Morality in 'King Lear' and 'Rear Window'

Both William Shakespeare's 'King Lear', and Alfred Hitchcock's 'Rear Windows' present the theme of moral corruption. In both texts, individuals are to blame for their immoral actions. However, I would like to examine how these characters are products of their environment. In 'King Lear', we are presented with the character of Lear, who is initially a narcissist who banishes his daughter Cordelia after she refuses to obey his wishes. Cordelia is clearly a moral person who stays true to herself and serves as a foil for Lear. Lear attempts to commodify his daughter's love by ordering her to profess her affection for him, and in doing so renders familial affection cheap and meaningless. This is one of the first instances of immorality we see in the play, and goes to the heart of the causes of the upset in the play: feudal society. The manner in which wealth and property pass hands through the patriarchal model of marriage is the pillar of the immorality in the play. To quote Karl Marx,‘in pre-capitalist systems it was obvious that most people did not control their own destiny — under feudalism, for instance, serfs had to work for their lords.' In the morally corrupt world of the play, the characters have little control of their own destiny: Lear is doomed to madness, and Cordelia must marry who her father wishes. Similarly, in 'A Doll's House', Nora is not in control of her own destiny, and is constricted by the role of the 'doll wife'. 'King Lear' and 'A Doll's House' are very similar in the way that they show morally strong women defying this system of social slavery: Nora leaves her husband to lead a better life as an educated individual, and Cordelia defies her father no matter the catastrophic consequences in order to stay true to herself.  

Similarly, In Hitchcock's 'Rear Window', the viewer is presented with the morally strong character of Lisa who stays true to herself despite the expectations of society or male characters. However, in contrast to Nora and Cordelia, as a modern, successful woman, Lisa has a lot of agency. She has her own career, as we see in the beginning of the film. She has the money to provide her partner Jeff with an expensive meal, and is dressed in extravagant clothing. Jeff laments that she is 'too perfect', and that he wants a woman who could 'go anywhere and do anything', showing an unethical view of male entitlement: he expects Lisa to change for him but he won't change for her even though she wants to get married. This is very similar to 'King Lear' in the way that Lear rules his family as he does his kingdom: undemocratically. His relationship with Cordelia is a dictatorship in which he demands her subservience. This is also seen in 'A Doll's House': Nora is expected to put her family first while Torvald isn't. All three texts present an array of immoral characters who are products of their society, as well as moral characters who defy their environment to do the right thing. 

The theme of eyesight is used both in 'King Lear' and 'Rear Window' to highlight the theme of morality. The plucking out of Gloucester's eyes mark the most abhorrent and evil scene of the play, the point at which it seems there can be no return to good or civilisation. This is linked to the theme of voyeurism and the moral problems it presents in 'Rear Window'.  The bed-ridden Jeff spies on his neighbours, much to the dismay of Lisa. However, when Thorwald kills his wife, it is due to Jeff's prying eyes that he is caught and charged. This raises the question of whether or not everyone deserves privacy, even murderers and criminals. It interesting to observe how Hitchcock uses point-of-view shots to give the viewer the impression they are Jeff, watching his neighbours: Hitchcock forces the viewer into the role of voyeur, watching others for their entertainment, which, as cinema goers, is exactly what the viewer is. Hitchcock cleverly forces the viewer into a morally compromising position. 

In conclusion, 'King Lear' and 'Rear Window' both display a range of characters who are products of their environment and thus, behave in morally corrupt ways with some individual exceptions. Both texts use the theme of eyesight to highlight the separate themes of evil and voyeurism. 

Fear as a motivation in A Dolls Hous

I think fear is a key emotions of many of the characters in this text. Many of the character’s actions and thoughts are a purely a result of their fear.

   Nora, in the beginning, forges her father’s signature in order to borrow money to save her husband as she fears for his life. Her troubles are a result of this rash action. She spends most of her time working to try and earn this money back, but refuses to tell her husband of what she has done as she fears what his reaction to it will be- she knows he is against borrowing money. She lies and deceives him because of this. She leads him to believe she is irresponsible and unable to manage her money when in reality she is very careful and cautious with the money she spends. Although Torevald may not see it at this time, but I think this causes an emotional distance between these two characters, especially on Nora’s end- I think this, in the end, contributes to the failure of their marriage. This all being a result of Nora’s fear to tell her husband the truth.

   Krogstad, on the other hand fears losing his job and again becoming a social outcast again after spending so much time trying to redeem himself in his community. He is desperate to keep his job and uses Nora’s decision to bribe her. I think this act by Krogstad seemed very drastic and we can see his anxiety and fear because of this .

Likewise, when Torevald finds out about Nora’s doings, he acts extremely irrationally. He loses his temper with Nora and explodes at her, telling her she is no longer suitable to mother his kids and he fears that she will poison their minds with her lies. His first thought is of his reputation and name in society, that Nora has disgraced him and their family, he fears that this will get out and ruin him. He acts and speaks too her very rudely and lets his fear and anger take over him at that moment -a mistake on his part which causes Nora to finally realize that this marriage is over.In one of the versions of the play that we have watched, the directors has interpreted his anger as so violent that he hits Nora.

  I think all of these characters have traits in common. They have all panicked and made rash decisions which in one way or another they have come to regret. If it wasn't for Nora's fear for her husbands life, she would not have committed this crime in the first place, This was an act of desperation and a decision made under great pressure, however her decision to keep this form Torvalds was calculated and planned until krogstad got involved.

KL

I think that this I the case for many of the characters in King Lear also.

Regan poisons her own sister Goneril as she fears he is going to steal the man she is in love with.

Gloucester naively believes the forged letter from his son Edgar and fears for his life as he believes that his son in planning to overthrow him. He orders for him to be captured.

Lear, one of the main culprits of making rash decisions due to fear. He fears lack of acceptance, He feels the need to be loved by everyone. He feels he is going mad and this makes him fearful..He banishes his own daughter from the kingdom when she refuses to follow his orders to tell him how much she loves him. He fears rejection from his family and people and feels the need for their approval and as a result ends up isolating himself because of this. I think that in this play, Lears family have considered his state and treat him slightly more tolerantly because of this. I think that Goneril and Regan are blinded by the power they are being given and will do anything to what. Goneril and Regan reject him from their household and try to takeaway all of his authority. I think that Lear fears this as in some ways he is scared to let his crown go because her does not know who he is if he is not king.

When Thorwald finds out Jeff knows what he did, he tries to kill him. He is terrified about people finding out about what he did and will do anything to keep this secret.

that I some ways Jeff is scared also. He sees the other couples through his window and is probably wondering what his marriage would be like is he did marry Lisa. I think that he is scared of settling down and marrying Lisa because he thinks that it would mean letting go of everything in his old life, travelling around the world. He is too stubborn to compromise and in the end is actually slightly fooled by Lisa.- she pretends to read the travel book but when he is not looking reverts back to her fashion magazines!

        

Foil Characters in A Doll's House

Foil Characters in A Doll’s House

Henrik Ibsen creates characters in A Doll’s House who change throughout the play. Foil characters are characters that contrast each other. They are like mirror images; they are clearly different but they share similarities. Ibsen’s use of foil characters helps the reader understand each individual character better.

