Henrik Ibsen & “A Doll House:” A Revolution in Evolution
“Using the new
style of realism, Henrik Ibsen
(1828-1906) slowly and painfully became the most influential modern dramatist
(Jacobus, 416).” As a young boy growing up in Norway during the 19th
century, Henrik Ibsen was forced to deal with life at the bottom of the social
hierarchy. His family was extremely poor and the immense financial and social
pressure of living on the fringes of Norwegian society must have deeply
impacted the young Ibsen.
“[Some of Ibsen’s most famous characters] mirror his parents, and his themes
often deal with issues of financial difficulty as well as moral conflicts
stemming from dark private secrets hidden from society (Wiki).” As a
child, living day to day just trying to make ends meet impressed upon Ibsen the
true challenge of surviving in a complicated world. The complex internal
struggle of the individual is not something that can be transmitted through
aggrandized storytelling it must be harnessed through intricate plot
development and complex circumstantial evidence. Growing up poor in Norway
Ibsen understood the subtle intricacies of circumstance that made the
apparently simple actions of a character much more complex than they appeared
on the surface. This understanding of reality and its foundation in
circumstantial subtlety is echoed in some of Ibsen’s most famous characters
like Nora Helmer, the protagonist of “A Doll House.” Due to the circumstances
of Nora’s actions what seems like a simple, heartfelt, and reasonable decision
to save her husbands life concludes with the drastic realization that since
childhood her life had been an illusion fabricated by the men in her life to
protect her from the harsh realities of human existence. The complex
circumstances of her actions and there resulting consequences allow Nora to see
the world for what it is rather than what others would have it be. Ibsen’s
ability to comprehend how circumstance largely affects the outcome of an action
showcases his mastery of realist
theatre, which is the genius behind many of his most celebrated works. There is
no doubt that Henrik Ibsen fully grasped the concept of realism when he wrote “A Doll House” in 1879.
Playwrights
during the late 19th and early 20th centuries (and some
even earlier) attempted to harness mankind’s struggle for self actualization in
an unforgiving world by writing in a new style, “which avoided mechanical
‘clockwork’ plots with their artificially contrived conclusions (Jacobus,
410).” In what is referred to today as realist
drama details of a play’s setting, costuming, and individual circumstance are
so fully realized the audience becomes convinced that they are listening in on
life itself (Jacobus). Unlike the ancient Greeks who were very formulaic in
their plot and character structures, realists broke away from the so-called
“mechanical” structure of the early playwrights and focused more on the
intricate complexities of circumstance that influenced a character’s actions.
Sets were carefully arranged to reflect the everyday lives of the audience and
the actions of realist characters were not single layered; actions were often
thoroughly entwined with a degree of circumstantial subtlety that had never
been seen before on stage. Ibsen and other realists recognized that the human
struggle for survival did not always have a happy or succinct ending. More
often than not reality finds a way to chew people up only to spit them back out
again despite their sincere efforts at peaceful coexistence. This harsh reality
is reflected one way or another in many of Ibsen’s greatest works but for the
purpose of this essay we will focus primarily on Ibsen’s “A Doll House.”
In 1879 Henrik
Ibsen truly defined realist drama by seamlessly integrating the complex nature
of human circumstance with the repression of women in late 19th
century society. Ibsen’s “A Doll House” challenged many of the societal
conventions of the time by serving not as an aggrandized polemic for sexual
equality or individualism, but by showcasing the very subtle yet extremely
significant inner struggle of the individual searching for meaning in a world
that provides little answers. “A Doll House” was a revolution in the evolution
of modern theatre because it signified a theatrical shift from the “clockwork” like
plots of the ancient Greeks into the subtle yet equally significant struggle of
the individual against the unrelenting demands of society. The following essay
examines the main character Nora’s transformation from “empty-headed ornament”
in act I to a self realized individualist in act III and showcases the subtle
complexities of realism that made this play a revolution in the evolution of
modern dramatic theatre.
Act I of Ibsen’s
“A Dolls House” opens in a “comfortable room, tastefully decorated but not
expensively furnished.” Immediately the audience is immersed into very “real”
world where there is no grand palace in the background or war raging outside
just off stage. The setting of realist theatre more resembles everyday life
than anything else. This is a purposely-designed characteristic of realist
works intended to engross the audience in a world not all that different from
their own. Audiences were supposed to feel like they were “listening in on life
itself,” which was a far cry from the dramatic works of the ancient theatre.
