It’s been nearly one hundred and forty years since Ibsen wrote and produced A Doll’s House, a timeless living-room play that decompresses the social roles of middle-class men and women in the modern world. Despite the decades that have gone by since its inception, gender inequality is still largely an issue that plagues our contemporary world in myriad ways. Certainly, Women’s Rights and Gender Equality saw significant inroads during the twentieth century, such as women gaining the right to vote, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that protected women in the workplace. These strides, however, were for de jure equality and do not always mitigate the de facto practices and customs. Sexism unfortunately will only be completely eradicated when society sees it as a problem and addresses it. For some, this process is an easy step and would acknowledge it as the only right thing to uphold, but to others, sexism is cultivated as a norm, which is why many of the themes in A Doll’s House still resonate quite significantly in today’s world.
That notwithstanding, I recently got the opportunity to see this delectable play live at the Arden Theatre Company in Philadelphia, PA, and what emerged from this viewing was a whole new perspective on this dynamic story. While I do believe that this story continues to help illustrate the sexism that can emerge, especially in couples, what struck me in this viewing was the actual relationship between Torvald and Nora, and how both men and women could communicate better to bridge the gap in the inequality that exists in the world. As a disclaimer, in no way am I advocating as a Torvald apologist in this perspective, and I am certainly not defending the misogyny that he projects throughout the play. I am, however, going to deconstruct the events and some of the dialogue in the play to show that if things were brought to light differently the cataclysm in Act Three may have been different.
The play is presented in three acts and takes place over three days—Christmas Eve, Christmas, and Boxing Day. Usually, the holidays are associated with happiness, especially for a middle-class family, but in this play, the allure of the holidays is used to showcase the immense unhappiness that exists in the Helmer home. At the beginning of the story, Nora emerges on the scene playing the role of the dutiful wife. Singing and humming around the house like one of the pet birds that Torvald often calls her. This pleasant sound is something that Torvald, and I would imagine many middle-class men, would find comforting.
Nora’s jovial bliss, however, is illusory as she is only happy at the promise of this great Christmas miracle that has recently happened, Torvald’s promotion to a bank manager. Yet it is the very promotion that ironically unravels the discord of the house. In a whirlwind of events, Nora’s long-lost friend, Christine Linde returns widowed and looking for work. Naturally, Nora’s most promising assets were cajoling her husband into doing things for her, promises Christine that she can persuade Torvald to give her a job. As this knitting chit-chat ensues, the audience discovers Nora’s big secret that she borrowed money years ago to save Torvald’s life. Torvald reenters claiming to have fired this moral cripple, Nils Krogstad, who has notoriously forged signatures on bad loans, and subsequently, it is revealed that he is exactly the man whom Nora borrowed the money from years ago. Torvald’s dismissal of Krogstad leads him to blackmail Nora, who desperately and frantically attempts to keep her secret hidden from Torvald. The eminent fatal illness of the family’s dear friend Dr. Rank underscores the death of that the marriage is about to occur.
That notwithstanding, I recently got the opportunity to see this delectable play live at the Arden Theatre Company in Philadelphia, PA, and what emerged from this viewing was a whole new perspective on this dynamic story. While I do believe that this story continues to help illustrate the sexism that can emerge, especially in couples, what struck me in this viewing was the actual relationship between Torvald and Nora, and how both men and women could communicate better to bridge the gap in the inequality that exists in the world. As a disclaimer, in no way am I advocating as a Torvald apologist in this perspective, and I am certainly not defending the misogyny that he projects throughout the play. I am, however, going to deconstruct the events and some of the dialogue in the play to show that if things were brought to light differently the cataclysm in Act Three may have been different.
The play is presented in three acts and takes place over three days—Christmas Eve, Christmas, and Boxing Day. Usually, the holidays are associated with happiness, especially for a middle-class family, but in this play, the allure of the holidays is used to showcase the immense unhappiness that exists in the Helmer home. At the beginning of the story, Nora emerges on the scene playing the role of the dutiful wife. Singing and humming around the house like one of the pet birds that Torvald often calls her. This pleasant sound is something that Torvald, and I would imagine many middle-class men, would find comforting.
Nora’s jovial bliss, however, is illusory as she is only happy at the promise of this great Christmas miracle that has recently happened, Torvald’s promotion to a bank manager. Yet it is the very promotion that ironically unravels the discord of the house. In a whirlwind of events, Nora’s long-lost friend, Christine Linde returns widowed and looking for work. Naturally, Nora’s most promising assets were cajoling her husband into doing things for her, promises Christine that she can persuade Torvald to give her a job. As this knitting chit-chat ensues, the audience discovers Nora’s big secret that she borrowed money years ago to save Torvald’s life. Torvald reenters claiming to have fired this moral cripple, Nils Krogstad, who has notoriously forged signatures on bad loans, and subsequently, it is revealed that he is exactly the man whom Nora borrowed the money from years ago. Torvald’s dismissal of Krogstad leads him to blackmail Nora, who desperately and frantically attempts to keep her secret hidden from Torvald. The eminent fatal illness of the family’s dear friend Dr. Rank underscores the death of that the marriage is about to occur.
