Overview: We discussed Ibsen's play A Doll House and viewed the end of Act III. Nora leaving Torvald is famously called, "The door slam heard around the world." At the time, the powers that be forced Ibsen's hand, and he reluctantly changed the ending in order to avoid the outright ban on his play. He believed that we are haunted by ghosts of the past. He understood this idea needed to be addressed in his next play:
Ghosts! When I heard Regina and Oswald in there, it was as though ghosts rose up before me. But I almost think we are all of us ghosts, Pastor Manders. It is not only what we have inherited from our father and mother that "walks" in us. It is all sorts of dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs. They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same, and we cannot shake them off. Whenever I take up a newspaper, I seem to see ghosts gliding between the lines. There must be ghosts all over the country, as thick as grains of sand. And we are so pitifully afraid of the light.
Directions: Below, view the original ending and read the alternate ending of A Doll House. Next, please read Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen, Act I. You can find links to the complete play, audio, and film below. Next, compose a comprehensive blog response (300-400 words). In your blog response, first explore A Doll House: How does this new ending make you feel? How does it alter Ibsen's message and intent? Remember, Ibsen wrote Ghosts as rebuttal to this ending and the public's reaction. Next, what can we expect to see in Ghosts? Please use the questions below as a guide to your response. You may choose one quotation and explore it in depth, choose a combination of questions, or explore symbols listed in question 11. Please use at least 2-3 major quotations in your response. I provided a cross-section of quotations to help you begin.
Original Ending of A Doll House
Alternate Ending of A Doll House
NORA. ... Where we could make a real marriage out of our lives together. Goodbye. [Begins to go.]
HELMER. Go then! [Seizes her arm.] But first you shall see your children for the last time!
NORA. Let me go! I will not see them! I cannot!
HELMER [draws her over to the door, left]. You shall see them. [Opens the door and says softly.] Look, there they are asleep, peaceful and carefree. Tomorrow, when they wake up and call for their mother, they will be - motherless.
NORA [trembling]. Motherless...!
HELMER. As you once were.
NORA. Motherless! [Struggles with herself, lets her travelling bag fall, and says.] Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them. [Half sinks down by the door.]
HELMER [joyfully, but softly]. Nora!
[The curtain falls.]
- How do the stage directions for Ghosts set the mood for the play?
- Given the realistic setting of the garden room Ghosts, what other components of realism should the audience or reader expect?
- How is Regina representative of mobility between the classes?
- How does the behavior of Regina Engstrand and Engstrand toward each other in show that Henrik Ibsen is challenging conventional expectations?
- What role do Regina Engstrand and Engstrand fill in the development of the plot?
- How does Pastor Manders's treatment of Regina Engstrand change over the course of Act I?
- How do the two mysteries raised early in the conversation in Act I contribute to suspense in the plot?
- What do Mrs. Alving's comments about the books she is reading in Act I suggest about the society she lives in?
- How do Mrs. Alving's and Pastor Manders's responses to the books Mrs. Alving is reading define each character? Who would Ibsen side with in this case?
- How does Henrik Ibsen use Pastor Manders's ideas about insuring the orphanage to deepen his characterization of the pastor?
- How are the following used as symbols in the play: Orphanage, Ghosts, Artist, Priest, Sailors, Captains, Men. Woman, the characters themselves?
Quotations
- Regina: Yes, you may be sure we'll see about it! Me that have been brought up by a lady like Mrs. Alving! Me that am treated almost as a daughter here! Is it me you want to go home with you?--to a house like yours? For shame!
- Engstrand: Then never mind about marrying them. You can make it pay all the same. [More confidentially.] He--the Englishman--the man with the yacht--he came down with three hundred dollars, he did; and she wasn't a bit handsomer than you.
- Mrs. Alving: Well, I seem to find explanation and confirmation of all sorts of things I myself have been thinking. For that is the wonderful part of it, Pastor Minders--there is really nothing new in these books, nothing but what most people think and believe. Only most people either don't formulate it to themselves, or else keep quiet about it.
- Pastor Manders: Object to in them? You surely do not suppose that I have nothing better to do than to study such publications as these? … I have read enough about these writings to disapprove of them.
