The alternating ending of the play changes everything. As I
wrote in my previous blog, the original ending is powerful because Nora’s fate
is unclear. Will she break free of society? Can anyone break free of society? A
woman leaving her husband in the 1800’s was unheard of and was societal
suicide. Ibsen pushes against the boundaries of society and critics the
confines that favor conformity over individuality. Of course this is the sort
of stuff we love in AP Lit. We could have a seminar on this for all 6 periods if
allowed and I think this is what Ibsen was aiming for when he wrote the play.
He wanted to challenge the social norms of society. However the problem with
that is that society at the time didn't want to be challenged. It is ironic
that the very thing that Ibsen challenges, the suffocation of individuality by social
conformity, ends up causing him to write a new ending. Driven by a need to make
money and “survive”, Ibsen conforms to society and writes the ending that
society wants. Sounds familiar? Kristine conforms to society and gets married
so that she can “survive”. Nora plays along with Torvald so that she can “survive”.
In all of these cases, social conformity
= survival. For Ibsen “the wonderful” would be when society is ready to read
the original ending of A Doll’s House. Maybe this is another reason why Ibsen
hated the alternating ending; he realized that in writing it he exemplifies
that not even he can break free.
I actually like that there are two endings. It shows the impact
that the final lines of a work have on the meaning of a play and it is an
interesting point of comparison. However seeing the alternate ending only, as
many people did when the play was released, completely changes everything. Many
of the questions that the original play evokes become answered. Nora can’t break
free of society, that’s why she stayed with Torvald. Also, as a woman, she wouldn't
dare give up her “sacred duties” to her husband and her children because in
society’s eyes, her only reason for being alive was to fulfill those duties. If
Ibsen took away all the allusions to sex and alcohol, it could be a Disney movie
where the loving wife tries to save her husband whose hubris won’t allow him to
receive help and this gets the wife into trouble. Her husband comes to her
rescue and accepts her wrong doing. Actually this sounds exactly like Nora’s
fantasy. The difference is while in the original ending the doll house falls
apart and Nora decides to leave it in favor of living a life based in reality,
in the alternate ending Nora returns to the doll house and nothing
changes. In the alternate ending, the
play loses its original purpose because the boundaries of society aren't challenged,
they are accepted. Each ending represents various paths in life we must between
in many decisions that we make. Do you take the path of individuality or
conformity? Do you take the difficult route of uncertainty or do you take the
path of least resistance and familiarity? Whether or not you know it, the
conflict of the doll’s house is present in your daily decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment