Category: A Doll’s House

Antigone and A Doll’s House are plays set back in history to a time when men were considered superior to women. Antigone is an ancient greek drama about a young woman who goes against her society’s beliefs and buries her brother. A Doll’s House is a play about a woman who risks a lot to save her husband’s life. The main character in Antigone is Antigone, a young woman who disobeys her uncles law in order to bury her brother. The main character in A Doll’s House is Nora, A woman who risks her relationship and everything she has in order to save her husband. Antigone and Nora have many differences and similarities.

Antigone and Nora are both self-sufficient. Nora didn’t really show how self-sufficient she was until the end of the story whereas Antigone was self-sufficient throughout the whole story. At the beginning of A Doll’s House Nora seems very dependent on the people around her. She slowly shows that she is her own person and is independent. At the end of the story Nora says, “I believe that before anything else I’m a human being — just as much as you are… or at any rate I shall try to become one. I know quite well that most people would agree with you… but I can’t be satisfied any longer with what most people say…. I must think things out for myself and try to understand them.”Antigone and Nora both did everything on their own and stood up for what they believed in. They did not have anybody helping them. In the play Antigone states “If that is what you think, I should not want you, even if you asked to come. You have made your choice, you can be what you want to be. But I will bury him… and I shall be as dear To him as he to me. It is the dead Not the living, who make the longest demands: We die for ever… You may do as you like Since apparently the laws of the god mean nothing to you.” Antigone is telling her sister that she does not need her help the same way that Nora told Torvald she needed to do things on her own.

Antigone and Nora are both caring people. Nora and Antigone care about their family. They only want what is best for the people they care about. In A Doll’s House Nora says “But it was absolutely necessary that he should not know! My goodness, can’t you understand that? It was necessary he should have no idea what a dangerous condition he was in. It was to me that the doctors came and said that his life was in danger, and that the only thing to save him was to live in the south.” Nora and Antigone were willing to risk so much for the people they cared about. In the story Antigone said “That must be your excuse, I suppose. But as for me, I will bury the brother I love.” Nora was willing to risk her marriage in order to save her husband just as Antigone was willing to risk her life for her brother.

Although Nora and Antigone share many similarities, they are also different. Antigone has very little character development while Nora has a lot of character development. Antigone didn’t change throughout the story. Antigone stayed the same while Nora changed a lot by the end of the story. In the play Antigone said “The dead man and the gods who rule the dead Know whose act this was. Words are not friends.” Even when Antigone was being accused of her crime she was not willing to let her sister join in. She was still choosing to be strong and independent like she was at the beginning of the story. Nora starts off seeming very dependent and childish. By the end of the play Nora has become an independent and more mature person. In the story Nora said “No, that is just it. You don’t understand me, and I have never understood you either–before tonight. No, you mustn’t interrupt me. You must simply listen to what I say. Torvald, this is a settling of accounts.” Nora had never acted so seriously before.

Nora and Antigone may have their differences but they are also very similar.

Both North and South (1854-55) and A Dolls House (1879) present women as systemically restricted by an 1800’s patriarchal society, which elicits a response of sympathetic relatability within a typical female Victorian reader. Both of these novels are defined by the controversy of binary conflicts, which, if left unresolved, tear apart Gaskell’s Nora and Torvald, but consequently draw Ibsen’s Margaret Hale and John Thornton closer together. Both Gaskell and Ibsen explore the idea of equality within relationships, and whether it is beneficial, or completely the opposite.

Gaskell and Ibsen both choose to display the relationships within the novels against the traditional Victorian stereotype of love. With a patriarchal society governing the perceived love within each relationship, it either defines it, or tears the characters apart. Ibsen’s Nora and Torvald are a classic example of this, with their love being extremely artificial in order to paint a bright picture of the ‘perfect’ household. Even with industrial England intermittently changing the social roles within the class hierarchy, the sacrificial role of women remains the same, which Ibsen strongly points out. Towards the beginning of the novel, Nora seems perfectly happy. She consistently responds affectionately to Torvalds teasing, and does not seem to mind her doll like existence in which she is coddled and pampered, treated more like a possession than an actual human being. However, as the play progresses, Nora reveals that she is not just a ‘silly girl’, as Torvald constantly calls her. Her strong articulation indicates that she possesses qualities beyond mere wifehood. The unforeseen change in Nora towards the end of the novel indicates that she was this strong, independent woman throughout the play, but it was masked by the presence of Torvald, who echoes the majority of middle class men within industrial England. This is Ibsen’s way of revealing the intellectual power of Nora, but while she seemed to reach an awareness of the power of men, previously, she had shown a rather naiive innocence about this which is very similar to Margaret’s behaviour when she fails to realise the implications of her behaviour during the riots in North and South.

North and South is a novel defined by binary conflicts and how they are resolved. Margaret Hale, the heroine, is confronted with a variety of sympathies, including those between industrialists and the working class, as well as her contradictory opinions on her own intellect. Margaret seldom takes sides, preferring to consider mutually beneficial relationships instead. The novel’s conclusion, in which a proposal to lend money to the newly benevolent Mr Thornton, demonstrates the convergence of her business sense and compassion, binds these seemingly dichotomous elements together. However, as she enters the Northern town of Milton, she is described as a ‘fish out of water’, thus making her refuse Thornton’s handshake as she is unaware of the northern tradition; ‘It was the frank familiar custom of the place; but Margaret was not prepared for it. She simply bowed farewell;’ This social error indicates just how out of place Margaret appears in the industrial town of Milton, which is further confirmed by her erratic behaviour within the riots, in which ‘there was a restless, oppressive sense of irritation abroad amongst the people; a thunderous atmosphere, morally, as well as physically around her’. Gaskell paints a picture of an electric atmosphere, of which Margaret was a part of, and actively ‘threw her arms’ around John Thornton, in order to prevent any harm from coming to him. Such a public display of affection would have greatly risked her reputation during the Victorian era, of which I find Gaskell to illuminate Margaret’s impertinence and naivety, of which a Victorian reader would have either interpreted this moment of plain stupidity, to have potentially risked her life in order to save a man that she did not appear all that keen on, or to have realised this to be a crucial part of an intense and romantic love story, submerged by political content. I interpret this moment within the novel to be a demonstration of the lack of equality between the Milton workers and John Thornton, and how devastation could potentially occur because of the monumental gap between the rich and the poor. The character of Margaret is used by Gaskell to be the metaphorical bridge between the gap, preventing damage from occurring. I feel as if Gaskell is encouraging the reader to apply this metaphor to life, as the true love between complete opposites consequently draws society closer, possibly changing it for the better.

