The audience plays a massive role in Durfman’s “Death and the Maiden”. Durfman makes it clear not to state whether or not doctor Roberto Miranda is indeed guilty of the crime Paulina is accusing him of, leaving it up to the audience to do so themselves. However, even though there is no clear answer directly stated, the audience is able to come to an individualistic decision based on what they perceive as true in the play. Just as Durfman does not directly state wether Miranda is indeed innocent, he leaves no solid evidence that clearly expresses that Miranda is indeed guilty.
With every possible piece of evidence that proves his guilt, there is either a fact or a person who or that defends his innocence. Paulina Salas claims to know for a fact that doctor Roberto Miranda is the same doctor who tortured and abused her many years before. Paulina was the only one who was physically there at the time, so it would be logical that she would know if he is the correct doctor or not. However, her husband, Gerardo Escobar, does not fully believe her.
After Paulina claims that Roberto is the doctor from a long time ago, Gerardo questions her claim by clearly stating that she had said she was blindfolded and therefore would not be able to see if Miranda is truly the right doctor. This pushes the audience to begin to doubt wether Paulina’s claim is truly justifiable or not. Gerardo continues to act as the voice of reason throughout the play, countering every argument Paulina makes, and even reminding the audience that Paulina is “sick”.
He clearly states that what Paulina is doing is wrong, and that even if the doctor was guilty, it would be best to let him go and not kill him, reminding us of the fact that Paulina wishes to serve justice herself, making us wonder to what extent Paulina is “sick”. Gerardo, compared to Paulina, is more sane and rational. This, along with the fact that he is a part of the commission chosen to prosecute the very criminals guilty of the crime against his wife and many other prisoners, encourages the audience to take his standpoint, and realize that not all of Paulina’s evidence can be justifiable.
However, this sense of being unable to justify her claims is doubted near the end of the play, when Miranda had finished his fake confessions. Paulina claims to have switched tiny details in her version which she told to Gerardo to see if the doctor would replace them with the right details, out of fear of being wrong. She uses the main example of Bud to Stud to vindicate her claim. This intelligent manoeuvre has the audience confused as to whether Paulina truly is crazy, or whether there is truth in what she says.
It is not only the facts that push the audience into making their decision. Actions exerted by the characters and also physical objects can encourage the reader into making a decision. The gun that Paulina uses against doctor Miranda is a crucial object that alters the audience’s views and opinions on Paulina. Her possession of the gun gives her a sense of power and masculinity that she did not have before. This power makes her appear far less innocent and far more dangerous than she appeared to be before.
By possessing the gun, Paulina is suddenly at a higher level of power than the other two men, resulting in an inverse in the usual chain of power (men have more power than women). This gun puts her above men, making her seem more dangerous to the audience, therefore making them more inclined to believing that she is crazy or sick. This weariness from the audience for Paulina’s health drastically increases when she suddenly fires a shot out of the blue.
The fact that she looked very surprised after the shot was made shows that Paulina does not really know what she is doing, and also gives her a sort of crazy appearance. Due to all these aspects pushing the audience into several directions, it is very likely that different members of the audience come up with different conclusions as to whether doctor Roberto Miranda is indeed innocent or guilty of the crime he has been accused of. However, seeing that there is no credible evidence in the play directly stating whether he is innocent or guilty, the audience will never know if their assumptions were correct.
