What do you think?
Rate this book
A Doll's House
A Doll's House (1879), is a masterpiece of theatrical craft which, for the first time portrayed the tragic hypocrisy of Victorian middle class marriage on the stage. The play ushered in a new social era and "exploded like a bomb into contemporary life".
The Student Edition contains these exclusive features:
· A chronology of the playwright's life and work
· An introduction giving the background of the play
· Commentary on themes, characters. language and style
· Notes on individual words and phrases in the text
· Questions for further study
· Bibliography for further reading.
122 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1879
About the author
Henrik Ibsen
1,665 books1,813 followersHenrik Johan Ibsen was a major Norwegian playwright largely responsible for the rise of modern realistic drama. He is often referred to as the "father of modern drama." Ibsen is held to be the greatest of Norwegian authors and one of the most important playwrights of all time, celebrated as a national symbol by Norwegians.
His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.
Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.
His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.
Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 5,915 reviews
April 12, 2021
تعبت الدمية
تعبت من الخيوط تحرك رأسها وذراعيها
وتجبر قدميها على السير في طريق لا تبتغيه
تعبت الدمية من الزينة ومن المنزل الملون بالزيف
ومن السند المائل
ومن التقاليد السخيفة
ومن واجبات وقيود أشد سخافة
قررت نورا أن تذهب
لأجل نفسها
لأجل هذا الشيء الذي كان عليها أن ترضيه لتستطيع أن تعيش
لأنها في الحقيقة من لحم ودم وأعصاب وأسلاك عقلها تعمل تماما مثلها مثل أي ذكر فرضت عليها الدنيا أن توقره لمجرد أنه يحمل اسم رجل
نورا ليست بدمية
فكان عليها أن تترك بيت الدمى
وتتنفس للمرة الأولى
::::::::::::
نورا : لست أبالي بما يقوله الناس ، فلا بد لي أن أذهب .
هيلمر : دون اكتراث بأقدس واجباتك ؟
نورا : وما هي أقدس واجباتي في نظرك ؟
هيلمر : وهل هذه مسألة تحتاج إلى شرح ؟ إنها واجباتك نحو زوجك وأولادك .
نورا : لدي واجبات أخرى لا تقل عنها قداسة .
هيلمر : غير معقول . ماهي ؟
نورا : واجباتي نحو نفسي .
هيلمر : أنت زوجة وأم لأطفالي قبل أي شيء آخر
نورا : لم أعد أؤمن بذلك . إنني مخلوق آدمي عاقل .. مثلك تماماً .
::::::::::::
المسرحية مكتوبة في القرن التاسع عشر
لم تصمت نورا حينها
هربت من السيرك المزيف
قالت : لا
فلتخبروني إذا عن كل نورا منذ تاريخ نشر المسرحية
1879
كم نورا تعرفها أو تعرفينها..؟
كم نورا تقرأ كلماتي الآن .. وتغتصب ابتسامة في وجه من لا يستحقها
راضخة..صامتة..مستسلمة..
نحن الآن في القرن الحادي والعشرين
وهناك آلاف مثل نورا في كل مجتمع
تبتلع اهانتها يوميا
وتصمت
ترضخ لاضطهادها يوميا في كل مكان
بيت ابيها بيت زوجها
تسلط أخيها
نظرات المارة التي لا ترحم
المواصلات العامة..المدرسة..الجامعة..العمل
كل مكان يشيئها ويحيلها كائن ضعيف
مسكين
مشتهى
عليه ألا يضحك وألا يعلو صوته
وألا يعترض وألا يرتدي هذا أو ذاك
فهو فتنة ولعنة ونعمة ومسرة ونصف الدنيا المجني عليه أبدا
دوما دوما
عليها أن ترضي الجميع
ولا ترضي نفسها أبدا
أبدا
::::::::::::
المسرحية عظيمة كعظمة إبسن
رائد المسرح الأشهر
والذي بسطرين في آخر المسرحية
أطلق آلاف من الآهات المختزنة عبر العصور
صفقت نورا الباب وراءها
في وجه الزوج والجمهور والقرن التاسع عشر كله
وقالت ما يجب أن تقلنه جميعا
لا!
August 18, 2021
Et Dukkehjem = A Doll's House and Other Plays, Henrik Ibsen
A Doll's House is a three-act play written by Norway's Henrik Ibsen.
It premiered at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 21 December 1879, having been published earlier that month.
The play is set in a Norwegian town Circa 1879. The play is significant for the way it deals with the fate of a married woman, who at the time in Norway lacked reasonable opportunities for self-fulfillment in a male-dominated world.
Ghosts (Gengangere) was written in 1881 and first staged in 1882 in Chicago, Illinois, in a production by a Danish company on tour.
Like many of Ibsen's plays, Ghosts is a scathing commentary on 19th-century morality. Because of its subject matter, which includes religion, venereal disease, incest, and euthanasia, it immediately generated strong controversy and negative criticism.
Since then the play has fared better, and is considered a “great play” that historically holds a position of “immense importance”.
Theater critic Maurice Valency wrote in 1963, "From the standpoint of modern tragedy Ghosts strikes off in a new direction.... Regular tragedy dealt mainly with the unhappy consequences of breaking the moral code. Ghosts, on the contrary, deals with the consequences of not breaking it."
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز هفدهم ماه آگوست سال 1976میلادی
عنوان: خانه عروسک و اشباح؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ مترجم: مهدی فروغ؛ تهران، بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب، 1339، در 289ص، موضوع دو نمایشنامه از نویسندگان نروژ - سده 19م
عنوان: خانه ی عروسک؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ مترجم: اصغر رستگار؛ چاپ: گلدیس؛ چاپ اول: سال 1378؛ در 139صفحه؛
خانه عروسک یا «عروسکخانه»؛ داستان بیرون آمدن از توهم، و طغیان زنی به نام «نورا» را، باز میگوید؛
شخصیتهای خانه عروسک: «نورا - همسر توروالد هلمر»؛ «توروالد هلمر - همسر نورا»؛ «کروگستاد - وکیلی از آشنایان توروالد»؛ «خانم لینده - دوست دوران کودکی نورا»؛ «دکتر رانک - دوست نزدیک توروالد»؛ «باب، امی و ایوار - سه فرزنده خانواده هلمر»؛ «آن ماری - خدمتکار خانواده هلمر»؛ و «پدر نورا» که مرده است
داستان در «کریستیانیا»، و در طی سه روز از ایام هفته ی «میلاد مسیح»، روی میدهد؛ «توروالد هلمر» حقوقدانی خودبین، ولی با وجدان است، به تازگی در بانک ترفیع رتبه پیدا کرده، و همسرش «نورا» که زنی زیبا، مو بور، و ظاهراً نادان، و بوالهوس است، احساس میکند، که آنها میتوانند در جشن «کریسمس»، اندکی ولخرجی کنند؛ «هلمر» که با «نورا» همچون بچه ها رفتار میکند، و او را «جوجه کاکلی» مینامد، به وی هشدار میدهد، که بیشتر مواظب باشد، چون همیشه پول، در پنجه های او آسان خرج میشود، ولی «نورا» مدام درخواست پول بیشتری میکند؛ «خانم لیندن» یکی از دوستان بیوه، و پیر «نورا»، به او میگوید: خبر ترفیع شوهر او را شنیده، و از «نورا» میخواهد، که کاری در بانک شوهرش، برای وی پیدا کند؛ «هلمر» در نخستین سال ازدواجشان، بسیار مریض و علیل بوده، و برای نجات زندگی خویش، باید مسافرتی به «ایتالیا» میکرد؛ «نورا» پول لازم را قرض کرد، ولی به «هلمر» گفت که ارث اندکی از پدرش به ارث برده است؛ او ترتیبی داد تا نزول قرضش را، از بابت کرایه ی لباسها، و گاهی با یافتن کارهای پنهان از شوهرش، بپردازد؛ قرض تقریباً ادا شده است؛ «هلمر» میپذیرد، که کار شخصی به نام «نیلز کروگستاد» را، که حقوقدان مرموزی است، و محکوم به جعل اسناد شده، به خانم «لیندن»، دوست «نورا» تفویض نماید؛ ولی «کروگستاد» همان مردی است، که «نورا» از او پول قرض کرده بود، و او «نورا» را تهدید میکند، که اگر کارش را از دست بدهد، موضوع قرض را، برای شوهر «نورا» فاش خواهد نمود؛ او همچنین متوجه میشود، پدر «نورا»، که قرار بود پای سند قرض را، امضاء کند، در آن زمان دز این دنیا پر کشیده بوده؛ «نورا» سرانجام میگوید، که امضای پدرش را جعل کرده، و سعی مینماید شوهرش را باورمند نماید، که «کروگستاد» را که سعی دارد، اعتبار خود را در اجتماع به دست آورد، در شغل خود نگاه دارد؛ ولی «هلمر» میگوید که «کروگستاد» یک کلاش جاعل است، و به جایگزینی او اصرار میورزد
خانم «لیندن»، که از دوستان پیشین «کروگستاد» بشمار میآید، قول میدهد ،که از سوی «نورا» از او خواهش و تمنا کند، ولی درمییابد، که او از شهر بیرون رفته است؛ «کروگستاد» نامه ای به «هلمر» مینویسد، و تمام ماجرا را تعریف میکند؛ به این ترتیب «نورا» کاملاً مأیوس میشود؛ او نامه را در جعبه نامه ها مییابد، اما نمیتواند به نحوی آن را از بین ببرد، چون کلید جعبه پیش همسرش است؛ هر کار که ممکن است میکند تا مانع از خواندن آن نامه، توسط شوهرش شود؛ آنها به یک مجلس بالماسکه در آپارتمان بالایی میروند؛ در آن جشن یکی از دوستانشان، دکتر «رانک» نیز با آنهاست؛ دکتر میداند که در حال مرگ است، و لذا نومیدانه سودای عشق «نورا» را در سر میپروراند؛
نورا لباسی «ایتالیایی» میپوشد، و «تارانتلا�� میرقصد، و کوشش دارد ظاهر را نگهبان باشد، تا ناراحتی اش هویدا نگردد؛ «نورا» در حالتی از یأس و نومیدی، تصمیم میگیرد که اگر شوهرش نامه را بیابد، خودکشی کند؛ وقتی «هلمر» نامه را میخواند، او را به جرمی بزرگ متهم میکند، جرمی که «هلمر» را از میان خواهد برد؛ «هلمر» به «نورا» میگوید که لایق معاشرت فرزندانشان نیست؛ درستکاری «هلمر» خیلی بیش از انتظار و پیش بینی «نورا» است؛ «کروگستاد» سند وعده دار را پس میفرستد، و «هلمر» با خوشحالی فریاد میزند، که نجات یافته است؛ ولی ضربه ژرفی بر روح «نورا» وارد شده؛ و او بیش از آن نمیتواند در خانه ی شوهرش بماند، و سرانجام در یک صحنه ی دراماتیک، «هلمر» را ترک میکوید، تا خود به تنهایی زندگی تازه ای را آغاز کند؛ و به زندگی بیندیشد؛ او امید کوچکی به «هلمر» میدهد، که اگر معجزه ای رخ دهد، شاید آنان دوباره زندگی را با هم از نو آغاز کنند؛ ...؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 21/06/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 26/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
A Doll's House is a three-act play written by Norway's Henrik Ibsen.
It premiered at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 21 December 1879, having been published earlier that month.
The play is set in a Norwegian town Circa 1879. The play is significant for the way it deals with the fate of a married woman, who at the time in Norway lacked reasonable opportunities for self-fulfillment in a male-dominated world.
Ghosts (Gengangere) was written in 1881 and first staged in 1882 in Chicago, Illinois, in a production by a Danish company on tour.
Like many of Ibsen's plays, Ghosts is a scathing commentary on 19th-century morality. Because of its subject matter, which includes religion, venereal disease, incest, and euthanasia, it immediately generated strong controversy and negative criticism.
Since then the play has fared better, and is considered a “great play” that historically holds a position of “immense importance”.
Theater critic Maurice Valency wrote in 1963, "From the standpoint of modern tragedy Ghosts strikes off in a new direction.... Regular tragedy dealt mainly with the unhappy consequences of breaking the moral code. Ghosts, on the contrary, deals with the consequences of not breaking it."