Christine is a foil to Nora. Nora is the main character and Christine is a less important character. They both have similarities, but generally Ibsen uses Christine to compare with Nora and to bring out her flaws. Nora is living in a dolls house, and this is a separate environment from Christina and the real world. This is the world that Nora is longing to be a part of but Torwald won’t let her.

Christina is a hard working independent adult, and she is more than capable of looking after herself in the outside world. Nora is something of the opposite. She can’t even look after herself, let alone her own children. Chrisitinas journey from independence to marriage is a foil to Noras journey in the opposite direction.

Some of the characters in the play seem to be opposites, but in fact they have several similarities. Krogstad and Torvald, Christine and Nora, and Krogstad/Christine’s relationship and Torvald/Nora’s relationship are all foils to each other. As foil characters, they have similarities as well as differences.

Krogstad and Torvald are foils to each other. They both have children and are lawyers. They were childhood friends and now they work together at the bank. Even though they have the same professions as each other, Torvald’s position at the bank is much higher than Krogstad’s. Everyone hates Krogstad, while on the other hand everyone loves Torvald. The idea that Krogstad is the villain of the play is reinforced by the reactions that Nora displays whenever Krogstad is around. Eventually we understand that Krogstad committed forgery to help his children, not to help himself. Krogstad is hated by others for the crime he committed to help his children, yet Torvald is loved even though he committed a dishonest act to serve himself. Torvald helped Nora’s father in order to win Nora as his wife. Krogstad no longer has a wife because Christine left him for money.

A Doll’s House

Ø Cultural Context : Male Characters

A Doll’s House is set in Norway in 1879, a time where people were more conservative, and male dominance in domestic and social life was prominent and unquestioned. Torvald Helmer, the main male character of the play, often shows a controlling personality towards Nora, belittling her by calling her pet-names like “songbird”. He (and Nora) has a fantasy where Torvald is the hero who saves his “innocent, little, mistress”, but after seeing how cowardly and aggressively Torvald handles the situation after he discovers Krogstad’s letter, Nora decides he is not the “hero” she had hoped he was. He is a capable and intelligent man; his high position in the bank proves so. Despite his ‘book smarts’, he is a man who values reputation over moral values. His pride is solely based upon what the higher class considers him, rather than the decisions he makes that seem morally correct. He was quick to anger once his reputation was close to being destroyed, ready to practically disown his own wife whom he “loves dearly” because of the choices she made. Once he felt he was “saved” from this humiliation, he did not once consider how his behaviour affected Nora, not apologizing to her once, and repeatedly told her “I forgive you!” even though the audience/reader know that it is not her who needs to apologize. His selfish thinking was unfortunately a common mind set for married men in the Victorian era, and to most modern readers his behaviour is shocking, especially when he says to Nora “Aren’t I your husband?” when she refuses intimacy with him. This whole idea of consent between couples should be unquestioned, but back then, it was normal for a wife to give herself like a toy to her husband even if she did not wish for it, as it was common belief that women had no sex drives and existed for the sole purpose of having children and pleasing their husbands. That is why once this play was released in that day and age, people were shocked to see this culturally normal yet deeply flawed mind set that was driven into people’s minds at a young age be questioned.

women in power

The two predominant female characters of power in "A Dolls House" are Christine Linde and Nora Helmer, Christine shows direct power through her independence and ability to stand on her own two feet, whereas Nora does not reveal her power . Nora's power comes from her manipulative qualities, she is able to get her way by deceiving her husband , she puts on the illusion of helplessness and innocence.Nora is able to influence big decisions in the household by manipulating Torvald for example she convinced Torvald to hire Christine.Both these characters develop throughout the text, at first Christine may seem like a more empowered woman than Nora but Christine settles down with Krogstad because she needs stability. Nora realises that she must educate herself and must not be dependant on her husband. In the last scene she is able to change the course of the whole story with little effort, this shows that Nora truly has power. Women at the time of this text had very little control and power, the role of women at the time was to be the homemaker. This may have been because women were not often well educated, this lack of education would make them less capable of powerful responsibilities. This ideal became deeply embedded in society causing the men in the household to overpower the women. This is evident in Torvalds mentality throughout the text, in the end he wasn't able to accept the fact that Nora took control of a difficult situation and was able to take matters into her own hands. Torvald's response to the situation was not unusual because any major decisions in life were to be handled by the man. Even when Christine heard what Nora had done she was shocked that Torvald was unaware. This shows how women were valued at the time. Women were given the illusion of having power, but in reality they had no control.

Whereas in "Rear Window" women have more power, women are able to work and contribute to society, women were able to vote and the gender role of a domestic wife was not enforced as much.
We can see a bit of Torvald in Jeff, Jeff does not want to marry Lisa because he does not believe that Lisa is capable of living an adventurous life alongside Jeff. This shows that the idea of women not being capable has stuck with society ever so slightly. Lisa changes Jeff's mind by surprising him, she shows him that she has the power to do exactly what he can do when she sneaks into Thorwald's apartment. Stella also holds power because she is a working woman. We can see that Women lacking power is not as big as an issue in this text. Lisa also shows signs of deceptive power, she is able to prove to Jeff that she can change for him and vise versa, but in the end Lisa is reading Travel magazines in order to decisive Jeff but then she takes out her fashion magazine and continues to be who she is.

Nora is a foil for Lisa, Lisa is who Nora would like to be but her circumstances prohibit this. They way Lisa and Nora deceive their partners are similar, although Lisa's deception in on a smaller scale it shows what both these women are capable of. Both Torvald and Jeff have a preconceived idea of what their partners are capable off and are proven wrong by the end of the text.


In "King Lear" Women of wealth have power. Cordelia is completely powerless because she refused to express her love to her father , so he refused to provide her with wealth. Power in "King Lear" is very much linked to wealth and royalty, but there is clear evidence that women had very little power. Regan and Goneril are very deceitful and and use their femininity as a weapon. These women possess power in a very unique way, their royalty and status brings them power but so does their sexuality. Which they use in order to win over Edmund.

Power

Power in 'A Doll's House'

In Ibsen's 'A Doll's House', the subject of power is displayed throughout. At the start of the play, Nora is childish and immature, and associates power with money. She is obsessed with money, and therefore obsessed with her husband who has a good job and is wealthy. Because of her immaturity and naivety, Nora is easily taken advantage of, by both Krogstad and her own husband, who imposes rules upon Nora so that she makes him look good, for example, he doesn't allow her to eat sweets and unhealthy food, as it will rot her teeth and make her gain weight. Nora allows this, as she doesn't know any better, but after years of oppression she realises that she doesn't have to go through this hardship. 

There is clear patriarchy in the household; Torvald is the lord and master of his home. Nora accepts this as men are all powerful during this time. She knows that she is to stay at home whilst her husband works, as she is the woman and must be home maker for her family. This is at the beginning of the play, when Nora has absolutely no power whatsoever. She doesn't realise how important power is, as she's never had it. Nora thinks that this is how all women live, until her childhood friend Christine makes a visit.