- Pastor Manders: When Oswald appeared there, in the doorway, with the pipe in his mouth, I could have sworn I saw his father, large as life.
- Mrs. Alving: Oh, how can you say so? Oswald takes after me.
- Pastor Manders: But how is it possible that a--a young man or young woman with any decency of feeling can endure to live in that way?--in the eyes of all the world!
- Oswald: Well, then, allow me to inform you. I have met with it when one or other of our pattern husbands and fathers has come to Paris to have a look round on his own account, and has done the artists the honour of visiting their humble haunts. They knew what was what. These gentlemen could tell us all about places and things we had never dreamt of.
- Mrs. Alving: Soon after, I heard Alving come in too. I heard him say something softly to her. And then I heard--[With a short laugh]--oh! it still sounds in my ears, so hateful and yet so ludicrous--I heard my own servant-maid whisper, "Let me go, Mr. Alving! Let me be!"….It was my purchase-money. I do not choose that that money should pass into Oswald's hands. My son shall have everything from me--everything.
- Mrs: Alving: Ghosts!
The new ending to “A Doll House” does not have nearly as powerful of an effect as the original ending. Ibsen’s message was meant to be that in the society of the time, women were being treated like dolls, trapped socially and emotionally. Through Nora, Mrs. Linde and the Helmer childrens’ nanny, Ibsen shows the amount of sacrifices that women make for their families, and just in order to survive in a society that is so disadvantageous to women. However, this new ending alters his intent by saying that in the end, Nora never finds freedom; she is forever bound to and submissive to her husband. Ibsen was extremely angry that he was forced to make this change because he believed that the ideas of a Victorian woman and her role were “lifeless old beliefs” that “have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same.” In “Ghosts,” we can expect to see more controversial topics discussed. I think that Ibsen might even show the negative impacts of sticking to old beliefs.
ReplyDeleteRegina straddles the upper class and the middle class by being a maid for Mrs. Alving, a rich woman who lives in a mansion. Her father is an alcoholic and he is also an immoral man who tries to persuade his daughter to sleep with a random sailor for money. Regina clearly does not want to be associated with Engstrand, as she says, “I have nothing whatever to do with you. Be off!” When he asks her to move back in with him and work for him, she says, “Yes, you may be sure we'll see about it! Me that have been brought up by a lady like Mrs. Alving! Me that am treated almost as a daughter here! Is it me you want to go home with you?--to a house like yours? For shame!” Regina is implicitly saying that she is not treated like a daughter by her own father. She says that she was practically raised by her master, not her father. Here we see a daughter blatantly rejecting her father’s desires, which was probably very much looked down upon during that time.
The alternate ending of A Doll House censored Ibsen’s purpose behind the piece and everything he wanted to convey through his work. Ibsen wanted to create a character that went through a realization that allowed her to realize her full potential and how societies standards had stopped her from becoming her own person. After finding the courage to detach herself from her husband and start a new life full of education and self growth Ibsen ends the book. However, in the alternate ending Ibsen was forced to display a woman who finds her self worth, but instead of acting upon her opportunity to create a life for herself she chooses to return to living a life for someone else. Nora can never again live in ignorance of what opportunities she is missing and instead goes on without purpose and will go on watching the same thing happen to her daughters. In this alternate ending Nora goes back to her family after saying, “Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them.” In Isben’s society they would want people to see that women are not supposed to make choices for themselves and instead are expected to give everything they have to their family, while when a man is selfish and takes advantage of opportunities it is respected.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Alving is able to see the importance of literature and how it addresses people’s thoughts that they may not even know they have. However, Pastor Manders believes he is above reading these novels, “Object to in them? You surely do not suppose that I have nothing better to do than to study such publications as these? … I have read enough about these writings to disapprove of them.” While Mrs. Alving is open to others ideas and is progressive in her thinking, Pastor Manders believes he cannot further his thinking and they challenge his existing beliefs and would rather live in ignorance than explore new concepts. This shows how society looked down upon new ideas and thought they would change people’s thinking for the worse. This is the exact society Isben was living in and that did not accept his progressive book on women’s rights.
