At first, i was confused on the thesis they are responding to in this short, but after careful thought i see they hit the same point. Nora is not working for herself but for others. She is sacrificing herself to appease others while losing her own identity in the process. I can relate to this. This video just jump started thoughts to finalize a research paper i am working on Ibsen, thanks.
This is just one side of the coin.But I don’t understand why you peple cannot see the problem of nuclear family??? Where is the other family members?? If we live in a joint family there wont be this sort of problems. And the most crucial thing is no one live for just oneself. We all live for one another.
Nora is an immature extremist, similar to Torvald. But whereas Torvald maturely indicates he might be open to growth with her, she immaturely quits. How about learning to assert yourself in your marriage, talk frankly and honestly, and work with a man who loves you? She really needs to work on her toxicity.
I noticed many people on this thread took this short film too literally. Yes, this modern Nora had more of a choice when it came to being a mom and wife than the Victorian Nora. However what the maker of this film is trying to imply is that women have still not reached equal status to men. We still live in a patriarchal society where men are expected to have good paying careers, but women's ambitions are downplayed. Women are supposed to work nurturing type careers like teachers and nurses. They are not suppose to aspire to be surgeons or high powered executives or anything like that. In this film, Nora does not appear to be a teacher or nurse, she works a corporate job. Many women are judged harshly for trading time with their kids to work corporate jobs. Men are not judged harshly for the same things as women
@@SFsuperforte Bruv your absolutely right. Feminists these days just overthink and try to express a opinion which they believe to be sensible and correct after reading about antifeminism occurring in the past...
I'm sure your college lecturer gave you an A for that one, but it ignores that men and women are not only different, and tend to have different goals and abilities, but also that in societies where women have more freedom to choose than anywhere else (eg Sweden) they choose what you call 'nurturing'.
@@1977ajaxtheir ‘having more freedom’ doesn’t change the fact there’s still existing ideology that women are carers and men are breadwinners. it’s input in school curriculums, from older generations and laws. it doesn’t mean women in sweden for example wouldn’t be subliminally disencouraged to limit their time with their kids to succeed in a career, something a man would not be penalised for. men often find it hard to understand this as they can’t see the disadvantage in the dynamic since they’ve been made to think it’s a woman’s choice to have her primary status as mother/wife because it’s that common
Nora in the original play did not abandon her family, just because she was fed up with the role of being wife and mother, but because she thought it would be best for her children. Torvald mentions that children that grow up with problems are a direct result of the mother’s fault. Nora forging her father’s signature made her a criminal and a bad role model, according to the play. She hoped torvald would stand up against society and defend her by taking the fault for the forged signature. But Torvald wasn’t going to do that because of his reputation. That is when Nora realized that he wouldn’t sacrifice himself the way she had sacrificed herself to save Torvald, hence the reason she leaves. She mentions that the only way they could be together again is if they both changed altogether- Nora learning to be a better wife and mother, and Torvald prioritizing what is really important. But that’s just my take on it.
I agree. And since Torvald was the smarter, more mature, most functional member of the relationship, he dodged the proverbial bullet. In my mind he remarried and was much happier.
I agree that though effective on many levels - and very well made and acted, this is less a response to Ibsen than to Helen Gurley Brown. What we see here is the crisis of a post-modern woman who has ALREADY taken control of her destiny within a smug culture that has yet to shed patriarchal AND matriarchal prejudices. Ibsen's Nora is a woman who has no idea who she is as a person. This Nora is saturated with TOO MUCH personhood - too many roles, too many aspirations to implement effectively within a multiplicity of hegemonies (except class - because clearly the couple can afford a Nanny [and what are HER aspirations?]). This work nods to Ibsen, but I think it's conversation is with something much more recent.
I agree that this contemporary, Anglo-Saxon Nora merely appears as selfish, as unsatisfied with the smorgasbord of choices available to her, but which she addresses with no depth of inquiry or analysis. Not to sound too dogmatic (though, of course I will), but underneath Ibsen's original, there was a subtle interrogation of bourgeois propriety; there's none of that here - no questioning of the surpluses into which 'Nora' and her husband have bought into smilingly: the well appointed home, the nanny, the high concept job where - damn it!- she has to wear heels to be taken seriously. Hence my allusion to Helen Gurley Brown: brought up to believe she can 'have it all', she doesn't know what to do with any of it. If one WERE to propose what this film is saying as a feminist statement, it might be that yes, after forty years, (middle class) women are expected to juggle far more than men are; the inequality lies in distribution of responsibilities rather than in a denial of access to power. I think the filmmakers might have taken a more radical position and less of a 'middle class laissez-faire feminist' pose. What might this film have been like if 'Nora' was a black or East Indian woman, or a single mother with a nanny, a gay or lesbian couple - or even a straight man! Yes, a man. When a man abandons his family (regardless of class or race) he is seen as 'criminal', but rarely is such an assessment placed on a woman because it is assumed she is overwhelmed or undeveloped. There can be no sense of equality until these moral positions are equalized. Women and men are human beings: they can be criminal or overwhelmed, depending on your morality - but this morality needs to operate through a lens not governed by gender based assumptions. Your thoughts ARE clear - and you have pointed out that this film seems to be about a sociological illness regarding middle management wage slavery (ie: this is the conversation or dialogue I meant): I agree...I just don't know if Ibsen's material is the analogue an artist could be using to make such an inquiry. Apologies for my rather elevated tone: my college degree was in art and cinema criticism (in those heady and somehow almost Stalinist late 1980s days of po-mo deconstructionism - which, my sources tell me, are still around). Really, I have a heart of gold and am just a down to earth schmuck. Thanks for an inspiring intellectual conversation!
I'm studying A Doll's House at the moment, and I find your saturated personhood argument really thought-provoking. However, I can't help thinking that within this saturated state, has 21st century Nora lost all sense of self, to the point where she is almost identical to Ibsen's original Nora (completely devoid of job, status, individuality, independence)?
This is a really great short, and a great modern response to Ibsen's 1879 play. But i feel that the bulk of these comments miss the mark, and the overall point of the short. Its about her working, not for herself, but to please others. And how the men, note the men in the boardroom, one blowing smoke up the boss' arse. By being amazed that he can play golf, and work. And note how the father isn't there at breakfast, its left to the woman to cook, clean, get herself and child ready for play school. So we can assume thats not a one off, he is probably rarely there at breakfast, or to pick the child up from playschool. And, i don't think ANYONE picked this up. WHICH i am flabbergasted by, Nora entering the bathroom, applying makeup to a black eye. So here we have an instant suggestion. In fact, its more obvious than a suggestion. Of domestic abuse.