In both texts, the characters of Thornton and Torvald are protected by the female characters, which is the main focal point of ‘A Dolls House’, as both heroines sacrifice their reputation and livelihood in order to protect their ‘love’. However, this sacrifice is interpreted in very different ways, which very accurately brings to light the different types of male within England, and whether equality is desired, or unwelcome. For example, Nora communicates that Torvald is ‘so proud of being a man- it’d be so painful and humiliating for him to know that he owed anything’ to her. I feel as if Ibsen is exploring the idea of what the ideal 19th century man appeared to be, and how he has exercised his dominant control over the household. The concept of equality within a Dolls house is completely lost, as although it appears the roles of men and women were prominent, Torvald still influences the decisions Nora makes on the decorations of the house, further pushing the idea of complete and utter dominance, silencing Nora’s character until the dramatic climax of the play, where Ibsen forces us to realise the importance of equality, and how the lack of it ultimately led to the destruction of the Helmer Marriage. North and South’s Margaret Hale and John Thornton stand in complete opposition to this, as when Margaret saves Thornton from both lynching and bankruptcy, he acts upon this positively and embraces the act of love behind the process.

In North and south, From a feminist standpoint, I find it very interesting that the context of the production itself can be seen as having an element of the patriarchy. Gaskell wanted to call the novel ‘Margaret Hale’, to emphasise the heroines importance, but she was overruled by Charles Dickens, the editor of the weekly magazine Household Words, where it was first published from September 1854 to January 1855. North and South, according to Dickens, ‘encompasses more and emphasises the opposition between people who are compelled by circumstance to come face to face,’ making it a possible sequel to his own industrial novel Hard Times. Because of the episodic serial structure, Gaskell had to include frequent cliff-hangers, such as Margaret’s brother Frederick’s hidden presence in Milton, which causes Thornton to ‘indulge[e] himself in the torment’ of imagining Margaret with another man, and suffer ‘savage, distrustful jealousy’ before union leader Nicholas Higgins tells him the truth. Gaskell’s chosen form helps allows her to engineer a ‘classic romantic happy’ ending which allows Margaret to take control of her future. Margaret must navigate her way through a patriarchal society by treating the love of her life as if it was a business deal, which leads Thornton to believe Henry Lennox is the ‘right man’ for Margaret even after the Fredericks mistake is cleared up. This insight into the patriarchal society Margret is living in allows us to see how a middle class woman like Margaret is almost afraid of the damaging effects of love, which essentially taint the feminist qualities she possesses, indicating that the constant dismissal of her feelings for Thornton were an act of defiance against the Victorian patriarchal society, that continuously highlighted the inequality between the North and South, The Labourers and the factory owners. Gaskells creation of the Novel North and south, is one that tells a love story, that can absolutely not be ignored. Though it is miniscule, the theme of love and feminism is able to shine through the love of Margaret and Thornton, which at the same time brings to attention the creation of a better society, if equality was even just slightly closer, slowly bridging the gap between the rich and the poor.

Ibsen made the primary ‘ladies’ extremist’ character all through the whole presence of theater. Nora is a fragile and tormented creature who attempts to be seen as an individual essentially like each other individual. She promises her qualification to life while understanding her interminable state of deficiency. Nora states, ‘I think I am an individual before whatever else. I was unable to mind less what others stated. I was unable to mind less what people wrote in books. I must have a free point of view.’ Nora must make sense of how to change the habits in which others think of her as exercises.

What is the job of ladies in the public arena? This has been one of the most talked about requests since the start. Since ladies were commonly seen as the more powerless sexual orientation or laborers with lower financial prosperity than men, their place was normally seen as in the home pondering their adolescents and life accomplices. During the Victorian time, marriage was possibly one of the most essential concentrations in a lady’s life. Various women didn’t make the decision not to marry since marriage was a requirement for perseverance. Society shielded women from making their living, which caused a specific dependence upon men’s pay. During this time it was typical for women to consider themselves to be pointless and their condition pitiful, which left various women to recognize wretched, spoiling, and disrespectful treatment in their family lives. Various characters in uncommon conceptual works were made just to give perusers some information about the fights that various women various to endure yet endure.

By looking at the character Nora in Henrik Ibsen’s play ‘A Doll’s House’, one will see how the overall population’s negative viewpoint on women may have affected Ibsen to make a play about a female bold lady when it would not be seen well and why various periods of perusers of the play choose to consider it to be work of ladies’ freedom.