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز هفدهم ماه آگوست سال 1976میلادی
عنوان: خانه عروسک و اشباح؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ مترجم: مهدی فروغ؛ تهران، بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب، 1339، در 289ص، موضوع دو نمایشنامه از نویسندگان نروژ - سده 19م
عنوان: خانه ی عروسک؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ مترجم: اصغر رستگار؛ چاپ: گلدیس؛ چاپ اول: سال 1378؛ در 139صفحه؛
خانه عروسک یا «عروسکخانه»؛ داستان بیرون آمدن از توهم، و طغیان زنی به نام «نورا» را، باز میگوید؛
شخصیتهای خانه عروسک: «نورا - همسر توروالد هلمر»؛ «توروالد هلمر - همسر نورا»؛ «کروگستاد - وکیلی از آشنایان توروالد»؛ «خانم لینده - دوست دوران کودکی نورا»؛ «دکتر رانک - دوست نزدیک توروالد»؛ «باب، امی و ایوار - سه فرزنده خانواده هلمر»؛ «آن ماری - خدمتکار خانواده هلمر»؛ و «پدر نورا» که مرده است
داستان در «کریستیانیا»، و در طی سه روز از ایام هفته ی «میلاد مسیح»، روی میدهد؛ «توروالد هلمر» حقوقدانی خودبین، ولی با وجدان است، به تازگی در بانک ترفیع رتبه پیدا کرده، و همسرش «نورا» که زنی زیبا، مو بور، و ظاهراً نادان، و بوالهوس است، احساس میکند، که آنها میتوانند در جشن «کریسمس»، اندکی ولخرجی کنند؛ «هلمر» که با «نورا» همچون بچه ها رفتار میکند، و او را «جوجه کاکلی» مینامد، به وی هشدار میدهد، که بیشتر مواظب باشد، چون همیشه پول، در پنجه های او آسان خرج میشود، ولی «نورا» مدام درخواست پول بیشتری میکند؛ «خانم لیندن» یکی از دوستان بیوه، و پیر «نورا»، به او میگوید: خبر ترفیع شوهر او را شنیده، و از «نورا» میخواهد، که کاری در بانک شوهرش، برای وی پیدا کند؛ «هلمر» در نخستین سال ازدواجشان، بسیار مریض و علیل بوده، و برای نجات زندگی خویش، باید مسافرتی به «ایتالیا» میکرد؛ «نورا» پول لازم را قرض کرد، ولی به «هلمر» گفت که ارث اندکی از پدرش به ارث برده است؛ او ترتیبی داد تا نزول قرضش را، از بابت کرایه ی لباسها، و گاهی با یافتن کارهای پنهان از شوهرش، بپردازد؛ قرض تقریباً ادا شده است؛ «هلمر» میپذیرد، که کار شخصی به نام «نیلز کروگستاد» را، که حقوقدان مرموزی است، و محکوم به جعل اسناد شده، به خانم «لیندن»، دوست «نورا» تفویض نماید؛ ولی «کروگستاد» همان مردی است، که «نورا» از او پول قرض کرده بود، و او «نورا» را تهدید میکند، که اگر کارش را از دست بدهد، موضوع قرض را، برای شوهر «نورا» فاش خواهد نمود؛ او همچنین متوجه میشود، پدر «نورا»، که قرار بود پای سند قرض را، امضاء کند، در آن زمان دز این دنیا پر کشیده بوده؛ «نورا» سرانجام میگوید، که امضای پدرش را جعل کرده، و سعی مینماید شوهرش را باورمند نماید، که «کروگستاد» را که سعی دارد، اعتبار خود را در اجتماع به دست آورد، در شغل خود نگاه دارد؛ ولی «هلمر» میگوید که «کروگستاد» یک کلاش جاعل است، و به جایگزینی او اصرار میورزد
خانم «لیندن»، که از دوستان پیشین «کروگستاد» بشمار میآید، قول میدهد ،که از سوی «نورا» از او خواهش و تمنا کند، ولی درمییابد، که او از شهر بیرون رفته است؛ «کروگستاد» نامه ای به «هلمر» مینویسد، و تمام ماجرا را تعریف میکند؛ به این ترتیب «نورا» کاملاً مأیوس میشود؛ او نامه را در جعبه نامه ها مییابد، اما نمیتواند به نحوی آن را از بین ببرد، چون کلید جعبه پیش همسرش است؛ هر کار که ممکن است میکند تا مانع از خواندن آن نامه، توسط شوهرش شود؛ آنها به یک مجلس بالماسکه در آپارتمان بالایی میروند؛ در آن جشن یکی از دوستانشان، دکتر «رانک» نیز با آنهاست؛ دکتر میداند که در حال مرگ است، و لذا نومیدانه سودای عشق «نورا» را در سر میپروراند؛
نورا لباسی «ایتالیایی» میپوشد، و «تارانتلا�� میرقصد، و کوشش دارد ظاهر را نگهبان باشد، تا ناراحتی اش هویدا نگردد؛ «نورا» در حالتی از یأس و نومیدی، تصمیم میگیرد که اگر شوهرش نامه را بیابد، خودکشی کند؛ وقتی «هلمر» نامه را میخواند، او را به جرمی بزرگ متهم میکند، جرمی که «هلمر» را از میان خواهد برد؛ «هلمر» به «نورا» میگوید که لایق معاشرت فرزندانشان نیست؛ درستکاری «هلمر» خیلی بیش از انتظار و پیش بینی «نورا» است؛ «کروگستاد» سند وعده دار را پس میفرستد، و «هلمر» با خوشحالی فریاد میزند، که نجات یافته است؛ ولی ضربه ژرفی بر روح «نورا» وارد شده؛ و او بیش از آن نمیتواند در خانه ی شوهرش بماند، و سرانجام در یک صحنه ی دراماتیک، «هلمر» را ترک میکوید، تا خود به تنهایی زندگی تازه ای را آغاز کند؛ و به زندگی بیندیشد؛ او امید کوچکی به «هلمر» میدهد، که اگر معجزه ای رخ دهد، شاید آنان دوباره زندگی را با هم از نو آغاز کنند؛ ...؛
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 21/06/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 26/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
July 30, 2017
Ibsen’s famous A Doll’s House is a landmark in the development of truly independent female heroines, rejecting the patriarchy they were socialised to accept unconditionally.
Nora, the main character, fails to make her husband understand that their perception of reality is incompatible as he keeps seeing her as a doll, acting out a pretty life for his pleasure and reputation.
In the original version, Nora shows the path to independence by opting for the uncertain future of a life lived alone and independently, but Ibsen was confronted with dominant misogyny and power play when German theatres in 1880 asked for “an alternative ending” (yes!), one in which Nora is emotionally blackmailed into staying with her family for the sake of the children. Curtain falls on that “barbaric act of violence”, as Ibsen himself put it when commenting on the "politically correct" alternative (http://ibsen.nb.no/id/11111794.0), a rewriting of literature to suit a misogynistic society protective of all documentation of the role of women.
Well, unfortunately we are watching an all too real alternative ending to a century of increasing women’s rights at the moment as well. Across the world, "alternatives" to freedom of speech, movement, and choice are implemented in “so-called democratic processes”, hijacked by the resurrected mindsets of 19th century white, male, heterosexual, pseudo-Christian figures. Domestic violence, rape culture, law-making against family planning and abortion, the alternatives to women’s rights are scarily real.
- Nora, keep walking!
Nora, the main character, fails to make her husband understand that their perception of reality is incompatible as he keeps seeing her as a doll, acting out a pretty life for his pleasure and reputation.
In the original version, Nora shows the path to independence by opting for the uncertain future of a life lived alone and independently, but Ibsen was confronted with dominant misogyny and power play when German theatres in 1880 asked for “an alternative ending” (yes!), one in which Nora is emotionally blackmailed into staying with her family for the sake of the children. Curtain falls on that “barbaric act of violence”, as Ibsen himself put it when commenting on the "politically correct" alternative (http://ibsen.nb.no/id/11111794.0), a rewriting of literature to suit a misogynistic society protective of all documentation of the role of women.
Well, unfortunately we are watching an all too real alternative ending to a century of increasing women’s rights at the moment as well. Across the world, "alternatives" to freedom of speech, movement, and choice are implemented in “so-called democratic processes”, hijacked by the resurrected mindsets of 19th century white, male, heterosexual, pseudo-Christian figures. Domestic violence, rape culture, law-making against family planning and abortion, the alternatives to women’s rights are scarily real.
- Nora, keep walking!
February 24, 2023
NORA C’EST MOI
Lui, Torvald, il marito, la chiama lodoletta, lucherino, scoiattolino. Anche per questo, Nora vive in una casa di bambole, perché come tale viene trattata in un modo che corrisponde al suo ruolo di moglie, madre, donna e femmina. E quindi, da bambola, per Torvald è oggetto d’amore ma in quanto a stima e considerazione implicitamente e tacitamente Nora non è alla sua altezza.
Ma Nora è tutto meno che una bambola: nella prima parte sono già la forza e la portata del suo sacrificio a renderla speciale, a farla brillare.
Quando poi arriva a pronunciare queste parole
Ho capito in quell'attimo di essere vissuta per otto anni con un estraneo. Un estraneo che mi ha fatto fare tre figli... Oh, non posso pensarci! Potrei stritolarmi, farmi a pezzi da sola!...Credo di essere, prima di tutto, una creatura umana, come te… o meglio, voglio tentare di divenirlo.
Nora si erge maestosa e statuaria a sua insaputa, senza volere.
Nora/Mariangela Melato e Torvald/Paolo Pierobon nell’adattamento dello Stabile di Genova curato da Luca Ronconi nel 2010.
Per completare il quadro degli uomini ‘pessimi’ c’è anche l’usuraio Krogstad che, non contento d’aver prestato a Nora soldi a strozzo costringendola a sottomettersi ad anni di sotterfugi e sacrifici per ripagare il debito, quando apprende che Torvald sta per essere promosso, ricatta Nora obbligandola a intercedere per lui presso il marito che minaccia di licenziarlo dalla banca.
A risolvere le cose intercede l’amica Kristine.
E quindi le misere figure d’uomo sono due, le magnifiche figure di donna anche. Ma Nora spicca di luce propria, rimane nel cuore e nella mente: costretta a compiere la rinuncia massima, i suoi figli, per non restare in un matrimonio che la reazione di Torvald svela in tutta la sua mediocrità e meschinità, Nora è grande e finalmente libera e indipendente
Lui, Torvald, il marito, la chiama lodoletta, lucherino, scoiattolino. Anche per questo, Nora vive in una casa di bambole, perché come tale viene trattata in un modo che corrisponde al suo ruolo di moglie, madre, donna e femmina. E quindi, da bambola, per Torvald è oggetto d’amore ma in quanto a stima e considerazione implicitamente e tacitamente Nora non è alla sua altezza.
Ma Nora è tutto meno che una bambola: nella prima parte sono già la forza e la portata del suo sacrificio a renderla speciale, a farla brillare.
Quando poi arriva a pronunciare queste parole
Ho capito in quell'attimo di essere vissuta per otto anni con un estraneo. Un estraneo che mi ha fatto fare tre figli... Oh, non posso pensarci! Potrei stritolarmi, farmi a pezzi da sola!...Credo di essere, prima di tutto, una creatura umana, come te… o meglio, voglio tentare di divenirlo.
Nora si erge maestosa e statuaria a sua insaputa, senza volere.
Nora/Mariangela Melato e Torvald/Paolo Pierobon nell’adattamento dello Stabile di Genova curato da Luca Ronconi nel 2010.
Per completare il quadro degli uomini ‘pessimi’ c’è anche l’usuraio Krogstad che, non contento d’aver prestato a Nora soldi a strozzo costringendola a sottomettersi ad anni di sotterfugi e sacrifici per ripagare il debito, quando apprende che Torvald sta per essere promosso, ricatta Nora obbligandola a intercedere per lui presso il marito che minaccia di licenziarlo dalla banca.
A risolvere le cose intercede l’amica Kristine.
E quindi le misere figure d’uomo sono due, le magnifiche figure di donna anche. Ma Nora spicca di luce propria, rimane nel cuore e nella mente: costretta a compiere la rinuncia massima, i suoi figli, per non restare in un matrimonio che la reazione di Torvald svela in tutta la sua mediocrità e meschinità, Nora è grande e finalmente libera e indipendente
November 27, 2021
Dukkehjem = A Doll House = A doll's House, Henrik Ibsen
A Doll's House, is a three-act play written by Henrik Ibsen. It premiered at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 21 December 1879, having been published earlier that month. The play is set in a Norwegian town circa 1879.
Act One: The play opens at Christmas time as Nora Helmer enters her home carrying many packages. Nora's husband Torvald is working in his study when she arrives. He playfully rebukes her for spending so much money on Christmas gifts, calling her his "little squirrel." He teases her about how the previous year she had spent weeks making gifts and ornaments by hand because money was scarce. This year Torvald is due a promotion at the bank where he works, so Nora feels that they can let themselves go a little. The maid announces two visitors: Mrs. Kristine Linde, an old friend of Nora's, who has come seeking employment; and Dr. Rank, a close friend of the family, who is let into the study. Kristine has had a difficult few years, ever since her husband died leaving her with no money or children. Nora says that things have not been easy for them either: Torvald became sick, and they had to travel to Italy so he could recover. Kristine explains that when her mother was ill she had to take care of her brothers, but now that they are grown she feels her life is "unspeakably empty." Nora promises to talk to Torvald about finding her a job. Kristine gently tells Nora that she is like a child. Nora is offended, so she teases the idea that she got money from "some admirer," so they could travel to Italy to improve Torvald's health. She told Torvald that her father gave her the money, but in fact she managed to illegally borrow it without his knowledge because women couldn't do anything economical like signing checks without their husband. Over the years, she has been secretly working and saving up to pay it off. ...
Act Two: Christine arrives to help Nora repair a dress for a costume function that she and Torvald plan to attend the next day. Torvald returns from the bank, and Nora pleads with him to reinstate Krogstad, claiming she is worried Krogstad will publish libelous articles about Torvald and ruin his career. Torvald dismisses her fears and explains that, although Krogstad is a good worker and seems to have turned his life around, he must be fired because he is too familial around Torvald in front of other bank personnel. Torvald then retires to his study to work. Dr. Rank, the family friend, arrives. Nora asks him for a favor, but Rank responds by revealing that he has entered the terminal stage of tuberculosis of the spine and that he has always been secretly in love with her. Nora tries to deny the first revelation and make light of it but is more disturbed by his declaration of love. She then clumsily attempts to tell him that she is not in love with him, but that she loves him dearly as a friend. ...
Act Three: Kristine tells Krogstad that she only married her husband because she had no other means to support her sick mother and young siblings and that she has returned to offer him her love again. She believes that he would not have stooped to unethical behavior if he had not been devastated by her abandonment and been in dire financial straits. Krogstad changes his mind and offers to take back his letter from Torvald. However, Kristine decides that Torvald should know the truth for the sake of his and Nora's marriage. After literally dragging Nora home from the party, Torvald goes to check his mail but is interrupted by Dr. Rank, who has followed them. Dr. Rank chats for a while, conveying obliquely to Nora that this is a final goodbye, as he has determined that his death is near. Dr. Rank leaves, and Torvald retrieves his letters. As he reads them, Nora steels herself to take her life. Torvald confronts her with Krogstad's letter. Enraged, he declares that he is now completely in Krogstad's power; he must yield to Krogstad's demands and keep quiet about the whole affair. He berates Nora, calling her a dishonest and immoral woman and telling her that she is unfit to raise their children. He says that from now on their marriage will be only a matter of appearances. ...
عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «خانه عروسک و اشباح»؛ «عروسکخانه»؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: ماه آگوست سال1976میلادی
عنوان: خانه عروسک و اشباح؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ مترجم: مهدی فروغ؛ تهران، بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب، سال1339، در289ص، موضوع دو نمایشنامه از نویسندگان نروژ - سده19م
عنوان: عروسکخانه؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ مترجم: منوچهر انور؛ تهران، کارنامه، سال1385، در310ص، نمایشنامه نروژی در سه پرده به همراه ایبسن شاعر، و چند اشاره به چالش ترجمه؛
پیشتر از اینها این نمایشنامه با عنوان «خانه عرسک» به همراه نمایشنامه ی «اشباح» اثر «ایبسن»، دو نمایشنامه در یک جلد، منتشر شده است؛ خانه عروسک یا «عروسکخانه» داستان بیرون آمدن از توهم، و طغیان زنی به نام «نورا» را بازگو میکند؛ داستان در مدت سه روز از ایام هفته میلاد مسیح، رخ میدهد؛ «توروالد هلمر» که حقوقدانی خودبین، ولی با وجدان است، به تازگی در بانک، ترفیع رتبه پیدا کرده، و همسرش «نورا» که زنی زیبا، مو بور، و ظاهراً نادان و بوالهوس است، احساس میکند، که آنها میتوانند در جشن «کریسمس» قدری ولخرجی کنند، «هلمر» که با «نورا» همچون بچه ای رفتار میکند، و او را «جوجه کاکلی» مینامد، وی را آگاه میسازد، که بیشتر مواظب باشد، چون همیشه پول در پنجه های او سهواً خرج میشود، ولی «نورا» مدام پول بیشتری میخواهد
هشدار: اگر رمان را نخوانده اید و میخواهدی بخوانید از خوانش ادامه ی ریویو خوددداری فرمایید
خانم «لیندن»، یکی از دوستان بیوه، و پیر «نورا» به او میگوید، که خبر ترفیع شوهرش را شنیده، و از «نورا» میخواهد، که کاری در بانک شوهرش، برای وی پیدا کند؛ «نورا» با غرور به دوستش میگوید، که او هم پول زیادی به دست آورده است. «هلمر» در نخستین سال ازدواجش، بسیار مریض و علیل بود، و برای نجات زندگیش، باید مسافرتی به «ایتالیا» میکرد. «نورا» پول لازم را قرض کرد، ولی به «هلمر» گفت، که پول کمی از پدرش به ارث برده است؛ او ترتیبی داده تا نزول پول را از بابت کرایه لباسهایش، و گاهی با یافتن کارهای پنهانی از شوهرش، بپردازد؛ ولی حالا قرض تقریباً ادا شده است؛ «هلمر» موافقت میکند، که کار شخصی به نام «نیلز کروگستاد» را، که حقوقدان مرموزی است، و محکوم به جعل اسناد شده، به خانم «لیندن» دوست «نورا» تفویض نماید
ولی «کروگستاد» همان مردی است، که «نورا» از او پول قرض کرده بود، و او «نورا» را تهدید میکند، که اگر کارش را از دست بدهد، موضوع قرض را برای شوهرش فاش خواهد نمود؛ او همچنین متوجه میشود پدر «نورا» که قرار بود پای سند قرض را امضاء کند، در آن زمان مرده بوده؛ «نورا» سرانجام تصدیق میکند، که امضای پدرش را جعل کرده، و سعی مینماید شوهرش را متقاعد نماید، که «کروگستاد» را که سعی میکند اعتبار خود را در اجتماع به دست آورد، در شغل خود نگه دارد؛
ولی «هلمر» میگوید که «کروگستاد» یک کلاش جاعل است و در تعویض او اصرار میورزد؛ خانم «لیندن» که از دوستان قدیمی «کروگستا��» محسوب میشود، قول میدهد که از طرف «نورا» از او خواهش و تمنا کند، ولی ناگهان درمییابد که او از شهر بیرون رفته است؛ در همین ضمن «کروگستاد»، نامه ای به هلمر نوشته، و تمام جریان را تعریف میکند، و به این ترتیب «نورا» کاملاً مأیوس میشود؛
او نامه را در جعبه نامه ها مییابد، اما نمیتواند به نحوی آن را از بین ببرد، چون کلید جعبه پیش شوهر است؛ او هر کاری که ممکن است میکند تا مانع از خواندن آن نامه توسط شوهرش شود؛ آنها به یک مجلس بالماسکه در آپارتمان بالایی میروند؛ در این جشن یکی از دوستانشان، دکتر «رانک» نیز با آنهاست؛ دکتر میداند که در حال مرگ است، و لذا نومیدانه سودای عشق «نورا» را در سر میپروراند؛ «نورا» لباسی ایتالیایی میپوشد و «تارانتلا» میرقصد، و سعی دارد صورت ظاهر را حفظ کند و حتی المقدور ناراحتیاش هویدا نگردد
نورا در حالتی از یأس و نومیدی تصمیم میگیرد، که اگر شوهرش نامه را بیابد، خودکشی کند؛ وقتی «هلمر» نامه را میخواند؛ او را به جرمی بزرگ متهم میکند، جرمی که هلمر را از میان خواهد برد؛ هلمر به نورا میگوید که لایق معاشرت فرزندانشان نیست؛ درستکاری هلمر خیلی بیش از انتظار و پیشبینی نورا است؛ کروگستاد سند وعده دار را پس میفرستد، و هلمر با خوشحالی فریاد میزند، که نجات یافته است؛ ولی ضربه عمیقی بر روح نورا وارد شده است و در حقیقت بیش از آن نمیتواند، در خانه شوهرش بماند و سرانجام در یک صحنه دراماتیک هلمر را ترک میکند، تا خودش به تنهایی زندگی جدیدی را آغاز کند و بیش از آنکه متلون مزاج باشد به مسائل زندگی بیندیشد؛ او امید کوچکی به هلمر میدهد که اگر معجزه ای رخ دهد، شاید آنان دوباره زندگی را با هم از نو آغاز کنند
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 05/08/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 05/09/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
A Doll's House, is a three-act play written by Henrik Ibsen. It premiered at the Royal Theatre in Copenhagen, Denmark, on 21 December 1879, having been published earlier that month. The play is set in a Norwegian town circa 1879.
Act One: The play opens at Christmas time as Nora Helmer enters her home carrying many packages. Nora's husband Torvald is working in his study when she arrives. He playfully rebukes her for spending so much money on Christmas gifts, calling her his "little squirrel." He teases her about how the previous year she had spent weeks making gifts and ornaments by hand because money was scarce. This year Torvald is due a promotion at the bank where he works, so Nora feels that they can let themselves go a little. The maid announces two visitors: Mrs. Kristine Linde, an old friend of Nora's, who has come seeking employment; and Dr. Rank, a close friend of the family, who is let into the study. Kristine has had a difficult few years, ever since her husband died leaving her with no money or children. Nora says that things have not been easy for them either: Torvald became sick, and they had to travel to Italy so he could recover. Kristine explains that when her mother was ill she had to take care of her brothers, but now that they are grown she feels her life is "unspeakably empty." Nora promises to talk to Torvald about finding her a job. Kristine gently tells Nora that she is like a child. Nora is offended, so she teases the idea that she got money from "some admirer," so they could travel to Italy to improve Torvald's health. She told Torvald that her father gave her the money, but in fact she managed to illegally borrow it without his knowledge because women couldn't do anything economical like signing checks without their husband. Over the years, she has been secretly working and saving up to pay it off. ...
Act Two: Christine arrives to help Nora repair a dress for a costume function that she and Torvald plan to attend the next day. Torvald returns from the bank, and Nora pleads with him to reinstate Krogstad, claiming she is worried Krogstad will publish libelous articles about Torvald and ruin his career. Torvald dismisses her fears and explains that, although Krogstad is a good worker and seems to have turned his life around, he must be fired because he is too familial around Torvald in front of other bank personnel. Torvald then retires to his study to work. Dr. Rank, the family friend, arrives. Nora asks him for a favor, but Rank responds by revealing that he has entered the terminal stage of tuberculosis of the spine and that he has always been secretly in love with her. Nora tries to deny the first revelation and make light of it but is more disturbed by his declaration of love. She then clumsily attempts to tell him that she is not in love with him, but that she loves him dearly as a friend. ...
Act Three: Kristine tells Krogstad that she only married her husband because she had no other means to support her sick mother and young siblings and that she has returned to offer him her love again. She believes that he would not have stooped to unethical behavior if he had not been devastated by her abandonment and been in dire financial straits. Krogstad changes his mind and offers to take back his letter from Torvald. However, Kristine decides that Torvald should know the truth for the sake of his and Nora's marriage. After literally dragging Nora home from the party, Torvald goes to check his mail but is interrupted by Dr. Rank, who has followed them. Dr. Rank chats for a while, conveying obliquely to Nora that this is a final goodbye, as he has determined that his death is near. Dr. Rank leaves, and Torvald retrieves his letters. As he reads them, Nora steels herself to take her life. Torvald confronts her with Krogstad's letter. Enraged, he declares that he is now completely in Krogstad's power; he must yield to Krogstad's demands and keep quiet about the whole affair. He berates Nora, calling her a dishonest and immoral woman and telling her that she is unfit to raise their children. He says that from now on their marriage will be only a matter of appearances. ...
عنوانهای چاپ شده در ایران: «خانه عروسک و اشباح»؛ «عروسکخانه»؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: ماه آگوست سال1976میلادی
عنوان: خانه عروسک و اشباح؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ مترجم: مهدی فروغ؛ تهران، بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب، سال1339، در289ص، موضوع دو نمایشنامه از نویسندگان نروژ - سده19م
عنوان: عروسکخانه؛ نویسنده: هنریک ایبسن؛ مترجم: منوچهر انور؛ تهران، کارنامه، سال1385، در310ص، نمایشنامه نروژی در سه پرده به همراه ایبسن شاعر، و چند اشاره به چالش ترجمه؛
پیشتر از اینها این نمایشنامه با عنوان «خانه عرسک» به همراه نمایشنامه ی «اشباح» اثر «ایبسن»، دو نمایشنامه در یک جلد، منتشر شده است؛ خانه عروسک یا «عروسکخانه» داستان بیرون آمدن از توهم، و طغیان زنی به نام «نورا» را بازگو میکند؛ داستان در مدت سه روز از ایام هفته میلاد مسیح، رخ میدهد؛ «توروالد هلمر» که حقوقدانی خودبین، ولی با وجدان است، به تازگی در بانک، ترفیع رتبه پیدا کرده، و همسرش «نورا» که زنی زیبا، مو بور، و ظاهراً نادان و بوالهوس است، احساس میکند، که آنها میتوانند در جشن «کریسمس» قدری ولخرجی کنند، «هلمر» که با «نورا» همچون بچه ای رفتار میکند، و او را «جوجه کاکلی» مینامد، وی را آگاه میسازد، که بیشتر مواظب باشد، چون همیشه پول در پنجه های او سهواً خرج میشود، ولی «نورا» مدام پول بیشتری میخواهد
هشدار: اگر رمان را نخوانده اید و میخواهدی بخوانید از خوانش ادامه ی ریویو خوددداری فرمایید
خانم «لیندن»، یکی از دوستان بیوه، و پیر «نورا» به او میگوید، که خبر ترفیع شوهرش را شنیده، و از «نورا» میخواهد، که کاری در بانک شوهرش، برای وی پیدا کند؛ «نورا» با غرور به دوستش میگوید، که او هم پول زیادی به دست آورده است. «هلمر» در نخستین سال ازدواجش، بسیار مریض و علیل بود، و برای نجات زندگیش، باید مسافرتی به «ایتالیا» میکرد. «نورا» پول لازم را قرض کرد، ولی به «هلمر» گفت، که پول کمی از پدرش به ارث برده است؛ او ترتیبی داده تا نزول پول را از بابت کرایه لباسهایش، و گاهی با یافتن کارهای پنهانی از شوهرش، بپردازد؛ ولی حالا قرض تقریباً ادا شده است؛ «هلمر» موافقت میکند، که کار شخصی به نام «نیلز کروگستاد» را، که حقوقدان مرموزی است، و محکوم به جعل اسناد شده، به خانم «لیندن» دوست «نورا» تفویض نماید
ولی «کروگستاد» همان مردی است، که «نورا» از او پول قرض کرده بود، و او «نورا» را تهدید میکند، که اگر کارش را از دست بدهد، موضوع قرض را برای شوهرش فاش خواهد نمود؛ او همچنین متوجه میشود پدر «نورا» که قرار بود پای سند قرض را امضاء کند، در آن زمان مرده بوده؛ «نورا» سرانجام تصدیق میکند، که امضای پدرش را جعل کرده، و سعی مینماید شوهرش را متقاعد نماید، که «کروگستاد» را که سعی میکند اعتبار خود را در اجتماع به دست آورد، در شغل خود نگه دارد؛
ولی «هلمر» میگوید که «کروگستاد» یک کلاش جاعل است و در تعویض او اصرار میورزد؛ خانم «لیندن» که از دوستان قدیمی «کروگستا��» محسوب میشود، قول میدهد که از طرف «نورا» از او خواهش و تمنا کند، ولی ناگهان درمییابد که او از شهر بیرون رفته است؛ در همین ضمن «کروگستاد»، نامه ای به هلمر نوشته، و تمام جریان را تعریف میکند، و به این ترتیب «نورا» کاملاً مأیوس میشود؛
او نامه را در جعبه نامه ها مییابد، اما نمیتواند به نحوی آن را از بین ببرد، چون کلید جعبه پیش شوهر است؛ او هر کاری که ممکن است میکند تا مانع از خواندن آن نامه توسط شوهرش شود؛ آنها به یک مجلس بالماسکه در آپارتمان بالایی میروند؛ در این جشن یکی از دوستانشان، دکتر «رانک» نیز با آنهاست؛ دکتر میداند که در حال مرگ است، و لذا نومیدانه سودای عشق «نورا» را در سر میپروراند؛ «نورا» لباسی ایتالیایی میپوشد و «تارانتلا» میرقصد، و سعی دارد صورت ظاهر را حفظ کند و حتی المقدور ناراحتیاش هویدا نگردد
نورا در حالتی از یأس و نومیدی تصمیم میگیرد، که اگر شوهرش نامه را بیابد، خودکشی کند؛ وقتی «هلمر» نامه را میخواند؛ او را به جرمی بزرگ متهم میکند، جرمی که هلمر را از میان خواهد برد؛ هلمر به نورا میگوید که لایق معاشرت فرزندانشان نیست؛ درستکاری هلمر خیلی بیش از انتظار و پیشبینی نورا است؛ کروگستاد سند وعده دار را پس میفرستد، و هلمر با خوشحالی فریاد میزند، که نجات یافته است؛ ولی ضربه عمیقی بر روح نورا وارد شده است و در حقیقت بیش از آن نمیتواند، در خانه شوهرش بماند و سرانجام در یک صحنه دراماتیک هلمر را ترک میکند، تا خودش به تنهایی زندگی جدیدی را آغاز کند و بیش از آنکه متلون مزاج باشد به مسائل زندگی بیندیشد؛ او امید کوچکی به هلمر میدهد که اگر معجزه ای رخ دهد، شاید آنان دوباره زندگی را با هم از نو آغاز کنند
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 05/08/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 05/09/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
April 30, 2016
Imagine what it would be like to live in a doll’s house: it's a house in which you are controlled and have no power to make any strong decisions; it's a house in which you are a play thing for someone else’s entertainment. This sounds a lot like a bad marriage, so it's a house in which your husband holds the purse strings, so to speak, and leaves you with no control over your family’s finances. Indeed, your husband keeps you on a very tight leash. Such is the perceived life of Nora Helma.
Yet, this work is in favour of women
Note the word perceived for that is the appearance Nora gives to the outer world. Indeed, the doll’s house is a metaphor for Nora’s life in which she takes on the role of a doll. Her husband is now in charge and before then her farther. She has no idea who, or what, she is because she has been conditioned by society to behave in the manner of an acceptable wife, which is one that obeys her husband’s wishes. The result is a woman who appears week and controllable, but she has kept a big, big, secret from her husband that challenges everything he thinks her to be.
