Door slam through the ages | January 12, 2007 | Mountain View Voice | Mountain View Online |

Mountain View Voice

Arts & Entertainment - January 12, 2007

Door slam through the ages

Mountain View's Pear Avenue Theatre updates Ibsen classic 'A Doll's House'

by Alexa Tondreau

True to form, Pear Avenue Theatre is putting its own spin on "A Doll's House."

Audiences expecting to see Henrik Ibsen's realist masterpiece set in 1879 Copenhagen will be surprised to find something onstage that feels much closer to home. Under the direction of Jeanie Forte, the remade "Doll's House" will be set in America, in the last days of 1959, with lead character Nora Helmer cast in the homemaker role of that era.

The play, which premiers Jan. 19 and runs through Feb. 4, follows the decline of the marriage between Nora and her husband Torvald, which in turn gives way to an inner awakening in Nora. The play was shocking in its time because Nora's empowerment and the decision she makes in its wake — referred to as "the door slam heard round the world" — was the most profoundly feminist statement yet seen on European stages.

Forte said that while gender equality has made leaps and bounds since Ibsen penned his masterpiece, the play has important themes that still resonate today.

"I think the same kinds of societal censures are still in place," she said. "I know a woman who left her family, and people were horrified; she was ostracized. People might think the play is dated, but it really isn't."

Forte, who has directed numerous plays at the Pear, said she decided to change the time and setting in order to enhance the power of the play for a modern audience.

"I wanted to update it and bring it forward in time. When it's set in the 1950s, the audience can relate to it better and see it as something that is still relevant."

"A Doll's House" was particularly unique in its time for focusing on a female protagonist. The part of Nora has become a rite of passage for actresses, and Shannon Stowe, in her fourth Pear Theatre production, felt some of the weight of that responsibility on her shoulders.

"It's a role that I've always wanted to do. It's one of those roles for female actresses — like a Hamlet or something. It feels daunting."

Stowe said the 1950s setting didn't make her feel too tied down to theatrical tradition surrounding "Doll's House," because "we're not going by anyone else's expectations. I feel like we can take a whole new look at it."

For her part, Forte said the chance to direct Stowe as Nora was one of the original reasons she was drawn to the production.

"She's a wonderful actress from the outset, but she also has these great qualities that are perfect for Nora. She has sexiness and a little-girl quality."

The Pear cultivates longstanding relationships with performers, and Forte said working with a close-knit group is "part of the joy" of working there.

Since 2001, the Mountain View theater company has sought to distinguish itself with innovative productions. With just 40 seats, the diminutive size of the Pear Theatre necessitates smaller productions and a limited cast size. It also provides a more intimate experience for cast and audience alike.

"There is very little separation between stage and house," Forte said. "You make use of the intimacy and you heighten it."

She likens the Pear to an off-Broadway venue, where edgy, contemporary pieces are shown and where there's the chance to re-envision classics like "A Doll's House."

"It's seeing theater like you've never seen it before," Forte said. "Very few people on the Peninsula have the chance to see theater this way."


What: The Pear Avenue Theatre presents "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen

When: Jan. 19-Feb. 4, Thursdays through Saturdays 8 p.m., Sundays 2 p.m.

Where: The Pear Avenue Theatre, 1220 Pear Avenue, Unit K, Mountain View

Cost: $10-$25

Contact: Call the box office at (650) 254-1148 or visit

E-mail Alexa Tondreau at


Posted by A man upset, a resident of another community
on Jan 7, 2009 at 2:18 pm

I don't find this play to be all that great as a feminist movement. All the lady did in the play was walk out on her husband and kids to go "find herself" (whatever the hell that means :-/). Women like to think of it as this great and moving play, but truthfully if it were a man leaving his wife and kids it would be an outrage to them.

If she were to have left on good terms and seemed as though she actually cared for her children, then I would be fine. But she left without any real reason.

Women like that have no business having children or getting married.
My evidence, my brother went through a divorce with the mother to his 3 children after eight years of marriage, because "even though he was a nice guy, she just didn't love him anymore". And then she moved back in with her parents who then bought her a brand new car because the BMW my brother gave her for her birthday last year was too old. It's horrible. To hell with the feminist movement if that's what it means!

Posted by A woman calm, a resident of Whisman Station
on Jan 7, 2009 at 4:05 pm

A man upset wrote, "Women like that have no business having children or getting married." The problem of the era of the play, and a problem that still continues to some extent, is that "women like that" are pressured into marriage and child rearing when it may be the wrong person or wrong choice for them. An unmarried man still carries a great deal less stigma and social disapproval than an unmarried woman. A younger woman sees her odds of marriage decreasing as she ages (whether that's an accurate understanding is another question): should she risk coupling up with someone she's not sure about in the face of the apparent decreased odds?

A man, on the other hand, has his marriage prospects improving as he matures and becomes self sufficient.

This asymmetry is why one traditionally offers congratulations to the groom and best wishes to the bride. The groom is expected to be settled and to have gotten what he wanted while the bride is taking a risk.

Posted by a man interested, a resident of another community
on Jan 9, 2009 at 11:12 am

I think "a woman calm" is right, and I find her comments to be insightful -- however I think she's wrong about the reasons behind it. She presents these these asymmetries (great word for it) as due to lingering institutional or social inequality. I believe that, today, they are more the result of biological facts of life. The truth is (and feminists hate to hear it) that women who want to have kids only have until, say, 40 to do so. After that things get sketchy, and the chances decline dramatically. That's not a put-down -- just a fact.

I think the "stigma and social disapproval" a 40-year-old unmarried woman suffers due to societal norms is often paltry compared to the disapproval she gets from her own mom! ... who, after all, wants to be a grandma, and is seeing that chance slipping away. That's a common scenario I'm seeing with many women in my generation (Gen X), which has been late to marry and have kids.