Dear all,
1. Read Act 2 (HL for Thursday/ SL for Friday).
2. Pick one aspect from Act 1 and take notes on how it develops in Act 2.
Post your thoughts and respond to one other post.
Thank you.
Mrs Gougeon
1. Read Act 2 (HL for Thursday/ SL for Friday).
2. Pick one aspect from Act 1 and take notes on how it develops in Act 2.
Post your thoughts and respond to one other post.
Thank you.
Mrs Gougeon
Throughout Act 2, Nora’s character seems to develop dramatically. In Act 1, she is seen as selfish and a liar. The audience finds out about her lies through the macaroons, Mrs Linde but then through Krogstad and the forgery. Nora is a happy and excited character with child-like tendencies, getting overly excited about her husband’s promotion and coming into money. In Act 2, Nora seems to be whirling out of control. She changes from being non-chalant about the forgery to worrying so much she has to distract her husband from reading the letter revealing everything about it. There are signs of her considering committing suicide or leaving the house which foreshadows the possible ending for the play. Therefore, Nora Helmer’s mental stability seems to decrease throughout Act 2 as well as the end of Act 1. From the very beginning however, the audience seems to notice some mental instability in Nora as she seems to talk in rushed tones and sometimes to herself it seems. Even through Act 1, Nora is obsessive and overly enthusiastic about the job Helmer has received. It is only when Nora realises the consequences of her actions at the end of Act 1 that the audience begins to witness her downfall.
ReplyDeleteA deep insightful analysis, I agree with with you in that Nora is becoming slightly more unhinged as the story progresses due to the consequences of her actions. However there appeared to be a lack of evidence (quotes) to back up these statements. Otherwise it seems that you've explored her character development really well.
DeleteWhy do you think that she acts like this ? Is it to distract her husband ? Or more importantly, to distract herself ? I see her desperate acts to be a cry for help and a way to try and forget her foolish crimes.
DeleteOut of all the characters in "A Doll's House", Nora's character seems to have been developed the most throughout act one and two. In act one, Nora seemed quite happy and content with her life, even though she is constantly being patronized and looked down on by Torvald. Whereas in act two, she eventually starts to realize - very subtly - that she needed to stop being treated like a "doll" by men and start being more independent. In act one, Ibsen also portrays her as a woman who is very unwise and thoughtless when it comes to money. In act two, the audience sees more of this side of her and no longer see Nora as a good, care-free wife but a deceitful woman who tells many lies and keeps many secrets from her husband.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that Nora's character developed the most throughout act 1 and 2. In act 2, she is probably starting to realize that she's wrong by letting Torvald control her or look down on her. Nora tries to avoid this by referring herself with the pet names Torvald calls her in order to manipulate him.
DeleteIn act 1,Torvald calls from his study, asking if Nora has just returned home and calling her “little sky-lark” and “little squirrel”. Torvald’s nicknames for Nora suggest that he thinks of her almost like child or a pet and she goes with the flow. This Impression is emphasized when Nora hides the macaroons earlier in the script like a mischievous child afraid of getting caught. Torvald’s parent-like attitude is evident by the way he speaks to Nora about money and this implies that he thinks that she is not intelligent enough to be responsible with money.
ReplyDeleteIn act 2,Nora asks Torvald if “a little squirrel” (referring to herself) asked nicely would he do something. This shows that Nora attempts to manipulate Torvald using the kind of play-language he adopts when he is speaking affectionately to her. Torvald replies that he would first need to know what the favor was but Nora ignores him, saying that if he let her have her way she will scamper and do “marvelous tricks” and sing. Her comments about singing and dancing add to the idea of performing her role as a wife and entertain him. Also the reference to the elfin child shows that she is willing to follow or adopt the role of a child.
In act 2 also, Nora has an almost fawning attitude towards Torvald at this stage. The way she acts around him seems more unnatural and their marriage seems more like a performance and the connection between them is less genuine but Torvald still continues treating Nora like a child; The gesture of grabbing her chin is a similar body language between a parent and child.
i agree and think that Nora's character has changed dramatically from act one to act two. In act one Nora responded to the belittling nicknames Torvald had for her as a way to manipulate him. However in the second act not only is she responding to them but referring to herself with these same nicknames. This is because of the hectic situation and pressure she feels which causes her to belittle herself.
DeleteI also think Nora's character has changed the most throughout act one and two. Her behavior towards Torvald in act two is different from how she acts around him in act one - she acts very unnaturally and fake around him in act two whereas in act one, although she still puts up a fake persona in order to manipulate him, she does it in a very subtle and sneaky way. This shows the audience that her guilt is beginning to take over her as a person.
