What do you think?
Rate this book
جون جابرييل بوركمان
On the family estate outside Oslo at the turn of the 19th century, a man paces the floor in an upstairs room. This is John Gabriel Borkman, once a famous entrepreneur, now reduced to penury and self-doubt following a prison sentence for embezzlement. His wife, her twin sister and his son are all trapped in the claustrophobic atmosphere which has descended upon the household - and which can only lead to an explosion as the suffocation becomes unbearable.
175 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1896
11 people are currently reading
432 people want to read
About the author
Henrik Ibsen
2,228 books2,100 followersHenrik Johan Ibsen was a major Norwegian playwright largely responsible for the rise of modern realistic drama. He is often referred to as the "father of modern drama." Ibsen is held to be the greatest of Norwegian authors and one of the most important playwrights of all time, celebrated as a national symbol by Norwegians.
His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.
Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.
His plays were considered scandalous to many of his era, when Victorian values of family life and propriety largely held sway in Europe and any challenge to them was considered immoral and outrageous. Ibsen's work examined the realities that lay behind many facades, possessing a revelatory nature that was disquieting to many contemporaries.
Ibsen largely founded the modern stage by introducing a critical eye and free inquiry into the conditions of life and issues of morality. Victorian-era plays were expected to be moral dramas with noble protagonists pitted against darker forces; every drama was expected to result in a morally appropriate conclusion, meaning that goodness was to bring happiness, and immorality pain. Ibsen challenged this notion and the beliefs of his times and shattered the illusions of his audiences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews
January 28, 2020
«تو عشق را در من کشتی. توانایی عاشق شدن و معشوق بودن را در من کشتی. میدانی این حرف چه معنیئی میدهد؟ کتاب مقدس از گناه ناشناختهای حرف میزند که بخششناپذیر است. قبلاً نمیفهمیدم منظورش چیه. حالا میفهمم. گناه بخششناپذیر بزرگ چیزی نیست جز کشتن عشق در یک انسان.»
آدم به رویاهایش زنده است، حتا اگر بداند برساخته و ناممکناند - مضمونی بسیار نزدیک به «مرغابی وحشی». در اینجا آدمها گناه ناکامیهایشان را به گردن دیگران میاندازند، و حتا در همین نقطهی شکست هم همچنان به امیدهایی واهی چنگ میزنند. راههای جدید، امیدهای نو، ناچارا از مجرای تغییر میگذرند، و هر تغییری، هر بیرون آمدن از خانهای، این ظرفیت را هم در خود دارد که در بادهای سرد کوهستان فرو ببردمان. شاید بیآبرویی ظاهرمان را بمیراند، اما انسانِ بیرویا، مرگ حقیقی را در آغوش میکشد.
آدم به رویاهایش زنده است، حتا اگر بداند برساخته و ناممکناند - مضمونی بسیار نزدیک به «مرغابی وحشی». در اینجا آدمها گناه ناکامیهایشان را به گردن دیگران میاندازند، و حتا در همین نقطهی شکست هم همچنان به امیدهایی واهی چنگ میزنند. راههای جدید، امیدهای نو، ناچارا از مجرای تغییر میگذرند، و هر تغییری، هر بیرون آمدن از خانهای، این ظرفیت را هم در خود دارد که در بادهای سرد کوهستان فرو ببردمان. شاید بیآبرویی ظاهرمان را بمیراند، اما انسانِ بیرویا، مرگ حقیقی را در آغوش میکشد.
December 9, 2023
We two shadows -- over the dead man!
'Omnia Vincit Amor' or, if you prefer in other words, Love conquers all but, let's emphasize it, only in the end! Overall a downcast and gloomy story, but with a truly positive conclusion, mind you, if you only use magnifying glasses! The principal male character, John Gabriel Borkman, he was a miner's son, and couldn't live in the fresh air, to be taken only metaphorically, of course, but he had been loved, as much as love could settle into the human hearts, by two women, which were paradoxically twin sisters, who eventually, after a long separation, decided to hold out hands to each other, and remove the coldness of heart that controlled them in the past. I say it again, I just love Ibsen! :)
'Omnia Vincit Amor' or, if you prefer in other words, Love conquers all but, let's emphasize it, only in the end! Overall a downcast and gloomy story, but with a truly positive conclusion, mind you, if you only use magnifying glasses! The principal male character, John Gabriel Borkman, he was a miner's son, and couldn't live in the fresh air, to be taken only metaphorically, of course, but he had been loved, as much as love could settle into the human hearts, by two women, which were paradoxically twin sisters, who eventually, after a long separation, decided to hold out hands to each other, and remove the coldness of heart that controlled them in the past. I say it again, I just love Ibsen! :)
June 20, 2021
از ایبسن جز شاهکار انتظاری نباید داشت
سر فرصت یک ریویو کامل خواهم نوشت
سر فرصت یک ریویو کامل خواهم نوشت
December 3, 2023
Strange story. Cold and readable. Not my favorite.
October 28, 2024
《تو عشق رو در من کُشتی. میفهمی این یعنی چه؟ انجیل از گناهی حرف میزنه که غیرقابل بخششه. قبلا هیچوقت نفهمیده بودم منظورش چیه. حالا میفهمم گناهی که غیرقابل بخششه اینه که عشق رو در کسی بکشی.》
ایبسن سعی میکنه در هر نمایشنامه به تابوها حمله کنه و در عین حال عناصر مشترکی رو تکرار میکنه.
در این نمایشنامه شاهدِ سه شخصیت هستیم که در گذشتهی خودشون به دام افتادن و حتی خودشون رو لایق رها شدن از این زندان نمیدونن و مدام در تار و پود گذشتهشون دست و پا میزنن و هر یک سعی دارند دیگری رو هم با خودش در گذشته نگه داره.
[از اینجا به بعد کمی اسپویل داره]
اما انتخاب "ارهارت" رو هم شاید بشه یک تابوشکنی در زمان خودش و حتی حالا دونست که از جنبهی روانشناسی میتونه قابل بحث باشه. یعنی "ارهارت" شاید از چنگال درگیری با گذشته گریخته باشه ولی باز هم تصمیمش تحتتأثیر گذشتهای که از سر گذرونده بود. (مامی ایشوز؟)
《همهی ماها رو یه وقتی در زندگی زیر میگیرند. تنها کاری که میشه کرد اینه که از نو بلند شد و وانمود کرد که هیچطور نشده.》
این استعارهی "زیر گرفتن" هم خیلی بهجا بود و خوشم اومد. "فریدا" برای قدم گذشتن در راه جدید و ساختن آیندهای که میخواد، بخشی از گذشتهش رو زیر میگیره و از این به بعد پدرش به جای ماتم گرفتن باید گذشته رو رها کنه و از نو شروع کنه نه که جلوی دخترش رو بگیره و هر دو در گذشته بمونن.