Completely agree with almost everything you've said and it's a great response to a Doll's House but I saw her covering up dark under eyes (so covering up/ hiding the physical impact of stress) rather than physical violence.
+rorrt Realize this is late, but there's only one interpretation, she's putting on make-up for normal everyday human reasons. No indication of domestic abuse, at all. The interpretation is a bit off too, as in Ibsen's drama Torvald isn't at work from sunrise to sunset. As per the dad not being around, it's hard to fault a modern man for being at work 12 hour days when his wife is also working. Ibsen's Nora had a nurse and a housemaid in attendance. This short, while very well done, would be a better correlation to Ibsen's work if the woman portrayed were quite a bit more wealthy, and unemployed.
***** I would still say that the jury is out on whether or not she has a black eye. At least to me, that was clear from a first viewing. And stands up to repeat viewings. And of course this isn't a verbatim translation of the Ibsen text, but rather its themes. Of a woman doing all the work, more so here than in the play. But i can't be sure of that, because you seem to know the play better than I. Doing all the work around the house. And i would say, as for the "modern man" thing.. My father, who i'd consider a "modern man" was up and about when i was getting ready for school. Helping out. But you are 100% correct that the Ibsen play shows a far more extravagant lifestyle.
+rorrt i rewatched it after reading this, and I disagree. I don't think domestic abuse was indicated. Her eyes were just very very tired looking. I am fairly sure they were just showing how she is extremely exhausted.
As many ppl pointed out, this has only few similarities with the play in the surface, like both Nora leaves her children, but the core, motivations, reasons, characters it isnt the same You cant take out a key moment, and put a modern world around it, and call it the same thing...
This Modern Nora has put an effort to make audience feel her haphazard situation, but the real Nora is debted to Ibsen; she has successfully introduced the concept of 'new women' in modern era, and has got the whole world sprouting the moment she left her house!
The people in the comments complaining about this version mirror the original audience of the play, complaining that Nora could abandon her husband and children.
Actually...I'd love to see a follow up to this called "Hedda" - now THAT would be a short: the crisis of an extraordinarily intelligent person in a room full of dolts whose response to bourgeois boredom is a kind of burlesque of Richard III played out in a drawing room.
This film, like the play, says that some people, some women, are so toxic, so dysfunctional, they dont appreciate what they have. They are likely destined to be miserable. It is not necessarily their fault...but it sure sucks for their partners and children.
I really like the work that was put into this and the idea, but as a modern day version of Ibsen's play, I think it was lacking. In Ibsen's play, I really felt sympathy for Nora and the role that she was being forced to play. In this response, I feel as though Nora had a lot of things going on, yeah, but to leave your kids with no supervision is unforgivable. Nora in the play does not just abandon her kids, there are other people in the house to take care of them. Also, I feel as though this could have also been better if it included the husband and the gender roles that he is also trapped in with this modern take. But, that's just a personal thing and has nothing to do with what you actually did.
I think the reason why Nora abandoned her children was because doing so would be considered a grave offence, however at time the original play was written, a woman asking for a divorce especially when there was no adultery or abuse in the relationship was seen as a taboo. In my opinion, I think it was just the writers way of trying to show us what was and is considered wrong at the time being.
I agree with what you've said. I'd also like to add a point that in the play, Trovald was seen treating Nora like a child who needed protection and constant care, which was a huge aspect of the play, and that part seemed to be missing from the film. If they could've at least shown a whisper of Trovald's attitude towards her, would've helped to show more depth. Other than that, loved it.
It's interesting to see this interpretation of the play. It's as if the director is trying to counter Ibsen's argument (that women have the right to pursue their own desires) by presenting an overwhelmed mother completely neglecting her children. In the play, we see that Nora does care for her children and ensures that they are going to be cared for by Anne-Marie and Torvald; however, this film portrays Nora's departure as an act of child abuse. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this interpretation but I can appreciate its modern take on a timeless play.
Shame the poor children who belong to the modern generation. Nobody seems to point out that the children are significantly affected by both parents needing to work.
As i have read through many of the previous comments before mine I see all collectively the same response (some immature) but mostly an opinion of glorification. I seem to have been effected differently to this "response" feature. This depiction of Nora as a current day woman shown with a career AND children seems like the woman who can do it all, something many modern woman aspire to do, however as Ibsen's Nora decides to turn her back on the life she has been placed in translates much differently to modern day. The immediate message i received from this response is that woman have much more power today to decide the road we wish to lead. This depiction of 21'st century Nora shows selfishness and actions of a coward, not empowerment. I think this response to Ibsen's play is one that simply does not translate to modern day, therefore a response that disagrees. Today children are considered a CHOICE that modern world woman have, and to have a career is also an opportunity that woman are given. To accept either means that woman now have the responsibility to uphold. Ibsen was a supporter of the realism and suffrage movement, today we are well in an age of woman empowerment that is supported mostly all over the world by woman AND men. The message today simply doesn't translate unless the woman was forced into marriage and baring children (which yes still exists) but this film depicts a modern woman in a first world country. I will close my comment with admiration of this work, the production is done beautifully.
