Newsites.uci.edu/filamfall2015/files/2015/09/11.09-Burns... · 2015-09-28 · Sining Bayan, a...
Transcript of Newsites.uci.edu/filamfall2015/files/2015/09/11.09-Burns... · 2015-09-28 · Sining Bayan, a...
CONTENTS
Acknow
ledgments
Vii
Introduction:Puttingon
aShow
1.“Which
Waytothe
Philippines?”United
StagesofEm
pire21
NEW
YORKUNIVERSITY
PRESSNew
YorkandLondon
2.“Splendid
Dancing”:O
fFilipinosand
TaxiDance
Halls
49www.nyupress.org
3.Coup
deTheatre:The
Dram
aofM
artialLaw75
©2013
byNew
York
University
4.“How
inthe
LightofOneNight
Allrightsreserved
DidWeComeSoFar?
Working
MissSaigon
107
ReferencestoInternetW
ebsites(URLs)w
ereaccurate
atthetimeofw
riting.Neitherthe
authornorNew
YorkUniversity
Pressisresponsible
forURLsthatCoda:C
ultureShack
139mayhave
expiredorchanged
sincethe
manuscriptw
asprepared.
Notes
147
LIBRARYOFCONGREsSCATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATIONDATA
Bibliography167
SanPablo
Burns,LucyMae.
IndexPuro
arte:Filipinos
onthe
stagesofem
pire!lucy
MaeSan
PabloBurns.
Aboutthe
Author
192p. cm
.—(Postm
illennialpop)Includes
bibliographicalreferencesand
index.ISBN
978-08147
4443-7(cloth
alk.paper)ISBN
978-08147-2545-0
(pbk.alk.paper)
ISBN978-0-8147-0813-2
(ebook)ISBN978-0-8147-4449-9(ebook)
i.Filipino
Americans—
Ethnicidentity.
2.Ethnicity—
Politicalaspects—Philippines.
3.Perform
ingarts—
Politicalaspects—Philippines.4.
Performing
arts—Political
aspects—United
States.5.Popularculture—
PoliticalaspectsPhilippines.6.
Popularculture—
Politicalaspects—United
States.7.Nationalism
Socialaspects—Philippines.
8.Imperialism
—Socialaspects—
Philippines.9.Philippines—
RelationsUnited
States.lo.
United
States—Relations—
Philippines.I.Title.
E184.F45292012
3o5.89’921o73—dc23
2012024950
New
YorkUniversity
Pressbooks
areprinted
onacid-free
paper,and
theirbindingmaterials
arechosen
forstrengthand
durability.Westrive
touse
environmentally
responsiblesuppliers
andmaterials
tothe
greatestextentpossibleinpublishing
ourbooks.
Manufactured
inthe
United
StatesofA
merica
C1098765
4325
p10
98
654
32
1
I
3CoupdeThéâtre
TheDram
aofM
artialLaw
The skitsandstoriesarein
theeverydaynews,on
thepagesofsociety
magazines
andleftistpublications,notfrom
25years
ago,butyesterday, io
minutesago,now.
—PatriciaEvangelista,Philippine
Inquirer,2007
Thischapterturnstothe
variegateddram
a(s)ofPhilippine
MartialLaw
underthe
dictatorshipofPresidentFerdinand
Marcos.In
it,I considerhow
theFili
pinoperform
ingbody
enactsthedram
aofM
artialLawintwoseem
inglydispa
ratesites:theprotestperform
ancesofSiningBayan,aculturalarm
oftheradical
FilipinoAmerican
politicalgroupKatipunan
ngmgaDemokratikong
Pilipino(KDP),and
themultiple
productionsofDogeaters:A
PlaybyJessica
Hagedorn.
Bothculturalsites,Isuggest,dexterously
mobilize
thelogic
ofpuroarte
throughtheiruse
ofspectacletoundercutdiscourses
ofexceptionalitysurrounding
theMartialLaw
regimeand
itsplacem
entinPhilippine
nationalhistoryInthese
performances,puro
arteprovidesthe
conceptual pivotthatenablesadiflerenti
atedunderstanding
of Filipinosubjecthood
andsubjugation
inthe
shadowof
MartialLaw.W
ithinthese
stage(d)acts,weare
confrontedwith
aFilipino
perform
ingbody
activelyengaged
withthe
embattled
conditionsofits
historicalpossibility.Im
provisation,humor,and
defiancetake
centerstageaswe
areon
frontedwith
ahistoryof perform
ancepunctuated
bycontradictions,eruptions,
andrelentlesscontinuities.
>75
76<
COUPDETHEATRE
COUPDETHEATRE
>>77
SiningBayan’s turn
topolitical theateras
amode
andpractice
ofpoliticalpraxis
is puroarte
inits full artful expression. W
esee puro
arteatw
orkinthe
protest art ofSiningBayan
asthey
transformand
revitalizepolitical practice
forFilipino
diasporiccom
munities
inthe
United
States. From1973
to1981,
SiningBayan
infusedatransnational
andhistorical agenda
intothe
Philippine
nationaldem
ocraticmovem
entasit staged
theatrical productionsthat
includedplays
about earlyFilipino
migrant w
orkersinthe
United
States,theshared
landstruggle
between
Christian
Filipinosand
Moros
inthe
Philippines, and
thecam
paigntofree
twoFilipina
nursesaccused
of multiple
mur
dersinaveterans
hospitalinMichigan.
EvenasMartial Law
playsacentral
roleinSining
Bayan’s production, their performances
continuallylinked
thefreedom
of theFilipinos
andthe
well-being
of immigrant com
munities. Such
formsofconnectivity
andprotest
areequally
evidentinthe
early-twenty-
first-centuryproductions
of JessicaHagedorn’s D
ogeaters inthe
United
Statesand
inManila,
Philippines, asthese
productionsgrapple
withthe
narrativeof M
artial Lawand
itsplace
innational and
diasporichistories
nearlythirty
years later. BothSining
Bayan’s spectacle-for-agit-propand
Dogeaters’ defiant
humor(s)
confront MartialLaw
lessasanextraordinary
moment in
Filipinohistory
thanasanenduring
theater of imperial subjection
andaffect.
Insom
enarrations, the
Martial Law
periodhas been
regardedas a
stainin
thecountry’s
modern
history, onethat has
damaged
thePhilippines’
image
as, inStephen
Shalom’swords, “Am
erica’sNext Top
Model”
of democracy.’ It
ismarked
asanexceptional m
oment in
which
thecountry
deviatedfrom
itsrighteous
democratic
path.Though
PresidentLaurel
declaredMartial Law
inthe
Philippinesin1944, during
theSecond
World
War, the
1972declara
tionisthe
onecited
asa“harbinger of doom
forthefuture
ofthePhilippine
Republic”(“Proclam
ationio8i”). Yet radical protest narratives
offer adiffer
ingview.
Thedeclaration
ofMartial
Law,for
anti-Marcos
activists,infact
exposedthe
failedsystem
thatthe
Philippineshad
beenunder. M
artial Lawsanctioned
corrupt andrepressive
government m
ethodsthat w
erealready
inpractice.
Inother
words,
anti—Martial
Law/anti-M
arcosactivists
built theiroppositional politicsto
exposeMartial Law
aswhat political theorist G
iorgioAgam
bencalls
a“state
of exception:’Agam
bendevelops
thenotion
of“stateof exception”
todescribe
state-sanctionedviolence
that occuswhen
thestate,
duringtimesitconsiders
moments
of crisis, legalizesthe
right of thegovern
ment
tosuspend
civilliberties
andother
lawsprotecting
individuals’free
domof action.
Heconcludes
thatthe
“declarationofthe
stateof exception
hasgradually
beenreplaced
byanunprecedented
generalizationof the
paradigm
of securityasthe
normal technique
of government”
(14). Hence, secu
rityisnot
onlynaturalized
asamode
ofrule;itis
alsotightly
coupledwith
thegovernm
entspow
ertogive
andtake
awayfreedom
ofanindividual’sand
group’saction.
SiningBayan’s
socialprotest
theater,and
otheranti—
Martial
Lawexpressions,delivered
messages
tocounter
the“state
ofexception:’2
Ianalyzethe
historyofSining
Bayanalongside
theDogeaters
productionsprecisely
todem
ystifythe
hegemonic
narrativeofM
artialLaw
asadevia
tionfrom
thePhilippines’
otherwise
straightand
cleartrajectury
award
adem
ocraticpath. In
chapter2, Iw
orkedagainst the
exceptionalityof the
Filipino
performing
bodyinU.S.taxidance
hallsbyreading
itsemergenLe
during
theanti-Filipino
movem
entthat
swept
theearly
193os.Siniilarly
Iam
interestedhere
inthe
emergence
of aFilipino
diasporicsocial
protestthe
aterpracticenotas
aunique
phenomenon;
neitheram
I investedinreifying
thedesignation
ofthehighly
acclaimedwork
Dogeaters
asaliterary
work
that hasmade
Filipinosvisibleinthe
U.S.andglobalim
aginary. Inthis
chapter,Ichoose
insteadtonarrate
SiningBayan
asanartistic
practicesituated
within
ahistory
of politicaltheater
inthe
Philippinesinwhich
theaterhas
beenused
toprotest
againstthe
colonialgovernm
entand
continuestobe
usedasanexpression
ofdissent
againstagovernm
entthat
politialtheo
ristWalden
Bellolabels
asan
“elitedem
ocracy”(Bello
etal.a).Such
ahis
toryforegrounds
aFilipino
American
organization’suses
ofculturalexpressions,in
particulartheater,to
engagewith
thePhilippines’
repressivestate,
asequally
inspiredbyanti—
MartialLaw
culturalworkers
inthe
Philippinesand
socialprotest
theaterinthe
United
States,such
asTeatro
Campesino,
thecultural
armtothe
FarmWorkers
Movem
ent.Through
suchCom
plexgenealogies,Sining
Bayanpushed
foramodelof socialprotest that
empha
sizedthe
energizingand
oftendisruptive
roleof im
aginationintransthrm
ingpoliticalaction
fortheFilipinos
inthe
United
States.Myobjective
inlinking
SiningBayan
with
Dogeaters
istoproduce
MartialLaw
asaculturalas
wellasa
diasporicand
transnationalphenomenon.4
Further,thelens
ofpuroarte
focusesonthe
deployment
ofculture,specifically
thespectacle
ofcultural
expressions,forandagainst M
artialLaw.Juxtaposing
thesocial
protesttheater
ofSining
Bayanagainst
awell-
knownplay
onMartial
Lawdeem
phasizesdivisions
between
thesegenres
ofperformance—
thepublic
domain
ofprotestperformance
andthe
private,interiorw
orldofstage
drama.Through
thesedifferent stagings
andstages
ofMartial Law,we
move
toward
anunderstanding
ofthishistorical eventas
anenduring
referenceboth
forongoing
stateviolence
andfor
theresilience
ofpeople’s
power. M
artialLawcontinues
tobeperform
ed—for
itslasting
institutions
thatarethe
marks
ofthemodern
Philippines, foritsviolent legacies
nevertobeforgotten, and
formemories
ofandtestim
oniestoresistance
andsurvival.
4
78<<
COUPDliTHEATRli
Becausethe
readingsIproffer
areembedded
indiscourses
ofculture
anditsmaterial
anchors,Iam
especiallyinterested
inapproaching
“culture”
throughamore
robustmodelof distributive
linkagesamong
thesocial
strugglesofFilipinos. C
ulturalwork,in
variousmedia
outlets,includingthe
ater,wasundeniably
centraltocreating
aworldview
oppositionaltoMar
tialLaw,which
I refertoas“culture
againstMartialLaw:’ Tw
ounderstand
ingsofculture
areat w
orkhere.O
nthe
onehand,asR
aymond
William
shaswritten,culture
is“the
independentandabstractnoun
which
describesthe
works
andpractices
of intellectualand
especiallyartistic
activity”(90).O
nthe
otherhand,culture
alsorefers
more
expansivelyto“aparticular
wayof
life.”Culture
againstMartialLaw,as
aworldview
andasacollective
creativeproduct,
exposedthe
repressiveregulatory
practicesthatthe
stateroutinely
obfuscatedand
naturalized.MartialLaw
wasMarcos’sw
ayof increasing
andcentralizing
executivepow
er,strengtheningongoing
imperialisttiesw
iththe
United
States,andcurtailing
dissentingopinions.In
theirefforts
tocounter
MartialLaw, activists,such
asSining
Bayan,accessedculturalproduction
inmultiple
ways:to
opposeand
counterthesuppression
ofthepress’sfreedom
;toinform
thepublic,through
alternativemeans,ofthe
government’s
useof
excessiveforce—
disappearances,detentions,
andkillings—
asitsdisciplin
ingmeasures;to
inspirereflection
andaction
among
disempow
eredcitizens;
andtooffervisions
ofdifferentpossibilities.Toarrive
ataclearerhistoricalunderstandingofthe
linkagesbetweencul
tureand
MartialLaw,itisfirstim
portanttograpple
withthe
extenttowhich
theMarcos
regimemobilized
culturalproduction
ascentral
tothe
mainte
nance,naturalization,
andultim
atedesirability
ofauthoritarian
rule—in
otherwords,to
produceaculture
ofMartialLaw.H
owdeftly
didFerdinand
andImelda
Marcos
mine
thearts
toimplem
enttheir
visionof“K
ilusanna
BagongLipunan/N
ewSociety”?5
Underthe
Marcos
modelof“N
ewSociety’
artistsand
culturalproductsbecam
ethe
verypillarsofa
“compassionate
dictatorship”
(Nuguid
33).