The alternate ending for "A Doll House" is honestly so disappointing and quite frankly sad. However, I fully understand why Ibsen had to change it before it distributed to the public. People's views on women back then and now are drastically different. A woman's duty in the 1800s was to serve her husband, not abandon him and her children. Today, the mental and physical help of oneself comes before others, and this applies to all genders. Of course, some people still believe in old ideas, but most understand the progressive ideas now more than before. So as a person in our day and age, it is upsetting to see Nora go back to Torvald, even though he is not suitable for her. She never had the opportunity to learn about herself in the alternate ending that she needs. So I am glad the original ending was published and that we got to read it. I definitely would not have enjoyed the story as much if it had the alternate ending.
ReplyDeleteIn "Ghosts," you can see Ibsen still challenging conventional expectations of the time, similar to "A Doll House." Take the housemaid, Regina; she is resisting the social norm of the time. Her father suggests she have relations with a sailor to get money; he says, "You can make it pay all the same. He—the Englishman—the man with the yacht—he came down with three hundred dollars, he did; and she wasn't a bit handsomer than you." Regina says she will not marry a sailor because she knows they are not genuine people. She does not care about marrying rich, which is something everyone worried about back then. Regina cares about the generosity of the person more than their wealth. As for Mrs. Alving, she is also a progressive woman herself. Pastor Manders criticizes her for leaving her husband to be happy. He says, "It is the very mark of the spirit of rebellion to crave for happiness in this life. What right have we human beings to happiness? We have simply to do our duty." Like many of the men of his time, they believe women have a duty to their fathers and husbands that they cannot abandon, even if they are miserable. Mrs. Alving does not think that and also sends her son away. Just so, he does not see his father's treatment towards her, hoping not to turn her son into his father. But in the end, she sees history repeating itself when she sees her son being friendly to Regina.
It is upsetting that Ibsen was forced to rewrite the ending to his play A Doll’s House because it is something that he had worked extremely hard on. An artist’s painting is their prized possession, and in a similar way, an author’s literature is theirs. The beauty of art and literature is that they enable those who create them to express whatever they want to express and be whoever they want to be. Ibsen however was denied this right because his expression and freedom to craft his story how he wanted to was taken away from him. Within the matter of a few lines, Nora “lets her travelling bag fall… half sinks down by the floor” and eventually decides to stay with Helmer despite her desire to leave. By having to change his ending, Ibsen’s point of views and perspectives were in a sense discredited. Nora transformed from a woman breaking free of the norms and searching for her independence back into the stereotypical, woman who has to go back to simply being the supportive and quiet wife. The idea that a woman gaining the courage to go against the norm and search for her own identity was frowned upon is incredibly disheartening but then again I understand that during the time when this piece was written, that was an extremely controversial matter. By enabling the ending to be changed a precedent was set that any and all endings of stories can be changed to fit the mold and ideas held by society. No longer is it up to the author to create the work that they want to create but rather they have to write with the idea that if they do not please everyone else their freedom can be taken away from them. I really appreciate the fact that Ibsen chose to write Ghost as a response to having change his ending to A Doll’s House. In this play, Ibsen is granted the ability to express the things he was not previously allowed to. He specifically references A Doll’s House in Act I in a conversation held between Pastor Manders and Mrs. Alving. In Ghost, Mrs. Alving does the same thing as Nora in which she contemplates leaving her husband as a result of his poor actions. Pastor Manders chastises her for her decisions, attempting to make her feel guilty by reinforcing to her that it is her “duty to bear with the humility” of her husband’s actions and continue on. Ibsen is able to poke a jab at his previous change in his play and as a way of karma and revenge, creates an entirely new continuation of the story in which he describes what happens next to Nora except without using Nora.
