Tuesday, September 16, 2008

"A Doll's House" Video Critique of Act 1, opening scene

video

You will obviously notice some minor differences between this video and your text; some of the differences are the choices of the director to adapt the play to film (cutting lines or changing the order), and some are from using a different translation--and I would like you to keep this in mind when you are critiquing the film. You should use your knowledge of the play so far (you should have read all of Act 1) to comment on the following in your post:

The Assignment:

  1. Post your reaction to how the director of this film clip chooses to portray either Nora or Torvald based on your knowledge of the play in Act 1. This assignment is worth 40 points (Homework) and is to be posted by noon on Friday, September19th, 2008. Your comments need to be:
  • At least 700 words--(this is certainly a minimum; in order for you to comment on the movie, you must make me "see" what you are seeing, which takes quite a few words: how are the characters dressed, what do they look like, what are their mannerisms, expressions, tone etc....
  • You need to provide textual evidence from the play to support your argument. With no evidence, you will not be able to substantiate your argument.
  • Include your thesis, (which is your opinion of the above prompt.) You can use "I", but you do not need to--everything you write will be your opinion. It is redundant to say it is.
  • Different from what is posted before you!

This will be graded on the Malden High Rubric for Open Responses and you can access it by clicking this link.

28 comments:

Kyle G. 6 said...

The movie clip we had to watch was the scene from the play The Doll House by Henrik Ibsen. I learned from the beginning of the clip that the play takes place a long time ago. At the beginning of the movie clip takes place in a field. The reason why they show us this is to provide us with the time era. It is around the late 1800’s. We also learn that it is during the winter because there is a lot of snow on the ground. I know that it is Christmas time because on page 5 of the book, Thorvald says, “Do you think I don’t know what a lot is wanted for house keeping at Christmas time.” We also know that this takes place in the late 1800’s because there are no streets and the way of transportation is by horse ad carriage. That’s how we know the setting of this play.

At the beginning of the movie clip, Torvald is at a table doing work. He is wearing a three piece suit. He has a black suit jacket on, he is wearing a vest, and he has a shirt and tie on under his vest. Torvald looks like he is in his early fifties. He also speaks with and accent and he is very stern. After they show Torvald, his wife Nora walks through the door. She is wearing a purple shirt. She is younger than her husband. She looks like she is in her late 40’s. She has black hair which she had tied in a pony tail.

In my opinion, I think that the author is trying to portray Nora as very money hungry and at some points greedy. We also find out that Nora is a liar. We know this because Nora wasn’t supposed to eat candy, but in page 4 of the book, the narrator says, “Just now. (Puts the bag of macaroons into her pocket and wipes her mouth.” When Nora’s husband came to the door, she acted quickly to hide what she was eating (macaroons) and she made sure she wiped her mouth so Torvald would not see that she had been eating candy. That’s how we know that Nora has no problem lying to her husband.

Now back to the reason why I think she is money hungry. I think that Nora is money hungry by the way she acts in the beginning of the play. On page 4 at the beginning of the play, Torvald walks into the room and asks, “has my little spendthrift been wasting money again.” Nora responds by saying on page 4 “yes, but Torvald, this year we can really let ourselves go a little. This is the Christmas that we have not needed to economize.” Nora says this quote to Torvald. She is trying to tell Torvald that she has spent a lot of money but they are rich so he shouldn’t worry about it. This line not only tells us that Nora is money hungry, it also tells us about the financial status of the family in the play. This line tells us that the family is rich, they have a lot of money.

In my opinion, I also think that Nora is very greedy. I think that she is greedy because on page 5, Torvald is trying to figure out what to bur Nora for Christmas. On page 5 Torvald asks, “but now you tell me you extravagant little person, what would you like for yourself.” At first Nora says she doesn’t want anything by saying on page 5 “For myself, oh I am not sire I want anything.” To be nice, Torvald says “yes, but you must, tell me something reasonable that you would particularly like to have.” Nora responds buy saying “you might give me money.” Instead of saying that she would like something sentimental from Torvald fr christmas, she responds by saying she wants money for Christmas.

In the play “The dolls house” by Henrik Ibsen, Nora and Torvald are getting ready to celebrate Christmas. In my opinion, the author is trying to portray Nora as greedy, and very money hungry. I also think that torvald is a loving husband because he never yells at B=Nora for being obsessed with money. That is how the author is trying to portray Nora in this play.

Alex J 7 said...

After seeing the movie "A Dolls house" it did not change my opinion of either character, it portrayed Helmer as the man who takes control of the relationship and is feared by his wife. First you can see this where Nora brings the macaroons and eats one them. He then asks Nora later”hasn’t she paid a visit to the confectioners?” she then answers with a lie “no I assure you, torvald-“he is the man and the head of the house. He is dressed in black in the movie as men during the Victorian era dressed with a beard and seems very arrogant in his whole interaction with his wife.

He also controls the money with an iron fist. In one scene he is handing Nora the money very excitedly as though he is giving her a prize. It seemed strange for him because he was complaining about how to spend money saying “one would hardly believe how expensive little persons are!” I feel like he contradicts himself here. He wants to Christmas “extravagant” for the children but he doesn’t want his wife to spend the money on”foolish” things for Christmas. He asks her “has my little spendthrift been wasting money again?” implying they don’t have enough money to be spending so. The house is portrayed in the movie as one of richness.

The people who own the house obviously have money and shouldn’t be complaining about being in debt with all these lavish things. As Nora is the one who bought these pieces of furniture maybe the reason why they are in serious debt. In the video also, torvald is being fawned over showing she is groveling at his feet just to get his money because she can’t use her words to get what she wants. Also, in the olden days, owning a piano was a sign of being wealthy and they just happen to own one which also contributes to their not complaining of their money issues.

Also helmer is working in his office when Nora came home just as the man of the house should usually portrayed. He felt they as a couple shouldn’t be spending money but in yet Nora says “this is the first Christmas that we have not need to economies” showing in the past, they lacked the funds to have a sufficient holiday. It also becomes apparent when torvald says “then I merely have to pay up again” showing he mind doing this, but only to an extent. When paying his wife the money he hates it, in yet he does it which contradicts his character. He also says “it is a good that our hard times are over” according to torvald, his hard times are in the past and they are fine to money. He still says they shouldn’t spend their money foolishly and he said that they don’t have to worry which is contradicting.

The director portrays torvald as being very in love with his wife regardless of whether she is intimidated by him or not. He is seemingly willing to do anything for her in the movie. Everything she asks of him he does. Not once did I happen to see them arguing or fighting as they should be because of the Nora acts toward torvald. Also you can see that they are very happy together, but they do have underlying problems within their relationship. Torvalds’ mannerisms are also very touch-feely when he is with Nora so clearly they are in love. He often calls her “little”, “squirrel”, “skylark” which are all pet names only couples who are passionate toward each other speak of.

The tone of Torvald when he and Nora are speaking of the Christmas when he says “its delightful to think of, isn’t it?” sounds to me like he was being sarcastic to his wife even though he is trying to make his wife think he cared about the holiday to try and make her happy. The house is also very decorated and festive but there is still an underlying feeling of lies from Nora to torvald about money and tension of whether to spend it or not.

This film clip portrays torvald as a controlling man that is the head of his house and is very in love with his wife. The book was not portrayed all that differently in mind at all. What I envisioned of the setting, the characters, their costumes and the actual acting all worked very well and benefited the text.

Kristi G. 6 said...

Scene 1 A Dolls House


The movie clip we watched in the computer class was based on the scene from the play “The Doll House” by Henrik Ibsen. The movie clip was on scene 1 which we also read for homework. The movie clip was a lot like what I imagined the scene would have looked like. What I saw in the movie clip was that it was Christmas and there was snow outside. The author starts the poem by Nora coming into the house with presents she has bought for the kids for Christmas. The movie director’s point of view towards Nora is that she is money hungry and she seems to be selfish and evil. And the author creates Torvald as a nice character with good manners and attitude. In the movie scene the movie director gets straight at the main point of the story and that is what people like Nora are able to do when money comes around.
The author portrays Torvald as a rich man who sitting in his office, dressed nicely with a suit. And also the author portrays Torvald as a nice person because whatever Nora seems to ask him he tries to agree and listen to her thoughts. While the Author portrays Nora as money hungry and selfish; for Nora everything comes down on money. In the scene 1 I see Nora jumping up and down when Torvald starts handing money over to Nora. Also in the scene it seems as Nora is trying to flirt with Torvald trying to seem cute so Torvald can give money to her. Both Torvald and Nora are dressed nicely in the movie scenes and they seem as they are a wealthy family. Nora is dressed with a nice Christmas costume and comes home happily with a bunch of Christmas presents for her kids. The movie director makes the scene look attractive and as the family is a nice and wealthy. But behind all this the movie director seems to hide the fact that this family has had problems in the past and that money is a big issue.
In the text the author makes Nora seem as money hungry and selfish. On pg 5 Torvald asks Nora what she would like for Christmas and Nora responds “You might give me money.” This shows how much Nora is loves money and how selfish she act. Torvald tries to get Nora a nice Christmas present but Nora refuses a present and asks Torvald “You might give me money” pg.5 This quote shows the horrible attitude Nora is giving towards Torvald.
On pg.13 Nora expresses what kind of an evil person she is. “Perhaps I got it from some other admirer. When anyone is attractive as I am.” I think this quote really describes what kind of a character Nora really is. The fact that she has been hiding this secrets from Torvald her whole life. Nora had an affair with another person in order to get the money she needed. The fact that she does almost anything when it comes to money. And she goes on to say on pg.13 “When anyone is as attractive as I am.” Nora knows she is attractive and can get her way around by fooling men.
I believe the movie director and the author portray Nora as an evil and selfish woman that does anything to get her hands on money. The fact that on the movie scene she jumps around when Torvald starts to hand money over to Nora. In the movie scene your able to really see what kind of a woman Nora really is by her actions and how she gets all excited when the word “money” comes around. It seems as money brings her all the happiness in the world. And on the text on Act 1 Nora mentions money over and over again. It seems that in every page of the book Nora mentions the word “MONEY” at least once.

amanb7 said...

