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