Name: A Doll's House
Rating: 3.504261363636364 (176 reviews)
ISBN: 9781406914832

Henrik Ibsen

A Doll's House

Tim Pendry

Ibsen by 1879 had removed himself from the 'theatre of ideas' exemplified by 'Brand' and 'Peer Gynt' (1866-1867). 'A Doll's House' is very different in tone and intent and all the better for that. Apart from the hysterical last act, this is complex theatre that is true to human nature. Ibsen denied it was a 'feminist play'. He is a better judge of his own work than the liberal middle class that seized upon it for their own ideological purposes. After all, Nora is, in fact, an unimpressive human being - a rather dim young thing looking for an excuse to break free from obligations. Torvald, her husband, is, of course, a self-deluding patriarch bound by convention and by a duty that suits his leadership position in a bourgeois family but both are victims of that convention. The last act sees him genuinely seeking to find a way to make amends in some way he barely understands. Ibsen is, in this play, observing human interactions in a closed society with theatrical brilliance and the play hooks you with its 'truth' throughout the first two acts. These are interactions with no easy resolution but drama demands resolution and so we have to accept the sometimes risible final act. Even that final act contains truths in the cold reaction of Nora to the possibility of a way out that would preserve a family and, incidentally, the duty of care to two small children who barely seem to matter here. This is a narcissist finding a way out and seizing it. Of course, this is not how the play has been presented since. It became part of a more general search for middle class feminist justifications of rebellion reaching a peak of literary canonisation in the next century. Middle class liberals appropriated it for all the wrong reasons. Nora's true nature was abandoned by ideologues for a 'message', turning the play back to being the vehicle for an 'idea' which is not what Ibsen intended. On the contrary, Ibsen was getting closer to a Chekovian observation of a situation and allowing us to draw our own conclusions. In this case, the sensible conclusion is that the stable conventions of bourgeois marriage contain the seeds of their own potential unravelling and of human misery at the point when a justifiable questioning of their grounds emerged. Thinking is a problem within such a society. The justifiable questioning of course requires triggering since most people find it difficult to think 'ab initio'. Torvald cannot but respond when he is triggered. Nora is triggered by Kristine Lynd, her 'friend', who is actually expressive of the sort of sly bitterness that gives feminism a bad name. There are interesting sub-plots in Dr. Rank being the victim of his selfish father's syphilitic adventurism and in the blackmailing Krogstad whose 'evil' proves to be more grounded in mere mistake and desperation and perhaps deserving of redemption. The play abounds with error - of a father irresponsibly passing on disease, of a man who forged a document, of a woman forced to give up her own child and caring for Nora's, of Nora being an irresponsible idiot because she has no understanding of money and of Torvald for being conventional. The errors are errors of ignorance and circumstance. The hidden question is always how to come clean and forgive or not as the case may be. Convention creates order but it also creates misery in creating order yet breaking free of convention also creates misery and pain. If there is a hidden message, it might be that the ambiguous conservative anarchism of Ibsen is struggling here with the role of truth-telling within social order. As a good dramatist, he leaves any possible answers to the conscience of his audience. Some have come up with nonsense.

sat up straight and applauded. for this to be written by a man in the 1800s is quite literally insane!!!!!!!

hira

Amanda Faith

Nada Ghanim

Is his little skylark finally free? His little squirrel finally gonna find herself? His little singing bird finally gonna sing a song of her own?

The play tells the story of Nora Helmer and her marriage to Trovald Helmer, it paints a picture of the dysfunctional Victorian marriage, the unrealistic rules and expectations in a poisonous culture resulting in misleading veneers masking the society into something it's not. The play's concept is hardly a novelty now, but at the time it was published 1879, it was an act of rebellion. 

In the German premier Ibsen had to write an alternate end scene because the original "would not go well with the audience" according to his agent, but changed later and called it a "barbaric outrage", and there's your rebellion! 

But the way I see it, Nora, the protagonist, isn't the only doll in this house, and no not just her children too as she said she made them to be, they're all dolls actually, each one of them is a "Doll" in someone else's "Doll House".

Now the obvious doll her is Nora, but, she made her father, her husband Trovald and Dr. Rank into dolls as well, she is far smarter that she lets on, as it gradually appears towards the end of the play, she knew exactly what she was doing, she knew how to paint the perfect picture and appeal to each of them, it's like one of those endless 3D illusion drawings, where she's the puppet and puppeteer at the same time. She is a manipulator and a victim, harsh as it seems, my sympathy does not go to her, it goes to Dr. Rank.

I watched a movie adaption by Anthony Hopkins during reading the play, but I pictured Trovald as much nicer guy as opposed to Hopkin's Trovald who had a sinister quality to him, my Trovald is pity, small and a little bit naïve man, but not sinister. And afterwards I watched "Nora" a short film responding to the play, which reminded me of Charlize Theron in "Tully".
 And that leads me to say that modern women have it way harder than Victorian women despite the feminist movements. Good times.

Callie Anna

Quite good. For being so short, it took me a while to get everything straight. It makes a lot of great points! As it is a play, not requiring much time to read, I definitely recommend it to any highschooler.

nina

Gerda Šalengaitė

** spoiler alert **
           Pasiėmusi skaityti šią Henriko Ibseno dramą tikėjausi dar vienos nuobodžios tragedijos, kurių apstu ir mūsų, ir užsienio literatūroje ir kurių konfliktai neretai man atrodo paprasčiausiai juokingi. Lėlių namai - vieno vakaro nuotykis, maloniai nustebinusi staigmena, kadangi šito aš tikrai nesitikėjau. Turbūt geriausia skaityta drama be J. W. Goethes fausto bei, turbūt nesuklysiu pasakiusi, revoliucinė. Veikiausiai dar nesu skaičiusi XIX a. pabaigos rašytojo vyro, kuris taip karštligiškai ginčytų moters padėtį visuomenėje ir visomis priemonėmis bandytų įrodyti, kad moteris yra ne vyro nuosavybė, ji ne tik motina ir namų šeiminikė, visų pirma ji yra žmogus ir, visai kaip vyras, ji turi teisę į asmenybės tobulinimą ir savikūrą. Dar viena rimta problema, kurią šioje dramoje nagrinėja Ibsenas - ar kaip asmenybė dar pilnai neišsivystęs žmogus tikrai gali kurti šeimą, prisiimti atsakomybę už kitą žmogų ir auginti vaikus? Mano manymu, čia yra apie ką pamąstyti.

Rachel

It's a pretty good play, I totally get the mixed feelings people get from this play, the people who tend to dislike it are the ones who felt Norah didn't grow in the play, that the ending was a cop-out and she was still being immature. While the people who liked it tend to see that she grew and was able to leave. Either way I think because the ending is so open and not told completely it leaves room for a lot of interpretation and to me that's a good play because it makes you think. It's well written and very dynamic, but not in a obvious way.

A Doll's House

Reviews

Highlights