From the opening
action it becomes clear that Nora is a spendthrift immersed in an illusory
doll-like existence propagated by her husband Torvald Helmer. He calls her pet
names like “my little lark” and “my squirrel” but it is clear that Torvald
babies his wife and treats her like a child. “Now, now, the little lark’s wings
mustn’t droop. Com on, don’t be a sulky squirrel. (Taking out his wallet) Nora,
guess what I have here. [Nora responds in jubilation turning quickly] Money!”
Apposed to what you and I might be thinking this treatment was not at all
considered unusual for the time period of the late 19th century.
Women were supposed to play subservient roles to their husbands and much of the
action that takes place during the first act would be considered quite normal
to early audiences. Yet despite the doll-like façade, there are a few key
things to interpret from the opening scenes that will help us better understand
Nora’s transformation from “empty-headed ornament” in act I to a self realized
individualist in act III.
In a conversation
with Mrs. Linde, an old friend of Nora’s, we find out that below Nora’s
doll-like veneer there is a deeper sense of character that penetrates her
apparent superficialities. In response to her friend who is proud to have lived
a long and tumultuous life Nora states:
“Nora: …I’ve also got something to
be proud and happy for.
Mrs. Linde: I don’t doubt it. But
whatever do you mean?
Nora: Not so loud. What if Torvald
heard! He mustn’t know, not for anything in the world, Kristine. No one but
you.
Mrs. Linde: But what is it, then?
Nora: Come here. It’s true—I’ve also
got something to be proud and happy for. I’m the one who saved Torvald’s life.
…
Nora: Papa didn’t give us a pin. I
was the one who raised the money.
Mrs. Linde: You? That whole amount?
Nora: Four thousand eight hundred
crowns. What do you say to that?
(Act I)
Apparently a few years prior to
this conversation Nora’s husband Torvald became deathly ill from the ravages
tuberculosis. If he was to survive the ordeal he had to be moved to an area
with a dryer climate (Italy). After realizing her husbands impending doom, Nora
took it upon herself to fund her and her husband’s journey by acquiring a loan
from a bank clerk. Everyone around her thinks that she received the money from
her father but in reality she had secured a loan from Nils Krogstad, an
employee at the town bank. She is proud of what she has done because she
successfully saved her beloved husbands life but as the story continues we find
out that the circumstances of her actions might not be so cut and dry.
Unbeknownst to anyone surrounding her Nora
confines in Mrs. Linde that she had fraudulently secured the loan from Mr.
Krogstad by forging her father’s signature shortly before he past away. In 19th
century society, it was not at all uncommon for women to be denied loans due to
the simple and unavoidable fact that they were not men. Often women had to
obtain permission from their husband or father in order to receive a loan much
like students who have their parents co-sign their college loan. The
co-signature legally authorizes that if the primary recipient of the loan
defaults on making payments the cosigner will be held equally responsible for
paying back the loan (as well as any accrued interest). Well aware of her
husband’s imminent death, Nora fraudulently secures the loan from Mr. Krogstad
despite the legal ramifications because she believes that her unconditional
love transcends any laws put forth by social or legal mandate. “A daughter
hasn’t a right to protect her dying father from anxiety and care? A wife hasn’t
a right to save her husband’s life? I don’t know much about laws, but I’m sure
that somewhere in the books these things are allowed.” But Krogstad is a
spiteful, evil man filled with scorn after a social blunder that had ruined his
reputation several years ago. He blackmails Nora and forces her to convince
Torvald to keep him employed at the bank by threatening to unveil her long kept
secret. The shame of having a husband find out that he was in debt to his wife
was near unbearable in late 19th century society despite the
circumstances of her actions. Nora would rather kill herself than have her
husband find out that she has been lying to him for several years because she
knows what would happen to her marriage.
Nora and Torvald’s entire existence is
based upon the doll-like reality that has kept them safe from dealing with any
of their internal problems (like the majority of marriages). Nora knows that
any disruption to this carefully manufactured artificial reality would ruin her
and her husband’s relationship because as we all know even the slightest
injection of truth into a fantasy world can cause the entire illusion to fail.*
This heartfelt concern for maintaining a pleasant and happy household truly
showcases Nora’s fragility as a character. As a child Nora was sheltered from
the world by her father and as she grew into adulthood Torvald took over as her
protector and kept her sealed in a doll’s house so she would never have to deal
with the harsh realities of life. Nora is completely unaware of who she is as a
person or what the world is truly like outside her doll-like existence. But
that is all about to change as we skip through to the final act, act III, where
Nora finally becomes aware that she has been cosseted her entire life and
decides that she must set off on her own to develop into moral and spiritual
adulthood.