The events progress as the lurking secret surfaces, Nora begins to change as she desperately holds onto the fantasy of some wonderful miracle to take place, the truth emerges when Torvald discovers Krogstad’s blackmail letter. In pursuant of Torvald’s unassailable reputation being ruined by Nora’s forgery of Krogstad’s secret loan, he castigates Nora, belittling and depicting her as a stupid and naïve child. Meanwhile, Christine, who visits Krogstad regarding the letter on behalf of Nora, reveals that they were once in love, but society forced Christine to abandon her true love and marry a wealthy man to support her mother and brothers. Again, Ibsen shows the limitations of women in modern society. In a brief but telling scene, the old lovers reconnect, and Krogstad writes to Torvald retracting his previous note. Torvald’s mercurial nature does an about-face, and he joyously proceeds to forgive Nora, yet continues to undermine the stupidity of her decision.
In the moment that Torvald depicts his rage towards Nora, rather than trying to understand or seek clarification as to why she would do something like forge her father’s signature, she sees her dilemma, as well as herself for the first time. Nora comes out of her room ‘changed’ and beckons Torvald to sit down and talk to her. In this most famous scene, Nora unloads not only all her worries and secrets but also indicates that she has simply been playing a role for the past eight years with Torvald. She was the ‘doll’ in the “Doll’s House” and this metaphor went beyond the Helmer living room. When she chides Torvald for not treating her as an equal, she speaks not only for herself but also speaks for all women. The miracle that failed to take place was how her husband, Torvald, did not put her first. He was treated like property, instead of a human being. At that revelation, Nora emphatically leaves, slamming the door on Torvald and these antiquated pretenses of society.
As previously mentioned, I do not have any issues with Nora’s revelations and subsequently leaving Torvald, but in my recent re-read and viewing of the show, I discovered quite an interesting perspective—to some degree Torvald was set up to fail this so-called ‘miracle’ test. If we are to explore the problem in the play, then clearly their marriage suffered due to a lack of communication. Neither Torvald nor Nora engaged in uplifting dialogue with one another. Take the open scene for example:
Helmer: Is that my squirrel rustling?
Nora: Yes
Helmer: When did my squirrel come home?
Nora: Just now. Come out here, Torvald, and see what I bought.
Helmer: You mustn’t disturb me! ….. Bought, did you say? All that? Has my little squander bird been overspending again?
Nora: Oh Torvald, surely we can let ourselves go a little this year! This is the first Christmas we don’t have to scrape.
Helmer: Well you know we can’t afford to be extravagant!
As we can see, their dialogue is playful, but neither are really listening to each’s needs or wants nor are they actually trying to discuss the issue of buying Christmas presents and seek an equal and fair resolution. While it is certainly wrong of Torvald to speak down to Nora, as if she were a child, Nora plays that role to get what she wants from him.
In the moment that Torvald depicts his rage towards Nora, rather than trying to understand or seek clarification as to why she would do something like forge her father’s signature, she sees her dilemma, as well as herself for the first time. Nora comes out of her room ‘changed’ and beckons Torvald to sit down and talk to her. In this most famous scene, Nora unloads not only all her worries and secrets but also indicates that she has simply been playing a role for the past eight years with Torvald. She was the ‘doll’ in the “Doll’s House” and this metaphor went beyond the Helmer living room. When she chides Torvald for not treating her as an equal, she speaks not only for herself but also speaks for all women. The miracle that failed to take place was how her husband, Torvald, did not put her first. He was treated like property, instead of a human being. At that revelation, Nora emphatically leaves, slamming the door on Torvald and these antiquated pretenses of society.
As previously mentioned, I do not have any issues with Nora’s revelations and subsequently leaving Torvald, but in my recent re-read and viewing of the show, I discovered quite an interesting perspective—to some degree Torvald was set up to fail this so-called ‘miracle’ test. If we are to explore the problem in the play, then clearly their marriage suffered due to a lack of communication. Neither Torvald nor Nora engaged in uplifting dialogue with one another. Take the open scene for example:
Helmer: Is that my squirrel rustling?
Nora: Yes
Helmer: When did my squirrel come home?
Nora: Just now. Come out here, Torvald, and see what I bought.
Helmer: You mustn’t disturb me! ….. Bought, did you say? All that? Has my little squander bird been overspending again?
Nora: Oh Torvald, surely we can let ourselves go a little this year! This is the first Christmas we don’t have to scrape.
Helmer: Well you know we can’t afford to be extravagant!
As we can see, their dialogue is playful, but neither are really listening to each’s needs or wants nor are they actually trying to discuss the issue of buying Christmas presents and seek an equal and fair resolution. While it is certainly wrong of Torvald to speak down to Nora, as if she were a child, Nora plays that role to get what she wants from him.
