In what ways might A Doll's House created a sensation in the world of theatre when it was first performed?
Ibsen’s work would have been deemed both scandalous and sensational at the time because of his exploitation of the Victorian era ideal woman and coveted family values.
To a traditional audience, to portray sexually afflicted illnesses so explicitly would have been morally distasteful however much truth it reflected in reality. The public ire or intrigue this inspires shines light on the deterioration of Victorian values for greater equality among the sexes or as Ibsen would have put it, among human beings.
Dr. Rank’s fatal illness can be seen as a symbol for moral corruption and its generational contagion in society. Because of his father’s philandering ways, Rank contracts the hereditary disease tuberculosis in the spine, which is often seen to be a side effect of syphilis, an STD. In the same way Rank inherits this disease as a consequence of his father, the authority’s mistakes, society suffers from the “diseased backbone” of its Victorian values, where the very foundations of societal norms set for women are erroneous and corrupt. Dr. Rank is paralleled by Nora’s relationship with her father, which later determines much of her married life with Torvald. “If I thought differently, I kept quiet about it because he wouldn’t have liked it... he played with me as I used to play with my dolls… I passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours.” A conservative audience may view Nora as the malaise to society- the selfish and immoral wife, mother and woman however Ibsen would have suggested otherwise. A patriarchal society’s indoctrination of female inferiority, female roles in society and accepted behavior repress woman and serve as a malaise the whole of society is inflicted with. Ingrained Victorian values were to blame for Nora’s motherless children.
None of the characters are one dimensional, nor do they maintain the same mindset throughout the play, Torvald, supposedly the figure of moral authority shows himself to be cowardly and selfish, Krogstad whom appears to be the antagonist becomes sympathized with and understood whilst Ms. Linde, thought to be kindly and in need reveals herself to be independent, self sufficient however also harsh to her friend Nora. And of course there is Nora herself who has sparked much debate. Once compliant and dutiful to her father and her husband’s wishes, has she deviated further into immorality or is she to be commended for realizing her captivity in the household and determination to find freedom? By radically juxtaposing the audience’s expectations of predictable characters commonly featured in drama, his formulation of characters in “A doll’s house” Ibsen defies and crosses cultural norms in real life and in fiction. Thus, instead of delivering a comfortable moral through simple characters in a hackneyed predicament Ibsen emulates the sometimes ugly, counter-idealistic nature of actuality. Perhaps Ibsen incorporates the element of identity confusion to further reflect reality in his plays. The use of realism was so important, not because it was a form of theatre gaining popularity but because regardless of whether the play disgusted or inspired its audience, the reality it mirrored engaged them and prompted a reaction, it expedited a change of thought in the cultural turmoil of the day.
Ibsen’s portrayal of Nora as the protagonist-victim and Torvald as the antagonist instead of a figure of moral authority shocked and repulsed many viewers. The scandalous ending was deemed “morally corrupt” and was even rejected by theatres in Germany who requested a more proper “moral” ending in which Nora collapses when she sees her children and decides to stay- an ending that Ibsen himself detested. Ibsen had often claimed he wasn’t a feminist; instead he was an advocate for human rights and equality for human beings. He openly proclaimed his scorn for women who accepted and embraced the bounds society had trapped them in, instead of searching for true freedom. Freedom is a motif throughout “A doll’s house” Nora equates freedom to financial freedom- liberty from debt and the ability to spend “piles and piles of money” to gain material wealth. In the end however, she realizes she has never tasted freedom under the suppression of her father and her husband “I was passed out of Daddy’s hands into yours.” Unlike a human being who has chosen her path in life, she is passed along like a doll switching owners. This is why Ibsen’s original ending is so crucial to communicating the ideals of the play; the loud slam of the door that reverberates through her abandoned home is a bold statement of Nora’s new found resolve and independence. The alternative ending surrenders Nora’s resolve to find freedom and to become self-sufficient, and forces her to give in to the confines society set her. Many may think that it is selfish and deplorable to abandon her children and her duty to them; others like Ibsen will view Nora’s actions as courageous act of bravery to shield her children from society’s corrupted ideals. Perversely, she can only shield them if she sacrifices her role as a mother- if she remains, she will become a walking manifestation of the Victorian ideals of women.
“A doll’s house” became an international sensation because its controversial themes and messages delivered a realist plot and complex characters that evokes shock, ire and vicarious agreement from the audience. Whether this reaction was positive or otherwise, Ibsen’s work provoked debate during the great cultural shift and perhaps opened the minds and inspired many who would lead the world to greater equality.
No comments:
Post a Comment