a dolls house

Since the premiere of Ibsen's A Doll's House, much has been discussed regarding the final controversial scene. Why does Nora leave not only Torvald but her children as well? Many critics and theater-goers questioned the morality of the play's resolution. In fact, some productions in Germany refused to produce the original ending. Ibsen acquiesced and grudgingly wrote an alternate ending in which Nora breaks down and cries, deciding to stay, but only for her children's sake.A Doll’s house; a chance to engulf yourself into someone else’s problems, and then to reflect on your own afterwards. Written by Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen in 1879, a time period where women’s statuses were considered as incapable, and that it was impossible to enter into any agreement, debts or even control their own money. A play focusing on the limitation of women and how closure can send the mind, somewhat crazy, yet free. Likewise showing an insight to the life and issues of a seemingly typical housewife who becomes disillusioned and dissatisfied with her condescending husband.
Nora, possessed by Torvold, is presented with an issue, kindled by the death of her father. She finds herself trapped by the haunting money she borrowed, enclosing her making her feel like there is no way out; the set also acting like a maze and an ultimate prison.
Nora combines childlike innocence with wifely wiles and discovers a streak of steel. Her predicament - blackmailed for having committed fraud to protect her father and pay for her husband Torvald’s recuperation from illness - provides a gripping plot culminating in the famous door slam as she leaves, disheartened. Nora has a believably passionate marriage and three charming children including a (real) baby; emphasising the heartache as Nora constantly speaks about going away and killing herself. The stakes are high and the final fracturing is no simple feminist triumph - it is heartbreaking.
Moreover, She is most child-like when she interacts with her husband. She behaves playfully yet obediently in his presence, always coaxing favors from him instead of communicating as equals. Torvald gently chides Nora throughout the play, and Nora good-naturedly responds to his criticism as though she were some loyal pet. However, Nora has been leading a double life. She has not been thoughtlessly spending their money. Rather, she has been scrimping and saving to pay off a secret debt. Years ago, when her husband became ill, Nora forged her father's signature to receive a loan to save Torvald's life. The fact that she never told Torvald about this arrangement reveals several aspects of her character. This was un heard of during this time period as women shouldn’t have been doing anything like this and they were considered to be a minority, that the men should be superior to the women.
On the other hand; Torvold, a man of true ignorance, constantly embracing the belief that a man’s role in marriage is to protect and guide his wife. He clearly enjoys the idea that Nora needs his guidance, and he interacts with her as a father would. He instructs her with trite, moralistic sayings, such as: “A home that depends on loans and debt is not beautiful because it is not free.” He is also eager to teach Nora the dance she performs at the costume party. Torvold likes to envision himself as Nora’s savior, asking her after the party, “[D]o you know that I’ve often wished you were facing some terrible dangers so that I could risk life and limb, risk everything, for your sake?” However blind to the actions and goings on preformed by Nora.
Although Torvald seizes the power in his relationship with Nora and refers to her as a “girl,” it seems that Torvald is actually the weaker and more childlike character. Dr. Rank’s explanation for not wanting Torvald to enter his sickroom,”Torvald is so fastidious, he cannot face up to anything ugly”,suggests that Dr. Rank feels Torvald must be sheltered like a child from the realities of the world. Furthermore, Torvald reveals himself to be childishly petty at times. His real objection to working with Krogstad stems not from -deficiencies in Krogstad’s moral character but, rather, Krogstad’s overly friendly and familiar behavior. Torvald’s decision to fire Krogstad stems ultimately from the fact that he feels threatened and offended by Krogstad’s failure to pay him the proper respect. In addition, Torvald is very conscious of other people’s perceptions of him and of his standing in the community. His explanation for rejecting Nora’s request that Krogstad be kept on at the office—that retaining Krogstad would make him “a laughing stock before the entire staff”—shows that he prioritizes his reputation over his wife’s desires. Torvald further demonstrates his deep need for society’s respect in his reaction to Nora’s deception. Although he says that Nora has ruined his happiness and will not be allowed to raise the children, he insists that she remain in the house because his chief concern is saving “the appearance” of their household.
Krogstad is the antagonist in A Doll’s House, but he is not a villain. Though his willingness to allow Nora’s torment to continue is cruel, Krogstad is not without sympathy for her. As he says, “Even money-lenders, hacks, well, a man like me, can have a little of what you call feeling, you know.” He visits Nora to check on her, and he discourages her from committing suicide. Moreover, Krogstad has reasonable motives for behaving as he does: he wants to keep his job at the bank in order to spare his children from the hardships that come with a spoiled reputation. Unlike Torvald, who seems to desire respect for selfish reasons, Krogstad desires it for his family’s sake.
Like Nora, Krogstad is a person who has been wronged by society, and both Nora and Krogstad have committed the same crime: forgery of signatures. Though he did break the law, Krogstad’s crime was relatively minor, but society has saddled him with the stigma of being a criminal and prohibited him from moving beyond his past. Additionally, Krogstad’s claim that his immoral behavior began when Mrs. Linde abandoned him for a man with money so she could provide for her family makes it possible for us to understand Krogstad as a victim of circumstances. One could argue that society forced Mrs. Linde away from Krogstad and thus prompted his crime. Though society’s unfair treatment of Krogstad does not justify his actions, it does align him more closely with Nora and therefore tempers our perception of him as a despicable character.

More on the staging.
The set had four sections or rooms, joined together by a hall way which leads to the front door; these rooms were representative of the whole house. When you initially entered the theatre only one room was visible therefore, when it began rotating at the start it amazed the audience and it symbolised that we, the audience were looking at every aspect of Nora’s family and not just one room or situation. The room seen first by the audience was, the living room it was ‘a comfortably and tastefully, but not expensively furnished room’ there were no luxuries or bold colours. This room was the neutral ground literally and figuratively throughout the play, this was an area where all characters were accepted, and the plain furnishings were a reminder of the Helmer’s somewhat reduced financial situation. Across the hall way was the dining room, this is where the majority of the serious context took place; this was made clear from the start by the dark wood and alcohol that crowded the room. The bedroom was different to all the other rooms in the ‘house’ it was homely and had a warm feel to it, however this is ironic as the climax of Nora and Torvald’s marriage breaking happened in here. Leading off from the living room was Helmer’s office, it was a small and dimly light room littered with papers...