ایبسن سعی میکنه در هر نمایشنامه به تابوها حمله کنه و در عین حال عناصر مشترکی رو تکرار میکنه.
در این نمایشنامه شاهدِ سه شخصیت هستیم که در گذشتهی خودشون به دام افتادن و حتی خودشون رو لایق رها شدن از این زندان نمیدونن و مدام در تار و پود گذشتهشون دست و پا میزنن و هر یک سعی دارند دیگری رو هم با خودش در گذشته نگه داره.
[از اینجا به بعد کمی اسپویل داره]
اما انتخاب "ارهارت" رو هم شاید بشه یک تابوشکنی در زمان خودش و حتی حالا دونست که از جنبهی روانشناسی میتونه قابل بحث باشه. یعنی "ارهارت" شاید از چنگال درگیری با گذشته گریخته باشه ولی باز هم تصمیمش تحتتأثیر گذشتهای که از سر گذرونده بود. (مامی ایشوز؟)
《همهی ماها رو یه وقتی در زندگی زیر میگیرند. تنها کاری که میشه کرد اینه که از نو بلند شد و وانمود کرد که هیچطور نشده.》
این استعارهی "زیر گرفتن" هم خیلی بهجا بود و خوشم اومد. "فریدا" برای قدم گذشتن در راه جدید و ساختن آیندهای که میخواد، بخشی از گذشتهش رو زیر میگیره و از این به بعد پدرش به جای ماتم گرفتن باید گذشته رو رها کنه و از نو شروع کنه نه که جلوی دخترش رو بگیره و هر دو در گذشته بمونن.
March 23, 2015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054pfn7Description: Henrik Ibsen's rarely-performed but all-too-pertinent play about the dangerous pursuit of power. A new production from a version by David Eldridge.
Directed by Helen Perry
A BBC Cymru/Wales Production.
Part 1 of 2: David Threlfall stars as John Gabriel Borkman, a disgraced banker now destitute after a fraud scandal and imprisonment. Whilst trapped in his own home like a wolf in a cage, the living ghosts of his past wrestle to determine his future.Part 2 of 2:David Threlfall stars as the disgraced banker finally being made to atone for his sins. Now reunited with his first love, will he be able to find real happiness? Or will the continued pursuit of his ambitions lead to his final destruction?3* A Doll's House
4* Hedda Gabler
3* The Wild Duck
4* Peer Gynt
3* The Master Builder
2* Brand
4* John Gabriel Borkman
3* The Vikings of Helgeland
October 18, 2022
Ibsen é tão extraordinário que não necessita de caracterizar personagens. Aquilo que dizem é suficiente para lhes apormos os seus contornos. É a terceira vez que leio esta peça. Brilhante.
Um jogo subtil e gradual, pelo qual as revelações do passado acrescentam sempre novas situações, coerentes diga-se, à intriga. Um mestre da intriga.
Um jogo subtil e gradual, pelo qual as revelações do passado acrescentam sempre novas situações, coerentes diga-se, à intriga. Um mestre da intriga.
August 1, 2024
_میدانی زشتترین جنایتی که مرد میتواند مرتکب بشود چیه؟
_نه، چیه؟
_ قتل نیست. غارت نیست. بالا رفتن از دیوار خانهی مردم نیست. حتی پیمانشکنی هم نیست. مردم اینجور کارها را در حق کسانی که از آنها نفرت دارند میکنند... یا در حق کسانی که به آنها اهمیتی نمیدهند.
_پس چیه، جان گابرییل؟
_زشتترین جنایت سوءاستفاده از اعتماد رفیق است...
📝بنا به نوشتهی نویسنده بورکمن مردی است شصت و چند ساله، میانه بالا و قوی اندام. قیافهای پرتشخص، نیمرخی خوشطرح، و چشمهایی نافذ دارد...کتاب داستان عشقی قدیمی و کنونی از زندگی بورکمن است که ناخودآگاه زندگی پسرش، ارهارت را هم تحت تاثیر قرار داده است.چنانکه ارهات مجبور است کفارهی گناهان کسی دیگر را بدهد.کتاب پر از حسهای مادرانه به فرزند است و داستان عشق و خیانت.
#جان_گابرییل_بورکمن
#هنریک_ایبسن ترجمه #ناصر_ایرانی
_نه، چیه؟
_ قتل نیست. غارت نیست. بالا رفتن از دیوار خانهی مردم نیست. حتی پیمانشکنی هم نیست. مردم اینجور کارها را در حق کسانی که از آنها نفرت دارند میکنند... یا در حق کسانی که به آنها اهمیتی نمیدهند.
_پس چیه، جان گابرییل؟
_زشتترین جنایت سوءاستفاده از اعتماد رفیق است...
📝بنا به نوشتهی نویسنده بورکمن مردی است شصت و چند ساله، میانه بالا و قوی اندام. قیافهای پرتشخص، نیمرخی خوشطرح، و چشمهایی نافذ دارد...کتاب داستان عشقی قدیمی و کنونی از زندگی بورکمن است که ناخودآگاه زندگی پسرش، ارهارت را هم تحت تاثیر قرار داده است.چنانکه ارهات مجبور است کفارهی گناهان کسی دیگر را بدهد.کتاب پر از حسهای مادرانه به فرزند است و داستان عشق و خیانت.
#جان_گابرییل_بورکمن
#هنریک_ایبسن ترجمه #ناصر_ایرانی
May 7, 2017
Ich mag die Atmosphäre dieses Dramas von der ersten bis zur letzten Seite. Die Charaktere sind wie üblich bei Henrik Ibsen überschaubar und allesamt von einer bestimmten Sehnsucht gequält. Die Szenerie wirkt geradezu greifbar. Man fühlt sich ebenso darin gefangen wie die drei Borkmans und Ella Rentheim im Wohnzimmer. Ibsen erschafft mit wenigen Worten und ganz einfachen Mitteln bewegte Bilder, die eine besondere erdrückende, nervenaufreibende Stimmung in den Borkmanschen Räumen erzeugen: der auf und ab gehende Hausherr im Saal über dem Wohnzimmer; der auf dem Klavier gespielte Todesmarsch, der gedämpft in die Stube dringt, als Frau Borkman und ihre Schwester um die bedingungslose Liebe und Treue von Erhart kämpfen und die Klänge ihn sinnbildlich aus dem Hause treiben; die Flucht John Gabriel Borkmans aus dem Haus in die winterliche Kälte, um endlich wieder frei atmen zu können; das verbale Zerren der drei Alten um die Gunst des jungen Borkmans und dessen Flucht zur Wohnungstür, um sein Liebchen einzulassen - alles perfekt gestaltete Szenen, die wie ein Film im Geiste der Kopfes des Lesers erscheinen.
Das Ende, besonders die Szene auf der Aussichtsbank, gefiel mir außerordentlich und passt vollkommen zur Handlung. Ibsen ist mit diesem Drama eine runde Sache gelungen, was mich nach zweitem Lesen die Wertung auf fünf Sternen hochkorrigieren lässt. - Ich bin und bleibe Liebhaberin von Ibsens Dramen, die nie von künstlichen Helden leben, sondern vielmehr von Menschen mit mehr Schwächen als Stärken, die nach ihrer eigenen Freiheit, ihrer eigenen Sinnhaftigkeit suchen. Sie sind es, die Ibsens literarische Werk so einzigartig werden lassen.
Das Ende, besonders die Szene auf der Aussichtsbank, gefiel mir außerordentlich und passt vollkommen zur Handlung. Ibsen ist mit diesem Drama eine runde Sache gelungen, was mich nach zweitem Lesen die Wertung auf fünf Sternen hochkorrigieren lässt. - Ich bin und bleibe Liebhaberin von Ibsens Dramen, die nie von künstlichen Helden leben, sondern vielmehr von Menschen mit mehr Schwächen als Stärken, die nach ihrer eigenen Freiheit, ihrer eigenen Sinnhaftigkeit suchen. Sie sind es, die Ibsens literarische Werk so einzigartig werden lassen.
September 5, 2023
Friends, family, and human nature.
Are there limits to this man's insights?
And does there exist a better writer to express them?
Are there limits to this man's insights?
And does there exist a better writer to express them?
October 15, 2018
بعد از مدت ها دوباره شروع به خواندن نمایشنامه کردم و انتخاب این نمایشنامه کاملا تصادفی بود؛
جدا از نوشتن از احساسات مخاطب درباره اثر، ذهنیات از اثر و مقصود نویسنده هم میباید انجام شود تا گفتمانی صورت گیرد، بحثی، نقدی، مخالفتی و نتیجه ای شاید و در نهایت اندیشه ای.
با رسیدن به صفحات پایانی جان گابریل بورکمان داستان ... برام تداعی شد و در پس این، شاید بتوان گفت این تداعی نشانه های جهان سرمایه داری رو به افول بود؛ زمانی که افرادی نه برژوا و نه کارگر، نوادگان کارگران با اعتراض به طبقه ای که در آن بودند دست به سوداگری زدند و اینان را من اشراف لقب نمی دهم، که سوداگرانی همیشه کارگر، سودگرانی در تلاشی بی وقفه، سوداگرانی که حتی اندیشه صلح و برابری با خود داشتند و دست آوردن قدرت و ثروت برای کمک به بشریت و "انسان" اما طبیعت بود که آنان را نابود کرد، قدرت بود که قدرت را نابود کرد،
و این پیش بینی ای شگفت انگیز از دنیای بعد از ایبسن بود
از تحلیل روانکاوی- روان شناسانه اثر (رابطه الا و ارهارت- رابطه گونهیلد و الا- رابطه ارهارت و گونهیلد- جان گابریل با الا، گونهیلد و ارهارت) فعلا دوری می کنم.
جدا از نوشتن از احساسات مخاطب درباره اثر، ذهنیات از اثر و مقصود نویسنده هم میباید انجام شود تا گفتمانی صورت گیرد، بحثی، نقدی، مخالفتی و نتیجه ای شاید و در نهایت اندیشه ای.
با رسیدن به صفحات پایانی جان گابریل بورکمان داستان ... برام تداعی شد و در پس این، شاید بتوان گفت این تداعی نشانه های جهان سرمایه داری رو به افول بود؛ زمانی که افرادی نه برژوا و نه کارگر، نوادگان کارگران با اعتراض به طبقه ای که در آن بودند دست به سوداگری زدند و اینان را من اشراف لقب نمی دهم، که سوداگرانی همیشه کارگر، سودگرانی در تلاشی بی وقفه، سوداگرانی که حتی اندیشه صلح و برابری با خود داشتند و دست آوردن قدرت و ثروت برای کمک به بشریت و "انسان" اما طبیعت بود که آنان را نابود کرد، قدرت بود که قدرت را نابود کرد،
و این پیش بینی ای شگفت انگیز از دنیای بعد از ایبسن بود
از تحلیل روانکاوی- روان شناسانه اثر (رابطه الا و ارهارت- رابطه گونهیلد و الا- رابطه ارهارت و گونهیلد- جان گابریل با الا، گونهیلد و ارهارت) فعلا دوری می کنم.
June 21, 2020
Rebuilding Shattered Reputations
20 June 2020
I’ve said enough about my opinion of reading plays, and I have also mentioned it enough times that half the reason I end up reading plays is that many of them you rarely, if ever, get to see. For instance, I have only ever seen on Ibsen play performed, and that one was in London, and it was only because the National Theatre decided to play it in cinemas around the world that I was able to watch it (though I do sort of get the impression that Ibsen is often performed in London). Okay, if I went to Norway maybe I would have a better chance of actually seeing one of these plays performed, though that sort of creates another problem – I can’t speak Norwegian.
Anyway, I’ll do my best with recounting this play, despite them being rather difficult to follow straight off the bat (though, for some reason, I do manage to be able to follow Shaw’s plays, and Shakespeare’s, though in the case of Shakespeare that probably has a lot to do with them being readily available, and regularly performed). So, this is the second to last of Ibsen’s plays, though Wikipedia suggests that it sort of falls into his middle period. That, in my mind, sounds a little odd namely because there is only one play after this one to fall into his later period.
The story is about the titular character, who ended up in prison for fraud. He happens to be a bank manager, and he decided to engage in some speculative investments with other people’s money. Mind you, that doesn’t seem to be all that odd these days, particularly since that is basically what hedge funds are supposed to do, and hell, banks do that as well. In fact, if there is one thing that we learnt from the Global Financial Crisis, and that is that bankers don’t go to gaol for fraud, or at least they don’t when they happen to be running the joint, and also happen to be working on Wall Street. Okay, a couple did, but there is a word for people like that – Fall Guys.
Maybe that is what Borkman was, a fall guy. Maybe it was the case that the bank lost a lot of money and they decided to find somebody to take the blame, and unfortunately, Borkman drew the short straw. Well, interestingly the story is actually set eight years after Borkman was released (and fraudsters generally land up in gaols that are colloquially referred to a Country Clubs, namely because it is pretty easy going in these places, except for the fact that you still basically can’t leave and go to the pub for a beer, though it wouldn’t really surprise me if that did actually happen).
Mind you, the story is more about the family’s desire for a comeback, and that certainly does happen in the world of high finance. Borkman wants to be the one to make the comeback, despite the fact that he has been disgraced, whereas his wife has decided that maybe the best person to do this is their son. Another thing that seems to stick out here is the fact that they seem to be sheltered up in their house, the fact that Borkman is a pariah means that they rarely, if ever, go out.
Well, there is family drama, and Ibsen is certainly one for family drama, except that he decides to ratchet it up somewhat by bringing in Borkman’s wife’s twin sister. That wouldn’t be too much of a concern, if it wasn’t for the fact that he was also in love with her. However, the idea is that he was given a choice between playing happy families, or becoming a big fish in Norway. Well, he chose to become a big fish, but not surprisingly it all came crashing down around him. This sort of reminds me of a number of movies that you see every so often in Hollywood. Basically they have a choice between making it big or living the simple life, and the story always ends with them living the simple life.
Yeah, that would be all well and good if it was at all possible to live the simple life these days. Sure, we can certainly work to resist the temptation to live a consumerist culture, but the problem is that these days it costs an awful lot of money to simply live the simple life, let alone the high life. However, these films are right, and this is what Ibsen is trying to explore here, and that is the high life doesn’t always bring the rewards that it promises. Here Borkman ended up committing fraud and paid for it, and he did this so that his family could have nice things. Yet, the other thing was that there is this issue with the sister, and him turning away from her because of his choices. In the end though, and this seems to be a common theme, is that the decision to live the high life simply didn’t end well for Borkman – he ended up poor, alienated, and disrespected by those around him.
Unfortunately, though, it really does seem that a lot of these high fliers seem to escape justice somehow. There was this guy in Australia named Christopher Skase, and he basically ran up a heap of debt to run this huge media conglomerate which turned out to be a house of cards. Well, when it all came crashing down, he basically scarpered off to Majorca in the Mediterranean and lived a life of luxury in a seaside mansion, all the while Australia was trying, and failing, to get him extradited. Yeah, even when the Spanish finally agreed to extradite him, he suddenly developed emphysema and was too sick to travel.
Yeah, that is just one example, and I’m sure there are plenty of others out there, particularly among the political class.
20 June 2020
I’ve said enough about my opinion of reading plays, and I have also mentioned it enough times that half the reason I end up reading plays is that many of them you rarely, if ever, get to see. For instance, I have only ever seen on Ibsen play performed, and that one was in London, and it was only because the National Theatre decided to play it in cinemas around the world that I was able to watch it (though I do sort of get the impression that Ibsen is often performed in London). Okay, if I went to Norway maybe I would have a better chance of actually seeing one of these plays performed, though that sort of creates another problem – I can’t speak Norwegian.
Anyway, I’ll do my best with recounting this play, despite them being rather difficult to follow straight off the bat (though, for some reason, I do manage to be able to follow Shaw’s plays, and Shakespeare’s, though in the case of Shakespeare that probably has a lot to do with them being readily available, and regularly performed). So, this is the second to last of Ibsen’s plays, though Wikipedia suggests that it sort of falls into his middle period. That, in my mind, sounds a little odd namely because there is only one play after this one to fall into his later period.
The story is about the titular character, who ended up in prison for fraud. He happens to be a bank manager, and he decided to engage in some speculative investments with other people’s money. Mind you, that doesn’t seem to be all that odd these days, particularly since that is basically what hedge funds are supposed to do, and hell, banks do that as well. In fact, if there is one thing that we learnt from the Global Financial Crisis, and that is that bankers don’t go to gaol for fraud, or at least they don’t when they happen to be running the joint, and also happen to be working on Wall Street. Okay, a couple did, but there is a word for people like that – Fall Guys.
Maybe that is what Borkman was, a fall guy. Maybe it was the case that the bank lost a lot of money and they decided to find somebody to take the blame, and unfortunately, Borkman drew the short straw. Well, interestingly the story is actually set eight years after Borkman was released (and fraudsters generally land up in gaols that are colloquially referred to a Country Clubs, namely because it is pretty easy going in these places, except for the fact that you still basically can’t leave and go to the pub for a beer, though it wouldn’t really surprise me if that did actually happen).
Mind you, the story is more about the family’s desire for a comeback, and that certainly does happen in the world of high finance. Borkman wants to be the one to make the comeback, despite the fact that he has been disgraced, whereas his wife has decided that maybe the best person to do this is their son. Another thing that seems to stick out here is the fact that they seem to be sheltered up in their house, the fact that Borkman is a pariah means that they rarely, if ever, go out.
Well, there is family drama, and Ibsen is certainly one for family drama, except that he decides to ratchet it up somewhat by bringing in Borkman’s wife’s twin sister. That wouldn’t be too much of a concern, if it wasn’t for the fact that he was also in love with her. However, the idea is that he was given a choice between playing happy families, or becoming a big fish in Norway. Well, he chose to become a big fish, but not surprisingly it all came crashing down around him. This sort of reminds me of a number of movies that you see every so often in Hollywood. Basically they have a choice between making it big or living the simple life, and the story always ends with them living the simple life.
Yeah, that would be all well and good if it was at all possible to live the simple life these days. Sure, we can certainly work to resist the temptation to live a consumerist culture, but the problem is that these days it costs an awful lot of money to simply live the simple life, let alone the high life. However, these films are right, and this is what Ibsen is trying to explore here, and that is the high life doesn’t always bring the rewards that it promises. Here Borkman ended up committing fraud and paid for it, and he did this so that his family could have nice things. Yet, the other thing was that there is this issue with the sister, and him turning away from her because of his choices. In the end though, and this seems to be a common theme, is that the decision to live the high life simply didn’t end well for Borkman – he ended up poor, alienated, and disrespected by those around him.
