Humboldt: México para los mexicanos

When you cherish a breathtaking sunset, the red, orange and yellow hues of sunlight making their last hurrahs for the day, you want that moment to last forever. The tranquility and majesty command silence as you gaze in awe at the beauty that envelops the senses. Sometimes, when I leave the theater, I feel a similar sense of awe and reverence. It’s a testament that when a playwright develops profound ideas, in combination with a thoughtful production, the audience will leave with emotions that unequivocally provoke deep reflection. In my opinion, theater has the power to be just as majestic as nature.

And that’s how I can somewhat describe how I felt after Saturday’s performance of Humboldt: México para los mexicanos. Here, the playwright (Ernesto Anaya Ottone), director (David Psalmon), and the six actors are all foreigners, living in Mexico. So, the title itself is catchy because this is a work produced not by traditional Mexicans. However, this irony is part of the main theme of the show. Alexander von Humboldt, one of the show’s characters, was the first foreigner to become a naturalized citizen of the United States of Mexico, decreed by the president himself, in 1827. However, Humboldt is also responsible for delivering maps of Mexico to the United States of America, maps that would eventually lead to the USA’s interest in this territory. In 1848, after Mexico’s defeat to the USA, a large territory of Mexico became part of the USA, thanks in part to the maps defining this territory. And Mexico has its’ first naturalized citizen to thank, in part, for this loss.

(A poster for the show, also the director)

There’s also the question of what it means to “be” Mexican. Each actor came to Mexico with a dream to be Mexican. However, to become Mexican one takes a very large quiz, about 100 questions (and this is just one aspect). The actors actually read every single question to this test to the audience. At first, the audience wanted to answer the questions, and then the actors began to read the questions more quickly. After ninety questions, and some pretty absurd ones as well, I think we all realized it was a pretty ridiculous test. One actor read to us #28, which asks about the identification of the person that originally combined the idea of the Aztecas with the Mixtecas. The answer according to the test was Huitzilopochtli, the God of War. But the actors showed us that Humboldt was the first to make that connection.  Also, as noted by the actors, if a person misses just one question on the test it is enough justification to deny citizenship to a foreigner. And that’s what happened to this particular actor who answered that it was a public myth. Answering these questions was overwhelming to the actors, and each one of them displayed their frustration with wanting to “be” Mexican but impeded by a series of questions. In fact, they felt as if Mexico didn’t want them. They came bright-eyed only to realize that, as they said in the play, “Mi casa es su casa” is only a façade.

According to the playwright, “being” Mexican is more defined by a transition from one place to another more than anything else. The playwright himself declares: “We want to break the myth that Mexico is only for Mexicans. In the very idea of Mexico the foreign is imprinted: the Aztecs were foreigners that arrived at Texcoco Lake, just like the Spaniards did. In both cases the encounter was violent. The association between foreigner/conquistador has been, more than just one episode in Mexico’s history, a constant. Through this work we hope to be able to repair this fracture by showing the human face of diversity, taking into account that the experience of being a foreigner is something that, in the end, we all do, because to feel far away is a universal experience.” And that’s something I can appreciate, being a foreigner right now in Mexico.

The play’s production was masterful. Many levels and areas of the stage, as well as the audience, were used throughout the production. It was a very interactive show and it helped us, especially myself, approach some of the feelings of the actors, who were also foreigners. To be quite honest, though, there was a lot of stimulation surrounding the technology, the voice-overs, the shouts, the movements, the smoke machine, and a plethora of other elements which combined to offer the audience too many images. But as Dr. Compton and I spoke about this element of the production we realized it imitated reality much more faithfully. So many aspects of a culture, of a nation, of family, of self, all combine to offer so many factors in any identity. We are left questioning just how one defines the self. Is it family? Is it a language? Is it a geographic location? These questions affect not only foreigners living in Mexico, but foreigners everywhere.

(The multimedia usage during the play)

This play affected me tremendously and, as I said earlier, on our walk home many thoughts were racing through my mind. I wanted to lose myself in these thoughts in order to make sense of what I just saw, due to the immense beauty of the spoken word that brought about these feelings. But that’s the splendor of irony, isn’t it? Sometimes you can’t quite put your finger on something as majestic as the sunset, or what defines us as people. Mexico for Mexicans? No. Mexico is for everyone, because everyone is a foreigner.

And as a final note, the director mentioned the 43 students from Ayotzinapa that are still missing, the fight for Wirikuta against privatized mining in their indigenous community, as well as other students missing in Michoacan. I want to take the space here to also remind my readers that Mexico will not rest until these missing students are found. I unite in solidarity with those asking for the return of these students. No one should ever be forgotten

.

