The Conduct of Life

Maria Fornes’ writing is extremely effective. She likes to keep the audience on the edge of their seat and on the tips of their toes. The use of connotative language, intense/uncomfortable subject matter, and short scenes keep the show rolling at an engaging pace. It’s almost as if her writing and staging style mirror the plot. Being a show involving rape, the experience of watching it should not be an enjoyable one. You should feel uncomfortable. You should feel violated. You should feel confused. And you should feel effected.  Maria Fornes’ dramaturgical choices aid the formation of a disturbing, suspenseful, and real show. I think that the show is called “The Conduct of Life” because each character within the show falls into a role. Orlando does the “effecting” and the women of the show act accordingly. Nena in the center of the play even says, “I want to conduct each day of my life in the best possible way”. This statement is up for interpretation because by whose definition is Nena living? Her own? God’s? Orlando’s? All of the women struggle to conduct themselves with grace and correctness. But it seems that each character has a different idea of what grace and correctness is.

Trifles

I would not agree with the proposal. I'm not against the idea of abstract theatre or theatricalism, I just wouldn't choose to apply it to this script. To focus solely on the action of the play rather than the technical components highlights the meaning of a show. It emphasizes the characters’ intensions and usually some overlaying theme. While this play does have meaning, it is a meaning that would be reinforced with the use of costumes and props. Without them much of the story, in my opinion, would be lost. The action in the play is a direct response to the setting. The characters think, act, and feel the way they do because of their surroundings. To take that away, would strip them of their motives and of their evidence. So much importance lies in the props and in the set that it seems counteractive to remove them. Why rid the story of such pertinent information? While the story would still get across without detailed and specific set pieces, so much of a story can be told by color, condition, and style. I do like the idea of blank sets and simple props. It forces the audience to imagine the world of the play for themselves—making each experience more personal. I just wouldn’t chose that approach for this show. By only reading the script, I felt that I did not completely experience it. My imagination wasn’t enough to fill the uncertainties and unlike an audience, I had stage descriptions. Had I seen the messy house, the broken cage, what the women were wearing, and the condition of the quilt, I would’ve been much more engaged. There is a difference between a house and a home. There is a difference between being judged by a peer and by someone who is above you. These are details that would be revealed by set and costumes. To take away detail would be to deprave the audience of understanding. 

Overtones

In the world of the play, the thoughts and intentions of the characters are personified in the form of alter-egos. The general rule or convention of the play is that these alter-egos cannot be seen and are only heard by their corresponding character. Therefore, Maggie cannot be seen by Harriet and Hetty cannot be seen by Margaret. This is to symbolize the relationship people have with their thoughts. By presenting them as separate entities, the playwright reveals just how different someone can act in relation to who they actually are. One's mind is always truthful, people however, are not. The mind tries to motivate the body, but the body ultimately has the last say--one's mind can not speak without a mouth; cannot act without a body. This concept symbolizes the inner conflict people face when filtering their thoughts. It also stresses the dangers of unveiling one's true feelings. Keeping them hidden keeps one from being vulnerable. 

         I noticed two instances where the overall rule was broken. A the beginning of the play, the stage directions suggest that Harriet and Hetty can see one another. Descriptions such as "moves away from", "following her", "towering over" and "overpowered, sinks into chair" show interactions that would not be possible otherwise. This may be allowed because no one else was present and therefore Hetty had no one to hide from. The other inconsistency is that the alter-egos communicate and interact with one another. This may be to suggest that just as people hide their emotions, they deny being able to find or sense others'. Therefore, in order to conduct oneself appropriately, one must suppress their feelings and ignore others'. It is a way of keeping peace, a way of remaining strong and ultimately the way to survive. These inconsistencies make one question how truthful they are to themselves and if others can see when they are not. Overall the play is a comment on civilization. If everyone said exactly what they felt and did just as they wanted, there would be chaos. Consequently, people have developed morals, social norms, and rules to guide conversation--they keep their Hetty's and their Maggie's hidden.

fancy title.

Hey :) I think I did it..