Conflicting ideals of Self and Society: Realist and Naturalist approach to drama

[Adam Gillette]

Adam Gillette
Playscript Analysis
4 November 2008

Conflicting ideals of Self and Society:
Realist and Naturalist approach to drama

Conflict in plays up through the period of modernity was quite
straight foreword and easy to identify in most cases, Hamlet’s “to be
or not to be” comes to mind. This conflict was centered on the idea
of self. Conflict within one’s self prompts the audience to look
within themselves and identify this same conflict as they identify
with other aspects of he characters. With the introduction of a
Marxist view into the main stream philosophy, and Freud’s creation of
the id, ego, and superego, we begin to develop a social structure of
our own selves. No longer are we one unified thinking being, but
multiple aspects of self, which are constantly in conflict with each
other. This aspect of conflict of self is present in the new drama of
early 1900’s.
“Helmer: Before all else you’re a wife and a mother.
Nora: I don’t believe in that anymore. I believe that before all
else, I’m a human being. No less than you or anyway I ought to try to
become one…”
Ibsen, Henrik “A Dolls House”
This quote from Nora exemplifies this idea of multiple identities
within a single self. Within Nora there is a Mother, Wife, Human as
well as many other variants and deviants of these types. This dynamic
of inner conflict is a creation of the naturalist movement of drama,
bringing to the forefront the social nature of conflict within ones
self as well as without in the society which we live.
Naturalism is an idealistic approach to drama that attempts to depict
life onstage as close to how it appears offstage. The idea is that
only by examining the natural order of drama, can we truly understand
our lives. The drama that had been presented before was to fake, and
over simplified or exaggerated the dramatic aspects of our lives.
Photography was just coming into use as a common form of art,
exemplifying this idea of “Slice of Life” theater. The drama became a
mirror reflection of the lives of the common people, the people who
came to the theater. No longer were the heroes of the play kings and
princes, but working men and women, blue collar folk with real
problems. Naturally out of this approach societal pressure and the
nature of class, and gender conflict arose. It is interesting to note
that two of the most influential plays of this period had chosen to
center the conflict of the play around a female character, “Miss.
Juile”, and “A Dolls House.”
These two plays come to similar conclusions in the end; it is
interesting how closely they resemble each other. Both Nora and Miss
Julie must leave their lovers, having their dreams of a perfect life
shattered by the events of the play. Each had brought this eventual
demise of the relationship upon themselves from the start, and it is
evident that this is the only way that the story could end. The men
in both cases move on hurt but undaunted in their ingrained ideal to
move on and live on.
In Strindberg’s drama both Jean and Miss Julie are aware of the
futility of their attempt at running away to the alps, both are
enlightened to the graveness of their situation and the evolution of
their character throughout the situation. Jean has evolved from a
dreamer who really believes in his ambition to climb the social
ladder, to a realization that he will never ascend because the reason
he wants so badly to rise up is that he holds the upper class with
such high regard. To hold the duke and Miss Julie in such high regard
is what makes him a slave,
“…And now, since the Count spoke to me – I – I can’t really explain it
– but – ah, it’s the damn lackey in me! – I think if the Count came
down here now – and ordered me to cut my throat, I’d do it on the
spot.”
Strindberg, “Miss. Julie”
Torvald on the other had has not been enlightened and Nora has, which
makes him the most tragic of characters.
“Helmer: Nora, Nora, not now! Wait till tomorrow.
Nora: I can’t spend the night in a strange man’s room.
Helmer: But couldn’t we live here like brother and sister – ”
Ibsen, “A Dolls House”
This among many of his other attempts to convince Nora to stay is the
very thing that drives her away. Torvald is a product of society
acting how he has been taught, like a gentleman and a husband. This
societal dominance and protective overbearing of his wife is what has
driven her to question her place in the marriage and his love for
her. When he was unwilling to sacrifice his career for her, something
that in the society he was raised in never even crossed his mind:
“I’d gladly work for you day and night, Nora – and take on pain and
deprivation. But there’s no one who gives up honor for love.”

As we see in these two examples this period has spurned the creation
of a new drama and a new philosophy necessitating the evolution of the
Hero / Heroin into a new Hero. Not only by status does he become more
like the common people but in action and language as well. Gone is
the romantic idea of lyric poetry, iambic pentameter and rhyming
couplets. Theater has become a mirror reflection of life, the hero
talks as he would according to his character in the real world. Some
may have speech impediments or bad grammar this idea, not wholly new
to this period, was taken to new heights of naturalism by
Stanislavski.
Naturalism which is more prominent in “A Dolls House” begins to shift
towards Realism. This embodies the ideas of Naturalism but builds
upon them, giving more specific meaning to the randomness of the real
world. Realism ordered the chaos of a natural world and gave emphasis
to specific parts of the action, to more poignantly convey a theme or
idea present in the conflict of the piece. Some elements of this are
present in “A Dolls House” once such is the title it’s self; A
representation of the house that Torvald and Nora live in where they
are pretending to be husband and wife. Naturalism may not even give a
title at all for we don’t have titles for the every day occurrences in
our lives.
Miss. Julie embodies the Realist ideal more closely by employing
Symbols, such as, the boots, the oven, the bird, kissing of the boots,
and stories of climbing and falling, to name a few. These are
elements of real life which have an ordered prominence in where they
are placed within the text and who and how they are handled. These
elements make up the theme of the show, which Aristotle laid out in
his poetics.
The focus of conflict became a social problem, leading many to the
Marxist philosophy, that we are all products of our society.
Characters then began to be defined by the societal categories in
which they fell. Gender, job, class, ambition, and a whole slew of
other specifics became increasingly important for even the smallest
character in a play. As the characters of the play developed such
complexity so to had the actors. The action of the play became
centered on the character and the social interactions they
encountered. The action happened within the hero as they changed and
evolved their ideals throughout these social interactions until they
became something wholly new. This drastically changed the landscape
of action, actor, and hero forever.
Naturalism and it’s more accepted evolutionary counterpart Realism
brought about a change in drama in the early 1900’s that created new
conflict stemming from within the character. The societal pressure
form those outside the characters as well as the social dynamic within
the many selves of the character evolved the method and importance of
acting. The hero, action, and even them of the plays shifted to a
character driven cortex, though retained their importance in the
structure of the drama. This new drama changed the face of theater
from one end to the other there is no doubt this is a new era of
Drama, one from which we can never return