While I agree with you on what you're saying, I think there is still an important message being translated onto this modern woman in a first-world country. I think while the Nora in Ibsen's play had less access to power and independence than this Nora, Ibsen's Nora also made choices. What guided her choices wasn't her own thoughts, but rather her instincts which were based on the assumptions and expectations heaped on her due to her gender. As a result, she floated through life and through relationships, doing what she thought was best but never with her feet on the ground. While Nora's powerlessness in society plays a huge role in Ibsen's play, also important was her powerlessness in thinking and acting for herself. She lived her life playing the roles others expected of her and never thinking for herself, like a doll being dressed up and moved around by a puppeteer. By leaving home, and finally taking responsibility for her thoughts and choices, Ibsen's Nora doesn't expect to enter a society where women and men are magically equal. She hopes to become more authentic in thinking for herself. By doing so, her actions and choices will become legitimate in a way they never could have been unless she left. By leaving home, Nora isn't going to suddenly enter a world where she has power, but she will know dignity, and that is the kind of mother she wants to be for her children. While we say the Nora in this short should be less selfish and should accept the responsibilities of her choices, audiences of Ibsen's day criticized Nora in the play's selfishness as well. It is just as much this woman's choice to put on make up and work for a high-end marketing business (or whatever) as it was Nora's choice to play along with Torvald and act like a squirrel as she chirped for "ten, twenty, thirty, forty kroners!" I think there's a couple things about the final scene (both Ibsen's, and in this short) that hint there's bigger implications the authors want us to consider beyond just whether Nora's selfish or not. I think neither of them is advocating that the way to make the world a better place is for women to walk out on all their responsibilities. Ibsen's play shows us how society has the power to rob a person (specifically a woman) of her humanity and dignity. She is dehumanized: a chipmunk, a squirrel, etc. The shocking choice Nora makes at the end shows us the damaging consequences of that dehumanization. I think the Nora in this short is similarly dehumanized by society's expectations on her. The way she is abandoned by her husband to manage the household and minimized by her coworkers shows us that dehumanization. In this way we can see how even with modern women's increased access to employment, society's gender-based expectations still do damage, and they can be so gripping that a woman can go her entire life into adulthood not realizing that she's been behaving as a doll in men's worlds. In a way, I can see feeling more pity for this Nora than Ibsen's. At the end, she doesn't seem to know what to do to make her life, her work, even her love for her children, legitimate and authentic. She is truly tragic. This all makes me wonder what audiences 100 years from now will think of the Nora in this short.
I don't think Nora in Ibsen's play was a motivated to leave on the basis of her children or her missing her youth, as is interpretted here. The only way I can interpret this is the husband is still absent from the the family, but that doesn't get the root of why Nora and Torvald split in the play, so it's probably not enough?
Hmmm, where did you get the idea that this woman missed her youth? I think she missed having a moment to herself. Today in our modern, western, industrialized world when couples marry, the fathers on average begin to do even less relatively speaking than when the couple was childless. They take on very few childcare tasks typically, because they are like "this sucks, I just can't do so much each day" or the mother's want to do it all. Each couple is different, but it mostly does not work, and it falls on the women often to try to make it work. And so mothers have to take up the slack even if they have careers - which we expect of mothers in middle class households. This modern Nora felt she was doing nothing well, which was eating away at her self esteem and her peace. She had to jump off the merry-go-round to save bother herself and her family. It does not show for how long she left - that was not the point.
Nora barely spent anytime with her children at all in the play. The mother in this short obviously, was a real mother and not an immature brat like in the play.
There are countries that do a better job than Britain organising work culture to accommodate family life. These include Scandinavian countries, so ironically the life of a modern Nora in Ibsen's homeland might be quite different from this.
Oops I left out the idea that the original Nora's husband would not take the blame, so that she would not be punished for her well-meant forgery. That is when she realizes that their relationship does not involve the same level of commitment. Hmm.. I am re-reading the play right now.
It's about going through the motions of everyday, not living for yourself but solely for others. This type of lifestyle can be very destructive on someone. She is constantly doing things for others which shows how Nora (from play) was only being who she was for her husband. It is all about illusions of ourselves and how we play into these false perceptions of ourselves. We try to be what we aren't for others, for society, etc.
I don't understand the part where they say she can finish up early but then she is late for the childminder. Their house looks pretty nice and appears to be inner city as well so surely they can afford someone to take care of the children longer.
i think response is the wrong sort of word. all it is supposed to be is sort of a modern take on it, maybe showing how today the Nora and Torvald characters would be portrayed etc
I think it is totally a response; it's like telling Ibsen's era how our contemporary era is different. The Nora in Ibsen's play left on a mission to actualize herself and be the person she never could be when she was trapped in the illusion of Torvald's doll house. That Nora knew what to do to be the mother she wanted her kids to have. This Nora has no idea what to do. She is adrift, without values or principles to guide her even when she has her illusions broken.
Have you ever considered who made those men more available for weekend or over time work? THOSE WOMEN. If those men have kids, then there must be someone taking care of them. Either you or your wife, mister.
Sorry, but I see very little similarities between this Nora and Ibsen's. If it wasn't meant to be a modern version of Nora, then it should have been called "Sue" or "Carla".
These were not real people - only archtypes. In this archtypal world her husband comes home always and he did. It showed her waiting and contemplating. Presumably this archtypal character left right before the archtypal husband came home. My boyfriend does this same mistake when he watches fiction and then he misses the theme. Its fiction. It's archtypes. If the film crew wanted they could have shown him returning at night with children who had wet themselves and were now catatonic. Or her feeding the children to the neighbors dogs. But the point was simply she did the unthinkable - she an archtypical modern mother, left all her archtypical roles in as responsible a way as possible. The point was not that she was crazy, but rather maybe somehow super sane. From the film we see they were just crying - maybe only alone 15 - 30 minutes? Also the children had a nanny and childcare so she was not leaving a family without some means. That was shown on purpose. It was only a few minutes long. A statement, that had a very similar theme as the original play. Middleclass Nora and Torval in modern times.
It is definitely a great shot. Just want to throw an suggestion for the ending here. In Ibsen's original play, Nora is banned from eating macaroon by her husband, and this is a great symbolic detail. Maybe at the very end of this shot, Nora can take out one macaroon instead of a doll, and eat it to show how she becomes independent now and begins a new life.
This is hardly artistic and it makes Nora, one of the most headstrong and controversial female characters in all of literature, seem ordinary and listless. This whole enterprise is rife with the blind pretension mediocre artists and critics call style; a poor and degrading way to pin a worthless name onto Henrik Ibsen's. How daring or expansive is this movie with no drama at all? Is there any vitality to speak of here or are we actually supposed to be inspired by dumb scenes of monotony? Ibsen's plays are so profound and full of life they stagger us for a lifetime as we try to fathom how large his heart was and how much he worked to subdue it with a clear conscience. After watching this I'm inspired to perform solo kazoo in response to all the movements of Mozart's 40th.
I think RLS' opinion about the novel applies here: "Life is monstrous, infinite, illogical, abrupt, and poignant; a work of art, in comparison, is neat, finite, self-contained, rational, flowing, and emasculate. Life imposes by brute energy, like inarticulate thunder; art catches the ear, among the far louder noises of experience like an air artificially made by a discreet musician...The novel which is a work of art exists, not by its resemblances to life, which are forced and material...but by its immeasurable difference from life, which is designed and significant, and is both the method and the meaning of the work."