Christine Linde has lived independently for years, but it has been tough. She originally gained respect by marrying a wealthy man. She used marriage as a way of gaining power, but when her husband died and left her in debt she lost all of her respectability. She has had to scrape by to survive, and while it sounds like a difficult life to live, it appeals to Nora. Nora is at the mercy of two powerful men: Torvald and Krogstad. She wants to feel free and independent, the way Christine was, despite how hard it may be. She likes the idea of having no debts or lies to keep up with, that she only must care for herself and no one else.

Nora decides to act on her feelings and takes power into her own hands. By the end if the play, Nora is the most powerful person in the play, and becomes independent and strong. Everyone is shocked by her act but she does what is best for herself and her state of mind, which is the most empowering moment if the play. By gaining her independence, Nora takes power away from her husband and her blackmailer, as she doesn't care for what they think of her anymore. She leaves, and goes from the least influential and most powerless character, to the most influential powerful character. Ibsen used Nora as a way to give women all over the world during this time the confidence and inspiration they needed to take control of their own lives, to not be oppressed by men, and to be powerful in their own homes.

Power in 'King Lear' 

At the beginning of 'King Lear', Edmund has no power. He was born out of wedlock to his father's mistress, and is therefore illegitimate. He has been sent away by his father for years, whilst his younger half-brother Edgar stayed with Gloucester. Edmund knows that when their father dies, Edgar will inherit Gloucester's money, land and title. He decides to try to stop this, as he feels a great injustice against him. He lies to his brother and his father and double-crosses them both, and gains power while Edgar has to assume the alias 'Poor Tom'. By gaining this power, he becomes infinitely more attractive to Goneril and Regan, who compete with each other for his affection. This gives him power over the two sisters too, and he becomes the most powerful, influential person in the play.

None of the women in 'King Lear' have any power at the start of the play, and Lear had it all. They have been reduced to expressing their love to their father in exchange for land. Cordelia is the only sister who refuses, and loses what little power she had over her father as the favourite, and is banished to France. By doing this, Lear essentially passes his power straight into the hands of the mistreated and neglected Goneril and Regan. They take full advantage of this newfound power and abuse it, firstly by overthrowing the King, and then by using it to get closer to Edmund. This backfires badly, and they turn against each other. To get rid of her sister's power and influence over Edmund, Goneril poisons her, but then loses the will to live when Edmund dies, and commits suicide. Goneril and Regan had a lot of power in the middle of play, but lost it almost as quickly as the received it.

In opposition to the sisters is their father, who had all of the power at the beginning of the play, but naively splits his power between Goneril and Regan.

Relationships in A.D.H

                                     Relationships in A.D.H

There are many relationships in A Doll's House, each as complex as the next. Some of the relationships tie in with each other creating more layers of the text to be analyzed and studied. I will highlight the key relationships in A.D.H and how they add to the main themes and story of the text.

The key relationship in A.D.H is of course that of Nora and Helmer.

Straight away we can see that it is not an equal sided relationship. In the opening scene we are shown how Nora is on an allowance provided by Torvald. "Has my little squanderbird been overspending again?"

Not only is Helmer controlling her finances but it is apparent that he feels that he owns her, (he uses possessive language "my little squanderbird"). Their relationship adds to main theme of power in the story.

Another key relationship in A Doll's House is the relationship between Christine and Nora. Christine acts as a foil for Nora and provides Ibsen with the means of showing how Nora truly feels. During one of their conversations, Nora reveals that she is proud of her actions to save her husbands life. "I too have something to be proud and glad of. It was I who saved Torvald's life." First it was her eating macaroons behind her husband's back, now this. This reveals a new side of Nora that was previously unseen and shows that Nora is not always truthful to her husband. Nora is proving that she can not be controlled and she won't do as Torvald bids. Her relationship with Christine highlights major themes in A.D.H making their scenes vital in the overall text.

The relationship between Christine Linde and Nils Krogstad is a very interesting one. During their conversation by the lamp, they discuss their history and how they have done wrong. Despite their actions of the past, it seems as though they are given a second chance when they decide to try their relationship again. Their relationship is a curious one and causes the viewer to contemplate the character's cases and whether they deserve a second chance or not. And then onto the global topic, if people in general deserve a second chance, if so under what circumstances? This relationship adds diversity to A.D.H with a surprisingly light-hearted scence in an overall melancholy play.

Throughout the text, Ibsen uses relationships as a way of connecting the viewer to the story. With Nora and Helmer the viewer has mixed feelings about both characters motives, constantly second guessing themselves as the characters go through a wheel of emotions. This level of engagement with the story is part of what makes it such a complex and memorable text.

     Relationships in King Lear and Rear Window

It is clear that in King Lear and Rear Window that relationships play a key part in developing the story and characters. The characters can be used to different effects and I will discuss how this impacts the content and overall quality of King Lear and Rear Window.

Opening of A Dolls House

Opening of A Dolls House, King Lear and Rear Window

The start of a play is key to story telling as it gives us our first impression of the characters, the setting and the general mood of the movie. At the beginning of A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen we see deceit and lies straight away which is a common them through out the play.

From the very beginning of the play we see both the main characters, Nora and Helmer, portrayed in very different ways. Nora is portrayed as a kind of silly character who is completely dependent on her husband Helmer. Whereas Helmer is portrayed as a stern and strict man who hates to be lied to and wants everyone around him to live by a certain set of rules. I found is interesting because Nora's character completely changes throughout the play until she is the one making decisions at the end of the play.  

Lies and deceit is evident as Nora lies to Helmer from start to end of the play no matter how big the lie was. We see she lies at the very beginning when she is eating macaroons which is one of the things that Torvald (Helmer) is so against.

Nora is very content and comfortable to lie straight to her husbands face which in the end is part of her downfall. Is this what marriage should really be about? My impression of marriage was that all secrets were shared to prevent any conflict but the marriage between Helmer and Nora completely goes against this theory.

The interesting thing in A Doll's House is that is begins with Nora opening the door full of hope and laughter and ends with Nora closing the door in a serious and determined way.

This relationship reminds use of the relationship between King Lear and his daughters as both relationships are destructive and pessimistic as no good comes out of their relationship.

The relationship between Lear and his daughters is similar to the relationship between Helmer and Nora due to how negative both relationships are. Lies and deceit is also evident in King Lear as we see Goneril and Regan plotting against Lear from the beginning. As soon as they receive their land from Lear from lying about how much love they have for their father they both plan how to put Lear out of power and control. There are similarities between this play and A Doll's House due to the switch in power and control from the beginning to the end of the play.

In the beginning of King Lear, Lear is a man a power making rash and crazy decisions such as dividing his land with his daughters that openly speak fondly of him and banishing those who refuse
who refuse to openly explain their love for him. This is interesting as it is the complete opposite throughout the play as we see Lear lose all his power and his evil daughters, Goneril and Regan, take complete advantage of this by declining him the right to live with them. We also see Edmund, a man of no power or wealth slowly begin to use lies and deceit to get his brother Edgar, who is the rightful heir to his father, banished and how his also back stabs his own father to take his status as Earl of Gloucester. By doing this he is responsible for the eye gouging of his own father.

The only difference in King Lear is that two characters, Cordelia and Kent, actually try to keep a positive and healthy relationship with Lear by not lying about their love to him but by doing this they irritate Lear and he banishes them.( Although Kent stays in disguise.)