In ‘A Doll’s House’, the prominent subjects are love, family, sex employment, lies, marriage, masculinity, money, and respect. The character Nora Helmer is the association partner in all of these subjects. Nora isn’t only a woman who appreciates her better half Torvald, anyway she in like manner acknowledges that he venerates her despite the way wherein she is dealt with. At one point in the play, Nora tells Christine, ‘You know how devotedly, how incredibly significantly Torvald reveres me; he would never for a subsequent vacillate to give his life for me’. Every one of Nora’s examinations seemed, by all accounts, to be to fulfill her Torvald, whether or not it inferred setting herself in ungainly conditions; like creating her dead father’s imprint with the objective that she could take her recovering companion on an authority-embased escape. Notwithstanding the way that Nora chose to deceive Torvald about the lengths she had gone to escape reality, her essential concern was to guarantee his pride. She perceived how noteworthy it was for him or any man of this period to have the alternative to suit his family. In her conversation with her friend Kristine, Nora states, ‘how troublesome and humiliating it would be for Torvald, with his manly opportunity, to understand that he owed me anything’.

Notwithstanding the repentances Nora made, she regardless of everything would interminably continue through reliable putting down and ruinous treatment by her life partner, possibly that is the explanation all through the story she is discreetly restricting the rules that Torvald has set for her without his knowledge. Nora most displayed her newly found opportunity when she finally leaves her family. For this time, one can simply acknowledge this was the portal shut far and wide. The way that Nora left her significant other was not horrendously surprising, anyway for a woman to leave her children under any circumstance would have more than likely been viewed as unfriendly and unforgivable by pretty much all who read this play. Nora’s choice to leave her children may have seemed, by all accounts, to be boastful to most, anyway, her real opinions about leaving them were obvious when she told Torvald, ‘I won’t look in on the adolescents. I understand they’re in favored hands over mine. The way where I am by and by, I’m no use to them. The staggering torment she almost certainly felt understanding that she may never watch her children again; still she did what she felt was best for everyone included. Nora’s strong repentance to abandon her children to finally discover who she was as a woman made her a victor to another ladies’ lobbyist.

Regardless of the way that Ibsen saw ‘A Doll’s House’ as humanism, various people believe it to be a striking work of ladies’ freedom. Lady’s privileges are both an academic obligation and a political improvement that searches for value for women and the completion of sexism in all structures. ‘A Doll’s House’ was an extraordinary work of composing for Ibsen’s time. He shrewdly causes the peruser to acknowledge the play is about a couple who are beguiled, anyway, and then the peruser discovers it is a trade concerning social value. Henrik Ibsen manufactures this play faultlessly. He not only perceived how inconvenient marriage was for a woman at this time but also how hard it was for anyone to thrive in an area with such little regard for the needs and needs of another person. By competently tying Nora and her crucial decency and chance to all of the points, Ibsen gave the play a tone of ladies’ freedom that has stood the preliminary of time. Considering, by looking at the character Nora from the play ‘A Doll’s House’ we can see how society’s ruthless treatment of women affected the essayist to create a play that would be seen by various ages as a remarkable work of ladies’ privileged composing. Whether or not Ibsen’s thought about the ladies’ extremist turn of events, his conviction to elucidate such noteworthy issues no ifs, and, or buts caused people to consider how they treat others and the results of that misuse. Through the character Nora, Ibsen gave women a voice, yet furthermore, the hankering to fight for change. ‘A Doll’s House’ is an eternal review that lights the shocking results of the maltreatment of ladies.

Dr. Rank, a minor character in the drama ‘A Doll’s House,’ has all the earmarks of being an unessential supporting character. Dr rank or Krogstad was a lawyer in the profession and in love with Nora’s friend Christine but they couldn’t marry. Dr. Rank is regularly ignored in investigations of A Doll’s House. This is in all likelihood since he doesn’t do much. None of his actions directly affect the action of the play. Dr rank doesn’t have any good reputation in the drama we can see because he had done certain unethical deeds in the past in the banks where he had worked. He wasn’t a reliable person and his marriage was also broken apart.

Numerous researchers see Dr. Rank as an image of good defilement inside society. Notwithstanding, as a result of the numerous genuine parts of his character, that view is far from being true. Essentially, Dr. Rank adds to the dismal state of mind of the play, yet he isn’t fundamental to the contention, peak, or goals. He talks with different characters, appreciating them, at the same time realizing he will never be essential to any of them. It appears that Rank’s most significant reason in the play is to uncover things about different characters. His association with Torvald uncovers Torvald’s triviality. This is demonstrated when Rank chooses not to disclose to Torvald straightforwardly about his approaching passing. Rank tells Nora, ‘Helmer’s refined nature gives him an unconquerable appall at everything monstrous; I won’t have him in my wiped out room’ (2.152). The specialist realizes his companion well and knows that Torvald has a kid-like repulsiveness of anything remotely ugly. Proclamations like this demonstrate Torvald might be the shielded one in the Helmers’ relationship. When he came to Helmer for his job Helmer was the manager of the bank. He came to know that Helmer is a very stuffy and egoistic person. Though Krogstad and Helmer studied together one time, helmer is the kinda of person who wants Krogstad that behave like a subordinate to Helmer. Rank’s association with Nora gives us one of our first huge signs of the separation that lies between the impeccable Helmers. Nora says that her better half ‘used to appear to be practically desirous if I referenced any of the dear people at home, so normally it’s truly advising that Nora is just ready to uncover her actual self to Rank. This is a quite real explanation and, without Rank there, Nora never would have said it.

He loves Nora, yet that goes no place. Nora thinks about approaching him for cash but then rules against it. Indeed, even Rank’s approaching demise doesn’t generally influence the activity in any significant manner: his alleged companions quickly regret him and, at that point proceed with their residential quarreling. Korgstad blackmailing Nora, yet that goes no spot. Nora ponders moving toward him for money, anyway then administers against it. For sure, even Rank’s moving toward the end doesn’t for the most part impact the movement in any critical way: his supposed colleagues rapidly lament him, by then continue with their private quarreling. In the end, Nora and Torvald’s relationship is severed. Yet, Krogstad begins a new life with a woman he believed had left him forever.