Unfortunately, though, it really does seem that a lot of these high fliers seem to escape justice somehow. There was this guy in Australia named Christopher Skase, and he basically ran up a heap of debt to run this huge media conglomerate which turned out to be a house of cards. Well, when it all came crashing down, he basically scarpered off to Majorca in the Mediterranean and lived a life of luxury in a seaside mansion, all the while Australia was trying, and failing, to get him extradited. Yeah, even when the Spanish finally agreed to extradite him, he suddenly developed emphysema and was too sick to travel.
Yeah, that is just one example, and I’m sure there are plenty of others out there, particularly among the political class.
August 2, 2015
Another modern Ibsen play that explores the power of greed and family ties.
January 15, 2025
John Gabriel Borkman is een mijnwerkerszoon en ex-bankdirecteur die "geen frisse lucht verdraagt" en in een kamer op de eerste verdieping van zijn woning eindeloos ijsbeert en nadenkt over het verleden en zijn idealistische plannen. Het stuk ontwikkelt zich echter vooral op de verdieping eronder, waar Gunhild Borkman en Ella Rentheim, tweelingzussen, elkaar na jaren terugzien. Ella komt de zoon van het gezin, Erhart, terughalen, een jongeman die ze tijdens een diepe financiële crisis - veroorzaakt door Johns gesjoemel - in huis haalde om in rust en vrede op te voeden. Het drama ontplooit zich onder voortdurende dreiging en toont personages die vastzitten in hun vroegere beslissingen. Een sterk stuk van theatervernieuwer Ibsen.
"Een ijskoude hand van ijzer greep naar zijn hart."
"En nu ligt het daar - weerloos, heerserloos, - ten prooi aan roofovervallen en plunderingen."
"De kwaadste machten zijn binnenin onszelf, Gunhild!"
"Het is een dodelijke ziekte waar ik aan lijd, Borkman."
"Een ijskoude hand van ijzer greep naar zijn hart."
"En nu ligt het daar - weerloos, heerserloos, - ten prooi aan roofovervallen en plunderingen."
"De kwaadste machten zijn binnenin onszelf, Gunhild!"
"Het is een dodelijke ziekte waar ik aan lijd, Borkman."
January 31, 2021
جان گابریل بورکمان، مرتکب رسوایی مالی شده، معشوقهاش رو برای به دست آوردن ثروت و منصب، فروخته و با زنی ازدواج کرده که هیچ وقت، علاقهای به اون نداشته. جواب بعضی از روابط علت و معلولی داستان رو به راحتی نمیشه پیدا کرد، ایبسن هم با زیرکی تمام، برای بعضی از این سوالات، هیچ جواب مشخصی نداده.
استفاده به جا و مناسب از"ابهام"، ویژگی واضح این نمایشنامه هست. بعضی از سوالاتی که برای مخاطب به وجود میاد، هیچ پاسخی ندارن و همین مسئله، ذهن خواننده رو بعد از تمام شدن کتاب هم درگیر و جذابیت اثر رو بیشتر میکنه.
استفاده به جا و مناسب از"ابهام"، ویژگی واضح این نمایشنامه هست. بعضی از سوالاتی که برای مخاطب به وجود میاد، هیچ پاسخی ندارن و همین مسئله، ذهن خواننده رو بعد از تمام شدن کتاب هم درگیر و جذابیت اثر رو بیشتر میکنه.
February 24, 2024
artig bok, har alltid unngått Ibsen og liknende som pesten da jeg bestandig har trodd det var akademisk norsklærer-ablegøyebøker, men dette her var skikkelig fengende. Synes virkelig vi burde gå tilbake til riksmål her i landet
June 3, 2022
With John Gabriel Borkman, we once again see Ibsen revisit and revise an earlier play. The plot reprises that of The Pillars of Society. Once again, we have a wealthy and idealistic businessman who sacrifices love and ethics to his dream, only to face the consequences.
There are a number of significant differences, however. Where The Pillars of Society had a rich gallery of supporting characters, John Gabriel Borkman is pared down to only the essential characters. Where Karsten Bernick is able to escape the worst consequences for his actions and avert tragedy, John Gabriel Borkman is made to pay in full.
This is reflected in the fact that the action takes place years after Borkman’s misdeeds when he is already a ruined man, in contrast to Bernick who is in the middle of his sins and still has a chance to redeem himself.
To summarise the play, the action concerns a onetime banker and businessman, John Gabriel Borkman. To pursue his ideals, he sacrificed the woman he loved, marrying her sister instead. This was to win the favour of another powerful man in town.
However, Borkman’s love, Ella Rentheim refused to marry the other man, and the man responded by uncovering financial embezzlement by Borkman. The premature exposure of Borkman’s shady dealings led to his ruin and that of all the people whose money he had borrowed.
These are the event that occurred before the start of the play. As the play opens, the ruined Borkman has remained in his room, separated from his wife. She overhears his footsteps as he prowls the floor above her head. The house is owned by Ella, the woman he betrayed, who has brought up his son, Erhart.
Borkman spends his days alone, apart from visits by Vilhelm Foldal, one of the men who was ruined by his financial misadventures, and by Foldal’s daughter. The disgraced businessman still has deluded dreams that he will be called back by the bank and reinstated as a businessman.
Into the scene, Ella returns. She is now dying from an illness (caused by the trauma of losing Borkman) and wants Erhart to nurse her in her last days. However, Gunhild (Borkman’s wife) and Borkman have different ideas for him. They both (in their own ways) want Erhart to live for them and redeem Borkman’s ruined name.
Erhart has other plans. Stifled by the cold, unloving environment of his upbringing, he chooses instead to run away with a divorcee, Mrs Wilton, and have a life of pleasure. Mrs Wilton also takes Foldal’s daughter along for when Erhart tires of her, a typical Ibsen twist.
Borkman refuses to return to his room and wanders out into the cold with Ella, the woman he betrayed. Still dreaming about his lost enterprises, he dies of the cold. Ella and Gunhild join hands over his body, two shadows over a dead man.
If people complained that Karsten Bernick got off too lightly in The Pillars of Society, we cannot make this complaint here. Borkman pays the full cost of his actions. He is ruined and left alone. Worse still, he destroys the two women who love him – the wife he does not love, and from whom he fails to seek the support he might have had, and the woman he loved, who accuses him of the unforgivable sin of killing the love in another person’s heart.
Ibsen has said that the play is about the coldness of the human heart, and it is undeniably bleak, with an atmosphere of coldness throughout, up until the ending. The end is a little fantastical, reflecting Ibsen’s straining towards something beyond the prose plays. Indeed, Borkman’s last far-fetched journey could almost be a scene from Peer Gynt.