And so we come to the final act of Henrik
Ibsen’s “A Doll House.” Tensions have been building since the opening and
Krogstad has avowed to tell Torvald and the world everything if Nora does not
help him gain a promotion at the bank. It becomes clear that Nora’s little
secret has far greater social implications than we might have originally
thought. In the preceding acts Nora had been contemplating suicide as a welcome
alternative to Torvald’s acknowledgement that she had forged her father’s
signature. Shame, it appears, was a far more ubiquitous and disgraceful thing
during the 19th century than I think it is in modern society. In
response to Krogstad’s threats Nora becomes convinced that by killing herself
she will be absolved of all wrongdoing but Krogstad reminds her that he will
still have “control” over her “final reputation.” Even in death the shame of
having society know that a member of your family has committed a forgery would
have significant postmortem consequences on the surviving family members.
Torvald would likely have been blamed for instigating Nora’s actions, which
would have gotten him fired from his position at the bank. The Helmer children
would be considered to have “bad blood” because society in those days believed
strongly in the power of heredity. The shame that would have been imbued upon
the Helmer family after having society become aware that she had committed a
forgery was enough to convince Nora to postpone her suicide for at least the
time being.
After relentlessly pressuring Nora to aid
him in his devious plot to regain his social standing, Krogstad has grown sick
of waiting. He places a tell all letter in Torvald’s mailbox setting in motion
a chain of events that will lead to the climax of the play. His plan is to
bypass Nora and blackmail Torvald into submission with the threat of telling
the world that his wife is a criminal. After a wonderful evening of dinner and
dancing with the neighbors upstairs Torvald reads the letter and finally
realizes what his wife has done.
After Torvald learns of Nora’s crimes he
pitches a fit, denouncing his wife as a “hypocrite, a liar—worse, worse—a
criminal!” He reveals long concealed notions about
*
After having witnessed an actor dressed up as a cowboy walk across the
Tomorrowland set Walt Disney devised the intricate tunnel system that laces his
Florida theme park with the intent never to break the illusion of his theme
based attractions.
his beloved wife that have never come to the surface before because of
the carefully crafted reality he had fought so hard to maintain. He states that
he should have “suspected [she’d be a criminal]” and that “[he] should have
known… [that all her] fathers flimsy values [would have] come out in [her].” He
barraters his wife as if she never meant anything to him and focuses solely on
the implications of her actions and how they will effect himself rather than
his beloved wife and children. Even
though Nora took the loan out to save her husband’s life Torvald reveals that
he is truly a selfish man who “lacks any awareness that other people might be
his equal” and this is what pushes Nora over the edge.
Nora had always considered Torvald (and
her father) as protectors. They were the shields that kept her isolated from
dealing with the harsh realities of life. But in doing so they created a
soulless manikin that lacked any knowledge of the real world and how to get
along in it. Throughout the play Torvald and Nora’s relationship has been one
of surface superficialities. They call each other pet names and act as though
they’ve not a care in the world yet beneath this pleasant exterior there is a
deep-rooted division between these two characters which likely echoes Ibsen’s
own family experience growing up at the bottom of the Norwegian social
hierarchy.
The fronts people
put on in order to maintain sociocultural homeostasis both at home and in the
outside world can often lead to festering sores that accumulate if they are not
properly dealt with. Ibsen believed that it was “the primary duty of [anyone
is] to find out who he or she is and become that person” even if that duty took
a lifetime. Since childhood Nora had been sheltered from the harsh realities of
life by her husband and father, which made her ultimate realization that she
had been living in a doll’s reality all the more difficult. Like a house of
cards the removal of Nora’s false perceptions caused a chain reaction that lead
to an entire restructuring of her persona yet as she evolves the audience feels
as though she is a stronger character for having done so. After her husband’s
true self had been revealed Nora finally becomes self aware of her own
existence and realizes that she has to find out who she is before she can
survive and raise a family. Having realized her lack of understanding about the
world she desperately desires to set of on her own and learn for herself what
it is to be a woman in society. After a serious conversation with Torvald she
breaks free from the doll reality her father and Torvald had created for her
and escapes to live life on her own so she can learn to be responsible for
herself. The front door of the house slams as she exits the Helmer household on
a quest to evolve into moral and spiritual adulthood in an exit that
reverberated deeply in the minds of Ibsen’s 19th century audience.
Nora’s evolution as a character and the realist revolution that came with her
helped create a sense of depth and sincerity in modern dramatic theatre that
had scarcely been achieved prior to the realist movement. After “A Doll House”
Henrik Ibsen would go one to write more fantastic works of realist theatre such
as “The Pretenders,” “Brand,” “An Enemy of the People,” and “The Wild Duck.”
All of which truly solidify his position as “the most influential modern
dramatist.”
No comments:
Post a Comment