She, this simple minded doll, has managed to borrow money (something unheard of for a women of this time) to keep her family afloat whilst her husband was too ill to work. So yeah, this play is very feminist. Ibsen has used Nora’s situation to comment on the ridiculous nature of marriage in the nineteenth century. The play is rooted in the then rising field of naturalism, which endeavoured to portray life accurately with no idealisations; thus, Nora’s marriage can be seen as an accurate portrayal of what most women had to put up with in their marriages.
Ibsen shocked his audinece
Moreover, this means that the play was an absolute shocker to the Victorian audience. This is not because of Nora’s disobedience, but the way her marriage has been used as a disguise to hide her freedom. Despite being in a controlling marriage she had managed to be able to borrow money off her own accord, by herself. This indicates that Nora’s role as a housewife was nothing more than a charade because she did, in fact, have some freedom to make her own choices such as the life changing one she makes at the end of the play.
Thus, the play was a milestone for questioning the traditional view of marriage; it suggested that marriage was overbearing and controlling, but if one was careful they could gain some freedom from their bigoted spouse; it suggested that marriage appeared like a doll’s house in which the doll was destined to be free.
Yet, this work is in favour of women
Note the word perceived for that is the appearance Nora gives to the outer world. Indeed, the doll’s house is a metaphor for Nora’s life in which she takes on the role of a doll. Her husband is now in charge and before then her farther. She has no idea who, or what, she is because she has been conditioned by society to behave in the manner of an acceptable wife, which is one that obeys her husband’s wishes. The result is a woman who appears week and controllable, but she has kept a big, big, secret from her husband that challenges everything he thinks her to be.
She, this simple minded doll, has managed to borrow money (something unheard of for a women of this time) to keep her family afloat whilst her husband was too ill to work. So yeah, this play is very feminist. Ibsen has used Nora’s situation to comment on the ridiculous nature of marriage in the nineteenth century. The play is rooted in the then rising field of naturalism, which endeavoured to portray life accurately with no idealisations; thus, Nora’s marriage can be seen as an accurate portrayal of what most women had to put up with in their marriages.
Ibsen shocked his audinece
Moreover, this means that the play was an absolute shocker to the Victorian audience. This is not because of Nora’s disobedience, but the way her marriage has been used as a disguise to hide her freedom. Despite being in a controlling marriage she had managed to be able to borrow money off her own accord, by herself. This indicates that Nora’s role as a housewife was nothing more than a charade because she did, in fact, have some freedom to make her own choices such as the life changing one she makes at the end of the play.
Thus, the play was a milestone for questioning the traditional view of marriage; it suggested that marriage was overbearing and controlling, but if one was careful they could gain some freedom from their bigoted spouse; it suggested that marriage appeared like a doll’s house in which the doll was destined to be free.
April 14, 2018
This is the story of a marriage that superficially seems happy, but a critical turn of events reveals a sham relationship.
Torvald and Nora Helmer, who've had some financial struggles, are delighted because Torvald has gotten major promotion at the bank where he works. But Nora, behind her lightheartedness and childish behavior - encouraged, always, by Torvald, who calls her diminutive, vaguely (or sometimes explicitly) insulting names names like "my sweet tooth" and "little spendthrift" - is hiding a major secret. She borrowed a substantial sum of money a few years ago to finance a trip to Italy to help Torvald recover from a major illness. She told Torvald the money was left to her by her father, but it was actually loaned to her by one Nils Krogstad, and she has been slowly paying it back. But now Nils is threatening to tell Nora's husband ... especially since he realized that Nora forged her father's signature as co-signer of the note.
I first read this play many years ago as a college English major, and frankly it didn't leave much of an impression on me at the time. But rereading this now, as a married woman with children, the utter wrongness and superficiality of Torvald's and Nora's relationship hits me hard. Almost everything Torvald says to Nora diminishes her as a person:
This is one of the earliest feminist works of literature, written in 1879 by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen. It's hard to believe that this hard-hitting play, about a woman who realizes she's been treated as a mindless doll all her life by her father and then her husband, and what she decides to do about it, was written over 130 years ago. It raises some important questions of true communication and finding yourself, not just for women but for all people. British actress Hattie Morahan, who played Nora, made some comments about it that really struck me:
I'll admit that the ending leaves me unsettled, with its burning all bridges approach. Although I have some sympathy with German actress Hedwig Niemann-Raabe, who famously refused to perform the play unless Ibsen rewrote the ending, I don't think changing it was the right decision from a literary point of view. As a literary work, the ending is tremendously powerful. However, as a practical guide to life, I'm not convinced that what Nora does is right. I guess the question for me is, should you hurt innocent people in your quest to go pursue self-fulfillment? Nora, at least, didn't feel like she had a choice, but I wasn't convinced.
In any case, this is a very thought-provoking play that's still relevant 137 years after it was written.
Torvald and Nora Helmer, who've had some financial struggles, are delighted because Torvald has gotten major promotion at the bank where he works. But Nora, behind her lightheartedness and childish behavior - encouraged, always, by Torvald, who calls her diminutive, vaguely (or sometimes explicitly) insulting names names like "my sweet tooth" and "little spendthrift" - is hiding a major secret. She borrowed a substantial sum of money a few years ago to finance a trip to Italy to help Torvald recover from a major illness. She told Torvald the money was left to her by her father, but it was actually loaned to her by one Nils Krogstad, and she has been slowly paying it back. But now Nils is threatening to tell Nora's husband ... especially since he realized that Nora forged her father's signature as co-signer of the note.
I first read this play many years ago as a college English major, and frankly it didn't leave much of an impression on me at the time. But rereading this now, as a married woman with children, the utter wrongness and superficiality of Torvald's and Nora's relationship hits me hard. Almost everything Torvald says to Nora diminishes her as a person:
"Now, now, the little lark's wings mustn't droop. Come on, don't be a sulky squirrel."Nora, in turn, treats her children - especially her daughter - with the same type of carelessness of their value as a person. As the problem of the forged promissory looms closer to disclosure, Nora becomes more frantic. But she still thinks that Torvald, who has shown nothing but disdain for her mind and financial ability, will stand by her and protect her if her misdeed (which was done because of her love and concern for her husband) becomes public.
This is one of the earliest feminist works of literature, written in 1879 by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen. It's hard to believe that this hard-hitting play, about a woman who realizes she's been treated as a mindless doll all her life by her father and then her husband, and what she decides to do about it, was written over 130 years ago. It raises some important questions of true communication and finding yourself, not just for women but for all people. British actress Hattie Morahan, who played Nora, made some comments about it that really struck me:
"... the things Ibsen writes mean it ceases to be about a particular milieu and becomes about marriage (or partnership) and money. These are universal anxieties, and it seems from talking to people that it resonates in the most visceral way, especially if they are or have been in a difficult relationship. Someone said to me the other night, 'That's the play that broke my parents' marriage up.' It shines a very harsh light on the messy heart of relationships, and how difficult it can be to be honest with another human being even if you love them."https://www.theguardian.com/stage/201....
I'll admit that the ending leaves me unsettled, with its burning all bridges approach. Although I have some sympathy with German actress Hedwig Niemann-Raabe, who famously refused to perform the play unless Ibsen rewrote the ending, I don't think changing it was the right decision from a literary point of view. As a literary work, the ending is tremendously powerful. However, as a practical guide to life, I'm not convinced that what Nora does is right. I guess the question for me is, should you hurt innocent people in your quest to go pursue self-fulfillment? Nora, at least, didn't feel like she had a choice, but I wasn't convinced.
In any case, this is a very thought-provoking play that's still relevant 137 years after it was written.
November 29, 2007
Mr. S, let me make myself very clear. I will never, never believe that Ibsen intended for Nora's grabbing of her husband's cloak as she ran out the door to indicate his guilt in her implied suicide. It was Christmas. In Norway. The woman was cold.
(This is why I didn't do so well in your class, isn't it, Mr. S?)
(This is why I didn't do so well in your class, isn't it, Mr. S?)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 12, 2017
Πεντάστερο. Επειδή κοντά διακόσια χρονια πριν ο Ίψεν μας φανερώνει με το γραπτό του την αυτογνωσία,την ελεύθερη βούληση, την ανεξαρτησία, την ανιδιοτέλεια και την αγάπη, όχι μόνο μέσα απο μια γυναίκα όμορφη και άβουλη σαν κούκλα,μα και μέσα απο την ίδια την ανθρώπινη ύπαρξη.
Η Νόρα είναι μια όμορφη νέα γυναίκα σύζυγος και μητέρα η οποία ζει και αγωνίζεται για την ευτυχία -πρωτίστως των άλλων- την οικογενειακή θαλπωρή, την απόλυτη φροντίδα και ικανοποίηση των παιδιών και του συζύγου της. Είναι υπάκουη,τρυφερή,υπομονετική και άβουλη σαν μικρό παιδί. Ετσι έμαθε να ζει. Πρώτα στα
χέρια του μπαμπά της σαν ένα λατρεμένο και ανώριμο πλασματάκι και μετά στα χέρια του συζύγου της σαν μια κούκλα μόνο για την βιτρίνα και για την προσωπική του ικανοποίηση.
Τη βαραίνει ένα μεγάλο μυστικό. Ένα ψέμμα που την κατατρέχει χρόνια ολόκληρα το οποίο αναγκάστηκε να πει για να σώσει ότι αγαπούσε.
Όταν αυτό αποκαλύπτεται και βλέπει με τρόμο και αηδία τις συνέπειες, ξυπνάει απο το λήθαργο της παραμυθένιας της ζωής και παραιτείται απο την υπόσταση του κουκλόσπιτου της.
Ενηλικιώνεται με σκληρό τρόπο και αποφασίζει πως μόνο μια είναι η λύση για να μπορέσει να ανακαλύψει τον εαυτό της και την πραγματική ζωή.
Καλή ανάγνωση!
Πολλούς ασπασμούς.
Η Νόρα είναι μια όμορφη νέα γυναίκα σύζυγος και μητέρα η οποία ζει και αγωνίζεται για την ευτυχία -πρωτίστως των άλλων- την οικογενειακή θαλπωρή, την απόλυτη φροντίδα και ικανοποίηση των παιδιών και του συζύγου της. Είναι υπάκουη,τρυφερή,υπομονετική και άβουλη σαν μικρό παιδί. Ετσι έμαθε να ζει. Πρώτα στα
χέρια του μπαμπά της σαν ένα λατρεμένο και ανώριμο πλασματάκι και μετά στα χέρια του συζύγου της σαν μια κούκλα μόνο για την βιτρίνα και για την προσωπική του ικανοποίηση.
Τη βαραίνει ένα μεγάλο μυστικό. Ένα ψέμμα που την κατατρέχει χρόνια ολόκληρα το οποίο αναγκάστηκε να πει για να σώσει ότι αγαπούσε.
Όταν αυτό αποκαλύπτεται και βλέπει με τρόμο και αηδία τις συνέπειες, ξυπνάει απο το λήθαργο της παραμυθένιας της ζωής και παραιτείται απο την υπόσταση του κουκλόσπιτου της.
Ενηλικιώνεται με σκληρό τρόπο και αποφασίζει πως μόνο μια είναι η λύση για να μπορέσει να ανακαλύψει τον εαυτό της και την πραγματική ζωή.
Καλή ανάγνωση!
Πολλούς ασπασμούς.
January 24, 2021
Otra vez me toca ir a contracorriente, qué cruz, madre mía, qué cruz.
Soy de la opinión, aunque en esto no estoy del todo solo, de que la relevancia que esta obra ha tenido desde que se representó por primera vez allá por 1879 reside fundamentalmente en llevar a escena el primer personaje femenino que se despide de un portazo de casa, marido e hijos. Lo cual es bastante curioso pues, en mi opinión, el objetivo de Ibsen en su crítica de la sociedad es fundamentalmente su hipocresía y lo injusto de algunas leyes y no mostrar la inaceptable situación de la mujer, algo que el propio autor siempre remarcó.
Bien es cierto que algunas de estas leyes que se critican son las que subyugaban a las mujeres a ser muñequitas de sus padres hasta que pasan a serlo de sus maridos. Leyes e hipocresía social que no dejaron otro camino a Nora que el de cometer un delito o que empujaron a su amiga, la señora Linde, a contraer un penoso matrimonio de conveniencia, lo que, a su vez, estuvo en la raíz del hundimiento moral de Krogstad, su antiguo amante. Pero es sorprendente que la base fundamental de la crítica legal la sustente en algo que precisamente está, y debe estar, en los cimientos de todo sistema jurídico, esto es, que el fin no justifica los medios.
Sin embargo, Nora, pese a su fortaleza a la hora de proteger a los suyos, me parece un personaje que para ostentar el papel de heroína del feminismo que algunos le adjudican precisa de una interpretación actoral capaz de reflejar en los gestos, en las actitudes calladas que se van sucediendo a lo largo de la obra aspectos de su personalidad que sirvan de enlace con la Nora del acto final, una evolución que únicamente con los diálogos de que disponemos en la simple lectura del texto nos es del todo inverosímil o bien propio de una personalidad histérica que oscila sin transición entre una alegría desmesurada en la sumisión a su marido y una despiadada dureza en su decisión final. Unas actitudes que, además, no dejan de estar determinadas por el amor al esposo, cuando este existe y cuando al final desaparece.
Tampoco quiero quitarle todo el mérito al autor. La obra no aburre en ningún momento, consigue una gran intensidad dramática, y es de alabar su valentía para enfrentarse a una sociedad que se escandaliza ante la denuncia que el autor hace de sus injusticias, así como su habilidad para exponerlas que, como dice Cristina Gómez-Baggethun en el prólogo a la preciosa edición que la editorial nordicalibros ha hecho reuniendo ocho de las principales obras del autor y que ella misma ha traducido, ha permitido que Ibsen sea interpretado con éxito desde posiciones ideológicas muy dispares, lo que sin duda ha favorecido que sus obras se sigan representando por todo el mundo 140 años después de su publicación.
Soy de la opinión, aunque en esto no estoy del todo solo, de que la relevancia que esta obra ha tenido desde que se representó por primera vez allá por 1879 reside fundamentalmente en llevar a escena el primer personaje femenino que se despide de un portazo de casa, marido e hijos. Lo cual es bastante curioso pues, en mi opinión, el objetivo de Ibsen en su crítica de la sociedad es fundamentalmente su hipocresía y lo injusto de algunas leyes y no mostrar la inaceptable situación de la mujer, algo que el propio autor siempre remarcó.