The play is also notable in that it offers a less sympathetic portrayal of the option of finding joy-in-life. Erhart is the character who seeks this. While we can feel pity for the boy who has been brought up in a suffocating environment and seeks freedom, his decision to leave for a life of pleasure seems selfish and shallow.
The play also reflects Ibsen’s awe for powerful heroes, however flawed. We may feel pity for Foldal, the man who is run over twice - metaphorically by Borkman, and then literally by Mrs Wilton’s carriage bearing Erhart away. However, he is too pitiful for us to identify with him. As ever, the character we are called on to identify with is Borkman, the man who sacrifices others for his dreams.
To be fair, this is one of Ibsen’s less sympathetic supermen, and the play can be seen as a call for greater business ethics as well as for greater truth in love and marriage.
The play is powerful and atmospheric, and is the last of Ibsen’s great plays. He would only write one more play before his death.
There are a number of significant differences, however. Where The Pillars of Society had a rich gallery of supporting characters, John Gabriel Borkman is pared down to only the essential characters. Where Karsten Bernick is able to escape the worst consequences for his actions and avert tragedy, John Gabriel Borkman is made to pay in full.
This is reflected in the fact that the action takes place years after Borkman’s misdeeds when he is already a ruined man, in contrast to Bernick who is in the middle of his sins and still has a chance to redeem himself.
To summarise the play, the action concerns a onetime banker and businessman, John Gabriel Borkman. To pursue his ideals, he sacrificed the woman he loved, marrying her sister instead. This was to win the favour of another powerful man in town.
However, Borkman’s love, Ella Rentheim refused to marry the other man, and the man responded by uncovering financial embezzlement by Borkman. The premature exposure of Borkman’s shady dealings led to his ruin and that of all the people whose money he had borrowed.
These are the event that occurred before the start of the play. As the play opens, the ruined Borkman has remained in his room, separated from his wife. She overhears his footsteps as he prowls the floor above her head. The house is owned by Ella, the woman he betrayed, who has brought up his son, Erhart.
Borkman spends his days alone, apart from visits by Vilhelm Foldal, one of the men who was ruined by his financial misadventures, and by Foldal’s daughter. The disgraced businessman still has deluded dreams that he will be called back by the bank and reinstated as a businessman.
Into the scene, Ella returns. She is now dying from an illness (caused by the trauma of losing Borkman) and wants Erhart to nurse her in her last days. However, Gunhild (Borkman’s wife) and Borkman have different ideas for him. They both (in their own ways) want Erhart to live for them and redeem Borkman’s ruined name.
Erhart has other plans. Stifled by the cold, unloving environment of his upbringing, he chooses instead to run away with a divorcee, Mrs Wilton, and have a life of pleasure. Mrs Wilton also takes Foldal’s daughter along for when Erhart tires of her, a typical Ibsen twist.
Borkman refuses to return to his room and wanders out into the cold with Ella, the woman he betrayed. Still dreaming about his lost enterprises, he dies of the cold. Ella and Gunhild join hands over his body, two shadows over a dead man.
If people complained that Karsten Bernick got off too lightly in The Pillars of Society, we cannot make this complaint here. Borkman pays the full cost of his actions. He is ruined and left alone. Worse still, he destroys the two women who love him – the wife he does not love, and from whom he fails to seek the support he might have had, and the woman he loved, who accuses him of the unforgivable sin of killing the love in another person’s heart.
Ibsen has said that the play is about the coldness of the human heart, and it is undeniably bleak, with an atmosphere of coldness throughout, up until the ending. The end is a little fantastical, reflecting Ibsen’s straining towards something beyond the prose plays. Indeed, Borkman’s last far-fetched journey could almost be a scene from Peer Gynt.
The play is also notable in that it offers a less sympathetic portrayal of the option of finding joy-in-life. Erhart is the character who seeks this. While we can feel pity for the boy who has been brought up in a suffocating environment and seeks freedom, his decision to leave for a life of pleasure seems selfish and shallow.
The play also reflects Ibsen’s awe for powerful heroes, however flawed. We may feel pity for Foldal, the man who is run over twice - metaphorically by Borkman, and then literally by Mrs Wilton’s carriage bearing Erhart away. However, he is too pitiful for us to identify with him. As ever, the character we are called on to identify with is Borkman, the man who sacrifices others for his dreams.
To be fair, this is one of Ibsen’s less sympathetic supermen, and the play can be seen as a call for greater business ethics as well as for greater truth in love and marriage.
The play is powerful and atmospheric, and is the last of Ibsen’s great plays. He would only write one more play before his death.
December 4, 2024
Me ha dejado confundido "John Gabriel Borkman", que creía que era uno de los grandes dramas de Ibsen. No está a la altura de otros como Hedda Gabler, Casa de muñecvas, Espectros; parece que le faltara desarrollo, que los conflictos que se plantean, que son muy duros, no llegan a desarrollarse hasta el final; que la trama, tras abrirse con un montón de posibilidades, no llega a ser satisfactoria, y que se interrumpe de cuajo, dejándonos expectantes y un tanto decepcionados. Los elementos extraños son abundantes: dos gemelas que se disputan el amor de un hombre, y ahora el de su hijo. Una enfermedad mortífera que afecta a la tía y madrina del joven y que aceleraría la catástrofe; una madre excesivamente posesiva; un hombre que pese a los crímenes cometidos aún confía en que vengan a redimirlo y a devolverle el honor y el poder perdido. Todo esto se plantea, y todo se resuelve abrúptamente con la huida del hijo y la muerte súbita del protagonista, sin que hayamos llegado a ver todas las consecuencias de lo expuesto.
September 10, 2018
I decided to read this play when I heard that Alan Rickman had starred in a production. It wasn’t difficult to imagine. Being guilty of a crime ruined this family. The play teaches us that there is a art to healing; that society doesn’t always allow us to create that art; and we are not all artists.
January 8, 2009
This is a huge haunted mansion of a play. The ghosts do not know they are dead though which undoubtedly makes their howling that much more fiendish! I loved this play. It set my soul racing the way listening to Beethoven or watching Gossip Girl does!
March 9, 2020
"John Gabriel Borkman" is the second-to-last play written by the legendary Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen. Borkman was a bank manager who speculated with his investors' money. Cause of that he was put in jail for five years. While he was in prison, his wife's sister took care of his son, Erhart. The play takes place eight years after Borkman was released from prison, when John Gabriele Borkman, his wife and her twin sister fight over 20 year old Erhart's future.
The play is mainly about dreams and what are you willing to sacrifice for them.
