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?
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Death and the Maiden
Ariel Dorfman's, Death and the Maiden, displays a shift in power we have yet to discuss in class. Paulina Salas comes face to face with her alleged rapist, Dr. Miranda. At the time of the rape, Paulina did not see the man's face, just the sound of his voice. This brings up the power of sound and it's connection to memory. In addition, the power and significance of sight is implied and contrasted.
The audible aspect of sound allowed Paulina to recognize the voice of her alleged rapist, bringing back haunting memories of the event as well as the song played during the event, Franz Shubert's piece, "Death and the Maiden" (much like Blanche DuBois' haunting association with "The Varsouviana Polka" in A Streetcar Names Desire). If I remember correctly, (don't quote me on this), Shubert composed this piece on his deathbed after being diagnosed with a serious illness. The song therefor represents the exact moment when he began to die, like discussed in class and seen in the story "The Wall." This shows that Paulina began to die and lose hold of "the self" after her rape, which is symbolized through Shubert's piece. However, Paulina tried to gain back "the self" by transferring power and holding her rapist captive to get a confession. This could symbolize the change in government from a dictatorship (absolute power held by an individual, like Paulina's alleged rapist), to a democracy (giving Dr. Miranda the choice of a confession).
Paulina is attempting to forgive Dr. Miranda after realizing the fallibility of humans. However, the solution to her problem runs much deeper and is much more complicated than she assumes, much like the topic of "forgive but never forget" in history with past wars (like the Vietnam war). She believed that the tangible and visible quality of a hand-hand written confession would be a physical record of her painful past being buried. Unfortunately, by the end of the play, we realize the complexity of the problem and the impossibility of forgetting; a temporary burial can easily resurface. Was the confession true? Was is formulated? Was he ever guilty? How reliable were Paulina's memories? Were they selective memories?
The audible aspect of sound allowed Paulina to recognize the voice of her alleged rapist, bringing back haunting memories of the event as well as the song played during the event, Franz Shubert's piece, "Death and the Maiden" (much like Blanche DuBois' haunting association with "The Varsouviana Polka" in A Streetcar Names Desire). If I remember correctly, (don't quote me on this), Shubert composed this piece on his deathbed after being diagnosed with a serious illness. The song therefor represents the exact moment when he began to die, like discussed in class and seen in the story "The Wall." This shows that Paulina began to die and lose hold of "the self" after her rape, which is symbolized through Shubert's piece. However, Paulina tried to gain back "the self" by transferring power and holding her rapist captive to get a confession. This could symbolize the change in government from a dictatorship (absolute power held by an individual, like Paulina's alleged rapist), to a democracy (giving Dr. Miranda the choice of a confession).
Paulina is attempting to forgive Dr. Miranda after realizing the fallibility of humans. However, the solution to her problem runs much deeper and is much more complicated than she assumes, much like the topic of "forgive but never forget" in history with past wars (like the Vietnam war). She believed that the tangible and visible quality of a hand-hand written confession would be a physical record of her painful past being buried. Unfortunately, by the end of the play, we realize the complexity of the problem and the impossibility of forgetting; a temporary burial can easily resurface. Was the confession true? Was is formulated? Was he ever guilty? How reliable were Paulina's memories? Were they selective memories?
One of the most interesting things I find in Death and the Maiden
is how Paulina is making not just the doctor confess his crimes, but also makes
her husband confess to his transgressions in order for her to have catharsis.
Both of these men have hurt her, although in greatly different ways and she
feels the need to have a confession from both of them before she is able to
move on with her life. She tells her husband she can’t move on until he tells
her about the other woman and she tells Roberto that she is unable to live her
life while he is unrepentant. Although it does not start as a quest to make her
husband confess, as she searches for the truth from the doctor, she realizes
she needs to know all the truths, not just what Roberto can tell her.
The other thing I find interesting is how both Gerardo and
Roberto don’t wish to confess. Even after being caught in a lie by Paulina he
still refuses to admit to his wrongdoings, and Gerardo, although his
wrongdoings were already known, tries to convince Paulina to give up her
questioning of him. Both men are reluctant to let Paulina in to their personal
world of confession.
Death and the Maiden
I find the strong connection between sound and torture so interesting in Ariel Dorfman’s “Death and the Maiden.” While her rapist remained anonymous, Paulina Salas was forced to listen to Schubert’s composition “Dean and the Maiden” during the act of rape. While she never saw the face of the rapist, Paulina was able to, as Scarry defines, channel the pain and torture into an objectified thing, or associate the pain of rape to Schubert’s composition. Then, many years later when her husband gets a ride home from a stranger, Paulina is sure that she recognizes his voice as that of her former captor.
This entire relationship between sound and torture has many parallels to Azulay’s “O Judeu” and our class discussion on the film. We spoke about the particular torture scenes and how impactful the sounds themselves were. Most students within our class agreed that the sounds alone were harder to hear and had more effect than the images shown. The sounds were also so impactful when regarding subjectivity- some of the characters were tortured in front of loved ones.
Furthermore, the mental aspect of torture as again shown by Dorfman’s play, parallels to some of Scarry’s writings on pain. Paulina clearly looses much of herself due to her captivity and the actions endured. Her husband even works with her accused perpetrator in hopes of relieving her from her past, providing some amount of closure. This obsession can be linked to what Scarry describes as the destruction, dismantling, and unmaking of one’s world and self.
Response to A lexicon of terror
Ugh, once again, this book is packed with lots and lots of information with long chapters. The chapter "A lexicon of terror" begins by the introduction of Admiral Emilio Massera who is an important figure behind the scene of Argentina. There it mentioned his background and a few of his ideology. It also included few tactics he used to keep the regime under control. The chapter mentioned a few time of great amount of people disappearing, possibly done by the Argentine government, or the so called one, though it has not been pointed out directly. Massera, using these information as his own tactic, point that they are going to solve these problem and direct the hatred toward an "enemy". Though I did not quite understand their tactics, I suppose they, claiming to care for their citizens and ask for trust and unite, secretly establish concentration camps and kidnap those who they view as potential opposing force. This could also connect to the idea of ruling based of fiction since they are in a unstable political system due to the coup. Throughout the chapter there are also a few mention of the Nazi regime. Some connection and similar tactics can be seen in the two regime, including propaganda and the education of woman.
Death and the Maiden
I personally found this play to be one of the more interesting reads. The play is based in a society in which the dictatorship has been overthrown and replaced with a new democracy. Because there were lots of wrongdoings by government officials, people are wary to convict criminals from the dictatorship, because they believe by bringing up the past they will be unable to succeed as a democracy. While not necessarily a forgive and forget state of mind, people are willing to just forget and move on.
However, when Paulina's husband brings home a mysterious man as a house guest, she claims that, without seeing him, she recognizes his voice from her time as a political prisoner. She accuses this man, Dr. Miranda, of raping her and binds him to a chair in the night. In the morning, she decides to put Dr. Miranda on trial, with her husband as his lawyer, because she claims she wants a confession from him. In the end, she does get a confession, but it's unclear whether it's a constructed confession (with help from her husband) or a true confession. Paulina gets upset and points out that Dr. Miranda's confession was not parallel with what information she had given her husband, and Dr. Miranda had changed certain details to match the truth. Again, it's unclear who is telling the truth or who might be lying. The ending, though, is probably the most truthful thing we can claim that Paulina says. She reveals her exasperation and devastation from being tortured, and asks why the one who is tortured must always be the one to confess. As she threatens his life, she wonders what "we lose by killing one of them". Ultimately she gains a sense of power, like we often see interrogators do, and wants to "do justice".
However, when Paulina's husband brings home a mysterious man as a house guest, she claims that, without seeing him, she recognizes his voice from her time as a political prisoner. She accuses this man, Dr. Miranda, of raping her and binds him to a chair in the night. In the morning, she decides to put Dr. Miranda on trial, with her husband as his lawyer, because she claims she wants a confession from him. In the end, she does get a confession, but it's unclear whether it's a constructed confession (with help from her husband) or a true confession. Paulina gets upset and points out that Dr. Miranda's confession was not parallel with what information she had given her husband, and Dr. Miranda had changed certain details to match the truth. Again, it's unclear who is telling the truth or who might be lying. The ending, though, is probably the most truthful thing we can claim that Paulina says. She reveals her exasperation and devastation from being tortured, and asks why the one who is tortured must always be the one to confess. As she threatens his life, she wonders what "we lose by killing one of them". Ultimately she gains a sense of power, like we often see interrogators do, and wants to "do justice".
Friday, April 4, 2014
Death and the Maiden Response
Death and the Maiden is a play written by Ariel Dorfman
about a woman Paulina’s encounter with the man Dr.Miranda who allegedly raped
and tortured her. The title is a reference to Schuberts piece “Death and the
Maiden” which had been playing when Paulina was raped, showing us how even music became an agent of pain. This play is a great
example of how psychological torture can outlast and be worse than physical
pain. Though it has been many years since her captivity, Paulina lives her life
in constant paranoia in an isolated country house.
I find this work a very interesting read, with a lot of factors that set it apart from the other readings we have had so far. In the play we see how Paulina (previously the tortured) becomes the person who holds her torturer Dr.Miranda in captivity and interrogates him, and this kind of role reversal is not seen in any of the other works. She even appoints her own husband as his lawyer, records their conversation and even wants him to sign his confession.The play ends without telling the reader if the Doctor was actually guilty, or if Paulina had succumbed to insanity and all her allegations were false, and this ambiguity is prevalent throughout the book.
I find this work a very interesting read, with a lot of factors that set it apart from the other readings we have had so far. In the play we see how Paulina (previously the tortured) becomes the person who holds her torturer Dr.Miranda in captivity and interrogates him, and this kind of role reversal is not seen in any of the other works. She even appoints her own husband as his lawyer, records their conversation and even wants him to sign his confession.The play ends without telling the reader if the Doctor was actually guilty, or if Paulina had succumbed to insanity and all her allegations were false, and this ambiguity is prevalent throughout the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)