I.Compassionate
Dictatorship:M
obilizationsofC
ultureforM
artialLaw
MartialLaw
inthe
Philippinescan
atoncebedescribed
asaspecific
periodoftim
e,arule
oflaw,and/or
aregim
einextricably
linkedtothe
dictatorship
of FerdinandMarcos.But
itwasalso
anaffective
sociopoliticalcondition
thatfosteredaclim
ateoffearand
repression,brutalviolenceand
terror,on
adaily
basis.In1972,M
arcosdeclared
nationwide
MartialLaw
(referredtoas“Batas
Militar”
inFilipino)
throughthe
establishmentofthe
infamous
COUPDETHEArRF
>>
79
Proclamation
io8i.The
lawprovided
thepresident
executiveauthority
tocentralize
government
power,tosuspend
civilrights,
andtoregulate
lawthrough
military
rule.Marcos’s
justificationswere
numerous,
includingoligarchy
andthe
threatofcommunism
.Oneoft-cited
incidentbehind
hisdecision
todeclare
MartialLaw
wasanalleged
assassinationattem
ptagainstthe
lifeofhis
defenseminister,Juan
PonceEnrile.M
arcosheld
responsiblethose
who
havebeen
andare
actuallystaging,
undertakingand
waginganarm
edinsurrection
andrebellion
againsttheGovernm
entoftheRepublic
ofthePhilippinesin
ordertoforcibly
seizepoliticalandstate
powerin
thiscountry,overthrow
theduly
constitutedgovernm
ent,andsupplantourexisting
political,social,economicand
legalorderwithanentirely
newone
whose
formofgovernm
ent,whose
systemoflaws,
whoseconception
ofGod
andreligion,whose
notionofindividualrights
andfam
ilyrelatinn,
andwhose
political,social,economic,legaland
moralprecepts
arebased
onthe
Marxist-Leninist.M
aoistteachingsandbeliefs.(“Proclam
ationio8i”)
Marcos
alsoreferred
toBatas
Militar
asthe
“September
21stMovem
ent,”proudly
claiming
hisNew
Societytobeamuch-needed
“revolutionfrom
thecenter.”
Bydescribing
MartialLaw
asanational“m
ovement:’
Marcos
appropriated
revolutionaryand
radicalimpulses
attachedtothe
term—concern
forthepoor,socialjustice,collective
action—torew
orkthem
asconstitutive
oftheNew
Society.He
insistedthat
allnecessarychange
must
he‘led
bythegovernm
ent”soasto
enact“drasticand
substantialreformsinallaspects
ofnationallife”(Revolution
fromthe
Center,32).
Therevolution
wastobe
bloodlessand
nonviolent,envisioned
toinaugurate
a“movem
entfor
greatreform
sinallspheres
ofnationallife,aremaking
ofsociety,towards
nationalsurvival”
(36-38).Marcos
repeatedlyemphasized
thatthepath
tothe
“Septem
ber21stM
ovement”
waslegalandconstitutional(hence
“center”)and
indistinctcontrastto
thedisruptive
waysofthe
Communists,w
howere
more
attachedto“unceasing
struggle”(Notes
onthe
New
Society,44)
Inother
words,Marcos
offeredthe
modelofM
artialLawasarational,
enlightened,modern
formaim
edatadram
aticrestructuring
ofthePhilippine
governmentand
society.TheMartialLaw,in
thissense,isaprogressiverule
oflaw,arelieffrom
“unceasingstruggle:’
Togetherwith
socialreform
ssuch
asthe
agrarian“Green
Revolution’
thecultivation
ofaculturally
richnation
presentedabenevolent
image
ofwhatN
atiNuguid
callsa“com
passionatesociety”
().This
“ompassion
atesociety”
ofdictatorialrule
advancesvalues
suchas“concern
foronce
L
80 < coup im THEATRE
neglected segments of society” The culture of/for Martial Law justified totalitarian rule through its display of a kind, gentle, civil, and modernstate. ‘What does it mean for a dictatorial, militant state to be compassionate?How can a dictatorship be “compassionate”? There is “nothing clear aboutcompassion:’ feminist Queer Studies scholar Lauren Berlant notes, “except itimplies social relations between spectators and sufferers, with emphasis onspectators’ experience of feeling compassion and relation to material practice” (i). Berlant’s theory of compassion is useful here as it illuminates thestakes of an emotional state, or how and when the ruling power chooses todescribe itself through the language of emotion. In particular, by characterizing itself as compassionate, and promoting its policies and philosophiesas such, the regime of Martial Law humanizes itself. Marcos’s Bagong Lipunan distinguished itself as a humane regime with its claim to compassionIt further reinforces the state as a moral institution, providing guidance onhow to behave. A moral state is a conflation of contradictions, for oftentimesmorality is depicted as transcending the bounds of the law. Furthermore, acompassionate state, Berlant argues, presumes “all social membership as voluntary:’ thereby equalizing the roles and responsibilities of the state, localinstitutions, and citizens “to take up the obligation to ameliorate suffering”(s). In the case of the Marcos regime, the idea of a “compassionate state” wassolidified through its attachments to and mobilizations of the idea of cultureCultural products, such as music festivals, fashion shows, and beauty pageants, were deployed to perform the salvific miracles of Marcos’s “compassionate state:’How did culture play a role in creating, naturalizing, and regulating
authoritarian rule? In other words, what was and is the culture of/for MartialLaw? There is, for instance, ample evidence that the “September 21st Movement’s” mobilization of cultural production and artists secured moral andjudicial authority for the Marcos regime. Under the New Society, “Philippineculture” became visible as a modern society to the world at large. Imelda,partner to what writer Primitivo Mijares calls “conjugal dictatorship:’ oversaw the nation’s artistic enhancement projects as the head of the ministryof culture. Imelda’s numerous cultural initiatives were a stunning deployment of spectacle to blind the world and Filipinos themselves to the poverty, corruption, and murder ongoing under this administration. A list ofworld-renowned artists who visited the Philippines during this time includesthe San Francisco Ballet, the Boston Opera, and the London Symphony,and events such as the 1974 Miss Universe Beauty Pageant and the International Film Festival were held in the country. While their agenda valorizedEuro-American cultural domination, Nicanor Tiongson also argues that the
I COUP DE THiArRF > 81
Marcos government “consciously cultivated an image of itself as the patronof nationalist culture” with events such as Kasaysayan ng Lahi (a massiveparade representing the history of the Philippine nation and Filipino people); Bagong Anyo/New Year fashion shows featuring contemporary designsof Filipino national costumes, including the terno and the Maria Clara; theMetro Manila Popular Music Festival, which yielded musical talents suchas Freddie Aguilar; and the National Artist Awards program Famouslytouted as an example of Imelda’s “edifice complex:’ the Cultural Center of thePhilippines Complex (CCP) was also erected at this time (Lico). The CCPincludes the Philippine International Convention Center, the Folk Arts Center the Philippine Film Center, the Coconut Plaza, and the Philippine Viilage Hotel.6 “State propaganda’ cultural productions, as coined by Philippineliterature scholar Bien Lumbera, were designed to promote the values of theNew Society to engender what Marcos called a genuine “revolution from thetop:’ World-captivating events such as the International Film Festival and theThrilla in Manila event (a high-stakes boxing match between two Americanchampions, Muhammad Mi and Joe Fraser) were widely advertised in aneffort to draw international audiences. Art historian Pearlie Baluvut argues,
Through these highly centralized institutions, which had the abilit tocultivate, strengthen, and disseminate the value systems, traditions andbeliefs of the Filipinos as a people, as well as cross the lines of political constituency, kinship ties, and special interest groups, the Marcos rule engendered a condition of cultural rebirth in a magnitude and scale never to beseen again in the Philippines. (xvii- xviii)
Under the aegis of their “New Society:’ the Marcoses carefully undertookthe refashioning (as it were) of Philippine national history, mobilizing personaland national narratives to construct the (favorable) inevitability of the Marcosregime. The Marcos Bust built on a Benguet hillside on the 355-hectare MarcosPark and the history book President Marcos penned, Tadhana: The History ofthe Filipino People, explicitly insert the Marcoses into Philippine historyf VinceRafael argues that such a staged sampling of personal and national historiesmade “it appear as if they were always meant to be the First Couple” (127).Not content with populating the contemporary national landscape with bustsand writings, the Marcoses even tampered with the iconic creation myths andlegends of the Philippine nation. For example, they commissioned paintingsof Malakas (strong) to feature Ferdinand himself and Maganda (beautiful) inthe likeness of Imelda. The first couple assigned themselves legendary status asthe “first Filipino man and woman who emerged from a large bamboo stalk”
ICOUP
LiETHATRE
>83
82<<
COUPDETHEATRE
(Rafael122). The
verynotion
of “revolutionfrom
thecenter”
craftsMarcos
asarevolutionary, as
if hisregim
ewasput in
placeby
amovem
ent that reprisedthe
nation’sfounding
strugglesagainst Spain. In
theseways, M
arcos constantlyproclaim
edthe
exceptional characterof his
presidency:“Thus
martial law
inthe
Philippines takes onaunique
character fromthe
untenablestrategy
of protecting
or restoringthe
statusquo
toamilitant, constitutional, and
legal strategy
for creatingand
building, fromthe
ashesof the
old, anew
society”(Notes
onthe
NewSociety, vii). Invoking
thephoenix
risingfrom
itsownashes, the
mythological
symbol
of life, resurrection, andimmortality, M
arcoscreated
acultural m
echanismtolegitim
izehis
ruleasapersonal and
national tadhana(fate
ordestiny).
Marcos’s
notionof destiny
isa“kind
of transhistorical andthus
natural right torule, [and]
is made
tofunction
as theunassailable
contextdeterm
iningnot only
hispast but that of other Filipinos
as well”(Rafael
128).
If theMarcos
dictatorshipdeployed
cultural spectacle, theMarcoses’ own
versionofpuro
arte,tosuccessfully
sediment
“compassionate”
rule,then
what
were
theform
sofresistance
andopposition
againstit?After
all, formost ordinary
Filipinos, the“New
Society”represented
anescalation
ofsuffering,
terror, violence,fear,
torture,and
threat.Adifferent
revolutionwas
needed,parsed
throughand
againstthe
veryidiom
sofculture
mobilized
bythe
Marcos
regime—arevolutionary
cultureagainst
Martial
Law.Cul
turewould
provetobeasite
of fiercecontestation. Even
asit w
asutilized
toenforce
andnaturalize
ahighly
centralizedgovernance
andmilitary
force,culture
alsobecam
easite
of oppositional practices.
II. Culture
against Martial Law
: Toward
aTheater of the
People
Thefractures
within
theU.S. nation
andthe
Philippines’Martial Law
set thestage
forSining
Bayan’sdram
a.Sining
Bayan’semergence
within
thesehis
torical contextsand
political moments
illustratesFilipino
American
participation
duringanintense
periodof reim
aginingsocial
relationsinboth
thePhilippines
andthe
United
States.The
turbulentpolitical
upheavalsof the
post—civil rights
eraproduced
adynam
iccultural
movem
ent inthe
United
States. Theracist
andimperialist
Vietnam
Warwasagalvanizing
cause, anevent that opened
theeyes
of many
Americans
tothe
darkunderbelly
oftheAmerican
nation. Yet for many
racializedcom
munities
inthe
United
States,the
Vietnam
War w
asonly
oneamong
along
list of long-heldgrievances. As
Harry
Elamwrites,
At theoutset of the
1960sthe
nationwatched
intentlyascivil rights
protesters
inthe
Southvaliantly
resistedJim
Crowlaws
andmob
violence,
water
hosesand
attackdogs,
racialsegregation
anddiscrim
ination.Out
inthe
FarWestm
igrantworkers
inthe
SanJoaquin
ValleyofCaliform
a,impatient
andfrustrated
with
theirsubstandard
wagesand
inadequatehousing,follow
edthe
leadofthe
civil rightsactivists
andorganized
aplanofresistance.
(20)
This periodwitnessed
anew
phaseofracialaw
arenesswithpoliticalprojects
suchasthe
BlackPow
erMovem
ent,theAmerican
IndianMovem
ent,and
LaHuelga
Movem
entthatwere
notsimply
identity-basedcalls
forinclusion
oftheblack
community,the
Native
American
community,
andthe
migrant
worker in
theAmerican
socialfabricThese
movem
entspushed
foraradical
reimagination
of subjectivitythattook
totask
thewhite,liberal subjectas
themarker ofnotjustw
hoisanAmerican
butwho
ishum
an.Thisrecenceptu
alizationofsubjectivity
isthus
inextricablefrom
whatstate,culture, and
thecore
ofsocialrelationsmightlook
likefrom
anonw
hite, liberalpointofview.As C
ynthiaYoung
arguesinSoulPow
er,“U.S.ThirdWorld
Leftists..turned
toThird
World
anticolonialstrugglesfor
ideasand
strategiesthatm
ightaidtheirow
nstruggles
againstthepoverty, discrim
ination,andbrutality
facingpeoples
ofcolor”
(2).Y
oungfurther
statesthat
“thisU.S. Third
World
Leftcreated
cultural,material, and
ideologicallinkstothe
ThirdWorld
asamode
throughwhich
tocontestU.S. econom
ic,racial,and
culturalarrangements”
(s). Itisunder
suchconditions
inthe
United
Statesthatthe
radicalFilipino
American
organizationKatipunan
ngmgaDemokratikong
Piipinoand
itsculturalarm
,SiningBayan,perform
editsrevolutionary
practicesBythe
timeofthe
Vietnam
War,theaterw
asbeing
continuallyinvoked
asaprim
aryculturalm
ediumthrough
which
radicalpoliticscould
exploreand
spreadideas
ofsocialandrevolutionary
change.Asawell-docum
entedform
of socialprotest,theaterwasatoolof politicalaction,utilized
toexpose, cri
tique,andre-envision
U.S.racerelations,to
denouncepatriarchy,to
explorea“safe”
spacefor
women,
andtorally
againstoppressive
andunfair
laborconditions.
Groups
suchas
ElTeatro
Campesino
andthe
SanFrancisco
MimeTroupe
providedcrucial
sourcesofartistic
andpolitical
inspirationforSining
Bayan.Along
with
thesegroups,
SiningBayan
waspartofa
theater
movem
entcom
mitted
toworking-class
audiencesand
totheater
asa
medium
of politicalexpression.ElTeatro
Campesino,
specifically,provided
much
creativeand
politicalinspiration
forSiningBayan’s anti—
MartialLaw
theatrical productions.Many
of SiningBayan’s
works
paralleledElTeatro
Campesino’s
politicalvision.
For LuisValdez,one
ofthecentral
figuresinEl Teatro
Campesino, theater
wasfirst
andforem
ostatool
ofrevolutionary
thought:“Weshouldn
tbe
II
84<<coup
DETHEATRE
COUPDETHEATRE>
85
judgedasa
theater. We’re
reallyapart ofa cause”
(qtd.inElam
9)•8ElTeatro
Campesino
put onstage
themultiple
concernsof m
igrant workers, focusing
itscreative
effortsonthe
fight for betterwages
andbetter
livingconditions
forfarm
workers
inCalifornia.9
El TeatroCampesino
routinelybegan
with
performers
whowere
farmworkers
themselves
andperform
edinpicket lines
andinthe
fields. ‘Their well-know
nactos
areshort perform
ances, enactedin
variousvenues, including
truckbeds
infields
where
farmworkers
labored.The
actoswere
quick, bilingual, anddesigned
toeducate
theaudience
aboutthe
struggleand
move
themtow
ardaction.’°
Ermena
Vinluan,a
keymeim
berof SiningBayan, recalls
El TeatroCam
pesino’scom
mitmentto
theFarm
Workers
Movem
ent,totheir
Mexican
roots,and
toCalifornia
asinspira
tionaltoher collective’s
creativeefforts. For exam
ple,inthe
summerof197,
Vinluan
participatedinaworkshop
conductedbydirector Peter Brookswith
El TeatroCampesino, focusing
ontheaterasa
ritual fieldof action.”
Likemany
theatergroups
committed
tosocial
changeatthe
time,Sin
ingBayan
wasequally
influencedbythe
well-know
nSan
FranciscoMime
Troupe. TheMimeTroupe
hasretained
itsstrong
identificationwithwork
ing-classvalues
sinceitsfounding
in1959
byR. G.
Davis.
Utilizing
popular
entertainment
formssuch
asmime,juggling,
clowning,
commedia
delarte, and
minstrelsy, the
MimeTroupe
works
tocreate
theaterthatsupportsradicals,
boththrough
endorsement
andthrough
friendlycritique.
Mime,
inthe
styleofAmerican
BusterKeaton
andEnglishm
anCharlie
Chaplin,whowere
knownfortheir innovative
comedic
acting, wasanantidote
tothe
dominance
of “psychological realism”intheaters
(Shank60). The
large-scaleupheavals
ofthelate
196osdrew
theMimeTroupe
toapply
theoriesof social
ismtoemplot a
working-class—
centeredcreative
vision. In1962, they
beganperform
inginpublic
parkswiththe
explicit intentof making
theateraccessible
toordinary
people. By1970, the
MimeTroupe’s
attempts
toreach
outtoaworking-class
audienceled
thegroup
tostrive
toward
amultiracialensem
ble,reflecting
thecom
positionof the
audiencesthey
were
seekingtoreach.
Sinceitsinception, the
MimeTroupe
hasbeen
citedasapioneering
forcein
thehistory
of social protest theater for “revivingthe
traditionof perform
ingtheatre
for working-class
audiencesinthe
United
States”(Friedm
an173).
While
thestruggle
forracial
andclass
justiceinspired
protesttheater
groupssuch
asElTeatro
Campesino
andthe
MimeTroupe
inthe
United
States, Martial Law
galvanizedprotest actions
among
Filipinosinthe
Philippines
andinthe
diaspora.Filipino
Americans
laboredtooust
theMarcos
dictatorshipand
tosecure
atruly
democratic
Philippinestate, linking
with
andtaking
ownership
ofthe
strugglefor
aliberated
Philippines.Activists
Madge
Belloand
Vince
Reyesacknow
ledgedanti—
Martial Law
/anti-Marcos
politicalwork
inthe
United
Statesas“keepingthe
lightofresistanceaflam
e”bymaintaining
theflow
ofinform
ationtoand
fromthe
Philippines,and
tothe
American
public,especially
inthe
earlyyears
ofMartial
1awwhen
repressioninthe
Philippineshad
silenceddem
ocraticforces().
Belloand
Reyescharacterize
thecultural
aspectofthe
progressiveU.S
hasedanti—
MartialLaw
movem
entasbeing
“largelyinfluenced
bytheprogreive
culturalcurrentin
thePhilippines”
(78).The
growing
“culturalcurrentinthe
Philippines”included
theanrgroups
suchasthe
University
ofPhilippinesRepertory
(withleaderBehn
Cervantes,who
waslater
incarcerated)and
thePhilippine
EducationalTheater
Asso
ciation(PETA
).These
groupsattacked
theforces
ofcorrupt
government,
imperialism
, unjustsocialstructures,andworker
exploitationthrough
theirtheatrical
innovationofcontem
poraryversions
oftraditionalperform
anceform
s(such
asthe
Catholic
mass
andkom
edyas)and
adaptationsofolder
plays.0
Lumbera
arguesthat,
indeed,“Ofthe
outletsfor
anti-dictatorshippropaganda
bythe
nationaldemocratic
movem
ent,theaterproved
tobethe
mostdaring
andthe
mosteffective”(s). D
espitestrictsurveillance
andregu
lationbythe
Office
ofCivilDefense
andRelations,theaterbecam
ethe
most
visible,audible,andeffective
toolofanti—MartialLaw
protest.L
Ofnote
hereisthat
Filipinos’deploym
entoftheateras
ameans
ofprotestpredates
Martial
Law,and
harksback
tothe
“eraofSeditious
Dram
a.”Betw
een1902
and1906,playw
rightsJuan
Abad,
JuanMatapang
Cruz,and
Aurelio
Tolentinowere
chargedunder
the“Sedition
Act”
of1901
forwrit
ingplays
that“inculcate
aspirit
ofhatred
andenm
ityagainst
theAmeri
canpeople
andthe
Governm
entofthe
United
Statesinthe
Philippine&”4
These“seditious
plays:’perform
edmostly
inTagalog
andstaged
ingreater
Manila,Bulacan,and
IlocosNorte,w
erebanned
forsupposedincitem
entofanti-A
merican
sentiments
andprovoking
riots.Thosewhopenned
theseso
calledseditious
playswere
finedand
jailed.Therewere
numerous
instancesinwhich
actorswere
arrestedand
propswere
confiscated.Inanextraord,
narymeasure,
therewasone
occasionwhen
theentire
audiencewas
alsoarrested
(Fernandez,“Introduction”).
Theplays
bredcom
plicity,itwas
argued,where
theboundaries
between
audienceand
stagebecom
eporous
and“sedition”
thecontagion
thatstrikesall.
Likethese
seditiousplays,
SiningBayan’s
theatricalperform
ancespro
videdapublic
andshared
spaceofcritique,protest,and
acallfor
collectivereim
aginationofFilipino
self-determination.By
situatingthe
SeditiousAct,
which
basicallydeem
edFilipinos
asforeigners
intheir
ownland
(not-yet-nation),alongside
SiningBayan,Ireroute
agenealogy
ofFilipinoAmerican
protestperform
ancethrough
ahistory
ofanti-im
perialism—
agenealogy
II
86<<
cOuP
DETHEATRE
that resolutelymarks
theFilipino
performing
protest asboth
aneffect and
problemof nationalist production.
III. “Keeping
theLight of Resistance”:
SiningBayan’s
Coup
deThéâtre
SiningBayan
enacteda“culture
against Martial Law”
insofarastheirpoliti
cal andartistic
habitson
stageand
ineveryday
lifesought to
buildsolidar
itybetw
eenthe
strugglesof Filipinos
againststate
terrorand
theantiracist
politicsofU.S.
peopleofcolor.
Theirbody
of work
presentsan
expansivelandscape
of anti—Martial Law
politicsthat decentralized
Martial Law
asthesole
andprim
aryobject from
which
tobuild
apolitical agenda. Such
amulti-
prongedapproach
linkedU.S. antiracist w
orkand
strugglesagainst M
arcos’srepressive
state, aninventive
approachmade
bothnecessary
andpossible
bySining
Bayan’s diasporiclocation
andaffiliation.
SiningBayan
enactspuro
arteasanexpression
of protestperform
ance.Theirpolitical theater m
akesuse
of thepow
er of spectacletoinvite
participation
andcollective
action. Justas puroarte
makes
abig
dealout of nothing,draw
ingattention
tothe
labor of performance
throughshow
manship, it also
makes
spectacleordinary.
Forexam
ple,Sining
Bayandeploys
multidisci
plinarystaging
andcasting
asrecruiting
strategiesand
community
buildingtactics.
Whydouble
castarole
when
more
performers
meant
more
possibilities
for recruitment and
more
audiencemembers
inthe
house?This
perspective
shiftsthe
termsof organizing
toward
thelogic
of castabilityand
roleassignation;
yet,inthis
logic,casting
oddlybecom
esaninclusive
practicerather
thanaselective
one. SiningBayan’s
approachtotheater
asanexpres
sionof the
popular extendsradical politics
asimaginable
andenacted
bythe
commontao
(person).From
1973to
1981, SiningBayan
renderedtheir
theaterwork
asavehicle
topopularize
theirpolitical
agenda,asanorganizing
tool,and
asanedu
cationaltool.
Self-definedasacultural
armtothe
radicalFilipino
politicalorganization
KDP,Sining
Bayandrew
fromthe
popularnotion
of people’stheater.
Theywere
directlylinked
with
thePhilippine
nationaldem
ocraticmovem
ent, which
calledfor “popular
democracy, national sovereignty, peo
ple’swelfare
andeconom
icdevelopm
ent,national
unity,and
internationalsolidarity”
(Geron
etal.6i8),
Although
thegroups
creativeprocess
canbe
describedascollective
creation, Ermena
Vinluan, now
adocum
entaryifim
maker, was the
creativeforce
behindSining
Bayan’s productions.Sinirig
Bayan’srepertoire
reflectedthe
two-pronged
approachoftheir
politicalagenda:
supportingthe
strugglefor
asocialist
alternativeinthe
COUPDETHEAtRE
>‘
87
United
Statesandsupporting
thenationaldem
ocraticstruggle
inthe
Philippines
(Geron
etal.).So,forexample,they
mounted
productionsthatfocused
onthe
manongs,
theFilipino
migrant
workers
(IsudatiIrnunalThey
Who
WereFirst),as
well
ason
Filipinawarbrides( W
arbrides),using
oralhisto
ries ofearlymigrants
asdram
aturgicalsourcesforthese
productions.’5
Suchplaysem
phasizedthe
violenceof capitalon
theFilipino
laboringbody
while
simultaneously
stagingthe
resilienceof these
earlymigrants.They
alsopro
ducedadaptations
of Filipinoplays
andscripts
tofocus
onthe
landrights
struggleofMuslim
sand
farmers
inthe
SouthernPhilippines
(Mmdariao)
andFilipino
peasantworkers
(Sakada).Theagit-prop
playNarciso
andPerez
was written
forKDP’s
campaign
tofree
thewrongly
accusednurses
FilipinaNarciso
andLeonora
Perez.Thisplay
highlightsthe
racistbiasinthe
healthr
caresystem
,themedia,and
thejustice
systeminitsunfairindictm
entoftwo
Filipinanurses
chargedwithmurder.Sining
Bayanalso
addressedthepress
ingissue
ofelderlyhousing
intheir
playTagatupad
(ThoseWhoMustCarry
On), echoingthe
evictionoflong-tim
eresidents
ofInternationalHotel,an
iconicactiviststruggle
inAsian
American
history.’6
SiningBayan’s
lastproduction
wasTiM
angyuna(Those
WhoLed
theWay),aplay
aboutthehistory
oforganizinginthe
Filipinolabor
community
ofHawaii
inthe
1920Sand
1930S.Throughthese
productions,SiningBayan
articulatedFilipino
Ameri
canidentity
formation
ashistorically
linkedtothe
strugglesofthe
working
class—globally
andamong
Filipinosinthe
United
States,thePhilippines, and
other partsofthe
world.W
hileeach
playpresented
thestark
realityofphysi
cal, systemic,and
epistemological
violenceagainst
Filipinosinthe
United
Statesandthe
Philippines,eachproduction
alsoemphasized
thetriam
phof
collectivestruggle
againstoppressiveforces.Truly
arehearsalforthe
revolutJon, as
theaterdirectorAugusto
Boalsaidof“theaterofthe
oppressed:’Sin
ingBayan’s
playspresented
clearcriticism
s,pointedtothe
focusofprotest,
enactedtheirproposed
tactic,andaffirm
edwhothe
agentsofchange
are.The
scriptoftheagit-prop
playNarciso
andPerez
highlightsSining
Bay-an’s
useofpolitical
theatertoadvance
acam
paignand
thewaytheir
dramatic
narrativeemphasized
thepossibility
ofradicaltransformation
forFili
pinomigrantcom
munities.N
arcisoand
Perez,aplay
describedbyErm
enaVinluan
inaninterview
with
Roberta
Uno,
ismore
directlyagit-prop
thanthe
otherplays
inSining
Bayan’srepertoire,w
aswritten
aspart
ofthecam
paigntodefend
twoimmigrant
Filipinonurses
wrongly
accusedofm
urder.In1976,Filipina
Narciso
andLeonora
Perezfaced
multiple
murder
chargesofpatients
ataveteranshospitalin
AnnArbor,M
ichigan.’Narciso
andPerez
wasperform
edas
awaytodissem
inateinform
ationabout
theirwrong
ful accusationand
toenlistaudience
members
in“the
movem
enttodefend
I
1•
88‘<
COUPDETHEAIRE
COUPDETHEATRi
89
Narciso
andPerez”
(Narciso
andPerez
programnotes).The
playvery
pointedly
focusesonstructural conditions
fromwhich,in
fact,theaccused
nursessuffered:gross
racialdiscrimination, poorw
orkingconditions, and
negligentinvestigation
conductedbythe
FederalBureau
ofInvestigaton
(FBI).The
movem
enttodefend
Narciso
andPerez
translatesasamovem
enttosituate
theaccused
nurses’predicam
entbeyondthe
chargeofm
ultiplemurders.At
theend
oftheplay,the
charactersonstage
turntothe
audienceand
directlyask
themto“supportthe
movem
enttodefend
Narciso
andPerez.”