("Wirikuta for the defense of the sacred. No to mining.")

(A piece of  activist art in Avenida Reforma calling attention to the 43 students still missing: "Because they were taken alive, we want them back alive!")

21 historias de baúl, La vida es sueño

Wow.

Just wow.

Yesterday Dr. Compton and I spent the afternoon and evening in Coyoacan as we attended a play, and a staged reading of a new play. Coyoacan is now a suburb of Mexico City where Hernán Cortés built his home and where there is an absolutely stunning Catholic church. It’s also an intellectual haven for students and professors as it is located just a few stops away on the Metro from the Ciudad Universitaria where the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (or UNAM) is located. What a beautiful city!

(Catholic Church in Coyoacan)

(Hernán Cortés's Home in Coyoacan)

In this entry I will review my experience with 21 historias de baúl (21 Stories from a Chest), as well as briefly discuss my experience with the staged reading of a new play. However, I won’t go much into detail about the actual play in the staged reading as much as discuss the experience of dramaturging. I felt honored to be able to offer suggestions and ask questions, like a New Play Dramaturg might. In fact, this experience rekindled my love for dramaturging and for new plays.

(Mirna) Amanda Farah directed 21 historias de baúl, and one of the best ways I can describe her skill level is by simply comparing her to Stephanie Foster Breinholt, a professor and director in the Theater Department at BYU. From my own experiences, every single play Stephanie directs is absolutely mind-blowing, fantastic and breathtaking, all in positive ways. When attention is paid to every little detail (the lights, facial expressions, movements, transitions, scenery, etc.) then the world of the play is that much more engaging. And let me just say here that this play was at that level. So, I would love to take my hat off to Amanda for offering such an exquisite experience.

(Poster for 21 historias de baúl)

And the actors. Oh! The actors! Each of the four actors played their roles with such delivery that you couldn’t help but be sucked into their unique worlds; and with this play, there were twenty-one different worlds! Llever Aíza played a crazy Don Quixote, an elephant, a traveling doctor, and various other roles with such facial expressions you couldn’t help but laugh! Joana Larequi was the only actress on stage, but on many occasions played different roles as a man. She produced long sighs as a skeleton waiting for the resurrection, acted very macho as she blew out a star, and emitted a deep sadness as she waited at the train with her son. One of the most stunning moments of the show was Emilio Savinni, who played a crazy person in the chest. His demonic laughs felt so real as he responded to the promptings of a skeptic doctor. I mean, scarily real. As the chest closed at the end he transitioned from laughing to whimpering in one of the most disturbingly awesome scenes of the night. Later in the show he came out as a camel, walking hand and foot in synchrony as he moved his mouth around just like a camel. They were stellar for the entire show, almost always on stage as they transitioned from one scene to the next.

The last actor, Pablo Marín, deserves special attention. While all the actors were simply amazing, Pablo also captivated our attention every single time he appeared on stage. His presence and mannerisms, such as stroking his skeletal body in deep melancholy as he sat in the cemetery, his caricature movements as Rita, his narrating qualities at the death of a whale, and his deathly facial expressions as he swayed back-and-forth in the train, were demonstrations of his love for acting as well as his development as a skilled actor. Dr. Compton saw him previously in Si no lo cuentas tú, ¿quién lo sabra? (If you don’t tell it, who will know?), a show dealing with themes of the Holocaust he considered to be the masterpiece of his trip in 2014. The complete production of this show is available on YouTube. In my experience Pablo Marín blew me away. Gone. In another world.

For anyone traveling to Mexico City, this show will continue to be performed at Teatro La Capilla every Friday at 5:00 PM until July 3rd.

(Teatro La Capilla Logo)

And if this show wasn’t enough, we spent the rest of the evening in a home listening to an interactive staged reading of a new play by Martín López Brie which revolved around Calderón de la Barca’s La vida es sueño (Life is a Dream). It felt great to be invited with Dr. Compton in the presence of a work still germinating. I won’t go into detail here about the plot. However, I will say that the work was stunning and the dialogue was fluid between the two actors. When the show ended, we both sat with colleagues who are playwrights, producers, directors, and other students of theater, to discuss our impressions, ask questions and suggest improvements. This interaction made me think of the saying: it takes one person to write a play and ninety-nine others to tell the playwright how to do it better. As I thought about this, I realized writing a play is much like writing articles in Academia: there are always others who will want minor improvements based on their own intellectual understandings. I find this process of collaboration one of the most intriguing and wonderful aspects of Academia and theater.

