Act I, in the tradition of the well made play in which the first act serves as an exposition, the second an event, and the third an unraveling (though Ibsen diverges from the traditional third act by presenting not an unraveling, but a discussion), establishes the tensions that explode later in the play. Ibsen sets up the Act by first introducing us to the central issue: Nora and her relation to the exterior world (Nora entering with her packages). Nora serves as a symbol for women of the time; women who were thought to be content with the luxuries of modern society with no thought or care of the world in which they lived. Indeed, there is some truth in this (the extent of this is debatable). As the play reveals, Nora does delight in material wealth, having been labeled a spendthrift from an early age. She projects the attitude that money is the key to happiness. By presenting this theme of the relationship between women and their surroundings at the beginning, Ibsen indicates to the reader that this is the most basic and important idea at work in the play.
However, it is also clear that Nora's simplistic approach to the world is not entirely her fault. Torvald's treatment of Nora as a small helpless child only contributes to Nora's isolation from reality. Just as Nora relates to the exterior world primarily through material objects, Torvald relates to Nora as an object to be possessed. The question becomes who is more detached from reality? Though Torvald's attitude pervades every word he speaks to Nora, his objectification of her is most evident in his use of animal imagery. He refers to her as his little "lark" and "squirrel"small harmless animals. Similarly, Torvald repeatedly calls Nora his "little one" or "little girl", maintaining the approach of a father rather than husband. Nora is fully dependent on Torvald, from money to diet (the macaroons); and, because she is so sheltered, her perception of the world is romanticized.
Nora's skewed vision of the world is most evident in her interactions with Mrs. Linde. Whereas her old school friend is wizened and somber, Nora is impetuous. Her choice to tell Mrs. Linde about her secret seems to be more of a boast of a small child than a thoughtful adult; in fact, Nora only reveals her secret after being called a child by Mrs. Linde. Similarly, in her talk with Krogstad, Nora seems unable to accept that what she sees as acts of love could be seen as illegal and wrong. She refuses to believe that she is just as guilty as Krogstad.
However, it is apparent that Nora is at least partly aware of the falseness of her life. When pressed as to whether she will ever tell Torvald about the loan, she replies that she would, but only in time. For now, she believes that it would upset the lies that have built her home: Torvald's "manly independence" and even the basis of their marriage. This suggests that Nora is at least vaguely aware that Torvald's position as the manly provider and lawgiver is just as fabricated as her role as the helpless child-wife and mother. Indeed, it is important to examine the language of the opening scene between Nora and Torvald and realize that Nora's words can be read as both sincere and insincere; the text suggests an ambiguity in Nora's awareness of her situation. However, though Nora is somewhat aware, she does not want to face the implications of this reality, believing that material wealth will render her "free from care", allowing her to play with her children, keep the house beautifully, and do everything the way that Torvald likes. The lie can be preserved. Moreover, it seems that it is her lie, her knowledge that she has done something for Torvald that keeps Nora happy. Mrs. Linde's complaint that she feels unspeakably empty without anyone to care for reinforces the importance of this role for women in general in the text.
Consequently, Nora is content to continue to act as a child, romping with her children as if she is one of them. Indeed, it is clear that, just as she is not as much a wife as a child in her marriage, she is not a mother in any real sense either. It is the nurse who actually takes care of the children; Nora mostly plays with them and occasionally takes on more serious responsibilities but only because she views them as "great fun".
When Nora realizes that all may not go to plan after her talk with Krogstad because she is unable to either influence Torvald or talk to him on a straight level about her predicament, she begins to feel helpless. In the last scene of the act, when Nora is trimming the tree and conversing with Torvald, the full falseness of her situation becomes clear. Acting helpless, Nora tells Torvald that she absolutely needs his help, even with such a trifling thing as picking a costume for the upcoming ball. Torvald is not surprised and is even delighted, promising to help her. When the subject turns to the more serious matter of Torvald's views on Krogstad, it becomes apparent that Torvald is perhaps hopelessly invested in a false and twisted image of the world in which women are charged with the moral purity of the world, claiming that if men turn out badly it is because of poor mothering. As a result, at the end of the scene, when Nora reassures herself that "it must be impossible", she is worried both about the impossibility of her position in the immediate sense (i.e., concerning the loan) as well as the impossibility of her larger situationas a participant in a marriage and family built on lies. In fact, it is possible to view her last words of the acta defiance of Torvald's views on womenas the beginning of her rejection of the marriage altogether.