The start of King Lear was key to story telling as we also see lies and deceit from the very beginning of the play with is also a common theme throughout the play, as we see Gloucester gets deceived by  a lie told by his son Edmund at the beginning which ends up with him getting his eyes gouged in the middle of the play.

Lear's generosity in the opening scene is his downfall in my opinion as he doesn't anticipate how selfish his daughters can be. Shakespeare draws us in due to Lear being a crazy man making crazy decisions such as banishing his friend Kent and daughter Cordelia. This is a big bang that immediately grabs our attention.

In contrast to Rear Window by Hitchcock which is a slow burner and takes a while to get into the climax of the story which is Thorwald's murder of his wife.  The method of story telling in this text is different as Hitchcock draws the audience in slowly and steadily with his slow build up of climax with hits its peak when Thorwald kills his wife.

This text is also similar to both King Lear and A Dolls House in the way in which the relationships between characters are destructive. The relationship between Thorwald and his wife is negative as it results in him killing her as she constantly annoys him. As the film progresses we see the relationship between Thorwald and his wife start to worsen and worsen. She pretends to be sick and irritate him until it gets to much for Thorwald and he kills her.

In contrast to every other relationship I have studied the relationship between the main characters of Rear Window, Lisa and Jeffery. The relationship differs as it goes from them clashing at the start to actually being happily together at the end. In the beginning Lisa is not what Jeffery wants in a girlfriend as he doesn't believe she is daring or brave but she proves throughout the story that she does have these characteristics and Jeffery falls from her.

Depiction of Women - General Vision and Viewpoint

A Doll's House

In Ibsen's A Doll's House Ibsen depicts women in a modern and realist way. The relationship between Nora and Christine Linde is a key cornerstone of the play. The two characters contrast each other throughout the text and their relationship is filled with underlying tension. They are both depicted in different ways with their polar opposite situations and personalities. Ibsen shows two different options available for women in society at that particular time; to be independent and work oneself, or marry, be a housewife and have children.

 Nora took the marriage and housewife option. Nora is the perfect wife, in Helmer's eyes. She is compared to the beautiful decorations hung throughout the house; temporary, fragile and Helmer's possession. She is solely dependent on her husband, he enjoys exploiting his position of control over her and likes her weakness and fragility. Throughout the text we see how Helmer exploits his position in the household. His successful career and position as the sole earner gives him a sense of control and dominance. Nora struggles internally with this, and her lack of power upsets her, This is why when presented with the option of finding away to save her husband and family, she took it, without pausing to think of the consequences. She equates money with power and her indiscretion gave  her a sense of purpose and power which she craved. Similarly, Christine also equates money with power. However Christine is already in a position of control  as she is independent and controls her own affairs.

Nora married for love, or what she believed  to be love whereas in contrast Christine married her late husband out of necessity, in an desperate attempt to be able to provide for her mother and young brothers. When he died she was left with nothing, forcing her to make her own way in the world, in a society that belittled women and provided them with little opportunity to succeed. Ibsen here shows modern ideas, depicting a new era of women, independent and self-providing. Christine herself enjoys the feeling that working gives her, she has been providing for herself and her family for so long that it gives her satisfaction, she knows of no other way to live now, and it is now her role in  life in her opinion. However Nora and Christine are similar in how they both had to use their intuition to provide for themselves and their family. Nora was desperate to save her husband and get him the best possible care by whatever means necessary as was Nora. However in their first meeting at the beginning of the play, their is some underlying tension between them as they discuss their lives, which is seen in Christine's slightly condescending attitude towards Nora. Christine thinks that Nora knows little of the 'worries and hardships of life', and Nora strives to prove her wrong. Their is a lack of sincerity and empathy in their relationship as seen through how they sympathise and patronise one another. I think that some of Christine's condescension towards Nora stems from jealousy, seeing how comfortable and successful Nora's life apparently is.   

Christine continuously manipulates Nora throughout the text to further her own agenda; to get a job. She shows another side to her character. Ibsen shows the depths that people can go to, to better themselves and their quality of life. In doing so he also depicts women as more than how society portrayed them at that time, strong characters with ideals, future aspirations and ambition. 

In "A Doll's House" Ibsen frequently uses symbolism to depict Nora. He compares her to the Christmas tree as she is on show, a possession of Helmer's that has no real purpose to him other than be decorated and displayed.  

King Lear and Rear Window 

Shakespeare's "King Lear" and Hitchcock's "Rear Window" all depict women of differing personalities in various situations. Shakespeare writes about three different sisters; Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. The way Shakespeare depicts women could be seen through two alternate views. On one hand he could be seen as depicting the women in the play as deceptive and selfish, all against each other. However it could also be seen as Shakespeare depicting women who are strong and determined. Goneril and Regan are not afraid to go after exactly what they want, even if it means hurting one another in the process. Cordelia in another way is portrayed as a strong woman, who stands up for herself and challenges her father by refusing to answer him. The sisters are all headstrong but divided in their quest for independence. In contrast to this, the women in "Rear Window" are united. Hitchcock depicts the women in a modern way similar to Ibsen in "A Doll's House". Lisa is a working girl like Christine Linde in ADH. Lisa is self-sufficient and successful and her hard-working image portrays a new era of feminist upheaval at that time, in post war America where men were returning from war to find that their jobs had been done by capable, powerful women in their absence.

King  Lear and "Rear Window" are similar as they depict women who take care of or provide for men rather than the opposite. Both Lear and Jeff are invalids who are relying on women to care for them. Lear is at the mercy of his daughters, who each have their own hidden agendas, and Jeff is trapped in his apartment with only Stella and Lisa for companionship. After Lear gives up his land and power to his daughters he is left with nothing and as his mind gradually starts to go he relies on Goneril and Regan to take him in. However Goneril and Regan are focused more on their own livelihood. They are in battle against each other for Edmund's affections and this overrides any concern they have for their father. In contrast to "King Lear", Lisa in "Rear Window" is happy and obliging to cater for Jeff in his invalid state. She is a strong women with her own life and independence. Therefore what all the women in both the texts have in common is that they are  portrayed as dominant characters as opposed to supporting roles in the background.

Thirdly the women in both of these texts ( RW and KL) , are determined to maintain or pursue their relationships. Lisa strives to have a future with Jeff as both Goneril and Regan do with Edmund. The contrast is that Goneril and Regan are willing to do whatever it takes, even if that means hurting one another, or their husbands. Lisa offers to get Jeff a job with her magazine, hoping that he will stop his vagabond lifestyle and settle down with her. This shows how Lisa is pro-active and intuitive. However despite her best efforts, Jeff remains unconvinced of her proposal. Nevertheless Hitchcock shows the audience another side to Lisa.

Hitchcock also uses symbolism to portray Lisa's character, as Ibsen does in "A Doll's House". Lisa is repeatedly associated with light throughout the film, turning on lamps and lights whenever she enters a room. This helps depict an atmosphere of hope and positivity around her character.