ReplyDeletePeople used to be extremely upset over Ibsen’s true ending of A Doll’s House, making him alter it to fit into their expectations. This created an ending in which Nora was unsatisfied with her life and ended up staying with Torvald, which was a decision that ultimately stripped Nora of her freedoms. She even says that the choice is “a sin against myself”. Mrs. Alving is what Nora could have been had she left Torvald. Her husband had cheated on her, giving her a valid reason as to why she had left him. She believes that her choice was the right one, and even that Oswald was “a healthy lad… all the better for it” and that his independence made him a better person. Meanwhile, Manders represented Ibsen’s audience. He reprimanded Mrs. Alving for her decision, going as far as to hyperbolize them saying, “what right have we human beings to happiness?” Both he and the audience believed it was Nora’s problem to be solved, and that she was disrespecting both herself and her family by leaving her kids. He says that in leaving, she’s “since disowned a mother’s [duty]” and has forsaken her son, despite being perfectly capable on his own. Manders also takes the religious aspect of his personality to the extreme, telling Mrs. Alving that she’s “sinned greatly against your husband”––the very one that cheated on her––which represents how conservative society was at the time. Written in 1881, 2 years after A Doll’s House, many people were still fairly religious. Secular ideas hadn’t become popular yet, so leaving one’s family is often seen as an act against God. Even though the public is upset, that can’t be changed. Ibsen’s (and Mrs. Alving’s) ideas were firm––and she was much better off because of it.
ReplyDeleteThe art of influential writing is one that pushes society's norms. The original ending of A Doll House, Ibsen allows a woman to separate from her husband because she realizes all that she is worth. During this time, a woman taking a stance like this was very uncommon. This ending was one that was able to push the norms of society, and Ibsen shows that women have worth in society in a world where this was not appreciated. This ending upset society because it pushed society’s thinking, and people did not like it. The shorter ending that Ibsen wrote was much shorter than the original, because there is nowhere near as much value in it. In this ending, Nora is one that follows the rules and does not stand up for herself or take action in pushing against society's beliefs. The original trend that Ibsen incorporated in A Doll House, about women pushing the boundaries of society continues with Regina in Ghosts, as she blames her father for not raising her. Though this familial situation was common among families in higher social classes, Regina standing up to him is a big step, and something that was uncommon and may have shocked the public.
ReplyDeleteThe new ending to “A Doll House” is very forced, based not at all on the character development and the personalities of Helmer and Nora, but on what the authorities want. The government made sure Henrik Ibsen changed the ending in order to preserve their contemporary gender roles. However, this means that Helmer’s childlike personality is altered to becoming all too persuasive and Nora uncharacteristically caving to his demands. Personally, this ending is not satisfying, since Nora saw her children as chains that kept her down, and I didn’t want to see Helmer succeed for he was incredibly controlling. Since “Ghosts” is considered a reaction to this ending, the themes are likely to be more veiled to prevent governmental intervention, or even masqueraded. The idea of a woman’s role is likely to be discussed, as is the dynamics of romance in the late nineteenth century.
ReplyDeleteOf course Ibsen wouldn’t shy away from women’s rights. The first half of the first act is relatively calm, and then the end is downright radical for the time. There is naturally a religious figure in the life of the Engstrands, and Pastor Manders conveniently fills this role, like the other cleric in “A Doll House.” Pastor Mander is an interesting character, for he makes Mrs. Alving return to her husband, but he also secretly caves to her demands, when he tells Mrs. Alving that “one is certainly not bound to account to everybody for what one reads and thinks within one's own four walls” (Ibsen). This was after a debate in which Manders criticized Mrs. Alving for wasting her time with certain books, but he never actually reprimanded her for doing so, and used his position of power to force her to abandon this pastime. In addition, the idea of the subconscious, or the interior motives and thoughts of people are hinted in this quote, and how people can still be resistance to societal norms. However, Pastor Manders still presents himself as a traditionalist, for he mentions that “there are many occasions in life when one must rely upon others. Things are so ordered in this world; and it is well that they are. Otherwise, what would become of society?” (Ibsen). As a clergyman, Pastor Manders must be a proponent of some kind of order, the idea that hierarchy is natural and just. Although he believes this, there is still much more to his character and these words of advice to Mrs. Alving could just be warning, for she has already disrupted her marriage and the idea of doing so a second time would be dastardly.
