The Use Of Theatre In Mexican-American Culture

Latinos are currently the largest minority group in the United States, and Mexican-Americans are the largest group within the Latino population. It may be unfathomable for the younger generations to think of the Mexican population in the United States as a silent minority group; however, it was not until after World War II that we see a rise in Chicano nationality and identity movements. What was the role of the theatre in this discovery of identity, and how did the theatre give social voice to this formerly unheard group? The clearest answer to this question can be found through the Teatro Chicano movement, Luis Valdez’s character El Pachuco in Zoot Suit and the performance art pieces and writings of Luis Alfaro.

The name El Teatro Chicano is actually a blanket term used to describe an entire theatrical movement by the Mexican-American population in the United States. Established in 1965, Luis Valdez’s El Teatro Campesino (literally, Farmworkers’ Theatre) was the most famous of the Chicano Theatres; however it was hardly the only participant within the movement. In 1971 there were over 25 groups that defined themselves as Chicano Theatres (Huerta 15). The basic guidelines of El Teatro Chicano were simply to be a community-based movement committed to exposing social issues and injustices within the barrios, or hyper-segregated Mexican neighborhoods. The mission of Teatro Chicano was based on the understanding of the ancestral Mayan concept of “In Lak’ech”, which states “you are my other me, so I must respect you as I do myself.” The foundation of Teatro Chicano not only traced back to the Native American ancestors of the Mexican-American community, but it also sought to use this ancestry to restore a sense of identity and to encourage Mexicans in the United States to hold onto their roots (Huerta 16). Unlike other theatre and social change movements, El Teatro Chicano was not really interested in injustice as a whole, but rather injustice from the vantage point of the Mexican-American. The specificity of the movement also helped to distinguish the Mexican identity from a general marginalized group identified by the blanked term of вЂ?Hispanic’ or вЂ?Latino’ to a unique faction with a personalized perspective (Huerta 15).

There has been little research done on teatros other than Teatro Campesino, most likely due to the fact that El Teatro Chicano was not a very organized or professional movement. Pieces were often performed outdoors, on street corners or in other high traffic areas. Little concern was given to production quality because the content of the message was the primary focus (Kanellos 65). Valdez felt there was a want for more unity and communication between participants as well as a need for more training of Chicano performers in El Teatro Chicano, so in the summer 1971 he held the first meeting of El Teatro Nacional de AztlÐ"ÐŽn, or TENAZ. The workshop was considered a “success”, and 15 participants were taught different Teatro вЂ?techniques’ and swapped ideas for topics and themes for new performance art pieces (Huerto 14). Ironically Valdez, the founder of TENAZ, was eventually excluded from the workshop because he was criticized for creating works that were too вЂ?spiritual’ and that avoided the real issues of poverty, employment and discrimination (Elam 116 вЂ" 117).

The fundamental performance utilized by El Teatro Chicano was the acto, a term coined by Luis Valdez. Actos are performance are pieces that are used to “inspire the audience to social action” and put emphasis on the social vision (Broyles-Gonzalez 25). While they were usually scripted, they were never actually written down and performers often took a lot of artistic license with the pieces (Broyles-Gonzalez 22). The actos performed by various Teatros Chicanos often faced serious opposition, even by members of the Mexican community. In an effort to remain вЂ?true to reality’ the actos often contained extreme profanity, coarse subject matters and graphic violence. It was not uncommon for Teatro Chicano performers to be thrown out of venues because of the vulgarity of the actos, so performers constantly struggled between the choice of softening the pieces for the sake of the audience or remaining true their perception of the social reality (Huerta 17). Though it may have lacked in unity and professionalism, the El Teatro Chicano helped to instill pride in the Mexican identity and spur discussion of injustice and social action. In his essay Concerning Teatro Chicano, J.A. Huearta states: “Teatros are converting Chicanos who used to be ashamed of their heritage; teatros are bringing socio-political realities to the people in a way they cannot ignore; teatros are educating people” (Huerta 18).

During his work with El Teatro Campesino, Luis Valdez was commissioned to write Zoot Suit by the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles. The play would tell the story of the racially biased trials of the Sleepy Lagoon Murders, where seventeen pachucos, Mexican gang members, were convicted of first-degree murder, and the Zoot Suit Riots that ensued due to the verdict (Jacobs 27). Through much opposition from the Anglo-dominated theatre world, the play debuted at the Taper, made its way to Broadway in 1979 and was later made into a film in 1981. Much of the opposition to the play was due to the unwillingness to change the character of El Pachuco, the prototype of the 1940s Mexican gangster and Valdez’s personification of the Chicano identity (Kanellos 97). In an interview soon after the release of the film Zoot Suit Valdez commented on the character of El Pachuco:

“He is the rebel. The recalcitrant rebel who refuses to give in, who refuses to bend, refuses to admit that he is wrong. He is incorrigible. And the way that the Pachuco appears in the film and in the play makes a very strong statement. The stance is almost ideological, even cultural; it’s mythical. They know then, the Anglo critics…that what this figure represents is a self-determined identity; it comes from its own base. That’s been my argument all along through my work; that we have our own fundamental base from which to work” (Kanellos 98).

To Valdez, the idea of the Pachuco was not to glorify the lifestyle of the 1940’s gangster (which many accused him of doing), but rather find an archetype within whom the Mexican-American community could find their identity. The pachuco refused to assimilate to the dominant white culture, and while he may inhabit some extreme character flaws, Valdez finds his struggle for identity worthy of acclaim