In a good film, all aspects of cinematography are combined in a well-drawn-out manner to captivate the attention of the audience. Music, acting, scenery, and plot are all essential towards the creation of a movie that exceeds critics' standards. Patrick Garland's 1973 A Doll's House, based on Henrik Ibsen's 1879 play, fails to live up to these standards. It is a long, drawn-out film, relying solely on dialogue to provide entertainment.

     To begin with the criticism of the film, one should first note the monotony of the plot line. Nora once forged a loan signature and cannot anticipate her husband's reaction. This has the potential to provide a film with an interesting twist, but by no means should it be the main focus. The fact that Torvald felt as if his pride and dignity were lost due to Nora's mischievous act is understandable, but this was the nineteenth century. Women were perceived as ignorant and stupid, and this should have made Torvald realize the care and knowledge that his wife possessed.

     Another flaw in the film was the lack of scenery. The entire movie takes place indoors with the majority of the scenes occurring in Nora and Torvald's living room. What makes this fact worse is that these scenes are long dialogues between the two main characters. How is a viewer expected to devote his entire attention to a film with this lack of diversity?

     Although A Doll's House casts Anthony Hopkins and Claire Bloom, two of the most prolific actors of this period of film, it does not utilize them effectively. Hopkins plays a character with an ambiguous personality that is constantly changing, while Bloom portrays an individual who is scared and afraid of change until she suddenly realizes she wishes to leave both her husband and her children and start a new life. However, in neither case is a true persona established. Therefore, the film's "climatic" ending is nothing but a confusing dialogue that does not provoke any emotion in the viewer except for joy that the movie is almost over.