The personality and feelings of Nora and Mrs. Alving are very similar. Mrs. Alving even left her husband, but her reason for her return mirrored the new ending of “A Doll House,” mentioning that she “had to bear it for my little boy's sake” (Ibsen). A mother is supposed to be the primary caregiver, and Nora eschewed this role in favor of her personal freedom. However, Ibsen could have felt the pressure and forced Mrs. Alving to return, to play out the drama of what it meant to be a woman in a terrible marriage. Ultimately, Mrs. Alving sent her son away, for “it seemed to [Mrs. Alving] the child must be poisoned by merely breathing the air of this polluted home” (Ibsen). Mrs. Alving never ended up having a life with her child, and this followed, for children were the very embodiment of a woman’s fetters.
The dynamic between Regina and her father, Mr. Engstrand is very interesting. Regina is educated, and frequently peppers her language with French expression, symbolic of higher learning. Mr. Engstrand is woefully ignorant, and is about to pursue a business venture, and continues to try to bend the will of her daughter. Even if Regina is supposed to obey her father, she refuses, a harkening to Nora’s determination.
The original ending of A Dollhouse puts a major emphasis on the independence of women. Nora leaves Torvald so she can find her purpose in life. This is extremely important because it completes the character arc for Nora. It shows how she has grown and changed since the beginning of the play. However, the alternate ending does nothing for the character of Nora. In fact, it undoes the previous scenes. When Nora gives in to Torvald by staying with him, she essentially gives up her independence. Torvald’s betrayal is almost the worst that it could be, and yet Nora chooses to look by it. This implies that no matter what, women must stay with their husband. This is a completely different message from the original ending. I do not like this for a few reasons. One, I do not believe the art should ever be changed. Art is always made correctly the first time, and it should not be changed by public pressure. Second, I disagree with the message of the alternate ending. No one should ever be beholden to anyone else for any reason, and it is my personal opinion that we should always pursue our own dreams, not those of others.
ReplyDeleteThis brings us to Ghosts. Mrs. Alving is a very interesting character to me. She seems to have accepted the societal standard of staying with her husband, but she has created a separate identity for herself. She had clear issues with how her husband would act when he was alive, and has no problems expressing it. I think the quote “Mrs. Alving: Soon after, I heard Alving come in too. I heard him say something softly to her. And then I heard--[With a short laugh]--oh! it still sounds in my ears, so hateful and yet so ludicrous--I heard my own servant-maid whisper, "Let me go, Mr. Alving! Let me be!"….It was my purchase-money. I do not choose that that money should pass into Oswald's hands. My son shall have everything from me--everything.” shows just how much Mrs. Alving detested her husband. She doesn't want her son to be anything like her former husband. Instead, she wants Oswald to be the man she wished her husband had been. When, at the end of act one, Regina says “let me go!” it becomes clear to Mrs. Alving that she must start to teach her son now, because she now can see that her son is becoming like her former husband.
I found it incredibly interesting how revealing the change of endings is of societal norms. The very fact Ibsen was forced to change the ending in response to the audience’s reaction is a testament to how much western gender specific expectations have evolved over time. Should anyone have such a harsh reaction to the original reaction today, they would likely be seen as an ignorant sexist. I can also see how Ibsen attempted to play both sides of the coin with his alterations by providing an external reason for why Nora would stay rather than nullifying the initial cause for leaving. Even as she concedes to Torvald she states, “this is a sin against myself”, putting implicit emphasis on the fact that, despite her staying, she is betraying what Ibsen portrays as the truly correct decision to leave. More so than Nora deciding to stay, it is her being unable to leave.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading act one of “Ghosts” I took appreciation in Ibsen’s ability to bring about complexity to such realistic characters and situations. Perhaps it is for this reason why his work is so reflective of reality. Each character is uniquely developed and, more thematically, each and every character revolves around a keystone set of lies and hidden truths: The ghosts in the story. In regards to the characters themselves, Ibsen again chose to set Mrs. Alving to be almost a Nora like main character. Both characters are significantly woman, and their plots parallel in their hopes to maintain both the facade of a happy lifestyle in return for their constant struggle with managing secrets. At the end of act 1, after hearing Regina and Oswald flirt with each other, Regina exclaimed, “Ghosts! The couple from the conservatory--risen again!” I believe this was due to the fact that Regina and Oswald have always been attracted to each other, and Mrs. Alving who possesses the truth of their relations, has always worked to keep them apart. This conflict took a break with Oswald leaving the home, but has now resumed. The “Ghosts” have “risen again.” I predict, as in “A Doll’s House”, Mrs. Alving will choose to sacrifice the facade after realizing the lies she has been living, just as Nora did.
