Mi madre y el dinero

 

In 2018, I witnessed a piece of theater that has forever altered the way I view “realism” in theater. That play was Tijuana, a one-person show starring Lázaro Gabino Rodríguez, in which the main character travels to the eponymous border city to experience what it is like to live in poverty. You can read about my experience with Lázaro and the play in my previous blog entry. My main takeaway from that experience was that what appears as real (video recordings, pictures, testimony) may in fact be a farcical realism trying to make a different point altogether. In other words, playwrights/directors may be portraying reality while simultaneously calling into question the realities they are portraying. With that in mind, on Sunday, I traveled to the Teatro de la Ciudad Esperanza Iris to see the play Mi madre y el dinero, a “work in progress” with Josefina Orlaineta and Anacarsis Ramos, a mother-son duo. It is an intimate play about their economic struggles, as well as about the construction of the play we are seeing, told from the perspective of both. 

The front cover of the playbill.

A panoramic view of the theater I took after the performance.

This is what the playbill states: Durante más de seis décadas (1960-2020) Josefina Orlaineta, madre de Anacarsis Ramos, ejerció más de cuarenta trabajos y negocios en Campeche, uno de los estados con mayor tasa de pobreza y rezago económico en México. 

A partir de herramientas teatrales y cinematográficas, Josefina y Anacarsis reproducen algunos de estos trabajos para reflexionar sobre la crisis económica como estado permanente de vida, la expansión del trabajo a todos los espacios de una familia, la vergüenza de clase, la indefensión social de los trabajadores independientes (tanto comerciantes como artistas) y las negociaciones que se hacen al interior de un proyecto para contar la vida de alguien más. 

A map emphasizing the location of the state of Campeche in Mexico.

During more than six decades (1960-2020) Josefina Orlaineta, mother to Anacarsis Ramos, worked more than forty jobs and businesses in Campeche, one of the states with the highest rates of poverty and economic lagging in Mexico. 

Using theatrical and cinematographic tools, Josefina and Anacarsis reproduce some of these jobs to reflect on economic crises as a permanent stage of life, the expansion of work to all corners of the family, the embarrassment of class, the social helplessness of independent workers (vendors and artists) and the business deals that are made inside a project which aims to retell the life of someone else. (my rough translation)

Anacarsis speaking to the audience.

As you walk into the production, you are led behind the curtain of the theater on the stage. There, Josefina is cutting her son’s hair. There were occasional moments of dialogue between the two, as well as with the audience. Immediately, the two have established an intimate space for them and for the audience. Since we are also behind the curtain, in a non-traditional space for theater productions, one also senses the attempt to "reveal," in an intimate environment, the machinations of theater and establish a setting in which the audience feels the authenticity of those on stage. We are literally “behind-the-scenes,” if you will. The set consisted of open shelving and a long table, in which the actors on stage remained exposed during the production. Above this minimalist set was a projector screen, in which, during various points in the production, text, images, and videos were projected to the audience, providing a glimpse into life in Campeche, within the walls of their home, and the inner thoughts of Anacarsis. 

The opening of the play as Josefina actually cuts Anacarsis's hair, while a video plays the setting of the malecón in Campeche.

Anacarsis remarked, toward the beginning of the play, that audiences and producers in Mexico have a thirst for realism on stage. As such, his exposition of life in Campeche, told through the eyes of someone both in (Anacarsis) and outside (Josefina) of theater, with projected diary entries, cuts to the core of the human experience and “realism” that he recognizes that audiences desire. The exposition was divided into 7 scenes: estética, negociación, abarrotes, zapatería, chorizos, y el dinero, y actriz. Josefina started the play cutting her son’s hair while also explaining how she threw herself into opening a beauty salon—despite confessing that she didn’t know how to cut hair at first. In a later scene, Anacarsis stacks boxes on the table as they talk about opening and supplying an abarrotería (or a mini convenience store) until an Oxxo opened up next to them.

Anacarsis stacking the boxes during the segment about opening up an abarrotería. The Google maps image shows the location of their convenience store in Campeche.

In one of the vignettes, about chorizos, mother and son put together chorizo links on stage, replicating the countless hours they spent in the past. In fact, the son challenges the mother to sell some of her chorizo to an audience member, further creating a realist link between her ability to sell chorizo and convincing the audience that she in fact did sell chorizos. 

Josefina attempting to sell her chorizos to an audience member.

In each of the scenes, either videos or on-stage demonstrations proved to the audience their acquired talents in each of these stages of their family’s economic lives. Finally, at the end of the show, Anacarsis hails his mother onto the stage. She appears from behind the shelves, where she had been hiding for a little while. Now, however, instead of her simple clothes, she is dressed in a crown and cape, wielding a sword. She recounts some theatrical lines and pronounces that she is no longer scared of acting. She has culminated her abilities now with acting. Upon her final line, where she declares she is no longer scared of acting, the main curtain on the stage arose, exposing the grandiose venue’s theater, all to the reverberating applause from the packed audience. 

Josefina comes out to "act" before the audience.

The ending of the performance toward the empty theater.

And yet, I can’t help but pause and wonder aloud if what I witnessed is what I witnessed. This takes me back to my first idea, about realism on stage. The fact that Anacarsis mentioned the thirst for realism in Mexican audiences today makes me question whether he is, perhaps, trolling his audience with the appearance of realism. Is he intermingling fiction with reality? Is all that I saw a farce, real, or a mixture of both? As I stated earlier, this wouldn’t be my first experience with farcical realism. 

A list of the jobs Josefina states that she's had over the span of a few decades.

But it turns out that this type of genre in the theater has picked up in popularity here in Mexico. During my stay in Mexico this year, I have already witnessed three different performances in which the protagonists relate intimate stories of their lives. Autofiction is a genre in which the playwright finds inspiration in their own reality to retell the events of their life, but they intermingle fictitious elements into the storyline, creating a piece of theater that becomes engaging enough to sell to an audience. Thus, it is difficult, and rich, for audiences to imagine what is real and what is fiction. Blurring the lines between what is true and what is fiction is a fascinating endeavor, as those who study the genre of testimonio or those who work with memory studies may attest to. 

Curtain Call

In this way, audiences—myself—may begin to question their/my own limits between fiction and reality in life. I recently watched the series “Death and other details” on Hulu, and this element of memory recall becomes a fascinating tool to highlight that what/how we remember the past may, and probably will be, colored by our later information through hindsight. Thus, to what degree is any historical representation truly “faithful” to actual events when so many perspectives evolve and are colored by other viewpoints?

The title of the production on the screen at the end of the show.

For me, this performance made me consider not so much the economic and social ideologies inherent in the scenes themselves, but the machinations used to create the story and the idea of reality. In fact, the quest for “realism” on stage has left me wondering how possible it even is anymore. With the rise in Artificial Intelligence, the use of different medias on stage to capture reality, and the theatrical “behind-the-scenes” techniques employed in this production, I am left wondering what to believe when something occurs right in front of me. What I am saying may sound dystopic--that I struggle with accepting what I see as real--but I think it cuts at the core of what our task as scholars and humans is today: to think critically about what we consume in order to authenticate what we should believe or discard in our quest for "truth" and creating a better world based on that truth.