Theaudi
encebecom
espart
ofthe
playasthe
actionmoves
off-stage,directed
thistimebythe
audience’sownthoughts
andresponses
tothe
calltoarm
s.Inthis
way,theplay’s
actionforges
acollective
movem
enttoward
endingdis
crimination
andlabor
exploitation(play
program).Sining
Bayan’semphasis
onstructural conditions
models
apoliticalprojectthat builds
fromindivid
ual strugglesand
putsthem
within
alarger
contextofthe
interrelationshipamong
political,economic, social,and
cultural systems.
Illustrativeofthe
tacticof building
aculture
againstMartial Law,Sining
Bayanturns
thetables
toexpose
thecorruption
ofthesystem
. Narciso
andPerez
becomesasym
boliccountertrial,w
iththe
FBIand
theveterans
hospital
administration
asthe
accused.Bycreating
ajournalist
character,Jessica
Marquez,and
aplot thatisconstructedas an
investigation,SiningBayan
presentsanalternative
accountoftheveterans
hospitaldeaths.Jessicaisan
ambitious
rookiereporter
who
istem
porarilyassigned
towrite
aboutthecase.
Itisher
first“real
news,”arespite
fromher
usualcoverage
ofsocial
events(parties,
debuts,and
baptisms).
Inaddition,
theradical
possibilities
ofnewsreporting
areupheld
here,incontrast to
theheavy
censorshipof M
arcos’sNew
Society.Throughthis
character,aswellas
theeditor
ofthenew
spaperand
thenurses
atthe
hospital,Sining
Bayanmodels
apolitical
ideologicaltransformation.
Forexam
ple,Jessica’s
driveto“getto
thetruth”
isinitially
introducedasarookie
reporter’senthusiasm
andaliberalideal
ismabout journalism
principles. Yetasshe
learnsofw
ageexploitation
fromVA
hospitalnurses
Parkerand
Mulligan,
andalso
witnesses
first-handthe
deterioratingstate
ofthehospital,Jessica’spoliticaltransform
ationbecom
esapparent.H
er encounterwithhospitaladm
inistratorLindenhaur, anelusive,
dubious,and
connivingbureaucrat,
furtherstrengthens
hercom
mitment
tohonest journalism
.Jessica
inspiresthe
VAhospital
nursestoshare
theiraccounts
despiteintim
idationbythe
administration.
When
Jessicafinally
reportsher
newlyfound
evidencetoher
boss,her
passionand
convictionbreak
throughhis
caution.Bythe
endofthe
play, Mr.Bayani, in
contrasttothe
corruptLindenhaur,hasvow
edtowrite
upseveraleditorials
toexpose
theinjustice
againsttheaccused
nurses.Healso
commits
tocreating
flyers
andpam
phlets,both
ofwhich
were
popularalternative
materials
ofsocial
protestfordisseminating
thefightagainstNarciso’sand
Perez’sconviction.Narciso
andPerez
effectivelyuses
theconventions
ofmelodram
aand
themurderm
ystery—archetypes
ofgoodand
bad,socialconflicts,bigcorpora-
honand
governmentconspiracy,the
tropeofthe
younginnocent
becoming
wiseasanoldergeneration
isreenergized—togenerate
anentertaining
androusing
agit-propperform
ance.Sining
Bayan’spuroarte
aestheticsdefarnil
larizespopular
culture,politicizing
suchreferences
aspart
ofbuilding
ananti-im
perialistculture
againstMartial
Law.For
example,
inIVartiso
andPerez
anopening
songnum
berwithsnooping
FBIagents
issetto
thetune
ofa1960s
American
detectiveshow
,Dragnet.
While
theFBI
agentswere
heroesinthatpopulartelevision
show,inthe
playthey
arenotto
bttrusted.
Inalatersong
number,Jessica
pressureshospitaladm
inistratorLindenheur
withaseriesofquestions.He
beginstosing
toward
theaudience
“Questions
questions,nothingmore
thanquestions”
tothe
tuneof“Feelings’
ksong
popularizedinEnglish
byBrazilian
singer/songwriterM
orrisAlbertin
i975,which
infactwas
written
byFrench
composerLoulou
Gasté,“Feelings”was,
foracertaingeneration
ofFilipinos,dubbedasthe
country’ssecondnational
anthem.Popular
localrenditions
includedaversion
by“total
entertainer”Rico
J. Puno.Skiing
Bayan’stheater
recaststhe
roleofrevolutionaries
toimmigrant,
working
people.Jessica’s
transformation_from
acareer-centered
professionalto
ajournalistconcernedwithresponsible
reporting—reim
agmesnot
onlywho
aleader
isbut
alsowhat
aleader
values.Rey
Ileto’sPasyon
andRevolution
isapathbreaking
studyofthe
masa
(masses)
inthe
Philippinerevolutionary
movem
ent.Heargues
thatanalternative
valuesystem
existsinthe
masa’s
rejectionofm
aginoó(gentlem
en),pinunongbayan
(localleaders),
andmayayam
an(the
wealthy)
andthese
elites’devaluing
ofhonestyand
education(14-16).He
suggeststhatin
themasa’sreading
ofthePayon
(storyofJesus
Christ),they
alignwith
thosewho
are“tim
id(kim
i)nod
est(mabini),gentle,sad,and
lowlyofbehavior”
andwhose
storyis‘one
of
defiancetow
ardthe
authoritiesout
ofcommitment
toanideal”
(i7)Ihe
humble,com
mon,w
orking-classfigure
asrevolutionary
isnowawell
worn
trope,butIinvokeIleto
heretomap
agenealogy
ofFilipinoAmerican
protesttheaterin
Filipinoanticolonialm
ovements.
Narciso
andPerez
doesnot
overtly/directlyarticulate
orinclude
gendersubordination
aspart
ofthemultiple
repressiveconditions
theimmigrant
nursesnavigate.
However,gender
politicsisobvious
inthat
themajority
ofimmigrantnurses
fromthe
Philippinesatthattim
ewere
womenInthe
play,boththe
journalistandeditor
arealso
women.W
orthrem
arkingupon
1.1•I I
90<
coUP
DRTHEATRE
COUPDETHEATRE
>>91
isSining
Bayan’splays’
sensitivitytogender politics, although
theyproduce
gender as a class construct. Inother Sining
Bayanplays, w
omenare
imagined
asleaders, journalists
nurses,farm
workers,
mothers,
daughters.students,
lovers,and
organizers.’9
SiningBayan’s
sensitivitytothe
representationof
womenand
hypervigilanceagainst m
achismomaybeattributed
toanum
ber
of things, includingthe
fact thatawoman, Erm
enaVinluan, w
asthe
leading
andconsistent driving
forceinthe
group. Various
SiningBayan/K
DPmem
bersreferred
toVinluan
asa“cultural
czarina:’Although
it wasacollective
group,it w
aswell know
ntoall in
thegroup
that primary
cultural organizer
Vinluan
heldtogether Sining
Bayan’s productions. Onthe
stage, womenwere
aforce
of presenceand
of complexity, a
sourceof political pow
erand
alsoan
inspiredfigure
ofrevolution.
DidSining
Bayanorthe
KDPmaintain
this
critical awareness
of gender politicsintheir everyday
operation, off-stage, so
tospeak?
What m
aybeaform
of feminist politics
intheir com
plexdepiction
of womenshould
not beassum
edtobeconsistent w
iththe
“cultureofthe
movem
ent”itself.20
Inbuilding
a cultureagainst M
artial Law, SiningBayan
sought totranslate
theirvision
ofarevolutionary
practicethrough
theirartistic/creative
pro
cess.iheir
playsassigned
theproject
of revolutiontoimmigrant,
working
people. Characters
inthese
playshad
names, jobs, and
familyhistories
with
which
thetarget
audiencecould
easilyidentify.
Theircapacious
rendering
of whoarevolutionary
canbe
(awoman,
amother,
afarm
er, anurse, etc.)
alsoperm
eatedother
aspectsof theater. ‘W
heretheater
ismade/created
and
where
itispresented
aredeterm
iningfactors
forsocial protest
theater. For
atheater
troupelike
SiningBayan,
thenegotiation
ofspace
wasthus
cru
ciallylinked
totheir
cultural politics, especiallygiven
theircom
mitment to
theemergent
immigrant
communities.
Kenyan
writer
Ngugi
waThiongs
theorizationof perform
ancespace
within
postcolonialityprovides
onepos
sibleunderstanding
ofthespatial politics
of SiningBayan. As
Ngügi w
rites,
“Thesequestions
of accessand
contact becomevery
pertinent inacolonial
andpostcolonial state, w
herethe
dominant social stratum
is oftennot sure of
its hegemonic
control... .Insuch
asituation, the
questionwhether the
space
shouldbeinside
abuilding
ornot
mayacquire
adeep
symbolic
valueand
becomethe
siteof intense
power struggles”
(41). For N
gugi, “questions of the
performance
spaceare
tiedtothose
of democracy, of civil society”
(69). Like
Ngagi, m
anysocial protest/political theaters
were
critical of theexclusionary
practicesof theater
establishments. Sining
Bayan’sgoal w
astobring
theater
backtothe
people. Spacedefined
not onlythe
placeinwhich
theseperfor
mances
were
developedand
performedbut also
whothe
expectedaudience
would
be. Spaceis m
orethan
just a “place”inwhich
theseperform
ances were
presented.Spacebecam
eathree-dim
ensionalentity,withhistory
beingyet
anothercharacterinthe
theaterofsocialprotest.Formany
politicaltheatersof this
era,anunderstanding
oftheoccupation
andhistory
of performance
spaceswaskeytothe
evolutionoftheir criticalprojects.2’
Tothat
end,Sining
Bayanperform
edincom
munity
halls,college
andhigh
schoolcampus
auditoriums,and
unionmeeting
sites.Members lirniena
Vinluan
andMars
Estradaand
KDPExecutive
Committee
member
BruceOccena
remember
theirfirst
major
productionatZellerbach
Auditorium
inBerkeley:
“Theauditorium
waspacked
withFilipinos—
students,parents,lobs
andbias.
It wasthe
firsttimethat
Zellerbachwaspresenting
ashow
onFilipino
Americans.The
spacewashosting
awholly
differentaudience”
(Occena,
Estrada,and
Vinluan).
Theirplays
were
alsopresented
atconfer
encessuch
asthe
PilipinoAmerican
FarWestC
onvention,unionmeetings,
worker-organized
events,andanti—
MartialLaw
gatherings,aswellas
Asian
American—
relatedevents.Their
playswere
seennationally
andinternation
ally,coproducedbylocalchapters
of theKDPincities
suchasChicago,N
ewYork, W
ashington,DC,Seattle,Los
Angeles,and
Honolulu,as
well
asrural
settingslike
Delano,
California.They
alsoperform
edinQuebec.
Although
theyoften
performedinspaces
notequipped
topresent
theaterwork
(i.e.,spaces
with
insufficientlighting,
inflexiblebackdrops,
etc.),these
were
spaceswhere
Filipinosgathered.