@@ernestmendez5487 the film is literally supposed to be dull, listless, and monotonous as a way to represent this nora's depression and serve as a larger symbol for the way that contemporary western society still traps women in a cycle of sacrificial motherhood and work while imposing unrealistic standards and then judging them for it... Robert louis stevenson's opinion has nothing to do with it and art is subjective anyway lol
@@mgpattison come on. You'd have to be in a coma to miss the lame, crude, and heavy-handed metaphors in this movie. And evidently you're either not courageous enough to create anything or you're perfectly satisfied in a world which thinks Dostoevsky and Mozart have the same value as Dean Koontz and Katy Perry. There are levels of understanding; levels of perception. Mozart wrote operas and Katy Perry is tone-deaf. Who do you think has a finer taste for melody? According to you there may be no difference between a Raphael and a Jackson Pollock. There are three ways to experience music: as a listener, as a musician, and as a composer. Just like how there are three ways to experience literature: as a listener, as a reader, and as a writer. Art is infinitely profound. Great artists reach for the stars. Do you think I just love Ibsen? I love Sophocles, Shakespeare, Shaw, and Tennessee Williams. I'm not some armchair critic. I'm speaking as an artist: a person of perceptions. And the only way to expand your consciousness is to embrace everything with your love. And I tried to embrace this movie; but it crumbled like any other imposter; like any weak ambition by an artist who did not love Sophocles, Shakespeare, Shaw, and Williams. Because if they did; they would understand drama. They would have good taste. They would understand that originality is the most important thing in art.
Hi, Tracey. Hope you're well! I concluded that not much has changed. That Patriarchy is still prevalent but has mutated and the rights women have acquired haven't freed them but are almost used to imprison and punish them? No?
I'm glad you made this short film because it showed me how "A Doll's House" desensitised me to Nora's immoral and irrational choice of leaving the children at the end of the play. After reading critics and reading reports on the play, I aligned with their justification of Nora's decision and decided to keep convincing myself what she did was okay because of context and her situation. Maybe. But then the idea of a mother blatantly leaving her children became universally excusable in my mind. This shed greater light on how times have changed and Nora's patriarchal, Victorian society is not the one we live in today and different courses of action are necessary, no longer justifying such a decision today.
You have such a frozen opinion bro ... your life must be so black&white ... everything so clearcut and neat!!! Hope you're working all weekends, everyday after 5, and whatever ... and your kids get to see you when they see you ... get well soon
+CP22232 There is a point you couldn't get and that is it. It is a modern performance of our present day's Nora. You can write an entire essay on this! That different times do change women's positions; meaning that we are less likely to see women who are forced to remain at home as housewives yet still, women are being asked to handle unbearable tasks and situations.
so by going to work, taking responsibility of kids and acting like the one from outnumbered, that makes it essay worthy. Nothing exciting happens, wheres the important story, the action, the emotion? that's essay worthy. the only exciting bit is the bit where she goes away and leaves the house... and then it ends. My point essentially being that nothing really happens and to me that doesn't make it essay worthy despite what It may infer.
Honey, if you expect things to be handed to you in a silver platter you are going to be sadly disappointed with life. This actually isn't that bad. Wait till you get to college and they give you reading assignments like hills like white elephants. Where the main characters are barely described, where you have to identify a conflict from like a minute of conversation. THEN you'll know what it's like to have nothing to write about.
I was gonna write a comment to justify why I disagree with this short movie ever being made or released starting with Nora's character ending with a bad quality of the actual shooting but it would be far too much typing on a mobile phone. So I'll simply leave you with this: people who liked it have no idea what Doll's house was about and lack the sense for good vs. not well done art. Ibsen would laugh this piece off, I'm sure.
Very ignorant view. Simply try and put yoyrself in a womans position and see how you'd feel about someone basically saying 'either work full time and abandon your kids or dont work at all'. @Amhlair
Are we supposed to feel sorry for this ridiculous disorganised fool? How patronising to make the assumption that today’s “Nora” is just a helpless stooge, caught in a trap between domesticity and career. At least Ibsen’s heroine would not have left her children completely unattended while she wandered off to “find herself”. Hattie Morahan was a desperately bad Nora in the Young Vic production and she’s not much better here. Although it could be argued that her portrayal of today’s woman as a self-entitled victim is not far from the mark. Very Meghan Markle. Thank you Hattie.
Nora, be a mummy or be an executive but don't try to be a half-arsed version of both. As a man, I'm so sick of these women who can't work weekends, can't work after 5, can't... whatever. You're in or you're out, sis. You're in or you're out.
At first, i was confused on the thesis they are responding to in this short, but after careful thought i see they hit the same point. Nora is not working for herself but for others. She is sacrificing herself to appease others while losing her own identity in the process. I can relate to this.
This video just jump started thoughts to finalize a research paper i am working on Ibsen, thanks.
this is the best comment i read about this cheers
This is just one side of the coin.But I don’t understand why you peple cannot see the problem of nuclear family??? Where is the other family members?? If we live in a joint family there wont be this
sort of problems. And the most crucial thing is no one live for just oneself. We all live for one another.
@Dario Maric i should be doing one right now Ima definitely cop this😂
Sorry, this just reads like you think she should start a small business
Nora is an immature extremist, similar to Torvald. But whereas Torvald maturely indicates he might be open to growth with her, she immaturely quits. How about learning to assert yourself in your marriage, talk frankly and honestly, and work with a man who loves you? She really needs to work on her toxicity.
I noticed many people on this thread took this short film too literally. Yes, this modern Nora had more of a choice when it came to being a mom and wife than the Victorian Nora. However what the maker of this film is trying to imply is that women have still not reached equal status to men. We still live in a patriarchal society where men are expected to have good paying careers, but women's ambitions are downplayed. Women are supposed to work nurturing type careers like teachers and nurses. They are not suppose to aspire to be surgeons or high powered executives or anything like that. In this film, Nora does not appear to be a teacher or nurse, she works a corporate job. Many women are judged harshly for trading time with their kids to work corporate jobs. Men are not judged harshly for the same things as women
An excellent point
@@SFsuperforte Bruv your absolutely right. Feminists these days just overthink and try to express a opinion which they believe to be sensible and correct after reading about antifeminism occurring in the past...
I'm sure your college lecturer gave you an A for that one, but it ignores that men and women are not only different, and tend to have different goals and abilities, but also that in societies where women have more freedom to choose than anywhere else (eg Sweden) they choose what you call 'nurturing'.
Excellent summation. Thank you.