DeleteOne aspect from act 1 that has developed in act 2 is the ruthlessness of Nora. In act 1 it was hinted that she does not use discretion when it comes to acquiring money and that she will use any means necessary. In act 1 when Mrs Linde asks how she was able to get the money she says "There are all sorts of ways I might have got it. [lying back on sofa] I might have got it from some secret admirer or other - after all I'm quite attractive..." in act 2 we see this escalate as she flirts with Dr Rank tells him "You shan't see another thing - you've been very naughty." and then asks him for "something really enormous - not just advice or help, but a really great favour." This shows that this aspect has evolved from simply having a wide array of tactics in act 1 to becoming extremely ruthless as she seduces a dying man to granting her a favour. when she says that she is attractive it shows that she is aware that she can use her feminine charm to persuade people but does not imply using it at all she was half-joking. However in act 2 she clearly uses it so that Dr Rank acts on emotion rather than logic and reason, thus Nora increases her chances of being given what she wanted. This demonstrates her development into a darker and more manipulative character compared to the first act .
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you on Nora's manipulative character and how it has developed in act 2 especially when she flirts with Dr. Rank to persuade him. However, I think her attitude changes entirely after the confession where refuses to ask her favor. I believe she has developed some moral integrity. Despite her desperate need, she realizes that she would be taking advantage of Dr. Rank by exploiting on his strong love for her.
DeleteDuring the first Act we understand a bit about Torvald and Nora’s marriage. We learn that money is what gives Torvald the power in the marriage. However we understand that through Nora’s obedience she is able to manipulate Torvald into rewarding her. Upon finding out that she borrowed money in the first act we can see that Nora’s obedience is very superficial. Nora seems happier just acting as if she is obedient and receiving the rewards rather than actually making it something that she can really believe. During the second act our knowledge of their marriage is furthered as Nora talks of how Torvald likes seeing her singing and dancing. Torvald wants her to perform the tarantella at a fancy dress party; I think the dance is a symbol of their marriage however mainly of her position in their marriage. The idea of “acting” or “performing” in their marriage is shown through the use of the tarantella and calling her names such as songbird etc. We have a greater understanding as to what their marriage is like although at the start it seemed petty and only minor that Nora could manipulate him however in the second act we understand that not only does she manipulate him however she is also used as entertainment and is always been asked to sing and dance around the house. Nora comments on the previous night saying it wasn’t as pleasant as things normally are this may foreshadow the future of Nora and Torvalds marriage.
ReplyDeleteWould you say that Nora uses dancing as a way to appease or to manipulate Torvald? It seems to me that she's using it to distract him from Krogstad's letter in the mailbox.
DeleteIn act 1, Nora seems completely happy. We see this through the way she responds to Torvald's teasing, her excitement of his new job, and how she takes pleasure in the company of her children. She also does not seem to mind her doll-like existence in which she is patronized. In act 2, she has a conversation with Torvald where she refers to herself with Torvald’s pet names of her. This shows how strong her manipulation has grown from act 1 and she does this so it will make him willingly in to her wishes. additonally, in act 2, her interaction with Dr Rank is similarly manipulative. She flirts with Dr Rank in order to persuade him speak to her husband about keeping the bank yet refuses to ask her favor after he confesses his love for her. This shows that despite her desperate need, his love for her becomes too much to handle and in result she retreats in a rather childlike way.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Nora's interaction with Dr Rank is similarly manipulative in act 2. She flirts with him just as she does with Torvald, this is shown in the stage direction on pg 193, " [She flip him(Rank) lightly on the cheek with the stockings]". This suggests that Nora would do much more in her desperate need to hide her secret from Torvald.
DeleteAct 1 establishes the main characters and their personality. In act 1 when Dr. Rank says that Torvald is "morally diseased", this is a major clue to the events that occur in act 2. Firstly is can be seen that Nora, Torvalds caring wife, is the moral disease that infects him. On the the other hand, it can be seen as the doctor giving the wrong diagnosis and that it is truly Nora that has a moral disease. This later on reveals itself in act 2 and that both of them have been infected with this moral disease, most likely Nora infected her husband by her manipulation and her innocence. Krostag threatens to reveal Nora's biggest secret (forging her fathers signature) to Torvald and is about to fire him from the bank. Now instead of confessing to what she did she instead pleads for her life, this is where I believe the disease has run its course and is impossible to cure now. I also believe that Nora's "moral disease" will infect other characters throughout the rest of the story.