A situation, state, or idea is artificial when it has been created unnaturally, and therefore seems unnecessary or insincere. Thus, in many ways, the term “artificial” can be applied to Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House, and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s short stories “Jumping Monkey Hill” and “The Arrangers of Marriage” from her short story collection “The Thing Around Your Neck”. Although the texts involve different settings, time periods, and characters, both Ibsen and Adichie use the term to criticize how artificiality can be damaging, highlight how appearances can be deceiving and reveal how it exists in the ways one presents themselves. Therefore, within the different stories, themes, and ideas conveyed by Ibsen and Adichie, the term “artificial” can be applied in many ways.

Both Ibsen and Adichie apply the term “artificial” when revealing the damaging effects of enforcing false images of a person, culture, or idea. In Jumping Monkey Hill, in-authenticity is represented by the unnatural perception of Africa, which has been constructed by Western views and stereotypes. Throughout the short story, Adichie characterizes the main antagonist, Edward, as an arrogant white man, intent on enforcing the single story of Africa as a regressive and helpless third world country. This is evident through the ways in which Edward seeks to undermine true experiences of real African writers by enforcing artificial narratives, as seen in his ironic response to a story written by one of the African characters, “there was something terribly passé about it when one considered all the other things happening in Zimbabwe under the horrible Mugabe”. Although it is in fact “a real story of real people”, the use of the term “passé” has the effect of excluding diversity among African experiences, illustrating how such false perceptions can be harmful to its natural image.

Similarly, in A Doll’s House, Ibsen demonstrates the negative effects of enforcing insincerity through the downfall of Nora and Torvald’s relationship. However, while Adichie predominantly employs characterization and irony to convey these ideas, Ibsen uses the Christmas tree to symbolize Nora’s role as serving a decorative purpose for her husband. This highlighted in one of many parallels, where Nora tells the maid to “hide the Christmas tree” because “the children mustn’t see it till this evening when it’s decorated”. In the same way, no one is to see Nora in her dress until the evening of the Tarantella. This is significant because although Nora pretends to be an obedient wife to her generous husband, it signifies Nora as merely a source of entertainment for Torvald, causing the reader to question the authenticity of their relationship. Therefore, through the use of different stylistic features, Ibsen and Adichie convey similar ideas concerning the ways that artificial images can be harmful.

Ibsen and Adichie also portray the term “artificial” by emphasizing the unreliability of appearances. In The Arrangers of Marriage, false perception takes the form of “the American dream”, a notion which has been fabricated by the media and idolized by the characters in this short story. When Chinaza is given the opportunity to live in the US at the beginning of the short story, the value attributed to this idea is exemplified by her family’s response “a doctor in America! It is like we won a lottery for you!” Adichie’s use of a hyperbole highlights the great expectations that this notion has been held upon, due to the fact that it has been artificially constructed. However, as the story progresses, and the harsh realities of the immigrant experience become apparent, Chinaza becomes increasingly disillusioned with “the American dream”, which suggests that relying on false appearances can be problematic. Whereas ín A Doll’s House, Ibsen portrays the unreliability of appearances through the characterization of Nora.

‘A Doll’s House’ was distributed in 1879; the production was quickly perceived as a women’s activist torch. This play had been hailed as a show that represented feminism in academic readings until the reports of new critics. The new critics of the play had an opinion equivalent to those before them which was, the play was not so much worried about woman’s liberation, but instead represents the new beginnings of a person. This is broadcasted throughout Sandra Saari’s article ‘Female Become Human: Nora Transformed’. Regardless of whether the play is viewed as concerned about woman’s rights or the beginning of an individual, the idea of Nora as a mental character sketch has been viewed as hazardous.

The originations of Nora have likewise been viewed by various ideological and feminist points of view, since in the initial segment of the show she abuses the entire register of womanliness as the ladylike generally has been seen, and in the last piece of the performance rises as exceedingly understandable and in addition willing to leave her better half and three children. A significant part of the academic analysis is regarded by the essential comprehension of womanhood and how the ladylike lady is to act and talk. Nora is either a lady of little ethics or she isn’t a lady by any means since she talks like a man and has all the characteristics of being Ibsen’s mouthpiece for women’s activist feelings as Else Host sees it. Consequently, Erik Osterud has recently contended for the view that Nora encounters a change between the first to the last demonstration, yet asserts this change is complete to the point that she is never again a lady but a ‘man’.

Woman’s rights in writing started to form in the mid-1960s. For some time Western culture expected that ladies were second-rate animals. With the far-reaching support of the female being second rate, ladies started to acknowledge their lesser status. Female observers began to take a look at the description of ladies in male messages with the end goal to uncover the misogyny hiding there. This implies critics take a glimpse at abused ladies in their writings. For example, spaces, incomplete sentences, and even silences. Henrick Ibsen’s ‘A Doll’s House’ catches the ominous sex job of abused ladies who are treated as simple ‘dolls’ played by men.

Nora Helmer, the primary character, attempts to be the ideal spouse that is gone ahead by the general public she lives in. She is caught in the ‘dollhouse’ which is her real home. Torvald, her significant other, has made a remarkable life for his doll spouse and their children. Nora loves Torvald, however, it is simply because that is the thing that she is required to do. Nora complies with her spouse by saying “Yes, whatever you say, Torvald” (Ibsen, 44) when he requests that she accomplish something. She doesn’t understand her affection for Torvald was forced upon her by what society expects of her. Her loved ones treat her as though she is a protected creature with no thought about what is happening in the outside world. Nora in the end finds her job as a housewife was compelled upon her, and she is urgent to get out at any expense. Once Nora starts to decide her getaway will make a superior life, there is no stopping her. Nora chooses to leave her ideal life as a doll and dare into this present reality to get to experience her true self. She never again refers to herself as Torvalds “little lark” or “songbird” (Ibsen, 43). Nora accepts that by leaving her significant other and kids she can better herself and get away from the ‘dollhouse’.