@@1977ajaxtheir ‘having more freedom’ doesn’t change the fact there’s still existing ideology that women are carers and men are breadwinners. it’s input in school curriculums, from older generations and laws. it doesn’t mean women in sweden for example wouldn’t be subliminally disencouraged to limit their time with their kids to succeed in a career, something a man would not be penalised for. men often find it hard to understand this as they can’t see the disadvantage in the dynamic since they’ve been made to think it’s a woman’s choice to have her primary status as mother/wife because it’s that common
Nora in the original play did not abandon her family, just because she was fed up with the role of being wife and mother, but because she thought it would be best for her children. Torvald mentions that children that grow up with problems are a direct result of the mother’s fault. Nora forging her father’s signature made her a criminal and a bad role model, according to the play. She hoped torvald would stand up against society and defend her by taking the fault for the forged signature. But Torvald wasn’t going to do that because of his reputation. That is when Nora realized that he wouldn’t sacrifice himself the way she had sacrificed herself to save Torvald, hence the reason she leaves. She mentions that the only way they could be together again is if they both changed altogether- Nora learning to be a better wife and mother, and Torvald prioritizing what is really important. But that’s just my take on it.
Beautifully said
I agree. And since Torvald was the smarter, more mature, most functional member of the relationship, he dodged the proverbial bullet. In my mind he remarried and was much happier.
I really like your take on it and it really levels it out with this short film.
I love the lavatory makeup scene and the changing of the shoes - very relatable in this context!
I agree that though effective on many levels - and very well made and acted, this is less a response to Ibsen than to Helen Gurley Brown. What we see here is the crisis of a post-modern woman who has ALREADY taken control of her destiny within a smug culture that has yet to shed patriarchal AND matriarchal prejudices. Ibsen's Nora is a woman who has no idea who she is as a person. This Nora is saturated with TOO MUCH personhood - too many roles, too many aspirations to implement effectively within a multiplicity of hegemonies (except class - because clearly the couple can afford a Nanny [and what are HER aspirations?]). This work nods to Ibsen, but I think it's conversation is with something much more recent.
I agree that this contemporary, Anglo-Saxon Nora merely appears as selfish, as unsatisfied with the smorgasbord of choices available to her, but which she addresses with no depth of inquiry or analysis. Not to sound too dogmatic (though, of course I will), but underneath Ibsen's original, there was a subtle interrogation of bourgeois propriety; there's none of that here - no questioning of the surpluses into which 'Nora' and her husband have bought into smilingly: the well appointed home, the nanny, the high concept job where - damn it!- she has to wear heels to be taken seriously. Hence my allusion to Helen Gurley Brown: brought up to believe she can 'have it all', she doesn't know what to do with any of it. If one WERE to propose what this film is saying as a feminist statement, it might be that yes, after forty years, (middle class) women are expected to juggle far more than men are; the inequality lies in distribution of responsibilities rather than in a denial of access to power.
I think the filmmakers might have taken a more radical position and less of a 'middle class laissez-faire feminist' pose. What might this film have been like if 'Nora' was a black or East Indian woman, or a single mother with a nanny, a gay or lesbian couple - or even a straight man! Yes, a man. When a man abandons his family (regardless of class or race) he is seen as 'criminal', but rarely is such an assessment placed on a woman because it is assumed she is overwhelmed or undeveloped. There can be no sense of equality until these moral positions are equalized. Women and men are human beings: they can be criminal or overwhelmed, depending on your morality - but this morality needs to operate through a lens not governed by gender based assumptions.
Your thoughts ARE clear - and you have pointed out that this film seems to be about a sociological illness regarding middle management wage slavery (ie: this is the conversation or dialogue I meant): I agree...I just don't know if Ibsen's material is the analogue an artist could be using to make such an inquiry.
Apologies for my rather elevated tone: my college degree was in art and cinema criticism (in those heady and somehow almost Stalinist late 1980s days of po-mo deconstructionism - which, my sources tell me, are still around). Really, I have a heart of gold and am just a down to earth schmuck. Thanks for an inspiring intellectual conversation!
I'm studying A Doll's House at the moment, and I find your saturated personhood argument really thought-provoking. However, I can't help thinking that within this saturated state, has 21st century Nora lost all sense of self, to the point where she is almost identical to Ibsen's original Nora (completely devoid of job, status, individuality, independence)?
thanks for th essay
wow, the cast in this movie is amazing. Some of the best actors in Britain today!! Beautiful!
top notch! I love it how the wind becomes a character in its own right...almost!
👌🏼
This is a really great short, and a great modern response to Ibsen's 1879 play.
But i feel that the bulk of these comments miss the mark, and the overall point of the short.
Its about her working, not for herself, but to please others. And how the men, note the men in the boardroom, one blowing smoke up the boss' arse. By being amazed that he can play golf, and work.
And note how the father isn't there at breakfast, its left to the woman to cook, clean, get herself and child ready for play school. So we can assume thats not a one off, he is probably rarely there at breakfast, or to pick the child up from playschool.
And, i don't think ANYONE picked this up. WHICH i am flabbergasted by, Nora entering the bathroom, applying makeup to a black eye. So here we have an instant suggestion. In fact, its more obvious than a suggestion. Of domestic abuse.
Completely agree with almost everything you've said and it's a great response to a Doll's House but I saw her covering up dark under eyes (so covering up/ hiding the physical impact of stress) rather than physical violence.
I think thats a different interpretation, but i think either of those two interpretations ends at the same conclusion :D
+rorrt Realize this is late, but there's only one interpretation, she's putting on make-up for normal everyday human reasons. No indication of domestic abuse, at all. The interpretation is a bit off too, as in Ibsen's drama Torvald isn't at work from sunrise to sunset. As per the dad not being around, it's hard to fault a modern man for being at work 12 hour days when his wife is also working. Ibsen's Nora had a nurse and a housemaid in attendance.
This short, while very well done, would be a better correlation to Ibsen's work if the woman portrayed were quite a bit more wealthy, and unemployed.
*****
I would still say that the jury is out on whether or not she has a black eye. At least to me, that was clear from a first viewing. And stands up to repeat viewings.
And of course this isn't a verbatim translation of the Ibsen text, but rather its themes.
Of a woman doing all the work, more so here than in the play. But i can't be sure of that, because you seem to know the play better than I. Doing all the work around the house.
And i would say, as for the "modern man" thing.. My father, who i'd consider a "modern man" was up and about when i was getting ready for school. Helping out.
But you are 100% correct that the Ibsen play shows a far more extravagant lifestyle.
