The dramaturgical style of Maria Irene Fornes's The Conduct of Life is very unique, and very disconcerting. While some of the context in the play I found disturbing (and I'm sure it was meant to), I was more put-off by the abrupt ending of some of her scenes. But that is the style Fornes' chose and it does create more tension and captures the audience's attention by leaving them wanting more.
But another dramaturgical style I've noticed in this play was the way that sometimes it felt like the characters thought the audience was a part of the play and "break the fourth wall." But unlike other plays I've seen or read, where a character would act like they were saying their thoughts aloud, it truly felt like sometimes that the audience was a single character in which some of the other characters talk to. In the opening monologue, Orlando talks about how his need of a promotion and his sexual drive as if he were trying to convince someone (the audience) that he is in control. I think it causes the audience to be even more involved in the production.
As far as why it was named The Conduct of Life, my guess would be that it has something to do with the way we behave in life. About how our life choices effects not only us, but those around us.
I never even considered your point about how the characters seem to “break the fourth wall” as a dramaturgical choice. However, now that I go back and think about it, I definitely agree that I did feel as if during the characters monologues that it was as if they were trying to speak to me. The intensity at which Orlando is speaking is almost as if he was pleading a bit for me to understand this is his way and it’s not wrong…
ReplyDelete