The Conduct of Life

Maria Irene Fornes makes the dramaturgical choice to not complete give an end to a scene that would show where the conversations led. Fornes would stage a dialogue between characters, and leave the audience wanting to know where that conversation or those actions went. It, kind of, leaves the audience to guess, and possibly be wrong, or just be confused. I attempted to connect the dots at where the scenes ended, but I feel I came up short, and, just ended up confused. One example of Fornes not giving an exact end to a scene was when Leticia decided to go see what was in the cellar. Later on, one realizes that she had to have seen the little girl, but Fornes chooses to start a completely new scene between only Orlando and Nena. I was literally waiting at the edge of my seat to see Leticia’s reaction of seeing the Nena, but Fornes chose to leave me hanging. I think this choice allows the audience to know less of the characters. By the audience only seeing Orlando rape a girl constantly, we just believe he’s a horrible person and deserves to die. I, personally, believe there’s no excuse for that, and he got what he deserved. However, if Fornes had extended the scene to him possibly crying and revealing his true motive and reasoning, the audience may have tried to possibly understand Orlando, and may have generated a form of sympathy. The play may be titled The Conduct of Life it shows how individual actions influence how others behave in life. For instance, Orlando being so aggressive and unfaithful caused Leticia to shoot him. She had had enough and snapped. 

Trifles

I think the proposal of Trifles produced with a minimalistic design is definitely feasible, and different, seeing as I had not pictured the play designed that way. The production would force the audience to use their imagination more to fully understand the importance of the items or trifles in the play. it also produces the ultimate focus on the words being said, more so, than what  the audience sees. This can be seen as a benefit or something the production would gain because it allows the patrons to individually personalize the set, and emphasizes the importance of hearing everything. However, the production would lose the significance of agency that Susan Glaspell chooses to use as far as her deliberate attentiveness to detail. Glaspell writes Trifles in a way that  requires the reader to notice the intricate details of the house. After all, the three men in the house are looking for evidence to convict a woman of murder, and the things they see, Glaspell also wants the reader to see. With seeing everything, comes the feelings that the characters may feel being in a certain environment. Basically, what is physically there, on set, helps create the tone for the audience, and helps that transition into the “world of the play” as Elinor Fuchs put it.  In closing, I cannot imagine a production of Trifles without the detail of the actual objects because those trifles play an important role in the telling and understanding of the story.

Overtones Blog

In Overtones, I think Alice Gerstenberg uses visual cues as a determinate factor of whether a character can be heard or not. For instance, Hetty and Maggie, Harriet and Margaret’s inner thoughts, if you will, are dressed in the same color gowns as their hosts. The only difference is that Hetty and Maggie’s attire is a a few shades darker than Harriet and Margaret. Margaret wears lavender whereas Maggie wears purple, and Harriet wears light green whereas Hetty wears dark green. Harriet can hear Hetty, and Margaret can hear Maggie, but Margaret can’t hear Hetty and Harriet can’t hear Maggie.       

The attire of the women’s primitive selves becomes interesting as they are dressed with a chiffon veil across their faces. They wear these veils until the very end of the play, when the women’s truest thoughts are arguing at one another. It’s safe to say that Hattie and Maggie cannot actually hear one another, but still attempt to be heard by speaking. This, I interpret, as a rule. Once the veils are removed, the thoughts, Hetty and Maggie, become stronger and attempt at communication. 

Harriet can definitely hear Hetty just as Margaret can hear Maggie, but they do not speak directly to their thoughts. Instead, they would think aloud in response to what the thoughts are saying. Margaret does not speak back to her primitive self, but Harriet does at the beginning of the play. Hetty is also not wearing a veil when it is just she and her host, alone. This is another rule of the play. Veils are not necessary unless someone else enters the room with their own thoughts. 

I feel the rules created within the play are consistent. Hetty and Maggie consistently say and do what they want throughout the play where Harriet and Margaret have to keep up a facade to cover their secret unhappiness with their lives. The playwright also kept consistent with the way that Hetty nor Maggie can physically touch things. They may reach for items, like Maggie with the cake, but never actually touch them. This is one of the things that convey to the audience that Hetty and Maggie are not physically there and, therefore, cannot actually partake in conversation. I thought Overtones an interesting play with clever tactics in showing what people feel versus what they do in different situations.