Bourgeois Society, The Well Made Play and Gender Issues in Theatre

Realism and Expressionism within the plays of Susan Glaspell and Henrik Ibsen

A Doll House by Henrik Ibsen and Trifles by Susan Glaspell are plays conveying the contemporary society of their time, expressed in a realistic way. Trifles can be perceived to have expressionist undertones, with its theme of murder and denunciation of the male hierarchy. Similarly both suggest a rejection of their cultural gender issues and question social values and behaviour, using metaphorical symbols and thought invoking endings. In this article, I will draw attention to the social context surrounding both plays and the different ways in which both playwrights convey their rejection of gender issues. I will also highlight the various themes and symbols in both plays. For this I will use the texts themselves as well as drawing on other related resources.

A Doll House reflects the middle class bourgeois society of its time. The play opens by setting the scene, the first two paragraphs extensively describing the furniture, décor, layout and ornaments. Trifles starts in much the same way, the opening paragraph also sets the scene. However, its description lends itself to a working class household, with the play being focused in the unorganised, ominous kitchen of a farmhouse. The women in both plays feature highly, as does the lives they lead in their respective households. These references as well as Ibsen and Glaspell’s use of metaphorical indication, reflect how the women were viewed in their contemporary society. Likewise, both plays can be viewed as ‘realist’ by their use of ‘verisimilitude’, their on stage illusion of actuality. However, even though on stage, the plays reflect an everyday household in different social classes, undertones are used that reveal how both playwrights disagree with their existing culture.

Ibsen wrote his play in 1879, a time of bourgeois society with a middle class convention of being unimaginative and selfishly materialistic. In A Doll House, Ibsen took the convention of the ‘well made play’ and adapted it to convey but criticize the reality of modern life. Originally the well made play or ‘une pièce bien faite’ was a term used in early nineteenth century France. The term was at first used in a complimentary sense, and applied to plays written by highly practised dramatists capable of a well made plot. However, later it became used in an ironic sense and applied to plays that are artificial and do not take into account the unpredictability of human nature. (Worthen, 2002, 421)

Ibsen’s use of the convention perhaps reflects his rejection of bourgeois society, on the surface the play correctly depicts its culture; however, the ending is a slam to that culture. The irony that Ibsen used this convention in a play of criticism can not go un-noted as this adds further force to the artificiality of its context.

In similarity with Ibsen, Glaspell’s play Trifles depicts life in the late nineteenth century. However, rather than the middle class, Glaspell conveys the reality of being a working class farmers wife in America. Glaspell wrote her play in a time when women rarely went to college let alone sought careers. The woman’s world was bound to the home, doing domestic chores and looking after their husband. Glaspell however did go to college and established a career and in 1915 along with her husband, formed the ‘Provincetown Players’. This avant-guard group was concerned with non- commercial playwriting and believed in taking risks with unknown actors. (Styan, 1981, 98)

It is no surprise that Glaspell highlights the difference between men and women in Trifles by communicating the role they play in society. As with Ibsen, Glaspell’s use of irony that in fact the women discover the truth, is also a condemnation of the social differences between genders, and highlights her view that women should have equal rights. Also like Ibsen, Glaspell’s use of reality can also be seen as a paradox against the culture that it was depicting.

Realism can be viewed to be used in both plays but what is realism? There is no specific answer, moreover it is a term applied to a period in history or any style that portrays contemporary reality. In drama it can be concerned with the social and domestic problems of everyday life, reproduced in the usual surroundings of the people they represent. The movement is often seen in drama to have started with Ibsen and it required a different type of actor to understand its portrayal. (Styan, 1981a, 1)

It is, of course, the conception of dramatic reality which changes, and realism must finally be evaluated, not only by the style of a play or a performance, but by the image of truth its audience perceives.

Styan, 1981a, 1

This portrayal of ordinary domesticity commonly rejected romantic situations and tried only to convey everyday life. This included plain colloquial language and tried to eliminate unnecessary idealistic sentiment in the dialogue. However, often a dramatist would want to draw attention to a particular point and because of stage direction and a structured plot, the reality it was trying to depict became distorted. Therefore even the realist play will be bound by the restrictions of theatre and for that reason its success depended on the truth the audience observed.

Expressionism is also hard to classify and in theatre was not defined until just before World War One. It was a movement that can be seen in the work of some late nineteenth century playwrights. It was mainly concerned with unmasking inner thoughts and emotions, revealing hidden truth and a departure from realism. This exposure of human emotion was closely linked to the theories of Sigmund Freud, an Austrian psychoanalyst who developed theories on the psyche. (Carlson, 1993, 334–335) The shape of the expressionist play was often a very personal view of the world, conveyed in its content. Like realism, expressionism can also be viewed as a direct historical period of the early twentieth century. It can also be observed as an instinct drawn from crisis and as a reaction in art to reality. (Styan, 1981b, 2–5)

There are certain themes that run through both plays that serve to draw attention to both playwright’s use of realism, as well as their cultural gender issues. Both plays use colloquial language suited to their gender and class. In A Doll House the language used not only depicts a middle class household but also highlights the male hierarchy: “Nora! Are your scatterbrains off again?” (Ibsen in Worthen, 2002, 424) This line shows that in a middle class household it is acceptable for the husband to speak in a condescending manner to his wife. Equally in Trifles language is used in the same way: “Well, ladies, have you decided whether she was going to quilt it or knot it?” (Glaspell in Worthen, 2002, 360) The County Attorney asks this of the ladies waiting in the kitchen. Again this reinforces that while the men were doing ‘Men’s work’, the ladies were seen to be fussing with pleasantries.

