I was absolutely riveted by Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House and the characterizations in the play. I had read it previously just for pleasure but didn’t understand the play nor did I see as much in it as I do now. It’s so clear by the play’s first scenes the balance of power between Nora and Torvald in their marriage. I think this play is not just about Nora discovering her own voice as a woman (much in the same way Kristine Linde demonstrates in her scenes with Nora) but, also about the destruction of a marriage. Nora realizes that she has been living through her father, and then her husband and family. “I mean that I was just passed from Papa’s hands to yours”(1606 Ibsen). While she creates a façade of a dancing ‘squirrel’ and twittery sparrow for Torvald, it’s clear she does have depth. Nora reveals her true self to Dr. Rank and Kristine Linde in their scenes together saying things like “Now I’ll show you that I too have something to be proud and happy about. I’m the one who saved Torvald’s life”(1566 Ibsen). She’s indeed proud of her ability to have provided for her husband in children in a time of need. But she hints of wanting more with “A lot of the time I was desperately tired, but all the same it was a tremendous pleasure to sit there working and earning money. It was like being a man”(1568 Ibsen). I think that by those saying those things that she would like nothing more than to tell Torvald her secret and to be validated in her efforts. Yet she has the ability to predict that such an occurrence would upset the delicate balance of her relationship with Torvald “how humiliating and painful it would be for Torvald, with his masculine pride to know that he owed me anything!”(1567 Ibsen). I feel passionate to defend the idea that Nora is without depth because it’s clear from the opening scene that she isn’t. It is also clear that she and Torvald don’t have a relationship even if they ‘look’ as if they do to the outside, yet they don’t communicate with each other on an equal level. Ibsen has created both Nora and Torvald’s characters to examine the idea of finding one’s voice inside a marriage and in life.
I always seem to end with the idea that great literature is literature because of its ability to hold up through time and place. Ibsen’s plays obviously fall into this category and that is why we still study them today. He challenges us to think and to examine everything around us in society—like all good artists.
The main recent production I focused on in my outside exploration was at the Donmar Warehouse, London with Gillian Anderson in 2009. It is from a new adaptation by Zinnie Harris, in this interview she talks about her role of Nora. The above photograph is also from that production, she appears with Toby Stephens as Torvald. I think Gillian Anderson personifies the traditional characterisation of Nora with her looks and intelligence--it's rather perfect.
In 1997, British actress Janet Mcteer took on the role of Nora and created an entirely new portrayal. Having had the pleasure of seeing Ms. McTeer in Yazmina Reza's God of Carnage over my Spring Break, I can say that I would like another time machine to go back and see her as Nora. In this link she talks to Charlie Rose about the play.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/5520
I think the themes in this play are universal. In thinking about the semester, I can't help but be struck by the idea of how a play like this one could inspire many of the women I read about for my research paper. I think, not only Ibsen's play, but others of the same nature could definitely help the emancipation of women in fundamental Islamic societies in the Middle East. While it's not generally viewed, in the West, today as controversial it would be very hair-raising to those women and their communities. Thus, I reiterate my point that theater can change the world!
No comments:
Post a Comment