A Dolls House 2: Review (spoilers)

Posted: 5/21/17 at 12:20am

I saw the recently TONY Nominated play, A Dolls House Part 2 this afternoon and If I'm being honest, I walked away thinking...If this is the state of the American Theater in 2017, then the Broadway Play as we know it is in trouble.  It's been happening for some time now, if we look at the past few seasons the Musical has become the epicenter of the commercial and cultural American Theater and the PLAY now relies on the hope that hollywood stars and 16 weeks will save it.

This is an "original" sequel based on the Ibsen classic, A Dolls House that popular playwright of the last two seasons Lucas Hnath (whose much more worthy play, The Christians should have been his Broadway debut) has fan fictionalized...what if Nora came back to the life she abandoned 15 years later. Nothing wrong with this idea, at least it has a real theater lover concept. But there is nothing in the actual writing, directing, design, performance that feels new or innovative or of the moment. In fact, the themes here are so trite, so dusty, I was surprised anytime an audience member actually responded to it.

First there's the terrible title: A DOLLS HOUSE PART 2. For days after the marquee went up I thought maybe Saturday Night Live was filming a sketch out front. It brought back memories of The Producers when all the ridiculous marquee titles Max had produced throughout the years suddenly lit up or cheesy movies from the 1980's...Naked Gun 33 and 1/3.  The marketing has you believing it's a bit of a send up, but that is not altogether true.

The style is to be taken seriously, like a classic drama will ensue. Quickly you realize it's both send up and serious sequel.  The title was meant to confuse you, to make you think there was a modern/hip quality to it....besides a few F bombs and the characters speaking in mostly present day vernacular, there is nothing modern or hip about it. Neither idea works that well.

The themes all swirl around what happens when a woman abandons her family at that historical time.  It's an idea that would be fascinating if this were a historically accurate piece, a piece that also had the appropriate language, the appropriate investigation into the time period and the actions of those people. Without any of that, the themes don't feel dramatic. Watching Kramer vs. Kramer on television would pack more of punch and that film is 30 years old...that's how dusty this subject of how a woman could abandon her husband and children feels in 2017.

Mr. Hnath's dialogue is not witty or historically accurate (of course that's not the idea here, but it actually could have been a more engrossing idea). The cursing is there for cursing sake...these people just aren't the swearing kind. The effect is crass. He never trusts his audience so characters repeat there objectives over and over leaving us wanting semblance of subtext. There is none in this play. It strips all the actual drama out of the circumstances. This people would be all subtext. There are no manners, no social norms in their behavior even though that is at the basis of what the show is about...the social norms of women at that time. The story itself is all negated in the final scene which makes you throw your proverbial hands in the air after 90 mins of wondering what the point of this sequel is....Ibsen clearly wanted people to imagine what happened to Nora afterwards, our imaginations are better than what Hnath has come up with here.

Jane Houdyshell as Anne Marie the Nanny is perfection. Even in the more modern stretches of dialogue she brings out the classic style of Ibesn speech. She bring out the humor effortlessly. Not easy considering the humor is NOT in the writing. 

Laurie Metcalf, a legendary talent in the theater throws every comedy trick/action at the material and absolutely succeeds in finding funny where there is none. She is a true craftswoman and that is to be applauded. She brings the character almost no sympathy (that may be planned, the character is supped to be unapologetic) but at key moments where she is supposed to be admitting her faults to her ex husband her performance feels too removed. 

Chris Cooper as Torvald is giving the limpest performance I've seen on a Broadway stage in longer than I can remember. He clearly does not understand the difference between the camera and proscenium. He has no charisma or character really. And his chemistry with Laurie is nill, its a shame because she is giving him everyone to play with. He is hitting his mark, that's about all. The second scene in the show which is mainly him, you can feel the energy of the audience change. They are wondering if anything is wrong with him. HIS energy is so low it takes you out of the show completely. I kept thinking 

Condola Rashad is effective as the daughter Nora left behind...this is the most interesting concept of the show.  Her daughter is her before her enlightenment. Miss Rashad plays her with a strange sense of ignorance.

Director Sam Gold doesn't seem to have been interested in fine tuning the performances, they seem to be on different planes...especially Chris Coopers. His concept is minimalist...it looks cheap instead. lots of the staging feels forced for someone who wasn't too concerned with the aforementioned.

The set is a non sequitur. it doesn't really seem connected to the play. It's so minimalist they might as well have done it with a black stage. Same with the lights and the flimsy projections between scenes with no music...although at preset they made sure to play a punk rock playlist. Whatever they were going for is lost.

This play does not belong on Broadway.  In a stronger year I'm not sure a TONY Nomination would have been granted it. 

 

Updated On: 5/21/17 at 12:20 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 4:51am

You do realize you are in the minority on this one, yes? 

