What do you think?
Rate this book
ارکان جامعه
مردی متمول معتمد جامعه (برنیک) حالا به دلیل بازگشت یک نفر (یوهان) در معرض فاش شدن رازی قرار گرفته است که ممکن است تمام زندگیاش را به باد دهد. در آخرین لحظات، تصمیم میگیرد در یک اتفاقی که به نظر حادثهای برای یک کشتی به نظر میآید، از شر این فرد خلاص شود اما وقایع به نحو دیگری پیش میرود
183 pages, Paperback
First published October 11, 1877
28 people are currently reading
543 people want to read
About the author
Henrik Ibsen
2,227 books2,099 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 89 reviews
November 24, 2025
ششمین قسمت از برنامه «هفت هفته ، هفت نمایشنامه» با نمایش «پایه های جامعه» از «هنریک ایبسن» برگزار شد و قراره اینبار راجع به این اثر صحبت کنیم.
داستان راجع به شریف ترین و معروف ترین شهری خیالی در نروژ هست و این خانواده اسرار زیادی داره که اگر افشا بشن نقاب شرافت از این خانواده برداشته میشه. خب ، ایده خوبه ولی خیلی مسئله ها باید رعایت بشه تا اثر به کلیشه تبدیل نشه :
1.اخلاقمداری ظاهری خانواده باید ساخته شه. نباید شعار زده بشه.
2.روابط خانوادگی باید ساخته شه.
3.آدم ها از تیپ فراتر برن و به شخصیت برسن.
4.روایت اثر باید کشش داشته باشه و کند نشه.
5.دیالوگ ها (که ستون هر نمایشنامه دیالوگ هاشه) باید ماهیت های مختلفی رو در بر بگیرن. به یاد بیارید «شاه لیر» از خدای نمایشنامه «شکسپیر» عزیز که هر خط دیالوگ چند مفهوم پشتوانهش بود و باعث می شد یک تراژدی به سه تراژدی تبدیل شه.
6.شهر باید ساخته شه و غیر از شهر آدم های شهر هم باید ساخته شن. به یاد بیارید «ملاقات بانوی سالخورده» از «دورنمات» عزیز رو ؛ که شهر در همون سکانس اول از پرده اول ساخته میشه و درست ساخته می شه. اونجا فضا در خدمت اثر و داستانه.
خب...
حالا آیا «ایبسن» در این 6 مورد موفق بوده؟
مطلقا نه.
هر مورد رو بالعکس کنیم میشه بخشی از اشتباهات «ایبسن» در این اثر.
شهر که هیچی ، شهروندان که هیچی ، دیالوگ ها با ماهیت تکراری که هیچی ، محبوبیت خانواده که هیچی ، یه رابطه چهارنفری خانوادگی هم نتونسته بسازه. اشتباه دیگهای داره که در دنیای نمایش تازگی نداره : شخصیت های بی مصرف.
«ایبسن» خیلی به رئیس ادبیات «تالستوی» و سبک نوشتارش وفاداره ولی این رو نمیدونه که رمان ، داستان کوتاه ، نولا و نمایش یک دنیا فرق بین همشون هست. ما گاها زیاد میبینیم که «تالستوی» برای پیش بردن خط داستان دست به خلق شخصیت میزنه. در رمان به شرطی که ریتم داستان نیوفته ، مخاطب اذیت نشه و داستان واقعا جلو بره این کار اصلا بد نیست ولی در دنیای نمایش این حرکت بی معناست. بدتر باعث گیجی مخاطب و خواننده اثر میشه.
دنیای نمایش خیلی از اوقات بی رحم تر از دنیای رمان هست چون اگر نقطهای کوچک از نمایش ساخته نشه کل ساختمان نمایش فرو میریزه.
دوره امروز دوره بی آبیه. خیلی هم میشنوم که میگن کم آب مصرف کنین ولی در دوره ایبسن فکر نمیکنم اصلا بی آبی بوده باشه چون پایان بندی این اثر با یک میزان بالا «آب بستن» همراهه. به حدی پایان بده که فکرش رو نمی کردم. اگر قراره ما در پایان ، تحول اخلاقی ببینیم این تحول نمیتونه رخداد ناگهانی باشه اتفاقا برعکس باید تدریجی باشه و بتونه مخاطب رو با جریان اثر همراه کنه. اینکه در پایان ما یک شخصیت متحول شده میبینیم که انگار تحولش از آسمون افتاده بجای حس «تحول دادن به مخاطب» حس «تهوع» به مخاطب داده میشه.
به یاد بیارید «طوفان» از «شکسپیر» رو که اثر خوبی نیست ولی تحول درستی می سازه. تحول تدریجیه و مخاطب از جایی به بعد کاملا انتظار اون مونولوگ کرکتر اصلی با عوام رو میکشه.
در مجموع ؛ نمایشنامه «پایه های جامعه» در حد ایده بد نیست ولی با اجرای «ایبسن» کار بشدت به فاجعه تبدیل می شه.
داستان راجع به شریف ترین و معروف ترین شهری خیالی در نروژ هست و این خانواده اسرار زیادی داره که اگر افشا بشن نقاب شرافت از این خانواده برداشته میشه. خب ، ایده خوبه ولی خیلی مسئله ها باید رعایت بشه تا اثر به کلیشه تبدیل نشه :
1.اخلاقمداری ظاهری خانواده باید ساخته شه. نباید شعار زده بشه.
2.روابط خانوادگی باید ساخته شه.
3.آدم ها از تیپ فراتر برن و به شخصیت برسن.
4.روایت اثر باید کشش داشته باشه و کند نشه.
5.دیالوگ ها (که ستون هر نمایشنامه دیالوگ هاشه) باید ماهیت های مختلفی رو در بر بگیرن. به یاد بیارید «شاه لیر» از خدای نمایشنامه «شکسپیر» عزیز که هر خط دیالوگ چند مفهوم پشتوانهش بود و باعث می شد یک تراژدی به سه تراژدی تبدیل شه.
6.شهر باید ساخته شه و غیر از شهر آدم های شهر هم باید ساخته شن. به یاد بیارید «ملاقات بانوی سالخورده» از «دورنمات» عزیز رو ؛ که شهر در همون سکانس اول از پرده اول ساخته میشه و درست ساخته می شه. اونجا فضا در خدمت اثر و داستانه.
خب...
حالا آیا «ایبسن» در این 6 مورد موفق بوده؟
مطلقا نه.
هر مورد رو بالعکس کنیم میشه بخشی از اشتباهات «ایبسن» در این اثر.
شهر که هیچی ، شهروندان که هیچی ، دیالوگ ها با ماهیت تکراری که هیچی ، محبوبیت خانواده که هیچی ، یه رابطه چهارنفری خانوادگی هم نتونسته بسازه. اشتباه دیگهای داره که در دنیای نمایش تازگی نداره : شخصیت های بی مصرف.
«ایبسن» خیلی به رئیس ادبیات «تالستوی» و سبک نوشتارش وفاداره ولی این رو نمیدونه که رمان ، داستان کوتاه ، نولا و نمایش یک دنیا فرق بین همشون هست. ما گاها زیاد میبینیم که «تالستوی» برای پیش بردن خط داستان دست به خلق شخصیت میزنه. در رمان به شرطی که ریتم داستان نیوفته ، مخاطب اذیت نشه و داستان واقعا جلو بره این کار اصلا بد نیست ولی در دنیای نمایش این حرکت بی معناست. بدتر باعث گیجی مخاطب و خواننده اثر میشه.
