Ultimately, it is the audience who are privy to the dangerous consequences this dishonesty will have on their marriage. However, the way in which Torvald is seen continuously “shutting the door behind him” (Ibsen, 95) at multiple points throughout the play shows the way in which he often ignores or secludes his other half from getting involved in his matters. It is almost like the “doors” of freedom are kept closed after Nora enters her marriage, which is why the slamming of the door in the denouement allows the audience to understand the extent of their fractious marital relationship. However, the initial static movements of Nora within her setting transition into more dynamic movements, metaphorically illustrating the way in which she is almost starting to test the boundaries of her marriage. The way in she “walks about restlessly…” (Ibsen, 97) show that whilst she is still alone on the stage, her visual actions are becoming more frantic, as seen through the diction choices such as …show more content…
The physical disconnection between the couple can be seen through the lack of intimate contact and secondly, through the hidden nature of Nora’s movements in relation to Torvald. When Nora is seen “playing with (Torvald’s) coat buttons, without looking him in the face” (Ibsen, 8) it is interesting to see the loss of simple intimate gestures like eye-contact between a married couple. Even when Nora “lean(s) over the chair-back and slowly stroke(s) his hair” (Ibsen, 92”, the lack of eye-contact undermines this superficial, intimate gesture to something more hypnotic and persuasive. Moreover, the physical distance created between the two characters when Nora “goes to the table” with Torvald “going towards her” (Ibsen, 9) and the way in which Nora yet again, “snatches her hand away and goes to the tree” (Ibsen, 93) sardonically shows the way in which she seems to find more comfort in materialistic objects than in her own husband. Ibsen clearly shows the vast differences, both literal and metaphorical, within this marriage that completely contrast the universal connotations of marriage. Clearly, both of the characters function on two different paradigms; both seem to be operating on different levels in a rather unhealthy marriage. Interestingly enough, the audience can see a transition after Act 1