Dollhouse by Henrik Ibsen - Book Report/Review Example

Playing House Henrik Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” is a play published in 1879. One of the masterpieces of nineteenth-centurytheatre, it is about feminism, marriage, economics and debt. Considered to be a classic feminist literary piece written in an era where women were considered to be the property of their husbands, the play portrayed a woman in a society where the man plays the dominant role. In a world where a woman is dependent on her husband, financially, socially or emotionally, it is not surprising to know that women think of themselves as weak, yet precious enough to be well taken care of by the men in their lives. They are contented in the knowledge that their every need will be met and that they will be well-provided for. The roles they play are what the society has dictated and that is to take care of the house and the children. The whole story is about the transformation of a woman’s awareness of her true value in society and in the home. From being a woman who was always trying her best to meet society’s expectations to be the perfect wife and mother, Nora, the lead character has come to the realization that for the duration of their marriage, she and her husband did not have at least one serious conversation. She was there only for his amusement and she was done with it. She wanted freedom. “A Dolls House” is a three act play about a seemingly typical housewife who becomes disillusioned and dissatisfied with her condescending husband (Bradford). The first conflict in the play happened between Nora and Torvald during Act 1. It was about Nora being a spendthrift. It started when Nora said they would not need to economize since Torvald will be starting his new job as bank manager. Torvald asked her what she wanted for herself and she said Torvald might give her money to spend for Christmas. Nora’s spending became an issue between them for Torvald will only start his new job after the New Year and his first salary will still be due after the first quarter. His point was since they still don’t have a lot of money, there are other things they should consider when it comes to spending. Especially when Torvald doesn’t like borrowing money from anyone when emergencies occur in the belief that debt takes away the freedom and beauty of the home life. And the possibility of what it can do to lenders in case of nonpayment to which Nora said she did not care. Torvald’s reaction to Krogstad’s crime is significant because it showed how Torvald felt about lying to people especially to family. He said that anybody can regain his character as long as he accepts the responsibility and consequences of his crimes. Getting out of it by cunning and lies was not acceptable for him. He believed that “lie infects and poisons the whole life of a home. Each breath the children take in such a house is full of the germs of evil” (Ibsen). Because of this Nora is torn between two forces in which either way, she will be at the losing end. Not pleading for Krogstad’s cause will put her in the position where she will have to let Torvald know about the crime she had committed. On the other hand, she knows that Torvald has already made up his mind about Krogstad’s future in the bank because of his moral stand with regards to his crimes and there was nothing she can do to change that. Imagine what his reaction would be if he learns of the business between Nora and Krogstad and the lies she had created to cover them. Since he sees his wife as the naïve, trustworthy and perfect wife, it will be a big blow to Torvald to be proven wrong. In the opening scene of Act 2, Nora and Anna, the nurse was talking about the fancy dress that the nurse was looking for. In the course of the conversation it was revealed that Anna was Nora’s nurse since she was young and acted as her mother when her mother died. She left her own daughter to take care of Nora in order to have a job because the father of her child apparently did not support her and her child. This was what gave Nora the idea that leaving her children will not be such a big issue. Anna’s leaving her daughter was justified, and with Nora’s reasons, leaving her children will also be justified. Added to that, was the fact that Anna was a good mother to her when she was a child, so her children will surely be in good hands with Anna when she leaves them. Near the end of Act 2, Krogstad arrives at the house and was in the kitchen. He wanted to talk to Nora because he was dismissed from his job in the bank. What he said about his having a heart meant that he really did not want to destroy Nora. This was proven when he said that there was no reason to let anyone know anything about it except the three of them. When Nora implied that she was considering running away from it all, leaving her home and family, he discouraged her, telling her that it was foolishness. He just wanted to get his job back to be able to move on and rehabilitate himself. As we may recall, during his conversation with Nora in the first act, he said that his sons are growing up, and for their sake, he must try and win back as much respect as he can in the town. The post in the Bank was like the first step for him and he did not want Nora’s husband to kick him down and be in the mud again. In Act 3, Dr. Rank told Nora of his illness and that he will not have Torvald in his sick room because Torvald’s refined nature gives him an unconquerable disgust at everything that is ugly. During their conversation, it was implied that Dr. Rank thinks that Torvald has the tendency not to accept reality, especially, if it’s an ugly truth. This was evidenced by Torvald’s sudden change of heart from anger to happiness after reading Krogstad’s letter releasing Nora of her obligation and returning the bond together with the letter. This behavior can be seen as denial of an ugly truth. A play has many ironies that audience often sees and may ponder upon as they watch. Ironies are those which make the audience pause and reflect to find a different light rather than what was said or shown. In the case of the play, these three dramatic ironies strike me as important in that they represent the whole theme of the story in which it revolves. One is the fact of how Torvald treats his wife as a sweet, pretty, fascinating and charmingly perfect wife. She was his pride and joy, when in truth she was capable of doings things he hated most. Another is when he found out about Nora’s loan. He got angry, and said she was a criminal, a liar and a hypocrite. But having admitted that he covered for Nora’s father’s indiscretions, he also proved himself as a hypocrite and a liar, no matter his reasons. Torvald was as guilty as her father was. Knowing the law, being a lawyer that he was, has made him more of a liar and hypocrite than Nora ever was, because Nora in her innocence, did not know the implications of what she has done. Lastly, was when Torvald told Nora that she was not to take care of their children, that he would not trust her to raise them, because she was a liar. As we may recall in the last part of Act 1, they were talking about Kogstad’s crime and lies, and during the conversation he revealed what he felt about lies and liars, and how they may affect the home and the children. Yet, he did not want Nora to go, and they will pretend that nothing’s amiss in their marriage. A continuing lie that Torvald was willing to commit for appearances in their community. Works Cited Goldman, Emma. The Social Significance of the Modern Drama. The Gorham Press, Boston. 1914. Web 26 October 2012. Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll’s House. Ed. Jim Manis. The Pennsylvania State University, Hazleton, PA,1879. Web. 26 October 2012. Bradford, Wade. A Dolls House: Plot Summary. Web 26 October 2012. Read More