Ibsen definitely made a very bold statement in his original ending “A DollHouse” and the censored version really encapsulates the picture perfect life of what a victorian era woman should have been like during those conservative days. The way that Nora says, “Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them. [Half sinks down by the door.]” just seems so fake and almost satirical and over dramatic and is not at all how Nora acted a few minutes ago as she was claiming her freedom and independence from Torvald’s control. In that instance she is just falling right back into that doll house that she was trying to escape out of for the entirety of the play as she sinks down by the door just as the stage directions say. This is obviously not what Ibsen had intended at all. This strong heroine was made into a fool as she gave into her manipulative husband’s foolish word’s so easily which never would have happened in the original play with the door slam that was heard around the world.
ReplyDeleteIn response to this Ibsen wrote the play “Ghosts” and I feel like we are starting to get a glimpse into what could have gone down if these picturesque, victorian era lifestyles actually played out in the long run with once again, some more insight into the woman’s perspective in the story. It seems like we are getting glimpses of this through characters such as Regine and Mrs. Alving. On one hand we see Regine who has some parallels with Nora in the sense that she is trying to better herself in social status and that mainly seems to be one of her main goals in life (except she seems to be smarter and more independent than Nora). Yet the main thing that’s holding her back is her drunken father and obviously, the middle class that she was born into. While talking to her father, Regine angrily stated, “Me, that have been brought up by a lady like Mrs. Alving! Me, that is treated almost as a daughter here! Is it me you want to go home with you?—to a house like yours? For shame!”. Her father was a drunken man and so Regine feels as though a refined woman like Mrs. Alving was more like a parental figure than her actual father ever was to her. She uses Mrs. Alving as one of her main stepping stones to try and climb the social ladder for she is a wealthy widow. Yet one of the biggest things in Mrs. Alving's way is actually being in her husband’s shadow. She is around all of the men around her and they don’t believe her to be as competent and able bodied as her husband was asn this is a strong parallel between how people viewed Nora and her husband Torvald.
I think that reality plays a huge part in Ibsen’s plays. In “A Doll’s House” Ibsen creates a world in which the characters act so realistically that the audience can see that Nora has no option but to leave and are subsequently outraged. Given the realistic setting of the garden room Ghosts, the audience can expect to bring a similar sense of realism to this play. Already we can see how the life that Ibsen imparts onto the characters is so relatable in its reality. Ibsen chooses to create tension between father and daughter, in which the daughter disapproves of her father’s unscrupulous practices but still feels some familial obligation to her father. Additionally, Regina trusts in the word of Pastor Manders yet he knows very little of the intricacies of the relationship between Regina and her father and consequently urges Regina to help her father. This internal struggle is so relatable to life almost 140 years later which is telling of its reality.
ReplyDeleteThe art of influential writing is one that pushes society's norms. The original ending of A Doll House, Ibsen allows a woman to separate from her husband because she realizes all that she is worth. During this time, a woman taking a stance like this was very uncommon. This ending was one that was able to push the norms of society, and Ibsen shows that women have worth in society in a world where this was not appreciated. This ending upset society because it pushed society’s thinking, and people did not like it. The shorter ending that Ibsen wrote was much shorter than the original, because there is nowhere near as much value in it. In this ending, Nora is one that follows the rules and does not stand up for herself or take action in pushing against society's beliefs. The original trend that Ibsen incorporated in A Doll House, about women pushing the boundaries of society continues with Regina in Ghosts, as she blames her father for not raising her. Though this familial situation was common among families in higher social classes, Regina standing up to him is a big step, and something that was uncommon and may have shocked the public.
