Saturday, April 7, 2012

Rosa's "A Doll’s House – questions to consider after Act II"


A Doll’s House – questions to consider after Act II
1.      In what ways does Ibsen show Nora Helmer to fulfil the role of the Victorian woman?

A. A Victorian woman is one who is gentle, subservient to her husband, and both an ideal mother and wife to her family. In this way, Ibsen portrays Nora to fulfil this role as she primarily stays home, taking care of the household-her husband, Torvald, and her children (the role of motherhood and marriage). She values her family highly (she commits crimes to protect the sanctity of her family-e.g. forgery, going against her husband’s wishes to borrow money to save his life), and strives to maintain a harmony within her relationships. Nora is also self-sacrificing, as she wilfully serves her husband by adhering to his rules when in front of him, providing entertainment (Tarantella), and ultimately, situating herself below Torvald’s status, so he feels more powerful. Ibsen shows this through the unbalanced level of power within Torvald and Nora’s conversations-e.g. when Torvald continuously questions Nora or calls her diminutive nicknames (“my little skylark”), Nora simply accepts Torvald’s patronization by replying with “Yes, Torvald”, allowing her husband to reign over her.
2.    
             In what ways does she not adhere to the role?

A. Although most of Nora’s actual actions take place in the household, the type of actions do not classify as those of a housewife- e.g. forgery, lying to family, borrowing money off her husband’s employee…. Therefore, this other side of Nora’s personality prevents her character from being matched to a typical Victorian woman, as her character is too complicated to be classified as a type of woman. Also, the fact that she does not consider the severities of Victorian taboo/crime differentiate her from the banal mother/wife figure; Nora does not understand the fine line between a white lie and a dangerous lie (no limits), causing her to not be able to fully see the seriousness of her actions. E.g. When she chooses to leave her family at the end of the play, this completely goes against all Victorian morals, although she believes it is the right thing to do, and therefore, Nora cannot be compared to the role of a Victorian woman.
3.    
            In what ways does Ibsen develop Nora’s character to present her complexity? In what ways might this have been a challenge to the audience of the period it was written in?

A. Nora strives to follow the ideal Victorian woman’s role of being a model wife and mother to her family, but to do this, she takes part in illegal, immoral acts, which contradicts the qualities of who she should be. Therefore, the contrast between these two sides of Nora’s personality makes it difficult for the audience to understand the character, making Nora complex. Also, Nora refuses to let these two sides meet, preventing her family from knowing about her forgery and borrowing by putting on a jolly, frivolous attitude in front of Torvald and her children, speaking of Christmas, parties, and games. When she does delve into the darker side (meeting Krogstad/discussing her crime with Mrs. Linde), her personality becomes more somber and her tone becomes more serious, as she speaks of business transactions and her future. This other contrast of frivolous to serious may confuse the audience as in the Victorian era, women were supposed to follow legislation and moral law thoroughly, without any hidden opinions. Women were also thought to be simpler than men, only dedicating themselves to the household. Therefore, the audience may not understand Nora’s intentions of keeping one side of her secret to her family, and why there are such stark contrasts within of her personality (why a woman should be so mentally complicated).

4.      What elements might have shocked a Victorian audience in Act 2?

A. Nora’s consideration of leaving her family for good/the ambiguity of whether she will commit suicide “Thirty-one hours to live”, the extent to which Nora lies to Torvald and desperately tries to steer him away from being exposed to her big secret/ the ease in which she lies to her husband, the suggested intimacy between Nora (already married) and Dr. Rank, and how Nora allows this intimacy (if she is aware of it).

5.      Through the presentation of Nora, what ways does Ibsen suggest that it is a necessity for a person to fulfil their “destiny”?

A. Ibsen was known to be occupied with the fulfilment of destiny within his plays. In “A Doll’s House”, one’s destiny may be linked to their life ambition or purpose. During Victorian times, a woman’s life purpose was to take care of the household in terms of family and household duties (e.g. cleaning, entertaining, hosting…). Ibsen presents Nora consistently trying to carry out house tasks such as preparing the house for Christmas (cooking, decorating the Christmas tree, buying presents), in order to maintain a harmony within her family. Nora goes to great lengths to assure that her husband and children stay in the comfortable bubble of middle-class Victorian life, by handling the family difficulties herself. For example, she lies to her husband (by taking advantage of her inferiority to him “Yes, Torvald…I can’t get anywhere without your help. I’ve completely forgotten [the Tarantella]” <-she does this to divert Torvald from looking in the letter box and discovering Nora’s outstanding debt.) Nora also forges her father’s signature and goes against Torvald’s rules of never borrowing money, all in order to save her husband’s life from a time of serious illness, but she does not mention her actions to any of her family members, so they remain ignorant of the harsh reality that the family has put itself in. Furthermore, Nora purposely distances herself from her children so she doesn’t “poison” them (it is unclear if Nora literally believes her sinful actions will physically or mentally poison them). Therefore, Nora is sacrificing her mental stability to fulfil her life purpose, showing how important “destiny” is.

6.      Does Ibsen build empathy for Nora in Act 2? If so, in what ways?

A. In a way, Ibsen does build empathy for Nora in Act 2 through her gradual build-up of paranoia of Torvald discovering her secret. This is shown through Ibsen’s stage directions for Nora becoming more “terrified…wide-eyed with terror..”, and because Nora’s complex character allows audience members to relate with her, the audience at this point may empathize with her emotions as well. However, as the play continues, Nora finally deals with the harsh reality she has brought on to herself, and her stage directions are no longer frenzied, but rather “toneless…hoarse…”, solemn, as though the impact of the truth has robbed her of her pureness and energy. Therefore, the audience may empathize for Nora, as a delicate Victorian woman in this era would not be expected to have to deal with such serious matters on her own.
            Ibsen also builds up the drama of Nora’s secret, by adding different scenes with different characters to increase the complexity of Nora’s burden. At first, Nora was focused on paying back her debt and keeping it hidden from Torvald. However, in Act 2, the debt is no longer as serious of an issue when Krogstad threatens to publicize Nora’s forgery and borrowing if his position at the bank is not secured. This makes the situation more intimidating for Nora, as she can no longer just pay the debt back and forget/eliminate her problem. Now, she has to directly confront Torvald about Krogstad’s position without exposing her secret, making Nora’s life increasingly more risky. This, and Dr. Rank’s proclaimed love for Nora, ultimately adds to the level of intensity of tension and drama in Act 2, which may provoke empathy from the audience, as a Victorian woman should not have to endure such difficulty, while trying to fulfil her “destiny” in tandem. However, the audience may not empathize as such difficulties could be interpreted to be caused by Nora herself, and that empathy should not be given to a character that put herself in trouble.

7.      Ibsen parallels some themes with other subplots in the play for example lies and deception, breaking the law, poisoning one’s offspring, if someone goes away – everyone will soon get used to it. Name which parts in the play it occurs and the effects it has on the audience.

A.  Lies & Deception: Nora lies to Torvald when she gives a reason to her wanting her husband to secure Krogstad’s job at the bank: “It’s your father you are thinking of.” “Yes…yes, that’s right.” She constantly bends the truth, or corroborates Torvald’s assumptions, to prevent him from knowing the crimes she has committed and the effect it will have on the family. The audience may not feel empathetic towards Nora as her consistent lying could represent an attempt to overpower the male figure of the household (knowing something important that Torvald doesn’t know). Her lying goes against the ideal Victorian woman role, and therefore, she defies the norm, and because society did not accept any sort of defiance towards traditional morals, Nora may not have been favoured at this point.
            Furthermore, Ibsen presents some ambiguity of Nora’s intentions during her conversation with Dr. Rank. One can interpret Nora to be leading Dr. Rank on, as when Dr. Rank teases Nora: “You are a bigger rascal than I thought you were”, Nora mirrors his tone and energy, “I feel full of mischief today”, and this mirroring suggests that Nora feels the same way that Dr. Rank feels towards her (in which Dr. Rank hints that he is in love with Nora and would like her to have an affair with him). However, when Dr. Rank explicitly tells Nora his true feelings, “…I have loved you every bit as much as anybody…”, Nora instantly rejects his confession and the dialogue is no longer mirrored. Therefore, this sudden change of tone and intention may confuse the audience, as though they have been deceived of who Nora really is. Also, the level of misunderstanding between the two characters may throw off audience members (e.g. Nora saying one thing that Rank interprets as something else, and Nora then interprets what Rank interprets as another meaning entirely). 

Breaking the law: Ibsen presents sub-themes of breaking the law in Nora and Krogstad’s secret conversation, when Nora locks Torvald in his own office. By trapping the male figure of the household, Ibsen suggests that the contents of the following conversation are not to be heard by the head of the house, implying that such contents are against both moral and legal law. Krogstad’s blackmailing “You still wouldn’t get your IOU back from me…Your husband is going to create a new vacancy, just for me…” also portrays feature of law breaking, by forcing Nora to improve his economical standings (his income, job-basically official, legitimate matter) under the government’s eye. Therefore, the audience may feel scandalous towards the two characters, as Victorian law did not permit such transactions, and therefore the audience may not have been able to relate to the conversation, and may have felt angry towards the defiance of the law, as if the play suggested that the legislation at the time was weak and sketchy transactions were easily carried out.
Poisoning offspring: pg. 35-36 “You’ll catch a death of a cold” “worse things might happen-how are the children?” and “from now on I can’t be with them as often as I was before”. Ibsen portrays Nora to imply that a deathly cold is not as threatening as the poisoning of her children (because she mentions her children right after she replies that “worse things might happen”), suggesting that her responsibility as a protector of her children is more significant than her own life. This may show the audience how highly Nora prioritizes her children, purposely distancing herself from them to keep them safe, showing her selflessness. It also shows that she, like many other Victorian women, is not highly educated, if she thinks that committing her crimes physically poisons her children.

If someone goes away-everyone will soon get used to it: pg. 36 when the nursemaid suggests that “children get used to anything in time”, Ibsen may imply that children during that era were not as close to their parents, so if anything were to happen to them, the children would adjust with time, as they are young; children adapt easily. In this way, the audience may feel empathy towards Nora, who is painfully considering leaving her family, but it is suggested that her children will not feel the same pain. However, the audience may not empathize with Nora in that, because children were not close to their parents during Victorian times, the audience may focus more on the notion that Nora is abandoning her motherly duties. 

No comments: