Another entry time!
In this entry I will compare book and a film based upon this book called Nora, but I do not think there is much to compare, since the film was exactly the same as the book.
As I have already said, the book and the film are like twins, everything that happened in the book happened the same way in the film. Everything was the same, I was not able to notice a single change the director changed or altered.
But what I liked about the film was the actors and their performance. They were really good at what they were doing and it felt good watching the film, even though it was not much interesting plot (partially fault of me reading the book previously).
It is one of the few films that were strongly based upon the book and where director tried to keep everything the same as it was in the book and the whole play. Well actually it is the only film I know that is like this. So far all the films always skipped some parts, added some others or totally changed the plot or characters in their films compared to the book.
úterý 17. dubna 2012
sobota 14. dubna 2012
Hey everyone once again, its entry #8 time!
In this entry, I will try to respond to an essay or an review I have found on the internet that deals with this book. It was hard to find some "free" critism of this play, since most of the critics I have found were for a fee or something. But luckily this one was free and I quite liked it so I will respond to it in the next paragraph.
This critism I have found has quite similar ideas and opinions on things that happened in book just as I did, so I found quite interesting. The first thing that me and the person that wrote that critism agree with is the fact, that a mother of 3 children would not probably just left her children only to find herself. Ibsen probably have not thought about this when he was writing this book or maybe he got somehow influenced by the society as well and was not able to see this connection between mother and a child. The author of that criticism appears to be a mother so I think she knows what she is talking about and I do not think that these connection change as the society develops.
Another theme that the critic talks about is the thing about Nora forging her father's signature, thus violating the law to save her husband and trying to let her father rest in peace. At first I did not even noticed this thing, but when I read that critic I realised what this was about and I agree with what is written in the critics. A woman in that society could have no chance to know the laws very well so she could have no idea that what she did was a serious crime and she could get severly punished for this. What I also like about this critics is, that she talks about the law to live vs. law of the society, by that i mean: "would you steal food to feed your starving family" quote mention in the critic. I think that any woman or man would do the same to save her/his husband/wife.
And that is about all I wanted to say, I did not find anything in the critics I did not agree with.
In this entry, I will try to respond to an essay or an review I have found on the internet that deals with this book. It was hard to find some "free" critism of this play, since most of the critics I have found were for a fee or something. But luckily this one was free and I quite liked it so I will respond to it in the next paragraph.
This critism I have found has quite similar ideas and opinions on things that happened in book just as I did, so I found quite interesting. The first thing that me and the person that wrote that critism agree with is the fact, that a mother of 3 children would not probably just left her children only to find herself. Ibsen probably have not thought about this when he was writing this book or maybe he got somehow influenced by the society as well and was not able to see this connection between mother and a child. The author of that criticism appears to be a mother so I think she knows what she is talking about and I do not think that these connection change as the society develops.
Another theme that the critic talks about is the thing about Nora forging her father's signature, thus violating the law to save her husband and trying to let her father rest in peace. At first I did not even noticed this thing, but when I read that critic I realised what this was about and I agree with what is written in the critics. A woman in that society could have no chance to know the laws very well so she could have no idea that what she did was a serious crime and she could get severly punished for this. What I also like about this critics is, that she talks about the law to live vs. law of the society, by that i mean: "would you steal food to feed your starving family" quote mention in the critic. I think that any woman or man would do the same to save her/his husband/wife.
And that is about all I wanted to say, I did not find anything in the critics I did not agree with.
Entry #7
In this entry I am to tell what is the primary motivation of the protagonist and antagonist of this book. Firstly I would like to say that it is kind of hard to tell which characters are protagonist and which are antogonist, since it is not quite clear. The protagonist to me is Nora and Christine, since they are the victims of their society and they try to break free from this regime. The antagonist in this play are Helmer, Krogstad and Dr.Rank and in the next paragraph I will explain why.
So why do I see Helmer, Krogstad and Dr.Rank as antagonists? Since they are the men in this play. They live in society where women are opressed and they are part of this. They do not do anything to change it and in fact, Helmer is quite happy with the way he behaves to his wife, Nora. Dr.Rank is antagonist as well, since he is silently watching this and does not do anything. He sees how Helmer behaves to Nora and accepts that... And Krogstad? He is antagonist since the life and society made him to be like that. Maybe deep inside he is a good person, but in this book it is not much clear.
The motivation of the protagonists (Nora, Christine) is the society. They want to break free from it and live their own lives where noone judges them only cause they are women. The only thing they ever cared for was their relatives and they did everything to keep them save. But as soon as they realized (especialy Nora) that their feeling are not mutual, they want to be free, but unfortunately for them it is not possible ... They would have to live in another time or another place, where women are more respected.
In this entry I am to tell what is the primary motivation of the protagonist and antagonist of this book. Firstly I would like to say that it is kind of hard to tell which characters are protagonist and which are antogonist, since it is not quite clear. The protagonist to me is Nora and Christine, since they are the victims of their society and they try to break free from this regime. The antagonist in this play are Helmer, Krogstad and Dr.Rank and in the next paragraph I will explain why.
So why do I see Helmer, Krogstad and Dr.Rank as antagonists? Since they are the men in this play. They live in society where women are opressed and they are part of this. They do not do anything to change it and in fact, Helmer is quite happy with the way he behaves to his wife, Nora. Dr.Rank is antagonist as well, since he is silently watching this and does not do anything. He sees how Helmer behaves to Nora and accepts that... And Krogstad? He is antagonist since the life and society made him to be like that. Maybe deep inside he is a good person, but in this book it is not much clear.
The motivation of the protagonists (Nora, Christine) is the society. They want to break free from it and live their own lives where noone judges them only cause they are women. The only thing they ever cared for was their relatives and they did everything to keep them save. But as soon as they realized (especialy Nora) that their feeling are not mutual, they want to be free, but unfortunately for them it is not possible ... They would have to live in another time or another place, where women are more respected.
Another entry time! Yay!
In this entry I am supposed to discuss the author which I already did in my first entry. Since I do not want to repeat myself, I recommend my readers to read my first entry if they want to learn something about Henrik Ibsen and his motivation to write this book and what was his inspiration.
In this entry I am supposed to discuss the author which I already did in my first entry. Since I do not want to repeat myself, I recommend my readers to read my first entry if they want to learn something about Henrik Ibsen and his motivation to write this book and what was his inspiration.
pátek 24. února 2012
Hey everyone once again,
this entry will be about the themes of this play. I have talked about them already in previous entries, but I will try to go to more details now.
This book touches two unrelated themes. The first theme is the criticism of the 19th century as I have mention many times before. Ibsen was not satisfied with the way marriage was percieved and how husbands (and man generally) behaved to women and how they were seen. I would not say that this book is meant to support the women rights, even though it might seem like that to some. But I see it only as a description of an ideal family life in 19th century. He describes the way most families lived and how it was going in each of them. How the man had total control over his wife and how she was caring only for household. How man's role was important and woman was seen only as an accessory for him. Something to show that he is a good man, with good habbits and traits.
The second theme of this book is the "finding out who you are" thing and this is showed at the very end of the book. When Helmer tells Nora that she has sacred duties to him and children, she replies that she other sacred duties. Duties to herself, finding out who she is and try to become that. Try to become something more than a puppet played by someone. Try to become someone that can think over things and tries to understand them.
this entry will be about the themes of this play. I have talked about them already in previous entries, but I will try to go to more details now.
This book touches two unrelated themes. The first theme is the criticism of the 19th century as I have mention many times before. Ibsen was not satisfied with the way marriage was percieved and how husbands (and man generally) behaved to women and how they were seen. I would not say that this book is meant to support the women rights, even though it might seem like that to some. But I see it only as a description of an ideal family life in 19th century. He describes the way most families lived and how it was going in each of them. How the man had total control over his wife and how she was caring only for household. How man's role was important and woman was seen only as an accessory for him. Something to show that he is a good man, with good habbits and traits.
The second theme of this book is the "finding out who you are" thing and this is showed at the very end of the book. When Helmer tells Nora that she has sacred duties to him and children, she replies that she other sacred duties. Duties to herself, finding out who she is and try to become that. Try to become something more than a puppet played by someone. Try to become someone that can think over things and tries to understand them.
středa 22. února 2012
Hey everyone once again,
in this blog entry I will discuss the way I expected things to turn out and what surprised me about the way some things came out.
Firstly I will talk about Nora and her decision to leave her husband and children. This in fact, was very surprising for me, not because she was a woman, but because it was her family she had left, a huge part of her life. Throughout the book she seemed to me like a grown up woman with childish ideas and character. The way she behaved and everything made me think that, especially the way she was speaking. She did not seemed to me like someone capable of rational thinking, rather a doll played by her husband. But still, at the end of the play she decided to leave the house and find herself, who she really is other than wife of Torvald.
Other thing that surprised me was the behaviour of Krogstad. He, who was throughout the book displayed as the worst human on the entire world, was able to love and forgive. Despite all what he has been through he was still able to sacrifice something for the one he loved, even if she left him a long time ago and made him what he was now. The whole book he was for me the bad guy, but after I have read the entire book, he did not seemed to me no longer like that as I have mention in my previous blog entry about the play characters.