+rorrt i rewatched it after reading this, and I disagree. I don't think domestic abuse was indicated. Her eyes were just very very tired looking. I am fairly sure they were just showing how she is extremely exhausted.
This one was great, actually. Remaking it without any plagiarism yet keeping the base structure same, you did a wonderful job.
As many ppl pointed out, this has only few similarities with the play in the surface, like both Nora leaves her children, but the core, motivations, reasons, characters it isnt the same
You cant take out a key moment, and put a modern world around it, and call it the same thing...
This Modern Nora has put an effort to make audience feel her haphazard situation, but the real Nora is debted to Ibsen; she has successfully introduced the concept of 'new women' in modern era, and has got the whole world sprouting the moment she left her house!
this is a good flick. as a poor person it's sometimes nice to see what i'm not missing out on.
The people in the comments complaining about this version mirror the original audience of the play, complaining that Nora could abandon her husband and children.
i have to write a response for this in english yooo
yo u got a free essay i can use???
same here......
Same bro
Lol same here
yeah me too
Actually...I'd love to see a follow up to this called "Hedda" - now THAT would be a short: the crisis of an extraordinarily intelligent person in a room full of dolts whose response to bourgeois boredom is a kind of burlesque of Richard III played out in a drawing room.
Either I'm not watching this closely enough or it's not giving me enough information about Nora's character here.
You're not watching this closely enough
top notch! l love it how wind becomes a character in its own right....... almost
When she was is a doll's house i was shook she is such a lovely actress and i would watch her in just about anything
I am here for my drama lesson analysis 🌝
Watching this movie, I wanted to read ”Doll's house", once more.
I just finished a research paper on that drama xD
This film, like the play, says that some people, some women, are so toxic, so dysfunctional, they dont appreciate what they have. They are likely destined to be miserable. It is not necessarily their fault...but it sure sucks for their partners and children.
ik right
i left wondered how everyone is just praising her
think if a man did the same
personally i think it's a great modern take on it
wonderful :) 6 years ago I attended the theatre show :)
That is not what the film is trying to say. It's not about choices it's about gender roles!
This was so powerful.
thanks for that nice shortfilm
I really like the work that was put into this and the idea, but as a modern day version of Ibsen's play, I think it was lacking. In Ibsen's play, I really felt sympathy for Nora and the role that she was being forced to play. In this response, I feel as though Nora had a lot of things going on, yeah, but to leave your kids with no supervision is unforgivable. Nora in the play does not just abandon her kids, there are other people in the house to take care of them. Also, I feel as though this could have also been better if it included the husband and the gender roles that he is also trapped in with this modern take. But, that's just a personal thing and has nothing to do with what you actually did.
Jessie McCloy well but there is the man in the end so the children are not alone
Very good points Jessie. :)
I think the reason why Nora abandoned her children was because doing so would be considered a grave offence, however at time the original play was written, a woman asking for a divorce especially when there was no adultery or abuse in the relationship was seen as a taboo. In my opinion, I think it was just the writers way of trying to show us what was and is considered wrong at the time being.
You were sympathetic with Nora? I absolutely hated her, a terrible person.
I agree with what you've said. I'd also like to add a point that in the play, Trovald was seen treating Nora like a child who needed protection and constant care, which was a huge aspect of the play, and that part seemed to be missing from the film. If they could've at least shown a whisper of Trovald's attitude towards her, would've helped to show more depth. Other than that, loved it.
It's interesting to see this interpretation of the play. It's as if the director is trying to counter Ibsen's argument (that women have the right to pursue their own desires) by presenting an overwhelmed mother completely neglecting her children. In the play, we see that Nora does care for her children and ensures that they are going to be cared for by Anne-Marie and Torvald; however, this film portrays Nora's departure as an act of child abuse. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this interpretation but I can appreciate its modern take on a timeless play.
Literal definition of Ight imma head out
Shame the poor children who belong to the modern generation. Nobody seems to point out that the children are significantly affected by both parents needing to work.
As i have read through many of the previous comments before mine I see all collectively the same response (some immature) but mostly an opinion of glorification. I seem to have been effected differently to this "response" feature. This depiction of Nora as a current day woman shown with a career AND children seems like the woman who can do it all, something many modern woman aspire to do, however as Ibsen's Nora decides to turn her back on the life she has been placed in translates much differently to modern day. The immediate message i received from this response is that woman have much more power today to decide the road we wish to lead. This depiction of 21'st century Nora shows selfishness and actions of a coward, not empowerment. I think this response to Ibsen's play is one that simply does not translate to modern day, therefore a response that disagrees. Today children are considered a CHOICE that modern world woman have, and to have a career is also an opportunity that woman are given. To accept either means that woman now have the responsibility to uphold. Ibsen was a supporter of the realism and suffrage movement, today we are well in an age of woman empowerment that is supported mostly all over the world by woman AND men. The message today simply doesn't translate unless the woman was forced into marriage and baring children (which yes still exists) but this film depicts a modern woman in a first world country. I will close my comment with admiration of this work, the production is done beautifully.
Sierra Moreno I just found it soo confusing, and at the end did she kill herself?
While I agree with you on what you're saying, I think there is still an important message being translated onto this modern woman in a first-world country. I think while the Nora in Ibsen's play had less access to power and independence than this Nora, Ibsen's Nora also made choices. What guided her choices wasn't her own thoughts, but rather her instincts which were based on the assumptions and expectations heaped on her due to her gender. As a result, she floated through life and through relationships, doing what she thought was best but never with her feet on the ground. While Nora's powerlessness in society plays a huge role in Ibsen's play, also important was her powerlessness in thinking and acting for herself. She lived her life playing the roles others expected of her and never thinking for herself, like a doll being dressed up and moved around by a puppeteer.
By leaving home, and finally taking responsibility for her thoughts and choices, Ibsen's Nora doesn't expect to enter a society where women and men are magically equal. She hopes to become more authentic in thinking for herself. By doing so, her actions and choices will become legitimate in a way they never could have been unless she left. By leaving home, Nora isn't going to suddenly enter a world where she has power, but she will know dignity, and that is the kind of mother she wants to be for her children. While we say the Nora in this short should be less selfish and should accept the responsibilities of her choices, audiences of Ibsen's day criticized Nora in the play's selfishness as well. It is just as much this woman's choice to put on make up and work for a high-end marketing business (or whatever) as it was Nora's choice to play along with Torvald and act like a squirrel as she chirped for "ten, twenty, thirty, forty kroners!"