During this collaboration I approached my comments with a set of understanding eyes more than suggestions, having learned some great techniques about working with playwrights from BYU’s own Janine Sobeck, a professional dramaturg and professor who previously worked at the Arena Stage. So, when I offered comments I asked more questions rather than offering ways to improve the play. The fruitful discussions afterwards confirmed this was the right approach. The last thing I wanted to do was come off as a “know-it-all” who thinks he has all the right answers. There were such thoughtful comments and suggestions offered for the playwright that I know he will produce a stellar work, in part because the work itself was already well-written. Experiences like these confirm to me that Latin American Theater is a fruitful field to study. I can’t wait for more!

Exilios: obras breves

Last night Dr. Compton and I attended exilios: obras breves, a collection of four short plays dealing with the theme of exile. We took the subway system to the Auditorio Nacional, a venue which has many different theatres surrounding it, and from there to the Teatro Galeón. I want to point out that this particular trip is truly special because I am seeing Mexican theater with Dr. Tim Compton from Northern Michigan University. This is a real privilege because he is well known by many respected persons here and abroad as a trusted critic, although he himself argues the impossibility of being a true critic. But more on that later. I think you are more interested in the plays for now.

(Teatro Galeón)

Maybe a bit of background will help establish the framework for this production. In the summer of 2013 Sandra Félix, a Mexican director, produced these short plays together in El Foro La Gruta del Centro Cultural Helénico. We will meet with her later in this trip, so one of the big questions I have for her are what changes she made to each of the four works that were originally presented, as well as why she omitted two of the original six plays. At least we know that these plays were not produced for the first time, and that they most likely received criticism and were adjusted for this particular performance.

With this background in mind, I’d like to discuss briefly the plot, theme and other elements for the first two plays, and the last. The third play, for me and Dr. Compton, was problematic on many fronts. I recognize there is a lot to discuss, as Dr. Compton and I have been talking about them since we left, so please excuse the short space in which I will try to write down my thoughts on what took years to produce. My hope is that you might at least be familiar with some of the current themes in Mexican theatre today, as well as see some of my personal thoughts as I approach these plays.

Frontera (Border) written by Laila Ripoll

There is a version on YouTube of this work. The first thing you will notice is how dark the scene is. That’s because it is set in the desert at night. The version on YouTube has a grandmother and grandson, while the version last night switched the grandmother to a grandfather. However, the lines are the same. I want to ask Sandra Félix why they switched gender in this version. The great struggle here dealt with the grandson’s desire to cross the border into the United States of America while also battling guilt for abandoning his family and culture. This is a very prevalent struggle for many people throughout the world, not must Mexicans. In my own family my wife left her country to live with me, and I know from personal experiences that it is very difficult to leave behind family and culture. I get it, but I also don’t. I still live in my own country and it is difficult for me to come to terms with these feelings, but that doesn´t mean I don´t try to understand. I get it, but I don’t.

The grandfather in this scene was exiled from Spain during Franco’s regime, and now, filled with memories of his former country, he struggles to convince his grandson that leaving his country behind is a mistake with grave consequences. The story itself is compelling, but the delivery was a little unconvincing. As a graduate with a theater degree I come to the theater with a very critical mind. Once you understand technique, you appreciate it when you see it, but you also recognize where things lack with more precision (I’ve had many a critiques of my own works at BYU). It´s a double-edged sword of sorts. For example, the grandfather had many, many lines throughout the play, while the grandson kept saying he was leaving and that his grandfather should be quiet. I thought to myself, then go! If all you care about is leaving, which is what I’m getting each time you talk, then just leave behind your grandfather, like you´ve been saying! But he didn’t, until the end. I would have liked to see dialogue between the two instead of just the grandfather speaking the majority of the time. I think I focused a lot on this dialogue for the simple fact that because the lighting was so dark, the only thing I could really focus on was the dialogue. I would have liked to hear more compelling counter-arguments from the grandson.

Also, I didn’t catch at the beginning that the grandfather was really a representation of the inner struggle of the grandson. However, by talking with Dr. Compton, I realized this crucial element. With that in mind the play changed drastically for me. The reason I didn’t see the grandfather as a “thought” was the fact that there were physical elements to his existence on stage: the grandson carried him, pushed him, and they physically tugged at each other. I thought he was simply a very persistent grandfather. I feel this inner struggle is central to appreciating this work. One of my big take-aways here is that if we really try to understand some of the struggles immigrants experience when leaving behind their country and risking everything, we will develop more empathy and appreciation for each one as a person instead of, for example, a “threat” in their host country.

El buen vecino (The good neighbor) written by Juan Mayorga

This was, for me, one of the strongest of the four plays. The plot began with an undocumented immigrant who lives in Spain and who built for himself a comfortable life there. At the beginning he is sitting in a café when his coworker arrives to celebrate. He is very ambiguous about why he is celebrating, but eventually we learn that he found something to hold over him: he found out about his illegal status. With the passing of a new law that gives him a special power over the immigrant (he could denounce him to the police in any moment), he begins a controlling friendship with the caveat that if he ever disagrees to anything he will be reported to the police and then deported. After the previous short work where we see a glimpse into the struggles of immigrants leaving behind family and culture, this play adds to it the wielding of power over immigrants in their host countries, yet another overwhelming element.

What really worked for me here was how convincing this manipulative coworker controlled the situation. For example, on several occasions the immigrant wanted to get up and leave, but there was a threatening demeanor to the coworker that even made me feel uncomfortable, like he was psychopathic, for example. And the “illegal”, his new friend, remained in his chair. However, he reassured his new “friend” that he wouldn’t do anything humillante, but I think we all know it was a façade to the power he knowingly wanted to yield. And at the end, when he forces the immigrant to sing a song, he has been reduced in our eyes to a mere puppet. You couldn’t help but feel sympathy for him under this new dynamic. This person who built a new life in a new country is now forced to confront the fact that others now hold a unique power over him, and are conscientiously exercising that power.

(Un buen vecino)

For me I see a gospel truth here. Yes, there are consequences to our actions. Someone who comes to another country illegally broke a rule. There are consequences. I get that. But no person is perfect, and one action does not define us more fully than all the other aspects or actions of our life. So, when we come across people we know are undocumented, instead of throwing the blame on them for making what must have been a terribly difficult decision (as if we haven´t made terrible decisions ourselves), we should show love and compassion, not force or manipulation.

May I share an example where I saw this manipulation fully at work? While I served in the Long Beach, California mission for the LDS church I saw on several occasions the power business owners used to control their employees (low wages, long hours, etc.) who were undocumented. I think this play brought attention to this terrible present situation, not just a phenomenon in the USA, but in many parts of the world where people flee. And my take-away from this is that compassion should be at the forefront of our thoughts. For me, God is the person who will make everything right and who is the right and just Judge. We are here to love.

 Un día de lluvia (A Rainy Day) written by Alicia Zárate

This play was the other strong play of the evening. The plot revolved around two people caught in the rain, perched on a patio waiting for the rain to stop. As they awkwardly exchange pleasantries they gradually break down walls and express existential worries. By the end Julio renounces his former life and Alejandra finds herself where she belongs. One of the great techniques used in this story was the use of the cigarette, which by its very nature lasts for a short period of time, and thus the people know they can’t talk forever. As both calmed down from the nicotine they opened up and shared deep worries, Alejandra first, and then Julio. The ending for me was a bit problematic because the two decide to make a life-altering decision to leave everything behind after a few minutes of conversation.

(Un día de lluvia)

This last point, for me, was the most problematic because I have a wife and two kids and they are the world to me. To think that after many years of living together that I could just walk away from them because I can’t find myself, to me sounds selfish and disrespectful. It happens, yes. But it’s disrespectful to a wife that works side-by-side and committed years of her life to making a marriage work, as well as to the children that need their parents there, and it’s disrespectful to the institution of marriage, which depends on a commitment, like any other commitment between two parties. To me the scene would have seemed much more realistic had the two exchanged their existential crises and then realized they had to go back to their realities to work out their problems. That would have been more impactful because the reality of the situation would be that they would simply return to it and nothing would be resolved (sounds a lot like what happens in life, unresolved issues). But instead, the scene ended with some hope, fatalistic hope it seemed to me, that by leaving their problems behind they would eventually find themselves (a very romantic proposition). But in the end the acting, the props, the scenery and the dialogue (up until the end) worked together to make one of the more realistic scenes of the evening, and for me, one of the most impactful.

And, if I may leave one last point, in both El buen vecino and Un día de lluvia the place of origin of these immigrants is not divulged. In this way, the plays about exile seem to take on a more universal tone that I feel help the plays touch a larger audience than just Mexicans. As the playbill stated, “You don´t need to go very far to feel exiled” (my own translation). 

Some Things Are Better Left Said, a review of "3" by Eric Samuelsen

I recently attended Eric Samuelsen’s latest installment of #seasonoferic at Plan-B Theatre: 3. Three signifies the number of short plays within this evening of theatre: Bar & Kell, Community Standard and Duets. May I begin by taking-off my metaphoric hat before such an important and dedicated playwright? Now that #seasonoferic is officially over, I would propose Eric Samuelsen’s voice never die out in Utah theatre. It is rare to come upon someone so sincere and bold enough to tackle delicate and immediate circumstances. All of this praise came out of a struggle I found within myself while I watched all of Eric’s plays at Plan-B (minus Radio Hour). From Nothing Personal, which brought me vis-à-vis with waterboarding and torture techniques, to Clearing Bombs, a timely discussion about economic impacts and the importance of engaging with the direction by which we continue to take this country, Eric’s platform took us through both emotional and logical sequences from an abyss of intolerance and ignorance towards the light of understanding and catharsis.