Torvald and Nora’s relationship has all the appearances of being found cherishing at first until it winds up referred that he is controlling Nora as though she was his doll. He doesn’t permit Nora to prosper as herself since that was the custom of the time. The spouses in the Victorian period were relied upon to follow their better half’s guidelines. Torvald addresses Nora as though she were a child, smothering her wants and desires. In the absolute first scene, Torvald says, “Is that my little lark twittering out there?” (Ibsen, 43). He doesn’t respect Nora enough to regard her as a person or an equivalent, yet rather as a blameless pet. Torvald is dehumanizing his significant other by always alluding to her as a pet name. Towards the end of the play, when Nora is leaving Torvald, he is perplexed, sinking down on a seat by the entryway, face covered in his grasp. He doesn’t understand what his effect has done to her and is amazed that it has eventually driven his better half away. He has, without knowing, mentally conditioned her into accepting his thoughts and feelings. Torvald has conditioned Nora to comply with his directions and think about his conclusion first.

While Nora is the hero, there are other solid female characters in the play, for example, Anne Marie. Anne Marie is the nanny for the youngsters and was additionally Nora’s attendant as a kid. She exemplifies each trademark Nora isn’t. Anne Marie acknowledges her situation in the public eye, though Nora does not. Anne Marie surrenders her girl for the reception so as to make due in the general public she lives in. She says, “I was committed to, on the off chance that I needed to be Nora’s medical attendant” (Ibsen, 237). She is tolerating the job society has set on her by dealing with herself first, no matter what. Even though she never observes her own little girl, Anne Marie is content with the two letters she has gotten from her in her life. She is a solid and self-sufficient lady that has been living with battles yet does not allow her advertises to influence her future.

Mrs. Kristine Linde is Nora’s cherished companion who is presented in the play all around right on time. She has come into town to search for work since her husband passed away leaving her a widow and jobless. Kristine is a solid female character that shows ladies can pretty much do anything without a man. After she was widowed, she dealt with her more youthful siblings and her withering mother. Nora tells Mrs. Linde, “You’re paler and Kristine-and possibly somewhat more slender” (Ibsen, 213). This suggests Kristine has worked and accommodated herself and her family. She has relinquished a ton to make a decent living and to get everything in order. Mrs. Linde is fairly a female aide since she winds up aiding Nora with her concern. An early discussion between Nora and Kristine implies the subject of a ‘dollhouse’ by assuming Nora’s straightforward lifestyle. Mrs. Linde says, “How sort of you. Nora, to be so worried over me-doubly kind, thinking of you as truly know such a tiny portion of life’s weights yourself” (Ibsen, 216). Nora is loaded up with outrage when her old companion, Kristine, is much the same as every other person and does not pay attention to her. Mrs. Linde knows Nora is shielded in her ideal minimal home.

‘A Doll’s House’ demonstrates what Ibsen makes of sexual orientation jobs in the public eye, sex fairness, and woman’s rights. He suggests the employment in the open eye and how women were treated during that time in the play. Women’s liberation in writing, and all things considered, is significant so females can learn it is alright to be alone. Being without anyone else and committing your very own errors makes you a more grounded individual. Toward the end of the play, Nora splits from her domineering spouse to get to know herself and experience all life has to offer. It is interesting to express that sexual orientation equivalence is significant in light of the fact that no sex is more overwhelming than the other. Women’s activist critics bring up that those ladies should be regarded in writing and regular day-to-day existence.

The inquiry is then whether this phallocentric assurance of women might be said to be undermined in the show, or whether the examination clearly affirms the content as a male dream of a lady as the other. A beginning stage for a possible explanation must be that Nora through the tarantella as jouissance past the phallic explains a subjectivity beyond the control of Helmer and the male-centric request. Nora leaves the cliché places of a lady in disguise with the man and is a subject without the noble veils as a mental self-view. In this manner, the man-centric assurance of the female as something contrary to the male is undermined. Thusly, it tends to be viewed as an extreme analysis of the man-centric request through its being a reflection on the female as past the phalli.

References

1. Coughlin, Ellen K. ‘Critics of Feminist Analyses of ‘A Doll House’ Rebutted’. The Chronicle of Higher Education 35.24 (1989): 2. ProQuest. Web. 7 July 2019.
2. Henrik Ibsen: The Master Playwright. Films Media Group, 1987. Films On Demand. Web. 03 May 2013. http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=15011&xtid=10033
3. Ibsen, Henrik. Ibsen: Four Major Plays. New York: Signet Classic, 2001. Print.
4. Rekdal, Anne Marie. ‘The Female Jouissance: An Analysis of Ibsen’s Et Dukkehjem’. Scandinavian Studies 74.2 (2002): 149-80. ProQuest. Web. 7 July 2019.

Henrik Ibsen’s theatre production ‘A Doll’s House’ is a literary masterpiece that captivates the audience through its complex plot that follows a struggling marriage that is riddled with dishonesty and the main character’s journey to self-discovery and empowerment. The production of ‘A Doll’s House’ follows the story of a young married couple, Torvald and Nora Helmer, as Nora Helmer struggles to keep the secrets of her past from arising and destroying her perfect life with her family. Nora finds herself faced with a difficult decision as her husband is promoted to the manager of the bank and is blackmailed by an employee that threatens to uncover the truth about Nora’s past to her husband Torvald; while Nora struggles to figure out a way out of her situation, she discovers darker truths about her marriage as she embarks on a journey of empowerment as she discovers her own self-worth. The production of ‘A Doll’s House’, written by Henrik Ibsen and directed by Colleen E. Cunningham, was put on by the Columbus State Theatre group in Nestor Auditorium. The Columbus State Theatre group’s production of ‘A Doll’s House’ was performed on a proscenium stage, which is a stage with an arch or frame surrounding the stage opening in a box or picture stage. The experience created by the Columbus State Theatre group’s production of ‘A Doll’s House’ was driven by a creative scenic design along with their unique staging techniques that were complimented by their complex costumes and the dedication of the actors to their roles in the production.

