The Conduct of Life Response

A dramaturgical choice that stood out to me was the way Fornes chose to end every scene. I felt like the ending of every scene was a cliff hanger, with room for something to pop off. It was effective; tension was built due to the length and amount of scenes and then when they came to an end, I never knew what was going to happen next. For example, after Orlando forces himself on Nena, we don’t know what happens because the next scene cuts to Leticia and Olimpia discussing daily tasks and meals. Another example is when Alejo and Orlando discuss what happened with their “assignment”, and Orlando claims the man “died of fear.” The next scene cuts to Olimpia and Nena playing patty-cake (with Alejo) and the scene after that, Leticia claims she knows someone is down in the cellar. Even the final scene doesn’t really end! It jumps from one place to another, leaving the audience/reader gaps to fill at their desire. Every scene ended with lights fading to black too, which I thought was a good choice. It’s like a portrait. I believe the play is titled The Conduct of Life because of Nena’s perspective on it. Conduct is behavior and her behavior is supreme from what we can tell, but somehow she’s been punished all her life, from her mom dying to losing her Grand Pa to being raped. While Nena tells Olimpia about Orlando’s actions, she states “I want to conduct each day of my life in the best possible way.” She believes she’s blessed for what she has and that when someone treats her unfairly, she should understand because they may be worse off than her. The fact that someone like that, a child, is living through those circumstances and can still hold her head up high with hope is both inspiring and depressing. She sort of accepts people for who they are and moves on because as long as she makes it to the next day, it’s a win and another opportunity.

TRIFLES RESPOSE

Personally, I believe that this proposal is extremely iffy, but that’s politically incorrect so I’ll say it’s interesting. On one hand, it could be dangerous because with a minimalist design, there’s an abundance of little to work with, which can be a lot harder than it sounds. I haven’t been in theatre long, but even I have seen productions where the director got carried away with his/her simplistic world. If the actors all look the same and interact with the same props, that can be exponentially challenging (especially if one of these blocks can be more than one thing). In my mind, it would be like running the show in room 125 or 135 of this building ,which can bring out the best in some of us but it’s just not the same type of atmosphere as the Shaver or the Riley. I’m not saying it wouldn’t work, but I wouldn’t do it. I think it’s hard to do it successfully because you have to find that cut-off line or everything will become nothing. This is where I would agree with the proposal-imagination! The mind is a tool with incredible power that is constantly underestimated or in some cases not used at all. As people, imagination is vital to us whether we realize it or not. It’s always been there, the only difference is we aren’t princesses and Power Rangers any more. Hopes, dreams, goals-without imagination, these would not exist. Obviously, an essential part of an actor’s craft is imagination to some extent, because even though the events you portray may be real or the person you are on stage exist, you aren’t literally going through those things to the same degree. If done “correctly”, I do believe the proposal could work, but the right cast, crew, production team and maybe even audience would have to be there. Anyway, so what would the production gain? Honestly, I don’t know. I didn’t particularly like this play, in fact I found it boring so bringing an idea like that to the table would get turned down by me quick, because that would just make it worse. The only positives I could see would be if the bird cage, quilt and rope weren’t the same as the rest of the set; it would give significance to these objects (not that they need any). I guess the black clothes could help too. I mean, I get what the director wants. I have no doubt that his concept is flawless, about how characters should feel and the audience focusing on them instead of the props, that’s great. I don’t know if the audience will understand what’s happening though. For starters, I think it’ll lose entertainment value and viewers would lose interest. I also believe that somehow the story will be altered even though the plot and text are set in stone. A decision like that has rippling affects all around, minor but still. Again, I think this is risky; I may lean a little more to the “no” side than “yes”. In the end, it really depends on how minimalists we’re talking because that’ll determine all the other factors.

OVERTONES RESPONSE

I believe that the characters of Maggie and Hattie are not seen by their counterparts as the script states, but they are felt. I don’t want to say they’re like spirits or anything, but I saw the two as extensions of the “real people”, sort of like your conscious talking to you. The fact that Harriet says Hattie is stronger than her is intriguing, because in a sense, she doesn’t exist. I guess what I’m trying to say is that from the audience’s perspective, it would be hard to distinguish the difference from the four women initially; as time passes by and we realize that Harriet never addresses Maggie, Margaret never acknowledges Hattie, etc. eventually we would be able to somewhat “group” the women. Whether the actions portrayed on stage are clear enough to do so is for debate, but I do think that viewers would conclude that two of the women aren’t real (for lack of a better phrase). From my perspective, it would be difficult-the choices would have to be strong and clear for me to get what’s happening. Regardless, I believe throughout the play, Harriet hears Hattie and Margaret hears Maggie, but they choose to ignore their primitive selves’ demands. Again, the script says they can’t see each other and never come into physical contact, but I can’t imagine why they wouldn’t know the opposite exist, you know? I understand that these are the rules given in the world of the play, but as specific as they are, I feel like they’re almost vague in the same sense-maybe I’m just trippin. Besides the phone thing Yvette mentioned earlier, I could not find any moments when these rules were broken, so the playwright was pretty consistent. I did notice that there’s an abundance of wiggle room with the way the story could be told though, not just costume wise either. I’m talking set wise and casting wise as well. So even though there are restrictions, a lot can be done without affecting the plot. The four women and their actions are essential for telling the audience the story, but how the “empty spots” are portrayed are just as significant. I know this is not professional per say, but I really enjoyed this play. It was a quick, clever read.