Movies as Messengers

     Upon viewing the 1973 version of Henrik Ibsen's 1879 A Doll's House, directed by Patrick Garland and starring Anthony Hopkins, I understand why most of the people disliked the version with Jane Fonda, directed by Joseph Losey. The Anthony Hopkins version is totally different from what the Jane Fonda version included.

     When Jane Fonda made A Doll's House, she was totally immersed in her up-with-women, power-to-women movement. Apparently from what I learned, Jane wanted to do a movie to help the femininist movement. She found that the story of a woman who frees herself of her obligations to her husband and family to be appealing to the woman's movement. I was disappointed with the movie as a whole anyway. I felt that the acting was overacted and that the story was not up to what the book had been. It was not what I had foreseen, as with the opinion of most of my classmates.

     The Anthony Hopkins version of A Doll's House, on the other hand, was an excellent movie. The acting was topnotch. Any movie with Anthony Hopkins usually contains excellent acting from Sir Anthony. Ever since Silence of the Lambs, directed in 1991 by Jonathan Demme, I have enjoyed his style and flare. The story A Doll's House itself remained as true as it could to the original play version. I liked the play about as best as could be expected, but the movie was wonderfully done. The story was one of a wife's (Claire Bloom) struggles to gain independence from her husband and become a member of society. At the end, she finally gets free. The movie portrays her struggle with great exposition, and I was impressed with how it was all done.

     In conclusion, I believe that A Doll's House with Anthony Hopkins is an excellent movie. It can be wonderfully portrayed, just as long as the social issues are left on the cutting room floor and not shown to the general public ever.

Richard Shepherd

Table of Contents