دنیای نمایش خیلی از اوقات بی رحم تر از دنیای رمان هست چون اگر نقطهای کوچک از نمایش ساخته نشه کل ساختمان نمایش فرو میریزه.
دوره امروز دوره بی آبیه. خیلی هم میشنوم که میگن کم آب مصرف کنین ولی در دوره ایبسن فکر نمیکنم اصلا بی آبی بوده باشه چون پایان بندی این اثر با یک میزان بالا «آب بستن» همراهه. به حدی پایان بده که فکرش رو نمی کردم. اگر قراره ما در پایان ، تحول اخلاقی ببینیم این تحول نمیتونه رخداد ناگهانی باشه اتفاقا برعکس باید تدریجی باشه و بتونه مخاطب رو با جریان اثر همراه کنه. اینکه در پایان ما یک شخصیت متحول شده میبینیم که انگار تحولش از آسمون افتاده بجای حس «تحول دادن به مخاطب» حس «تهوع» به مخاطب داده میشه.
به یاد بیارید «طوفان» از «شکسپیر» رو که اثر خوبی نیست ولی تحول درستی می سازه. تحول تدریجیه و مخاطب از جایی به بعد کاملا انتظار اون مونولوگ کرکتر اصلی با عوام رو میکشه.
در مجموع ؛ نمایشنامه «پایه های جامعه» در حد ایده بد نیست ولی با اجرای «ایبسن» کار بشدت به فاجعه تبدیل می شه.
March 11, 2025
این نمایشنامه با این جمله به پایان میرسه
« نه جونم ، روح حقیقت، روح آزادی …اینان ارکان جامعه»
نمایشنامه ارکان جامعه به عقیده برخی پژوهشگران ایبسن اولین اثر در چرخه ایبسن خوانی ست. البته برخی منتقدین، نمایشنامه عروسک خانه را نخستین اثر در این چرخه می دانند.
ایبسن در این نمایشنامه به موضوعاتی مانند ریاکاری، ترجیح منافع شخصی بر کل جامعه، مبارزه برای آزادی و موقعیت زنان در جامعه می پردازه.
« نه جونم ، روح حقیقت، روح آزادی …اینان ارکان جامعه»
نمایشنامه ارکان جامعه به عقیده برخی پژوهشگران ایبسن اولین اثر در چرخه ایبسن خوانی ست. البته برخی منتقدین، نمایشنامه عروسک خانه را نخستین اثر در این چرخه می دانند.
ایبسن در این نمایشنامه به موضوعاتی مانند ریاکاری، ترجیح منافع شخصی بر کل جامعه، مبارزه برای آزادی و موقعیت زنان در جامعه می پردازه.
January 24, 2020
اللقاء الثالث مع هنريك إبسن هذا العام بعد مشاهدة مسرحية هيدا جابلر وقراءة مسرحية بيت الدمية
المسرحية في وقتها كانت صرخة في وجه أعمدة المجتمع اصحاب المظاهر البراقة الخافية لجرائم وأفعال شنيعة
لكن أفكار المسرحية للأسف أصبحت شئ عادي في زمننا هذا
المسرحية في وقتها كانت صرخة في وجه أعمدة المجتمع اصحاب المظاهر البراقة الخافية لجرائم وأفعال شنيعة
لكن أفكار المسرحية للأسف أصبحت شئ عادي في زمننا هذا
December 27, 2024
من تخصصی در نقد نمایشنامه ندارم و هرچه که باید گفته بشه رو بقیه بارها گفتن. فقط میتونم بگم که ایبسن واقعا عجیب اعجوبهایه که کاری میکنه که با هر بار خوندنش، برای خوندن اثر بعدی تشنهتر بشی!
دارم ایبسن-ادیکت میشم!
دارم ایبسن-ادیکت میشم!
April 6, 2025
همهچیز داشت میرفت سمت یک پایان دراماتیک، حتی تراژیک… ولی آخرش یهویی همه نرم شدن، بخشیدن، فراموش کردن، «بیا باهم بسازیم» و خب یهجوری آدم میمونه: واقعاً؟ این بود؟
کاشتن برنیک شاید به ظاهر آدم مهم و درستی باشه، ولی وقتی ورق میخوره، میفهمی خودش هم تو بازی قدرت و منافع گیر کرده. نکتهی عجیب اینه که آدم بده فقط اون نیست—اونایی که خودشونو خوب و مذهبی و الگو میدونن، اتفاقاً بیشتر از همه دارن خراب میکنن. با قضاوت، با سکوت، با حفظ ظاهر.
نمایشنامهاش هنوزم بهدرد امروز میخوره، چون بعضی چیزا هیچوقت عوض نمیشن. جامعه همیشه یکی دو تا کاشتن داره… و کلی آدمی که بهشون پر و بال میدن.
پایان داستان زیادی خوشساخت و نرم تموم شد، در حالی که همهچی داشت به سمت یه فاجعه واقعی پیش میرفت. این پایان شاید برای زمان خودش جواب میداد، ولی امروز، یه کم زیادی «جمعوجور» به نظر میرسه.شاید چون ایبسن هنوز تو فاز اول کاراش بود و کامل نپریده بود تو اون نقد بیرحمانهای که مثلاً تو «دشمن مردم» یا «خانه عروسک» زد، ولی ته دل آدم میمونه که کاش یه کم بیشتر عواقب نشون میداد، یه جور عدالتی که واقعا بیاد پایین بکوبه.
کاشتن برنیک شاید به ظاهر آدم مهم و درستی باشه، ولی وقتی ورق میخوره، میفهمی خودش هم تو بازی قدرت و منافع گیر کرده. نکتهی عجیب اینه که آدم بده فقط اون نیست—اونایی که خودشونو خوب و مذهبی و الگو میدونن، اتفاقاً بیشتر از همه دارن خراب میکنن. با قضاوت، با سکوت، با حفظ ظاهر.
نمایشنامهاش هنوزم بهدرد امروز میخوره، چون بعضی چیزا هیچوقت عوض نمیشن. جامعه همیشه یکی دو تا کاشتن داره… و کلی آدمی که بهشون پر و بال میدن.
پایان داستان زیادی خوشساخت و نرم تموم شد، در حالی که همهچی داشت به سمت یه فاجعه واقعی پیش میرفت. این پایان شاید برای زمان خودش جواب میداد، ولی امروز، یه کم زیادی «جمعوجور» به نظر میرسه.شاید چون ایبسن هنوز تو فاز اول کاراش بود و کامل نپریده بود تو اون نقد بیرحمانهای که مثلاً تو «دشمن مردم» یا «خانه عروسک» زد، ولی ته دل آدم میمونه که کاش یه کم بیشتر عواقب نشون میداد، یه جور عدالتی که واقعا بیاد پایین بکوبه.
July 14, 2009
I am a fan of Ibsen and I wish I could love this play more but its deus ex machina happy ending is fake and flaccid and had me groaning. How can the author of Ghosts be so sentimental? I enjoyed everything but to it though.
May 18, 2017
Ibsen doesn't pull any punches! Fabulous drama.
