Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House Essay

Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House is about â€Å"domestic politics† (Hurwitt, 2004, p. D-2).   Ibsen created a seemingly perfect atmosphere, enough to make one believe that marital bliss exists in such a setting.   As Hurwitt (2004) narrates, â€Å"the whole household contributes to the impression of marital bliss† (p. D-2). However, as the play progressed, it slowly becomes obvious that Ibsen wanted to show more than the problems of a married couple.   He evidently wanted to paint a socially significant picture.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The play’s story is domestic in scope, primarily because two of the main characters are husband and wife.   Nonetheless, the play did include broader issues.   It showed how society in the 1800s view marriage, the functions assigned to man and wife, and the limitations it gave to women in general.   It is also climactic in structure. The three main characters are Nora and Torvald Helmer, and Krogstad.   The gist of the play revolved around them.   Nora is the play’s heroine; the beautiful loving wife and doting mother.   Torvald is her husband, who works as a manager in a bank.   Then there is Krogstad, the character responsible for the past to slowly unfold and for the story to begin.   A few years back, when Torvald was sick, Nora was forced by circumstance to borrow money from Krogstad.   She kept that from Torvald, and she was scared for him to find out.   Now that Torvald is manager, he could now also fire Krogstad, who also works at the bank. Krogstad now threatens Nora that he will reveal her secret if she does not help him keep his job.   Nora then talks to her husband and tries to put in a good word for Krogstad, but to no avail.   Thus, the past is revealed to Torvald through the letter, and the real story begins.   Torvald is outraged, and begins calling Nora names.   What she has done is out of duty to her husband, being the obedient wife that she is.   Instead of thanking her, he greets her with anger.   Torvald is simply infuriated. By the time he forgives her, however, Nora has had a realization and decides his forgiveness no longer matters.   Nora undergoes a drastic transformation, a change in her individual persona that Torvald did not expect.   Hurwitt (2004) describes Nora as, â€Å"so animated in her kittenish sexuality, so maddeningly delightful in her teasing manipulations, and so punishingly fretful in her fear of discovery – that the stillness in her final disillusionment is enormously eloquent† (p. D-2).   Nora is the doll referred to in the title.   She was Torvald’s doll: she was his possession, his play thing.   She was under his control, and was extremely dependent on him.   Their home is the house; â€Å"the room is very much Nora’s dollhouse domain, as indicated†¦by the child’s table, chairs and tea set downstage† (Hurwitt, 2004, p. D-2). All her actions, decisions and choices are made by her husband, and she operates on his demands.   Everything she is involved in is mere play, because she is but an object.   His husband cannot even discuss serious matters with her because she herself is not taken seriously.   This is until she decides to leave everything behind and free herself from the prison that is her marriage.   She walks out the door and never looks back.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Ironically, in contrast with Torvald’s treatment of her wife, the overall quality of the characters is serious, simply because it mirrored a serious social problem.   The majority of the play can be considered tragic, except the hopefulness described by Nora’s escape.   The characters are simple.   At the same time, they hold meaning and weight because not only are they telling the story of a problematic marriage, they are also trying to discuss gender issues. The other aspects of the play also helped in clearly conveying the message.   The language used was easy to understand.   It remained faithful to the language Ibsen used, one that was neither shallow nor overcomplicated, yet it revealed real life emotion.   It was â€Å"emotional, thematic, and metaphoric† (Hurwitt, 2004, p. D-2).   The stage set-up was also instrumental in bringing the message to the audience.   In a play, usually these things are overlooked.   Yet if one pays enough attention, the setting call also help tell the story and make the play come to life. Hurwitt (2004) observes, â€Å"A box constrained within boxes of social strictures, the Helmers’ tidy living room is redolent of the genteel poverty from which Nora dreams her husband’s new job as a bank manager will allow them to escape† (p. D-2).   The living room is then responsible for telling the viewers the social status of the family.   There were no special techniques used, no special music. With an already weighty play to speak of, it would be unnecessary to overembellish it.   In the instance of viewers, it was interactive in a sense; the play’s â€Å"deliberate pacing somewhat undercuts the tension, leaving room for audience members to make their own vocal contributions on opening night, rooting for Nora to get out and slam that door behind her† (Hurwitt, 2004, p. D-2).   The audience had been able to contribute to the play. In the end, Ibsen’s play is as personal as it is communal.   The family is the basic unit of society, and affairs between husband and wife are private matters.   Nonetheless, these matters are also influential in the social sphere, hinting that the problems of individuals are also characterized by issues in society.   Everyone should watch A Doll’s House because Henrik Ibsen’s masterpiece is as relevant then as it is now.   References Hurwitt, R. (2004, January 16). ACT draws out sexual politics in ‘Doll’s House.’ San Francisco Chronicle, p. D-2.