The set designer, Kyle Smith, and the stage manager, Makaela Jefferson, took into consideration the plot and character development of the production to create a creative stage that was well-developed and mirrored the events in the play. The stage was built using the realism style, which is when the playwright attempts to present the actors and events in the play as corresponding to everyday life, as it was made to resemble the inside of a common house or apartment building. Upstage, which is the farthest point from the audience, was the double doors that acted as the entrance to the house, and next to the door was a white end table. Center stage right consisted of a small kitchen table surrounded by four chairs and a bench next to an end table. Downstage, which is the closest point to the audience, contained a small rocking chair, a larger sofa, and a small chair which were made out of wood and painted white with black outlines. Center stage left was simplistic as it only consisted of a small fireplace, a bookshelf without any books, and the door to Torvald’s office. All the props on the set were white with black outlines, which created a unique look that drew the audience’s attention. I found that the structure of the stage was creatively designed as the set designer, Kyle Smith, had outlines of paintings, tables, and doors drawn on the walls with thick black lines which contrasted the bright white background.

The staging techniques used by the set manager, Makaela Jefferson, created a unique experience for the audience because as the set developed it mirrored the development of Nora Helmer. Throughout the production of ‘A Doll’s House’, the black outlines on the white walls were replaced with colorful props that matched the shape. In the first act of the play, the characters Helene, played by Elizabeth Petrilla, and Porter, played by Doug Morgan, placed a wooden stand in the place of a black outline and hung a painting on the wall to replace an empty space. I found it intriguing how as the play progressed and the characters developed more color came into the room as the objects that were originally white were replaced by a colorful counterpart. I found this interesting as the more objects that were replaced in the room, the more Nora became independent from her husband Torvald and began to have her own thoughts and opinions. Another aspect that of the staging technique that I found interesting was the use of lighting to create the allusion of passing time throughout the production. Finally, another example of a unique use of props in the production of ‘A Doll’s House’ is as the lighting slowly started to dim Helene and Porter plugged a lamp in, and as soon as the lamp turned on, the lighting instantly lit up the stage.

The costume designer for the Columbus State Theatre group, Cloe Cooper, created complex costumes for the actors in the production that was full of detail and portrayed the setting well. Nora was dressed in a variety of nice dresses throughout the play that changed as the days went past, creating a sense of time in the play. Torvald and the doctor wore a variety of nice suits which contrasted the workers who had on clothes that were weathered. I admired the attention the detail the costume designer maintained as they distressed Nora’s red dancing dress by making it look worn and tattered from years of being stored in storage. The most noticeable example of the costume designer distressing the actor’s clothing is with the seams of Nora’s red dress that were tattered as loose strings hung from the bottom of the dress. The costume designer created a division amongst the characters between those who were of a higher class as Nora, Torvald, and Dr. Rank are dressed in nice clothing while the workers were dressed in worn clothing.

The aspect of the Columbus State Theatre group’s production of ‘A Doll’s House’ that I found the most interesting was the acting and character development throughout the entirety of the play. Nora Helmer was the most interesting character as she changed the most throughout the production. She went from being a submissive housewife to a strong independent woman who has her own thoughts and opinions. I believe that the development of the characters in the production of ‘A Doll’s House’ was a key aspect that made the play so memorable. The actors at the Columbus State Theatre group were amazing as their portrayal of the characters was spot on. All of the actors were able to maintain character throughout the entire production, which strengthened the ensemble playing, or how the actors acted together. One aspect of the actors’ acting that I found the most memorable was the acting of Joel Bender, playing Torvald, as he practiced emotional recall, which is a Stanislavski’s exercise, that allows for the performers to portray real emotions to the audience by recalling a past event that made them feel their desired emotion and portrayed Torvald with a lot of emotion that appropriately matched the drama in the play.

The experience created by the Columbus State Theatre group’s production of ‘A Doll’s House’ was driven by a creative scenic design, along with their unique staging techniques, that were complimented by their complex costumes, and the dedication of the actors to their roles in the production. I would highly recommend anyone old or new to theatre productions to go see Columbus State Theatre group’s production of ‘A Doll’s House’ as the play is entertaining and contains multiple levels of symbolism. Also, since the production is put on by the theatre department of Columbus State Community College, students at CSCC are able to go see the production for free. Even though the Columbus State Theatre group does not charge anything for attending the production, it does not lack the quality or level of skillful acting as a massive theatre group could provide. My only recommendation for the Columbus State Theatre group for future productions is that if a mistake is made in the printed program that the mistakes would be fixed for the other show times. However, even with this small error I overall loved the experience and would go see more productions from the Columbus State Theatre group in the future.

A Doll’s House is one of Henrik Ibsen’s most famous plays, and a great contribution to feminist literature even though some characters do not seem important at first. Ibsen never explicitly identifies himself as a feminist but some of his speeches and acquaintances prove that he was concerned about society’s take on women; this is also proven by his play’s development and characters. Ibsen was controversial in his presentation of A Doll’s House, challenging traditional stereotypes and social norms.