The movie clip we had to watch in the class for act one of “Doll House” By Henrik Isban was set long time ago in the winter. At the beginning of the clip takes place in a snow field where there is a horse carriage, so that means that the setting is about 1800's. I can tell its winter and Christmas time because Nora enter the film by bringing in presents and talking about a Christmas tree and also on page 5 in the play Thorvald says, “Do you think I don’t know what a lot is wanted for house keeping at Christmas time.” It is also shown that the scene is taken olden times because they’re no streets or other transportation to travel rather then a horse. The starting of the movie begins with Nora bringing the presents for her family, She looks like young women in her late 20's. she has brunette hair tied up in a bun. She is wearing a red wool coat with white fur and later on she takes it off and she is wearing a purple dress detailed with white flowers. When she enter the study room where her husband she looks very young for her husband. Torvald on the desk doing his work. He is wearing a three piece suit. He has a black suit jacket on, he is wearing a vest, and he has a shirt and olden time tie, under his vest. Torvald looks like he is in his early 50s. He looks very strict and proper man. Nora and Torvald both have a accent as I remember in class aren’t they from like Norway.

I think that the author is trying to show Nora as very greedy for money like she is in love with it and maybe that why she has married torvald also she lies to torvald she doesn’t seem like she has that honesty relationship with her husband that all relationships should have I can say that because in the play when she bought the macaroons she hid it from her husband and wiped her face and after when torvald asked her she just liked to him that she will never go against his will find out that Nora is a liar. We know this because Nora wasn’t supposed to eat candy, but in page 4 of the book, the narrator says, “Just now. (Puts the bag of macaroons into her pocket and wipes her mouth.” When Nora’s husband came to the door, she acted quickly to hide what she was eating (macaroons) and she made sure she wiped her mouth so Torvald would not see that she had been eating candy. That’s how we know that Nora has no problem lying to her husband.. She has a cast spell on torvald when she touches him and act so foolish he just melts in a way. When he wants to get mad he can’t.


On the other side torvald seems to control his money very well and also think about the future. As I said before it seems like Nora had some kind of spell on him because. In one of the scenes he is handing Nora some money for her present when she asks for it. He also plays with her when he is handing the money to her and she looks very desperate for that money. He Is denying himself front of her. He should show her that what he thinks is true and she need to be mature and responsible to save money just in case. It seemed strange for him because he was complaining before to her how she is “Little expensive person” he also would like a better Christmas parties they had before but he doesn’t want to waste money on useless stuff. He wants to stay on a budget and just don’t blow all the money in one second that he worked so hard for.


In the play in act one in “The dolls house” by Henrik Ibsen, Nora and Torvald who are getting ready to celebrate Christmas. The author is trying to show that Nora is a young women who seems to be very desperate for money and on the other had her husband is the responsible mature man who knows how to safe the money. He also thinks about the future what if a incident occurs what would happen to his family.

Randy C.7 said...

In my opinion from reading the beginning of play called The Doll’s House by Henry Ibsen an seen the beginning of the movie I can say that the director of the movie did a good job on portraying Nora. The way she is portrayed in the book is the same way she is portrayed in the book, as a person that only cares about money and do anything to get there hands on it. The movie and the book have some parts that are different but that always happens.
The book and the movie start mostly the same with Nora coming into the room with a lot of presents like in the book and with her hard candy. Then the way it just changes a little bit is in the part of how they were near a stove when Nora and Hermer were talking after he got out of the room. The clothing also makes them look like they are in a pretty high class of society. These gave me to think that they would have more money that she makes it sound.
When Nora sees money is like she is going to start flying and running of how happy she is. She is just port raid too good in the movie and the book is just exactly the same. They both have the same lecture. The director of this movie on my opinion on the director is that he really did a good job from what I have seen so far. If you were to watch the movie and then read the book, you would notice that they are so much alike. This movie has everything that the book has even if they take out some characters it is stile the same as the book. This movie also has the same expressions that the book has. They are also the same way.
The director also did a great job on the seen and how he picked the person that portrayed Hermer was also good. He is the same way he was in the book. He is still worrying about the money that they have and that he doesn’t want his family to owe anyone nothing specially money. That another thing that the director did not change the way that Nora will not care how they get money. This includes whether they borrow it or not. She also does not care about the things that Hermer says that she must not do but she still does it. She is still the same lyer that she is in the book and that was one good thing that the director did not change because is what gives her, her character.
In the movie Hermer caught one of her lies but did not do nothing about this and just let her go on. This also did not change and that was good. There are also more things that change like the way the Christmas tree was set up and in the book it was not put up yet. The beginning of the movie was spectacular and wander how the rest of the movie is. Is the movie the same way that the book is or those it change.
These are some of the things that make this movie so close to the book and which help me say that the director did a good job on how he directed. The beginning of the movie showed me that if the movie keeps going the way it is the movie an the book are really close on how the story goes, these were my reasons on why I think that the director did a good job on his film.

markr6 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
markr6 said...

The video clip that I am writing a critique on is an adaptation of the play “The Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen. This critique is solely on the video’s take on a fraction of Act 1 from the play. The critique will be based how the director’s vision of the play was different than mine and also how they edited the original script and scenes to fit their vision.

The opening scene is a horse drawn sled riding through a snowy field, where children are playfully running around and playfully throwing snowballs at the carriage. I’m not sure why the director added this scene besides showing the weather, which would have been known once the season and holiday was mentioned. The only other possible reason for adding this scene was to possibly show that the people had money and could afford such a luxury. Even with that as a possibility the viewer should notice their social status as they observe Nora and Torvald’s house and its decorations, maid, proper use of the English language, and their style of dressing.

The director set the video in the Victoria era, in what I assume to be England. Everything that had to do with the character’s dressing and their attitudes were accordingly to what was in the play that I saw. The only thing that didn’t seem right was the house. It seemed to small and crowded, especially since later Nora plays hide and go seek with her children, so one would assume that they’d have a very spacious home. Besides that one aspect the setting suited the era and the play.
The only negative about the play was that during its duration I couldn’t watch it in full once, it was so boring. If the director could have made it more interesting and not so cheesy and over the top it’d be a lot better. Why make a video if it’s to bring to focus on? There was this and Anthony Hopkins playing Torvald that sort of hurt the video.


Anthony Hopkins as Torvald, although he’s not what I had in mind appearance wise he certainly portrayed Torvald’s whole personality and mannerism was dead on. The impression that was given was that Torvald was a man who loved his wife dearly and was completely devoted to her. The Nora in the video was exactly like the Nora in the play. Both Nora’s came off as money hungry women. They were no where near gold diggers for Nora did love her husband, that scene where she is shocked that a woman married someone she didn’t love was not shown in the video. The difference between the two though was that in the play there was a possibility why she needed money so bad and how she conserved the money she got which was to pay off some loan, yet the video did not show that far. So the first impression given was that she was very materialistic and in love with money. The video didn’t do Nora any justice, both gave the same first impression but in the play Nora was able to change that impression where as in the video it concluded with that same impression.

The director did a good job with the video in that it matched how the play should be set up. Maybe with a bigger budget, some modern cameras, different angles, better wardrobe, and cooler photography this video would have been a lot better, actually it would definitely be better . For what it was as a whole was alright. This video had to be at least 20 years old or more. None of my views were changed through watching this video because one it already matched what I had in mind, and secondly it was way too boring for me to analyze every detail of it. The only thing that had no flaw was how the characters were portrayed within the time span of the video. Maybe if the clip was longer and there was more on Nora’s story it would have been better, but as for how the characters were portrayed was just like in the book. Kudos to the director on that part.

Mike G7 said...

After reading “A Doll’s House” and watching some of the opening act of film, I noticed some differences and similarities between Torvald. In the movie, Torvald seemed to be a lot different than my first impression. My first impression was that Torvald was a man whom did not have a lot of money but would give it all to his wife if she begged him enough.

From reading the first act, I did not expect Torvald to be dressed how he was in the opening scene in the film. This was due to Torvald and Nora both mentioning money problems in the past. Torvald quotes, “Still, you know, we can’t spend money recklessly.” The book tells us that he just got promoted to a manager, so I did not think that they would have accumulated a lot of money. In the film, Torvald looked like a man of wealth. This is due to his clothing, which looked very high class.

A second difference that I recognized was where Torvald started in the book compared to the movie. In the book, he is in another room. When his wife gets home, he calls out, “IS that my little lark twittering out there?” Nora replies, “Yes it is”, and asks him to see what has bought. Torvald replies back by saying, “Don’t disturb me”, before coming out. In the short film, Torvald and Nora are both together in the same room during the conversation and Torvald never mentions the line, “Don’t disturb me.” Nora and Torvald also didn’t happen to move around the room or into other rooms as much as they had in the book.

A similarity that I noticed between the “book’s Torvald” and the “movie Torvald”, was how much love he had for his wife. The first thing he says to his wife was, “Is that my little lark twittering out there?” He also says things like, “When did my little squirrel come home?” In the movie, Torvald likes holding his wife, hugging her, and he is very cheerful around her. Whether you read the first act or watch the beginning of the film, you will be able to witness how much Torvald loves and appreciates his wife.

In both the film and the book, you can notice a second similarity about Torvald. He gives into Nora too easily. In this similarity, there is also a difference. The difference is how willing Torvald is of giving Nora the money. In the movie, Torvald is almost “tossing” Nora the money. He gives it to her with pride and joy and it does not faze him. He says a few things about saving, “just-in-case”, but it doesn’t stop him from giving her all the money she wants. In the book, Torvald still hands Nora the money, but seems a little less willing and tries to get his point across about how she needs to save. In the book Torvald calls Nora a “spendthrift”. He also says to her, “But you can’t save anything” and a few other words before giving in to her and handing her the money. Either way Nora gets the best of Torvald and gets him to give into her and hand over the money.

After reading the book and watching the opening act of the movie, you can compare and contrast the two versions of Torvald. I think that the movie director and the author were both on the “same page” on what kind of a character Torvald was. Besides a few limited differences, they were both very alike in how he treats his wife and how easy it is for Nora to get him to “hand over the money”. The only differences that I recognized between the two versions of Torvald were what I thought of him in my first impression and what I saw in the movie. My first impression is not the same as someone else’s first impression, so it could have been me who made the differences. If I was to compare the text of the book to what I saw in the short film I would not have been able to find too many differences between the two. This is excluding where Torvald was located in the beginning of the story. At that, it could have been a director’s choice not to have Torvald in another room. Whether you watch the movie or read the book you will be witnessing the same character.

Danny T6 said...

In the movie a doll’s house the director made choices to adapt the play differently than what was written. A movie and a book are very different and may require some adapting to create a clean good product where as a book would not face the same challenges writing a book than directing a movie. However I did not notice any significant changes in the way someone would see Torvald and Nora.

In the Movie Nora walks in wearing a red fur coat which is a symbol of wealth whereas in the book the couple are made to seem like they have a lot less money because they have to save up and spend “Carefully” in the book. The movie also shows Torvald wearing a suit which most people who have to spend their money carefully, can not afford. This could have been the way the director interpreted because in the book it does not say they are poor but, they spend carefully so how the director decided to show how much wealth they have is not wrong but most readers would see that because the couple have to spend carefully they would not have much money at all.

A similarity I saw in the book and movie was the tree and how it was decorated. The tree they have in the movie is very small and looks like it would not be very costly. This goes with the description that they would have to spend carefully because Torvald in the book and in the movie just got promoted to bank manager and would not have any extra money to spend because he has not gained any large amount of money and isn’t going to gain any money until after the New Year.

Another similarly I saw in both the movie and the book was the relationship between Nora and Torvald. Torvald seems to really love his wife both in the book and in the movie calling her things such as “My little lark” and “little squirrel” and gives her money as soon as she asks although the currency in the movie and the may have changed. In the book they used pounds, but in the movie Torvald counted his money by tens. Torvald was very cheerful around his wife in the short time we see him and how he interacts with his wife. Reading the book or watching the movie you can really get a feel on how much Torvald cares for his wife.

One more thing that does not change is that Nora is described by Torvald as spending too much both in the movie and in the book. Nora asks money from Torvald in both the book and the movie for Christmas. Torvald gives Nora two different kids of currency in the movie and the book. In the book Torvald gives Nora Two pounds and just counts it, but in the movie Torvald gives Nora Fourty dollars.

In the movie and in the book the author and the Director had pretty much the same thing in mind when defining Torvald and Nora. Other than a few differences in how much wealth they would seem to have, and maybe the setting of where the story is the actual characters seem to be mostly the same in how they act both in the beginning of the first act of the movie and the beginning of the book. Torvald loves his wife and the movie and book portray that very well and Nora is very bad with money in both the movie and the book. So whether you are reading the book or watching the movie you will get the same from the characters although there are a few minor changes from the movie to the book there is nothing that changes the story too much and you will still get the same Torvald and the same Nora.

Chad O 7 said...

In “A Doll’s House”, the character I am most interested in learning more about is definitely Nora, the wife of Torvald Helmer. She seems very greedy and money hungry and I have a feel that she is only using Torvald for his money. After watching the video clip of the first Act, it gave me a way different feel for the characters than actually just reading it.

At the beginning of the clip, it helps me to realize that this play takes place a while back probably in the 1800’s or so. They use the term “pounds”, instead of cash or dollars, Pg. 5 “Ten shillings-a pound-two pounds! Thank you, thank you, Torvald.” This quote also gives me a feel for how excited and dramatic Nora gets over money. Also, the setting of the play is during the winter, because at the beginning of the clip they show Nora riding on a horse carriage in the snow. There are no roads, which also gives me the idea that this play takes place a while back.

Nora walks into her home, wearing a beautiful looking red jacket with a feathered hood and wrist bands. She also has many gifts with her as to show that she was spending lots of money. She asks Torvald to come see what she bought, and he asks her if she has been spending money. She responds with a yes and tells him that they should go all out this Christmas because Torvald is due for a lot of money soon. Pg. 4 “Has my little spendthrift been wasting money again?” “Yes but, Torvald, this year we can really let ourselves go a little.” This quote signifies that Nora doesn’t care about there finances or what Torvald says about saving money, because all she wants to do is spend, spend, and spend some more, for the holidays. Torvold however, is wearing a nice three piece suit of some kind and looks like he enjoys his work and appreciates his wife no matter what she does. It also gives me a feel for how they must be wealthy in some way to be able to afford all the nice gifts and clothes.

Not only is Nora money hungry, but she also lies to Torvald about something really small. She eats a macaroon or two, after Torvald told her not too. Pg. 3 “She takes a packet of macaroons from her pocket and eats one or two.” When Torvald asks her about the macaroons and if she has been eating them, she responds with of coarse not, and wipes her mouth before making contact with him in the play. Pg. 6 “Not even taken a bite at a macaroon or two?” “No, Torvald, I assure you really.” Nora seems very immature towards Torvald and even lies to him. I believe that Torvald knows she has eaten some of the macaroons, and realizes that she is immature, but I think he also thinks that she is just really trying to have a good Christmas for them this year, but truly she is using him for money. Pg. 5 “If you really want to give me something, you might-you might” “ Well, out with it!” “ You might give me money, Torvald.” This makes me believe that Nora is most definitely using Torvald and he is a fool for not catching it. After telling Nora that she has spent too much money, he ask her what she would like for Christmas, and she responds with more money. This is very selfish and greedy of Nora and Torvald has to realize that she is no good.

In the play “A Doll’s House”, the characters are truly brought out in the film clip of the first Act. Nora is displayed as a very greedy and money hungry type of woman and Torvald is considered a fool for believing his wife and giving her what she wants. The characters are expressed as rich, because of there clothes and the way they spend there money. Also, the tone they use and the sweet names, help me realize that Torvald really believes that Nora is just immature when she is much more than just that. All these things are expressed in the play “A Doll’s House”.

Dian z 7 said...

The movie clip that we had watched was the scene from the play The Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen. The scenes shown in the film clip are quite different from the book. The setting of the film clip is so easy but states the background and character's personality clearly. We can get lots of information from watching this small part film clip. In the first scene, shown a horse car was running on the snow ground, several peoples were sitting on the car. Some kids played snowball on the snow ground. I learned that the story might occur in 1880's, and also occur in the winter. The main character should be a rich man who can afford the horse car. In the second scene, shown the main female character called Nora went into her house, carrying a lots of Christmas gifts. A house worker came to help her to carry the gifts. I got that the Nora is a rich woman. She hired a house worker to help her to do jobs. She bought a lot of Christmas gifts for her kids. In the third scene, shown that Nora took a packet of macaroons (candy)out from her pocket and ate one or two. Then she hided the packet of macaroon in a corner of a desk. This scene shows that Nora loved the macaroon. Although her husband Torvald did not allow her to eat candy, she ate candies without his knowledge. In the fourth scene, the Nora went into her husband's working room. Her husband Torvald named Nora squirrel and skylark. Then the husband Torvald talked to her "You mean you are putting away my money again." This scene shows that Nora was a spendthrift and she always wasted her husband's money to buy some unnecessary things. Because Torvald loves Nora so much, he did not care how much Nora has wasted. In the fifth scene, shown that Nora wanted to borrow money form others if they did not have enough money to have a great Christmas week. The Vorvald said "Yes, but what about the people who had lent it?" The Nora responded "They? who would bother about them? I should not know who they were." This scene shows the Nora's personalities. She is a selfish woman. She only cares about herself. She wants to have great life even the money is borrowed from others. In the sixth scene, shown that the Vorvald asked the Nora for what gift she wanted. The Nora responded "if you really want to give me something, you might, you might give me money.Torvald, Only just as much as you can afford; and then one of these days I will buy something with it." This scene shows the Nora loves money extremely. She has insatiable greed of money. In the seventh scene, shown that the Torvald found the Nora have eaten candies, but the Nora lied that she assured she did not eat the macaroon. The Torvald asked "Hasn't Miss Sweet-Tooth been breaking rules in town today? Hasn't she paid a visit to the confectioner's? Not been nibbling sweets? Not even taken a bite at macaroon or two?' The Nora answered NO to all those questions. Obviously, she was lying and she did not feel sorry for telling lies.
The setting is so easy but describes the scenes clearly. The Nora loves money extremely. She a is a spendthrift; she has insatiable greed of money and she also is a selfish woman. She wastes her husband's money but her husband doesn't care too much. The Nora uses the money extravagantly, she always buys something that it is unnecessary. She loves to eat candies and to tell lies. The Nora has a husband who loves her so much. In the Torvald's sight, The Nora is an expensive little squirrel and skylard. The Torvald is the host of the family, he loves Nora tremendously because Nora helps him overcome the difficulties in his lift.The Torvald hates cheater so much. But Nora always tell lies and she does not feel sorry after she told lie. What would happen if her husband find the Nora tell lies? It would be the interesting part of the story.

Brittany K. 6 said...

In the movie version of “A Dolls house,” The film director changes the way both Nora and Torvald are portrayed. In the movie Nora is dressed very well. She looks as though she is from a rich family and even her house is very rich and looks luxurious. The play doesn’t describe the same seen as it showed in the movie clip. The house in the movie clip looks incredibly rich whereas in the book it seems as though Nora and Torvald are in financial trouble. She also has her hair very well done and looks as though she is from a wealthy class. In the movie clip Nora is seen as being incredibly greedy. It seems as though the only thing she wants from her husband is money. It’s all she asks him for even for Christmas. The movie didn’t tell the viewers why Nora wanted the money. Just from the movie you would get the impression that she is very money hungry. In the book though she tells her friend Mrs. Linde the truth behind all of the money she asks for. The truth is her husband had to get help because he was dying. She realized that her husband was to prideful to borrow money from the bank so she took it into her own hands in order to try to get the money to save her husband although he believes that she borrowed it from her father. Another character that is portrayed differently in the movie as oppose to the actual play itself is Torvald. In the book I pictured Torvald to be a young looking man muscular and maybe a little bit childish looking. Although in the movie it portrayed him as an older man and he seemed a lot more mature than I had pictured him as. In the play he playfully talks with his wife Nora this action makes me see him as a much younger guy. The movie shows him to be older more mature and seems a lot more responsible than I had originally thought. In the movie Torvald is portrayed as an older rich business man. He seems to be relatively rich with his nice house and well dressed servants. He also talks very articulate in the movie, whereas in the play when he talked I pictured a much younger version of the man. In the play I pictured two young people talking in a dialogue but in fact I saw two older people who talk very maturely to each other. In the play the man and the women see as though they are incredibly in love and that they cant get enough of each other but in the movie it seems as though all of Nora’s love and desire for her husband is based around money. It doesn’t really make sense to me. Also in the book Nora seems a lot more secretive about the money than it shows in the movie. In the movie she’s almost begging him to give her money. It’s like it’s the only thing she cares about and she doesn’t even mention the children during the little movie clip she mostly just talks about money. It makes her out to be a very greedy person. Also the movie clip doesn’t show her interaction with her old friend Mrs. Linde. In the play this was a really strong part and gave the play a lot of meaning. Without this part in the movie it leaves the movie open for a lot of speculation and criticism. The movie portrays both characters differently compared to what the play shows them as. The movie leaves out a lot of parts that actually allow the play to come together in the book but without it in the movie it just doesn’t make any sense. If the movie maybe went on a little bit longer it would show more of the play and maybe it would allow us to understand the movie as oppose to the actual play more. The movie doesn’t live up to the writing of the play and it often doesn’t connect to the way the play is written. It also looks as though the play and the movie where both made in completely different time zones.

wen Z 7 said...

In the computer I saw the short film which about act 1 of the play “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen. At the beginning of the film a person sat in the horse car, it means that the time was about early 1800s. The ground was full of snow, so it was winter at that time. In page 20, we knew that that day was Christmas Eve. I also think they lived in the country, not in the city. At the beginning of the film, the person by a horse car where she passed only has trees. Other wise, she by the horse car to carried the things to home, so her house would be far away the shops. These are all I know the setting about the film.
In the film, Nora was in a red coat and white hat. She seems to a noblewoman. Under, she wear a blue cheongsam. I think she could be 38-42 years old. Helmer was older than Nora, but I don’t think he was old, maybe he was 45-50 years old. He was wearing a black swallow-tailed coat. He was working at the beginning, so he wear a glasses. In the film, they had some close movement. That seems they were loved each other very much. When they talked to each other, their tones were very soft.
In my opinion, Helmer was a hardworking person. On the page 4, when his wife come, and she went into his study. He was still writing. But his first to say was “Don’t disturb me”. On page 9, I can learn that before Helmer got a very bad ill, he over-worked dreadfully. He wanted made money every way he could. At last of act 1 in the book, Helmer went outside in ordered to take some paper about the bank business. At the same time, through the dialogue between Nora and Helmer on page 5, I found that Helmer was a thoughtful person, too. He knew Nora didn’t buy something to herself, so he asked her what did she like. This told us Helmer loved Nora very much.
I think Nora was a person who had ideas of her own. In act 1 when Helmer was illness and the doctor said he must go south. But at that time, they didn’t have so much money and Helmer didn’t want to borrow money from others. So Nora went to borrow the money and lied to Helmer. She said the money which was her father gave her. I know the setting was about 1800s, in that time the wives must obey the husbands. But she wanted saved her husband’s life, so she went to borrow the money without her husband’s permit. But she was a timid person. She afraid that Helmer had knew the truth. Nora was a liar, too. On page 3, when she came home and before she went into the study, she ate macaroons. On page 6, Helmer asked her that weather she ate candy or not. Her answer was no. On page 17, she asked Doctor Rank to have a macaroon, but she lied to him that the macaroons were given by Mrs.Linde. Nora was a woman who loves to show off her good. For example, on page 5, when Helmaer asked what he wanted for Christmas present, and she wanted a beautiful gilt paper and hang it on the Christmas tree. At the same time, I can know that she was a money hungry person, too. On page 9, she saw Mrs.Linde since many years ago, and she told her that her husband will be a manager of the bank soon. Then she showed off that how he saved her husband’s life. She felt that she was a great woman of the world.
In act 1, Helmer and Nora wanted to celebrate the Christmas. Doctor Rank, Mrs.Linde and Mr.Krdgstad had come to their home. They talked to each other. Through their talking, we could learn that the man was the money control in the family, and the person would cheat you, even you wife. We also learn that if the person wanted something, he or she will use the way which you can use.

mattn6 said...

“A Dolls House”

In the first act of “A Dolls House” by Henrik Ibsen Nora, the wife, is described by her husband as a spend drift. Little does he realize that she was actually repaying an ill gotten loan taken out on his behalf. You learn that she has been skimping and saving any and all excess money from many purchases, which she uses to pay back, that loan. The, character whom she borrowed it from, krogstad, has a less than flawless reputation. You find out at the end of the act that the crime for which he is so described as a crime that Nora has committed herself. That Nora’s indiscretion is known only to him as he puts it more then slightly did. As the loan she illegally procured from him was dense, and being repaid, not understood by her husband. Until her friend came calling, hearing that Nora’s husband torvald has been promoted to the bank manager and was a Nora’s house looking for work, Nora had told no one of how she got her hands on such a large sum of money, since the money had been gotten at the same time that Nora’s father had passed away, nora was able to lie to her husband as to where all the money had come from. Given her husbands character he would be absolute appalled to think that he owed someone money, which was used to travel south to Italy while he recaptured from the illness. His wife who objects to accept that the source of the money was one of whom he disapproves of such as krogstad would only infuriate torvald more. He claims that to be in the presence of krogstad or people of his kind makes him physically ill.