So yeah, that is about all the things that surprised me the most about the way things evolved in the book. I was expecting a totally different ending. Maybe that Nora would do anything to get the respect of her husband again instead of leaving him and her children ... But then again, would mother leave her kids only to find who she really is and not even try to fight for them? I mean it is a good thing she started to think about the way she lived, but I think that it was quite late for her to do that, now that she had attachments. And do not forget this was based on a real life of Ibsen's friend. I wonder to which part it was real and which part (if any) Ibsen added just to have some plot in it. But for that we would have to ask him....
in this blog entry I will discuss the way I expected things to turn out and what surprised me about the way some things came out.
Firstly I will talk about Nora and her decision to leave her husband and children. This in fact, was very surprising for me, not because she was a woman, but because it was her family she had left, a huge part of her life. Throughout the book she seemed to me like a grown up woman with childish ideas and character. The way she behaved and everything made me think that, especially the way she was speaking. She did not seemed to me like someone capable of rational thinking, rather a doll played by her husband. But still, at the end of the play she decided to leave the house and find herself, who she really is other than wife of Torvald.
Other thing that surprised me was the behaviour of Krogstad. He, who was throughout the book displayed as the worst human on the entire world, was able to love and forgive. Despite all what he has been through he was still able to sacrifice something for the one he loved, even if she left him a long time ago and made him what he was now. The whole book he was for me the bad guy, but after I have read the entire book, he did not seemed to me no longer like that as I have mention in my previous blog entry about the play characters.
So yeah, that is about all the things that surprised me the most about the way things evolved in the book. I was expecting a totally different ending. Maybe that Nora would do anything to get the respect of her husband again instead of leaving him and her children ... But then again, would mother leave her kids only to find who she really is and not even try to fight for them? I mean it is a good thing she started to think about the way she lived, but I think that it was quite late for her to do that, now that she had attachments. And do not forget this was based on a real life of Ibsen's friend. I wonder to which part it was real and which part (if any) Ibsen added just to have some plot in it. But for that we would have to ask him....
úterý 21. února 2012
Hey everyone, another entry time!
Today I will talk about the time period of the period, which is important for understanding of the book's plot. I have talked about it in a lot of entries now, but this one will be specifically dedicated to this.
So, the play is set in the 19th century. A time where women as wifes were not respected as they should have been and were more like dolls (from here is the book's name) of their husband to play. They were having hard times finding jobs and a woman living alone, without any husband, had a bad times making money for living, the worse when she had children. 19th century was really harsh for women, even if they did no realized it, but they were only controlled by men and had no real life, only life full of caring for children and their husbands. Anything husband wanted they must have done, there was no questioning, otherwise they could have been kicked out of the house and live on their own, which was not good as I have mentioned above.
Some men, in nowadays society might feel the same way about women just as they did in 19th century, that women are to care for household and listen to their husband and nothing more. On the other hand, some women nowadays like to be cared this way, cause for them it might seems comfortable, but they will not have the chance to live the real "free" life. So I would say the play is pretty much relevant even in today's society and not only in 19th century.
It is up to everyone to choose the way he/she wants to live. There is no way to change a human mind and behaviour. Some people are just the way they are and nothing will change them, maybe if they experience some life changing situation when they will realise what life is really all about or if they suddenly start to think about the way the have lived so far (just as Nora).
Today I will talk about the time period of the period, which is important for understanding of the book's plot. I have talked about it in a lot of entries now, but this one will be specifically dedicated to this.
So, the play is set in the 19th century. A time where women as wifes were not respected as they should have been and were more like dolls (from here is the book's name) of their husband to play. They were having hard times finding jobs and a woman living alone, without any husband, had a bad times making money for living, the worse when she had children. 19th century was really harsh for women, even if they did no realized it, but they were only controlled by men and had no real life, only life full of caring for children and their husbands. Anything husband wanted they must have done, there was no questioning, otherwise they could have been kicked out of the house and live on their own, which was not good as I have mentioned above.
Some men, in nowadays society might feel the same way about women just as they did in 19th century, that women are to care for household and listen to their husband and nothing more. On the other hand, some women nowadays like to be cared this way, cause for them it might seems comfortable, but they will not have the chance to live the real "free" life. So I would say the play is pretty much relevant even in today's society and not only in 19th century.
It is up to everyone to choose the way he/she wants to live. There is no way to change a human mind and behaviour. Some people are just the way they are and nothing will change them, maybe if they experience some life changing situation when they will realise what life is really all about or if they suddenly start to think about the way the have lived so far (just as Nora).
"Every man dies. Not every man really lives." William Wallace
Přihlásit se k odběru:
Příspěvky (Atom)