By Ethan Doskey
A Doll’s House upset and intrigued audiences unlike any play before it. The first performance in 1879 at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen was seen as fiercely scandalous, and in some cases, dangerous. One critic, Peterson, warned, “The lack of reconciliation has wide-reaching consequences for the effect of this play within the world of readers,” and another critic, Skram, wrote, “When the woman first has risen, she will never let herself be stopped again. Like Nora, she will let the duties that her doll-life gave birth to fall dead to the ground, because the work with her own, neglected self will absorb and annul everything else.” The attitude of some male reporters feared that Ibsen’s writing would give their wives ideas; soon all women would demand respect, equality, and a sense of individualism! Alternatively, many patrons were able to see past their conservative fears and acknowledge Nora as a human being deserving of independence. A local newspaper, the Social Demokraten, wrote,
“Finally an event at The Royal Theatre, and an event of the first class! This play touches the lives of thousands of families; oh yes there are thousands of such doll-homes, where the husband treats his wife as a child he amuses himself with, and so that is what the wives become... Who, after seeing this play, has the courage to speak scornfully about run-away wives? Is there anyone who does not feel that it is this young and delightful young woman’s duty, her inescapable duty, to leave this gentleman, this husband, who slowly sacrifices her on the altar of his egotism, and who fails to understand her value as a human being?”
While audiences were shocked and divided seeing Nora’s behavior at the end of A Doll’s House, nearly all noted the impressive, unprecedented style, and shocking relevance of the performances. Ibsen revolutionized theatre in his ability to write pressing civil matters, putting them on stage for the audience to question. This fresh modernist style that Ibsen championed confronted patrons with a moral dilemma delivered honestly. The run of the show completely sold out and due to its national attention, the play found new life a year later at the Royal Theatre in Stockholm.
A Doll’s House did not please everyone, even those in the cast. Quite famously, Hedwig Niemann-Raabe, the actress playing Nora in a 1880 German production, was enraged by the idea that a mother would choose to leave her own children. So, Niemann-Raabe refused to act in the play as written. Because copyright laws had not yet been created to protect playwrights, productions had no obligation to stick to the original script. Ibsen was put in a quandary: he either lets the German production alter his script how they want, or he himself rewrites the ending to satisfy Niemann-Raabe. After much push back, the Norwegian playwright eventually surrendered and decided to change the story in an effort to hold onto some dignity. The alternate ending showed Torvald leading Nora to the children’s bedroom where she sinks to her knees and the curtain falls. Ibsen made other alterations to the play, too. Marvin Rosenberg, an essayist writing for Modern Drama, compares the two versions writing,
“The original ending, written for a play about a husband's mistreatment of a woman, to suggest that women are imprisoned in gilded doll's houses, needful of freedom, is almost intact. But then the artist took over, and made husband and wife two incompatible individuals whose inevitable clash has nothing to do with the issue of women's rights” (Rosenberg 194).
Although Ibsen hesitated in rewriting the play, the choice ultimately soiled the production and audiences condemned the decision to the point that Niemann-Raabe decided to revert back to Ibsen’s original script.
In another odd episode of theatre history, an English translation/gross adaptation of A Doll’s House was written in 1884 called Breaking a Butterfly. The title alone reveals the attitude the production held towards Nora. Because the original script was banned in London at the time, this strange show completely tarnished Ibsen’s intent. The play itself viewed Nora as a doll, depicting her as the simple-minded wife Torvald believes she is. In this ending, Torvald admits to Nora that he is the guilty one, but Nora cries in protest, “You are a thousand times too good for me,” and she stays home.
Five years later, a true translation of A Doll’s House was performed in London’s Novelty Theatre, starring Janet Achurch as Nora. While critics ripped Ibsen’s play apart, the audiences ate it up, selling out the show every night. The unlikely success of the play turned Ibsen into a household name as the theatre-goers fought over the moral dilemmas A Doll’s House poses. The play also encouraged the birth of more playhouses; fringe theaters which would put on the widely banned play for years to come.