This past Sunday I attended the play, A Doll’s House at the Gamm Theater in Pawtucket. (Here are some pictures from the show: http://www.gammtheatre.org/OurSeason/Season2620102011/ADollsHouse/ADollsHouseGallery/tabid/323/Default.aspx .) I knew that I would be going to the play a few weeks ago, so when I saw it reviewed in the Providence Journal I was happy to see that it was very well received. (This is the review: http://artsblog.projo.com/2011/01/gamms-dolls-house-inspired.html) It was actually quite beneficial to have seen this because it alerted me to the fact that this was going to be slightly different than the A Doll’s House I had read in high school and again in Western Lit. This version was set in the 1950s (specifically 1959) and the original script had been adapted to make the dialogue have a more contemporary American sound.
The adaptation of the play was excellent, and it also made the show even more meaningful as a social justice event. It was more relevant to our society today. After the show the group I was with (from RIC) was able to talk to the actors and ask questions. I was curious why the 1950s were chosen as the era to set the adaptation. Tony Estrella, the artistic director who did the adaptation, told me that he chose this time period because this was the time that everyone looks back to when they think of the perfect American family, but he wanted to show that that ideal has never really existed. After our discussion in class today, I am reminded of Richard Rodriguez’s description of his family in Aria. Several people talked about how Rodriquez needed to learn English in order to fit this mold. Sadly, it seems that while the Rodriquez’s spoke only Spanish to each other they actually were more like the ideal family; it was only when they became Americanized (by learning English) that they actually became more typical, but less happy.
A Doll’s House is generally considered a feminist play (if anyone is unfamiliar with the storyline, you can check it out here: http://plays.about.com/od/plays/a/dolls_summary.htm) and setting it immediately before the women’s lib movement makes it even more so. I could relate elements of this play to a couple of the authors we have read that discussed women’s rights in their articles. Peggy McIntosh for example, who is a scholar in the field of Women’s Studies, writes that, “Denials that amount to taboos surround the subject of advantages that men gain from women’s disadvantages. These denials protect male privilege from being fully acknowledged, lessened, or ended” (McIntosh 1). Torvald Helmer, Nora’s husband, is a perfect example of a man in denial of male privilege. He acknowledges that women have a place (in the home), showing that he feels himself superior, but he is also the recipient of unearned advantages. For example, keeping women out of the work force makes it much easier for him to rise to the position of bank manager.
Allan Johnson is another author who discusses various types of privilege. Johnson offers a perspective on privilege as not the way one person treats another, but as the way our whole social system operates. “It’s not that I’ve done something or thought bad thoughts or harbored ill will toward her because she’s black and female. No, the problem is that in the world as it is, huge issues involving race and gender shape her life and mine in dramatically different ways” (Johnson 8). Johnson would consider Torvald Helmer’s behavior toward his wife as not just the acts of jerk, but problems with the system. Helmer did not wake up one morning and decide to devalue his wife; he was raised in a system that said it was OK to behave that way. As educators we have part of the responsibility of raising children to believe that it is not acceptable to devalue others.
No comments:
Post a Comment