July 24, 2014
I began this play at the wrong time. For some reason I thought it was a good idea to unwind with an Ibsen play and a cocktail after twelve hours driving, in the middle of a relocation halfway across the country. I couldn’t get into the play at the time. I think I set my expectations too high and would have done my weary mind better by watching some mindless television. After settling in to our new city, I joined a reading group, deciding to revisit Tolstoy’s War & Peace. Having gotten ahead of the pace of the group, I decided to come back to Ibsen, who until then was collecting dust on my desk. Every so often I would look at the old book and whisper in my head that I would come back to it, and, indeed, I kept my promise. And I am very glad that I did (as much as I am enjoying my second run with War & Peace).
Pillars of Society came at a time (in 1877) before Ibsen’s most famous works had emerged and before he cemented his reputation as the “father of realism.” In many ways this play is still seeped in the traditions of theatre as they had existed up to this point. The characters lack the depth that his later characters would contain and the ending is a bit far-fetched, with the main character (Mr. Bernick) experiencing a Scrooge-like epiphany and, with a little coaxing, laying bare the many lies that helped him establish his reputation as a moral “pillar of society.” In part because it came before Ibsen’s really great dramas, and because this play was still very much part of the old theatrical tradition, it has been largely ignored (in comparison to his other works) by critics and the public. But it is still a damn fine play.
Structurally, the play was a bit of an oddball, at least for me. Ibsen was already toying with the conventions of theatre in this sense, experimenting with three and four act plays, whereas the five act structure had hitherto been the norm. I have read (and seen) mostly five act plays, followed by three act plays. I’ve even seen some one and two act plays on rare occasions, but I cannot recall any other four act plays. Though I am certain they must exist, they are to me like platypuses, these odd creations that I know are real (I’ve read about them and have seen pictures of them – though this means little in the age of Photoshop), but which I have never seen, at least to my recollection.
Now in terms of characters, while the characters lack the depth and complexity of those found in Ibsen’s later classics, they are not one-dimensional. It is reported that Ibsen spent more time writing this play (about two years) than he did any of his other works, and he obviously put much thought and care into his characters’ development, and particularly the female characters who provide the real momentum for the play. As in Hedda Gabler, which would come approximately 13 years after this one, it is the female characters who drive the action in the play. They are the ones with moral consciences in this play, the ones who are the real “pillars of society,” as Mr. Bernick concludes. In other later plays like Gabler and A Doll’s House women still drive the action, but they are drawn with more complexity, more detail than the ones found in this play. In a lot of ways Ibsen was an early feminist and it shows clearly here, particularly in the character of Dina Dorf, who wants to get away from people who are “So proper and so moral” and who wants to establish herself and “make something of [her] life,” rather than just being supported by a man.
The main character in this play, Karsten Bernick, is a hypocrite and a scoundrel, a man who has erected his unwavering reputation in the community on a foundation of lies. He is in the realm of literature/drama somewhere between Molière’s Tartuffe and Sinclair Lewis’ Elmer Gantry. He is a man who justifies his coarse actions based on the conventional ethics of the day (drawing on deontology, with his talk about duty and obligations to the community, and utilitarianism; in terms of the ethics of the play alone, many fascinating articles could be written). Bernick is, above all, a bourgeois man, who acts in his own egoistic interests, concerned with how much profit is made and with his own reputation in the community. He is perhaps more concerned with his reputation, for how he is perceived in the community allows him to make selfish decisions that others view as noble. If the same actions Mr. Bernick carries out were carried out by a man of ill repute, he would be burned at the stake. But by cloaking himself in a façade of good intentions, Bernick can get away with a good deal of self-interested and cold-hearted misdeeds.
Even when Bernick confesses to the public his wrongs, his intentions are doubtful. It is unlikely that he ever would have laid bare the truth if not coerced to do so. And it is perhaps disappointing to audiences that though his lies led to fifteen long years of pain and exile for others, Bernick comes out at the end smelling like a rose. His reputation is perhaps a bit blemished, but they are scars that will heal, and the healing has already begun before the play’s end.
As in other plays, here too Ibsen incorporates a bit of symbolism, but not as richly as he does in his later, best-known works. Notably in this play is the symbolism of the curtains and the open window – the belief that society’s figureheads should live behind walls of glass. But when public image does not live up to society’s high expectations, the figures retreat behind their curtains, like Charles Foster Kane walling himself up behind the walls of Xanadu in Orson Welles’ classic, Citizen Kane.
Oftentimes, the works of artists are criticized – sometimes in comparison to what they did earlier, sometimes compared to their later output, other times on their own face (without any point of comparison). Ibsen’s Pillar’s of Society was a well-received play in its time, but drama changed so quickly in so short a time, with Ibsen’s modernism leading the way (his next play was A Doll’s House!), that it was soon eclipsed and viewed as old-fashioned. But the dialogue is so rich, the themes (particularly ethically) are so fascinating and the characters (if not with so many layers as his later ones) are relatively well-developed. This play sadly is hidden by the massive dark shadows cast by Ibsen’s later plays, and (in comparison) rightly so. Pillars of Society is no Doll’s House, but is still a damn fine play, in terms of subject very relevant in its own times (dealing with the ethics of industry and technology and of the hypocrisy of high-profile citizens) and still fresh today in terms of themes, if not necessarily in terms of style.
Whereas many of Ibsen’s other classics give us glimpses into home lives that are based on deception, the harmony based on the lies is shattered in each (A Doll’s House, The Wild Duck, Hedda Gabler, The Master Builder). Modern critics view this as more realistic. Here, in this play, the exposure of the illusion may jar many, but it doesn’t disrupt so forcefully the way things were; the lie surfaces, but life (by and large) continues on. It is, in a sense, a “Hollywood ending” (and a bit far-fetched but not entirely unbelievable), but the ending still leaves us questioning. What happens next? What were Bernick’s underlying motives in “coming clean”? What does this say about him and the other characters in this play?
Ibsen said that “A dramatist’s business is not to answer questions, but merely to ask them.” And here, as in so many of his other plays – plays that were more stylistically innovative and sophisticated – he succeeds marvelously in doing just that. He asks us a great many important questions, not just about his characters but about the society we live in, about us. But he doesn’t lead us to a conclusion that is absolute. He leads us down a road that forks in many directions and the answers to these burning questions that he asks are up to the audience members (or readers) to determine for themselves.
Pillars of Society came at a time (in 1877) before Ibsen’s most famous works had emerged and before he cemented his reputation as the “father of realism.” In many ways this play is still seeped in the traditions of theatre as they had existed up to this point. The characters lack the depth that his later characters would contain and the ending is a bit far-fetched, with the main character (Mr. Bernick) experiencing a Scrooge-like epiphany and, with a little coaxing, laying bare the many lies that helped him establish his reputation as a moral “pillar of society.” In part because it came before Ibsen’s really great dramas, and because this play was still very much part of the old theatrical tradition, it has been largely ignored (in comparison to his other works) by critics and the public. But it is still a damn fine play.
Structurally, the play was a bit of an oddball, at least for me. Ibsen was already toying with the conventions of theatre in this sense, experimenting with three and four act plays, whereas the five act structure had hitherto been the norm. I have read (and seen) mostly five act plays, followed by three act plays. I’ve even seen some one and two act plays on rare occasions, but I cannot recall any other four act plays. Though I am certain they must exist, they are to me like platypuses, these odd creations that I know are real (I’ve read about them and have seen pictures of them – though this means little in the age of Photoshop), but which I have never seen, at least to my recollection.
