In the Intorduction to Part IV of our textbook it mentions that in the time of mass media and globalization, there was also a trend of nation leaders execerting power over media outlets. While I’m sure that notion implies serious censorship, I’m very curious how this played out and whether or not it restricted what theatres produced as well. We know from the book that theatres and performance artists were putting up resistance to this, but it almost seems as if there was no reaction to this from those controlling other media, which to me is very strange.

The reading seems to want to make a distinction between film and performance theater, but what is the line that separates these two media? Is it the presence of a live audience in theater and not in film? But in that case, can the director and staff members during the production of a film not technically be considered an “audience”?

I think the purpose of globalization in theater was to have the ability for everyone to relate to something if not each other. Making fun of common customs or culture of specific races or of everyone just allows people to come together because it allows a lot of people to keep on the same page but in a comedic way. The fact that theater brings serious world issues to light is constantly brought up.

I think when we discuss globalization of theater the reading discussed these plays aiming toward exposing corruption, capturing the cultural confusions of the nomadic experience, satirizing racism, ethnic, and gender stereotypes. Just like the avant-garde movement, performance art was very dominate.  What do you think is the real difference between avant- garde and performance art? Is there a difference?

While doing the reading for this week, I stumbled upon the section about the “niche filling” theaters such as Teatro Campesino, and theaters that appeal to a specific, target audience. Learning about these types of theaters in Professor Krebs’ class led me to think about my project to create my own theater and brought me back to the question of “what niche am I filling,?” a fundamental question to be asked when creating a theater or any type of service/product, but one that can be lost among the “dreaming up” of the idea. After all, what good is a theater if it isn’t serving anybody?

At the end of the last scene, Nora leaves her husband because she claims he treats her like a doll. As times progress, so does the divorce rate in this country. The tension in this marriage is reflective of the times. In this play, does art imitate life or life imitate art?

In the story of A Doll House, Nora kind of suddenly turns to decide to leave her husband and children for discover who she is even husband tries to persuade her not to leave. What purpose does the author try to show for the audience through the A Doll House?Is it related with the situation of women at tht time? And is it kind of about the women’s right?

Ibsen’s writing of Doll House exhibits many feminist and modernists themes. Did Ibsen purposely intend to focus on these two motifs as a subtle way of illustrating some of the long-standing issues facing women in society?

Are the issues that the women in the play were facing, similar to what women are facing today? Would the plot of the play be the same if it were set in another country or time period?

At the end of A Doll’s house when after 8 years of marriage Nora leaves her husband and says that they do not understand each other. But the man that was trying to blackmail her seems to get a more traditional happy ending. Do you think she made the right choice? And how does it make you feel that even though we watch Nora struggle emotionally and work hard throughout the play she ends up leaving to be alone but the guy who uses blackmail and threats gets to have a wife to take care of his children?