In addition both plays clearly demonstrate the differences between men and women, the sacrifices they make and how the playwrights question their social values. In Trifles Glaspell suggests that men tend to be rough and belligerent and in contrast, women are perceptive and sensitive. These differences lead the women to discover the truth, whilst the men miss the clues. This can be seen at the very start of the play in the stage directions, the men are: “Bundled up and go at once to the stove,” whereas the women, “Have come in slowly, and stand close together near the door.” (Ibsen in Worthen, 2002, 632)

Ibsen does this in much the same way and points out that man refuses to forfeit his integrity, even though women often have to. Mrs Linde had to give up her one true love in order to marry a richer man to support her mother, brothers and herself. The nanny abandoned her own child to support herself, and Nora has to hide the loan she took out from Torvald in order to save his life. “What if Torvald heard! He mustn’t, not for anything in the world.” (Ibsen in Worthen, 2002, 427) This underpins Nora’s social values, as society orders that the husband will be the dominant partner.

In both plays the wives have to make a sacrifice, in Trifles Minnie has to forfeit her freedom and risk going to prison, by murdering her husband, to escape the miserable life that she was leading with him. Here we see the Expressionist undertones of the play, the outward expression of inner turmoil, the bleakness of Minnie’s life, reiterated in the gloomy description of her house: “The kitchen in the now abandoned farmhouse of John Wright, a gloomy kitchen.” (Glaspell in Worthen, 2002, 632) The revealing of the hidden truth is also another trait of the Expressionist play and as the women discover the truth in Trifles, they understand the bleakness of Minnie’s life and in turn forgive her: “If there’d been years and years of nothing….Oh I wish I’d come over here once in a while! That was a crime!” (Glaspell in Worthen, 2002, 636)

In contrast, Nora’s sacrifice in A Doll house is the abandonment of her children, despite her love for them: “Goodbye Torvald. I won’t look in on the children. I know they’re in better hands than mine. The way I am now, I’m no use to them.” (Ibsen in Worthen, 2002, 447) Nora believes that the nanny will be a better mother to her children and that sacrificing her relationship with them is in their best interest.

Metaphorical symbols are also used in both plays to show the playwright’s rejection of their cultural gender issues. References to a bird are used in A Doll House, “Is that my little lark twittering out there?” (Ibsen in Worthen, 2002, 424) conveys that for all the splendour of Nora’s life, she is in fact confined to the restrictions of that life and not free to make her own decisions. Correspondingly, the bird that is discovered in Trifles is a metaphor for the entrapment of Minnie’s life. Additionally, the cage coupled with the dead bird emphasizes that freedom comes with a high price. For Minnie it means the murder of her husband.

Mutually, Ibsen and Glaspell believed in equality between men and women. Ibsen believed that husband and wife should live as equals, free to develop their own personalities. This can clearly be seen in A Doll House, in fact even the title of the play lends itself to the fact that the characters are indeed ‘Dolls’ manipulated by their contemporary society:

In such a play there is no clear-cut conclusion, just as there are no clear heroes or villains; there is instead a serious consideration of significant contemporary questions.

Carlson, 1993, 237

Ibsen’s play portrays contemporary bourgeois life accurately and realistically but also asks the reader to question that culture. This is conveyed by the departure of Nora and her rejection of marital obligation at the close of the play. This would have been quite shocking to the contemporary audience and for this reason Ibsen can not only been seen as one of the pioneers of realism, but also a leading dramatist that examined “The forces and frictions of modern life” (Styan, 1981, 18)

In the same way Glaspell’s play conveys the struggle that women of her time faced. Like Ibsen, the title of Glaspell’s play is also an ironic reflection of how women were viewed. The Trifles of a women’s world were of no importance to men. However, the ‘trifle’ they were discussing was in fact the revelation that Minnie murdered her husband! Moreover, both plays suggest that women were individuals in their own right, capable of their own intelligent thoughts and decisions. Throughout, the women conform to their duties, Nora adopting a submissive role in front of her husband and the other men, yet revealing to Mrs Linde she is capable of independent thought and application.

The same can be said for the women in the kitchen in Trifles, they are submissive to the dominant men, all the while, conveying their intelligence and their powers of observation in discovering the real truth. Hence for this reason Trifles can be viewed as realist in its portrayal of working class life. However, it has expressionist elements that reflect the inner thoughts and emotions of Glaspell herself and a reaction in her art to reality. After all Glaspell achieved more than women of her era, however as there is not even to this day much literature about her, perhaps this also reflects that even so, her life was a constant battle for the rights of women.

Article written by Drama Llama | Educator | Writer | Academic | Consultant