Now in terms of characters, while the characters lack the depth and complexity of those found in Ibsen’s later classics, they are not one-dimensional. It is reported that Ibsen spent more time writing this play (about two years) than he did any of his other works, and he obviously put much thought and care into his characters’ development, and particularly the female characters who provide the real momentum for the play. As in Hedda Gabler, which would come approximately 13 years after this one, it is the female characters who drive the action in the play. They are the ones with moral consciences in this play, the ones who are the real “pillars of society,” as Mr. Bernick concludes. In other later plays like Gabler and A Doll’s House women still drive the action, but they are drawn with more complexity, more detail than the ones found in this play. In a lot of ways Ibsen was an early feminist and it shows clearly here, particularly in the character of Dina Dorf, who wants to get away from people who are “So proper and so moral” and who wants to establish herself and “make something of [her] life,” rather than just being supported by a man.
The main character in this play, Karsten Bernick, is a hypocrite and a scoundrel, a man who has erected his unwavering reputation in the community on a foundation of lies. He is in the realm of literature/drama somewhere between Molière’s Tartuffe and Sinclair Lewis’ Elmer Gantry. He is a man who justifies his coarse actions based on the conventional ethics of the day (drawing on deontology, with his talk about duty and obligations to the community, and utilitarianism; in terms of the ethics of the play alone, many fascinating articles could be written). Bernick is, above all, a bourgeois man, who acts in his own egoistic interests, concerned with how much profit is made and with his own reputation in the community. He is perhaps more concerned with his reputation, for how he is perceived in the community allows him to make selfish decisions that others view as noble. If the same actions Mr. Bernick carries out were carried out by a man of ill repute, he would be burned at the stake. But by cloaking himself in a façade of good intentions, Bernick can get away with a good deal of self-interested and cold-hearted misdeeds.
Even when Bernick confesses to the public his wrongs, his intentions are doubtful. It is unlikely that he ever would have laid bare the truth if not coerced to do so. And it is perhaps disappointing to audiences that though his lies led to fifteen long years of pain and exile for others, Bernick comes out at the end smelling like a rose. His reputation is perhaps a bit blemished, but they are scars that will heal, and the healing has already begun before the play’s end.
As in other plays, here too Ibsen incorporates a bit of symbolism, but not as richly as he does in his later, best-known works. Notably in this play is the symbolism of the curtains and the open window – the belief that society’s figureheads should live behind walls of glass. But when public image does not live up to society’s high expectations, the figures retreat behind their curtains, like Charles Foster Kane walling himself up behind the walls of Xanadu in Orson Welles’ classic, Citizen Kane.
Oftentimes, the works of artists are criticized – sometimes in comparison to what they did earlier, sometimes compared to their later output, other times on their own face (without any point of comparison). Ibsen’s Pillar’s of Society was a well-received play in its time, but drama changed so quickly in so short a time, with Ibsen’s modernism leading the way (his next play was A Doll’s House!), that it was soon eclipsed and viewed as old-fashioned. But the dialogue is so rich, the themes (particularly ethically) are so fascinating and the characters (if not with so many layers as his later ones) are relatively well-developed. This play sadly is hidden by the massive dark shadows cast by Ibsen’s later plays, and (in comparison) rightly so. Pillars of Society is no Doll’s House, but is still a damn fine play, in terms of subject very relevant in its own times (dealing with the ethics of industry and technology and of the hypocrisy of high-profile citizens) and still fresh today in terms of themes, if not necessarily in terms of style.
Whereas many of Ibsen’s other classics give us glimpses into home lives that are based on deception, the harmony based on the lies is shattered in each (A Doll’s House, The Wild Duck, Hedda Gabler, The Master Builder). Modern critics view this as more realistic. Here, in this play, the exposure of the illusion may jar many, but it doesn’t disrupt so forcefully the way things were; the lie surfaces, but life (by and large) continues on. It is, in a sense, a “Hollywood ending” (and a bit far-fetched but not entirely unbelievable), but the ending still leaves us questioning. What happens next? What were Bernick’s underlying motives in “coming clean”? What does this say about him and the other characters in this play?
Ibsen said that “A dramatist’s business is not to answer questions, but merely to ask them.” And here, as in so many of his other plays – plays that were more stylistically innovative and sophisticated – he succeeds marvelously in doing just that. He asks us a great many important questions, not just about his characters but about the society we live in, about us. But he doesn’t lead us to a conclusion that is absolute. He leads us down a road that forks in many directions and the answers to these burning questions that he asks are up to the audience members (or readers) to determine for themselves.
April 21, 2025
Damn this Ibsen
April 12, 2009
I went on a tear on 2007 and read all of Henrik Ibsen and all of August Strindberg. Before I could get to all of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, I had to turn back to writing, and I can't read while I write. Ibsen is wonderful. The thing I like most about Ibsen is that he loves and respects women at least in his writing. Not all of his plays are tragedies either. Many are very funny and many have mixed endings, not all are downers.
Though I'm not a big fan of Peer Gynt. Strindberg's parody of Peer Gynt, Lucky Per's Journey is a hoot. If you ever have a chance to see it performed, definitely go.
This is my review for all of Ibsen.
Though I'm not a big fan of Peer Gynt. Strindberg's parody of Peer Gynt, Lucky Per's Journey is a hoot. If you ever have a chance to see it performed, definitely go.
This is my review for all of Ibsen.
July 21, 2019
《ستون های جامعه》 به نقد جامعه ای میپردازد که سردمدارانش را انسان های دروغگو و رویاکار تشکیل داده. جامعه ای که با حقیقت بیگانه است، جامعه ای که دل به سه چهار مسئول توخالی و پفکی بسته، و این جامعه برای ما ایرانیان چقدر آشناست....
این اثر ایبسن رو از همه بیشتر دوست داشتم، شخصیت پردازی فوق العاده ای داره به طوری که شخصیت ها از ابتدا تا انتها پروسه شکل گیریشون ادامه پیدا میکنه، و با این تعدد شخصیت میتونم بگم کار فوق العاده سختیه. تنها نکته ضعفش بنظرم پایان بندی کاره که یه مقداری آدم غافل گیر میشه، با این حال چیزی از ارزشش کم نمیکنه.
این اثر ایبسن رو از همه بیشتر دوست داشتم، شخصیت پردازی فوق العاده ای داره به طوری که شخصیت ها از ابتدا تا انتها پروسه شکل گیریشون ادامه پیدا میکنه، و با این تعدد شخصیت میتونم بگم کار فوق العاده سختیه. تنها نکته ضعفش بنظرم پایان بندی کاره که یه مقداری آدم غافل گیر میشه، با این حال چیزی از ارزشش کم نمیکنه.
May 27, 2018
هرچند در پایانبندی ناگهان خیلی افت میکرد، آنقدر چیزهای خوب داشت که همچنان چهار ستاره بگیرد. و جذابیت این کار در دل مجموعه آثار برایم از این جهت است که اتود خیلی از ایدهها را که در آثار پسین به کمال میرسند در اینجا میتوان دید.
June 13, 2016
نمايشنامه هاي ايبسن به دو بخش دسته بندي مي شوند.
دسته اول كه درون مايه ي آن ها معضل هاي اجتماعي است و دسته ي دوم مشكلات و معضلات فردي افراد را هدف قرار مي دهد.
