this cage at the
end of the play, exiting the front door and descending the staircase.

The addition of multiple rooms also has an impact upon the reading of the drama at
key moments. One example of this can be seen immediately after Torvald has read
the final letter from Krogstad and has ‘forgiven’ Nora. Nora moves from the dining
room, where this conversation has taken place, to her bedroom next door, leaving
the door open at Torvald’s request so he can continue to talk to her. As written, she
is offstage for the following speech. But in this staging, the audience can see Nora as
she listens to her husband, allowing us to witness her reactions and read her thought
process as she makes her decision to leave.

THEATRICALITY
As she explains to Torvald her reasons for leaving him, Nora says: “I’ve lived my
whole marriage like a beggar. Like a street entertainer. I survive by performing tricks
for you” (Ibsen [Stephens] 2012, p.103). In Cracknell’s production, the theatricality and
artificiality of Nora and Torvald’s marriage is highlighted for an audience. They are
both constantly playing roles, and Nora in particular has to maintain the effort of
performing for Torvald and the other men in her life.

This theatricality is epitomized by the dancing of the tarantella, which in this

production becomes the dramatic closing moment of the second act, right before the
interval. This dance begins as a desperate distraction, performed for Torvald and Dr.
Rank. But it becomes increasingly stylized and removed from the Naturalism of the
rest of the production, as a spotlight isolates Nora’s jerking body. Discussing this
moment, Cracknell has argued that “it was one of the few places where Nora was
allowed to express something of herself” and that Nora is ‘released’ by this dance
(Cracknell, 2013, On Directing). And yet even in this moment the character remains
caught within the male gaze, performing for her own survival.

It is also significant that at the end of the play we see Nora removing her tarantella
costume — something that would typically take place off stage in productions where
the action is confined to the living room. Instead, this version allows us as an

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 16

audience to see Nora shedding her performative layers as she comes to the
climactic realization that for her whole life, she has just been acting the parts that
men have scripted for her.

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 17

STUDY QUESTIONS
1) Working through the play from beginning to end, plot out a map of when and how
information is revealed.

Identify each significant piece of information (e.g. the fact that Nora borrowed money
to enable her and Torvald to go to Italy) and note down when it is revealed to both
the audience and to specific characters within the drama.

Pay attention to the way in which this information is revealed.

● Is it shared as a secret between two characters?
● Does it come out as a dramatic revelation?
● Is it implied to the audience, or directly stated?

Once you have your map drawn up, consider what this can tell us about how Ibsen
has crafted the release of information and the development of the drama. How
would the play look if this information was revealed differently?

2) Nora’s decision to leave Torvald and her children at the end of the play may seem
sudden, but seeds are planted throughout the play as her character evolves
emotionally. Working through act by act, try to identify all the steps that lead to
her final decision and examine how these steps are presented, both in the script
and in performance.

3) In ‘Naturalism in the Theatre’, Émile Zola insists that “The environment must
determine the character” (Zola, in Gale and Deeney, 2016, p.134). In what ways
are the characters in A Doll’s House determined by their environment?

4) Why not have a go at updating the play yourself? If you were to rewrite A Doll’s
House to set it in the 21st century, what would you change? What elements of
Nora’s personality and environment would you consider? What would you keep
the same?

5) To what extent do you think A Doll’s House can be seen as a feminist play?

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 18

REFERENCES
Bull, J. (2018). Add-Aptation: Simon Stephens, Carrie Cracknell and Katie Mitchell’s
‘Dialogues’ with the Classic Canon. Journal of Contemporary Drama in English, 6(1),
pp.280-299.

Cracknell, C. (2014). In Conversation with Carrie Cracknell. [online] BAM Blog.

Available at: https://blog.bam.org/2014/02/in-conversation-with-carrie-cracknell.html
[Accessed 22 July 2022].

Ferguson, R. (2001). Henrik Ibsen: A New Biography. London: Faber and Faber.

Ibsen, H. (2008). A Doll’s House: Student Edition. Translated by M. Meyer. London:

Methuen Drama.

Ibsen, H. (2012) A Doll’s House. New version by S. Stephens. London: Methuen

Drama.

Innes, C. (2000). A Sourcebook on Naturalistic Theatre. London: Routledge.

Johnston, B. (1992). The Ibsen Cycle: The Design of Plays from Pillars of Society to
When We Dead Awaken. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Lan, D. (2014). In Conversation with Carrie Cracknell. [online] BAM Blog. Available at:
<https://blog.bam.org/2014/02/in-conversation-with-carrie-cracknell.html> [Accessed
5 September 2022].

Ledger, S. (1999). Henrik Ibsen. Plymouth: Northcote House.

McFarlane, J., ed. (1994). The Cambridge Companion to Ibsen. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Meyer, M. (1974). Ibsen. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Meyer, M. (2008). ‘Commentary’. In H. Ibsen, A Doll’s House: Student Edition. London:

Methuen Drama, pp.19-60.

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 19

Moi, T. (2006). Henrik Ibsen and the Birth of Modernism: Art, Theatre, Philosophy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Radosavljević, D. (2014). ‘Theatre as an Intellectual Concertina: Simon Stephens in

Conversation with Duška Radosavljević’. In: M. Laera, ed., Theatre and Adaptation:
Return, Rewrite, Repeat. London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama, pp.255-268.

Stephens, S. (2014). Simon Stephens: why my Cherry Orchard is a failure. [online] The
Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/oct/16/the-cherry-
orchard-chekhov-simon-stephens-katie-mitchell [Accessed 15 July 2022].

Williams, R. (1993). Drama from Ibsen to Brecht. London: Hogarth Press.

Zola, É. (2016). ‘Naturalism in the Theatre’. In M. B. Gale and J. F. Deeney, eds., The
Routledge Drama Anthology: From Modernism to Contemporary Performance.
London: Routledge, pp.124-135.

A Doll’s House: A Critical Introduction | Digital Theatre+ 20