Bien es cierto que algunas de estas leyes que se critican son las que subyugaban a las mujeres a ser muñequitas de sus padres hasta que pasan a serlo de sus maridos. Leyes e hipocresía social que no dejaron otro camino a Nora que el de cometer un delito o que empujaron a su amiga, la señora Linde, a contraer un penoso matrimonio de conveniencia, lo que, a su vez, estuvo en la raíz del hundimiento moral de Krogstad, su antiguo amante. Pero es sorprendente que la base fundamental de la crítica legal la sustente en algo que precisamente está, y debe estar, en los cimientos de todo sistema jurídico, esto es, que el fin no justifica los medios.
“KROGSTAD.-A las leyes no les importan los motivos.En cuanto al aspecto feminista creo que Ibsen estaba en lo cierto al rechazar los elogios en este sentido. De hecho, de tener que elegir a uno de los personajes femeninos me quedo sin duda con la señora Linde, la amiga de Nora, alguien que toma sus propias decisiones sin sustentarla en su relación con los hombres, que trabaja y quiere seguir trabajando sin tener que renunciar a la felicidad que le pueda proporcionar una familia, que no se deja llevar por sentimentalismos paralizantes, que persigue lo que quiere cuando cree que ha llegado el momento, una mujer inteligente que se vale por sí misma.
NORA.-Pues son unas leyes muy malas.”
Sin embargo, Nora, pese a su fortaleza a la hora de proteger a los suyos, me parece un personaje que para ostentar el papel de heroína del feminismo que algunos le adjudican precisa de una interpretación actoral capaz de reflejar en los gestos, en las actitudes calladas que se van sucediendo a lo largo de la obra aspectos de su personalidad que sirvan de enlace con la Nora del acto final, una evolución que únicamente con los diálogos de que disponemos en la simple lectura del texto nos es del todo inverosímil o bien propio de una personalidad histérica que oscila sin transición entre una alegría desmesurada en la sumisión a su marido y una despiadada dureza en su decisión final. Unas actitudes que, además, no dejan de estar determinadas por el amor al esposo, cuando este existe y cuando al final desaparece.
Tampoco quiero quitarle todo el mérito al autor. La obra no aburre en ningún momento, consigue una gran intensidad dramática, y es de alabar su valentía para enfrentarse a una sociedad que se escandaliza ante la denuncia que el autor hace de sus injusticias, así como su habilidad para exponerlas que, como dice Cristina Gómez-Baggethun en el prólogo a la preciosa edición que la editorial nordicalibros ha hecho reuniendo ocho de las principales obras del autor y que ella misma ha traducido, ha permitido que Ibsen sea interpretado con éxito desde posiciones ideológicas muy dispares, lo que sin duda ha favorecido que sus obras se sigan representando por todo el mundo 140 años después de su publicación.
March 12, 2012
First things first. Nora, the protagonist of Ibsen's A Doll's House, is a twit. There's no getting around it. We may choose to assign blame for her twittishness to her husband, her milieu, or her era, but this will never adequately mitigate her essential twit nature to that reader or spectator of the play who must endure her self-identification as her husband's 'squirrel' or her childlike idiocy. I myself couldn't stop wondering if Nora is an actual twit (i.e., a twit absolutely, regardless of her context) or relative twit (i.e., a woman who seems a twit to us now as a result of the changes in custom, gender roles, and society itself). And I haven't of course ruled out a combination of the two.
Then my mind became even more scrupulous. Was my judgment that Nora is a twit itself a condition of my entitled position in a (still) phallocentric society? I'm not kidding. I actually thought this. This is what a culture of loudly warring intellectual discourses does to a man. Am I guilty because I think Nora is twit?
Well, I abandoned that idea. Now I am convinced that she really is a twit, but now I ascribe some of her twittishness to the artificiality of drama itself, especially at the end of the nineteenth century. I think I've temporarily settled on this opinion. But ask me tomorrow, and who knows?
Since I've spent so much time convicting Nora of being a twit, it might seem surprising that I've given this play four stars. But really—there are plenty of fine stories to be told about twits and their ostensible transformations into non-twits. We shouldn't discriminate against twits. Don't they have hopes, dreams, sorrows, disappointments like the rest of us?
A Doll's House is the story of a silly, naive Norwegian wife named Nora who is being blackmailed by an unsavory bank clerk; apparently, she forged a document some time before, but the backstory is too contorted and contrived to bother with here. (I'm more than a little annoyed that Ibsen couldn't come up with a more elegant MacGuffin—one that's not entirely reliant upon Nora's [guileless or stupid, as you see it] admission of wrongdoing to her blackmailer.) Nora works overtime to keep her husband Torvald from finding out about her transgression. (Here, a cultural difference comes into play: given the circumstances, it's difficult for a modern audience to imagine that Torvald would be outraged at her confession.) Eventually, he does find out though and rips Nora a proverbial new one. This leads up to a famous and infamous confrontation between husband and wife punctuated by Nora's door slam heard 'round the world.
It's a fascinating and prescient play, no doubt, but it's also more than a little creaky—at least in translation. The conclusion, I think, retains much of its provocation today, well over a hundred years later. It is very difficult to watch or read the play and not react to Nora. She will always be subject to moral condemnation, but she's intriguing—even in her twittishness—because she isn't entirely right or wrong... She's just human. In an often infuriating way.
Then my mind became even more scrupulous. Was my judgment that Nora is a twit itself a condition of my entitled position in a (still) phallocentric society? I'm not kidding. I actually thought this. This is what a culture of loudly warring intellectual discourses does to a man. Am I guilty because I think Nora is twit?
Well, I abandoned that idea. Now I am convinced that she really is a twit, but now I ascribe some of her twittishness to the artificiality of drama itself, especially at the end of the nineteenth century. I think I've temporarily settled on this opinion. But ask me tomorrow, and who knows?
Since I've spent so much time convicting Nora of being a twit, it might seem surprising that I've given this play four stars. But really—there are plenty of fine stories to be told about twits and their ostensible transformations into non-twits. We shouldn't discriminate against twits. Don't they have hopes, dreams, sorrows, disappointments like the rest of us?
A Doll's House is the story of a silly, naive Norwegian wife named Nora who is being blackmailed by an unsavory bank clerk; apparently, she forged a document some time before, but the backstory is too contorted and contrived to bother with here. (I'm more than a little annoyed that Ibsen couldn't come up with a more elegant MacGuffin—one that's not entirely reliant upon Nora's [guileless or stupid, as you see it] admission of wrongdoing to her blackmailer.) Nora works overtime to keep her husband Torvald from finding out about her transgression. (Here, a cultural difference comes into play: given the circumstances, it's difficult for a modern audience to imagine that Torvald would be outraged at her confession.) Eventually, he does find out though and rips Nora a proverbial new one. This leads up to a famous and infamous confrontation between husband and wife punctuated by Nora's door slam heard 'round the world.
It's a fascinating and prescient play, no doubt, but it's also more than a little creaky—at least in translation. The conclusion, I think, retains much of its provocation today, well over a hundred years later. It is very difficult to watch or read the play and not react to Nora. She will always be subject to moral condemnation, but she's intriguing—even in her twittishness—because she isn't entirely right or wrong... She's just human. In an often infuriating way.
June 8, 2016
I read Henrik Ibsen's A Doll's House back in high school as required reading but did not grasp the scope of his masterpiece then. Ibsen penned his classic play about the story of Nora and Thorvald Helmer at a time in his life when he was coping with his former love Laura being confined to an insane asylum. In 1872 Laura married a man other than Ibsen and he fell ill with a lethal disease. Their doctors prescribed a southern climate but Laura did not have funds to move her husband to such a climate, so she borrowed the money from a trusting friend. On her return she still did not have the money to cover the loan, so she forged a bank note, which subsequently lead to her entering the asylum.
Ibsen started work on A Doll's House shortly after this episode took place. Clearly it is an example of art imitating life as Nora is Laura, Thorvald her husband, et al. What I found the most interesting is Ibsen's view on the place of women in society. He believed that women were not objects who were chained to their husbands with no voice in society. On the contrary I feel he saw women as independent thinkers who were free to make their own decisions rather than the dolls stuck living their lives according to their husbands' wills. We see this with both the characters of Nora and Kristin Linde.
I read A Doll's House in less than an hour as the text is less than one hundred pages long. It is what is contained in these pages that packs a punch and why A Doll's House has become timeless. A classic, I recommend to all who haven't read it before.
Ibsen started work on A Doll's House shortly after this episode took place. Clearly it is an example of art imitating life as Nora is Laura, Thorvald her husband, et al. What I found the most interesting is Ibsen's view on the place of women in society. He believed that women were not objects who were chained to their husbands with no voice in society. On the contrary I feel he saw women as independent thinkers who were free to make their own decisions rather than the dolls stuck living their lives according to their husbands' wills. We see this with both the characters of Nora and Kristin Linde.
I read A Doll's House in less than an hour as the text is less than one hundred pages long. It is what is contained in these pages that packs a punch and why A Doll's House has become timeless. A classic, I recommend to all who haven't read it before.
March 27, 2021
هناك نوعان من الاختيار .. اختيار تجبرك الظروف عليه، فتثور عليه من داخلك دون وعي حتى لو تبين لك لاحقا أنه الاختيار الصحيح .. واختيار تتخذه بمحض ارادتك دون أي ضغوط فتشعر بالراحة معه مهما كانت النتائج .. في المسرحية الحالية نرى امرأة اجبرتها الظروف على الاقتران بطبيب أرمل له ابنتان، فتعيش طوال عمرها كالدمية تشعر أن الآخرين يحركونها دون ارادة منها، فهي لم تختر تلك الحياة بملء ارادتها لذا تترك سفينتها توجهها أهواء الآخرين .. لكنها تثور عندما يعود شبح من الماضي يذكرها بالحرية المفقودة، الحرية الكاملة التي تفتن بها لكنها ترهبها وتخشاها في نفس الوقت .. فقط عندما تصبح حرة من أي ضغوط أو قيود تستعيد عقلها وتركن إلى الاختيار الصحيح
المسرحية جيدة بوجه عام، تسلسل الأحداث بطئ بعض الشئ في الفصول الأولى وهناك تطويل لا مبرر له في بعض المواضع لكنك لا تشعر بالملل معها .. ومن أجل تقييم أفضل يجب أن نضع المسرحية في اطارها الزمني حيث كانت بمثابة نقطة تحول في تاريخ المسرح وقتها ودفعت الكثير من الكتاب للتركيز على مشاكل اجتماعية وواقعية بدلا من الانفصال عن المجتمع
المسرحية جيدة بوجه عام، تسلسل الأحداث بطئ بعض الشئ في الفصول الأولى وهناك تطويل لا مبرر له في بعض المواضع لكنك لا تشعر بالملل معها .. ومن أجل تقييم أفضل يجب أن نضع المسرحية في اطارها الزمني حيث كانت بمثابة نقطة تحول في تاريخ المسرح وقتها ودفعت الكثير من الكتاب للتركيز على مشاكل اجتماعية وواقعية بدلا من الانفصال عن المجتمع
April 13, 2023
Grandiosa obra de teatro que sin duda representó mucha polémica con su final.
No sabría explicarlo, pero desde que empiezas a leer se siente cierto tono plastificado, falso y demasiado actuado en el comportamiento y palabras del personaje de Nora. Pero mientras más lees descubres el porqué de esa acentuada superficialidad, sumisión y alta complacencia por parte de ella hacia las expectativas de su marido.
El título de la obra está muy bien implementado y la figura de Nora como emblema de libertad, revolución y búsqueda de identidad propia es lo que más me ha gustado. El final se siente tan satisfactorio por dos cosas: la primera porque vio la luz en el siglo XIX, años en los que obviamente fue un escándalo de todo tipo y segundo, porque fue escrito por un hombre, lo cual me parece un caso anómalo.
Eso sí, la manera en que la escena final muestra todo el castigo y los señalamientos de la sociedad, el machismo, la idealización de la mujer y su misma opresión incluso en su hogar está muy bien encaminada y expuesta. Me parece magistral darle ese giro y hacer algo atípico dentro de su tiempo. Sientes la tristeza, la decepción y la renuencia del personaje femenino a aceptar esa realidad y a buscar por sus propios medios (y no el que le han dado hombres como su padre y esposo) la respuesta a su identidad, a su sentir y a sus acciones que han sido mal vistas y juzgadas por la sociedad.
Me ha encantado. Sencillamente el valor que tiene es incalculable y valioso para la época en que se escribió y para los que lo seguirán leyendo todavía en el presente y futuro resultará en una conclusión satisfactoria.
No sabría explicarlo, pero desde que empiezas a leer se siente cierto tono plastificado, falso y demasiado actuado en el comportamiento y palabras del personaje de Nora. Pero mientras más lees descubres el porqué de esa acentuada superficialidad, sumisión y alta complacencia por parte de ella hacia las expectativas de su marido.
El título de la obra está muy bien implementado y la figura de Nora como emblema de libertad, revolución y búsqueda de identidad propia es lo que más me ha gustado. El final se siente tan satisfactorio por dos cosas: la primera porque vio la luz en el siglo XIX, años en los que obviamente fue un escándalo de todo tipo y segundo, porque fue escrito por un hombre, lo cual me parece un caso anómalo.
Eso sí, la manera en que la escena final muestra todo el castigo y los señalamientos de la sociedad, el machismo, la idealización de la mujer y su misma opresión incluso en su hogar está muy bien encaminada y expuesta. Me parece magistral darle ese giro y hacer algo atípico dentro de su tiempo. Sientes la tristeza, la decepción y la renuencia del personaje femenino a aceptar esa realidad y a buscar por sus propios medios (y no el que le han dado hombres como su padre y esposo) la respuesta a su identidad, a su sentir y a sus acciones que han sido mal vistas y juzgadas por la sociedad.
Me ha encantado. Sencillamente el valor que tiene es incalculable y valioso para la época en que se escribió y para los que lo seguirán leyendo todavía en el presente y futuro resultará en una conclusión satisfactoria.
September 23, 2020
Let's leave Nora for a second and talk about the tragic figure of Torvald Helmer.
It struck me today while rereading The Doll's House that I had completely missed the important statement Ibsen makes on men in patriarchy, blinded as I was by my furious cheering for Nora's emancipation.
While following her path to shed the idiocy of her existence as a little pretty plaything, I missed the sad storyline of the little boy who broke his toy because he simply was too ignorant and spoiled to understand how to handle it.
Torvald is such a pathetic character, and the saddest part is that he, despite his legal and financial power and freedom, is as much a victim of the patriarchal structure as Nora is, if not even more so...
... because the moment Nora awakened from her society-induced play-acting, she realised what a pitiful little baby Torvald was doomed to stay - a person so unlovable and uninteresting as a partner that the only thing a grownup woman could do when she left was close the door loudly enough for his delusion to break...
