Conformity and rebellion in A Doll's House
...the loan she took out to save the life of her poor husband, is still fresh in the minds of the audience. Now when we hear of the crime Nora has committed we don’t look at her as a criminal, but as a wife who did all she could do to save her husband. Had the exposition not occurred, she may have seemed like the antagonist for breaking the law and Krogstad may have appeared as a good man who was willing to keep her secret until he needed a favor. Nora’s ignorance in the situation also helps steer the audience to believe that it is the law that is wrong and not her. When she first hears that she has committed a serious offence she reacts in disbelief. “I don’t believe it. Is a daughter not to be allowed to spare her dying father anxiety and care? Is a wife not allowed to save her husbands life? I don’t know much about law; but I am certain that there must be laws permitting such things as that…” It seems this argument is not directed just at Krogstad, but at the audience as well. It feels as if Isben is speaking through Nora, reaching out to us and asking us to try to answer this question for ourselves. The next example also involves Krogstad, but this time he is speaking with Christine.Until this point both characters have seemed quite flat to the audience. Now in Act III the pair finally becomes more rounded as we learn of their romance and its tragic ending. We hear of the sacrifice Christine made and applaud her for doing the “right thing” by leaving Krogstad for a man who could support her and aid her mother and brothers as well. This matter is not questioned as directly as when Nora forged her father’s signature, but when Krogstad and Christine decide to rekindle their romance the audience feels sympathy for the years they lost. Now we wonder if the decision Christine made was so right at all, even though it is what most at that time would have done. The last time we are asked to question conformity comes at the denouement of the play. Nora finally grasps, alon...