The play (like all of Ibsen's late works) is filled with a lot of symbolisms. That's especially obvious in the last act of the play.
All the characters are very well written and the dialogues feel natural. The characters motives are clear, the story is interesting and well written. Although, some parts of the story weren't written as well. It feels like Ibsen didn't give as much time on writing some parts, as it was needed.
Personally I don't think it's Ibsen's best work, but it's definitely good and worth reading.
8/10
The play is mainly about dreams and what are you willing to sacrifice for them.
The play (like all of Ibsen's late works) is filled with a lot of symbolisms. That's especially obvious in the last act of the play.
All the characters are very well written and the dialogues feel natural. The characters motives are clear, the story is interesting and well written. Although, some parts of the story weren't written as well. It feels like Ibsen didn't give as much time on writing some parts, as it was needed.
Personally I don't think it's Ibsen's best work, but it's definitely good and worth reading.
8/10
August 6, 2014
I would actually give this 3.5 stars -- 4 is a bit too high and 3, too low. It is, as with many of Ibsen's plays, still very relevant today, asking important social questions about love and greed, duty to one's parents (and how this may be complicated by other factors) versus duty to one's own self and one's happiness, and of friendship and duty to one's spouse.
The character Foldal has some of the best lines in this play, and the most illuminating one for me was when he says "For I myself have had many doubts, now and then, I may tell you. The horrible doubt that I may have bungled my life for the sake of a delusion." Foldal is smart enough to recognize this, while others cling to their fanciful dreams, their life-lies (as Ibsen calls them in The Wild Duck), for without their delusions to "cling to," they feel that they "would utterly despair," as Ella Rentheim says in this play. And by clinging to their delusions, what a mess they have made! This is quite different from plays like The Wild Duck where the delusion produces an exterior of happiness and the destruction of the façade brings buried, underlying problems to the surface.
John Gabriel Borkman is a play -- Ibsen's second to last -- that asks important social questions, that plays with symbolism (elsewhere Ibsen contrasted highs and lows, lights and darks; here he deals with the open atmosphere and the stuffy room, and also uses temperature and seasons to his advantage) and that uses irony as a literary technique in a very fitting way (in just one example we have the case of Mrs. Borkman, who adamantly wants her son to fulfill his life mission, but only so long as that life mission is the one that she has planned out for him and not the one that he feels will lead to his own happiness, which is the one he ultimately chooses).
However, the play as a whole pales in comparison to many of Ibsen's earlier works, perhaps because while the play centers in on Borkman, there is really just so much else going on (almost a bit too much to concentrate on in a four-act play). This is a play that I feel would perhaps better be able to communicate its message on the stage. Seeing a production of it may change my perception of it for the better, but (at the same time) I'm not so sure that I would spent my hard-earned pennies seeing a production of this when reading it left me unmoved. Perhaps, too, it is the case that I have read enough Ibsen now and I have more of a feeling of expectation than I did at the beginning of my Ibsen journey, which began (somewhat unfortunately) with A Doll's House. After eating his signature gourmet dish, will we be ever be quite as satisfied when the master chef serves us up something else? It may still be delicious and nourishing, but it is never going to be quite as satisfying -- good, perhaps very good, but not great. Ibsen actually has a few greats in his repertoire, but Borkman is a dish that is pleasant to the taste buds, but underwhelming (especially when consumed after relishing the previous dishes he has served).
The character Foldal has some of the best lines in this play, and the most illuminating one for me was when he says "For I myself have had many doubts, now and then, I may tell you. The horrible doubt that I may have bungled my life for the sake of a delusion." Foldal is smart enough to recognize this, while others cling to their fanciful dreams, their life-lies (as Ibsen calls them in The Wild Duck), for without their delusions to "cling to," they feel that they "would utterly despair," as Ella Rentheim says in this play. And by clinging to their delusions, what a mess they have made! This is quite different from plays like The Wild Duck where the delusion produces an exterior of happiness and the destruction of the façade brings buried, underlying problems to the surface.
John Gabriel Borkman is a play -- Ibsen's second to last -- that asks important social questions, that plays with symbolism (elsewhere Ibsen contrasted highs and lows, lights and darks; here he deals with the open atmosphere and the stuffy room, and also uses temperature and seasons to his advantage) and that uses irony as a literary technique in a very fitting way (in just one example we have the case of Mrs. Borkman, who adamantly wants her son to fulfill his life mission, but only so long as that life mission is the one that she has planned out for him and not the one that he feels will lead to his own happiness, which is the one he ultimately chooses).
However, the play as a whole pales in comparison to many of Ibsen's earlier works, perhaps because while the play centers in on Borkman, there is really just so much else going on (almost a bit too much to concentrate on in a four-act play). This is a play that I feel would perhaps better be able to communicate its message on the stage. Seeing a production of it may change my perception of it for the better, but (at the same time) I'm not so sure that I would spent my hard-earned pennies seeing a production of this when reading it left me unmoved. Perhaps, too, it is the case that I have read enough Ibsen now and I have more of a feeling of expectation than I did at the beginning of my Ibsen journey, which began (somewhat unfortunately) with A Doll's House. After eating his signature gourmet dish, will we be ever be quite as satisfied when the master chef serves us up something else? It may still be delicious and nourishing, but it is never going to be quite as satisfying -- good, perhaps very good, but not great. Ibsen actually has a few greats in his repertoire, but Borkman is a dish that is pleasant to the taste buds, but underwhelming (especially when consumed after relishing the previous dishes he has served).
September 21, 2022
أشعر كما لو أنني نابوليون وقد بترت رأسه في أول معاركه 💕💕
ابسن العظيم الذي يقول اشياء كثيرة في كلمات قليلة ..
الفرصة الثانية ..اعادة المحاولة تلك التي يتمناها الجميع لكن الحياة لا تهبها لأحد …خطأك الأول سيكون خطأك الأخير و سيعذبك للأبد.
قرأت المسرحية في جلسة واحدة في طبعة قديمة صدرت من نصف قرن ضمن مشروع الألف كتاب .
ابسن العظيم الذي يقول اشياء كثيرة في كلمات قليلة ..
الفرصة الثانية ..اعادة المحاولة تلك التي يتمناها الجميع لكن الحياة لا تهبها لأحد …خطأك الأول سيكون خطأك الأخير و سيعذبك للأبد.
قرأت المسرحية في جلسة واحدة في طبعة قديمة صدرت من نصف قرن ضمن مشروع الألف كتاب .