How is it even possible to love a person who can't see humanity and individuality in his partner? The patriarch is doomed to be unloved and disconnected from his family simply because he is too naive to see what surrounds him and too fragile to accept the realities of life such as they are - unfiltered. He becomes a powerful Family Machine that requires specific handling but remains indifferent and outside human communication and feeling.
Once that becomes evident, it sounds more and more bizarre to listen to Torvald's consistent huffing and puffing about Nora's ignorance and helplessness. He's projecting his own immaturity onto her, and when the magic is broken by his inability to cope with life, he blames her for not keeping the delusion intact.
Torvald is worse off than Nora. At least she has a life. He only has a few soap bubbles.
It struck me today while rereading The Doll's House that I had completely missed the important statement Ibsen makes on men in patriarchy, blinded as I was by my furious cheering for Nora's emancipation.
While following her path to shed the idiocy of her existence as a little pretty plaything, I missed the sad storyline of the little boy who broke his toy because he simply was too ignorant and spoiled to understand how to handle it.
Torvald is such a pathetic character, and the saddest part is that he, despite his legal and financial power and freedom, is as much a victim of the patriarchal structure as Nora is, if not even more so...
... because the moment Nora awakened from her society-induced play-acting, she realised what a pitiful little baby Torvald was doomed to stay - a person so unlovable and uninteresting as a partner that the only thing a grownup woman could do when she left was close the door loudly enough for his delusion to break...
How is it even possible to love a person who can't see humanity and individuality in his partner? The patriarch is doomed to be unloved and disconnected from his family simply because he is too naive to see what surrounds him and too fragile to accept the realities of life such as they are - unfiltered. He becomes a powerful Family Machine that requires specific handling but remains indifferent and outside human communication and feeling.
Once that becomes evident, it sounds more and more bizarre to listen to Torvald's consistent huffing and puffing about Nora's ignorance and helplessness. He's projecting his own immaturity onto her, and when the magic is broken by his inability to cope with life, he blames her for not keeping the delusion intact.
Torvald is worse off than Nora. At least she has a life. He only has a few soap bubbles.
March 14, 2016
The first play I read by Ibsen. I found it quite interesting.
February 27, 2009
oh, nora. you are much maligned, and yet. i wonder why people find you so much more annoying than emma bovary, etc.
i think there's so much about this play as a historical document that i appreciate and enjoy and love that sometimes i forget it's supposed to be a PLAY.
that said, i don't think nora was *supposed* to be entirely sympathetic. i think her annoying behaviors are supposed to get on your nerves - but somewhere, i think, Ibsen hoped that you would see the way she acts is not simply who she is, but because of how she is brought up, the situation she is in, the situation women are in, the realities of life for a woman in that time.
fascinating, in general, and a true testament to Ibsen that this is even being discussed today.
i kind of adore this play, and not because i am a "feminist".
i think there's so much about this play as a historical document that i appreciate and enjoy and love that sometimes i forget it's supposed to be a PLAY.
that said, i don't think nora was *supposed* to be entirely sympathetic. i think her annoying behaviors are supposed to get on your nerves - but somewhere, i think, Ibsen hoped that you would see the way she acts is not simply who she is, but because of how she is brought up, the situation she is in, the situation women are in, the realities of life for a woman in that time.
fascinating, in general, and a true testament to Ibsen that this is even being discussed today.
i kind of adore this play, and not because i am a "feminist".
June 10, 2021
This is a brilliant play by Henrik Ibsen which is also my first introduction to the author. The play mainly revolves around the theme of a woman's place in society as opposed to the woman's right of independence and individuality.
Nora Helmer, the main protagonist, has a secret to conceal from her conservative husband. This secret is a cause of action that has been taken by her which is although partly a crime, has been done in good faith and to the advantage of her family at a difficult time. However, when the secret comes out in open, the consequences that follow show the women's position, their vulnerability and men's perception of women in the patriarchal society they live in.
This play, to me, is Ibsen's voice which is raised to the world to say that it is time that women are to be looked as individuals, as humans with feelings, and as an important part of a society, especially in a family; it is time that they should be respected as equals; and that they should not be viewed mere possessions to keep and treat as the men fancy. Such a perception on women coming from a man of his era is praiseworthy. It is also a bold venture to write and stage such a play in a conservative society where it is decidedly being viewed as scandalous. Bravo to Ibsen for his brave effort in bringing out the "women voice".
Nora Helmer, the main protagonist, has a secret to conceal from her conservative husband. This secret is a cause of action that has been taken by her which is although partly a crime, has been done in good faith and to the advantage of her family at a difficult time. However, when the secret comes out in open, the consequences that follow show the women's position, their vulnerability and men's perception of women in the patriarchal society they live in.
This play, to me, is Ibsen's voice which is raised to the world to say that it is time that women are to be looked as individuals, as humans with feelings, and as an important part of a society, especially in a family; it is time that they should be respected as equals; and that they should not be viewed mere possessions to keep and treat as the men fancy. Such a perception on women coming from a man of his era is praiseworthy. It is also a bold venture to write and stage such a play in a conservative society where it is decidedly being viewed as scandalous. Bravo to Ibsen for his brave effort in bringing out the "women voice".
January 3, 2022
“It is so marvelous to live and be happy.”
I have a confession to make. I always thought A Doll’s House was a children’s story. How wrong was I! So much to learn…so much to learn…
A Doll’s House is a controversial three-act play about the self-discovery of one woman who goes against conventions and rules of a man-made society.
Nora is a married woman, who does everything to make her husband and children happy and content. She is supposed to dress up and look pretty. She is referred to by her husband as “my little” this and that. She is the Doll. She has been the Doll in her father’s house and has merely changed one Doll House for another.
But Nora has a secret. She has borrowed money from a dubious individual to help pay for improving her husband’s health. She has been economizing and saving money to pay back the debt while being called spendthrift and reckless by her husband.
When the secret is disclosed, instead of thanking her, her husband becomes a self-righteous prig and calls her a hypocrite, a liar and a miserable creature and declares her not to be fit to bring up their children.
Nora then awakens and makes a decision that changes everything.
And her new life begins with the slamming of a door.
I have a confession to make. I always thought A Doll’s House was a children’s story. How wrong was I! So much to learn…so much to learn…
A Doll’s House is a controversial three-act play about the self-discovery of one woman who goes against conventions and rules of a man-made society.
Nora is a married woman, who does everything to make her husband and children happy and content. She is supposed to dress up and look pretty. She is referred to by her husband as “my little” this and that. She is the Doll. She has been the Doll in her father’s house and has merely changed one Doll House for another.
But Nora has a secret. She has borrowed money from a dubious individual to help pay for improving her husband’s health. She has been economizing and saving money to pay back the debt while being called spendthrift and reckless by her husband.
When the secret is disclosed, instead of thanking her, her husband becomes a self-righteous prig and calls her a hypocrite, a liar and a miserable creature and declares her not to be fit to bring up their children.
Nora then awakens and makes a decision that changes everything.
And her new life begins with the slamming of a door.
May 22, 2008
I did not like this book because the main character got on my last nerves. A supposedly intelligent woman pretending to be an idiot to fit her husband's idea of what women are like? And in the end abandons her family. I have no sympathy for characters who punish the innocent children of their idiotic patnerships in order to "find themselves". Then again, I read this in high school so perhaps if I reread it I'll see what all the hoopla surrounding it is about.
No wonder people hate feminists! If this is what passes for feminist fare, then I don't want to be one anymore. Women don't have to abandon their children to free themselves from this patriarchal society. It only makes you look like a bad selfish mother. A real feminist would not marry an idiot for money not love and produce offspring with him only to scar them for life later by abandoning them.
No wonder people hate feminists! If this is what passes for feminist fare, then I don't want to be one anymore. Women don't have to abandon their children to free themselves from this patriarchal society. It only makes you look like a bad selfish mother. A real feminist would not marry an idiot for money not love and produce offspring with him only to scar them for life later by abandoning them.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 21, 2018
دوستانِ گرانقدر، نمایشنامهٔ "عروسکخانه" یا "خانهٔ عروسک" به باورِ خیلی از صاحب نظران و منتقدان، به نوعی پرچمدارِ مبارزاتِ فمینیستی و انسان گرایانه بوده است و به راستی تبدیل به پایه هایِ فمینیسم در اورپا شده بود. چراکه شخصیتِ اصلیِ این داستان، زنی شجاع و باهوش است که تابوهایِ اجتماعی و خانوادگی را درهم میشکند و نظامِ بورژوازی با اندیشهٔ بیخردانهٔ مردسالاری را زیرِ پاهایش لگدمال میکند..... این اثر، یکی از غوغا برانگیزترین داستانها و نمایشنامه ها بود که مردم در هر جایی که جمع میشدند، در موردِ آن با یکدیگر گفتگو و حتی بحث و دعوا میکردند.. تا جایی که بر رویِ برخی از کارتهایِ دعوت به میهمانی، نوشته شده بود: لطفاً از صحبت کردن در موردِ "خانهٔ عروسک" خودداری کنید
داستان در موردِ زنی به نامِ <نورا> میباشد که میتوان وی را جوش و خروش و به پاخواستنِ زنی دانست که در اوجِ دلدادگی و شورِ زندگی، به تنهایی و پوچی میرسد.. زنی که برایِ نجاتِ جانِ همسرش که <توروالد هلمر> نام دارد، مجبور میشود تا جعلِ امضا و سند کرده و وامِ بانکی بگیرد و به صورتِ پنهانی قسط هایِ وام را پرداخت کند، به این امید که اگر شوهرش پی به حقیقت ببرد، از این کارِ نورا ستایش کرده و او را قهرمانِ زندگی به شمار آورد... ولی هلمر، نه تنها از نورا سپاسگزاری نمیکند، بلکه او را دروغگو و کلاهبردار خطاب کرده و به او میتازد و به زن بودن و انسانیتِ وی، توهین میکند
دوستانی که مشتاق هستند تا بیشتر در موردِ این داستان بدانند، در زیر چکیده ای از آن را برایشان مینویسم
-----------------------------------------------
نورا و هلمر، در کنارِ هم خوش هستند و سه فرزند به نامهایِ <باب> ، <ایمی> و <ایوار> دارند.. هشت سال از زندگیِ مشترکِ آنها سپری شده است.. هلمر، کارمندی خودخواه و وظیفه شناس است و نورا، زنی زیبا و مادر و همسری مهربان میباشد.. البته این را بگویم که از دیدگاهِ هلمر، همسرش نورا، پرنده ای زیبا و آوازخوان است که هوس بازی و خنگی را نیز در وجودش یکجا جمع نموده و درکل عروسکی است که هلمر میتواند با او بازی کند و به این دلیل که او از جنسِ زن است، هلمر هیچگاه او را جدی نگرفته و با او همچون کودکان رفتار میکند... همه چیز عادی میباشد، تا آنکه نزدیک به کریسمس، باخبر میشوند که هلمر به زودی به سِمَتِ ریاستِ بانک، انتخاب خواهد شد... در این اوضاع و احوال، دوستِ قدیمیِ نورا که <کریستین لینده> نام دارد، پس از مرگِ شوهرش و مادرش، کارش را از دست داده و به خانهٔ نورا می آید، تا بلکه هلمر، بتواند کاری برایِ او دست و پا کند.... موضوعِ اصلی داستان که رازِ سر به مهرِ نورا میباشد، از زمانی آغاز میشود که نورا این راز را با کریستین در میان میگذارد
اوضاع از این قرار است که، در همان سالِ نخستِ ازدواجِ هلمر و نورا، هلمر بیمار میشود و پزشکان سفارش میکنند که برایِ درمان، بهتر است به مدتِ یک سال به ایتالیا سفر کنند... هلمر تصور میکند که هزینه هایِ سنگینِ این سفر را پدرِ نورا به عنوانِ ارث، به او داده است، در صورتیکه نورا این هزینه ها را از وامِ بانکی تأمین نموده است.. نورا از وکیلِ بانک به نامِ <کروگستاد> وام گرفته و امضایِ پدرش را به عنوانِ ضامن، جعل کرده و با این سندِ تقلبی، وام گرفته و جانِ هلمر را نجات داده است و ماه به ماه اقساطِ آن را در تمامِ این سالها پرداخت کرده است.. تا آنکه کارهایِ کروگستاد لو میرود و در بانک همه میفهمند که اسناد جعلی بوده است.. رئیسِ بانک هلمر میباشد و به کروگستاد خبر میرسد که او با این رسوایی از کار اخراج میشود... از این رو، کروگستاد نامه ای به هلمر نوشته و در مورد جعلِ امضا کردن و تقلبِ نورا، همه چیز را فاش میکند