  

Comparative of costumes in the play 'A Doll's House' by Ibsen, 'Rear Window' by Alfred Hitchcock and 'King Lear' by William Shakespeare

  Costumes are a very important aspect in all three texts, 'A Doll's House' by Ibsen, 'Rear Window' by Alfred Hitchcock and 'King Lear' by William Shakespeare. Costumes provided a sense of identity or lack there of. This importance of attire can easily and quickly show what a person's personality is like. They can be used in many ways, and this variety of expression through clothes shows each authors sense of imagination and creativeness in all three texts.
 In the text 'A Doll's House' by Ibsen, costumes are a large focal point to develop the final scene. Costumes can be used to show the audience that a character is being transformed into a completely different character.
   One of the first costumes that can be greatly recognized is when Christine enters the 'dolls house' . Christine being the foil for Nora, is wearing plain boring work clothes. The opposite of Nora, she is independent and loves to work and provide for her family. This work costume that she is wearing portrays her character, not overly dramatic or flamboyant. Throughout the play we see Christine's costume contributes to her character and her personality. She is the one who tries to make sense of all the drama in Nora's life. After caring for her brother's and her mother, this simple minded ' work ethic' is seen as she talks to and treats Nora. She almost switches from person to person, trying to fix their lives, without looking at her own life. Her costumes shows her sense of identity. Simple, and she would rather care for someone else than spend too much time on her outfit. A practical costume. We can also see this idea when she fixes Nora's tarantella costume.
   One of the most important costume changes in the entire book is Nora's costume change after the tarantella. This dress shows he freedom and her realization of her current situation. This costume towards the end of the text, is being mended by Christine. While Christine is mending Nora's dress, she is also mending Nora's life. She continues to tell Nora that she needs to tell her husband, this is the miracle that Nora is searching for, whether she knows it or not. This mending of the dress shows how Nora's thoughts and feelings are being changed for her husband and her life. She starts to realize that she has never loved her husband, and it has only been some sort of game. For her, love or flirting is some sort of game (which she also shows by flirting with Dr rank). This is wildly portrayed through her (unlike Christine) flamboyant, tight and beautiful attire. Nora's final realization that her husband is not the man she thought he was finally appears, the miracle shes been searching for. After this epiphany, Nora removes her costume. She removes the person she was, the person everyone thought she was. She reveals her true self. Someone who is lost and needs to search for her real passions and she needs to seek after her own beliefs before she can care for anyone else. Her costume mimicked this masc that she had been wearing for the eight years of her marriage with Helmer.
  One of the small costume changes in this drama, is when Nora is in a dire situation. She is in debt to Krogstad and cannot afford to waste any money on buying really expensive clothes for her or even her children. She buys attire that has less elegant fabric, but being the smart woman Nora is, she knows her husband would not notice. This shows that Helmer does not notice the little things about Nora and it portrays his lack of love for her. He does not know his wife and can't tell little differences with her and her children's clothes.
   Likewise in the text 'Rear Window' by Hitchcock, costumes continue provide a large sense of identity and personality. Costumes are very important to the character of Lisa since she works for a fashion magazine.
   Due to the occupation of Lisa and the position of her in that job, we see it really effects her clothing choice. For example the first time Lisa enters a scene to visit Jeff in his apartment, we see her wearing a black and white dress. This black and white dress is very important when comparing Lisa's views and morals to Jeff. Her views are very straight to the point. She has no grey or blurry views. She knows what she wants when she wants and no one can tell her otherwise. We can also compare this type of thinking to Nora in 'Rear Window' and Cordelia in 'King Lear'.
   Lisa continues to impress us with her outfits when she visits Jeff a second time. She wears this almost wedding-like dress where she tries to influence Jeff on his view of marriage. Again we see this black and white sense of thinking, she is not willing to change at the moment with her views and nearly doesn't want to hear Jeff's. Lisa wears a veil covering the top of her face which adds to this idea of marriage. Marriage is a very prominent subject that continues to appear throughout the text and we can see this  not only through dialogue but through the costumes of others.
   One of the final and main costume changes we see with Lisa or any other character, is when we see Jeff and Lisa sitting in his apartment but Lisa's outfit has changed, She is now not wearing her usual elegant and 'typically feminine for that time' attire. She now has changed, into a new person, wearing trousers. These trousers mark her willingness to change, but we can still ask has she really changed? Just before the text comes to a close, we see Lisa unexpectedly pull out a fashion magazine. Unlike Nora in 'A Doll's House', we see Lisa stay the same person she was even though she went through an important costume change. Costumes represent an identity in this text but for Lisa, they do not define her. She stays the same no matter what outfit she wears.
  So far we can see how costumes can define or not define certain characters in each text. 'King Lear' by William Shakespeare takes a strong hold when it comes to costumes and costume changes. Compared to the other two texts, Shakespeare concentrates more on the removal of clothes and how it can really have an impact on identity, inside and out, or how other people may see you. He also takes a look on the idea of costumes becoming a new identity to disguise or protect, just like in 'A Doll's House' by Ibsen.
   For example, in the first scene we see Lear's rashness and how he casts out his own daughter and his loyal friend and knight Kent. Cordelia does what her father says, but Kent takes another approach of disguising himself to look after Lear. Costumes in this text can be used as a sort of protection not just a sense of identity. This costume allows Kent to protect not only himself but Lear. We see throughout the text that this costume allows a shield for them. Using this idea as a comparison, it is similar to 'A Doll's House' because Nora uses her tarantella dress as protective shield from not only Helmer, but herself. Not only does Helmer not know the real Nora, but neither does she, but this realization eventually comes to her towards the final scene.
   We can also see costumes used as protection when Edgar is being chased out of his own house on a false accusation, he is forced to remove most of his clothing to hide his true self. He covers himself in dirt and even cuts himself to to appear as this peasant. He fools not only others around him but his friends and family too. He is seen as nothing but someone of a lower status. Even though this might not seem like justice, it gets him out of death and a terrible situation. This costumes change, or removal, marks Edgar's insanity or him pretending to be insane to stay alive. Edgar goes from a person of royal status to someone of the lowest.
  We can see almost the same image when King Lear is just outside the hovel, during the storm. As this storm rises and continues to shatter the world around them, Lear's mind does the same. He begins to remove his clothes, just like Poor Tom but unlike any of the other two texts. This removal of of costumes also marks the peak of insanity and the peak of where Lear loses himself completely. As he removes his clothes, he removes everything he was, he loses his own self and his own identity. This also can be compared to Nora in a Doll's House where she removes her tarantella costume, she removes the person she was.
   Thus, throughout all three texts of 'A Doll's House' by Ibsen, 'Rear Window' by Alfred Hitchcock and 'King Lear' by William Shakespeare, costumes are evident and have a large impact on characters identities and their personalities. Costumes reflect this through colour, style and even fabric. These costumes allow the audience to connect and get a deeper sense of the character. They really contribute to the development of plots and stories in each of the texts.

Unexpected Endings In The Comparative Texts

Unexpected Ending in Ibsen's 'A Doll's House'

The ending of Ibsen's play 'A Doll's House' is highly unexpected. The ending shows Nora and Helmer arguing about what Nora has done and Helmer's reaction to it, which then leads to Nora walking out leaving Helmer and their children to go and 'educate' herself about the world because up until that point she considered herself a play thing or a doll for her father and then for her husband. Helmer believes however that once the letter comes that exonerates the couple from any legal wrongdoing and blame that things can go back to normal, but they will never go back to the way they were. Nora  realizes even if it could go back to normal it wouldn't be worth going back to as she wasn't truly happy in the old time and it took this time for er to come to this conclusion.