Toargue
thatSining
Bayanperform
anceswere
“takingover”
oroccupying
thesedifferent
spacestoasstrt
Filipinopresence
isperhaps
lessinteresting
thantothink
throughthe
kindsofpre
sentationstheir
intended/expectedaudiences
were
accustomedtoseeing
inthese
spaces.These
venuestypically
hostedfundraisers,
beautypageants,
commemoration
events,and
nationalholiday
celebrationssuch
asFilipino
American
FriendshipDayand
IndependenceDay. There
were
alsoworkers’
organizingmeetings
andimmigration-related
eventssuch
asworkshops
andlectures
toassistFilipinos
throughthe
immigration
process.Elam,elaborat
ingon
Boal’snotion
of“rehearsalforarevolution:’ argues
thatsocialprotestand
politicaltheaterwere
“rehearsals”for
“theresistance
effortsthey
hopedtheir audience
members
[might]
undertakeinreallife”
SiningBayan’s
productionstransform
edthese
spacesinto
arun-through
ofpoliticalactionthatthey
hopedmightencourage
theirlargelyFilipino
American
audienceto
perform.
Space,inthis
context,isthus
intricatelyconnected
tothe
audience.Space
wasalso
adeterm
iningfactor
inthe
demographics
oftheaudience,
thesubjects
oftheintended
socialtransformation.
Throughtheater,Sining
Bayanreached
outtotheirprim
aryaudience—
Filipinosinthe
United
States.Theirperform
anceswere
sitesofcommunity
gathering,affirming
a growing
92<<
COUPDETHIIATRE
Filipino/apresence
inU.S.
society.Many
of theaudience
members
consti
tutedamixof generations:
somecam
easagricultural w
orkersinthe
1930S
andeven
earlier,atthe
turnof the
century;som
ewere
recentimmigrants
whocam
eunder
petitionbyfam
ilymembers
alreadysettled
inthe
United
Statesorthrough
the1965
Immigration
Act;and
somewere
second-or
third-generationFilipinos born
inthe
United
States. For many
of theseaudi
encemembers,
SiningBayan
productionsprovided
anew
representationof
theFilipino
experience; theywere
seeingwhat m
ayhave
beenarecognizable
expression—dram
aticpresentation—
within
anew
content.
SiningBayan
questionedthe
pureentertainm
entvalue
of theaterand
thehierarchy
ofartists
inthe
entirecreative
process.The
“centralforce
of theatricalcreation,”
asElam
phrasesit, cam
einto
question. Thus, they
approachedtheir theater m
akingwiththe
sameprinciples as their organiz
ing:shared
responsibilities.The
members
of SiningBayan
brainstormed,
wrote,
staged,and
producedcollaboratively,
employing
thepopular
method
of collectivecreation. Collective
creationchallenged
mainstream
theaters’creative
processwith
itselitist
notionsofanartist
asasingle
genius. It alsoflattened
thedirector-playw
right-actor hierarchydeem
edas
thekey
structurebehind
theatrical creation. Alternative
theatersregarded
boththe
storiesvalidated
bythese
dominant stages
andtheir w
ayof m
ak
ingtheater
exclusionaryand
complacent as
expressionsof oppressive
cul
tural values.22
Collectivecreation
is a method
SiningBayan
foundcom
pat
iblewiththeir
politicsof shared
strugglesagainst inequality
andinjustice
among
theFilipino
people. Yet, Performance
Studiesscholar D
ianaTaylor
cautionsagainst
romanticizing
theprocess
ofcollective
creation—more
specificallythe
tendencytoerase
differencesinthe
kindsand
amounts
of
labor performedwithin
agroup.
Therewas
not oneway
of creatingcollectively
for thesepolitical theaters.
Eachtheater
that adaptedthe
collectivecreation
processpracticed
it differ
ently.Sining
Bayanmembers
sawthem
selvesand
theirwork
atthe
center
of thepolitical m
ovement
inwhich
KDPwasengaged. Their
assignment in
KDPwastomobilize
throughculture,
toraise
consciousness, toshape
the
wayinwhich
theiraudience
sawand
interpretedkey
campaign
issues. The
KDP’sNational
ExecutiveCommittee
andthe
National
Cultural
Group
decidedontopics
tobedram
atizedbySining
Bayan. Thecollective
writers
of thetheater troupe
would
thenhold
brainstorming
sessions about possible
waystonarrativize
theissue
fromthe
point of viewof progressive
politics.
Their goal wastoeducate
thecom
munity
andpresent a progressive
solution
tothe
problemat hand, w
hetherit was
thehousing
crisisfor
Filipinoelders
orthe
wrongful accusation
of twoFilipina
immigrant nurses
inMichigan.
COUPDETHEATEr
93
Theypursued
thisgoal
throughtheatrical
contentaswellas
throughheir
processofcreationand
production.Sining
Bayanmade
artisticdecisions
with
thesupport
ofthe
National
ExecutiveCom
mittee
andthe
members
ofKDP.Theculturalw
orkwas
notseen
asanactivity
addedtothe
politicalorganizingofKDP.In
aninterview
,Bruce
Occena,an
ex-chairoftheExecutive
Committee,noted
that M)Iwas
mostinvested
inmobilizing
theaterand
music
tobuild
aradicalm
ovemcnt
thatwould
putcultureatthe
centerofpoliticalstruggles.Inthe
caseofSin
ingBayan,there
wasnodistinction
made
between
theaterwork
andinvolve
mentin
politicalstruggles.SiningBayan
existedinservice
oftheKDPihere
wasno
separationbetw
eenthe
artistsand
activists.Som
emembers
wereassigned
toSining
Bayanproductions
todoculturalw
ork,while
otherswere
assignedtodolobbying
work
andtoorganize
workers.
SiningBayan’s
theaterpieces
incorporateddance/m
ovement
andmusic
as integralcomponents
ofmaking
theater.Theirmultidisciplinary
approachsupported
theircorevalues
ofcollectivityand
sharedresponsibility
Incast
lugtheirplays,they
didnotseek
tofind
performers
whocould
singdance,
andactequally.Asform
erKDPmemberD
eanAlegado
says,“Noteveryone
cando
itall!”(interview
).Consequently,
thecasting
pooifor
theirmulti
disciplinarytheaterpieces
wasmuch
higherthanifthey
hadsim
plylooked
forperformers
whoweretrained
inallofthe
differentexpressivearts
iheirplaysrequired
thepresence
ofmany
actorsonstage;in
fact,itwastheirgoal
togetas
many
peopleonstage
asthey
possiblycould.Calls
forperform
erswere
alsoacallforpoliticalorganizing
andmemberrecruitm
ent, 1smgmul
tidisciplinarytheater
asanorganizing
strategy,alongwiththeir
descriptionofthe
plays,Sining
Bayanwasable
toalert
thecom
munity
aboutthecur
rentissuesaffecting
FilipinoAmericans.
Andbecause
theywere
committed
tolocalcom
munity
politics,theirsmallerroles
inthe
productionwerc
filledbylocalcom
munity
members.Itwas
easiertoattractcom
munity
members
toapoliticalrally
iftheywere
somehow
involvedinthe
“skit”thatw
aspart
oftheevening
gathering.Suchacts
oflocalizationbecam
eastrategy
toforge
a personallinkaswellasto
buildinvestm
ent.The
processofcreating
collectivelywas
notnecessarilyeasy,even
thoughitwas,atthe
time,seem
inglyideal.In
the‘977
programofIsuda
TiImuna,
SiningBayan
describedthe
difficultprocessofcreation:
During
theearly
stagesofthework,m
anydifficultiessurfaced.TherL
wee
problemsofw
eakcom
mitmentand
incorrectattitudescirculating
within
thecom
pany.Werealized
theseattitudes
servedonly
tocorrode
theunity
ofthecom
pany.Once
itwasrealized
thatwhat
ISUDAexem
plifiedwas
II1•
Ic
94<<couP
DRTHEATRE
COUPDETHEATRE
>‘
95
infact
UNITY—we
begantocollectively
anddecisively
forgethat
unitywithin
thecom
pany.(ifl’Program
4)
Despite
thesedisagreem
entsthe
members
ofthe
SiningBayan
collectiveinsist
onaprocess
ofmultiple
voicesand
multiple
perspectives.Insearch
ofanonhierarchical
creativeprocess,
thegroup
exploredamultiplicity
ofvoices
andamultiplicity
of tasks, resistingthe
hierarchiesof traditional the
ater.Their
theaterwork
embodied
themultiple
rolesof popular
theaterin
politicalstruggles:
itwas
ameans
toraise
consciousnessabout
oppressiveconditions
inthe
Philippinesand
tohighlight the
strugglesof Filipinos in
theUnited
Statesfor
theirimmediate
audience(Filipinos
inthe
United
States).Even
thoughSining
Bayanexisted
asagroup
foronly
abrief
period, theirperform
ancepolitics
andpractice
made
“cultureagainst M
artial Law”agen
uinepossibility, truly
within
reachof the
common
tao(person).
Inthe
following
section, I turntoacloser exam
inationof contem
porarystagings
of Dogeaters
asapostscript
tothe
earlyanti—
Martial Law
laborsof
SiningBayan. W
hileSining
Bayandecentered
Martial
Lawwith
itsdeploy
ment
ofthe
popularand
insistedon
modeling
radicalpolitical
actionin
theirdram
aticnarratives, D
ogeatersinterrogates
thelasting
impact of M
artial
Law.Dogeaters
continuesSining
Bayan’sradical
legacyasit m
akesway
forapolitics
of performance
that conjoinsthe
communities
of theater tothe
materialities
of diasporiclife.
IV. Coming
Home: D
ogeatersonthe
Manila
Stage
Inthe
fallof2004,Jessica
Hagedorn’s
award-w
inningnovel-turned-play
Dogeaters, had
itsthird
fullproduction
inLos
Angeles. This
wassix
yearsafter the
playhad
itsworld
premiere
at LaJolla
PlayhouseinSan
Diego
andthree
yearsafter
itsNew
York
premiere.
Thehighly
anticipatedproduction
wasthe
inaugural event at thenew
lyopened
performance
spaceof the
community
organizationSearch
toInvolve
PilipinoAmericans
(SIPA),along
timeLos
Angeles—
basedcom
munity
organization. While
theplay
chronidesthe
homecom
ingof one
ofitsprotagonists,
RioGonzaga, the
L.A. production
alsofeatured
apoignant
homecom
ingfor
itsdirector,
JonLaw
renceRivera.
Amoving
director’snote
printedinthe
playprogram
articulatesRivera’s
familial
rootednessinthe
play’sengagem
ent withMartial
Lawand
thePhilippines:
In1972,
myfather
wasblacklisted
when
FerdinandMarcos
proclaimed
martial law
inthe
Philippines.Myfather was
a journalist and,at that time,
publishedamagazine
calledPace
which
addressedthe
country’sbrew
ingdissatisfaction
withthe
Marcos
regime.M
yfatherwas
forcedtoleave
thecountry
andwas
abletofind
politicalasyluminAustralia,w
herehestill
lives today.Thiswasapivotalpointforourfamily.
Itwasnot
untilthree
yearslater
when
we(mymother
andsiblm
gs)were
reunitedwithmyfatherin
Sydney.I have
notreturnedtoManila
since1979—
whenmysister
andIvaca
tionedinthe
Philippinesfor
amonth
onour
waytothe
U.S.fromAus
tralia—nor
haveIhad
adesire
tovisit,thatis,until
Ibeganworking
onJessica
Hagedorn’slandmark
play, Dogeaters.
Thisplay
hasre-aw
akenedmyyearning
forthehom
ecountr’, The
onewhich
hauntsmestillbecause
ofmartiallaw.
Throughthe
experienceof w
orkingonDogeaters,Rivera
confrontedthedif
ficult historicalforcesthatcaused
hisfam
ily’sseparation
andexik
theplay
becameahaunting
meditation
onthe
myriad
experiences,desiresand
fearsproduced
throughand
againstthe
specterofMartial
Law.For
Rivera,the
playwas,significantly,his
firstFilipino-relatedwork
inover
twenty
yearsof
working
inAmerican
theateras
atheater
artistand
asanartistic
director.Form
anyofthe
Filipinoactors,D
ogeatersalso
showcased
thelong-aw
aitedarrival
ofFilipino/a
American
theater;itwasthe
firstplay
intheir
many
yearsofprofessionaltheatricalproduction
inwhich
theactors
hadbeen
casttoperform
Filipinocharacters.Forthe
non—Filipino
American
actorsinthe
show, thetheater
experiencewasequally
novelasitw
asthe
onlytam
ethey
hadbeen
castasFilipinosinaplay
aboutthePhilippines.Forexam
pk,Dana
Lee, aChinese
American
pioneerinAsian
American
theater,took
onthe
rolesofSenator
Avila
and“Uncle”
(JoeySand’s
pimp)inthepla,
andcon
fessedthatitw
asdaunting
toperform
aFilipino
characterinaFilipino
play.Lee,how
ever,welcom
edthe
challengeand
notedthat“it’sabouttim
e”hehad
anopportunity
toplay
aFilipino
becauseFilipino
actorshave
hadtoenact
“everythingbutthem
selves”(“D
ogeaters:KirkDouglas
Theater”).Dogeaters
isofcourse
notthe
firstplay
(ornovel,
forthat
matter)
tocreatively
wrestle
with
theenduring
afterlifeofM
artialLaw
inthe
Philippines
andinthe
Filipinodiaspora.