However, nothing could have prepared me for 3. And may I stop for a brief moment to congratulate all involved within Plan-B that made this season possible. I have to admit, I thought I might not see this show. I stood in stand-by Friday night, rejected; only to return Friday and get in. I am so thankful to that Spirit which moved me to see this show, even after initially being turned away. And after attending the show, I walked the streets of SLC pondering what exactly I had just seen. Three different shows; one theme of understanding and honesty. I hope that through this, not only will you gain a sense of the tremendous work Eric engages in, but that I will somehow wrap my head around the thoughts impressed on both my heart and my mind.

Bar and Kell, a play of two dedicated members of the LDS church who befriend a very less-active member that moves to their neighborhood, opened the show. Stephanie Howell, a tremendous actress, played Brandie, a mother with lots of baggage, moves into a pro-active LDS community. Almost naïvely, Brandie accepts gung-ho help from Kell and Bar, whose assertiveness overwhelm Brandie’s family and make them question their motives behind such charity. At one point, as Brandie progresses into church activity and marriage, she asks Kell, played by Christy Summerhays, why she became interested in helping her. This sudden prompting allows Kell a mental space to reflect on the meaning behind her charity. Was it all from her heart, or do societal customs dictate the way she leads her life? After all, Bar’s sometimes overbearing personality takes the community by the reigns and leads it down her own path, no matter how destructive it may be or become. And, if I might add here, my sincere gratitude to Teresa Sanderson who portrayed Bar with such effectiveness and strong choices. Never once did I doubt Bar’s pummeling character, and she even made me like her, despite her disregard to others’ thoughts. And this play leaves us with important questions. Don’t we all sometimes stop and question the motive behind our actions? This first piece gave me a space to think generally about from where my motives sprout or, at times, spurt.

 In the linguistic pedagogy world we are taught about the importance of scaffolding information to our students for more effective learning. This means we must begin with something simple, generic even, to activate previous knowledge, and then we introduce more difficult concepts. Finally, we guide our students towards a more focused yet open dialogue which allows them to receive and retain new concepts. In this way I feel the progression of the show allowed us to start with something generic like questioning motive, towards themes much more difficult and focused: the objectification of women and the difficult position of understanding homosexuality, both within the LDS community.

The second vignette, Community Standard, took us on another journey discussing such issues as pornography, how to determine standards and the implicit objectification of women through patriarchal systems, to name a few. Stephanie Howell, playing Janeal, led us on this emotional rollercoaster as she turned down time and again an easy conformist position against the person in their community who viewed pornography, as well as the subsequent call for removing such films. Her fellow jurors felt the question of what is decent was as clear as black-and-white, siding with the traditional views that pornography destroys women’s’ imagery and marital relationships. However, what Janeal reveals later, the reason she can’t accuse this man who was caught with pornography, left my mouth agape. While watching several films to see some of the pornographic elements in each of them (and the three actresses were incredibly funny as they distorted their faces from nonchalant professionalism to outright disgust), she caught the glimpse of a woman faking an orgasm. Immediately she connected with that woman, arguing that she occasionally faked her emotions with her husband during their intimate interactions. Ironically, she realized how her emotionally abusive husband treated her with the same obscenely irresponsible attitudes that men treat women in these pornographic videos. Bam! This connection absolutely blew me away. And in some ways, isn’t it the truth? While we want to better society by simply throwing away material objects, what about the personalities that aren’t as easy to rub off, and that, within a marriage. Bravo Stephanie for sincerely portraying something that touches too many damaged lives and homes.