ReplyDeleteThe alternate censored ending of “A Doll House” is exceeding light and appears out of place comparing to the rest of the play. In “A Doll House”, Ibsen strives to depict the bleak sacrificial gender role held by all women in his society, treating them like dolls. Throughout his play, countless women sacrifice themselves for others. Mrs. Linde abandons her true love; the nanny abandons her own child to support herself by working as Nora’s caretaker; Nora abandons her joy and reputation to save her husband. Despite their large sacrifice, these women merely survive in society with such prejudice and hardships. Ibsen hopes that women could break free of the bonds of traditions and begin to live for themselves. However, this new ending significantly downplayed Ibsen’s intention and contradicts his original message: freedom for women. Nora is forever trapped by her husband in this censored version, completely submissive to her husband and fulfilling the typical Victorian gender roles. In “Ghosts,” Ibsen might explore the flaws of following the “outdated” traditions and beliefs as an extension to the alternate ending of “A Doll House”
ReplyDeleteThe most important symbol in this play is the ghosts. Although the word ghosts only appeared at the end of Act I, it encompasses many meanings for Mrs. Alving throughout the act. The pressures exerted by the social expectations have been haunting her constantly like a ghost as she tries to keep up the mirage of a successful marriage and other’s view of her. When she encounters a miserable marriage, Mrs. Alving stays to fulfill her “duty … to hold firmly to the man you had once chosen, and to whom you were bound by the holiest ties” despite her psychological pain. For those gender expectations, she sacrificed her happiness and freedom to keep a mirage for the public and society. When Mrs. Alving suffers in pain and anguish, no one around her appreciated her effort. Instead, the pastor thinks instead that it is her “duty to bear with humility the cross which a Higher Power had” and encourages her to continue her sorrow. Her lies are being perpetrated to the present. This pressure continues to haunt her even after her husband’s death as she built “the Captain Alving Orphanage… [on] the ten anniversary of [her] husband’s death.” Mrs. Alving spent her entire life on being haunted by the societal pressures and gender expectations.
The revised ending to “A Doll House” is very problematic, as it takes everything the show has been trying to say and crumples it into a ball and destroys the ball. “A Doll House” was originally intended by Ibsen to raise awareness of human rights, specifically the rights women should have in their households and in society in general. By having Nora, a character who the audience has grown to adore and appreciate throughout the course of the show, leave at the end of play, Ibsen was challenging his conservative spectators with a dilemma: either support their lovable protagonist and be more open-minded about women’s rights, or go the traditional route and send Ibsen hate letters denying the legitimacy of the situation, which might I mention was nearly unthinkable and profoundly hated at the time. It makes me wonder what we censor in modern plays and modern works of literature that, a century from now, will be considered normal things. Today there are many plays that include strong female protagonists who leave their families in search of a new life (actually there are far too many of them), but when Ibsen wrote “A Doll House” the notion that a woman might leave her husband was completely bizarre. We’ve evolved so much, and it infuriates me to know that even now, in humanity’s most progressive and inclusive age to date, people are continuing to suppress others’ rights to express their ideas. Progress is not made through censorship, it’s made when people become uncomfortable with their current situation and decide to do something about it, like Ibsen. Without the original copy of his work, his message would’ve never been expressed.
ReplyDeleteI love how miserable Ibsen made his characters in “Ghosts” because it is basically his way of sticking it to the haters. He’s writing about exactly what can happen when a dysfunctional and unhappy marriage remains intact, and the results are not good. Mrs. Alving is terribly depressing and reminds me of what Nora would’ve become if she hadn’t mustered the strength to walk out on Torvald. Mrs. Alving is a shell of an individual, whose only real passion is her children. Despite this, she doesn’t even recognize the damage that her son has faced through his life as a result of witnessing the terrible nature of his parents’ marriage. He most likely decided to become a painter in order to express whatever he’s kept locked away inside for so long. I assume Oswald is also not a huge lady’s man considering he has no idea what a healthy relationship looks like. All of the characters we’ve been introduced to are quirky and interesting, but behind their normal conversations and boring subject matter, they are each tossing and turning on the inside.