Helmer tries to convince her to stay and she says it would take 'The miracle of miracles" to keep her there and Helmer is hopeful that he can provide such a miracle. But of course he can't the damage has been done and Nora leaves, absolutely shocking the audience as they were expecting Helmer to rescue her and embrace her while the curtains drop providing them with the happy ending they were expecting.

Why is this an unexpected ending?  This is an unexpected ending considering the time this play was written. This would have been a radical idea for the 1870's Victorian era Norwegian audiences at the time as they had a conservative view of religion and family life, the consensus at the time was that a wife/woman's role in the house was to first obey and listen to their father so they could learn to be a good wife for their husband, who would often even be much older than her. Her next role once she was a wife would be to serve her husband, be by his side & do whatever he said and also raise their children while the her husband works. Christine Linde is the exception to this however, she admits that at first she played this role of the traditional Victorian era woman so she could take care of her younger brothers but once her husband died and left her nothing she had to make her own way in the world. This is Nora's inspiration for her next actions. A horrible thought for many in the audiences at the time who would have shared the view of the Victorian era woman as a homemaker not as an independent person with their own life. So shocking in fact that the ending of the play was re-written so that people at the time could see the 'happy' ending that wouldn't shock them.

How does the ending of Ibsen's 'A Doll's House' compare to the other comparative texts?

Unexpected ending in King Lear 

The ending to king Lear in y opinion is the most unexpected ending of the three comparative texts in my opinion as we see the deaths of Lear's three daughters Cordelia, Goneril and Regan as well as the deaths of Edmund and Lear himself. The deaths of Edumnd, Regan and Goneril may have been slightly more expected than the deaths of the others as they were already competing for the throne and it was hinted that they may turn on eachother when the time came.

The deaths of Lear and Cordelia however, are very unexpected as there is a hope that they will overcome the evil sisters and once again regain the power that they once had and good would be restored after the hideous crimes and atrocities that had been committed thus far.

How does the ending of 'king Lear' compare to the other comparative texts? The ending of 'King Lear' is similar to the end of 'A Dolls House' by Ibsen in respect that both are highly unexpected endings, (many characters die unexpectedly in 'King Lear' and Nora laves in 'A Doll's House'). The endings of 'Rear Window' and 'King Lear' are similar as they both have violent endings, ( Many characters die in 'King Lear' and Thorvald breaks into Jeff's apartment and tries to kill him)

How is the ending of 'King Lear' different to the endings of the other texts? Both 'King Lear' and 'Rear Window' have violent endings the ending to Hitchcocks 'Rear Window' however, 'King Lear' leaves any issues unresolved, we don't know who will come to power or if the conflict is over now that the king and his daughters are dead. This is different to 'Rear window' where all issues and questions are resolved at the end; we know Thorvald killed his wife and then buried her around the city and he gets caught and presumably he gets his punishment for this, Jeff is injured in the fall but is otherwise unharmed. So from this we can say the emotion we are left in after these pieces are polar opposites, we are sad about the ending of 'King Lear' but we are glad that everything has a fair ending in 'Rear Window' and we aren't left with any questions about what happens next.

Secrets in 'A Doll's House'

In Ibsen's text ‘A Doll’s House’ secrets are a problem for the main female character Nora. She does not understand the difference between white lies and big lies or secrets. Nora often keeps small secrets from her family, such as when she didn’t want to tell them what gifts she bought or when she didn’t want the children to see the room before it was decorated for Christmas. These secrets and lies are acceptable as they do not have a significant impact on their lives. However for the last eight years she has been keeping a huge secret from her family. The secret is she borrowed money to save Helmer. Not only has she not told anybody about the secret she also forged her father’s signature to get the money from Krogstad.

Her husband disapproves of borrowing money and he is always talking about how much he dislikes Krogstad  as he forged a document long ago. Nora is afraid her secret will come out and ruin her life and relationship with Helmer. In the end her secret does come out but by the end of the text she has come to terms with her crime. She understands that the truth had to come to light and she knows that had Helmer not found out she would have never seen the side of him that surface when he was presented with all the facts. 

Nora keeps many secrets from her husband but does not seem to be so closed off with other people. She is very open with Christine and Krogstad. Nora seems almost proud to tell Christine about what she has done. the same thing happens when Krogstad confronts her about forging her father's signature. Once she has been found out she was proud to tell Krogstad that she did commit the crime. Nora and Dr Rank also seem to have a more open relationship then Nora and Helmer. They keep their own secrets from Helmer and Nora seems to confide in him more then she confides in Helmer. Dr Rank knows more about Christine then Helmer as though Dr Rank and Nora have more open conversations about her past.

Both Nora and Helmer seem to keep keep their fantasies about each other a secret. It was kept a secret until near the end of the text when they both revealed their fantasy. They both hoped that Helmer would have a chance to save Nora. Helmer was given the chance to save her but he did not take this chance. In the end Helmer ended up doing the complete opposite to what they both hoped would happen.




Secrets in King Lear and A Dolls House
There are secret in both King Lear and Rear Window. In Rear Window the secret is a murder. In the apartment across from Jeff a man Thorwald had killed his wife in the middle of the night. Jeff hears the scream and assumes the wife has been killed. Jeff and Lisa know that the wife has been killed but they have no proof.  In King Lear however the secret is the two sisters Goneril and Regan are plotting against their father. Once Lear gave away his land he no longer had any value in the eyes of his daughters. Neither of them wants to have to lok after him or deal with all of his knights in their house. They plot against Lear to get rid of all of his knights and in the end they turn him insane.

In both texts we see love being kept a secret. Jeff cannot tell everyone that he is in love with lisa as they are not married. Lisa decides to sleep over but when she does this we see Jeff keeping them a secret as two unmarried people sleeping together was against social protocol. We also see Thorwald keeping his girlfriend a secret from his wife. in the end this is the reason he killed his wife. Similar to Thorwald, Goneril  in King Lear must keep her feelings for Edmund the son of Gloucester a secret. Goneril is in a loveless marriage with her husband Albany. When she meets Edmund she feels for the first time in her life what love is really like. At this point she no longer wants to be married. Goneril and Edmund secretly plot against Albany in the hopes that one of them can kill him. However Goneril does not know that Edmund is also secretly housing feelings for her sister Regan whose Husband has just died.

In King Lear we see many cases of hidden identities. Both Edgar and Kent have been banished but they both stay in the kingdom but in hiding. Edgar disguises himself as Poor Tom and Kent disguises himself as one of Lear's servants.The fact that they are both there adds dramatic irony to the text as Lear and Gloucester think they are talking to strangers but they are actually talking to an old friend and in Gloucester's case he is speaking to his son. He gets a chance to apologize to his son for banishing him from the kingdom. In the end it is Edgar who saves his father as he stops him from committing suicide on the cliffs of Dover.

Setiing in "A Doll's House"

Setting in "A Doll's House"

Perhaps the most important element of this play is the setting. The first thing that the audience see when the curtains are raised is the setting, so it is important to get it right, to invite them in.