ستون هاي جامعه مشمول دسته ي اول است و معضلي كه ايبسن در اين نمايشنامه آن را مورد هدف خود قرار داده است دروغ است.
آقاي برنيك كه يكي از ستون هاي جامعه ي خود است و به زبان خودماني همه سر اسمش قسم مي خورند با معضل دروغ دست و پنجه نرم مي كند.
اساس زندگي موفق خود را بر پايه ي دروغ بنا كرده و حال تبديل به مهم ترين ستون جامعه ي خود شده است.دروغي كه پانزده سال بر روي آن سرپوش گذاشته مي شود و به ناگهان در آستانه افشا قرار مي گيرد و بقيه ي ماجرا...
در مجموع كتاب هايي كه معضل هاي اجتماعي را بيان ميكنند جزو كتاب هاي مورد علاقه ام هست به اين دليل كه گاهي اوقات نمايشنامه اي مثل اين خيلي دقيق و موشكافانه مي تواند آثار رفتارهاي زشتي مثل دروغ گفتن را بيان كند و از جنبه اي يادآوري مي كند كه در دراز مدت هم تاثيرش پايدار خواهد بود چون به محض تمام شدن نمايشنامه با خودم گفتم ممكنه اين اتفاق براي خودمم رخ بده و نكته ي ديگر واقع گرايانه بودن داستان هست كه ذره اي از عناصر سورئاليستي يا گيج كننده و مبهم استفاده نشده است.(پيامي اجتماعي به ساده ترين شكل ممكن انتقال داده ميشود،مشابه كاري كه برتولت برشت با خواننده ي آثارش مي كند).
لحظه ي گرفتاري آقاي برنيك در قبري كه خودش براي خودش كنده بود و هم چنين تصميم گيري و انتخابش بين دو راهي حقيقت و دروغ از جذاب ترين بخش هاي اين نمايشنامه بود.
دسته اول كه درون مايه ي آن ها معضل هاي اجتماعي است و دسته ي دوم مشكلات و معضلات فردي افراد را هدف قرار مي دهد.
ستون هاي جامعه مشمول دسته ي اول است و معضلي كه ايبسن در اين نمايشنامه آن را مورد هدف خود قرار داده است دروغ است.
آقاي برنيك كه يكي از ستون هاي جامعه ي خود است و به زبان خودماني همه سر اسمش قسم مي خورند با معضل دروغ دست و پنجه نرم مي كند.
اساس زندگي موفق خود را بر پايه ي دروغ بنا كرده و حال تبديل به مهم ترين ستون جامعه ي خود شده است.دروغي كه پانزده سال بر روي آن سرپوش گذاشته مي شود و به ناگهان در آستانه افشا قرار مي گيرد و بقيه ي ماجرا...
در مجموع كتاب هايي كه معضل هاي اجتماعي را بيان ميكنند جزو كتاب هاي مورد علاقه ام هست به اين دليل كه گاهي اوقات نمايشنامه اي مثل اين خيلي دقيق و موشكافانه مي تواند آثار رفتارهاي زشتي مثل دروغ گفتن را بيان كند و از جنبه اي يادآوري مي كند كه در دراز مدت هم تاثيرش پايدار خواهد بود چون به محض تمام شدن نمايشنامه با خودم گفتم ممكنه اين اتفاق براي خودمم رخ بده و نكته ي ديگر واقع گرايانه بودن داستان هست كه ذره اي از عناصر سورئاليستي يا گيج كننده و مبهم استفاده نشده است.(پيامي اجتماعي به ساده ترين شكل ممكن انتقال داده ميشود،مشابه كاري كه برتولت برشت با خواننده ي آثارش مي كند).
لحظه ي گرفتاري آقاي برنيك در قبري كه خودش براي خودش كنده بود و هم چنين تصميم گيري و انتخابش بين دو راهي حقيقت و دروغ از جذاب ترين بخش هاي اين نمايشنامه بود.
December 23, 2015
"الصدق والحرية هما أعمدة المجتمع"
بهذه العبارة البديعة ينهي هنريك ابسن رائعتة أعمدة المجتمع
عن الطبقة الارستقراطية الطفيلية وعن الزيف والكذب والادعاء الفضيلة
عن المظاهر الخادعة
وعن توحش الرأسمالية
مسرحية جميلة وان كانت نهايتها مثالية أكثر من اللازم
لا اقتنع بالنهايات التي يخرج الكل فيها رابحون
بهذه العبارة البديعة ينهي هنريك ابسن رائعتة أعمدة المجتمع
عن الطبقة الارستقراطية الطفيلية وعن الزيف والكذب والادعاء الفضيلة
عن المظاهر الخادعة
وعن توحش الرأسمالية
مسرحية جميلة وان كانت نهايتها مثالية أكثر من اللازم
لا اقتنع بالنهايات التي يخرج الكل فيها رابحون
February 9, 2020
This is now officially my most read play. Even though the ending isn't well contructed, I love this a lot.
July 20, 2014
With The Pillars of Society, we enter a new and final phase in Ibsen’s writing, the so-called 12 prose or realist plays. It is arguable whether such an unruly set of disparate plays should be grouped together. How does one classify An Enemy of the People, The Wild Duck, The Lady from the Sea or The Master Builder in one sweeping category?
It also seems doubtful that many of Ibsen’s final plays could be seen as truly realist. The Master Builder, the last act of John Gabriel Borkman and When We Dead Awaken seem to exist on a fantastic and almost allegorical level. However, the plays are at least united by some things – colloquial, modern prose and a contemporary setting.
The Pillars of Society is not one of the more renowned plays, and there is an argument for saying that John Gabriel Borkman handles most of the same themes in a purer, more pared-down way. The Pillars of Society is written on a busier level with a larger gallery of supporting characters. Personally, I think both approaches have their own merits, and The Pillars of Society has much to commend it.
The story concerns a respected member of the community, Karsten Bernick. He is a businessman and is involved in a number of secret deals to buy up land to develop a railway service. He is partly-motivated by honourable intentions to support his local community, but he has also invested all his money into the scheme.
Onto the scene arrives a his sister-in-law, Lona Hessel and his brother-in-law Johan Toennesen, who threaten to derail his plans, if you'll forgive the pun. They left the community in disgrace some ago and emigrated to America. However, the real disgrace is Bernick's. It is he who was having an affair with a married woman, not Johan. He also threw Lona over for her wealthier sister, sacrificing love for money, always a great sin in an Ibsen play.
As Bernick moves closer to exposure and disgrace, risking losing his position in the community and his money, he forms a dark plan for self-preservation. He deliberately agrees to allow a ship to sail out of Norway bearing Johan, knowing that the ship is not seaworthy. To complicate matters, his young son, on whom Bernick is resting his future hopes, decides to stow away on the ship, leaving Bernick with the additional horror that he may have killed his own son.
In a surprise happy ending, Bernick's rabble-rousing foreman, Aune, refuses to let the leaking ship sail, and tragedy is averted. At a procession in his honour, Bernick decides to come clean about his double-dealings and put himself at the mercy of the local people.
This happy ending is perhaps Ibsen's last unambiguously happy ending, and this has perhaps caused some to take a lower opinion of the play. The ending is actually quite open, as Bernick's final appeal may still be rejected by the narrow-minded parochial community that he lives in. However, even if this happens, he has morally redeemed himself and we can count this as a happy ending.