While
theLos
Angeles
productionwas
noteworthy
foritsengagem
ent(materially
andthem
atically)with
FilipinoAmerican
performance,
theplay’s
creativeentanglem
entswithMartial
Lawfollow
edinthe
footstepsofa
lesswellknow
nbutequally
pioneeringhistory
ofFilipinoperform
ance.Ifthe
ghostofMartial
Lawhaunted
Riveraand
hiscom
patriotsthrough
theproduction
of Dogeaters,then
thesocialprotesttheater
ofSiningBayan
9o<
coupDETHtLATRE
COUPDETHEATRE
>>
97
breathedlife
intothat ghostly
presence. Itisthis
spectral intersectionofthe
pastand
presentwithin
thehistory
of FilipinoAmerican
performance
thatmost interests
me. The
motivating
concernhere
istomake
visiblethepalpa
bleforce
andpersistence
of Martial Law
inthe
Filipinoand
FilipinoAmeri
cantheatrical im
aginary. Inother w
ords, if Martial Law
referstoaperiod
ofhistory, then
what
doesit m
eanforhistory
itselftobe
aghost thathaunts?
Tospeak
of historyashaunting
setsup
adialectical relationship
among
thepast,the
present,andthose
whoare
visitedbythe
apparitionof M
artialLawDogeaters
refusesany
simple
reparativerelationship
tothe
eventsof M
artialLaw.
Thiswork
emerges
more
as“im
aginativeforce[s]
of what
might have
been”(Sharpe
xii),astraces
of ghostlyforces
pastandpresent. W
hileSining
Bayanproductions
engagethe
fraughtexperiential
realitiesof M
artial Law,Dogeaters
confrontsthe
way“the
presentisbound
upinthe
past”(xii). In
thesetheaters
against martial law,puro
arteemerges
asaperform
ativestrat
egythat faces
head-onaghostly
past.Productions
of Dogeaters
performadual function:
theyreturn
ustothe
terrorofthe
Martial
Lawyears
evenasthey
returnus“hom
e.”Myelabo
rationson
Dogeaters’
first-timestaging
inManila,
Philippines,foreground
thetem
poral movem
entsof M
artial Lawwithin
theFilipino
theatrical imagi
nary;itisafiguration
ofboththe
pastand
thepresent.
Aproduction
ofaplay
aboutthe
Philippinesby
aFilipina
American
inthe
earlytwenty-first
century, inamajor
American
regional theaterand
onoff-Broadw
aystages,
Dogeaters
isalong-overdue
scriptof
acom
plexhom
ecoming.
Theplay
detailsthe
liberationof m
emory
andidentification, and
itsstaging
demands
asustained
decolonizationofAmerican
theater.Dogeaters’
significancein
American
theaterliesininthe
wayit m
akesvisible
thecorporeality
ofcolonial subjects
that theUnited
Statescontinues
todeny. It contrasts
withpro
ductionssuch
asMissSaigon, w
hichis an
exemplar ofU.S. colonial nostalgia
andadram
aticinstantiation
of thecom
plicityof A
merican
mainstream
theaterw
iththe
myth
ofU.S. benevolenceand
successful democracy. In
Dogeat
ers, wethus
move
fromthe
protest theater of SiningBayan
tothe
problemat
icsof contem
poraryFilipino/a
performance. H
ere,theshow
goeson, albeit
with
amore
directnodtothe
workings
of puroarte.Sining
Bayanexhorted
Filipino/abodies
toput on
ashow
against oppression; Dogeaters
drawsupon
Filipino/ahistories
ofembodim
enttomake
theater(writlarge)
anew.The
novelDogeaters
hasbeen
criticallyanalyzed
asillustrative
ofFilipinopost-
colonialand
neocolonialconditions,
andfor
beingapostm
oderntextpar
excellence.Many
scholarsofAsian
American
culturalcritique
haveargued
that Dogeaters
isa“decolonizing
novel,”withdecolonization
beingdefined
asthe
practiceof“an
on-goingdisruption
ofthecolonial m
odeof production”
(Lowe108).W
hileLisa
Lowefocuses
onhow
thenovelsubverts
officialhistory
throughthe
popular(gossip),RachelLee
focusesonthe
novel’s“fem
aleembodim
ent”of“postcolonial
politicalawakening”
inthe
figuresofDaisy,
thebeauty-queen-turned-underground-resistance-fighter,
andRio,
thebalikbayan
diasporicnarrator
(TheAmericas
ofAsian
American
Literature,14).Staging
Dogeaters
isanactofdecolonizing
American
theater,‘[hc
playadaptation
maintains
thedecolonizing
elements
ofthenovel—
fragmented
narration,a“castofthousands:’ andmultiple
plotlines.Thoughitstimespan
ismore
centralizedto1982,the
dawnofthe
Marcos
dictatorshipand
theeve
ofthePeople
PowerRevolution,
figuresfrom
distantand
nearpasts
make
appearances:JeanMallat,a
Frenchcolonialfigure
whoauthored
ThePhilip
pines:History,G
eography,Customsof the
SpanishColonies
inOceania,guests
starson
atimeless
entertainmentprogram
hostedbythe
equally,andeerily,
suspended-in-timeBarbara
Villanueva
andNestor
Noralez;
hereternal
excellencyMadam
eImelda
alsovisits
this“show
ofshows”(Hagedorn
17).Other
encountersthat
stretchnorm
ativetem
poralfram
esinclude
ascene
between
FilipinaAmerican
balikbayanRio
andthe
ghostofLolaNarcisa
asthey
smoke
ajointin
thefam
ilyhouse
garden;and
avisitation
inwhich
the
ghostoffreshly
assassinatedSenator
Avila
visitshis
beautyqueen-turned
captive-turned-rebelDaisy
Avilajust
aftershe
hasbeen
rapedand
torturedinamilitary
campled
byher
uncle,General
Ledesma.The
novelhas
beenlauded
foritscreative
incorporationofm
ultigenretexts—
archivalnew
spaper articles,excerpts
fromPresidentM
cKinley’s
speechaboutthe
Philippinequestion,
popularradio
jingles,and
amodified
versionofthe
prayerhail
Mary. This
useofm
ultigenretexts,along
withdiscontinuous
storytellingand
multiple,barely
overlappingplotlines,interrupts
linearnarrative,Itdisruptsconventionalm
odesofconsum
ptionand
drawsattention
toboth
theprocess
ofproductionand
readers’consumption
ofnarratives.Inaddition,D
ogeatersthe
novelisalready
performative
initsuse
ofmul
tigenretexts,
shiftingnarrative
pointsofview,
andnonlinear,
nonchronologicalordering
ofmultiple
plots.Thenovel’s
approachtostorytelling
lendsitselfto
theaterscenes.Scene
isoften
definedasthe
settingorthe
placeon
which
dramatic
actionoccurs.
Itisalso
atem
poralconceit
thatcontains!
constrainsthe
unfoldingofthe
narrative.WithDogeaters,H
agedornreim
agines
thenovelgenre,adapts
thisnovel-renew
edversion
fortheater,andpens
adem
andingplay
includingup
tofifty-tw
ocharacters.
Theplay
doesnot
deploylengthy
expositiontosetup
theplot,the
time,the
place,orthechar
acters.Thoughthe
plotlinesand
charactersare
elaboratelyconnected,there
isnotone(cathartic)
scenethatbrings
themalltogether.
F1•
98<‘
COUPDETHEATRE
Hagedorn’s
theatricaladaptation
staystrue
tothe
novel’smultigenre
sensibility,asit transform
sthe
stageversion
intomultiple
genresof perfor
mance
anddefies
conventionalcharacter
development.
Eachperform
ance
within
theplay
underscoresthe
complex
pleasuresand
perilsof colonialism
asmarks
onthe
Filipino/abody. For exam
ple,U.S. generalDouglas
MacA
r
thur’sfam
ous“1shall
return”phrase
isspoken
byGeneral
Ledesmaashe
climaxes
fromthe
pleasuresof oralsex
beingperform
edonhim
byhisbold
starquerida
LolitaLuna.
Thisact
of fellatioisone
among
multiple
scenes
of “sexmontage”
intheplay.23
“Ishall
return:’of course,
was
akey
partof
thespeech
givenbyMacA
rthuras heattem
ptedtosave
thePhilippines
from
Japaneseinvasion
duringWorld
WarII.As
acorrupt
military
officialyen
triloquizesMacA
rthur’swords
at thevery
moment
of sexualclimax,differ
entlayers
of significationunfold.
“Ishall
return”returns
notasapatriotic
promise
butrather
asaself-gratifying
proclamation
byaspent
patriarchal
figureofem
pire.As wemight recall,M
acArthurdelivered
thisspeech
aftera
narrowescape
fromthe
Japanesearm
ytakeoverof C
orregidorinaneffortto
shoreuphis
masculinity
aswellas
theimage
of theUnited
States’ controlof
thePacific
while
threatenedbyanother im
perialforce.
Thissex
act within
ascene
of sexacts
within
atheatrical perform
anceis
puroarte
at itsironical
best.Hagedorn’s
choicetoassign
“Ishall
return”toGeneral
Ledesmaforges
anidentification
between
twomilitary
figures, one
fictionaland
onereal.
Ledesmaisafeared
yetfailed
figurehead.All of his
actionstake
placestrictly
inresponse
toorders
fromhis
superiors.While
he
strikesterroram
ongthose
belowhim
, includinghismistress, Lolita
Luna,he
remains
atortured
man.At hom
e,heand
his wife,“Leonorthe
Penitent’ are
estrangedasshe
hasabandoned
carnal pleasuresforher godly
devotion(17).
Thepleasures
andperils
of empire
arecorporealized
inthis
subversivestag
ingofG
eneral Ledesmaen fellatio,uttering
astatem
enthistoricallydesigned
tosave
faceand
reassert masculinity.
Having
followedthe
variousproductions
ofDogeaters
andhaving
read
previews,review
s,and
interviews,sat
inon
rehearsals,and
repeatedly
viewedperform
ances,Iwas
struckby
anarrative
thatwasattached
tothe
U.S.-based
productions.Articles
andreview
sofD
ogeatersinSan
Diego,New
York,andLos
Angeles
emphasized
Dogeaters
asa“return
of therepressed
narrative,inwhich
Martial
Lawisthat
which
hasbeen
repressedforFili
pinoAmericans.
Formany
oftheartists,
likeJon
Rivera,Martial
Lawwas
acatalystfor
anentirely
differentlifetrajectory,yet one
that hasrarely
been
referencedorrecognized
asacentral and
life-alteringevent.W
ithinboth of
thesetypes
offram
ingnarratives,
Martial
Lawfounds
theFilipino
Ameri
canimmigrant experience.Cast w
ithinthe
frameof an
immigranttale,these
COUPDETHEATRE
99
theaterproductions
emerge
asenabling
occasionsthat
might
finallyrelease
whathas
beendeeply
stifled.Iwantto
arguethatdom
inantdiscoursesaround
U.S.-based
productionsofD
ogeaters—sjience,repression,hom
ecoming—
arecom
plexlyintertw
inedwith
U.S.“imperial
amnesia”
(Campom
anes,“New
Formations”)
or“im
perialaphasia”
(Isaac)aboutthe
Philippines.Silence
aroundMartialLaw
wascultivated
bythe
regimeofviolence,
throughstate-enforced
censorship,denial,
andcoverups.
Campom
anes’s“U.S.
imperial
amnesia”
arguesthat
theunrecognizability
ofthe
PhilippinesinAmerican
collectiveconscious
nessissym
ptomatic
oftheU.S.denial
of the
nation’simperial
pursuitsAs
Isiftthroughthe
ways
inwhich
Martial
Lawisnarrated
inconnection
tothe
Dogeatersproduction
andFilipino
American
communities
inthe
United
States,Iobserveaconflation
between
the“Philippines”
asrepressed
within
theU.S.im
perialistimaginary
andthe
Martial
Lawasrepressed
within
theFilipino
American/diasporic
imaginary.
Inthe
Philippines,interestingly,thestory
takesonquite
adifferentpatina.
Manila,itseem
s,hasnotforgottenMartialLaw;it ispresentin
thequotidian,
where,asjournalistPatricia
Evangelistaputs
it,“theskits
andstories
[referencing
theMartial
Law]are
inthe
everydaynew
s,on
thepages
ofsocietymagazines
andleftistpublications,
notfrom
25years
ago,butyesterday,
iominutes
ago,now”(Evangelista).W
hatdoesDogeaters
mean
tothis
“home”
audience?Inother
words,
whatcan
Dogeaters
mean
forthose
whodid
notleave,for
thosewho
stayed?What
happenswhen
inthe
processofgoing
home,Dogeaters
becomesone
ofmany
theatricalproductions
aboutMar
tialLaw,nolonger
anexceptional
oronce-in-a-lifetim
eFilipino
theatricalexperience
asitis
inthe
United
States?The
tensionaround
Martial
Lawin
thePhilippine
enduresinitslegacies,w
hichare
bothpoliticaland
Cultural,Som
elawsmayhave
beenrepealed,and
criminals
senttojail,butstructures
builtduringMartialLaw,such
astheCCP
complex,stillrem
ainresolute
andstanding
reminders
ofaviolentpast.
Homecom
ingsarealwaysfraught.The
onewhogoesback
homemust.on
-
stantlynegotiate
thetension
between
beinghom
eas a
newexperience
while
reconcilingorcontending
with
memories
ofthe
past.InNovem
ber2007,
Dogeatershad
itsfirsthom
ecoming
inthe
Philippines.AsHagedorn
herselfcom
mented,
Manila
isafter
allthe
world
ofthe
play(“Playw
rightFalk”).