ReplyDeleteIn Act 2, there is a development in Nora's character, this is portrayed through her increasing need in keeping her secret from Torvald. In act 1, Nora seems more calm and is able to hide her secret better. She showed little care in being called names such as "little skylark", "little squirrel" and "little scatterbrain". She also highlights her love for money more in act 1 than in act 2. This changes in act 2 as we see Nora's calmness starts to fade and she seems to be panicking more. She even considers leaving her children with the nanny. Moreover, Nora starts to call herself the names that Torvald uses, this is done in desperation as she tries to beg Torvald to give Krogstad his job back. Nora also tries to flirt with Dr Rank to get him to help her. At the end of act 2, instead of counting money, she counts the time she has left until the tarantella will be over. This emphasises Nora's desperation as she is able to prioritise other things and not think about money at this point in the play.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between Nora and Torvald is developed throughout the two acts. In Act 1, it is clear that their marriage and relationship was maintained through Nora’s obedience and respect for Tovald and his manipulative and authoritative power over the household. Whilst Torvald belittles Nora by calling her “little” and “songbird” etc. which clearly implies his superiority and power over the female, Nora believes that her role as a wife is to entertain and please him as well as allowing him to maintain his pride and authority. However in Act 2, there seems to be a development in this relationship. Nora’s words and actions, referring herself as Torvald’s pet and expressing her unhappiness towards Torvald’s superior control, suggests her negative opinion on their relationship.
ReplyDeleteIn act 1 Nora eats macaroons and tries to hide that fact that she ate them from Torvald, and does that on several occasions with hiding things. In act 2 food is also used which could foreshadow what could come later in Act 3. When Nora and Dr Rank are having a conversation about Dr Rank’s father’s illness Nora asks, “He was too fond of asparagus and foie gras- isn’t that it?” Then the conversation follows;
ReplyDelete“What a shame that all those nice things should attack the bones.”
“Especially when the unfortunate bones they attack never had the least enjoyment out of them”
This could foreshadow the worse that is to come for Nora in Act 3, which could lead to death or having to leave Torvald. The macaroons that Nora eats in act 1 she did not get to enjoy as she “puts the bag of macaroons into get pocket” before Torvald sees. Dr rank mentions, “….the unfortunate bones they attack never had the least enjoyment out of them” which also implies that Dr Rank knows of this and is aware Torvald and Nora’s relationship consists of lies and deceit. This enforces the flirting between Nora and Dr Rank in act 2 as he realises there relationship isn’t stable. Torvald loves Nora asked he confessed and is willing to give his “body and soul” to try and make her happy. (could lead to her running away with Dr rank)
In Act 1, Helmer’s behavior of belittling Nora is seen throughout the act. Initially we see this as he constantly compares her behavior to animals such as a ‘skylark’ and a ‘squirrel’. In addition to this, he often describes her as ‘little’ as if she is like a child. This suggests that not only is Helmer accustomed to such behavior but is also placed upon a pedestal of control by both him and Nora as she never objects such nicknames. In addition to this, Helmer’s relationship with money is clearly established in Act 1 as he is always cautious regarding Nora’s expenditure. This is seen in act 1 where he says ‘Did you say bought?’. Furthermore Helmer can be described as a moral person in act 1 as he is conscious regarding the consequences of Krogstad’s wrongdoings. In Act 2, Helmer’s position of authority is unwavered as he continues to belittle Nora by comparing her a ‘squirrel’. In addition to this he calls her a ‘scatterbrain’ when Nora questions her kindness to him. This shows that Helmer feels that he is entitled to her respect and kindness. This leads me to believe that Helmer’s behavior of treating Nora will continue throughout the play. In addition to this, I believe his current behavior foreshadows a large and significant argument between him and Nora which will in turn cause him to leave. Helmer’s dominant role in his marriage is further reinforced by the author as Helmer expects Nora to dance and sing at the event they will be attending together. Helmer’s relationship with money however is not further developed in this act which suggests that the author felt it was unnecessary as it may have already been clearly established in Act 1.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the aspect that evolved the most from Act 1 to Act 2 has to be the relationship between Torvald and Nora. This is because in the first act we see Nora acting somewhat deceiving and being the real string holder for the puppets and she plays around with Torvald going ahead with the “insults” he says to her. The relationship seems fake and seems like just a plan for something greater but then in Act 2 we start seeing the emotion between the two people with the things that Nora had done for Torvald and how she actually worries for him and his health. We start to see that they are kind of a real relationship… or Nora is just really good at acting.
ReplyDelete