And if this wasn’t enough to leave us pondering, the final piece left me both shocked and grappling for answers. In Duets, Eric brings up a sensitive topic to many: how those who feel homosexual feelings or consider themselves a member of the homosexual community find a way into the LDS church and the familial structure therein. I sometimes find myself grappling with this as well. At times I empathize with those of this community. It’s never been easy for me to connect my doctrinal conscience with my own feelings that at times run counter to the way in which we are told to both think and act. However, I’ve found my niche within my religion as well as in my own family. Yet for others their road isn’t as easy, as portrayed in this final play. What would appear on the surface the most remarkable couple, is actually a relationship of intermittent betrayal, emotional suffering and striving towards understanding. See, Sondra’s husband feels homosexual feelings at times, and not only has these feelings, but ultimately decides to act on those feelings. Similar to All My Sons, the way by which he overcomes this struggle is to take his own life. He wants to live the rules dictated by the LDS church, but he cannot push away his own feelings, all of which is told through Sondra. The emotional stamina with which Christy Summerhays portrays Sondra throughout this piece is amazing, if not heroic. She takes us from a melancholic standpoint to a moment of distress where, when her husband takes his life, she begs for more time to sing together. One would assume that when your significant other takes their life you would most assuredly lose all control over your emotions and react with extreme anger or pain. Sondra doesn’t act this way; rather, she accepts this fate with regret that they won’t have time to continue their duet.

Just like that the show ends and we are left to consider the various ways in which what Eric gave us can be digested. May I take the time here to again thank Plan-B Theatre Company as well as Eric Samuelsen for offering us an important reflection of our own society? I hope these important and well-written plays will not fade away, but rather continue to be produced in order to continue this space for important discussions. Ultimately, these plays are here so that we may both progress as a people towards understanding, as well learn how to demonstrate unconditional love. I think these are worthy goals. Will you join me?

Clearing Bombs

Last night I attended the world premiere of Clearing Bombs, written by Eric Samuelsen at Plan-B Theatre in SLC. The basis of the play revolves around two economic theories: Keynesian vs. Hayekian economics. These arguments, embodied by their proponents Keynes and Hayek, are polar opposite ideas. The former argues for government intervention (think of FDR’s New Deal) in order to help economies recover, while the latter would argue a totalitarian laissez-faire (think of Hoover after the Great Depression) for an eventual recovery. Using a lower-class third-man, these two economists argue their ideas in order to convince him of the correct way to proceed when WWII eventually ends. The play argues that economics both recovered the USA from the Great Depression, but that misunderstood, created the rise of Hitler. In this way, the play’s use of two economists makes their theories relevant to us today as we also look at the recovery from the Great Recession.

The performance itself was incredibly engaging, especially the dialogue. However, having had time to consider some of the details of the play, there are three parts which I found a little disconcerting. First, at the end of the play, Keynes openly confesses his homosexual stint to Hayek. It felt completely out of place, mainly because the argument lasts for maybe two minutes. It seemed more of a space created to profess an openness towards an issue contemporary to our time. Secondly, Keynes mentions his regards to Eccles, a prominent banker from Utah (and Mormon). That small dialogue (maybe less than a minute) felt like it was put there because the play is performed in Salt Lake City. However, it again felt out of place, as if it wouldn’t be something Keynes or Hayek would mention, but rather the playwright. Thirdly, Keynes’s argument seemed to revolve around the same central point throughout the play: feelings towards the poor and destitute which moves him to immediate action. This argument surfaced many times, and it felt overused. However, besides these three aspects, the rest of the dialogue was very tight, and very moving, especially as the two economists sought ways to explain their theories to a commoner.

                                       Photo from Plan-B Facebook Web Site

The setting was very minimalistic, something I enjoyed, since I felt the dialogue really held the play together well. I feel that if the setting had been more elaborate, the play would have lost some of the great actions by the incredible actors who performed their economist's arguments: Mr. Bowles (played by Kirt Bateman), John Maynard Keynes (Mark Fossen) and Friedrich Hayek (Jay Perry). Each had incredible personas on stage, since each character was able to hold their ground and argument skiilfully. Throughout the play, sporadic intervals introduced plane noises, since the plot includes the three men on top of the roof of King’s College Chapel in Cambridge. This addition planted the play within the historical context of WWII and gave an immediate sense to the relevance of the dialogue on stage.

This is definitely a play worth seeing while it’s open, especially for its relevance to how we proceed as a society currently. As talk of socialism/capitalism/communism remains a public discourse even today, this show will help decipher some of the crucial arguments found under capitalism. Also, Eric did an excellent job of leaving the audience to side with one of the two economists. I appreciated that he did not didactically steer us into one direction.

The play runs from Feb. 20-Mar. 2 at the Rose Wagner Studio Theatre in SLC, UT. Tickets are on sale at arttix.org. (Students receive a discounted ticket. I paid $12 with tax) #seasonoferic

                                              Photo from Salt Lake Tribune

Delito condena y ejecución de una gallina (Felony Conviction & Execution of a Chicken)

On Tuesday I returned to the MAACC to witness a truly Guatemalan play: Delito condena y ejecución de una gallina. The play was written by Guatemalan playwright Manuel José Leonardo Arce Leal and produced originally in 1969. The year is important because from 1960 to 1996 Guatemala was under its own Civil War. In fact, the U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala was assassinated in 1968, one year before this production came to light. Many people carry the burdens of this war with them and I'm sure this play had some impact on that memory.