BobbyGarcia
directedthis
productionthrough
histheatercom
pany,Atlantis
Productions,buthewasnotnew
tothe
play.Hewasthe
assistantdirectortothe
LaJolla
Playhouseworld-prem
iereproduction
inSan
Diego,California,
in1998.G
arciawas
determined
todirectthe
play,andwiththe
2007produc
tionwas
finallyable
tobring
it“home’Aswith
anyhom
ecoming
theplay
100c
COUPOPTHEATRE
evokedfam
iliarityand
memories, butit was
alsoanoccasion
formany“first
times”
It wasthe
firsttimethe
playwasstaged
inthe
Philippines.Itwasthe
firstplaybyaFilipino
American
playwrightthat A
tlantishad
staged.It was
thefirsttim
ethat the
playhad
acastof all-Filipino
actors.Previous
produc
tionsinthe
United
Stateswere
laudedfor
theirmultinational,m
ultiethnic,
multiracial
ensembles.
Foraward-w
inning,highly
acclaimedtelevision
and
filmactor
Gina
Alajar,as
Narcisa
Ledesma,this
washer
firsttimeperform
inginanEnglish-language
play(Dimaculangan).
Dogeaters
alsoreunited
Alajar
andher
husband,renow
nedactor
Michael
deMesa,
whohad
been
separatedfor
many
years.Much
tothe
disappointment
of thoseawaiting
a
reunionoranex-lovers’
feud, however,there
arenoscenes
where
their two
charactersinteract.
Thoughthis
wasnot
thefirst
Dogeaters
productionto
havecross-gender
casting,Andoy
Ranayperform
edthe
characterMadam
e
Imelda
indrag
forthe
Manila
production.24
Director
BobbyGarcia
spoke
ofthe
diversityofactors
inthe
production,draw
ingattention
tothevari
ousFilipino
performance
industrieswithwhich
thecast w
asassociated
(per
sonalinterview
).The
performance
industriesincluded
theCultural
Center
of thePhilippines
Theater,televisionand
film,Atlantis
(Garcia’s theatercom
pany,which
mainly
producesEnglish-language
playsfrom
Broadwaypro
ductions),andindependentartists
suchasJon
Santos, who
is knownforthe
impersonations
of Imelda
Marcos
heperform
sinnightclubs
andalternative
performance
venues.Dogeatersm
aybeset in
Manila,butthe
returnhom
eposed
a specificchal
lengetothe
play:Wasthis
yetanother
productof the
Martial
Lawcottage
industryof representations?
What could
adiasporic
artist possiblysay
about
thishistoricalexperience
that would
provideinsightand
resonancetothose
who
didnot
leave?What
relevancedoes
theplay
havetoday?
Thesewere
someof the
questionsthat
afew
of theactors
themselves
raisedwhen
they
firstheardaboutthe
plansfor
thisproduction.25
Hagedorn’s
encouragement
of thedirector,
actors,andartistic
teamtointerpret
andreintepret
theplay
because“they
livedthrough
itand
livedafter
it”yielded
minor
changesin
thepublished
script.26
Theactorssuggested
deletingunnecessary
translations
orexplanations
thatwould
berepetitive
toaPhilippine-based
audience.In
asim
ilardram
aturgicalapproach,
directorBobby
Garcia
andset
designer
Kalila
Aguilos
envisionedaset
designthat
was
astylized
representationof
therubble
left behindbythe
Marcoses
when
theyfled
theMalacanang
Palace
in1982
(personalinterview
).Rather
thanrecreating
theimage
ofManila
on
stage,Garcia
andAguilos
choseasthe
visualandspatialinspiration
for the
Manila
productionthe
forcedevacuation
of theMarcoses
andthe
reclaim
ingofM
alacanangbythe
PeoplePow
erMovem
ent.Upstage
centerwas
an aiI
I IIIi
DøEATE$
8aed,nherbest—
se1jjnwrel
Directed
byBsbby
GRrcj$.
3brringin,
Ana
ABADS4NTOS
Gink
Ch.ri
aRESkcocw
kGA
Bez
CORTEZRichard
CUNANANMichael
DEMESA
Teresa
PARSO
NSUSBRER
JennyJAM
ORAI.cc
ANALO
JeraldNAPOLES
Che
RAbies
kidyRANAY
Le
RIALI’
La.
RQDRI’UEa
Jn
SANTO
,T.e).TGRR
NOVEMBER
16—tECEM
BER2,
2007ArLN
P.tiokØcR&t1ntjPr.duoti.z
at
•r84&
—1185
azTicketzy
.rjdat891—
9999.EXPLICIT
tanCONTENT
9?2fL
PosterforDogeaters.Produced
byAtlantisProductions.DirectedbyBobby
Gar
cia.Manila,
Philippines,2007.Photograph
byRaym
undIsaac.
Graphic
Design!
ArtD
irectionbyG. A.Fallarrne.Permission
grantedbyAtlantis
Productions
>“
101
102<<
COUPDETHEATRE
Last Supper.Dogeaters.
ProducedbyAtlantis
Productions.Directed
byBobby
Garcia.
Manila, Philippines,
2007.Photograph
byRaym
undIsaac.G
raphicDesign/A
rtDirection
byG. A. Fallarm
e. Actors
inimage:
CherylR
amos, Teresa
Herrera, Jerald
Napoles,Jenny
Jamora, Joel Torre, M
ichael deMesa, G
inaAlajar, Rez
Cortez,A
ndoyRanay, Leo
Rialp,
AnaAbad
Santos, Richard
Cunanan, C
hariArespacochaga, N
icoManalo, Jonjon
Santos,
PaoloRodriguez.
Permission
grantedbyAtlantis
Productions.
unevenand
precariouslyhanging
portraitofMadam
eImelda,
anunm
ade
bedwasplaced
upstageleft,
downstage
slightlytothe
rightwasanempty
bench, andpieces
of brokenconcrete
were
scatteredonstage.27
Dogeaters’theatrical
adaptationcould
notbe
amore
perfectexam
pleof puro
arteinitsembrace
of thespectacular, its
joyinthe
performance
ofexcess, and
itsfacing
head-onthe
riskofbalancing
between
archetypesandstereotypes,m
ockeryand
homage. There
were
aspectstothe
Manila
production
thatencapsulatepuro
arteinways
that previousproductions
couldnot
havedone.Indeed, the
U.S.multiethnic/m
ultiracial productionstestify
tothe
portabilityof this
postcolonialnarrative, as craftedbyHagedorn. In
this case,the
fungibilityof the
Filipinoperform
ingbody
emerged
inprevious
productions
with
amultiracial
castthatunderscored,
asAllan
Isaacputs
it, Filipinos’
“racialschem
athat
recognizesalong
historyof cultural
andnational
mixing”
(xxi). Yet, Iwant to
elaboratebriefly
onsom
eof the
pleasuresofthis
all-Pilipinocast. O
neisthe
casting. RezCortez
isanactor
who
isknownfor
hiskontrabida(villain)
roles.28
InDogeaters,he
wascast in
threeroles:as the
über-kontrabidaGeneral Ledesm
a, asthe
waiterw
hoisat the
receivingend
L
I
Andoy
Ranay.“Madam
e.”InDogeaters,produced
byAtlantis
Productions.Directed
byBobby
Garcia.M
anila,Philippines,2007.Photograph
byRaym
undIsaac.
Graphic
Design!
ArtD
irectionbyG.A.Fallarm
e.Permission
grantedbyAtlantis
Productions
‘-.
103
104<<
COUPDETHEATRE
COUPDRTHATRE
>>
105
of aManila
sosyal’s(upper-class
person’s)tirade,and
asPedro
thehouseboy
tonightclub
owner
dragqueen
PerlitaAlacran.
Assigning
Cortez
theser
vantcharacters
ofthewaiter
andthe
houseboyisacontrastto
theultim
ateamo(boss)
General
Ledesma,and
servestohighlight
thesecharacters
asalter
egos.Thepoetry
inthis
castingis thatC
ortezimmortalized
kontrabidacharacters
likeGeneralLedesm
a.ThecharacterLedesm
awas in
fact inspiredbyactors
likeCortez
performing
assyndicate
leaders,drugpushers,rapists,
sleazyneighbors,
kidnappers,and
righthandstoMafia
bossesincountless
movies.
Yet, inthe
performance
of thisrole,C
ortezdid
notmake
thisself
referentialityinto
ashow
ofitsown.H
einterpreted
thecharacter’s
existenceinthe
Dogeaters
world
andthe
relationsthatm
akeupthis
world.
Aesthetically,
what
theManila
productioncaptured
more
thanthe
U.S.productions
wasthe
distinctlypleasurable
soundofFilipino
English,also
knownas“Taglish”
(contractionof“Tagalog”
and“English”),It is
aparticu
larsonic
aestheticthatw
ouldnotbe
possibleinanensem
blewhose
mem
bersdid
notallspeak
orunderstand
Filipino.The
poetryofshort
phrasessuch
as“Ay
naku,coup”
wasnot
lostonthe
audience.“Ay
nakucoup!”
is atight
littlepun,
likemany
one-linersinthis
play,that
capturesacom
mon
vernacularexpression,in
thiscase
“Aynaku”
(“Haynako,”
‘jAy nanayko”are
otherversionsofit.). Possible
interpretationsofthe
expression,which
Icannot
begintotranslate
directly,include
“ohmy:’
“ohdear:’
“ohwell:’
andso
on.Thiscontraction
of “haynanay
ko”(Ohmydear
mother)
isinvoked
onmultiple
occasionsand
canexpress
multiple
sentiments.O
ften,it isasigh
ofexasperation—
”Aynaku
anghirap
ngbuhay
(Ohgoodness,life
issohard).
Atothertimes,
itexpressessurprise,relief,joy. In
thiscase,“Ay
nakucoup!”
means
“Ohmy,a
coup,amilitary
takeover!”Inthis
briefexpression,theplay
onthe
soundof“ko”
into“coup,”
much
comesacross:exhaustion,irritation,
panic,fear,exasperationat,and
submission
tothe
imposition
ofmartialrule
thatfollowsfrom
thecoup’s
upheaval.OnNovem
ber13,
2007,four
nightsbefore
Dogeaters’
Manila
premiere,
BatasangPam
bansa,the
PhilippineCongress
National
Complex,
wasbom
bed.Batasang
Pambansa
isinQuezon
City,along
way
away
fromMakati,
inMetro
Manila’s
thicktraffic.
Itwasreportedly
causedbypoliti
calrivalviolencethatkilled
sixpeople
andinjured
afew
others(Ager).That
night,Dogeatersw
asintech
rehearsalfocusingonlighting
andsound
aspectsofthe
performance.
Therehearsal
wasatthe
CarlosP.Rom
uloTheater,in
Makati’s
RCBCPlaza,w
herethe
productionwould
beperform
ed.The
theater ishoused
inabuilding
thatis hometoseven
differentinternationalconsulatesand
sitsacrossthe
streetfromGlorietta
Mall(where
adeadly
bomb
explosionoccurred
lessthan
amonth
before).RioGonzaga’s
final words
in
theplay,“Everything
isdifferentbutnothing
haschanged:’
maybeoverde
termined.A
ndyet
theycom
etomind
forareason;w
hileaplay
that dealswiththe
pastdecadesof Philippine
politicsisinproduction,violentpoliti
calscenesare
playedout
off-stageand
onthe
streets.Martial
Lawbecom
estoday’s
reference,shorthandfor
Philippinegovernm
entcorruptionand
violence
boththen
andnow.
EvenasSining
Bayanand
Dogeaters
areclearly
differenttheaterprojects,each
wrestles
againstand
supplements
thepervasive
structuresofMartial
Law. Inthis
chapter,thetwoartistic
projectscom
etogether
intheir
sharedcentrality
inthe
emergence
ofFilipinoAmerican
theater.Within
thesLtht
-
aterproductions
andpractices
areacts
ofbravetheatricality
andexcruciat
inglabor
thatdare(againstallodds)
torepeatedly
putonashow
,tobepuro
arte.Inmany
ways,this
chapterserves
asahom
ecoming
forpreciselysuch
ashow.
1. I
156<‘
NOTESTOCHAPTER
3NOTESTOCHAPTER
3>>
157
CHAP1CR
31.In2006,together
with
Dr.Barbara
Gaerlan,I co-organized
asym
posiumcom
memorating
theanti-im
perialistwork
of Daniel B
oone-Schirmerand
theU.S.
Anti—
MartialLaw
movem
ent atUCLA
.Dr. Stephen
Shalomwasone
ofthe
speakers. Itis hispresentation, ‘A
mericaiN
extTopModel?
The Philippinesand
theAmerican
Empire,”that Im
akeareference
tohere.Shalom
arguesagainst
ex—U.S. presidentG
eorgeBush’s
citationof the
Philippinesas“ashining
democ
racyinthe
[Asian]
region”inaspeech
made
duringa visitto
thePhilippine
Congress
inOctober
2003.In
thisspeech,Bush
drawsadirect parallelbetw
een
theU.S. occupation
of thePhilippines
inthe
earlytwentieth
centuryand
his/the
United
States’war against Iraq
inthe
earlytwenty-first century.