Act II Analysis:
Whereas Act I set up the initial invasion of reality into Nora's world and the rattling of the basic underpinnings of the falseness of Nora's life (i.e., marriage and motherhood), Act II eventually sees her set up a test that will determine whether or not her world is false. In other words, she is confronted with the fact that Torvald will find out about her lie but believes that, if he is the man she thinks he is, his discovery will only strengthen their marriage. Her reaction to Krogstad finally dropping his letter in the letter box is the climax of the play. In the traditional well made play, this would be followed by a unraveling and moral resolution of the dilemma set up in the first act and brought to head in the second. However, Ibsen deviates from this mold, turning the third act into a discussion.
At the beginning of the second Act, before the climax, Nora is still trying to confront the fact that her world can be touched and shattered. Though she is shaken, she still believes that her family and her material comforts will protect her. However, she is worried enough about the matter that she has already begun to consider the idea of both running away and committing suicide (though she admits that she does not have the courage for this last part). Luckily, the ball temporarily distracts her. This ball is extremely important for Nora because, through the costumes and dance, she is able to embrace the basic elements of the basis of her relationship with Torvald that she is still trying to preserve; she can sing and dance for him as a lovely creature. Mrs. Linde refers to Nora's dress as her "fine feathers" reinforcing the general perception of Nora as a non-human entity, a creature free of cares. In fact, the dress itself serves as a potent symbol of Nora's "character". Like Nora, it is torn and in need of repair. However, as in real life, Nora feels she is incapable of fixing the problem herself, giving the dress to Mrs. Linde to mend. The idea of the dress serving as a symbol for Nora's everyday mask is reinforced when Nora reports that Torvald dislikes seeing dressmaking in action. In other words, Torvald enjoys the character that Nora adopts but has no desire to see its origins, the real Nora.
Indeed, Nora tries to maintain her relationship with Torvald, unsuccessfully attempting to manipulate him on behalf of Krogstad through playing the part of his innocent and darling creature. One of the key turning points of the play comes when Torvald tells her that, come what may, he will take everything upon himself. Whereas before, Nora merely sought to find some way to avoid this disaster, now the idea that this episode may prove the strength of her marriage has been planted in her head. An important quotation to look at is Nora's remarks after she is left alone that "He was capable of doing it. He will do it. He will do it in spite of everything. No, not that! Never, never! Anything rather than that! Oh, for some help, some way out of it!" One way to read this is as a comment on Krogstad's actionsthat he will reveal her after all. Another way to read this statement is as a commentary on Torvald's decision to fire Krogstad and the problems it will cause. Still another way to read this is as concern that Torvald will take responsibility for her actions as he promised.
After this realization, Nora begins to act a bit more daring than before, using her awareness of the possibility of Dr. Rank's affection to manipulate him. When things go too far for her, however, and he admits that he is in love with her, she can not continue, her manipulation ruined by the blatant statement of reality. After all, Dr. Ranks' revelation that he, like Torvald, would give his life to save Nora's ruins her belief that Torvald's position is somehow unique.
Nora's hopes of averting disaster are dashed when she sees Krogstad drop the letter into Torvald's box. Perhaps already aware of the inherent problems of the relationship, she exclaims that all is lost for her and Torvald as Krogstad deposits the letter. Nora's fear, now that she knows that there is no turning back, is that the "wonderful thing" will happen: that Torvald will try to take this all upon himself and that, by knowing what she has done for him, they will become equal partners in the marriage. Nora both fears this and wishes for it. But, Nora is not ready to face this just yet. She wants to act out her last chance to be a creature for Torvald, dancing the tarantella. It is only after this dancing that she consents to letting him free. Interestingly, her last statement that she only has thirty-one hours to live can be read two different ways. On the one hand, it can be interpreted as saying that she plans on committing suicide in order to free Torvald from having to take the responsibility on himself; she would die knowing that she had once again saved his life. On the other hand, it may be a comment only that her life as she knows it will be over and that, in thirty-one hours, she will have to embark upon a new, radically different life because her relationship with Torvald will be over.
Act IIIAnalysis:
Act III is extremely important in A Doll's House. Rather than presenting the traditional unraveling of the well made play, it confronts the reader or viewer with a discussion of the themes presented in the first two acts. The act is also the deciding point of Nora's life: will the "wonderful thing" happen or not? It begins with a foil for Nora and Torvald's marriage. In fact, Mrs. Linde and Krogstad's decision to be together can be seen as ironic in the context of Nora and Torvald's marriage because, though Mrs. Linde and Krogstad both suffer from significant personal and moral problems, they have a better chance of a happy and true marriage than Nora and Torvald. Mrs. Linde advocates revealing all to Torvald because, as her union with Krogstad suggests, she believes that it is possible to build a relationship of mutual dependence of unformed characters as long as both parties are fully aware of each other's motives. Mrs. Linde hopes that, through this union, both she and Krogstad can become the better people they know that they can be.
The extent of Torvald's investment in a fantasy world and the importance of Nora's false characterization is revealed when he describes how, at parties, he pretends not to know her so that he may seduce her all over again. And, perhaps more importantly, Nora is quite candid about her understanding of all this, telling him flatly that she knows.
It is important to notice that Nora's time at the party has been the first time that she has left the confines of the one room in the entire play. Moreover, she has to be dragged back in. This suggests that it is Torvald's own desires to have Nora entertain him that necessarily forces Nora to journey into the real world. Also, it is interesting to note that she also temporarily leaves the room to exchange her party dress for everyday clothing, her first lone foray from the room. This new trend is the beginning of her final departure from the rooma departure that ends the play, shattering the values that had supported the walls of the house.
But, when she leaves for the final time, she is leaving for reasons other than what she had intended at the beginning of the Act. Before Torvald confronts her with the letter, she is on her way to commit suicide, determined that Torvald should not have to sacrifice his life for hers. She considers this the appropriate thing to do because she believes that he would willingly give his life for hers as well. In this way, they have an equal relationship. However, she is extremely disappointed to discover that he clearly has no intention of sacrificing himself for her. Instead of refusing to abide by Krogstad's demands and taking the blame on himself, Torvald accuses Nora of ruining his life, telling her that she will no longer be able to see her children or maintain their marriage except in public appearances. Nora even asks him whether he would give his life for her and her fears are confirmed when he answers that he would never sacrifice his honor for a loved one. Consequently, Nora resolves to leave Torvald, aware that true wedlock is impossible between them because neither of them loves the other, or is even capable of doing so. Nora realizes that, before she can be a wife, she must first discover herself through venturing out into the world. She leaves an unformed soul, determined to become a full person rather than the doll of the male figures in her life
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
All these pet names suggest that Torvald does not see him and Nora as equals. He seems to think that he has the higher status and control/power in this marriage and that Nora has to obey him; she is treated more like a child than a wife, showing that he believes that her role is to amuse and delight him instead of being a wife. Before calling her these pet names he starts with the phrase “My Little…” This shows that he sees Nora as a child, so he is able to play with her mind.…
- 468 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
At the start of the play, Nora is seen as a caring mother and wife; however, this is an affectation of joy and contentment. In reality, her true character is held enslaved by her tyrannical husband. Her demeaning nicknames, “skylark” and “little song bird” truly are a metaphor for her mental and physical imprisonment to the societal roles of being a mother and wife. Nora accepts this captivity, however, evident through her own use of her nicknames throughout the story in order to pry money from her husband and follow all of his commands. At this point, the audience begins to sense superficiality and materialistic behavior from Nora, but this view soon changes as Ibsen reveals his realistic writing style. Deceit is first seen as she consumes macaroons secretively, in spite of her husband’s disapproval. She begins to reassure to Torvald that she, “should not think of going against (his) wishes’,”(Ibsen,1.4) and is dishonest once again when telling him Chritine Linde and Dr. Rank brought her the desserts. This fraudulence continues as she searches for a way to hastily pay a debt which her financially independent husband is unaware of. She hides the truth from her husband in the same manner she participates in a game of “hide-and-seek” with her…
- 2454 Words
- 10 Pages
Better Essays -
Nora made the right decision to leave a man who controlled and treated her like an object. While talking seriously to her husband for the first time, Nora admits, “I’ve been your doll-wife” (Ibsen 1120), which she used to show how he controlled her every move. Aside from being a “doll-wife” (Ibsen1120), Nora also confesses, “You arranged everything the way you wanted it, so that I simply took over your taste in everything” (Ibsen 1120). All these things demonstrate how since the beginning of their marriage, Torvald controlled Nora’s everything.…
- 678 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Nora, a complex character from Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, changes throughout the play as the audience watches her develop into a very different woman, untypical of the Victorian era. As a house wife, she is expected to obey and respect her husband, however she misbehaves during the first act, behaves desperately in the second, and abandons her husband for her own sake in the final act.…
- 1174 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
Henrik Ibsen, the author of the controversial play “A Doll’s House” said, “There are two kinds of moral laws, two kinds of conscience, one for men and one, quite different, for women. They don’t understand each other; but in practical life, woman is judged by masculine law, as though she weren’t a woman but a man…A woman cannot be herself in modern society.” Isben created the plot of “A Doll’s House” from those ideas. Ibsen was viewed by his contemporaries as a moral and social revolutionary who advocated female emancipation and intellectual freedom. He believed that freedom must come from within individuals rather than from the efforts of social and political organizations (141). His play displays many sexist issues from the nineteenth century that are displayed through Nora’s treatment in the play.…
- 939 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
A large deal of controversy has arisen about the play A Doll House, written by Henrik Ibsen. The controversy argues whether Ibsen’s play is feminist or not. In the play, we are introduced to a woman named Nora, who shows nothing but selfless love to her husband, Torvald Helmer, a highly respected banker. Many people argue that the play does not reflect notions of feminism, but on the contrary, many people, such as Joan Templeton, argue that this play does in fact, does contain indications of feminism. This argument can go back and forth, but with the evidence provided by Templeton and many situations in the play itself, it is easily understood that this play represents cases of feminism.…
- 1142 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
The play, A Doll’s House, written by Danish playwright Henrik Ibsen was released amongst great controversy in the late 18th century. This play by Ibsen was considered scandalous for its interpretation of gender roles and the societal norms of 18th century Norway. Central to the arguably feminist agenda of this play is the main character Nora and her relationships with her husband Torvald Helmer, Dr. Rank, her and her husband’s friend and antagonist Krogstad. These relationships are crucial to Nora’s ultimate understanding of herself as they depict the struggle of a woman to develop an independent sense of self in a largely male dominant society. Through a depiction of Nora’s interactions with other main characters in the play, Ibsen takes the reader aboard a difficult journey of self-discovery and feminist awakening.…
- 1439 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Ibsen’s play, A Dollhouse, is the story of Nora Helmer, a housewife and mother to three young children. Her husband, Torvald, treats her like a child, giving her an allowance, monitoring her spending and calling her pet names like “sweet little spendthrift,” “squirrel,” and his “obstinate little woman” (Ibsen 1874, 1875, 1890). Nora pretends to be as unintelligent and agreeable as her husband believes she is in order to keep an illegal bank loan a secret. Once her secret is disclosed by a disgruntled bank employee and Torvald does not volunteer to take the blame for her crime, Nora realizes she no longer loves him and regrets the years she wasted pretending to be someone she is not. She leaves Torvald and their three children in order to “educate” herself (Ibsen 1917).…
- 2017 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Written during the Victorian era, the controversial play featuring a female protagonist seeking individuality stirred up more controversy than any of his other works. In contrast to many dramas of Scandinavia in that time which depicted the role of women as the comforter, helper, and supporter of man, "A Doll's House" introduced woman as having her own purposes and goals. The heroine, Nora Helmer, progresses during the course of the play eventually to realize that she must discontinue the role of a doll and seek out her individuality. From the very first lines of the play, we notice the status quo between Torvald and Nora. Torvald is the stereotypically strong, dignified husband while Nora is "little skylark twittering" (Hurt and Wilke 1327). Torvald's continual reference to Nora using bird names parallels Nora's image of herself. For example, in the first act, Torvald continually refers to Nora as his "little featherbrain," his "little scatterbrain," his "squirrel sulking", and most importantly his "song bird." These images of weak birds characterize Nora as a weak person. The simple twittering, little birds we see every day are very susceptible to cold weather and to dying and so is Nora. The image of a "little featherbrain" and a "little scatterbrain" indicate stupidity. Nora can't think for herself because her thoughts are scattered and unorganized. Clement Scott describes the initial image of Nora as that of "a doll wife who…
- 1436 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The plays main character, Nora Helmer depicts women behavior during the nineteenth century. In the beginning of the play Nora seems to portray to the image of most women during her time. She is very submissive and obedient to her husband, Torvald. Nora leads a double life in the play as a sheltered wife of an attorney and an independent risk taker, At first, Nora seems happy and affectionately responds to Torvalds’s teasing. However, this is just an act of Nora Helmer that we all later discovered. During the nineteenth century, women could not conduct business affairs and had no control over family finances (Hartman, 1999). Permission to do so was sought from the husband before doing such acts. Nora, “the little featherbrain”, a nickname given by her Torvald was just the opposite of that (Isben, 1879). She defied most of the rules. She ate macaroons and lied about it to her husband. She secretly forged her father’s signature, borrowed money without her husband’s permission, and boasted about it to her friend, Mrs. Linde (Isben, 1879). She was secretly proud of the sacrifice that she had made for her husband. However, Nora perception of her husband was totally out…
- 925 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
In the play, A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen, you will find numerous incidents, comprised of numerous beats. Inside each and every beat you will find exponential amounts of subtext, exposition, and character development. Nora Helmer, the main character, makes the most significant changes in her disposition, based on various discoveries throughout the play. It is through the discoveries that Nora eventually finds her true self. Some of Nora’s discoveries are involved in complications; some are even climax points. In the end, everything comes to a resolution, whether they are good or not.…
- 1766 Words
- 8 Pages
Good Essays -
4. Meyer, Michael. Ibsen 's on file. London and New York : Methuen London Ltd., 1985.…
- 1909 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
In act 1, Ibsen immediately portrays the protagonist’s, Nora, status as a woman in the household. She is a symbol of the women of her era, who were believed to be content with just the business of the home. She has been buying presents for Christmas, and is described as being, “busy opening some of the parcels”. Nora busies herself with small matters, hiding macaroons and organizing things. Although her husband, Torvald, labels Nora as “my little squirrel” and a variety of other animals in a patronizing manner, Nora seems to act in the same as a woodland creature, continuously “scampering about”. Nora behaves like a small child, hiding macaroons from her husband and spending excessive amounts of money; Torvald is not entirely incorrect in his statement of, “has my little spendthrift been wasting money again”. Although Nora’s character seems to exhibit some complexity on an emotional level, she lacks a deep relationship and understanding of life outside of the house and Torvald, suggesting things such as borrowing money and, later, not realizing that forgery is a crime. One of the main causes of this is Torvald’s treatment of and relationship with Nora. Helmer’s mind-set is apparent in everything he say’s to Nora, as well as his degrading pet names, “lark”, “squirrel”, “songbird”, and his objectification of her. However, his diminutive nature towards Nora is more similar to that of a father than that of a loving husband. She is entirely dependent on him for…
- 851 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
In A Doll House, written by Henrik Ibsen, Nora Helmer spends the entire play trying to keep a big secret from her husband, Torvald Helmer. This secret is that she borrowed money to pay for Torvald to get better, but she told her husband that she got the money from her father. After consulting her friend Kristine and lawyer Krogstad, Nora allowed Torvald to find out the truth, which leads to her leaving him and their children. Throughout the play, it is obvious that Nora has different characteristics, some of which are good and bad. In A Doll House, Nora shows the characteristics of being loving, deceitful, and selfish.…
- 838 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Yet as the plays progresses, Nora has a major growth development. Her development allows the audience to notice how she has become a strong-willed, independent woman rather than the childish woman who is crazy about her husband. Nora’s portrayal in Act I is that of a stereotypical woman, one who spends and wants money.…
- 996 Words
- 4 Pages
Better Essays