When you learn of Nora’s offense during her admission to her friend who visited her changed. The initial impression of Nora as a “spendthrift” or a “skylark” or a ‘squirrel”, which her husband uses as pet names, giving show to her true nature, which is both shrew and kind hearted all at once. She can be direful and entirely contrary to her husband will while seeming to be completely submissive to it, but not to selfish and evil end. The loan, which she forged, her dead fathers name in secret was to save her husbands life and, he would have never taken a loan out on himself. From what we know of torvald he very much would rather owe a great amount of money, which is why Nora kept it a secret from him. She only divulged it to our friend when her friend thought she knew nothing of hardship. Nora’s happy world begins to flood with doubt upon hearing her husband’s state, that which was krogstad’s social downfall, and that he spread out evil among his children. She certainly did not want to be thought of in such a vain manner such as that. Especially when she only did so to ensure the returning health of her loved husband. Had she not taken the very same steps she had taken, torvald might not at this point even be alive. Could saving her husbands life be considered an evil deed? Apparently in his eyes the appearance of life would be preferable to death. In his eyes, however the deeds justified the means. This is telling of her nature she cares more about her family and home life then about bending or breaking rules even when those rules even when those rules are rigid laws, and whose punishments would be possibly would be those of the worst infractions in justice. In some respects Nora’s quite as naive as she seems for she doesn’t consider the possible outcomes of her death. She seemed to think she could be exonerated from crime if the motives were deemed selfless, that not being the case and the law being the law Nora is in quite a predicament. These are situations were a person can most accurately be judged and Nora’s true nature is being shown to us.

Anthony G. 6 said...

In the video of “A Dolls House” Act I the director has an interpretation of the characters is accurate to that made by the author of the story. The two characters shown in this act are Nora and Helmer. The both of these are perfect representations of how the characters are made out to be in the actually play.

Nora is made out to be a gold-digger. This is an accurate representation of her up to the point that the video of Act I goes to. Even in the book as soon as Nora gets home in the first conversation that her and Helmer, Helmer said to her “Has my little spendthrift been wasting my money again?” (p.4), this shows that she has a knack for spending her husband’s money. Even later when Helmer asks her what it is that she wants for Christmas, she responds by saying, after beating around the bush a bit that “[Helmer] you might give me money Torvald. Only just as much as you can afford” (p.5). This in addition to the earlier quote shows that Nora is obsessed with money. Up to the point that the video of Act I goes up to.

The picture painted of Nora from when the video ends and the actually end of Act I differs greatly from that portrayed up to the point that the video ends at. After the point where Act I ends it is revealed that Nora had a legitimate reason for needing money. It is revealed that she had taken a loan out with Krogstad, “you brought me the bond with your father’s signature. And then I gave you the money.” (p.23). She had taken this loan without her husband’s knowledge. The lone was taken in order for Nora and Helmer to go on a trip for Helmers health. He however was too proud to let his wife take a loan for his sake. This shows a different side of Nora not shown in the video of Act I. She is not just a gold-digger she is also a very caring wife that would do anything for her husband.

Nora could also be considered somewhat deceptive. One of the first things that she dose is eat cashews that she shouldn’t be eating because of her diet. Her husband asks her about it but she denies it even though she knows that he knows and he knows that she knows that he knows. The fact that she is a deceptive person is also revealed in a part of Act 1 that occurs after the point that the video ends. This is the fact that she took out a loan which she knew her husband hadn’t wanted her to take so she took it without his knowledge and had her farther cosign it for her. In this are a women wouldn’t be able to get a loan without have a male also sign the loan. She however forged her father’s signature on this loan and had deceived Krogstad, the person that she took the loan out with, that the signature was legitimate. Despite the fact that she is a deceptive person most of the things that she lied about she had lied about to help her family.

Helmer is also represented in the video of Act I. He is portrayed as a loving husband. It is clear that he loves Nora in the video because of the tone that he uses when he talks to his wife. This is also confirmed in the play he calls her “my little squirrel” (p.4) he also refers to her as “my little skylark” (p.4). This shows how much that he cares about his wife.

In addition to be a loving husband Helmer is also very appeasing of his wife’s requests. When they talk after she gets home she suggests that she could use some more money to get some things that she would like to get for the Christmas season. He is somewhat reluctant of the suggestion at first saying that “we [Helmer and Nora] can’t spend money recklessly” (p.4). However a short time after the topic is dropped Helmer caves in and “(gives her some money)” (p.4) sensing that she was disappointed with his response.

Some of the director’s interpolations of the characters in the video of Act I were accurate up to the point that the video goes to. However later in Act I things that happen after the video ends contradict how the director represents the characters. These differences may make it more difficult for the director to accurately portray the characters at later parts of the play.

Yulin W7 said...

In the film of “ A doll’s house”, it is quite good that the way the director chose to portray Nora. Such as the fur hat and the red out-door dress, also the numbers of parcels. Those does not been mentions in the book. “enter Nora… She is in out-door dress and carries a number of parcels.” In the book, did not mention about her outfit too much. But the way the director chose on her outfit. Surely shows out part of her personality. Red is a color of fervency, danger, can not be control, or even remind people of the fox-archness. The lady act Nora is a pretty tall woman. Pretty, has sore of a long face. Such as the fox. Long cruel hair such as a doll.
Even know the director cut most of the small parts(which mean not important) . But he surely bring up the details to tell more about Nora. Such as the macaroons. In the film, Nora takes a packet of macaroons from her pocket. Eats few and hide it into the piano. And the even afraid the servant see it. But in the book “she takes a pocket of macaroons from her pocket and eats one or two; then goes cautiously to her husbands’ door and listens” to “puts the bag of macaroons into her pocket and wipes her mouth.” Here tells that, the order in the film it pretty different from the book. But it makes more senses to what is happen, what is Nora’s doing. And shows more about the childish of Nora. And for the film, she did not wipes her mouth. Then Torvald knew that she did ate the macaroons. Even know in the book Torvald ask the same things. But he did not has any thing to prove. Which mean , kind of like foreshowing something later in the film, that the director wants to show in his own ways.
After the ways director shows the mannerisms of Nora. An acquisitive mind Nora has for money. In the film, Nora talks all over money. Money, money, money, every sentence is about it. Mostly same as the book. “ ten shillings -a pound- - two pounds!” In the book, Nora use shillings and pounds. But in the movie, she use only numbers.” ten, twenty,.” Maybe is because the director is an American. Want to make this film more Americanize. Or easier to understand how much she gets from her husband. After is the way she wants to get money from Torvald, her jumps to Torvald for the money she see. And the sore of game Torvald plays with her, as her is a pet. Those are add by the director. The book did not mention any of them. “(moving towards the stove)as you please, Torvald ” , “(turning round quickly.)Money! ‘there you are.(gives her some money.)Do you think …” and “ (counting) the shillings-a pound-two pounds! Thank you , thank you , thank you, Torvald.” Differently, in the films, much fun and more details. They all shows what an acquisitive mind Nora has for money. Shows more character about Nora.
Finally is the ways the tone Nora in the film. Because the book just paper and ink, they can not really shows the tone of Nora. But the tone the director chose is being well-mannered. The stop betweens when she thinks what she wants for Christmas. “no, I really can’t think of anything---unless, Torvald-----”, “you might---------you might----” and “oh do. Please, please, do !” The film really shows very good value to tells the viewers about Nora. And shows more action in it.
This is how my comment on this film. Everything are really nice. It is really fun, even know I don’t really like Nora. But it was a good time to watch it. There are many place are different from the book. But it really help me to understand more about the book. Make everything seen easier for me.

YinW6 said...

After reading “A Doll’s House” and watching the opening act 1 of film, I saw some differences and similarities between the book description and the film description. Sometimes the book provide me more specific details and when I reading the book I need to think about the pictures of the story. But in the film, it lets me easily know about the story's setting, directly see the mannerisms, expressions and tone of the characters. In the book, the author doesn’t provided any about character's dressed and the story time, but in the film, I can see those things by the movie pictures. In the beginning of the film, I see at the beginning of the clip takes place in a snow field and there is a horse carriage, so that means the setting is about long time ago. I know it is winter and Christmas time because Nora enter the film by bringing many presents, talking about a Christmas tree and the house arranges much looks like Christmas eva and festive. Aslo, it provides more detail to prove that Nora is a spendthrift. When Nora arrived home by taking the horse carriage, she gives the Porter sixpence and says, “no keep the change” to the Porter. But in the film, the director is totally delete this part of the play.
I see Nora wearing a red wool coat and Torvald wearing a black suit jacket on, he is wearing a vest, and he has a shirt and tie on under his vest. They are looks like a very wealthy family, not looks like that Nora says Torvald in the book,“this is the first Christmas that we have not needed to economise.”(pg.4) In here, the author let me feel that they live are not very wealthy and have spend money carefully, does not look likes as wealthy as the film say. Also, Nora looks younger than Torvald in the film.
Also, I never change my first impression of Nora neither reading in the book or in the film, the author and the director both are trying to portray Nora as very money hungry. When Torvald asks Nora what kind of gift that she wants, Nora happily says to Torvald that she wants money. By the film, I thought profoundly once more that Nora is a money hungry woman . when I saw Torvald happily gives money to Nora in the film, I change my first impression of Torvald, because when t know Nora spend a lot of money on the christmas gift and tell him they have not needed to economise this year because Torvald get the big salary and earn lots and lots of moeny, then Torvald tells to Nora, “still, you know, we can't spend money recklessly”, I think Torvald is a economise person in this point of the book, but after I watch the film that he so exciting to gives Nora for Christmas, I change my good impression to Torvald. I think that Nora is a spendthrift is all his false.
Finally, the tone of Torvald has change in the film when Nora keep saying she wants money, sounds to me like he was being unsatisfied to his wife always saying money, even though he is trying to make his wife think he cared about the holiday to try and make her happy. In the book or in the film, they both are trying to show that Nora is a women who seems to be very love money and always keep saying money on her mouth, but on the other had her husband is the responsible man who knows how to economise money for the life, he always trying to tell Nora can't spend moeny recklessly.

Oscar R7 said...

The movie clip we had to watch was the scene from the play The Doll House by Henrik Ibsen. I think it’s a really good film, faithful to the book except for some parts where the director omits some speeches. The film starts in the outside; it is winter and also Christmas.

The director portraits Nora as a greedy person and Helmer as a caring husband, the reason why I don’t like the film it’s because the director choose to portrait the characters in a different way than the book.

In my opinion the characters in the book are portrait in this way: Nora is greedy but not a bad person and she worries about her family a lot she is always buying stuff for the house, her husband is very nice and polite but he has a way of treating her that seems as if he thought she was stupid.

In the film the portrait is different, the director makes Helmer very concentrated in his work and Nora just bugging him for money, there is one part when Nora turns her back to him and makes an evil smile, and this shows that in the film Nora is kind of a bad, greedy person.

In the book Nora eats the macaroons and the hides them from her husband because he controls her, I took this as if he really influences her a lot. In the film Helmer doesn’t really care much about the macaroons or at least it is not shown.

My general opinion about the film is that it omits a lot of details in order to change the way the characters behave, maybe it is to give more interest to the plot but anyways at some point I thought it was a complete different story.

BeatrizR6 said...

People always say that watching a movie is never the same as reading the actually book. In classes today we watched a movie clip of “The Doll house” by Henirk Ibsen. In the book it started off describing a room in full detail. While in the movie they showed a couple of children running around throwing snowballs someone getting a ride home by a horse into a little village. Immediately it shows the difference. In the movie the first thing Nora asked the maid if Torvald is home, you can also tell that Nora is rich by the way the home is set, she having a maid, and her furry red coat. As Nora walked around the house seem very large and you see this Christmas decorations and Christmas tree. In the book Nora was already home she sees porter who is carrying her Christmas tree. Nora didn’t want anyone to see the tree she paid the man for the tree and even ask him to keep the change. Hence that she is rich. But one of the scenes are the same she was eating macaroons hidden-ly but she didn’t hide it she just kept it in her pocket. In the movie she seem to hid it in a piano. And runs merrily to Mr. Helmer. The dialogue in the book is much more words then the actually scene. I feel like they make it very easy to understand the movie then the actually play. They used much more lovey dovey words then anything in the movie. At first Mr. Helmer seems so cold towards Nora but eventually he warmed up to her. Also in the book she got 2 pounds and in the movie she got 40 something. I really don’t know the current they use but apparently it can be in England or Europe. Not sure that country uses pounds but I am pretty sure it is England. A new scene was presented in the movie that was not in the book it was when she showed Torvald the Christmas tree, Torvald was delighted to see this tree. Although thinking that she is rich you would think that her tree would be this huge glamorous thing but apparently it wasn’t it was missing a few more branches and such. It really didn’t look like a tree it look like a tree that cost around $5 a tree that no one wanted. In the book she was much more detailed on the gifts Nora got gifts for the maids and a trumpet for Bob not a rattle as the movie said. She only got gifts for the children and Torvald. At least she was nice enough to buy her husband a gift. With all the money spend she does it doesn’t seem quite fitting that she would buy him a gift. The scene about the money it seem like she had that planned all along she said it with such passion “ You can give me money Torvald” she seem she didn’t mind spending his money at all. She even begs for it “Please Please do!” Torvald doesn’t want to give her money because she would just waste it easily. Nora knowing that Torvald loves her so much the money was easily given to her. I don’t understand why she can’t eat macaroons. She promise him that she wouldn’t eat it in the book and in the movie. But there was much more denial in the book then in the movie. Now that I realized it wasn’t too much that of a difference of the movie and the book. They portray Nora really well, I don’t if anyone notice but to me in the book and in the movie she acts so childish She seems to be younger then Torvald but like twenty years or so. Nora seems like a greedy wife that wants nothing but money! Torvald might realized that maybe she is using him for money. The one part that I found interesting was that Torvald knew Nora dad like best friend or something. He said “Just like your father” was there a marriage that was forced to keep the banking busy open?! I have no idea but that’s what I say about this movie clip and the book.

Ericka R. 7 said...

My opinion of the clip of act 1 from “A Doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen is that the director has made their house seem rich; he/she has played it up to more than what it seems like in the play. “A room furnished comfortably and tastefully, but not extravagantly.” In the play the house seems very plain. The way that the actors dressed was accurate to the time setting, which is in the 1800s. Helmer is wearing a three piece suit, and Nora has on a dress from that time. Even though the play was written in Norway, I almost expected the set would be like a house in Norway, but it looks more like a house in England.

I think that Nora didn’t seems so needy like in the play, yes, it shows her “affection” for money, but I don’t think that its up to par. “You might give me money, Torvald. Only as much as you can afford; and then one of these days I will buy something with it….Oh do! dear Torvald; please, please do! Then I will wrap it up in beautiful gilt paper and hang it on the Christmas tree. Wouldn’t that be fun?” in the clip Nora doesn’t seem so desperate and needy for the money. I think that the movie director/producer who ever did portray Nora’s childish aspect very well. She acts like she really is this little thing, “…my little lark…,…my little squirrel….,…my dear little Nora…”

In the clip, Helmer seems more teasing rather than putting her down. It didn’t seem like he worried at all. Helmer portrayed in the movie seemed like nothing compared to how he was portrayed in the play. In the play Helmer is very much in love with Nora and cares deeply about what would happen if he died. He worries much about what her situation would be. “…Suppose, now, that I borrowed fifty pounds to-day, and you spent it all in the Christmas week, and then new year’s Eve a slate fell on my head and killed me, and--” With him being worried he wants no debts and then economic worries, so he tries to tell Nora that “But, seriously, Nora, you know what I think about that. No debt, no borrowing. There can be no freedom or beauty about a home life that depends on borrowing and debt.”

Berlineda P.6 said...

berl.
There are children running after a wagon, in the snow the wagon did not stop for them so they stop but however, they seem to be happy and playing too. The maid open’s the door for Nora who is dress in a fury coat, with box on her hand. She drops them on the couch before she goes to her husband, before he starts to talk about them. The husband was in the library during some types of work. He continues to work even though she is talking to him nut she kept on cutting him until he give up. She blushes when she talks to him she does different face impression when he’s not looking. The house looks big enough and ok. The Christmas tree looks dead with only decoration. The doors have decorations. Nora has left some gifts at the door which the maid had pick up and followed her with the package that she had left behind.

The play have some of the most kind of mystery in it for example when I was reading the book I thought the house a was a small little house but then I look because Nora had said to Mrs. Linde when she came over that she does not have enough place for her to stay but then in the movie there where like a lot of place a Mrs. Lined to have stayed. The author was probably thinking of how to improve most of the character in the movie. For example he describes Nora like the typical wife in the play but then in the movie she is dress like someone you would kill to be in her place. Because she and he r husband are close they are happy. This got me wondered would there be jealousy along the way.

Jhon V.6 said...