For once, even the son on whom the hero pins his hopes for the future is not lost forever to the hero, as usually happens in Ibsen. However, young Olaf does announce that he does not wish to follow his father into this line of trade, so there is some partial loss there.
The play deals with three important themes that Ibsen has so far only touched on, but will return to in later works. First of these is ethics in business or politics. Bernick and the other 'pillars of society' seek to found their good reputation on secret double-dealing, but the real pillars of society, as Lona Hessell says at the end, are the spirit of truth and the spirit of freedom.
Bernick may have noble intentions, but these are corrupted by his methods and he becomes trapped in his own lies as much as anyone. One reason why we can accept a happy ending for a liar, love cheat and would-be murderer is that Bernick comes to fully realise how much he has fallen, and ends the play a better man. He realises the trivialities of his achievements compared with the price he has paid for them in sacrificing truth and honour.
The second theme we will come across again is the narrow-mindedness and parochialism of small-town society. The community is a dull and artificial one sustained by gossip and prudish formalities. Dina, Bernick's illegitimate daughter (not that anyone realises he is the father, of course) is condescended to by the local community and looks longingly for a place to escape.
By contrast, the characters who return from the freer America that the locals so disapprove of are a breath of fresh air. They may seem disreputable to the local community, but we immediately see them as having a better set of morals, more open-minded and genuinely decent.
There is also some humour in watching Lona and Johan outrage local sensibilities. Hence when the sanctimonious Roerlund informs Lona that she is at a meeting for the Society for the Redemption of Fallen Women, Lona mischievously pretends to misunderstand him: "What! You mean that all these respectable-looking ladies are..." It is hardly surprising that Dina throws over Roerlund in favour of Johan as soon as the chance arises.
The final theme to mention (and it is significant in relation to Ibsen's next play, A Doll's House) is the position of women in society. This is a community in which women are relegated to a supporting and subordinate role. Bernick despises his wife who he married for money and refuses to talk about any serious matter with her. He is similarly patronising to his long-suffering sister Martha.
By contrast, we have Lona Hessel, who Bernick threw over in favour of her sister. She is a rebel and an individual and despised accordingly. For once, she is commendably not a harpy who is trying to take Bernick from her sister. Actually, she only wishes to liberate his mind and bring him back to being the better person that he was.
Indeed, by the end of the play, Bernick has moved on this issue and seems more minded to respect his wife's opinion. Betty shows her potential to him as a wife by helping to prevent his son from stowing away and sailing abroad in the ship that would have killed him.
The play may not be Ibsen's most famous, but it is richly-layered and full of interesting ideas. It is well worth a study.
It also seems doubtful that many of Ibsen’s final plays could be seen as truly realist. The Master Builder, the last act of John Gabriel Borkman and When We Dead Awaken seem to exist on a fantastic and almost allegorical level. However, the plays are at least united by some things – colloquial, modern prose and a contemporary setting.
The Pillars of Society is not one of the more renowned plays, and there is an argument for saying that John Gabriel Borkman handles most of the same themes in a purer, more pared-down way. The Pillars of Society is written on a busier level with a larger gallery of supporting characters. Personally, I think both approaches have their own merits, and The Pillars of Society has much to commend it.
The story concerns a respected member of the community, Karsten Bernick. He is a businessman and is involved in a number of secret deals to buy up land to develop a railway service. He is partly-motivated by honourable intentions to support his local community, but he has also invested all his money into the scheme.
Onto the scene arrives a his sister-in-law, Lona Hessel and his brother-in-law Johan Toennesen, who threaten to derail his plans, if you'll forgive the pun. They left the community in disgrace some ago and emigrated to America. However, the real disgrace is Bernick's. It is he who was having an affair with a married woman, not Johan. He also threw Lona over for her wealthier sister, sacrificing love for money, always a great sin in an Ibsen play.
As Bernick moves closer to exposure and disgrace, risking losing his position in the community and his money, he forms a dark plan for self-preservation. He deliberately agrees to allow a ship to sail out of Norway bearing Johan, knowing that the ship is not seaworthy. To complicate matters, his young son, on whom Bernick is resting his future hopes, decides to stow away on the ship, leaving Bernick with the additional horror that he may have killed his own son.
In a surprise happy ending, Bernick's rabble-rousing foreman, Aune, refuses to let the leaking ship sail, and tragedy is averted. At a procession in his honour, Bernick decides to come clean about his double-dealings and put himself at the mercy of the local people.
This happy ending is perhaps Ibsen's last unambiguously happy ending, and this has perhaps caused some to take a lower opinion of the play. The ending is actually quite open, as Bernick's final appeal may still be rejected by the narrow-minded parochial community that he lives in. However, even if this happens, he has morally redeemed himself and we can count this as a happy ending.
For once, even the son on whom the hero pins his hopes for the future is not lost forever to the hero, as usually happens in Ibsen. However, young Olaf does announce that he does not wish to follow his father into this line of trade, so there is some partial loss there.
The play deals with three important themes that Ibsen has so far only touched on, but will return to in later works. First of these is ethics in business or politics. Bernick and the other 'pillars of society' seek to found their good reputation on secret double-dealing, but the real pillars of society, as Lona Hessell says at the end, are the spirit of truth and the spirit of freedom.
Bernick may have noble intentions, but these are corrupted by his methods and he becomes trapped in his own lies as much as anyone. One reason why we can accept a happy ending for a liar, love cheat and would-be murderer is that Bernick comes to fully realise how much he has fallen, and ends the play a better man. He realises the trivialities of his achievements compared with the price he has paid for them in sacrificing truth and honour.
The second theme we will come across again is the narrow-mindedness and parochialism of small-town society. The community is a dull and artificial one sustained by gossip and prudish formalities. Dina, Bernick's illegitimate daughter (not that anyone realises he is the father, of course) is condescended to by the local community and looks longingly for a place to escape.
By contrast, the characters who return from the freer America that the locals so disapprove of are a breath of fresh air. They may seem disreputable to the local community, but we immediately see them as having a better set of morals, more open-minded and genuinely decent.
There is also some humour in watching Lona and Johan outrage local sensibilities. Hence when the sanctimonious Roerlund informs Lona that she is at a meeting for the Society for the Redemption of Fallen Women, Lona mischievously pretends to misunderstand him: "What! You mean that all these respectable-looking ladies are..." It is hardly surprising that Dina throws over Roerlund in favour of Johan as soon as the chance arises.
The final theme to mention (and it is significant in relation to Ibsen's next play, A Doll's House) is the position of women in society. This is a community in which women are relegated to a supporting and subordinate role. Bernick despises his wife who he married for money and refuses to talk about any serious matter with her. He is similarly patronising to his long-suffering sister Martha.
By contrast, we have Lona Hessel, who Bernick threw over in favour of her sister. She is a rebel and an individual and despised accordingly. For once, she is commendably not a harpy who is trying to take Bernick from her sister. Actually, she only wishes to liberate his mind and bring him back to being the better person that he was.
Indeed, by the end of the play, Bernick has moved on this issue and seems more minded to respect his wife's opinion. Betty shows her potential to him as a wife by helping to prevent his son from stowing away and sailing abroad in the ship that would have killed him.
The play may not be Ibsen's most famous, but it is richly-layered and full of interesting ideas. It is well worth a study.
