Ibsen's "A Doll House"
 

Has anyone seen this play? I read it tonight (At the request of my girlfriend, who saw it). I think my reaction is completely different than what's intended - I feel no sympathy for any of the characters, least of all the one who seems to want it most - Nora, the female lead. The closest thing to a positive emotional reaction I had at all was an understanding and respect for Torvald. An essay I read on it said it's often viewed as "Orthodox Feminist Fiction." I see so much more to it than that - in fact, I see very little feminism in it at all. It seems to be that Nora, at the end of the play, is still just a child. A child who has become disillusioned to the fact that her parent is, in fact, human, but a child nonetheless. It seems like "Wahwahwah, I want to be independent and there's nothing you can do about it, so there!" *slam door*

I'm not making much sense - I'm tired. I'll post a couple excerpts from a particular essay I read (and thoroughly enjoyed) tomorrow, if I get some responses.

I read it in high school and saw it performed (by professionals) around that time. I remember liking it a lot more having seen it than having read it; I don't have that much of an imagination when it comes to books. While I enjoy them, they don't really come alive in my head. The performance allowed me to feel for the characters.

Consider the time period it was written in. In the late 19th century, it was extremely bold and daring to portray a woman leaving her husband, regardless of the circumstances. Women simply didn't do that. They were "kept", and once married, usually had to endure whatever came with that marriage. For Nora to have left was groundbreaking (especially when written by a man)

Funnily enough, some huge women's lib group wanted to give an award to Ibsen for creating Nora, for what a huge step she was as a social figure, etc. He sent a letter back thanking them, but saying that he cared little for her social relevance, and cared little for politics, he was simply doing a study on the effects of such sociological implications and restrictions of the time upon the mind and soul of a character.

He also originally rewote the end to have Nora stay, to placate the actress who originated the character, she refused to perform it as such, and they wanted her that badly that they were willing to compromise.

I had to read it earlier this year. Memnoch, i too found myself disliking Nora, but i thought it was an interesting, enjoyable read nonetheless. I don't need sympathetic identification with a character to enjoy a show, but it is certainly a bonus, and the character studies were at times fascinating.

I found that Nora was manipulative and did not deserve sympathy, now-a-day a woman gets little sympathing for fucking up, why should she get it then? Women in that time knew how a marriage worked and she knew she would be nothing but a trophie wife for her husband.

I find, though that it is often times the parents fault for the illusion that everything will be fine if the man takes care of everything but the kids and housework. She was spoiled and niave. Although deep down she knew exactly how to work things with her husband, her menipulation of her "role" as trophie wife. Being "brainless" and how often she seemed clueless when in fact she was mostly in control.

As far as the husband, she had a blanket over his eyes. Their marriage was a sham. All those lies and the deception. maybe if they had both seen how a marriage SHOULD work, then it could've been better. Although I'm not so sure, the husband was a bit stuck in his ways and she seemed to enjoy her little secrets and the control she had when pretending to be stupid.

My real question is, how can a woman leave her children with a man who feels that way towards women? And how come she had to leave in the manor she did? It sounds like a teenager who just got in trouble and would rather run away then face the consiquences...

I just saw "a dolls house" a couple of months ago. I think most of you are failing to view the play in context. I don't think we're supposed to revere or sympathize with Nora -- she is a product of the way women were expected to behave. Society created Torvald, Nora, and their marriage and I think that Trovald's inability to stand by his wife in light of her financial mistakes shook Nora's world view enough to make her realize that she had spent years living in denial about her marriage. No one ever said Nora was a saint, but given the time period her realization, not to mention her actions, were a huge feminist statement.

You guys read "et dukkehjem"/"A Doll House"?! wow. I didn't think that anyone outside Scandinavia cared for Norwegian litterature :hmm:

Anyway. Henrik Ibsen was a realist who prefered to write about problems in every day life. He focused on the suppression of women in "A Doll House" in 1879. We are introduced to what seems to be a happy family but it's in fact as the title implies: a doll house where Torvald is the puppet master of his wife and children. When it was written is was an outrage since Nora leaves Torvald in the end. But now-a-days it's just as interesting to take a look at the reasons why she left. She feels that she's living another person's life - like someone else (Torvald) has decided her personality for her.