As a result of this parent-child relationship marriage, the slamming of the door seems to be for many a fait accompli, but did it have to be? If we go back to the cause of this revelation, Nora’s big secret was the problem at hand. Even though their relationship suffered communication issues, what if Nora broach this problem immediately to Torvald rather than letting him find out through the blackmail letter? Imagine that after Krogstad threatened her at the end of Act One, and Torvald even asked her what was bothering her, she said to her him something like this:
“Torvald I need to tell you something and it might not be the easiest thing for you to hear, but I would like it if you heard me out. Years ago, when you were sick, I borrowed money from Krogstad, and to do so, I had to illegally forge my father’s signature to get the money. I know it wasn’t the smartest decision, but I thought saving your life was more important at the time.”
Torvald might have been annoyed at this discovery and there’s a chance he would have belittled her too, but I find it hard to believe that he would have exploded with the anger that was witnessed after he found out through the blackmail letter.
The difference is really in the reaction. In the scene as written, Torvald reacts first rather than attempting to find out why the problem got to that level. In my hypothetical dialogue, the problem is presented to him, which subsequently provides him with the opportunity to discuss the matter rather than react to it. I know that some would not see my perspective in this recent discovery as veracious, but one cannot deny that how an individual is talked to reveals how he or she will respond. In most cases, people just want the world to know that they were heard and that what they are saying matters, whether one agrees or disagrees with it.
This revelation is especially true for marriages, and most family therapists would indicate the number one issue surrounding married couples is a communication breakdown. Maybe the marriage between Torvald and Nora was beyond reproach, but as in all relationships if the opportunity to solve an issue is presented, then there is a chance to grow from the discovery and discussion of that problem. As I viewed the play recently, it appeared to me that Nora discovered she needed to tell Torvald the secret right away but choose to let him find it out to see if her feelings of being the playful doll wife were true, or by some miracle that was only Torvald playing, and he viewed her as an equal human being. The line that struck me was when Christine told Nora at the end of Act Three that she told Krogstad not to demand the letter back, but that Nora should be the one to go and tell Torvald what happened, not the letter. But Nora did not choose to take Christine’s advice on that matter and instead let Torvald discover the secret through the letter.
Of course, as written, it makes for a more dramatic and entertaining play. Yet if we are to look at this as a married couple, who had communication problems, then we must acknowledge if Nora had addressed the issue immediately, the cataclysmic slamming of the door may have been prevented; as that particular act, was also a reaction to the caustic diatribe that Torvald projected on her after reading the blackmail letter. As I said in the beginning, I am by no means writing this as a Torvald apologist, but I would like to believe that if men and women, simply communicated better, by talking to each other as equals, then perhaps this gap in gender inequality would narrow.
“Torvald I need to tell you something and it might not be the easiest thing for you to hear, but I would like it if you heard me out. Years ago, when you were sick, I borrowed money from Krogstad, and to do so, I had to illegally forge my father’s signature to get the money. I know it wasn’t the smartest decision, but I thought saving your life was more important at the time.”
Torvald might have been annoyed at this discovery and there’s a chance he would have belittled her too, but I find it hard to believe that he would have exploded with the anger that was witnessed after he found out through the blackmail letter.
The difference is really in the reaction. In the scene as written, Torvald reacts first rather than attempting to find out why the problem got to that level. In my hypothetical dialogue, the problem is presented to him, which subsequently provides him with the opportunity to discuss the matter rather than react to it. I know that some would not see my perspective in this recent discovery as veracious, but one cannot deny that how an individual is talked to reveals how he or she will respond. In most cases, people just want the world to know that they were heard and that what they are saying matters, whether one agrees or disagrees with it.
This revelation is especially true for marriages, and most family therapists would indicate the number one issue surrounding married couples is a communication breakdown. Maybe the marriage between Torvald and Nora was beyond reproach, but as in all relationships if the opportunity to solve an issue is presented, then there is a chance to grow from the discovery and discussion of that problem. As I viewed the play recently, it appeared to me that Nora discovered she needed to tell Torvald the secret right away but choose to let him find it out to see if her feelings of being the playful doll wife were true, or by some miracle that was only Torvald playing, and he viewed her as an equal human being. The line that struck me was when Christine told Nora at the end of Act Three that she told Krogstad not to demand the letter back, but that Nora should be the one to go and tell Torvald what happened, not the letter. But Nora did not choose to take Christine’s advice on that matter and instead let Torvald discover the secret through the letter.
Of course, as written, it makes for a more dramatic and entertaining play. Yet if we are to look at this as a married couple, who had communication problems, then we must acknowledge if Nora had addressed the issue immediately, the cataclysmic slamming of the door may have been prevented; as that particular act, was also a reaction to the caustic diatribe that Torvald projected on her after reading the blackmail letter. As I said in the beginning, I am by no means writing this as a Torvald apologist, but I would like to believe that if men and women, simply communicated better, by talking to each other as equals, then perhaps this gap in gender inequality would narrow.