Usually, a lot of credit and attention is given to the protagonist ‘Nora’ who is the symbol of a modernized woman when it comes to choice and behavior by the end of the third and final act, but when further going into context the reader will realize Mrs.Linde has an enormous contribution to the play. Mrs.Linde played a significant role in showing Ibsen’s negative opinions of Victorian Society. The limitations of the 19th century Bourgeois Society, as well as gender roles in Norway, led to Mrs. Linde’s sacrifices for love and happiness which later dictates Ibsen’s emphasis on women during the time. The bourgeois family as a whole was full of problems and created conflict in the play. The family in Ibsen’s play showed people enter marriage after having abandoned their happiness for the wrong reason.

The bourgeois individuals sell their love in favor of a marriage without love, but with economical advantages. Husband, wife, and children suffered all because of societal normalities. The family is also a place where power is executed, where Helmer appeared to fight for power and domination. During his plays, the family appears isolated from society and it seems that Ibsen stuck to the idea about the family as a place full of love and commitment. However, dilemmas are drawn into the scene. For example, in The Dolls House is stated “You mustn’t forget that I had a helpless mother and two little brothers. We couldn’t wait for you, Nils; your prospects seemed hopeless then.” This appears to show the relationship between Mrs.Linde and Krogstad and their love being ruined because of Mrs. Linde not being able to marry him because of financial situations.This part of the play significant demands from both of these characters to satisfy society.

The conflicts could not be ignored, and the myth about isolated happiness in the family breaks down under the pressure from a society where there is no happiness from the start. The women are connected with these norms in the play and suffer greatly more than the male characters under these circumstances, but they carry a vision about liberation and another kind of life as Ibsen portrayed in this play. According to Ibsen’s moral ideals, women should be strong and independent enough to sacrifice and stand up to a controlling society; for example, Mrs.Linde, in A Doll’s House, abandons Krogstad for the ability to marry someone else with a better financial situation to support her family. This leads us to the discussion about Mrs.Linde’s contribution to the play and why she was a perfect example of why bourgeois society controlled her sacrifice for love and instead chasing after something else.

Mrs. Linde is generally known to the other characters as an old friend of Nora’s. She is a woman whose marriage was meaningless and based on a need for financial security. She and Krogstad had been in love at the time, but he was too poor to support her family leading her to find someone else it a stronger financial background. In the play, The Doll’s House is stated “ I could do nothing else. As I had to break with you, It was my duty to put an end to all that you felt for me” It is clear that Mrs. Linde has experienced many more negative events in her lifetime than, a character such as Nora. Mrs.Linde is deeply influenced by her life experience of having to leave the person she loves the most for the ability to take care of her family financially. Towards the end of the play, she plays a major role in encouraging Krogstad to hand in the letter that is to cause havoc in the Helmer household. She does this to ‘help’ Nora in her family life, thinking that Torvald would understand the sacrifices that Nora has made for him. It is clear that she encourages honesty over secrecy, for the sake of having “a complete understanding between them (Nora and Torvald)”. Do her actions throughout the play make her a good person? It is hard to decide, as in some cases, Mrs. Linde does appear to be quite selfish, looking at Nora’s husband to get a job; “I was delighted not so much on your account as on my own”.

On the other hand, she evokes the idea of morality into the play, she advises Nora to confess to Torvald and in addition to this, attempts to save Torvald’s reputation. Her role in the play is a very major one as she is a catalyst for what seemed impossible. This means that Torvald would have found out about Nora’s secrets anyways. She also serves as a buffer, to avoid tarnishing Torvald’s reputation as she discourages Krogstad from releasing the incriminating letter that may have caused a dilemma if released to the public.

In A Doll’s House and A Doll’s House Part 2, we see that being independent comes up many times in both plays with one of the characters, Nora Helmer. Being independent affects Nora in several ways because it is what she is trying to change about herself throughout both plays. Nora’s husband, Torvald is one of the big problems of why Nora cannot be self-sufficient. Nora and Torvald seem to have it all in the first Doll’s House, but in reality, their marriage is empty. They don’t have full conversations, just Nora saying yes to Torvald on everything he asks of her. The dependence that Nora had on Torvald kept her from having her personality. But we see that Nora evolves in the second play when she leaves her home in the first play. The development of independence changes with Nora but in an insignificant way.

In the first Doll’s House, Nora relies on Torvald and doesn’t do anything for herself while always asking for help from her husband. She acts very immaturely when she is around Torvald acting like a “doll”; a boring, static character with a minor personality of her own. Nora’s whole life is a build-up of societal norms and the assumptions of others. Nora is not accepted as an independent person by her husband, nor does she feel like it. Understandably, she is living to please others rather than herself. From her childhood, Nora has always retained the opinions of either her father or husband, anticipating that it would satisfy them. This reasoning makes her appear childish, revealing that she possesses no objectives of her own. In the first play, Torvald has always had nicknames for Nora because it is how she is acting. He says, “Is that my song-lark chirruping out there?”, or “Is that my squirrel rummaging in there?” (Ibsen 110). Torvald calls Nora a squirrel because she likes to collect secret piles which Torvald orders that she does not have, but she hides them anyway. When Torvald calls Nora the other nicknames, it means she can not get anything by without telling Torvald. When Torvald calls Nora by her pet names, it is symbolic of his beliefs about women and their gender roles. He holds a protective position against his wife as he views Nora who needs his guidance and direction. This is a significant statement that lets people know that Nora can’t do anything on her own.