The theater troupe responsible for this production is from Chichicastenango, El Quiché, called Aj-Tzay (roughly "los que vuelan"-those that fly in English). The name comes from a tradition in Chichicastenango that dates before the colonization of Guatemala called "el palo volador" (roughly the flying stick). A few men climb to the top of a pine tree cut down to its bole or trunk. After reaching the top they slowly let themselves down on a rope. Chichicastenango is a tourist destination mainly for its traditional Mayan market on Sundays and Thursdays. Moreover, the Popol Vuh originally came to light in this small town. Thus, receiving theater from a troupe from this special place is a  treat for those of us located in the capital.

The play itself is metatheater (or theater that knows it's theater) and it tends toward the grotesque: obscene gestures, lots of swearing, mutilation, guns, and finally, the actual execution of a chicken. Given the avant-garde nature of this show it was censured from Guatemala for some time. For more information about the play itself from the actual playwright you may check this website: Why Arce Leal wrote this work (in Spanish). The metatheatrical aspects include: actors "acting" as if they aren't ready for the play, bringing in a "blind" man to play the guitar (as if he were a real audience member in the beginning), actors engaging with the guitarist/singer on the front row and speaking directly to the audience (breaking down the 4th wall). Arce Leal's desire to blur the lines between fiction and reality created an atmosphere of uncertainty.

This uncertainty played well into the concept I took from the play: we may be actors but what we are presenting is real life so don't escape too far from reality. Indeed, the audience couldn't always be certain if the actors were really a part of the space with us or consumed in their own world. All this said, these actors were not professionals. It was obvious during climactic parts and emotional scenes that each character had simply memorized his/her's lines and prepared to recite them on stage to his/her partner. That really pulled me out of the play (but hey, if metatheater is your cup of tea then maybe the poor acting could be a director's choice to keep us back in reality!). However, with all this said, I am deeply grateful this troupe brought this play to us and am also grateful for any production of theater I can find here!

The biggest turning point in the piece was when the actress pictured above came on stage and directed herself to us. Holding a live chicken she informed us that for practical reasons and theatrical limitations she could no longer continue her roll as the oppressed chicken. Rather, this live chicken would replace her for the upcoming execution. She as well as many others on stage had been turned into an animal. They represented the poorer, more indigenous people of Guatemala who had become slaves under a repressive government and capitalist system. Previous to taking the stage the owners of the chicken farm had mutilated her "beak" with a candle to show the rest that eating their own eggs (for lack of real, sustainable food) was an abominable sin. This wasn't enough so the owners decided to publicly execute the rebellious chicken to stop their mutiny.

They tied the chicken to a trunk and the executioner waited behind with a sharp machete. He simply walked towards the stump and then decapitated the chicken (with a sharp "bwak" from the chicken). About 10 seconds later the larger part of the chicken moved and we heard a noise. It was the most dramatic scene of the play, and I would argue the climax. The "great distributor" came on stage with his assistants and declared how much they had won through their capitalist efforts. The rest of the actors came on stage and declared they weren't chickens anymore and were real humans. From there the play quickly finished and the actors bowed. It was a very quick denouement.

The capitalist/communist argument persists here in Guatemala. The Cold War affected much more than Russia, Cuba, Europe and the U.S.S.R. The U.S. government meddled in a lot of affairs in Latin America in order to maintain their interests and stabilize the region as a capitalist hemisphere. Even at my church there was someone who mentioned this topic saying we could never live in a friendly communal way as Christ would have us because the developed countries had shoved capitalism down their throats and there's no way to reverse it. The whole idea of oppressing the farmers because the "great distributor" wants to make more money is a classic demonstration of anti-capitalist sentiments. I choose not to entangle myself in this debate. Each person has their respective views. I simply want to show that the Cold War capitalist vs. communist ideals have not died away (as this popular Guatemalan play shows).

There were far more people at this event than the previous (most likely because there was only one function). However, for me, the play lacked a lot of "umph." By "umph" I mean something to take away. One of the most talked about ideas throughout the world is the idea of government and corporate oppression of the masses. This play demonstrated that idea through the "animalización" of these characters into chickens. However, it didn't leave us with an idea of how to solve the problem. For me it's one thing to address a problem, it's a completely other thing to be constructive and put forth new ways of thinking about the problem with a solution in mind. This play may have meant far more to Guatemalans during the actual Civil War. It may mean more to those whose lives revolve around agriculture. For me the production revolved around the shock factor of the executed chicken and I left hoping that dead chicken was going to be useful on their long way back to Chichicastenango.