August 2, 2025
The ending of this was stupid and I can’t believe there was a character named Krap
June 30, 2021
از استالین خرده گرفته اند که تو بوسیله ایجاد قحطی مصنوعی و تحت فشار قرار کشاورزان باعث مرگ میلیون ها نفر شده ای. او در جواب میگوید: من اگر دست به چنین اقداماتی نمیزدم شوروی هرگز به کشوری صنعتی همتراز با رقبای غربی تبدیل نمیگشت و کشاورزی شوروی هرگز به این زودی ها صنعتی و مکانیزه نمیشد.
ستون های جامعه گرچه با این خوشبینی به پایان میرسد که « ستون های جامعه بشری باید از زنان و مردانی برپا گردد که دوش به دوش هم پرچمِ آزادی و حقیقت را به اهتزاز در خواهند آورد » اما من در انتهای این خوشبینیِ مشکوکِ ایدئالیستی از خود میپرسم : آیا جامعه ای وجود دارد که به وسیله ی دروغ و تزویر _ در سطحی کلان و بلند مدت و شاید برعکس _ بتواند مسبب ترقیِ مادی و معنوی شهروندانش را تضمین کند؟ گرچه همه بر نادرست بودن و نااخلاقی بودنِ ذاتیِ دروغ هم رای اند ( از مذهبی تیرن تا لامذهب ترینمان ) اما براستی نباید بطوری جدی و عمیق تر تاریخ را از این دیدگاه مورد بررسی قرار دهیم؟
وقتی لونا هسل و مارتا برنیک فریاد میزنند که : حقیقت و آزادی این ها ستون های جامعه اند ، دقیقا در این لحظه آدمی تمام تاریخ را پیش روی خود میبیند : تاریخی که بیش از هر چیز تهی از انگیزه و اراده ی آزادی و حقیقت بوده است. تاریخی خونین و پر شرارت ، عاری از صداقت و لبریز از ریا و خودکامگی و با این حال کیست که بگوید آدمی در قرن حاضر « رفاه » را تا حدی تجربه نکرده است؟ شهروندِ محترم و با فرهنگِ یک کشورِ متمدن و پیشرفته مانند اتوپیا که حیثیت شهروندان خود را از استعمار دگرباش ها تامین میکند چگونه میتواند ستون های جامعه خود را بلرزاند آن هم بدون اینکه حیثیت خود را به باد استهزا نگرفته باشد؟
هدف از این نوشتار حداقل فعلا توجیه نمودنِ دروغ در تاریخ نیست بلکه هدف این است که ما بطوری جدی و دمی بدور از احساساتی تلطیف شده با این سوال روبرو شویم که حقیقتاً چقدر پیشرفت های بشر _ مادی و معنوی _ مستلزم پیروزیِ لحظه ای و استثنائی دروغ بر حقیقت بوده است؟ وضعیتِ امروزین ما چقدر ناشی از اراده ای ست که بر هدف معطوف است نه وسیله یا هردوی آنها باهم؟
آیا شده است که بوسیله ی دروغ گفتن به خود حیاتتان را بازیابید؟ آیا همین دروغ ، ریا و دورنگی و اشتباهی لُپی در سطحی کلان جامعه ای را نجات نداده است؟ آن هم در لحظاتی که صداقت ، شرافت و حقیقت به انفعالی مطلق میگرایید؟
هشتم تیرماه ۱۴۰۰
ستون های جامعه گرچه با این خوشبینی به پایان میرسد که « ستون های جامعه بشری باید از زنان و مردانی برپا گردد که دوش به دوش هم پرچمِ آزادی و حقیقت را به اهتزاز در خواهند آورد » اما من در انتهای این خوشبینیِ مشکوکِ ایدئالیستی از خود میپرسم : آیا جامعه ای وجود دارد که به وسیله ی دروغ و تزویر _ در سطحی کلان و بلند مدت و شاید برعکس _ بتواند مسبب ترقیِ مادی و معنوی شهروندانش را تضمین کند؟ گرچه همه بر نادرست بودن و نااخلاقی بودنِ ذاتیِ دروغ هم رای اند ( از مذهبی تیرن تا لامذهب ترینمان ) اما براستی نباید بطوری جدی و عمیق تر تاریخ را از این دیدگاه مورد بررسی قرار دهیم؟
وقتی لونا هسل و مارتا برنیک فریاد میزنند که : حقیقت و آزادی این ها ستون های جامعه اند ، دقیقا در این لحظه آدمی تمام تاریخ را پیش روی خود میبیند : تاریخی که بیش از هر چیز تهی از انگیزه و اراده ی آزادی و حقیقت بوده است. تاریخی خونین و پر شرارت ، عاری از صداقت و لبریز از ریا و خودکامگی و با این حال کیست که بگوید آدمی در قرن حاضر « رفاه » را تا حدی تجربه نکرده است؟ شهروندِ محترم و با فرهنگِ یک کشورِ متمدن و پیشرفته مانند اتوپیا که حیثیت شهروندان خود را از استعمار دگرباش ها تامین میکند چگونه میتواند ستون های جامعه خود را بلرزاند آن هم بدون اینکه حیثیت خود را به باد استهزا نگرفته باشد؟
هدف از این نوشتار حداقل فعلا توجیه نمودنِ دروغ در تاریخ نیست بلکه هدف این است که ما بطوری جدی و دمی بدور از احساساتی تلطیف شده با این سوال روبرو شویم که حقیقتاً چقدر پیشرفت های بشر _ مادی و معنوی _ مستلزم پیروزیِ لحظه ای و استثنائی دروغ بر حقیقت بوده است؟ وضعیتِ امروزین ما چقدر ناشی از اراده ای ست که بر هدف معطوف است نه وسیله یا هردوی آنها باهم؟
آیا شده است که بوسیله ی دروغ گفتن به خود حیاتتان را بازیابید؟ آیا همین دروغ ، ریا و دورنگی و اشتباهی لُپی در سطحی کلان جامعه ای را نجات نداده است؟ آن هم در لحظاتی که صداقت ، شرافت و حقیقت به انفعالی مطلق میگرایید؟
هشتم تیرماه ۱۴۰۰
April 19, 2022
Ibsen’s Pillars of Society was a decent play. I enjoyed the beginning, with the layers of conversation held between characters in the same scenes, and the natural progression of narration. In the Bernicks' house, multiple conversations unfold between the women working on articles of clothing, the schoolmaster Rorlund reading in the corner, a child named Olaf and the men, such as Mr. Bernick, who walk through the room on their way to some business. This opening scene informs the viewer of the character’s backgrounds, intentions, and lays out some of the conflicts. While the story is progressed by the presence of the characters, some events seemed to conveniently come out of nowhere to arbitrate the plot; the story wasn’t as reliant on the characters as I would have liked. I wasn’t a fan of how things ended, either. The beginning of the play had this undertone of the “pillars of society,” which crescendos in significance from side talk to the topic of prolonged conversation. But it never seems to reach a climax, and the resolve is lukewarm enough to have come from a Hallmark movie. In the end, Mr. Bernick concludes that the “pillars of society,” but he is then corrected by his wife’s sister that the pillars of society are the spirits of truth and freedom; it feels anticlimactic that it would end this way. Despite this, I’d still recommend the play to others based on what I read in the script.