In addition to Nora being childish, Torvald has also called Nora a “spendthrift.”A quote that Nora says that also reveals her immaturity is, “Oh but Torvald, we can be a little extravagant now, surely. Can’t we? Just a teeny-weeny bit. After all, you’ll have a big salary now and be earning lots and lots of money” (Ibsen 110). Nora just doesn’t understand that Torvald wants to save money and not waste it all on presents. She knows that he’s earning the money, but she doesn’t need to spend it all. Also, the vocabulary she is saying, “teeny-weeny” also states that she has not grown up much by saying words that children would say. It feels like Nora is emotionally undeveloped because she doesn’t understand that maturity can be developed by having relationships with people and not just doing whatever she wants. By the end of the play, Nora finally agrees with herself that she needs to be on her own and grow to learn new things on her lonesome. She had enough of Torvald treating her like a child and left him alone with their kids by himself. Nora thinks that Torvald doesn’t understand her and she doesn’t understand him either. There is a realization that she believes she spent her entire life being loved for not who she is, just there for the role she plays which is just being “Torvald’s wife”. Nora’s views of independence and self-sufficiency reveal her as being immature and “inexperienced”.

In A Doll’s House Part 2, Nora seems to be more independent with herself. She went out in the world by herself to learn how to live for herself, not for her family and especially her husband. When Nora comes back to the Helmer household, she comes back for a reason. There were divorce papers that Torvald didn’t sign and Nora did not like that. She needed help from two other main characters, Anne-Marie and Emmy, Nora’s daughter. Nora states that she wanted to be independent and have no help from anyone. But, she came back for help and could not do it on her own. Nora says to her daughter Emmy, “For everyone, tell him it will be alright, that there’s no point in wrecking everything he’s built, tell him to do it for you” (Hnath 85). She is telling Emmy to do something for her because she doesn’t want to. This quote is saying that Nora will not speak to him because she is afraid that he will say no. She has said she “changed” and doesn’t want to get it any drama, but it feels like she’s asking her daughter for help because she can’t do it. Nora says she’s going to ruin Torvald’s life if he doesn’t sign the divorce papers. She hasn’t changed and is still childish if she tries to ruin him because she doesn’t get what she wants.

Yes, the performers were believable, given the requirements of the play because both Nora and Torvald have been very much prepared to play the round of life and marriage similarly as they do. Nora in a high-voiced, practically jazzed execution style as the protected ‘lark’ spouse who (she comes to acknowledge) was ‘given over’ from father to husband, never confronting life all alone. What’s more, Torvald—continually controlling, kidding about Nora’s juvenile ways—plays the straight-bolt man of the house, a legitimate, persevering endeavor holding quick to a lot of fixed principles and desires for himself and other individuals. He’s a talker, exact and firmly twisted, and a shockingly sensitive instrument. The scenery tells us something is about to happen before a word is expressed. The family unit setting for ‘Doll’s Home’ is rich with the trappings of expanding riches. With its lavish mats, valuable furniture, dividers of family representations, and fine art, the lounge proposes the home of a man heading for good things. The promoting material for the shows astutely introduces Nora’s picture as the satire catastrophe veils to speak to the preparations. Just’ A Doll’s Home’ feels light on the catastrophe, or if nothing else coming up short on the heaviness of Nora’s clashing emotions. A trade between Nora and her better half’s most seasoned companion, Dr. Rank gives one of only a handful couple of snapshots of a finished feeling. In Mr. Stephens’ interpretation, one of Torvald’s pet names for his better half is ‘hamster.’ And this Nora seems like a confined hamster on an unendingly spinning wheel. Watch her do the energizing, uncontrollable tarantella that parts of the bargain’s demonstration — as she practices for a presentation at a Christmas party — and you’ll see every one of the ramifications of saying somebody is moving as quick as possible.

All these performances are admirable, as well as in the manners in which they further characterize Nora. Attempting to please and mollify every one of these others, she runs an undeniably excited array of postures and reactions. There’s computation in this Nora, without a doubt, yet keeping over the double dealings is destroying her, particularly since the line between trickiness and truth continues getting fuzzier. Pretense crumples totally in the play’s ardent last scene. Nora and Torvald are exposed to us now, yet there is no solace in the lucidity. Deprived of his grandiosity and loss, Mr. Torvald is a figure of pity. Be that as it may, Nora, as she is currently, is something to fear. She’s been stripped of the considerable number of structures, thrives, and even expressions of love that have until now characterized her.

The most striking differentiation is between Nora and Mrs. Linde. Nora is a cheerful spouse first and foremost and ends up being a lamentable character toward the finish of the show; Mrs. Linde is a terrible widow from the start, yet she later turns out to be a priggishly fulfilled spouse of Krogstad toward the end. Nora is by all accounts a toy, a wonderful and fascinating object of amusement from the outset, however, she ends up being fit for deduction, looking for her character and poise, and she goes out toward the finish of the play. Mrs. Linde is a genuine and free lady, a grave woman carrying on with a lazy life to start with, however, she figures out how to discover the job of a sentimental youthful spouse, cheerfully reliant on her man. Nora is an image of transformation, poor Mrs. Linde, who will never see so troublesome thoughts like ‘nobility’ is the cliché delegate of the moderate lady. Nora represents the future; Mrs. Linde represents the past. The just one parallel between these two ladies is that Mrs. Linde additionally lies to her sweetheart, as Nora lies to her better half, to spare the life of her mom and help her siblings. Nora looks youthful and appealing; however, Mrs. Linde looks moderately aged and pale. Nora has three kids, some property, and a possessive spouse, yet Mrs. Linde has none of them. Furthermore, if Nora exits, leaving every one of them, Mrs. Linde strolls in, anxious to have them. Nora goes to battle the obscure, and Mrs. Linde comes to get security with the goal that she can quit battling professionally. There is some closeness among Nora and Nils Krogstad as the two have submitted fabrication for their family. Truth be told, both Nora and Krogstad are liberal masterminds and are additionally dynamic. The two of them have a kind heart.