We're not suppose to feel sorry for Nora, only to understand her reasons for leaving:

Torvald: Først og fremst er du en kone og mor. (first and foremost you're a wife and a mother)

Nora: Det tror jeg ikke mer. Jeg tror jeg først og fremst er et individ, like mye som det du er. ( I don't think that anymore. I think first and foremost I'm an individual just as much as you are)

Well, Swedish literature sneaks over on the bookshelves in Ikea showrooms.

That's my point, though - I disagree with the intent of the play. To say that someone is first and foremost an individual and not a wife and mother is ludicrous, just as much as it's ludicrous for a man to forsake his title as husband and father simply because he's not "happy." I guess what I'm trying to say is that it seems that society places this mythical permanent "happiness" above honor and family, and I just don't agree with that at all. If I have children, I have an obligation to be their father as best as I can, even if that infringes on my own right to pursue "happiness." If being a good father means I have to take a job that I'm less than pleased with instead of moving to New York to pursue my dreams as a Broadway actor, then so be it. These are the consequences you must live with as a human - Nora *chose* to get married, Nora *chose* to have cihldren. No one was holding a gun to her head. And even should that be the case, where she was forced to marry (as was still happening back then), I would still see her as being obligated to make the best of the situation she was forced into, instead of just running from it.

memnoch: I would argue (and i suspect that Ibson was implying this) that one is not capable of being a good parent or spouse if he or she is unhappy. One of the reason we have so many unhealthy families (and by extension individuals) may be societies attitude that your obligation to others is greater than your obligation to yourself. Obviously this becomes much more complicated when children are involved -- in an ideal world people who do not like themselves would not reproduce but obviously this in unenforceable. I don't think that Nora was a very effective mother before leaving -- one would hope (and the ending of the play implies) that once she gets to know herself she can return to and be a much more effective mother to her children. The lesson that the play teaches is not that every unhappy woman should leave their family but that as a society we should stop actively raising unhealthy women. No one is asking you to like Nora or to support her decision but to respect the story as a commentary on society.

But why does she have to leave? When I realized that I was a poor boyfriend, I didn't leave my girlfriend and come back. I stayed with her and let her help me through it. Why does Nora have to leave? I feel that it's more a step backward than forward - she's continuing to be the selfish, child-like woman by leaving a husband who loves her and children that she could possibly have a future with. By the time she gets back from her journey to "happiness," it's entirely possible that her children and husband have grown needless of her. What then? It just seems like the end of the play could have been done with a more positive, constructive message.

I think it's debatable that Torvald loves her -- he only loves the *idea* of her, a cute wife that he can come home to and dress up and show off to his friends -- while i agree that an argument can be made that she should stay for the sake of the children I don't think you can argue that she should stay for the sake of her relationship with Torvald. Were this a story about real people in 2004 one could recommend marital counseling or shared custody of the children but this is a story that takes place long before either of those options is available.

She has to leave because this is not real life, it's a play, it's social commentary, the big statement needs to be made. You can wish for a more positive message but i'm not sure that one was available at the time. I'm also not sure that children are better off with a mother who has no sense of self -- and, it's obvious that Nora (and arguably Torvald as well though at the time this was expected behavior for fathers) has spent years pawning her children off on the nanny, while I'm sure her leaving would not positively influence the children I can't say that her staying would either. This story cannot be judged on modern standards -- its a whole different world.

oh yeah that's right, you guys got Ikea as well. Be thankful that's the only Sweedish stuff you guys got over there :lol:

it's H&M swedish?

I was in a college production of this play (University California Riverside). To say I was the star might be overstating my involvement; I played the oldest child (I was 9 at the time). I did get a standing ovation, though, when I didn't break character after getting hit by a set piece.

Oh yeahhh... I had forgotten all about H&M. Yup it's Swedish - it was established in Västerås, Sweden in 1947 by Erling Persson.

ok so some good stuff has come out of Sweden after all :p

Anthony Hopkins played a fantastic Torvald in the movie

I had to read this in High School, it was enjoyable... however I was being taught by a rampant Femenist who basically hated males... so as a male athlete i was number one on her shit list.

Managed to pull a B- in the course