In the clip of the play of “A doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen video in act one scene. As Christmas music is playing in the background a horse drawn carriage is riding down toward a small village on a dark night going to a house. The woman that came to the house had a lot of gift boxes on her hands. She was wearing a long red fancy dress jacket. She was greeted at the door by a servant. The servant took an item from the top of the gift boxes and placed it on a table next to the door, as the women went to knock on the door of the room Helmer was in. After knocking on the door she headed toward where the pianos are. She briefly stopped to sneak a piece of candy from her jacket sleeve. After placing the piece of candy in her mouth she hides the little white bag inside the piano between the keyboards. She then turns and takes off her heavy clothes. She walks toward Mr. Helmer’s office and knocks on the door. She enters the room in sat down on Mr. Helmer table, pushing Mr. Helmer hand so that he can stop writing what he was doing but Mr. Helmer didn’t want to stop writing, he continue to writing . At this time all she talks about is money; how he can have a lot of money and other cool stuff, he told her u can always wait for the New Year, by the looks on her face she didn’t want to wait for next year. Mr. Helmer’s asked when she got home. She explained that she went shopping for him and the kids also. They got into a conversation about money. He wonders if she spent too much money to buy use less thing that she doesn’t use. She loves to spend money. She needed money to spend. He says that they don’t have enough money. Her response is that they could always borrow some money from other people that have money. For a second he thought about what she told him. She also showed him she cares about him. She left all her kids at her house. She doesn’t care about other people but him only. When he tokes the money out of his pocket in give her $40.00, she was so happy and after she want to the other room to show him what she brought him, withes the Christmas tree, he like it and give her a kiss on her hand. After she shows him what she gets the kids for Christmas, he try to take one gift away from her to open it then she said to him no u can’t open it because it’s for later, after she place the gift that he can’t open under the Christmas tree. He ask her what does she want for Christmas, at first she stop in told him nothing, he said tell me what you really want for Christmas, them she change her mind and said to him if u really want to give me something you should give me money so that I can buy something for myself in put it under the Christmas tree. After he response at her saying that in what are u spinning the money on, is an on housekeeping and also thing that are used less. She response to him but it not faire, she ask him how come you said something like that I always save. He gets up in walk, in stop ask her a question are u show u didn’t come to the village for something, she response no. Them he give her a big huge. My opinions in this play is that I think that she playing him for his money, because she loves to spends money so much, or maybe they used to date each other long time ago. Maybe that’s why she was all up on him in the small clip. I also think that he think that she really like him, the way he like her. The reason why she came to the village is to use him and takes all his money that he have.

JohnN7 said...

In the movie clip of the first act, “A Doll’s House” by Henry Ibsen, the director portrays both Nora and Torvald illustrating similar characteristics. In the beginning of the clip, the scene takes place in a town that is covered in a snow field. At this point, it shows that the season is currently winter. Nora comes home with presents which show that it is around Christmas time. The book also starts narrating Nora coming home with presents. The director portrays the two characters similar to both movie clip and book which is during the 1800s. Even though the movie clip is much different than the book, the director does a fine job showing the type of character of who Nora and Torvald with are in a movie.
First, the love between Nora and Torvald are expressed strongly in both movie and book. In the movie clip, the way they’re dressed is that Nora is wearing a dress herself, and Torvald wearing a tuxedo. The dress that Nora wears is symbolized of how fancy she is that portrays with her personality. The tuxedo shows a symbolism of being formal, and wealthy. Torvald wearing a tuxedo illustrates how wise he spends his money on clothes. Nora coming home with all the presents in fancy fur in the movie clip illustrates how much of a spendthrift she is. Nora looks young and carefree, while Torvald, that’s wearing his tuxedo, is old which illustrates maturity. Nora looking young illustrates the immaturity she has compared to Torvald. Torvald says, “Is that my little skylark twittering out there?”(Ibsen 3) which is also portrayed in the movie clip. This illustrates how loving and caring Torvald is to Nora. Nora tries to come home quietly so she doesn’t disturb Torvald and his work. Same goes to what has happened in the book.
After, watching the movie clip that portrays Nora and Torvald shows similarities with the book. Nora loves money because she tells Torvald, “You might give me money,”(Ibsen 5) as a Christmas present from her husband. Torvald then asks her, “What are little people called that are always wasting money?”(Ibsen 5) purposely illustrating that Nora is a spendthrift. Nora seems to love spending money that she receives from Torvald every now and then. In the movie clip, Torvald is surprising Nora through juggling around money in front of her. Nora is then jumping around in the movie clip illustrating that she loves putting her hands on money. Torvald’s personality seems as if he is a mature gentleman that loves Nora with passion. Nora’s personality seems as if she’s an immature gold digger that’s sassy because she asks Torvald for money.
Next, the love between Nora and Torvald is expressed deeply. Torvald is basically the man of the house in the home. His promotion to becoming manager gives them both, Nora and Torvald himself, a little over enough wealth to spend for Christmas. Nora then takes the money as a way of love because it seems as if Nora is taking money for love, like a gold digger. Torvald says, “It’s a sweet little spendthrift, but she uses up a deal of money.”(Ibsen 6) which is also in the movie clip. This illustrates that Torvald knows that Nora is a spendthrift type of person which strongly shows in the movie clip. Nora is portrayed deeply in love at the same time, but her love is money from Torvald. Nora then says, “It’s a shame to say that. I do really save all I can.”(Ibsen 6). Nora saying this illustrates that she is trying to convince Torvald that she doesn’t spend as much. Torvald loves her greatly because Nora is the one who actually saved his life for him to be the person whose living now, which is becoming the manager of the bank. Torvald expresses this by saying, “And I would not wish you to be anything but just what you are, my sweet little skylark.”(Ibsen 6). Torvald in the movie clip also expresses this quote showing how loving and caring he is to Nora.
Moreover, the similarities of both book and movie clip are portrayed by the two characters Nora and Torvald. Nora is the young, immature gold digger for Torvalds love which is money. Torvald loves her because she saved his life when he was ill. The director portrays both Nora and Torvald deeply. Torvald is the loving one who is extremely mature and rich that holds down the house. Nora is the wife of the family and spends money as if money grew on trees.

Rongliang L.6 said...

The movie clip I had to watch on computer was the scene from the play “A Doll House” by Henrik Ibsen. It took place long time ago and in the town that is covered with snow filed. I learn that because Nora was going home by horse carriage. We also know they are not very rich. On the page3 of the book, it said:”A room furnished comfortably and tastefully, but not extravagantly.” It tells us they are not very rich people.
At the beginning of movie clip, Nara now was going home from town by horse carriage. As we know, there were many people walking home and looking at person who was on the horse carriage. It shows Nora was rich at that time. On the page 3 of the book, there is the other way state she is rich. It said:”how much, sixpence, There is a shilling. No. keeps the change.” It shows she had money to use.
In the second scene of a movie clip, I saw they get a long with each other. Nora went to her husband’s office. And said hi to each other, they call each other’s name very interesting. And they very care about each other. On the page 4 of the book, it said:”Is it my little squirrel bustling about.” They had a good relationship. In the third scene of the movie clip, I saw Nora is an acquisitive person. She can not feel enough. She wants get more money. As we know her husband was going to have a better job, and he will have a big salary. On the page 4 of the book it said:” We may be a wee bit more recklessly now, mayn’t we? Jest a tiny wee bit! You are going to have a big salary and earn lots and lots of money.” That shows us Nora wants get more money.
In my opinion, I think Nora likes money. But I also think she not only use all money for herself. She used money for home. On the page 5 of the book, it said:”Indeed it is—that is to say, if you were really to save out of the money I give you, and then really buy something for yourself. But if you spend it all on the housekeeping and any number of unnecessary things, then I merely have to pay up again.” It shows us Nora also in order to house to use money. In the scene fourth of the movie clip, I saw Nara is a liar. She lays her husband. Her husband asks her did she eat sugary. She said no. But she really did. On the page 6 of the book, it said:” Not even taken a bite at a macaroon or two? Nora said no, I assure you.” But on the page 3 of the book, it said:” She takes a packet of macaroons from her pocket and eats one or two.” She is a liar. That means she dose not at first time to lie her husband.
The movie clip portrays Nora very loves money. She wants get more money form her husband. As we know, her husband is going to have a big salary. And it was going to Christmas. So Nora use more money.

Molly B 7 said...

In my opinion of “A Doll’s House” it seems like the director, is trying to portray a look of a dolls house. The movie makes it seem as though they are very wealthy and well off, as does the play, but the difference to me is that the director may make it seem as though there are more rooms or bigger rooms because the play doesn’t give that much detail. The setting seems to take place around the late 1800’s and the clothing defiantly represents that and shows that it is in that era. Nora is wearing a dress and a fur coat and Torvald is wearing a suit, not something people wear now a day around the house. By their accents I’m assuming it is taking place in England, in the winter because they are Christmas shopping. Nora and Torvald seem to be in their mid forties. They seem like an all American family, three children and a maid and they seem like two very happy people.

Nora seems to play a childish part. She makes up names for Torvald and trys to get whatever she can off him. She definitely loves money you can tell by watching her in the clip and what she’s wearing. The part of the video when he gives her ten dollars that doesn’t seem to be enough so she keeps her hand out for more. In the play she doesn’t seem TOO needy for money but it definitely shows in the video. “You could always… give me money Torvald” That to me shows that she is in very high demand of money and really wants to get everything she wants without really having to work for it. Also when Nora shows Torvald the Christmas tree she makes it seem like she did something so accomplishing as if she doesn’t do that all the time. The director to me is making Nora seem needy and not being able to do anything for herself and puts Torvald in charge and to help Nora.