We are thrown into a Norwegian, working class home in the 1870's. It is well furnished and certainly very pretty with a grand piano, engraved walls, rocking chairs, and a bookcase with leather bound books. Maybe it is too pretty, maybe like a dolls house is meant to look.

The special thing about the setting in "A Doll's House" is the fact that it remains the same house, indoors throughout the whole play. We never get too see the outside, the only indication we are given on it is that it is cold and harsh.

This constant indoor setting in a frilly, perfect home gives the audience a sense that they are trapped inside it, just as Nora is trapped inside.

Ibsen has used the setting to make the audience feel in a particular way, this in turn intensifies the play and allows the audience to feel how Nora feels.

The setting in "A Doll's House" is brilliant as it immediately makes the audience feel a certain way, trapped in a perfect house, it's almost creepy.

Individuality in 'A Doll's House'

Individuality in Ibsen’s 'A Doll’s House'

Liberation of the individual is 'A Doll’s House''s most central theme. Nora displays individuality through defying social norms and realising the need to educate herself. This reflects Ibsen’s view of an ideal society, one where everyone exercises individuality and unbiased thought.

Initially, Nora appears to firmly confine herself to societal norms, being a member of a stable, bourgeois family unit. Nora's delight at the receiving of money appears materialistic, but Nora is truly raising money to pay for her husband treatment, treatment which Nora attained through defying the law. Nora ignored the law and replaced it with her morals, referring to the law as ''silly'' numerous times throughout the play. Another societal norm which Nora defies is the idea of marriage. The societal idea of marriage and children locks one person to another, legally and socially binding them. Defying this social standard displays Nora’s independent and individual thought. This is especially surprising coming from a woman in the 1880s, a group whose primary goal was, and in some cases, still is, seen as child-rearing.

Nora realises that she must educate herself before she could ever marry and raise a family, displaying her distrust of the beliefs held by other people, exercising her individuality. Nora begins to rightfully consider herself, evident from quotes such as ''What about me?''. By realising that she has been a victim of societal indoctrination, rather than actual education, Nora is displaying a high-level of individual thought. Nora is even completely breaking the cycle of child-indoctrination by leaving, as a victim of society's indoctrination herself, highlighting Ibsen's belief of immediate and revolutionary change of society. Leaving the home also emphasises how Nora is thinking of herself, a woman who has been denied the opportunity to be an individual.

We see Ibsen's acceptance of Nora's individuality in the closing scene, when Nora presents Torvald with many logical and sound arguments which justify her decision to embark on a mission to become a well-rounded and true individual, rather than one morphed by discriminatory social norms. It is clear from Nora's individuality that Ibsen is praising the concept, not condemning it. A society of individuals seems to be Ibsen's personal utopia.

In conclusion, Ibsen provides us with an individual character through defying social norms and realising the need for education, rather than learning through societal indoctrination. Ibsen affirms his support for Nora's individuality in the closing scene, where Nora provides Torvald with logical arguments justifying her decision. The individual is vital to this text.

Realistic and Believable Characters

Realistic and Believable Characters

Ibsen is described as the father of realism. His characters speak in everyday language and action of the play takes place in the same setting over a short period of time.

Ibsen turned the theatre into a mirror for the audience. No longer was the theatre a place where you went to be entertained by the problems of Kings and Queens. It was about real people 'Mr and Mrs' - reality, discussing topical issues of the day.

By discussing these topical issues, the audience can relate to the characters in the play, and the therefore feel more believable.

As in 'A Doll's House', 'Rear Window' is set in the time of its creation, so those watching it for the first time would understand with ease any references made as it plays. Set in 1954, New York, and in an apartment complex, Jeff lives the life of a middle class, single man of the time. In that way, it is similar to the setting of 'A Doll's House', where the characters are made believable due to how ordinary and 'normal they are. This is the same as in 'A Doll's House, as it also shows an ordinary, middle class couple, which as in Rear Window, would've been the target audience who would be viewing both the movie and play. This brings the characters down to the audiences level, and makes them more believable and realistic.

As opposed to 'A Doll's House' and 'Rear Window', King Lear is set in the seventeenth century. It centres around Kings and Queens, as opposed to 'Rear Window' and 'A Doll's House', which centre around everyday characters. For that reason, it would seem difficult for someone to understand the issues faced by the characters, and therefore find them believable, however, family discord and mental illness (as in the case of Lear himself) are still prevalent in today's society, so while parts of the play may seem over the top, they can still be compared with everyday issues, and therefore the characters facing these issues, in this case, King Lear himself, could be seen believable in that they are an over-the-top version of what a person today may be.


Another way in which Ibsen makes the characters in 'A Doll's House' more believable is through the use of foil characters. In this case, Christine is a foil for Nora. Essentially, they exchange places through the course of the play. Nora starts as a married woman with children. Christine has no husband or children. By the end this is reversed. When we meet Christine, she is wearing outdoor clothes. When Nora leaves, she is dressed in the same way.
By showing us Christine and Nora as two polar opposites, and just how much they are capable of changing within a short space of time, we see the scenario and their characters as more believable by the play's end.

In 'Rear Window' there is no obvious foil characters to make the characters more believable, however 'Rear Window' has Jeff, the protagonist, and Thorwald, the antagonist as mirrors for each other.

Jeff constantly looks out the window, as he is bored with his injury. Thorwald has murdered his wife, and this has made him paranoid. Because of this, we see him occasionally glance out the window in worry. Though their reasons for being a 'peeking Tom', vary, they are both guilty of it, as Stella points out to Jeff.

Similarly, they both have love interests. Jeff has Lisa, and Thorwald has his wife. Both of these men have issues with their wives. Jeff finds Lisa beautiful, but boring. He wants her to share his interests rather than her own, or he won't marry her. Thorwald is angered by his nagging wife, and this drives him to murder her. They both may share issues, however, Thorwald's way of dealing with it is extreme, and although they may share these similarities, they are different in this way.
This way of writing characters is how Hitchcock makes them believable. By having Jeff share some of his traits with Thorwald, it gives the audience and idea of what Jeff could be, and how he could be worse, like Thorwald. This doesn't justify his actions, however it helps us to see him in a slightly better light, and prevent him from being some kind of antagonist to the film, as he constantly antagonizes Lisa. In this way, Hitchcock writes them as believable characters.

As in 'A Doll's House' and 'Rear Window', in 'King Lear', Edgar and Edmund are a foil for each other as they are polar opposites like Nora and Christine in 'A Doll's House'. Edgar represents light and good, while Edgar represents evil. Although Jeff and Thorwald aren't necessarily foils for each other, as in King Lear, Jeff is clearly the protagonist while Thorwald is the antagonist. Edgar and Edmund clearly show their set rolls within the play, and never cross these boundaries or show anything but good or evil, retrospectively. By having these two clear polar opposites in King Lear, it gives an obvious sense of right and wrong. By setting these boundaries, Shakespeare creates characters within a play that can fit their rolls well, and can do as one would realistically believe or expect from them.