Pepián de tres carnes (Pepián of Three Meats)

Yesterday my wife and I traveled to the Miguel Angel Asturias Cultural Center in Guatemala City to see a fantastic piece of adapted theatricality titled "Pepián de tres carnes." The MAACC (1978) is a huge complex which furnishes three theatrical venues: The Great Hall/National Theatre "Efraín Recinos," the smaller, more intimate theatre "Hugo Carrillo," and an outdoor venue, as well as other cultural and theatrical spaces.

Inspired by Mayan culture the outline of the facade is a jaguar in a resting position, a prominent symbol among Mayan cultures. In this particular photo the head is farther away with the back paws more prominent.  According to the MAACC website, this structure is a way of saying that there was absolutely no Greek or roman architectural influence. Rather, they created a very organic architecture that fit within Guatemalan history. 

This was my first time seeing truly Guatemalan theatre. When I say truly Guatemalan I am referring to the language, acting, themes, venue, etc. Having lived in Guatemala in various locations (Xela, San Marcos, Guatemala City) with my wife I've learned some of the colloquialisms of this region (for example=patojo, child; nombre=my goodness; a la gran púchica=you've got to be kidding).

Xela

San Marcos

Guatemala City

I have to admit that had I not experienced Guatemalan culture before seeing this play I would have been very lost. As well, many of the traditional customs reproduced in this work are still held today in various parts of the country (fear of going to the hospital to give birth because your baby could be stolen, killing a chicken if you give birth to a boy, etc). While I may be unaccustomed with some of the cultural ideologies of certain parts of this country, I still respect them and note that their cultural traditions maintain their communities united and of interest to extranjeros like me.

The theatrical troupe that is presenting this show is Teatro Barrio Viejo, under the direction of Edgar Quiñónez, a well known actor, director and writer, among other talents. He is also the Assistant Technical Director of the MAACC. He adapted this show from Hugo Leonel Valle y Valle's story book "Una mano de cuentos" (roughly "A Handful of Stories"), which relates the life of a small fictional village, San Gabriel, Sacatépequez, during the 1950's.

The play was set up so that the handful of stories would be woven into about 5, with one single thread connecting the work together. The chronological sequence of the work really depends on one thing: a university professor's obsession with figuring out why more people die after one person dies (it would seem logical but that was farcical side of the show). However, I felt that each scene was supposed to emphasize relationships and characterization. I feel that is what made this play so special. We see a little of ourselves in each of the characters. By the end of the show when the whole village celebrates a commemoration of their village's support of the Panama Canal, every single character that developed throughout the show was on stage. It was difficult to watch just one person because each character maintained their true self on stage. Honestly, it was like watching a group of friends on stage. You know how each one reacts and they are all enjoying themselves. It was real and it was fun.

Each scene had incredible actors. What really moved me throughout this work was the development of character. Each person had a relationship with another person on stage and it was very obvious how each person was accustomed to acting and reacting with each other. From what I've seen among my wife's family, they had each character right on. While there was a bit of exaggeration and lots of puns, it almost felt completely real. I've met a lot of people who act just like them!

Now, I have to say there were two actresses that stole the show for us. The first was Elizabeth Morales who played the midwife of the village and the eccentric drunk at the party. She captivated all or our attention and had us laughing with all her shot taking at the final party scene ("sus quitapenas" as she called them). The second was Ivette Monney who played Eulalia, one of the main characters throughout the play. When she would return from the market to tell her gossip she had us all captivated. There was one moment when she imitated the drunkard of the village wailing after a woman who cursed him. In one moment she was wailing, and then the next she barely could hold herself from laughing. The transition was impeccable. Absolutely outstanding.

With what I've just said I don't give any justice to the rest of the cast. Really, they were excellent. Each had their own idiosyncracies and captivated us without a doubt. For my first experience with Guatemalan theater, I am impressed and hungry for more.

As you can see from this picture the audience was almost non-existent. In fact, they might have started the show a bit late because at 8:00 P.M. there were probably 10 of us in the theater and the show finally began at 8:20 P.M. (what I like to call "hora chapina" or Chapin time-Chapin means Guatemalan). By the end there were about 20 people there.

Honestly, these are incredible actors (professional and acting students) and the only people really missing out are the ones not attending. The show continues to run until the 28th of August on the weekends in this small venue and the price is Q60 each (the equivalent of about $7.75 a ticket). If you are in the area check it out before it closes. You won't be disappointed as you enjoy a serving of Guatemalan culture in this spectacular production.