This play brings an interesting take to the relationship between truth and confession. Following her rape by an unidentifiable doctor whilst "Death and the Maiden" plays, Paulina lives a life full of fear. When her husband brings home a seemingly good samaritan, Roberto Miranda, that Paulina believes to be her rapist, she traps him and begins an interrogation process with the intent of eliciting a confession from him. Her lawyer husband, Gerardo Escobar, acts as a lawyer for Roberto because he feels it is just. He works with him to create a confession so that Paulina can be offered some sort of relief. However, Paulina argues that Roberto had actually confessed the truth, with details that only he would know because Paulina did not share them with Gerardo. It is unclear to the reader if Roberto is truly guilty or is truly innocent, and if his confession was a true or false one. However, it is with the confession that Roberto is able to go home. This supports the idea that interrogation is only ceased with confession, as discussed in class. It is not so much that the interrogators need a true confession, but that they need any confession at all.
Has Paulina succumbed to the psychological pain of her memory, or is Roberto truly her rapist? It is possible that Paulina truly did recognize Roberto's voice as that of her rapist's; yet, keeping in mind the idea that torture is self and world-destroying, it is also possible that Paulina was destroyed during the event of her rape and the psychological aftermath has resulted in her falsely identifying Roberto as her rapist. Such is open for debate. The only truth we know for certain is that Paulina has suffered through an intense form of torture that has undeniably destroyed her. Her torture has resulted in her long-awaited search for justice. Can there ever be justice if the torturer is not subject to a torture equal to that he/she inflicted?
No comments:
Post a Comment