June 8, 2016
"يجب على الناس أن يتعلموا كيف يخففون من مطالبهم المتبادلة إذا ما أرادوا أن يتركوا لأنفسهم أثرا طيبا في المجتمع الذي وضعوا به"
تدور الأحداث في مكان ما في الترويج، القرن التاسع عشر، حيث يحاول الجميع الظهور بملائكية وهمية.. ليس للمكان والزمان دور طالما تتكرر مجتمعات إبسن حتى الآن..
في بداية عصر الآلة يرفع صوته محتجا
"إني خائف على كل الناس الذين تسلبهم الآلات أرزاقهم. غالبا ما تتحدث يا سيدي عن التفكير في المجتمع. ولكني أعتقد أن للمجتمع واجباته كذلك. كيف يجرؤ العلم ورأس المال أن يدفع بهذه المخترعات إلى العمل قبل أن يعلم المجتمع جيلا يستطيع استخدام هذه الآلات؟"
وفي استمرارية حكم الطبائع المترسخة بلا طائل، "فليكن هناك شيء ما يتحدى كل هذه التقاليد والعادات!"
لكن الأقنعة التي يرتديها أفراد هذا المجتمع، - وإن استند عليها لوقت طويل- تسقط.. ويفهم ، بل ويقر رواد الحفلة التنكرية بدورهم
"أتدرين من نحن - أولئك الذين يعتبرون أعمدة المجتمع؟ نحن آلات هذا المجتمع لا أكثر ولا أقل."
أما النهاية فهي حيث كان يفترض بكل شيء أن يبدأ..
"الصدق والحرية هما أعمدة المجتمع "
تدور الأحداث في مكان ما في الترويج، القرن التاسع عشر، حيث يحاول الجميع الظهور بملائكية وهمية.. ليس للمكان والزمان دور طالما تتكرر مجتمعات إبسن حتى الآن..
في بداية عصر الآلة يرفع صوته محتجا
"إني خائف على كل الناس الذين تسلبهم الآلات أرزاقهم. غالبا ما تتحدث يا سيدي عن التفكير في المجتمع. ولكني أعتقد أن للمجتمع واجباته كذلك. كيف يجرؤ العلم ورأس المال أن يدفع بهذه المخترعات إلى العمل قبل أن يعلم المجتمع جيلا يستطيع استخدام هذه الآلات؟"
وفي استمرارية حكم الطبائع المترسخة بلا طائل، "فليكن هناك شيء ما يتحدى كل هذه التقاليد والعادات!"
لكن الأقنعة التي يرتديها أفراد هذا المجتمع، - وإن استند عليها لوقت طويل- تسقط.. ويفهم ، بل ويقر رواد الحفلة التنكرية بدورهم
"أتدرين من نحن - أولئك الذين يعتبرون أعمدة المجتمع؟ نحن آلات هذا المجتمع لا أكثر ولا أقل."
أما النهاية فهي حيث كان يفترض بكل شيء أن يبدأ..
"الصدق والحرية هما أعمدة المجتمع "
August 27, 2017
2.5
أيام دراسة المسرح وعند قراءة مسرحيات أبسن كان العامل المشترك هو فكرته عن المجتمع تقدر تقول أنه كان عامل زي اهتمام نجيب بالحارة المصرية
موضوع القوانين و نظرة المجتمع السويدي للمرأة خصيصا زي بيت الدمية الأشهر له أو هيدا جابلر
هنا الأمر بيستمر ولكن الفكرة هنا أضعف بمراحل من بيت الدمية، هنا كان فيه تشتيت ما بين هل يرصد زيف الطبقة العليا في السويد؟ أم يركز علي مشاكل المجتمع؟ التشيت أستمر حتي النهاية قصص فرعية عن كذب البطل الاساسي و السر الذي يخفيه عن الجميع و فكرة الخلاص من التهديدات علي متن السفينة المعطوبة، دور الطبقة العاملة المتمثل في رئيس العمال ليس له أي دور أو تفعيل
وف النهاية كلمة عن دور المراة بشكل كلاشيه للغاية حتي لكتابة كلاسيكة دون أي مبرر منطقي للحدث أو للشخصية
ومع ذلك أبسن مازال علي مستوي الحوار متمكن للغاية أقل خطابة مقارنة بحب الانشاء و المونولجات المطولة بزيادة
أيام دراسة المسرح وعند قراءة مسرحيات أبسن كان العامل المشترك هو فكرته عن المجتمع تقدر تقول أنه كان عامل زي اهتمام نجيب بالحارة المصرية
موضوع القوانين و نظرة المجتمع السويدي للمرأة خصيصا زي بيت الدمية الأشهر له أو هيدا جابلر
هنا الأمر بيستمر ولكن الفكرة هنا أضعف بمراحل من بيت الدمية، هنا كان فيه تشتيت ما بين هل يرصد زيف الطبقة العليا في السويد؟ أم يركز علي مشاكل المجتمع؟ التشيت أستمر حتي النهاية قصص فرعية عن كذب البطل الاساسي و السر الذي يخفيه عن الجميع و فكرة الخلاص من التهديدات علي متن السفينة المعطوبة، دور الطبقة العاملة المتمثل في رئيس العمال ليس له أي دور أو تفعيل
وف النهاية كلمة عن دور المراة بشكل كلاشيه للغاية حتي لكتابة كلاسيكة دون أي مبرر منطقي للحدث أو للشخصية
ومع ذلك أبسن مازال علي مستوي الحوار متمكن للغاية أقل خطابة مقارنة بحب الانشاء و المونولجات المطولة بزيادة
February 17, 2024
پایههای جامعه از هنریک ایبسن
February 9, 2024
Well, the play didn’t exactly end the way I thought it would. The “arrogant” Mr. Berwick fooled me. There is hope for all of us yet! Everyone “ has to learn to lower their own pretensions”, and somehow he managed to do so. “Now go to your happiness my dear child-across the sea….only remain what you are - true and faithful to yourself”.
April 1, 2017
جميله جدا تصلح لجميع العصور وجميع المجتمعات وتدور القصه كلها حول هذه الجمله الرائعه التى انهى بها هذ العمل المتميز "الصدق والحرية هما أعمدة المجتمع"وتوضيح كم الزيف والخدع التى ترتكب مممن يعتبرون محل ثقه المجتمع
February 20, 2025
Zelo dobro, vse do nenadnega srečnega konca, ko se Ibsen začne pretvarajti, da se kapitalistično družbo lahko reši, če se jo samo malo reformira in se ljudje ozrejo vase. Dokler smo povzeli v prepad sem v zgodbo verjela!
March 20, 2020
Das Stück fängt so gut an, nur das Ende ist ja mal komplett beschissen. Als ob er einfach so mir nichts, dir nichts davonkommt.
January 30, 2023
it was really good at first i thought im not gonna like it that much but the theme was quite interesting and there were constant plot twists
September 19, 2024
I liked how the women were the real pillars
July 14, 2022
a brilliant plot full of twists and turns but I really couldn’t get behind the resolution at the end, needed at least someone in his family to die for the bourgeois shipyard owner to be punished for his faux morality
June 18, 2025
This play showed a dramatic yet believable lens on interpersonal relationships. The trolley problem was a recurring theme and also technological advancement.
I wish I could add this play into my love and robots playlist.
My only qualm was that there should have been some deaths. There was a bit too much redemption.
Read this in the sun.
I wish I could add this play into my love and robots playlist.
My only qualm was that there should have been some deaths. There was a bit too much redemption.
Read this in the sun.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 89 reviews