Torvald in the video seems much more giving towards Nora. In the play he seems like not mean towards Nora but not as giving. Torvald seems very concerned about debt. This makes me think that maybe he is slowly slipping into debt but he wants to keep it from Nora because he thinks of hr as maybe money hungry and he supports her in a way that she couldn’t do by herself. He seems like a very loving husband and really basically gives Nora whatever she wants no matter what it takes. Torvald clearly loves his wife and show that he would do anything for her. They also have pet names for each other, “my little skylark” or “my little squirrel”, to me this makes it seem as though they have a very good relationship.

Jared R 6 said...

After watching the video clip of “A Dolls House” I did not change my opinion on Nora as a mother or a wife. My opinion on Nora is that although she is a money hungry wife, she is also very loving and cares a lot about her family and also her friends. She looks like a very nice, well rounded lady. In the video clip I see Nora wearing a red coat with white fur, on a slay being pulled by horse. She walks into the house with a handful of gifts, and asks if her husband Torvald is home. Nora may come off as a greedy women who does not care about her family, but I think the author is trying to portray her as a nice women who cares for others.

After seeing the movie clip of Act 1 of “A Dolls House” and also reading Act 1 I still have my same opinion on Nora. Nora is women who loves money, always wants to have money, but she has love for her family and friends. In the video clip of Act 1 she greets her husband when she gets home and also walked in the door with presents for her family. She greeted the maid in a polite way when she first got home, and then went into her husband’s room to speak with him. They talk with each other for a couple minutes then Torvald gives her money. She gets very excited when he gives her money, but the money she gives him she spends it on things for her family. On page 7 Torvald says “for a full 3 weeks you shut yourself up every evening, making ornaments for the Christmas tree, and all the other fine things that were to be a surprise to us.” By saying this I think it shows that Nora really does care about her family, and if she was just concerned about money then she wouldn’t be doing things for her family. Torvald really seems to appreciate Nora as a wife and as a mother. Also I think Nora is a nice woman because she helps her friends Mrs. Linde when she needs it the most.

Nora gets a visit from an old friend of hers named Mrs.Linde who has come to her house looking for work. Nora gets very excited to see her because she has not seen her old friend for a long time. It is clear to Nora that Mrs. Linde needs help in finding some work, she tells her about how Torvald just got a promotion at the bank. When Mrs. Linde asks about a job working for Torvald she says “He must, Christine. Just leave it to me, I will broach the subject very clearly- I will think of something that will please him very much. It will make me so happy to be some use to you.” By saying this I think the author is portraying Nora as somebody who can think about something other money, and realize that her friend needs her help and Nora is more than happy to help her. Also in the video she does not do or say anything that would make me believe that she is an evil person. She is nice and happy during the entire scene. Also in Act 1 Mrs. Linde says “How kind you are, Nora, to be so anxious to help me. It is doubly kind in you, for you know so little the burdens and troubles in my life.” Nora is very anxious to help her friend, she could have not helped her and let her go on living her troublesome life, but she is more than happy to help her.

After watching the video clip and reading Act 1 of “A Dolls house” I don’t think he wanted to change the perception on Nora. In both video clip and the book, Nora is portrayed as a nice woman, who loves money but loves her family and friends more. Even though she clearly loves money, the author shows Nora as being an elegant lady who is filled with love and joy. Therefore, I believe in the video clip and the book Nora is portrayed as a money hungry loving wife and mother.

Aggnes Z. 6 said...

A Doll’s House

I saw from the beginning of the movie “A Doll’s House” that the play takes place a long time ago. The reason is because they show us this is to provide us it is around the late 1800’s. We also can see that it is during the winter because there is a lot of snow on the ground, and probably at Christmas time because on page 5 of the book, Thorvald says, /“Do you think I don’t know what a lot is wanted for house keeping at Christmas time.” We also know that long time ago because there are no streets and the way of transportation was by horse ad carriage. That’s how we know the setting of this play.

The first act I see Nora Helmer coming back to home after bought a lot of Christmas gift and ask to the maid if her husband Torvald Helmer is home. The maid helps her to put the gift where she wants and she takes a packet of macaroons from her pocket and eats one or two of those. After taking off her hat and coat, she goes to meet her husband at his room. Nora tells him that she bought many Christmas gift, but all was so cheap and she didn’t spend much money on the presents. However he reprehends Nora, because he is so economic, he doesn’t like that she spend money with little things.
On page 4,Herlmer asked to Nora: /” Bought, did you say? All these things? Has my little spendthrift been wasting money again?” / “Still, you know we can’t spend money recklessly. ”But Nora said: “yes, but Torvald, this year we can really let ourselves go a little. This is the Christmas that we have not needed to economize.” /“You are going to have a big salary and earn lots and lots of money”

They continue to talk about money, Herlmer tells Nora that and she became a little disappointed, so Helmer shows to her what she more likes: money. He gave to her some money and now she is so enthusiastic, and calls him to see the giftsthat she bought. She shows the Christmas tree, the gift for the kids, and then she holds other gift that Helmer can’t see until evening.

On page 5 Helmer asks, “but now you tell me you extravagant little person, what would you like for yourself?” At first she said that she doesn’t wants nothing, but after he pressing her asking about something that she really like, something lovely, she said if he really wants give something for her, he can always give her money. She just wants money. Money that she can save and buy whatever she wants later. He thinks that it’s nothing good for give to someone, but she continues with the same idea, just money.

Helmer said that her money is just for her housekeeping, and she doesn’t save any money at all. Then, Helmer asked if Nora have bought a packet of macaroons, but we know that Nora was lying because she said no to the question that Helmer asked. In page 4 of the book, the narrator says, “Just now. (Puts the bag of macaroons into her pocket and wipes her mouth.”) She acted quickly to hide what she was eating nothing and she made sure she wiped her mouth so Helmer would not see that she had been eating candy. That’s how we know that Nora has no problem lying for any reason to her husband. However, he putted his hand over her mouth and make sure she had bought a packet of macaroons. They laugh together about the conversation they had about candy.

In the play “A doll’s House” by Henrik Ibsen, Nora and her husband Helmer are already to celebrate Christmas. In my opinion, the author is trying to portray Nora as greedy and very money hungry. I also think that Helmer is a loving husband because he never yells at Nora or never says no for her being obsessed with money. That is how the author is trying to portray Nora in this play.

Brian H. 6 said...

In the play "A Doll's House" by Henrik Ibsen the short video the students of period 6 English cp of Mr. Gallghers have seen a small clip of the play of act one scene. Like all movies which came from books or vice versa, there are many differences in the clip compared to the book which some are subtle and others are not. In the beginning of the clip shows a small horse carriage traveling. While in the book, it starts out as Nora coming home from shopping with a porter whom carries a Christmas tree and is tipped for his services while in the clip, the tree seems to have already been there for quite some time since it has already been decorated. Nora dresses very nicely in the video with a fur hat and red dress which shows that she possess a vast amount of wealth in her hands. Also by the horse carriage it is easy to tell that this is not a modern time play but rather an older play and most likely in the suburban area and not in an urban area. In the clip the weather was cold and snow is falling on the ground which means that it is the middle of winter. As you go on it is confirmed at page 6 that it is almost Christmas Eve. Nora is portrayed as a person who spends her money with quick ease also known as a spendthrift. In fact her husband can not even believe she can even save money even if she desires to save money. I concur with this characteristic as it matches perfectly with the book depiction of Nora. In the book she goes home and her husband automatically assumes that she has been shopping the whole day. This depicts that the husband also known as Torvald has been with Nora for a while and is accustomed to her bad habits. Many other bad habits that Nora seems to have obtained are her desire to consume sugary sweets like macaroons. Even though her husband Torvald forbids eating macaroons in the house, she continues to buy her sweet delights and eat it while hiding this fact from Torvald to prevent being in trouble with him. In both the clip of the movie and the book, Nora talks and acts as if she is merely a immature child herself even though she has children of her own. Which also leads us to the fact of the difference of children she has in both the play and the book. What I do not get is the fact that they are different. The number of children does not affect the play at all at the moment so why does the director even have to change it? This can also include the time when Torvold gives Nora money for being so down and droopy. In the book she recieves two pounds but rather in the play she recieves 40. Torvald wears a tuxedo which is the opposite of Nora. Torvald seems to be significantly older then Nora which shows that Torvald is very mature compared to Nora. He is the one who wears the pants around the house and is very strict toward Nora hence all the rules like being unable to eat any macaroons around the house.. Torvald's and Nora's love for each other seems to be almost as great as that as many love stories. After he recently recieves a promostion, they seem to become happier becuase they can now use their wealth for unneccesary things such as a extravagent Christmas. They are both deeply and madly in love with each other and they have a strong bond and relationship. They seem almost unseperable like as if they were meant to be with eachother. Torvald is a nice gentlemen who does not ask for anything in return exept for the gratitude he recieves from his wife. He is also very forgiving when he hints that he knows that Nora has been spending his money to buy sweets which are not allowed in the house. He also accepts Nora being a gold-digger and blames it on her father for passing down the trait to her which shows that Torvald is a loving husband who accepts his wife along with all her bad traits. That is how Nora and Torvald are portrayed in the play based on my knowledge of Act 1 and the film clip.