Conversational Review of Hungry Woman by Josefina López, Casa 0101, Los Angeles, California, June 7 and June 23, 2013: Director, Corky Dominguez

JH:

To begin, let me synthesize the plot. López adapted the play from her semi-autobiographical novel, Hungry Woman in Paris, published in 2009. The main action centers on the novel’s narrator, Canela. A freelance journalist weary of having her politically charged articles rejected by her publisher, she invites us into her “world” as she relates how she escaped the U.S. during the GW Bush administration, prompted also by her favorite cousin Luna’s suicide. Once in Paris, she enrolls in a cooking school while she navigates being “undocumented” in France. She also discovers that she suffers from ADD. She returns to the U.S., where her family expects her to marry and follow the usual expectations. Chantal, we two “mature” men are very interested in your impression of the play from a woman’s point of view.

CR:

As a Latina, I found this play extremely refreshing. While dealing with a multitude of important themes, it makes a crucial feminist intervention into the representation of the Latina experience. Throughout the play, Canela resists heteronormativity, most notably by breaking off her engagement to handsome doctor Armando, referred to as a MAP—Mexican-American Prince,—not once but twice! We also see her unabashedly initiate a fling with a British man, Henry, all over Paris. The theatricalization of an educated, socially conscious Latina with a healthy sexuality, not rooted in guilt or shame, is so important.

JH:

I was very impressed with Rachel González as the main character, Canela. Ironically, she looked very much like a younger Josefina López.

CM:

The resemblance was uncanny. And González, to her credit, was able to carry the dramatic action forward, although at times the narration bogged down. This is the biggest risk a writer faces when adapting a novel for the stage.

CR:

González was charming and thoroughly convincing. Linda López (no relation to the playwright), in the role of the mother, was also spot-on and provided many a belly laugh.

JH:

I really enjoyed the play the first time I saw it, although I felt that it was too long. The second time I saw the play, it was not as moving. I don’t know why.

CM:

Chantal and I saw it on June 23, 2013. The house was full and I sat in the back to gauge audience reaction. About four middle-aged Latinas directly behind me reacted strongly with gasps, laughter, and spontaneous commentary, like a call and response. It was like being at a church service.

JH:

I had a problem with the set, several platforms reaching out from the center, which the characters had to negotiate every time there was a scene shift. In the talk-back, it was revealed that the set represented a wedding cake—a great metaphor for this play about assumed heteronormativity—but who knew that is what it represented? Corky Dominguez, the director, had the main character, Canela, step out of scenes in the cooking school and cross down stage to add commentary to her experiences in said cooking school. The other characters were frozen, so why have Canela take the time to cross anywhere? She could have simply delivered her lines from the imagined cooking school counter. Cesar Holguin, the set and photo images designer, had everything painted white—the props, the furniture and set props,—which was interesting for a while. But these set pieces had to be brought on by crew members every time there was a scene shift. This added unnecessary minutes to the play.

CR:

While I agree that there was some awkward staging around the set, I thought the white, layered platforms and props were quite effective as a vehicle for the play. Accompanied by intelligent lighting and projection design, I found the look of the play to be quite modern and one of the more sophisticated sets I’ve seen at Casa 0101 in recent years.