[tomwsjr]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 7:03am

Are you working for another 2017 Tony nominated play????  Personally, I feel you're wrong on all accounts.  

[n2nbaby]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 8:07am

As someone who finds this thread unnecessary and LOVED the play, y'all do realize that some people just aren't going to agree with you, right?

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 8:29am

I know I was in the minority as well cause everyone around me and most posters here seemed to love it but I hated this show too. 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 8:34am

I completely disagree with you.

[seeseveryshow2]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 8:40am

I agree with standing ovation. I think Doll House 2 is a tedious pointless mess, and the casting, acting and staging are miserable. A pain to have to listen to this nonsense. Didn't add up. Metcalf so wrong for this piece. She brought nothing to this role. How many times is Jayne Houdyshell going to play the same role? And Condola, like her mother, is all external acting without anything in her eyes that shows she is thinking. She was dreadful in Stick Fly, lost as Juliet, and in DHP2, she is simply awful.  most over-rated play of the season.  

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 9:27am

What, exactly, do you mean by "historical accuracy"? A Doll's House is a fictional story. Perhaps you mean period accuracy? I'm also not sure how a play about a woman's place in society written in Ibsen's style would, as you suggest, somehow feel less dusty. 

[Pippin]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 9:34am

Well, we all know what opinions are like..............

 

 

You're entitled to yours, but methinks you sound like a very frustrated dramaturg who has a big ol' stick up your you-know-what.

 
There is a reason it received the most amount of Tony nominations for a play this year: It's good. 
For me, I fell in love with the tone of the piece right away. Anachronistic, smart, and truly funny. Everything about it is superb, and beside Julia Louis Dreyfuss, Laurie Metcalf is the best comedienne we have today in America. Her performance was a tour de force that she expertly navigated from funny to sad, to angry, to endearing, to annoying, all effortlessly. My money is on her to win the Tonys, and I really, really hope she does. 

Updated On: 5/21/17 at 09:34 AM

[JBroadway]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 11:53am

For what it's worth, I agree with a lot of what the OP said. I didn't outright dislike the show. I thought the central conflict and excellent performances added up to a very engaging 90 minutes, but I had a lot of the same criticisms as the OP.

To me, this play felt like a very good college playwriting assignment, but a college playwriting assignment nonetheless. I could almost hear Hnath from the back of the house saying "look! I know how to create a central conflict, with characters who have clear tactics to achieve their objectives in service of their super-objectives." And he does! It was a masterclass in the fundamentals of playwriting. But for me, he didn't use that skill to create something really exciting. 

Posted: 5/21/17 at 12:25pm

Listen, I absolutely understand I may be part of the minority on this one, but I read Brantley's review in the times and I just didn't agree with any of it.

JBroadway, I agree with you on the actual content to the play. For me there is nothing here that is engrossing.

Pippin, I absolutely am with you on Metcalf being one of our greatest comedians...expertly navigated, yes. Funny, yes.  But I agree with seeseveryshow2, I think she's just miscast. I didn't really go on a full journey with her. I didn't buy her as this woman myself. And I'm with you on the anachronistic tone...I just didn't really think it was executed that well. What was the real payoff of what they actually did onstage? I thought it looked and felt like an unfinished thought.

WonderfulWizard11 maybe period  accuracy would have been a better way to describe it, but a Dolls House is written in the 1800's about about 19th century marriage norms. It is fiction, but without the real historical context of women at that time it holds no dramatic weight. I'm saying that if Hnath would have written the sequel with the same language as Ibsen, the same historical accuracy of the time, we could have been taken back there dramatically and been forced to really ponder what it must have been like for Nora to leave her husband and family...accurate history isn't dusty to me.  This was just about the idea of her coming back, I never once felt the danger for her as a woman of that time having to survive on her own because of society's stance about gender at the time.  

But then there is Chris Cooper's performance. Can anyone say they understood his take on the character or why the director wouldn't have crafted it to at least get close to laurie and Jane...even Condola?

 

Updated On: 5/21/17 at 12:25 PM

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 1:05pm

I agree with most of what the OP said. I read the original play before this "sequel" and was really aggravated as I gradually realized that ADHP2 was subtly (or probably not) undermining the ethos of the original. The comedic approach also felt cheap and tiring at certain points. I understand why many people find it fascinating, but it just doesn't work when you're expecting something that's consistent with it at least closer to the original both in content and in style.

[ArtMan]

Posted: 5/21/17 at 2:22pm

Count me as one who didn't like it either.  It dragged for me even at 90 minutes.  I couldn't understand why the use of modern slang in a period piece.  Maybe it was the midnight hour of viewing and a 3 show day.  I actually for the life of me can't remember the ending.  If someone can pm me and tell me what Nora's "decision" was, I would appreciate it.  I only had a coke during the open bar, so being drunk is not the reason.