خلاصه عزیزانم، کلی ماجراها پیش می آید و سرانجام با تمامِ تلاشی که نورا و دیگران انجام میدهند تا هلمر از حقیقت آگاه نشود، ولی هلمر متوجه میشود که نورا در تمامِ این سالها به او دروغ گفته و آبرویِ کاریِ او در خطر است.. پس بدونِ اندکی وجدان و انسانیت، نورا را که به خاطرِ او دست به اینکار زده است را موردِ سرزنش و نکوهش قرار داده و نمیگذارد نورا بر مسائلِ اخلاقی و آدابِ زندگیِ فرزندانش نظارت داشته باشد و نورا را تبدیل به موجودی نامرئی در خانه میکند.. تا آنکه یکروز ......................................... عزیزانم، بهتر است خودتان این نمایشنامه را خوانده و از سرانجامِ آن آگاه شوید
---------------------------------------------
نورا: مقدس ترین وظیفهٔ من به نظرِ تو چیست؟؟
هلمر: وظیفه ای که در قبالِ شوهر و بچه هایت داری... من که نباید این را به تو بگویم
نورا: من وظیفهٔ دیگری هم دارم که به همین اندازه مقدس است
هلمر: چرند میگویی! کدام وظیفه؟
نورا: وظیفه ای که در قبالِ خود دارم
هلمر: یادت باشد.. تو قبل از هرچیز، یک زن هستی و یک مادر
نورا: من دیگر به این حرف اعتقاد ندارم... من بر این باورم که پیش از هرچیز، من یک انسانم... درست مثلِ تو
---------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
داستان در موردِ زنی به نامِ <نورا> میباشد که میتوان وی را جوش و خروش و به پاخواستنِ زنی دانست که در اوجِ دلدادگی و شورِ زندگی، به تنهایی و پوچی میرسد.. زنی که برایِ نجاتِ جانِ همسرش که <توروالد هلمر> نام دارد، مجبور میشود تا جعلِ امضا و سند کرده و وامِ بانکی بگیرد و به صورتِ پنهانی قسط هایِ وام را پرداخت کند، به این امید که اگر شوهرش پی به حقیقت ببرد، از این کارِ نورا ستایش کرده و او را قهرمانِ زندگی به شمار آورد... ولی هلمر، نه تنها از نورا سپاسگزاری نمیکند، بلکه او را دروغگو و کلاهبردار خطاب کرده و به او میتازد و به زن بودن و انسانیتِ وی، توهین میکند
دوستانی که مشتاق هستند تا بیشتر در موردِ این داستان بدانند، در زیر چکیده ای از آن را برایشان مینویسم
-----------------------------------------------
نورا و هلمر، در کنارِ هم خوش هستند و سه فرزند به نامهایِ <باب> ، <ایمی> و <ایوار> دارند.. هشت سال از زندگیِ مشترکِ آنها سپری شده است.. هلمر، کارمندی خودخواه و وظیفه شناس است و نورا، زنی زیبا و مادر و همسری مهربان میباشد.. البته این را بگویم که از دیدگاهِ هلمر، همسرش نورا، پرنده ای زیبا و آوازخوان است که هوس بازی و خنگی را نیز در وجودش یکجا جمع نموده و درکل عروسکی است که هلمر میتواند با او بازی کند و به این دلیل که او از جنسِ زن است، هلمر هیچگاه او را جدی نگرفته و با او همچون کودکان رفتار میکند... همه چیز عادی میباشد، تا آنکه نزدیک به کریسمس، باخبر میشوند که هلمر به زودی به سِمَتِ ریاستِ بانک، انتخاب خواهد شد... در این اوضاع و احوال، دوستِ قدیمیِ نورا که <کریستین لینده> نام دارد، پس از مرگِ شوهرش و مادرش، کارش را از دست داده و به خانهٔ نورا می آید، تا بلکه هلمر، بتواند کاری برایِ او دست و پا کند.... موضوعِ اصلی داستان که رازِ سر به مهرِ نورا میباشد، از زمانی آغاز میشود که نورا این راز را با کریستین در میان میگذارد
اوضاع از این قرار است که، در همان سالِ نخستِ ازدواجِ هلمر و نورا، هلمر بیمار میشود و پزشکان سفارش میکنند که برایِ درمان، بهتر است به مدتِ یک سال به ایتالیا سفر کنند... هلمر تصور میکند که هزینه هایِ سنگینِ این سفر را پدرِ نورا به عنوانِ ارث، به او داده است، در صورتیکه نورا این هزینه ها را از وامِ بانکی تأمین نموده است.. نورا از وکیلِ بانک به نامِ <کروگستاد> وام گرفته و امضایِ پدرش را به عنوانِ ضامن، جعل کرده و با این سندِ تقلبی، وام گرفته و جانِ هلمر را نجات داده است و ماه به ماه اقساطِ آن را در تمامِ این سالها پرداخت کرده است.. تا آنکه کارهایِ کروگستاد لو میرود و در بانک همه میفهمند که اسناد جعلی بوده است.. رئیسِ بانک هلمر میباشد و به کروگستاد خبر میرسد که او با این رسوایی از کار اخراج میشود... از این رو، کروگستاد نامه ای به هلمر نوشته و در مورد جعلِ امضا کردن و تقلبِ نورا، همه چیز را فاش میکند
خلاصه عزیزانم، کلی ماجراها پیش می آید و سرانجام با تمامِ تلاشی که نورا و دیگران انجام میدهند تا هلمر از حقیقت آگاه نشود، ولی هلمر متوجه میشود که نورا در تمامِ این سالها به او دروغ گفته و آبرویِ کاریِ او در خطر است.. پس بدونِ اندکی وجدان و انسانیت، نورا را که به خاطرِ او دست به اینکار زده است را موردِ سرزنش و نکوهش قرار داده و نمیگذارد نورا بر مسائلِ اخلاقی و آدابِ زندگیِ فرزندانش نظارت داشته باشد و نورا را تبدیل به موجودی نامرئی در خانه میکند.. تا آنکه یکروز ......................................... عزیزانم، بهتر است خودتان این نمایشنامه را خوانده و از سرانجامِ آن آگاه شوید
---------------------------------------------
نورا: مقدس ترین وظیفهٔ من به نظرِ تو چیست؟؟
هلمر: وظیفه ای که در قبالِ شوهر و بچه هایت داری... من که نباید این را به تو بگویم
نورا: من وظیفهٔ دیگری هم دارم که به همین اندازه مقدس است
هلمر: چرند میگویی! کدام وظیفه؟
نورا: وظیفه ای که در قبالِ خود دارم
هلمر: یادت باشد.. تو قبل از هرچیز، یک زن هستی و یک مادر
نورا: من دیگر به این حرف اعتقاد ندارم... من بر این باورم که پیش از هرچیز، من یک انسانم... درست مثلِ تو
---------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
Read
January 25, 2023I can’t imagine what it would’ve felt like reading this as a woman in 1879. Must have been so liberating.
December 6, 2015
از بهترین هایی بود که خوندم..داستان پرکشش با شخصیت های کار شده و دوست داشتنی و پیام های پنهان و سوالاتی که مکررا در ذهن ایجاد می کرد و امان از پرده سوم ماجرا
نمایشنامه خانه عروسک از زمان انتشارش، انتقادات زیادی رو برای خودش به ارمغان آورد. ایبسن با این نمایشنامه پیام هایی رو به خواننده منتقل می کنه که تاب آوردنش برای سال 1879 قابل تصور نیست. نورا و هلمر با دو بچه زندگی عاشقانه ای رو می گذرونند. هلمر ظاهرا عاشق نوراست ولی نه ما و نه حتی ��ود نورا نمی دونیم واکنش مرد داستان بعد از برملا شدن راز نورا چه خواهد بود؟ این راز کار فداکارانه ولی غیرقانونیه که نورا به خاطر حفظ زندگی و سلامتی همسرش انجام داده که در درون بهش مفتخره حتی اگر جامعه این کار رو نادرست بدونه
ایبسن با نقد نقش زن و شوهری در یک زندگی زناشویی اروپایی قرن نوزدهمی، آگاهی ای رو به مردم انتقال داد که تا قبل اون کمتر کسی جرات بیانش رو پیدا کرده بود. ایبسن معتقد بود " یک زن در دنیای مدرن امروزی نمی تونه خودش باشه چرا که دنیای امروز رو مردان هدایت و قضاوت می کنند و بر پایه قوانینی سراسر مردانه بنا شده، قوانینی که کمترین سنخیتی با درون زنان ندارند"
گاهی فکر می کردم میشه داستان رو از حالت فمینیستی خارج کرد و بهش دیدگاهی "انسانی" داد...تصمیم درست چیه؟ تصمیمی مطابق قانون یا تصمیمی برخاسته از دل براساس بشردوستی و انسان دوستی درون؟
چون گاها طی خوندن این نماشنامه به یاد سوالاتی می افتادم که با خوندن "جنایت و مکافات" داستایوسکی در ذهنم ایجاد میشد به راحتی می تونستم به جای این که نورا رو در قالب یک "زن" ببینم اون رو در نقش یک "انسان" ببینم و به این بحث های فمینیستی خاتمه بدم
خانه عروسک نامیست که نورا انتخاب کرده . به عقیده نورا هم پدر، قبل از ازدواج و هم شوهر، بعد از ازدواج اون رو عاشقانه دوست داشتند ولی این عشق تا زمانی تضمینی بود که نورا هم مثل عروسکی گوش به فرمان خواسته ها و انتظارات این دو مرد مهم زندگیش باشه
بد نیست بدونیم که ایده اولیه نمایشنامه از زندگی "لورا کیلر" یکی از دوستان صمیمی هنریک ایبسن گرفته شده....زنی که در عالم واقعیت رازی داشت که بهش مفتخر بود ولی نه جامعه و نه خانواده ش تاییدش نکردند حتی اگر برای حفظ سلامتی همسرش دست به انجامش زده باشه
نمایشنامه خانه عروسک از زمان انتشارش، انتقادات زیادی رو برای خودش به ارمغان آورد. ایبسن با این نمایشنامه پیام هایی رو به خواننده منتقل می کنه که تاب آوردنش برای سال 1879 قابل تصور نیست. نورا و هلمر با دو بچه زندگی عاشقانه ای رو می گذرونند. هلمر ظاهرا عاشق نوراست ولی نه ما و نه حتی ��ود نورا نمی دونیم واکنش مرد داستان بعد از برملا شدن راز نورا چه خواهد بود؟ این راز کار فداکارانه ولی غیرقانونیه که نورا به خاطر حفظ زندگی و سلامتی همسرش انجام داده که در درون بهش مفتخره حتی اگر جامعه این کار رو نادرست بدونه
ایبسن با نقد نقش زن و شوهری در یک زندگی زناشویی اروپایی قرن نوزدهمی، آگاهی ای رو به مردم انتقال داد که تا قبل اون کمتر کسی جرات بیانش رو پیدا کرده بود. ایبسن معتقد بود " یک زن در دنیای مدرن امروزی نمی تونه خودش باشه چرا که دنیای امروز رو مردان هدایت و قضاوت می کنند و بر پایه قوانینی سراسر مردانه بنا شده، قوانینی که کمترین سنخیتی با درون زنان ندارند"
گاهی فکر می کردم میشه داستان رو از حالت فمینیستی خارج کرد و بهش دیدگاهی "انسانی" داد...تصمیم درست چیه؟ تصمیمی مطابق قانون یا تصمیمی برخاسته از دل براساس بشردوستی و انسان دوستی درون؟
چون گاها طی خوندن این نماشنامه به یاد سوالاتی می افتادم که با خوندن "جنایت و مکافات" داستایوسکی در ذهنم ایجاد میشد به راحتی می تونستم به جای این که نورا رو در قالب یک "زن" ببینم اون رو در نقش یک "انسان" ببینم و به این بحث های فمینیستی خاتمه بدم
خانه عروسک نامیست که نورا انتخاب کرده . به عقیده نورا هم پدر، قبل از ازدواج و هم شوهر، بعد از ازدواج اون رو عاشقانه دوست داشتند ولی این عشق تا زمانی تضمینی بود که نورا هم مثل عروسکی گوش به فرمان خواسته ها و انتظارات این دو مرد مهم زندگیش باشه
بد نیست بدونیم که ایده اولیه نمایشنامه از زندگی "لورا کیلر" یکی از دوستان صمیمی هنریک ایبسن گرفته شده....زنی که در عالم واقعیت رازی داشت که بهش مفتخر بود ولی نه جامعه و نه خانواده ش تاییدش نکردند حتی اگر برای حفظ سلامتی همسرش دست به انجامش زده باشه
October 22, 2017
A Doll’s House by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen is alike with Ernest Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises in that it may more often than not be misinterpreted.
First published in 1879, the play tells the story of Nora Helmer and her marriage to Torvald Helmer. But the play also depicts two other female characters and between the three Ibsen has composed a female triumvirate of the European nineteenth century Everywoman. Along with Nora are Kristine and Anne Marie, who Ibsen has displayed as a female image of subservience, disadvantage and obliging self-sacrifice.
But Ibsen’s caricature of Victorian dysfunction does not end with feminism; the male characters are wooden and enslaved to self-deprecating attitudes and behaviors that perpetuate the failures of society and contaminate an already poisonous culture.
Most compelling, though, was reading this from the vantage of the twenty-first century. Some ultra-conservatives might share the nineteenth century interpretation of the play (Ibsen was castigated into amending the ending and later regretted the cave-in) but others may fail to see the consequences of the socio-economic results of a feminist movement (of which Ibsen as a modernist was in the far forward vanguard) that has played its part in changing, some for the better and some for the worse, Western civilization.
Without a doubt an important drama on the world stage.
First published in 1879, the play tells the story of Nora Helmer and her marriage to Torvald Helmer. But the play also depicts two other female characters and between the three Ibsen has composed a female triumvirate of the European nineteenth century Everywoman. Along with Nora are Kristine and Anne Marie, who Ibsen has displayed as a female image of subservience, disadvantage and obliging self-sacrifice.
But Ibsen’s caricature of Victorian dysfunction does not end with feminism; the male characters are wooden and enslaved to self-deprecating attitudes and behaviors that perpetuate the failures of society and contaminate an already poisonous culture.
Most compelling, though, was reading this from the vantage of the twenty-first century. Some ultra-conservatives might share the nineteenth century interpretation of the play (Ibsen was castigated into amending the ending and later regretted the cave-in) but others may fail to see the consequences of the socio-economic results of a feminist movement (of which Ibsen as a modernist was in the far forward vanguard) that has played its part in changing, some for the better and some for the worse, Western civilization.
Without a doubt an important drama on the world stage.
March 23, 2019
“HELMER: But this is disgraceful. Is this the way you neglect your most sacred duties?
NORA: What do you consider is my most sacred duty?
HELMER: Do I have to tell you that? Isn't it your duty to your husband and children?
NORA: I have another duty, just as sacred.
HELMER: You can't have. What duty do you mean?
NORA: My duty to myself.”
The Doll’s House is an 1879 masterpiece play about Nora Helmer, married to Torvald; Nora is treated, as she herself observes, as her husband’s little pampered doll, infantilized in a way that is painful to observe. He’s “nice” to her, and she likes the positive attention and gifts lavished on her. She participates in her own subjugation in exchange for wealth and ease fo eight years, but she comes to see through a crisis that she has no real power in society, and has had no real relationship to him. She is a doll for him as she was a doll for her father, and she is dollifying her children, too, with her husband’s help.
The conclusion, when it was first produced, caused both outrage and cheering, divided largely according to gender, though when you realize that this is 1879, it is amazing. Of course there are many strong women characters in Victorian literature, and there are other key texts in conversation with this play such as “The Awakening” by Kate Chopin, or Ibsen’s own Hedda Gabler, and of course there are many others, but this was a great and controversial moment in world drama. I heard an LA Theater works production and liked hearing (especially) that finish.
A Playmobil “summary” enactment of the play in 9 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztTHN...
NORA: What do you consider is my most sacred duty?
HELMER: Do I have to tell you that? Isn't it your duty to your husband and children?
NORA: I have another duty, just as sacred.
HELMER: You can't have. What duty do you mean?
NORA: My duty to myself.”
The Doll’s House is an 1879 masterpiece play about Nora Helmer, married to Torvald; Nora is treated, as she herself observes, as her husband’s little pampered doll, infantilized in a way that is painful to observe. He’s “nice” to her, and she likes the positive attention and gifts lavished on her. She participates in her own subjugation in exchange for wealth and ease fo eight years, but she comes to see through a crisis that she has no real power in society, and has had no real relationship to him. She is a doll for him as she was a doll for her father, and she is dollifying her children, too, with her husband’s help.