2.Oneof the
many
Philippineexam
plestoillustrate
Agam
ben’spointaboutsecurity
measures
implem
entedduring
crisisthat becom
ethe
stateof affairs
is thegovern
ment’s
ongoingwar againstM
orosinthe
SouthernPhilippines.This w
ar dates
backtoearly
twentieth
century,partlyjustifying
U.S. occupationof the
Phffip
pines.Relatedly,thePhilippine
government has
sanctionedviolence
against its
ownpeople
withanundeclared,ongoing
waragainst pro-nationaldem
ocratic
activists.Theseefforts
havesustained
U.S.-Philippine
staterelations,enabling
the
continuingreliance
of thePhilippine
governmenton
U.S. military
presenceinthe
country. ItsustainsU.S.-Philippine
alliancetocurtail dissenting
forces andIslam
ic
forcesnot just in
thePhilippines,but in
SoutheastAsia
at large.
3.Among
scholarlywritings
onPhilippine
political theaterareMaria
Josephine
Barrios’sunpublished
master’s
thesis“Tungo
saEstetika
ngDulaang
Panlansan
gan”and
Doreen
Fernandez’sPalabas.
4.As
I haveargued
elsewhere,the
Filipinoanti—
martialLaw
activismwasatrans
national movem
entinformedspecifically
byinternationalpolitics
that under
scoredliberation
fromclass
struggles. Seemydissertation, “C
ommunity
Acts.”
Augusto
Espiritu’sessay
titled“Journeys
ofDiscovery
andDifference:T
rans
nationalPoliticsand
theUnion
ofDemocratic
Filipinos”provides
anexcellent
depictionofthe
KDP’stransnational politics
assources
of “cooperationand
tension”(a,).
5.For
ananalysis
ofhowthe
Marcoses
built lastingcultural institutions,see
PearlieBaluyut’s
dissertationtitled
“Institutionsand
Iconsof Patronage: A
rts
andCulture
inthe
Philippinesduring
theMarcos
Years,1965-1986:’
6.See
Gerard
Lico’sEd(fice
Complex:Power,M
yth, andMarcos
StateArchitecture
for
ananalysis
that linksarchitecture,space,and
theMarcoses’
regime. Lico
specifi
callydiscusses
theconstruction
of thisCCPComplex
inchapter3.
7.This
landwasinfact returned
tothe
lbaloi families
becausethey
were
coerced
tosellit during
theMartial Law
(Cabreza).
8.Originaltextfrom
“New
Grapes”
inNewsweek,
31July
1967,79.9.Although
popularlyperceived
asacause
predominantly
affectingand
organizedbyCalifornia’s
Chicano
community,the
farmworkers’strike, later
tobeorga
nizedasthe
United
FarmWorker’s
Union,could
not havehappened
withoutthe
I
earlierorganizingand
campaigning
work
byFilipino
farmworkers
andactivists
suchasLarry
Itliongand
PhilipVera
Cruz.See
Glenn
Omatsu’s
article“In
Memoriam
PhilipVera
Cruz”
andE.San
Juan’s“From
NationalA
llegorytothe
Realization
ofaJoyfulSubject.”
10.Yolanda
Broyles-G
onzaleslinks
ElTeatroCam
pesino’saesthetics
totraditional
Mexican
performance
traditionssuch
asIacarpa
(tent shows)and
thecom
edicsof popular
artistCantinflas
(io).11.Another
example
ofValdez’s
andElTeatro
Campesino’s
influenceon
I’thpincAmerican
theaterartists
at thetimeis a
playstaged
byFilipino
Americans
inSeattle.In
1998,at thefirstA
sianAmerican
theaterconference
inSeattle,
Washington,Filipino
American
artistStanAsisshared
thatinthemid-19os,he
andfellow
artistsadapted
aversion
ofValdez’s
LosVendidos.This
isapopular
satiricalactothattakes
stereotypesofthe
Mexican
migrantw
orkeraslaLy
white-identified,underhanded,and
evenovereager
revolutionary,onlytoturn
themallon
theirheads.LosVendidos’focus
onmigrantfarm
workers
couldbe
easilyadapted
tonarrate
theplight of Filipino
migrantw
orkers.12.
Severalgroupsemerged.O
newasthe
NationalC
ommittee
fortheRestora
tionof CivilLiberties
inthe
Philippines(NCRCLP),w
hichlater
becamethe
Anti—
MartialLaw
Coalition
andmorphed
oncemore
intothe
Coalition
againstthe
Marcos
Dictatorship/Philippine
SolidarityNetwork
(CAMD/PSN
)Other
groupsinclude
theMovem
entof FreePhilippines
(MFP)
andthe
KDPWritings
onthe
U.S.-based
Anti—
MartialLaw
Movem
entincludeBarbara
Gaerlan>s“The
Movem
entinthe
United
StatestoOppose
MartialLaw
inthe
Philippines,1972-
1991:AnOverview
”and
The PhilippinesReader,edited
byD.Boone
Schirmer
andStephen
Shalom.Form
oreonthe
KDP,seeHelen
Toribio’sessays and
EstellaHabal’s
SanFranciscoiI-H
otel.13.
Forexample,the
much-cited
productionPagsam
bangGabi/M
idnightMasstack
ledhead-on,using
thestructure
of Catholic
Mass,the
conditionsofM
artialLawinitsdarkesthour,describing
thekilling
of freedomand
democracy,w
antonviolations
ofhumanrights
andloss
ofhumandignity,governm
entcorruption,and
theinsatiable
greedofthose
whoare
inpow
er.PlaywrightBoni
Ilaganhad
justbeenreleased
fromincarceration
(forcharges
ofdissentagainstthegovern
ment)
when
hewrote
thisplay
(Fernandez).14.
TheSedition
Act Executive
Summary
reads,Enacted
on4Novem
berioibythe
PhilippineCommission,A
ctNo.292
definesthe
crimesoftreason,insurrection,and
seditionagainstthe
authorityof the
American
colonialgovernmentin
thePhilippines. The
Actprohibits
anyform
ofpropagandaforPhilippine
independence,andthe
utteranceand
writing
ofseditiouswords
orspeeches
against theUnited
States.It prescribesharsh
punishments
forcommitting
suchcrim
es.(Philippine
Commission,Law
againstTreason,Sedition,Etc.(A
ctNo.292),M
anila,Philippines,i9oi)Juan
Abad’s
playswritten
andproduced
at thistimeinclude
TanikalangGinlo
(Golden
Chains)
andIsangPunlo
ngKaaw
ay(The
Enemy’s
Bullet).Other
III
158‘.<
NOTESTOCHAPTER
3
writers
andtheirplays
areJuan
Matapang
Cruz’sHindiPa
AcoPatay
(IAmNot
Dead
Yet)and
Aurelio
Tolentino’sKahapon,N
gayonatBukas
(Yesterday,Today,
andTom
orrow).These
playswere
stagedinvarious
areasof Luzon.See
Amelia
LaPena-Bonifacio’s“Seditious”
TagalogPlayw
rights:EarlyAmerican
Occupation
andchapter
iinVince
Rafael’sWhite
Loveforcriticalanalyses
of“seditiousplays.”
15.“Manong”
literallymeans
“olderbrother”inFilipino.In
FilipinoAmerican
history,theterm
“manongs”
hasbeen
usedtorefer
tothe
generationofm
alemigrantw
orkerswhocam
etothe
United
Statesinthe
mid-192os.
16.The
InternationalHotelin
SanFrancisco’s
Manilatow
nhoused
amajority
ofaging
manongs
andChinese
American
workers.The
fightagainstcorporatetakeover
ofdowntow
nSan
Franciscoand
thedim
inishingofaffordable
housing
asaresultof this
createdamultigenerationaland
multiracialcoalition.For
more
onthe
1-Hotelanti-eviction
movem
ent,specificallythe
FilipinoAmerican
participationinthis
effort,seeEstella
Habal’s
SanFranciscoiInternationalHotel:
Mobilizing
theFilipino
American
community
inthe A
nti-EvictionMovem
ent.17.
SeeCatherine
Ceniza
Choy, “ThalandError:C
rimeand
Punishmentin
America’s
‘Wound
Culture”
inEmpire
of Care.18.
Ileto’sPasyon
aridRevolution
suggestsareinterpretation
of thecom
mon
people’sconsum
ptionofthe
Pasyon, thetextnarrating
thelife
ofJesusChristused
inpublic
readingsduring
Holy
Week.
ForIleto,the
Pasyonprovided
“lowland
Philippinesociety
with
alanguage
forarticulatingitsownvalues,ideals,and
evenhopes
ofliberation”(12). H
eunderscores
thesignificance
ofsuchalter
nativesources
ofsocialchange“in
asociety
withoutfreedom
of speechand
legitimate
channelsofprotest”
(i6).19.
Much
hasbeen
saidaboutgenderas
ablind
spot forothersocialprotestthe
aterssuch
asEl Teatro
Carnpesino
andthe
BlackRevolutionary
Theater.Elamhim
selfcomments
onthe
limitsofm
asculinistpracticesinthe
cultureofthese
socialprotesttheaters:“During
thisperiod, V
aldez’sand
Baraka’stheatrical
strategiesand
socialprotestideologieswere
decidedlymale-centric,heterosex
1st,andpatriarchal.In
theirorganizationalhierarchies
andperform
ancework
ElTeatroand
theBRT
reflectedthe
philosophiesofm
alehegem
onyand
female
subjugation,which
were
asignificantelem
entofChicano
andblack
culturalnationalism
inthe
196osand
1970S”(a).
Formore
discussiononthe
politicsof gender,specifically
thetension
aroundthe
masculinistculture
ofpoliticaltheater,seeYolanda
Broyles-G
onzales’s
“Towards
aRe-V
isionofC
hicanoTheatre
History:The
WomenofElTeatro
Canipesino”
andGarcia,G
utierrez,andNuñez,eds.,
TeatroChicana:A
Collective
Memoirand
SelectedPlays.For
aperspective
ongay
activistsinthe
FilipinoAmerican
movem
ent,seeGilM
angaoang’s“From
the1970S
tothe
19908:
Perspectiveofa
GayFilipino
American
Activist”
inAsian
American
Sexualities.20.
Thepolitics
of genderand
sexualitywithin
theAMLM
is yettobefully
analyzed.W
henIattended
theKDP’s
twenty-fifth
reunioninOakland,C
alifornia
NOTESTOCHAPTER4
>>19
in1999, there
wasatable
ofwomenactivists
whoinitiated
aconversation
aboutthe
specificdem
andsof the
movem
entonwomen.The
demands
theyspoke
ofincluded
thewaythe
movem
enthadasay
inrelationships,partnerships,and
locations.Conversations
with
activistslike
Ermina
Vinluan
introducedinc
toterm
ssuch
as“ideologicalvacillation:’ w
hichquestioned
thecom
mitmentof
KDPmembers.Form
oreonthe
participationofw
omeninthe
Anti—
Martial
LawMovem
entinthe
United
States, seeCatherine
Ceniza
Choy,“Towards
Trans-PacificSocialJustice:W
omenand
ProtestinFilipino
American
History”
RoseIbaflez,“G
rowing
UpinAmerica
asaYoung
FilipinaAmerican
duringthe
Anti—
Martial Law
andStudentM
ovementin
theUnited
States”; andF stella
Habal,“H
owI Becam
eaRevolutionary:’
21.See
RickBonus’s
LocatingFilipino
America
foradiscussion
of howFilipino
American
communities
havecontested
andnegotiated
publicspaces
inthe
United
States,therebypoliticizing
identityasthe
“powertodefine
selvesand
gainaccess
toresources”
(a,).22.
El TeatroCampesino
developedadistinctperform
ancestyle,w
hatisnowknow
nwidely
as“actos.”
TheBread
andPuppetTheaterbased
inBoston
utilizedgiantpuppets, influenced
bypopular
LatinAmerican
theatertechniques.
23.Foran
analysisof the
1998LaJolla
Playhousestaging
ofthisscene,see
Victor
Bascara’s Model-M
inorityImperialism
.24.
Acollege
productionofD
ogeatersatthe
all-women’s
college,SmithCollege
inNortham
pton,Massachusetts,directed
byKrystalB
anzon,wasperform
edbyan
all-female
cast.25.
Actors
Gina
Alajar,Jon
Santos,andLao
Rodriguez
sharedvariations
ofthesequestions
duringdifferentm
oments
inthe
rehearsalprocessand
ininfornsa
conversations.26.
Thiscitation
isfromacom
mentm
adebyHagedorn
duringrehearsals
inManila
(Novem
ber2007).
27.Many
of thepreview
sand
reviewsof the
Manila
productionhardly
paidattcn
tiontothe
storyof M
artialLawinDogeaters.They
focusedonHagedorn
asabalikbayan
andonthe
stellarcast. Substantial reviewsrehearsed
familiar
comments
thatwere
notedaboutthe
novel,which
isinevitable
foraplay
basedonthe
novel.PatrickHenson’s
reviewinthe
Manila
Bulletintook
issuewiththe
play’scharacters,w
hichhefound
tobestereotypical
andshallow
depictionsof
Filipinos.Heidentified
thisasasym
ptomof som
eonewhohas
stayedawaytoo
long.Another
reviewhailed
Dogeaters
asawake-up
call toFilipino
peoplesho
were
apathetictow
ardthe
corruptsystemofgovernm
ent.28.
Foranarticle
thatpayshom
ageto“cruel,brutal, devious,m
achokontrabidas,
includingCortez,see
Nerisa
Almo’s
“BadGuys
ofPhilippineShow
biz’
CHAPTER4
1.Insom
eproductions
where
therole
ofEllenisgiven
toanAsian
actor,it isexplained
thatChris,in
hisinability
toget overK
im,seeks
forareplacem
ent
II