The most intriguing person in A Doll’s House, is not the main character but Nils Krogstad a supporting character. In the first two acts of the play he is the despicable villain who threatens to destroy the Helmer household through the blackmail of Nora. However, in the final act he has a complete change of heart, and gives Nora back her IOU so she can destroy it and the primary conflict of the play is resolved. Why does Krogstad abruptly change and then is never again mentioned in the play? What is Krogstad’s true persona? Is he the despicable villain or a man whose intentions were misunderstood? Initially, there is no sign that Krogstad is anything but an unsavory character. Not only does he attempt to blackmail Nora Helmer in order to keep his job at the bank, but the audience later learns of his moral depravity, committing forgery and cleverly escaping any prosecution.
However, in the second act, the audience is introduced to a slightly different side of Krogstad when threatens Nora a second time. Krogstad actually feels a connection to Nora and pities her because of what she is going through. They both committed forgery, and although Nora did it to save her husband, they situations are still similar. In addition, they both have considered suicide to escape their problems. In this association with Nora the audience is allowed a brief glimpse of a very different person than the evil Krogstad.
Finally in the third Act we are once again shown another side of Krogstad a compassionate side. A declaration of love and trust by Kristine Linde is the catalyst of his change. She tells him, “we two need each other. Nils, I have faith in what, deep down, you are.” With these words, Nils Krogstad finds redemption and tells Kristine “I’ve never been so incredibly happy before.” As a result he sends Nora’s IOU to her husband and he brings the whole sordid affair to an end. Krogstad’s progression from villain to changed man is proof of the power of love.(345)
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Duality of Insanity
The Shakespearean play, Hamlet is a fascinating examination of insanity and the human mind. Shakespeare approaches the concept of insanity in his two principal characters: Hamlet and Ophelia. However, there are stark differences in their situations. Hamlet’s insanity is for the most part feigned, although one can argue that he slips into true insanity at various points during the play. In contrast, Ophelia’s insanity is real. Ophelia loses her mind after Hamlet scorns her love and kills her father by accident. The way Shakespeare portrays the feigned insanity of Hamlet and the real insanity of Ophelia is perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of this play.
There is no doubt from the beginning of the play that Hamlet is feigning his madness. In Act I after the ghost of his father comes to him to inform him that he was murdered by his brother it is clear that Hamlet is already planning his next move. When Horatio and the guards ask him what the ghost revealed to him, he tells them “there’s never a villain dwelling in all Denmark / But he’s an errant knave.” This strange response is not the first sign of Hamlets madness but rather a calculated ploy to keep the king’s murder from the guards. Indeed, Hamlet sanity is apparent when he makes the three men promise not to talk about the ghost regardless of how strange he might behave. Hamlet’s pretend madness continues in the same pattern of this strange response to the three men. He speaks in riddles and veiled language and rarely responds coherently to questions. In addition Hamlet reinforces the notion of his madness when he runs into Ophelia’s room half undressed. It is clear through most of the play however that Hamlet is in total control of his mental facilities. He cleverly plots the murder of his uncle with insanity as a shield to remove any suspicion or attention to himself.
In contrast to Hamlet, it is quite clear that Ophelia truly has lost her mind. She tells everyone that she can hear her father talking, she makes strange sounds, she beats at her breast, and she speaks incoherently. Unlike Hamlet, the audience does not hear or see her father’s ghost, which reaffirms the nature of her true insanity. In addition after Ophelia goes insane her conversations for the most part are conducted in song. Unlike Hamlet’s strange responses these songs have no meaning or relevance to the situation whatsoever and they highlight Ophelia’s insanity. The final way Shakespeare demonstrates Ophelia’s mental instability is in her suicide. Hamlet contemplates suicide in many of his soliloquies but is never close to acting on his thoughts. In contrast, Ophelia takes her life over her inconsolable grief at the death of her father by Hamlet’s hand. With Ophelia there is no rational contemplation of her situation, just an irrational response.
One of the most compelling aspects of the play Hamlet is how Shakespeare exploits insanity. Ophelia is a victim whose insanity is the result of the tragedies that befall her. Conversely Hamlet uses insanity to cover his clever and calculating mind to further his agenda. Shakespeare’s genius as a playwright is evident when he brings this duality of insanity to life in his play. (541)
There is no doubt from the beginning of the play that Hamlet is feigning his madness. In Act I after the ghost of his father comes to him to inform him that he was murdered by his brother it is clear that Hamlet is already planning his next move. When Horatio and the guards ask him what the ghost revealed to him, he tells them “there’s never a villain dwelling in all Denmark / But he’s an errant knave.” This strange response is not the first sign of Hamlets madness but rather a calculated ploy to keep the king’s murder from the guards. Indeed, Hamlet sanity is apparent when he makes the three men promise not to talk about the ghost regardless of how strange he might behave. Hamlet’s pretend madness continues in the same pattern of this strange response to the three men. He speaks in riddles and veiled language and rarely responds coherently to questions. In addition Hamlet reinforces the notion of his madness when he runs into Ophelia’s room half undressed. It is clear through most of the play however that Hamlet is in total control of his mental facilities. He cleverly plots the murder of his uncle with insanity as a shield to remove any suspicion or attention to himself.
In contrast to Hamlet, it is quite clear that Ophelia truly has lost her mind. She tells everyone that she can hear her father talking, she makes strange sounds, she beats at her breast, and she speaks incoherently. Unlike Hamlet, the audience does not hear or see her father’s ghost, which reaffirms the nature of her true insanity. In addition after Ophelia goes insane her conversations for the most part are conducted in song. Unlike Hamlet’s strange responses these songs have no meaning or relevance to the situation whatsoever and they highlight Ophelia’s insanity. The final way Shakespeare demonstrates Ophelia’s mental instability is in her suicide. Hamlet contemplates suicide in many of his soliloquies but is never close to acting on his thoughts. In contrast, Ophelia takes her life over her inconsolable grief at the death of her father by Hamlet’s hand. With Ophelia there is no rational contemplation of her situation, just an irrational response.
One of the most compelling aspects of the play Hamlet is how Shakespeare exploits insanity. Ophelia is a victim whose insanity is the result of the tragedies that befall her. Conversely Hamlet uses insanity to cover his clever and calculating mind to further his agenda. Shakespeare’s genius as a playwright is evident when he brings this duality of insanity to life in his play. (541)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)