November 2, 2018
نمايشنامه جالبى كه به خوبى تسخير روح يك انسان را پس از چشيدن طعم قدرت به تصوير مى كشيد.
نمايشى الان در تالار مولوى بر اساس اين نمايشنامه و با وفادارى كامل به متن تا ٢ آذر ٩٧ در حال اجراست. من نمايش را ديدم و بعد نمايشنامه را خواندم.
https://www.tiwall.com/p/johngabriebv...
نمايشى الان در تالار مولوى بر اساس اين نمايشنامه و با وفادارى كامل به متن تا ٢ آذر ٩٧ در حال اجراست. من نمايش را ديدم و بعد نمايشنامه را خواندم.
https://www.tiwall.com/p/johngabriebv...
March 18, 2015
From BBC Radio 4 - Drama:
Henrik Ibsen's rarely-performed but all-too-pertinent play about the dangerous pursuit of power. A new production from a version by David Eldridge.
Henrik Ibsen's rarely-performed but all-too-pertinent play about the dangerous pursuit of power. A new production from a version by David Eldridge.
Read
June 22, 20172.3
The least interesting character is the protagonist
The least interesting character is the protagonist
June 2, 2021
خانم بورکمان: تو جدی میتونی برای اون آرزوی خوشبختی کنی....با اون زن؟
الا: آره از صمیم قلب!
خانم بورکمان: پس عشق تو باید از عشق من قویتر باشه
الا: شاید بی عشق زندگی کردنه که به عشقم نیرو میده.
الا: آره از صمیم قلب!
خانم بورکمان: پس عشق تو باید از عشق من قویتر باشه
الا: شاید بی عشق زندگی کردنه که به عشقم نیرو میده.
Read
May 16, 2023اِلا: برام خیلی عذابآوره که فکر کنم باید همه چیز رو، نور آفتاب و روشنایی و هوا رو از دست بدم، بیاونکه بعد از من حتی یک نفر باشه که به یادم باشه و دوستم داشته باشه و از رفتنم ناراحت باشه.
May 23, 2022
پایان خط: عشق یا مرگی گریزناپذیر؟
جان گابریل بورکمن، نمایشنامهای است که با شباهتهایی به یک رمان نوشته شده و داستانی را روایت میکند که در خاطرات شخصیتها قابل ردیابی است؛ داستانی از گذشتهای غیرقابل تغییر، حالی غمانگیز و آیندهای بیهدف. هرکس عشق را تجربه کرده باشد میتواند مخاطب این داستان باشد. هرکس در عشق شکست خورده باشد، هرکس که در دنیا تنها باشد و هرکس که اشتباهاتی جبرانناپذیر کرده باشد، با خواندن این داستان خودش را در قالب شخصیتها میبیند و با آنها ارتباط برقرار میکند. همین ارتباط احساسی بین مخاطبها و شخصیتها باعث میشود جان گابریل بورکمن از مرز یک نمایشنامهی خواندنی فراتر رود و داستانی را بیان کند که هرکسی قادر به همذاتپنداری با آن است
جان گابریل بورکمن، داستان مرگ است؛ مرگی که مفهومی فراتر از زندگی دارد. مرگی که پایان نیست و مفهوم امید را در خود دارد؛ امیدی که در ذهن و قلب شخصیتها مرده است؛ ولی در عشق درون آنها باقی مانده است. عشقی که در این سالهای آزگار هرگز از بین نرفته و تنها با لایهای از طمع و حسرت و غم پوشانده شده است. عشق و مرگ در این داستان از معنای حقیقی خود دور شدهاند
مروری بر نمایشنامهی "جان گابریل بورکمن" نوشتهی هنریک ایبسن را در سایت آوانگارد بخوانید
https://www.avangard.ir/blog/%D9%85%D...
جان گابریل بورکمن، نمایشنامهای است که با شباهتهایی به یک رمان نوشته شده و داستانی را روایت میکند که در خاطرات شخصیتها قابل ردیابی است؛ داستانی از گذشتهای غیرقابل تغییر، حالی غمانگیز و آیندهای بیهدف. هرکس عشق را تجربه کرده باشد میتواند مخاطب این داستان باشد. هرکس در عشق شکست خورده باشد، هرکس که در دنیا تنها باشد و هرکس که اشتباهاتی جبرانناپذیر کرده باشد، با خواندن این داستان خودش را در قالب شخصیتها میبیند و با آنها ارتباط برقرار میکند. همین ارتباط احساسی بین مخاطبها و شخصیتها باعث میشود جان گابریل بورکمن از مرز یک نمایشنامهی خواندنی فراتر رود و داستانی را بیان کند که هرکسی قادر به همذاتپنداری با آن است
جان گابریل بورکمن، داستان مرگ است؛ مرگی که مفهومی فراتر از زندگی دارد. مرگی که پایان نیست و مفهوم امید را در خود دارد؛ امیدی که در ذهن و قلب شخصیتها مرده است؛ ولی در عشق درون آنها باقی مانده است. عشقی که در این سالهای آزگار هرگز از بین نرفته و تنها با لایهای از طمع و حسرت و غم پوشانده شده است. عشق و مرگ در این داستان از معنای حقیقی خود دور شدهاند
مروری بر نمایشنامهی "جان گابریل بورکمن" نوشتهی هنریک ایبسن را در سایت آوانگارد بخوانید
https://www.avangard.ir/blog/%D9%85%D...
July 6, 2024
ჰენრიკ იბსენის სტილი განუმეორებელია. ეს პიესა კი ერთგავარდ მოგაგონებთ "მოჩვენებებს" - აქაც არის ცოდვილი მამა იუნ გაბრიელ ბორკმანი (თუმცა აქ ის ბანკირია, რომელმაც მასზე მინდობილი ქონება გაფლანგა), დედა, რომელიც შვილს საკუთრებად თვლის და მისი გამოყენებით სურს მამის შეცოდების გამოსყიდვა, ვაჟი, რომელიც ცდილობს ამ დამთრგუნველი გარემოს დატოვებას. გარემო კი ნამდვილად უმძიმესია. თითქოს წიგნის ფურცლებიდანაც კი იღვრება საშინელი სიცივე და ისმის იუნ გაბრიელ ბორკმანის ნაბიჯების ხმა, ჩანს ერთმანეთის წინ მდგომი სიძულვილით აღსავსე ორი ქალი, რომლებმაც მამაკაცის სიყვარულის გამო არად ჩააგდეს სისხლი და ახლაც იბრძვიან "გამარჯვებისთვის".
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews