Directors Note
When Henrik Ibsen’s, A Doll House, premiered in 1879, it became “the door slam heard across the world” and brought theatre into the modern world. Until this point, plays of the western world had been written to uphold moral authority, not question it. This play was the first of its kind, shocking audiences with the idea that a woman could walk out the door, away from her family, to find herself and leaving us with the question of what happens next? Lucas Hnath’s, A Doll’s House, Part 2, reopens that very door, when trouble comes knocking fifteen years later, scratching at old wounds, and bringing Ibsen’s themes into contemporary light.
Ibsen’s original explored the concepts of humanism—the idea that people have the freedom to choose their own set of ethics regardless of gender, religion, race, or sexual orientation and that self-actualization is a basic human right. A Doll House symbolized how all of the characters (men and women alike) were trapped much like children’s role-assigned toys, playing out the parts that society expected of them. Hnath takes Ibsen’s beliefs a step into the future and through the lens of modern feminism, addressing the struggles women face today in their fight for equality.
Hnath’s sequel, A Doll’s House, Part 2, functions as a stand-alone piece inspired by Ibsen’s characters. It reflects how timely and relevant the original A Doll House still is. Unfortunately, the world hasn’t changed as much for women in the past one hundred fifty years as many had hoped it would. Our culture still punishes or undermines females for being their authentic selves, demonstrating that the fight for equality is far from over. In light of our current state of affairs nothing could be more timely; with the Texas congress passing the heartbeat bill, women do not have the right to choose for themselves, regardless of the circumstances in which they find themselves.
By opening a door from the past, Hnath releases the floodgates, creating a forum for debate and giving each character the opportunity to argue their case against how the matriarch’s action of leaving impacted those who were left behind. It illustrates the complexities of being true to oneself, questions what we owe ourselves versus what we owe to others, and ultimately, how we continue to ask women to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of society. To break the cycle, we need to let go of outdated ideals and embrace a future of authentic self-discovery. Although we may look, talk, or behave differently, perhaps we are not all that different. In essence, old social constraints have to die in order for a new, self-actualized, free world to be reborn.
-Alanna Dorsett