Ibsen is often considered the father of modern realism. Each play deals with significant and separate social issues. Ideally each play awakens awareness of the particular social issue and moves the audience to action.
2006-06-28 19:18:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by DramaGuy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ibsen, along with Chekhov and Strindberg, brought us the style of drama known as Realism, or kitchen-sink dramas (as they often tended to revolve around a room such as the kitchen). Realism signified a major shift in drama in that we were suddenly dealing with normal people - not mainly royalty or the gods - dealing with domestic issues (eg - fidelity, finances, class). Ibsen also made the very bold step forward to look at and to examine issues facing women - read A Doll's House or Hedda Gabler. Suddenly, the audiences were able to identify and sympathize (or not) with the characters in a whole way - they could truly see themselves in these positions. This allowed for a great, more passionate connection between audience and actors. Agree or disagree, love them or hate them, people suddenly cared in a much more passionate way.
The vast majority of all drama today is seen through the lens of realism. Television and film have captured this style so well that modern audiences struggle when they are challenged to go outside of it. That's not to say that people don't (or shouldn't), but it does affect the audience's level of attention.
2006-06-30 02:49:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ibsen was a practitioner (in the latter phase of his career) of what has come to be known as the "well-made play;" a playwriting philosophy made popular by a much lesser writer, Eugene Scribe. Careful plotting and methodical revelation of essential expository information are two elements of the "well-made play."
Ibsen's plays dealt with serious (and, for the times, often scandalous) societal issues: venereal disease ("Ghosts"), marital discord and a wife's decision to leave her husband ("A Doll's House"), the individual's right/obligation to stand up to governental corruption ("An Enemy of the People"), etc.
2006-06-29 11:34:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by shkspr 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Henrik Ibsen represented one of the cleanest breaks from the past of writing for the theatre. Although he was influlenced by the work of the Romantic writers Alexandre Dumas (pers and fils), his writing was a reaction against the Romantic style.
The scientific thrust of the times had social scientists examining how people interacted, and this science led to the development of what was known as the "well-made play." While it was used equally in drama and comedy, it was looked down upon as formulaic. Ibsen essentially took the formula for the "well-made play" and turned it from science to art.
-- The plot usually centers around a secret that is revealed at the climax of the action.
--The background of the story is presented, and the action speeds up, with misinterpretations of what is going on by some characters.
--foreshadowing of events in the conflict between characters
--a reversal of the action which goes from the central character being beaten by the situation to the possibility of success.
--a logical and believable ending
--the importance of a prop in the action... a letter, a manuscript, a straw hat
--a philosophical statement is brought out by the action... sometimes a moral.
Ibsen turned his attention to very personal and private actions by private individuals, breaking with the Shakespearean model of private actions by public figures. In not only his plays, but his letters, Ibsen returned time and again to one theme: the individual must remain true to him or herself. To illustrate this, he often made his conflicts about individuals who are divided between their loyalty to themselves and loyalty to others and social obligations.
His early works are not as bold as his great plays, but were well received by critics and audiences alike. The effect of his masterworks on audiences was electric. The ending of "Doll's House," for instance, is still called "the door slam heard around the world" for its pro-feminist stance against the Victorian morality of the day.
"Ghosts" prompted horrified reactions from certain critics and audience members for its subject matter and secrets. It was so denounced for simply mentioning sypphilis that he was denounced -- audiences, however, were beginning to reject Victorian morality and embraced his showing the true nature of the world and what happened in it.
2006-06-29 12:03:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by blueowlboy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