The conclusion, when it was first produced, caused both outrage and cheering, divided largely according to gender, though when you realize that this is 1879, it is amazing. Of course there are many strong women characters in Victorian literature, and there are other key texts in conversation with this play such as “The Awakening” by Kate Chopin, or Ibsen’s own Hedda Gabler, and of course there are many others, but this was a great and controversial moment in world drama. I heard an LA Theater works production and liked hearing (especially) that finish.
A Playmobil “summary” enactment of the play in 9 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztTHN...
April 1, 2021
خود نمایشنامه که طبیعتاً شاهکار است ولی شکستهنویسی متن ترجمه آنقدر بد بود که بیشتر به درد تدریس در کلاسهای ویرایش میخورد که کلمات و جملات را این شکلی نشکنید! همان هزوارشی را ��ه آقای انور در مقدمهاش به آن اشاره کرده، هنگام خواندن ترجمه با گوشت و پوست و استخوان و مغز استخوان تجربه کردم! توصیه میکنم اگر کسی میخواهد از متن ایبسن لذت ببرد کتاب را با ترجمة دیگری بخواند
January 7, 2021
My 3rd best read of 2020.
Video review here (my first video, terribly filmed!)
This is the perfect play, and as of 2020 my favourite play of all time. I will thoroughly defend my case below (NO spoilers).
Why read?
First, as a medium, more than novels or poems, plays must get right to the point. This because it takes a long time to make something happen on a stage. Brushing one's teeth could take more a second to read but a minute to watch in all its complexity on stage.
Second, nobody wants to pay to watch someone brushing their teeth. Because of the time constraint of action, plays must be melodramatic to engage the audience to the level required to make a meaningful message (or else the complete opposite i.e. Waiting for Godot). Plays which fail to sustain tension or show action are 'already over', in my opinion, as it limits the seriousness with which I can take their message. A man brushing my teeth or eating a banana can't tell me anything profound I will take seriously, sincerity demands severe context (i.e. Krapp's last tape).
Without revealing the plot, I will now propose why The Doll's House is a perfect play.
First, it is so, because at all times it makes the audience suspect every single main character could later be dead or a killer. This is the dream of murder mystery novels, but also of plays, as the audience feels like they are investigating a real event rather than a constructed narrative. All three acts occur within the same room, with the same characters, and in immediate succession, which is perfect because the tension never dies and there is no room to breathe. It's also especially effective as everyone's fate is interconnected, and its death for all, not in other plays where dramatic tension is split between affairs, drugs, corruption and bankruptcy. I'm not saying the Doll House doesn't contain any of these, but I think it succeeds many popular plays which instead diffuse tension by changing the scene environment and contrasting character fates which only confused and dilutes the strength of the message.
Second, in the opinion of Bill Burr and Ockham's Razor, this play has 'no fat' on it. It's as concise and minimalistic as it needs to be. There is no element of wasted dialogue, there is no distinctive prop, lighting, stage positioning that it needs. It is like a mathematical formula which has been completely simplified, it flows with complexity without hestitation. This is a bold gamble by Ibsen, if the play was anything less than engaging it would fall flat without this.
Third, the above points give it a 4* in my opinion, but it became a 5* in its denouement. There really is a point to all this at the end, there is a heartfelt message. Some may pass this off as an average play, and I put this down to hasty reading. I implore you to slowly and carefully read the final Act, and think about how realistic and thematic this is, and then reflect back on what the structure of the play adds to this message.
The plotless review ends here, leave and go read it if interested!
------------------------
SPOILERS BEGIN
Plot Analysis:
Hel. I would gladly work night and day for you, Nora [...] But no man would sacrifice his honor for the one he loves.
Nora. It is a thing hundreds of thousands of women have done.
So I've said most of what I want to say, but here are some specifics. I really like this play because I believe it is a realistic portrayal of marital dissolution. What bothers me about conventional theatre is that it is hung up on repeating a structure with Freytag's dramatic arc, and conforming to the comedy vs. tragedy convention. When I see a play that begins without major distasters, I know it's going to be a tragedy and have a punishing ending, and vice-versa for comedy. What's great here is that A Doll's House more resembles a boiling kettle in its dramatic structure, and has the ambivalent denouement that constantly happens in romantic breakups between committed adults in real life. It is unpredictable, but obtains my care for the characters due to their directly expressive nature. Nora and Torvald's discussion touches upon three big aspects — devotion, responsibility and identity — partners need in a serious relationship. Often fictitious narratives oversimplify romantic disputes to single factors, as if it involved lost and uncontrollable teenagers, if only to speed the narrative on past the inability of the author to face the complex task of composing a realistic relationship crisis.
Also interesting to me is how the children are never named, they are props, and the main 'skip' between the Acts. In this way we see Nora's disengagement as mother written into the structure, yet disregard it as minimalism due to how intensely focused the rest of the play is. Torvald's hasty condemnation and forgiveness also seems like a realistic depiction of problems men can make in relationships, in incorrectly assuming they should have full responsibility for the stability of the relationship, the union becomes more of Doll House situation, and the Doll doesn't always want to play nice. Another masterful thing about this play is how quickly everything was believably thrown into chaos and back out again.
Finally, 'The most wonderful thing of all—' is such an incredibly powerful ending message, it extends to everything.
Video review here (my first video, terribly filmed!)
This is the perfect play, and as of 2020 my favourite play of all time. I will thoroughly defend my case below (NO spoilers).
Why read?
First, as a medium, more than novels or poems, plays must get right to the point. This because it takes a long time to make something happen on a stage. Brushing one's teeth could take more a second to read but a minute to watch in all its complexity on stage.
Second, nobody wants to pay to watch someone brushing their teeth. Because of the time constraint of action, plays must be melodramatic to engage the audience to the level required to make a meaningful message (or else the complete opposite i.e. Waiting for Godot). Plays which fail to sustain tension or show action are 'already over', in my opinion, as it limits the seriousness with which I can take their message. A man brushing my teeth or eating a banana can't tell me anything profound I will take seriously, sincerity demands severe context (i.e. Krapp's last tape).
Without revealing the plot, I will now propose why The Doll's House is a perfect play.
First, it is so, because at all times it makes the audience suspect every single main character could later be dead or a killer. This is the dream of murder mystery novels, but also of plays, as the audience feels like they are investigating a real event rather than a constructed narrative. All three acts occur within the same room, with the same characters, and in immediate succession, which is perfect because the tension never dies and there is no room to breathe. It's also especially effective as everyone's fate is interconnected, and its death for all, not in other plays where dramatic tension is split between affairs, drugs, corruption and bankruptcy. I'm not saying the Doll House doesn't contain any of these, but I think it succeeds many popular plays which instead diffuse tension by changing the scene environment and contrasting character fates which only confused and dilutes the strength of the message.
Second, in the opinion of Bill Burr and Ockham's Razor, this play has 'no fat' on it. It's as concise and minimalistic as it needs to be. There is no element of wasted dialogue, there is no distinctive prop, lighting, stage positioning that it needs. It is like a mathematical formula which has been completely simplified, it flows with complexity without hestitation. This is a bold gamble by Ibsen, if the play was anything less than engaging it would fall flat without this.
Third, the above points give it a 4* in my opinion, but it became a 5* in its denouement. There really is a point to all this at the end, there is a heartfelt message. Some may pass this off as an average play, and I put this down to hasty reading. I implore you to slowly and carefully read the final Act, and think about how realistic and thematic this is, and then reflect back on what the structure of the play adds to this message.
The plotless review ends here, leave and go read it if interested!
------------------------
SPOILERS BEGIN
Plot Analysis:
Hel. I would gladly work night and day for you, Nora [...] But no man would sacrifice his honor for the one he loves.
Nora. It is a thing hundreds of thousands of women have done.
So I've said most of what I want to say, but here are some specifics. I really like this play because I believe it is a realistic portrayal of marital dissolution. What bothers me about conventional theatre is that it is hung up on repeating a structure with Freytag's dramatic arc, and conforming to the comedy vs. tragedy convention. When I see a play that begins without major distasters, I know it's going to be a tragedy and have a punishing ending, and vice-versa for comedy. What's great here is that A Doll's House more resembles a boiling kettle in its dramatic structure, and has the ambivalent denouement that constantly happens in romantic breakups between committed adults in real life. It is unpredictable, but obtains my care for the characters due to their directly expressive nature. Nora and Torvald's discussion touches upon three big aspects — devotion, responsibility and identity — partners need in a serious relationship. Often fictitious narratives oversimplify romantic disputes to single factors, as if it involved lost and uncontrollable teenagers, if only to speed the narrative on past the inability of the author to face the complex task of composing a realistic relationship crisis.
Also interesting to me is how the children are never named, they are props, and the main 'skip' between the Acts. In this way we see Nora's disengagement as mother written into the structure, yet disregard it as minimalism due to how intensely focused the rest of the play is. Torvald's hasty condemnation and forgiveness also seems like a realistic depiction of problems men can make in relationships, in incorrectly assuming they should have full responsibility for the stability of the relationship, the union becomes more of Doll House situation, and the Doll doesn't always want to play nice. Another masterful thing about this play is how quickly everything was believably thrown into chaos and back out again.
Finally, 'The most wonderful thing of all—' is such an incredibly powerful ending message, it extends to everything.
December 10, 2018
3.5★
“HELMER: ‘You can’t deny it, little Nora, now can you?’ [Putting an arm around her waist] ‘It’s a sweet little bird, but it gets through a terrible amount of money. You wouldn’t believe how much it costs a man when he’s got a little song bird like you!’
NORA: ‘Oh, how can you say that? I really do save all I can.’
HELMER [laughing]:‘Yes, that’s very true “all you can”. But the thing is, you CAN'T!’
NORA [nodding and smiling happily] ‘Ah, if you only knew what expenses we skylarks and squirrels have, Torvald.’
HELMER: ‘What a funny little thing you are . . .’”
Sounds like father and 8-year-old daughter, doesn't it? Would you believe husband and wife, mother of his three children, mistress of their household?
This play was written in 1879, and the cloyingly sweet simpering of Nora to try to hide a financial indiscretion from her husband is truly irksome to a reader in the 21st century. But the fact is, there are still relationships like this, and there are still women being reduced to using their “feminine wiles” to coax the “housekeeping money” from the men in their lives.
Girls today may find it hard to believe the level of childishness that Nora needs to sink to, but their mothers and grandmothers will certainly be familiar with the scenario. And, of course, little girls still try to wrap daddies around their little fingers!
But this is in a class of its own. At one point, the husband says “I shouldn't be a proper man if your feminine helplessness didn't make you twice as attractive to me.” And there's more where that came from. [ACK! Shoot me now.]
The play takes place in one room with people and children coming and going, but the crux of the story is about Torvald Helmer having just gained a good position at the bank which is a great relief to the family's finances. Hence, Nora is trying to turn this to her advantage to get a little money out him for Christmas to deal with a problem of her own.
How this turns out is more interesting than I thought it might be. She realises she's been nothing more than a doll all her life, first in her father's house, then in her husband's. How that is revealed is in a surprising ending (for the times).
Apparently, Ibsen was forced to rewrite that end for a German production, describing it as “an act of barbarous violence against the play.” The irony was not lost on me that Germany was the country that later gave us the two barbaric World Wars, but nobody was to know that then.
So I will outline the change under a spoiler in the event that someone doesn't want to know.
He was a controversial writer and said:
“I revel in adverse criticism. . . My enemies have been a great help to me - their attacks have been so vicious that people come flocking to see what all the shouting was about.”
It's worth wading through the skylark, songbird language for the story, but I don't think I could sit through a production of it or even the movie.
“HELMER: ‘You can’t deny it, little Nora, now can you?’ [Putting an arm around her waist] ‘It’s a sweet little bird, but it gets through a terrible amount of money. You wouldn’t believe how much it costs a man when he’s got a little song bird like you!’
NORA: ‘Oh, how can you say that? I really do save all I can.’
HELMER [laughing]:‘Yes, that’s very true “all you can”. But the thing is, you CAN'T!’
NORA [nodding and smiling happily] ‘Ah, if you only knew what expenses we skylarks and squirrels have, Torvald.’
HELMER: ‘What a funny little thing you are . . .’”
Sounds like father and 8-year-old daughter, doesn't it? Would you believe husband and wife, mother of his three children, mistress of their household?
This play was written in 1879, and the cloyingly sweet simpering of Nora to try to hide a financial indiscretion from her husband is truly irksome to a reader in the 21st century. But the fact is, there are still relationships like this, and there are still women being reduced to using their “feminine wiles” to coax the “housekeeping money” from the men in their lives.
Girls today may find it hard to believe the level of childishness that Nora needs to sink to, but their mothers and grandmothers will certainly be familiar with the scenario. And, of course, little girls still try to wrap daddies around their little fingers!
But this is in a class of its own. At one point, the husband says “I shouldn't be a proper man if your feminine helplessness didn't make you twice as attractive to me.” And there's more where that came from. [ACK! Shoot me now.]
The play takes place in one room with people and children coming and going, but the crux of the story is about Torvald Helmer having just gained a good position at the bank which is a great relief to the family's finances. Hence, Nora is trying to turn this to her advantage to get a little money out him for Christmas to deal with a problem of her own.
How this turns out is more interesting than I thought it might be. She realises she's been nothing more than a doll all her life, first in her father's house, then in her husband's. How that is revealed is in a surprising ending (for the times).
Apparently, Ibsen was forced to rewrite that end for a German production, describing it as “an act of barbarous violence against the play.” The irony was not lost on me that Germany was the country that later gave us the two barbaric World Wars, but nobody was to know that then.
So I will outline the change under a spoiler in the event that someone doesn't want to know.
He was a controversial writer and said:
“I revel in adverse criticism. . . My enemies have been a great help to me - their attacks have been so vicious that people come flocking to see what all the shouting was about.”
It's worth wading through the skylark, songbird language for the story, but I don't think I could sit through a production of it or even the movie.
April 24, 2017
Ibsen claimed he wasn't denouncing 19th century marriage norms with this play, he was just "describing humanity". I take that to mean he thinks these kinds of things, like wives leaving their husbands, happened everyday. In fact they probably did, or even worse, especially in literature, if Tolstoy's Anna or Flaubert's Emma can be used as examples. Whatever Ibsen's intent, the play had an impact, and it's success has helped solidify his position as one of the worlds best playwrights.
March 25, 2017
Good theatre.
Wonderful surprise turn at the end.
Both her decision and her reasons.
The appellation proto-feminist comes to mind.
Wonderful surprise turn at the end.
Both her decision and her reasons.
The appellation proto-feminist comes to mind.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 5,915 reviews