I did not like the alternate ending to the play very much. I don’t think it set a very good precedent to end the play on Nora caving in to her husband’s wishes. Unhealthy relationships are still a huge issue today, and during the time period of the play it certainly couldn’t have helped the problem to have Nora submitting to Torvald. Ibsen indirectly sent a message saying he approves of inequality and was willing to do whatever pleased the public, even if it might be morally incorrect. Ironically, the way Ibsen caved into the pressure was reminiscent of how Nora did the same thing because of Torvald. Torvald used the appeal of pathos on Nora, saying that she can leave him if she pleases, “But first you shall see your children for the last time! ...Tomorrow, when they wake up and call for their mother, they will be - motherless.” This was certainly a big factor in her deciding she had no choice but to stay.
ReplyDeleteThe stage directions combine with the name of the play to create a gloomy, possibly eerie, atmosphere. The first set of stage directions in Act I include this description: “Through the glass wall a gloomy fjord landscape is faintly visible, veiled by steady rain.” Not the most comforting start to the play.
Given the time period of the play, we should expect to see a lot of controversial elements of society throughout. After all, Ibsen incorporated a the theme of male-dominated society in “A Doll House”, so it would not be surprising if he does something similar for this play.
Regina is representative of the mobility between classes because she is a lower-class maid but is “treated almost as a daughter”. Her family history isn’t the greatest but she is not treated poorly, presumably because most people find her very attractive.
I did not enjoy the alternate ending to A Doll’s House because it ruined the powerful ending that Nora originally had, steering her life in the right direction and leaving her past as a repressed housewife behind. I am very glad that Ibsen decided to keep the ending that he published, I think it completes the feminist story very well. Ibsen maintains this feminist tone in his other works, such as “Ghosts,” where he pokes at the societal norms of the time. When one of the main characters in Ghosts, Regina, speaks to her father, Engstrand, Engstrand offers an inappropriate career path for her to make her own money - prostitution. “Engstrand: Then never mind about marrying them. You can make it pay all the same. [More confidentially.] He--the Englishman--the man with the yacht--he came down with three hundred dollars, he did; and she wasn't a bit handsomer than you.” Before bringing up prostitution of an option, Engstrand offers that she could marry into wealth. It is never made an option that Regina could make a perfectly legal and professional career to support herself instead of those two options, and in writing this scene this way, Ibsen comments on the inequality of the sexes.
ReplyDeleteThe alternate ending of “A Doll House” by Henrik Ibsen makes me furious. The entire piece leads up to Nora finally regaining a sense of who she is and what she believes is right for herself. Instead of honoring this massive shift, the alternate ending is a perversion of this natural discovery and act of defiance. When Helmer exclaims that Nora, “doesn’t understand the society we live in!” and she replies that “No, I don’t, but now I’m going to find out about it. I’m going to find out who's right: society or me.”, she finally gains a chance to forge her own path in life. The alternate ending, in which Nora sees her children and cries, “Oh, this is a sin against myself, but I cannot leave them.” symbolizes the true defeat in Nora’s battle against society.
ReplyDeleteIbsen’s “Ghosts” responds to this social repression quite directly and effectively. The very idea of societal pushback against the defiance of long-instilled norms is defined in the idea of “Ghosts”. When Mrs. Alving says that, “It is not only what we have inherited from our father and mother that "walks" in us. It is all sorts of dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs. They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same, and we cannot shake them off. Whenever I take up a newspaper, I seem to see ghosts gliding between the lines.”, she is describing the traditions of old that bound her to her “duty”, whether they be religious, patriarchal, or downright inhibitive. Why should she have to abide by rules that are unjust? The very same chains that bind Nora are wrapped around Mrs. Alving as well, and both can’t seem to find the key, for society had their hands tied behind their back from the day they were born.
Krogstad’s letter remained in the letterbox which beckons the audience to lie in wait for “the most wonderful thing” (Ibsen Act II) that could be Torvald’s reaction, which is later found out to be completely different from what Nora expected. Nora observing Torvald’s atrocious behavior is what later triggered “the door slam heard around the world” according to the original ending, where she leaves him so she may have more self-defining experiences. If the alternate ending was used, where she stays with Torvald despite the circumstances, it is insinuated that she would continue to harbor long-term resentment that would never have surfaced if he had not seen the letter. This is the theme that Ibsen attempts to explore in "Ghosts." There would be an additional exploration the role and effect of (a dysfunctional) marriage, especially on children.
ReplyDelete