I think there's a couple things about the final scene (both Ibsen's, and in this short) that hint there's bigger implications the authors want us to consider beyond just whether Nora's selfish or not. I think neither of them is advocating that the way to make the world a better place is for women to walk out on all their responsibilities. Ibsen's play shows us how society has the power to rob a person (specifically a woman) of her humanity and dignity. She is dehumanized: a chipmunk, a squirrel, etc. The shocking choice Nora makes at the end shows us the damaging consequences of that dehumanization.
I think the Nora in this short is similarly dehumanized by society's expectations on her. The way she is abandoned by her husband to manage the household and minimized by her coworkers shows us that dehumanization. In this way we can see how even with modern women's increased access to employment, society's gender-based expectations still do damage, and they can be so gripping that a woman can go her entire life into adulthood not realizing that she's been behaving as a doll in men's worlds. In a way, I can see feeling more pity for this Nora than Ibsen's. At the end, she doesn't seem to know what to do to make her life, her work, even her love for her children, legitimate and authentic. She is truly tragic.
This all makes me wonder what audiences 100 years from now will think of the Nora in this short.
Yeah boy.
I don't think Nora in Ibsen's play was a motivated to leave on the basis of her children or her missing her youth, as is interpretted here. The only way I can interpret this is the husband is still absent from the the family, but that doesn't get the root of why Nora and Torvald split in the play, so it's probably not enough?
Hmmm, where did you get the idea that this woman missed her youth? I think she missed having a moment to herself. Today in our modern, western, industrialized world when couples marry, the fathers on average begin to do even less relatively speaking than when the couple was childless. They take on very few childcare tasks typically, because they are like "this sucks, I just can't do so much each day" or the mother's want to do it all. Each couple is different, but it mostly does not work, and it falls on the women often to try to make it work. And so mothers have to take up the slack even if they have careers - which we expect of mothers in middle class households. This modern Nora felt she was doing nothing well, which was eating away at her self esteem and her peace. She had to jump off the merry-go-round to save bother herself and her family. It does not show for how long she left - that was not the point.
Nicely done. Gosh, I wish there was an ending. Commit!
I have read the play more than ten times ,this couldn't be a response for that great play at all
it would be so lovely if you could open this up to a global audience instead of geo-blocking it.
Nora barely spent anytime with her children at all in the play. The mother in this short obviously, was a real mother and not an immature brat like in the play.
There are countries that do a better job than Britain organising work culture to accommodate family life. These include Scandinavian countries, so ironically the life of a modern Nora in Ibsen's homeland might be quite different from this.
Norway*
Nowhere is worse than the USA… working mothers so often don’t even have health insurance built into their job packet.
Beautiful 💚
Oops I left out the idea that the original Nora's husband would not take the blame, so that she would not be punished for her well-meant forgery. That is when she realizes that their relationship does not involve the same level of commitment. Hmm.. I am re-reading the play right now.
I don't understand the correlation between the play and this short film.
It's about going through the motions of everyday, not living for yourself but solely for others. This type of lifestyle can be very destructive on someone. She is constantly doing things for others which shows how Nora (from play) was only being who she was for her husband. It is all about illusions of ourselves and how we play into these false perceptions of ourselves. We try to be what we aren't for others, for society, etc.
Loved it
amazing
It's exactly what I predicted.
Loved it x
2:24 - Hey, it’s Princess Margaret.
I don't understand the part where they say she can finish up early but then she is late for the childminder. Their house looks pretty nice and appears to be inner city as well so surely they can afford someone to take care of the children longer.
i think response is the wrong sort of word. all it is supposed to be is sort of a modern take on it, maybe showing how today the Nora and Torvald characters would be portrayed etc
I think it is totally a response; it's like telling Ibsen's era how our contemporary era is different. The Nora in Ibsen's play left on a mission to actualize herself and be the person she never could be when she was trapped in the illusion of Torvald's doll house. That Nora knew what to do to be the mother she wanted her kids to have.
This Nora has no idea what to do. She is adrift, without values or principles to guide her even when she has her illusions broken.
how is this at all a response to the play?
Realy good
Was that Vanessa Kirby 2:21?
I wouldn't even try to be a mom; I don't have it in me. But let Nora be a great mom and be happy with that. That's all I'm saying.
Well,am not seeing Nora's character here
Have you ever considered who made those men more available for weekend or over time work? THOSE WOMEN. If those men have kids, then there must be someone taking care of them. Either you or your wife, mister.
If the man is the breadwinner then I don't see the problem.
Sorry, but I see very little similarities between this Nora and Ibsen's. If it wasn't meant to be a modern version of Nora, then it should have been called "Sue" or "Carla".
The only similarities this carries is that her name is Nora.
Really? Then you obviously do not get it!
Read the play then watch the short film again.
Interesting !
Anyone else notice she's making an apple sandwich?
Sou brasileira e no Brasil existe uma luta diária para sairmos do papel de mulher idealizada pelo patriarcado. Resistência da mulher brasileira.
At least the real Nora left her kids in safe hands and with a person almost like her mother. What she did is not acceptable
These were not real people - only archtypes. In this archtypal world her husband comes home always and he did. It showed her waiting and contemplating. Presumably this archtypal character left right before the archtypal husband came home. My boyfriend does this same mistake when he watches fiction and then he misses the theme. Its fiction. It's archtypes. If the film crew wanted they could have shown him returning at night with children who had wet themselves and were now catatonic. Or her feeding the children to the neighbors dogs. But the point was simply she did the unthinkable - she an archtypical modern mother, left all her archtypical roles in as responsible a way as possible. The point was not that she was crazy, but rather maybe somehow super sane. From the film we see they were just crying - maybe only alone 15 - 30 minutes? Also the children had a nanny and childcare so she was not leaving a family without some means. That was shown on purpose. It was only a few minutes long. A statement, that had a very similar theme as the original play. Middleclass Nora and Torval in modern times.
Nora, rozumiem Cię.
It is definitely a great shot. Just want to throw an suggestion for the ending here. In Ibsen's original play, Nora is banned from eating macaroon by her husband, and this is a great symbolic detail. Maybe at the very end of this shot, Nora can take out one macaroon instead of a doll, and eat it to show how she becomes independent now and begins a new life.
Nora is the doll, she is controlled and manipulated like one by both Torvald and her father.
This is hardly artistic and it makes Nora, one of the most headstrong and controversial female characters in all of literature, seem ordinary and listless. This whole enterprise is rife with the blind pretension mediocre artists and critics call style; a poor and degrading way to pin a worthless name onto Henrik Ibsen's. How daring or expansive is this movie with no drama at all? Is there any vitality to speak of here or are we actually supposed to be inspired by dumb scenes of monotony? Ibsen's plays are so profound and full of life they stagger us for a lifetime as we try to fathom how large his heart was and how much he worked to subdue it with a clear conscience. After watching this I'm inspired to perform solo kazoo in response to all the movements of Mozart's 40th.
I thought the ordinariness, the listlessness, and the lack of vitality were meant as symbols of the desolation in this Nora's modernized life.
I think RLS' opinion about the novel applies here: "Life is monstrous, infinite, illogical, abrupt, and poignant; a work of art, in comparison, is neat, finite, self-contained, rational, flowing, and emasculate. Life imposes by brute energy, like inarticulate thunder; art catches the ear, among the far louder noises of experience like an air artificially made by a discreet musician...The novel which is a work of art exists, not by its resemblances to life, which are forced and material...but by its immeasurable difference from life, which is designed and significant, and is both the method and the meaning of the work."
@@ernestmendez5487 the film is literally supposed to be dull, listless, and monotonous as a way to represent this nora's depression and serve as a larger symbol for the way that contemporary western society still traps women in a cycle of sacrificial motherhood and work while imposing unrealistic standards and then judging them for it... Robert louis stevenson's opinion has nothing to do with it and art is subjective anyway lol
@@mgpattison come on. You'd have to be in a coma to miss the lame, crude, and heavy-handed metaphors in this movie. And evidently you're either not courageous enough to create anything or you're perfectly satisfied in a world which thinks Dostoevsky and Mozart have the same value as Dean Koontz and Katy Perry. There are levels of understanding; levels of perception. Mozart wrote operas and Katy Perry is tone-deaf. Who do you think has a finer taste for melody? According to you there may be no difference between a Raphael and a Jackson Pollock. There are three ways to experience music: as a listener, as a musician, and as a composer. Just like how there are three ways to experience literature: as a listener, as a reader, and as a writer. Art is infinitely profound. Great artists reach for the stars. Do you think I just love Ibsen? I love Sophocles, Shakespeare, Shaw, and Tennessee Williams. I'm not some armchair critic. I'm speaking as an artist: a person of perceptions. And the only way to expand your consciousness is to embrace everything with your love. And I tried to embrace this movie; but it crumbled like any other imposter; like any weak ambition by an artist who did not love Sophocles, Shakespeare, Shaw, and Williams. Because if they did; they would understand drama. They would have good taste. They would understand that originality is the most important thing in art.
This is the one side of the coin.
Hi, Tracey. Hope you're well!
I concluded that not much has changed. That Patriarchy is still prevalent but has mutated and the rights women have acquired haven't freed them but are almost used to imprison and punish them?
No?
Who is Robin?
i have to write a response for this in danish yooo
i do not feel the play was at any right, misogynistic. It just seems that way because of the social norm of the time
I'm glad you made this short film because it showed me how "A Doll's House" desensitised me to Nora's immoral and irrational choice of leaving the children at the end of the play.
After reading critics and reading reports on the play, I aligned with their justification of Nora's decision and decided to keep convincing myself what she did was okay because of context and her situation.
Maybe.
But then the idea of a mother blatantly leaving her children became universally excusable in my mind.
This shed greater light on how times have changed and Nora's patriarchal, Victorian society is not the one we live in today and different courses of action are necessary, no longer justifying such a decision today.
shut up
You have such a frozen opinion bro ... your life must be so black&white ... everything so clearcut and neat!!! Hope you're working all weekends, everyday after 5, and whatever ... and your kids get to see you when they see you ... get well soon
Guys please help so I need to know what things in the culture u need to know to appreciate this please respond?
have you read a doll's house ? It's a good begining ^^
Am I the only one who got here from song drops? 😂
WHAT WAS THAT I am supposed to write an essay about that? there was nothing to write about!
+CP22232 There is a point you couldn't get and that is it. It is a modern performance of our present day's Nora. You can write an entire essay on this! That different times do change women's positions; meaning that we are less likely to see women who are forced to remain at home as housewives yet still, women are being asked to handle unbearable tasks and situations.
so by going to work, taking responsibility of kids and acting like the one from outnumbered, that makes it essay worthy. Nothing exciting happens, wheres the important story, the action, the emotion? that's essay worthy. the only exciting bit is the bit where she goes away and leaves the house... and then it ends. My point essentially being that nothing really happens and to me that doesn't make it essay worthy despite what It may infer.
Holy shit I have to write an essay too ✌🏻️✌🏻😂
Honey, if you expect things to be handed to you in a silver platter you are going to be sadly disappointed with life. This actually isn't that bad. Wait till you get to college and they give you reading assignments like hills like white elephants. Where the main characters are barely described, where you have to identify a conflict from like a minute of conversation. THEN you'll know what it's like to have nothing to write about.
In any case, this is just a response to a way more elaborate play. Maybe if you read that you'll have a better idea.
I'd like to see you try to be a mom.
See if you would do half as good a job as Nora.
is this an add?
I was gonna write a comment to justify why I disagree with this short movie ever being made or released starting with Nora's character ending with a bad quality of the actual shooting but it would be far too much typing on a mobile phone. So I'll simply leave you with this: people who liked it have no idea what Doll's house was about and lack the sense for good vs. not well done art. Ibsen would laugh this piece off, I'm sure.
easy dere bro
Very ignorant view. Simply try and put yoyrself in a womans position and see how you'd feel about someone basically saying 'either work full time and abandon your kids or dont work at all'. @Amhlair
Are we supposed to feel sorry for this ridiculous disorganised fool? How patronising to make the assumption that today’s “Nora” is just a helpless stooge, caught in a trap between domesticity and career. At least Ibsen’s heroine would not have left her children completely unattended while she wandered off to “find herself”. Hattie Morahan was a desperately bad Nora in the Young Vic production and she’s not much better here. Although it could be argued that her portrayal of today’s woman as a self-entitled victim is not far from the mark. Very Meghan Markle. Thank you Hattie.
Go off gradkat
lame 👎👎
Nora, be a mummy or be an executive but don't try to be a half-arsed version of both. As a man, I'm so sick of these women who can't work weekends, can't work after 5, can't... whatever. You're in or you're out, sis. You're in or you're out.