the original marriage story low key

nora's an icon.

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.

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.

how could you not rec this?

** 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.

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.