Twice in the play, Nora talks to herself in asides. In each case, she uses this as a way of communicating her thoughts with the audience. We see her change as her secret is near reveal. We are told exactly how and what she is thinking, and it reflects some of our own worries and concerns for what is to come.
Our ability to know exactly how she feels is believable in that talking aloud to oneself about ones worries is something everyone does, and also, this allows us to see deeper into her character than what dialogue alone gives us and seem more realistic, even if her thoughts are part of the dialogue.

In 'Rear Window', characters never seem to speak to themselves in asides, however, Ms Lonelyheart seems often to be lost in her own thoughts. Rather than directly communicating what she is thinking by use of words, instead, Hitchcock writes Ms Lonelyheart through her actions. We see he desperation for love play out, and how she comes so close to suicide, all without the use of words, unlike Nora. This shows us how Hitchcock is capable or writing realistic, believable characters, without the use of dialogue.

In 'King Lear', soliloquys are a very common way for characters to speak directly to the audience. Most obviously, Edmund does this. Like Nora's asides in 'A Doll's House', soliliquays give the audience a direct view into the thoughts and mind of the characters, however, Edmund's soliloquys are much longer than Nora's asides, and give an in depth view of his thoughts and plans rather than just skimming the surface of one's thoughts, as in the case of Nora. Ms Lonelyheart's actions in 'Rear Window' are similar to Edmund's soliloquys in that through Edmund's soliloquys we can hear what he is thinking, just as we can see what Ms Lonelyheart is thinking.
By having Edmund communicate so directly to the audience and explain all of his plans, it also help us to more deeply understand his character and motives in the play, and set up our expectations of how we believe he will act through the course of the play. By giving us this insight and his motives, we don't just see him as some mindless power hungry son, but rather a power hungry son who feels betrayed by his father's attitude towards his, and has taken drastic actions in order to get his way. This makes him more believable to the audience.

Finally, I will discuss the importance of dialogue. As I stated previously, Ibsen's characters speak in an everyday language, but also their dialogue is believable, in that it reflects the atmosphere of each scene.
In the final scene, when Nora is confronted by Torvald and her secret is revealed, Torvald notably does most of the talking. Nora sits silently, only adding an occasional comment such as 'What about me?' or simply 'yes'. Her lack of speaking shows the impact his actions have had on Nora, and you can even see the moment she decides she's leaving him, as her answers grow few and far between.
As we are able to see her character slowly changing through the play, and then suddenly being forced to change due to Torvald's actions in the final scene, gives us a realistic view on the change of Nora's character through the duration of the play.

As in 'A Doll's House', dialogue plays an important role in 'Rear Window'. Through the use of dialogue, Hitchcock is able to develop the relationship, or in the case of Thorwald, the failing relationship between characters. Throughout a large part of the play, Lisa and Jeff speak to each other near or at the window. This allows for the development of plot while the relationship of Lisa and Jeff also reaches its ups and downs, as opposed to how Nora and Torvald don't communicate until things reach their climax, and Nora leaves Torvald. Nora and Torvald's relationship is similar to Thorwald and his wife's relationship, as Thorwald and his wife did not communicate, and in a fit of blind anger, Thorwald made the decision to kill his wife, as how Nora made the rash and bold decision to leave her husband. Dialogue not only allows characters to build connections between characters, but it also allows for the viewer to judge how realistic and believable play was been written. Dialogue that does not flow easily is stiff and awkward, meaning that for the audience to believe that these characters could be real, the dialogue must feel like something a person would say in a normal conversation. By having Lisa and Jeff talk while life goes on around them, it feels natural and realistic.

Finally, like in 'A Doll's House' and 'Rear Window', dialogue is an important plot device in driving the story forward and making the tragedy play out. Like in the case of both 'A Doll's House' and 'King Lear', dialogue is what can quickly build or destroy relationships, with the wrong or right words. In this case, it is the father-daughter relationship between Lear and Cordelia. Like in 'A Doll's House', it is the rash and sudden words of Torwald to Nora which so quickly break any connection she once felt to him. Their lack of communication meant it was only a matter or time before it happened, just as Lear's unrealistic expectations of Cordelia meant that it was only a matter of time before she disobeyed him, as she did in the first act. Like 'King Lear', in 'Rear Window', Thorwald makes a rash decision in the heat of the moment, and ends up murdering his wife. They didn't communcate as they should have, and Thorwald's expectations of marraige were not met, just like how Cordelia couldn't meet Lear's expectations in 'King Lear'.
The affect that dialogue and the lack of communication has on characters is a powerful one, and is enough to completely breakdown society. Because King Lear is a father who expects too much of his daughter, one can easily compare him to many modern day examples of parents in similar situations with their own kids. Because of this, the dialogue between them is what allows them to be believable.

For these reasons, I believe that the characters in 'A Doll's House', 'Rear Window', and 'King Lear' are all believable and well written in their own rights, and all of them can be easily linked or compared to each-other for these reasons.

Realism of the play: ‘A Doll’s House’ by Henrik Ibsen

Is 'A Doll’s House' Believable?

'A Doll's House' follows the story of a young woman in Norway, during the Victorian period. She is "happily" married, and has three children. The play follows her transition, from helpless child, to strong woman. In my opinion, ‘A Doll’s House’ is both realistic, and unrealistic. I will discuss why I feel this way, below.

'A Doll's House' is realistic because it showcases the fact that women were treated as helpless, weak, and clueless. 

This is shown by Nora forging her father's signature. She has no knowledge of the law, and therefore has no idea of the gravity of what she has done. Although this scenario might not have been commonplace, it does hold truth. Women received little to no education, meaning that they did not know about important topics such as law for instance. This meant that they couldn't have meaningful conversations with their spouse or other people, because they did not know about these things (and if they did, they only had the very basics).

Torvald treats Nora as a helpless creature. A "Songbird". He believes that she cannot possibly do things by herself, and on top of that, he finds her "Doubly attractive" when she is playing into the idea of "Feminine helplessness". This is realistic because at the time that this play was written, men ruled the roost. They were seen as stronger and more powerful than women, and women were seen as more attractive if they were seen to not be a threat to their masculinity fueled idea of dominance. 

As mentioned in my points above, that I believe that 'A Doll's House' is realistic. However, I also mentioned that I think the play is unrealistic. I think this because, the position of society at the time, would make it almost impossible to do what Nora does at the end of the play.

At the end of the play, Nora announces that she is leaving Torvald, and is going to educate herself about the world. I believe this to be unrealistic because, although a woman could leave her husband, I don't think that this scenario would occur. At the time, women who were divorced would have been seen as dangerous and undesirable. People would wonder what she had done to become divorced, and therefore would not want to associate with her. Based on this, I feel that it would be very hard for Nora to get a job, find a husband, etc. 

I also believe that Torvald allowing her to leave, is unrealistic. During the Victorian period, men had all of the power in the marriage. This means that they had near complete control over their wives. I don't think that in the real world, Torvald would have let Nora leave. Throughout the play, we see that Torvald (men) clearly believes that Nora (women) are incapable. This means that he sees himself as dominant over Nora, and as having the right to control her, meaning that he could/would stop her from leaving. 

In conclusion, 'A Doll's House' had parts that were realistic, and parts that were unrealistic. Despite this though, the play highlighted some very important issues. Ibsen was way ahead of his time, and his ideas can be applied to today's world.