Non-Causal Linearity In Contemporary Drama - Book Report/Review Example

Non-Causal Linearity In Contemporary Drama Introduction: Ibsen’s A Doll’s House has been one of the most acclaimed theatrical works of Ibsen and has been of interest to viewers and actors likewise. There are four major characters: Nora, Torvald Helmer (Nora’s husband), Mrs. Linde (Nora’s school friend and Krogstad’s love), Krogstad (Torvald’s subordinate) and Dr. Rank (often overlooked as a minor character- Helmers’ family doctor and friend). Not only does Nora’s character has drawn significant controversy from days when the play was first staged to the present day, but also each character. The changes in the character seem to suggest that human nature is unpredictable. However, it also hints at the conflict between appearance, action and motives. There could be ‘motiveless malignity’, but this raises questions about the nature of malignity and villainy. The characters are complex and the themes are many adding richness to the play. This increases the scope for acting and theatrical presentation of the characters. In this context, the characters pose a real challenge to the actors who are supposed to live those roles truthfully. This paper reviews various resources that help an actor explore the scope of the play and its characters with special focus on Krogstad, who is quite an interesting character. Neil Krogstad: A Character Study: Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” is play in three acts, interesting theatre actors and producers ever since it was written. Its characters are intricate, giving way to multiple interpretations. The plot in itself is complex and has invited criticism from various fronts from the audience to literary and social critics. Neil Krogstad is one of the four major characters in the play. He is a subordinate of Torvald in the bank, where Torvald is the manager. He also knows Nora’s act of forging the signature of her father in order to get a loan towards the health reasons of her husband. He also has committed a similar crime of forging a signature, but has his own reasons for that. Those are bank documents and Torvald has a strong say on Krogstad’s actions. As a consequence, Krogstad’s job is as stake and Torvald has decided to employ one Mrs. Linde in Krogstad’s position. Eventually, Krogstad loses his job, if this is done. In this scenario, Krogstad wants Nora to influence her husband’s decision in his favour if her secret has to be kept from Torvald. This is clearly blackmail and Krogstad is seen to be a villain for Nora. She is put into a dilemma and internal conflict. This implies Krogstad to be capable of manipulating situations and people. He goes to the extent of requesting not just retaining him in the job but to be given a promotion. He sounds so cold without any convulsions of conscience or ethical considerations. To clear the controversies around his role as the villain, though a volume of literature has been written about the play and its characters, the play is the best place to start with. When Krogstad is introduced into the play, everything about the characters Nora and Helmer and their household seems fine and peaceful. The entry of Krogstad appears more of an intrusion disturbing the peace of the protagonist Nora. From the perspective of Helmer, he is considered a liar and morally corrupt person. In this light, he is interpreted as the antagonist of the play. His appearance as delineated from Act I Scene IV as a dark figure connotes evil. He looks desperate because he is in dire trouble and Nora is his last resort to retain his social reputation by helping him retain his job. He seems to have a powerful will and can be contrasted with Dr. Rank. Even when Nora offers money, he does not seem to dissuade or flinch. A character that has motives that cannot be thwarted with money is something interesting. Nora’s reaction to Krogstad, using phrases like “that’s impossible” (841), impacts the audience response towards Krogstad. Krogstad evolves as a villain posing threat to the protagonist creating an element of suspense and curiosity in the plot for the audience. Krogstad, apart from being portrayed as a villain impeding on the peace of Nora, also can be one of the catalyst propelling the play, taking advantage of Nora’s past fault and he being the creditor. However, he is the primary impeding agent in the play causing “impedance in the pursuit of the project” (Beckerman Dynamics 47). At this juncture, Krogstad appears an insatiable and spiteful villain. But, the play takes an unexpected turn in the events with the entry of Mrs. Linde, who appears to have loved him and still interested to renew the relationship. This brings up a new Krogstad into the picture- a loving, happy and kind person. It seems to be a drastic difference in the character that it throws the reader perplexed. What sort of a person is Krogstad? Especially, how should his character and nature be portrayed best by an actor? This has a lot of implications for an actor, like me. Krogstad, in the first half of the play can be well related to a typical villain of the contemporary melodramas, where the villain is coldblooded and look sinister. However, is Krogstad such a villain, who is inherently evil? What are possible motives for his visit to Nora, the first time? Does he come with an intention to blackmail her? If not, under what circumstances does he turn to blackmailing? These questions are probing into the motive of Krogstad. The answers help the actor to decide the outfit, expressions and the portrayal of the real nature of Krogstad. How this research helps me as an actor: I read the play, its critique from a theatre performance perspective with supporting information from Beckerman, Bernard’s “Dynamics of Drama: Theory and Method of Analysis”. I think that the character Krogstad is a complex one to portray. But, to dig deeply, he emerges as another human who is desperate and resorts to blackmail as his tool with hopes that it will save him. His ability to transform reveals the potential goodness in him. So as an actor to understand the character is very important to live the role. This research helps me see Krogstad critically to comprehend the complexity of his nature and motives and to perform the role better. Bibliography Beckerman, Bernard. “Dynamics of Drama: Theory and Method of Analysis.” New York: Drama Book Specialists, 1979. Davis, Dena Michelle, “Only Connect”: A Journey of Teaching Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House to Play Analysis Students. Master of Arts (Theatre), May 2004, 89 pp., 18 November 2009 < http://digital.library.unt.edu/permalink/meta-dc-4526:1> Freeman, Roger. “Narrative and Anti-Narrative: Televisual Representation and Non-Causal Linearity in Contemporary Drama” Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism 12.1 (1997): 39-56. Ibsen, Henry. A Doll’s House. 2005. 18 Nov. 2009 http://www.sunbasinriders.org/ebooks/ibsen-adollshouse.pdf Read More