[Marxism] Marx Beyond Soho (interview with actor/director of Cuban production)

[Walter Lippmann <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

(Since one picture is worth a thousand words,
readers may well want to go to the web-page
where this is posted for photos of the actor.)
================================================

La Jiribilla No. 309, April 7-13, 2007
MARX BEYOND SOHO

A CubaNews translation. Edited by Walter Lippmnn 
http://www.walterlippmann.com/docs1216.html 

original:
http://www.lajiribilla.co.cu/2007/n309_04/309_09.html 
 
In a well-recognized phrase, Martà says that there is no real death
when one has led a meaningful life. This could be the ideal preface
to any article written today about Karl Marx. One hundred &
twenty-four years following his death, the spectre he invoked and
described is not only haunting Europe, but the entire world.
Coinciding with the commemoration of this anniversary of Cuban
television, a version of a play that three years ago successfully
appeared in the Havana theater is being broadcast: Marx in Soho by
Howard Zinn, activist, essayist and playwright. Michaelis CuÃ,
actor/director, starred in this one-man production in the theater as
well as on TV. Michaelisâs well-known artistic development drew from
his participation in such important groups as Studio Theater, the
Bertolt Brecht Political Theater and My Theater, among others, as
well as his work as a director, were possibly why when it was decided
to present this play in Cuba his name immediately came up. Zinnâs
play has enjoyed great theatrical success not only in Cuba but in
many Latin American countries, obtaining favorable reviews in the
media wherever it has been presented. Venezuela, Chile, Costa Rica,
PerÃ, MÃxico have all witnessed this exceptional work which our
country plans to take on a nationwide tour winding up at the Adolfo
Llauradà Salon for its 100th presentation. Itâs quite interesting to
see how such diverse audiences discover different meanings â all of
which, in my opinion, are valid â in the dramatic text. The interest
it has awakened is vindication of the thinking of one of humanityâs
great ideologists and indicates that Marx still has much to say, and
not only in Soho.

Many have characterized Marx in Soho as an heir of political theater
and speak of the influence of Brechtâs Galileo Galilei presented by
Vicente Revulta. What influences do you see here?

I was Vicenteâs right hand for 12 or 13 years, so it is logical that
his influence is seen in my acting and directing. I recognize I owe a
great deal to him, and although I have had various teachers, I
learned a great deal about acting and directing from him. As to the
reference that this is political theater, I feel that everything in
theater is political. Naturally, as this work is about Karl Marx,
everyone talks about political theatre. But today if someone were to
present another political work, Fuenteovejuna by Lope de Vega, itâs
more evident when the play is about this person (Karl Marx). The
principals of my portrayals in the theater are influenced by both
Brecht and Grotowsky, but it is Grotowskyâs principals that I use in
my voice and body language. Iâm unaware of it when Iâm on stage.

Omar Valino said that your role as Marx showed maturity as an actor.
But you directed as well. What was that like and which was more
difficult?

The play was given to me by Julio CÃsar RamÃrez whom I was going to
direct. But as I read it I became so excited I said: I have to do
this, and I began studying it from the actorâs point of view.
Logically as I was to direct it I had a general overview of the work.
I tried not to let that influence me, but to devote myself to looking
at it from the point of view of the actor. Julio had told me to let
him decide what parts he would use and I was interfering without even
being aware of it, preventing him from turning the work into a
political lecture, because the work is quite long and there are parts
that the Cuban audience would be bored with. So I stuck with the part
of the monologue where the actor is much more human, doing it all
from the actorâs point of view. BÃrbara Rivero started working with
me as an advisor. Later she gave me a version that she had written
and I began to study it. The first run-throughs were with only Julio
and myself. Later Julio got very busy because he was also working in
a TV soap opera, and I was working very slowly because there was no
date set for it to open. Suddenly BÃrbara Rivero told me that Howard
Zinn was coming to the opening scheduled to be in 15 days! Thatâs
impossible, I said, because itâs not ready. The only thing I can do
is learn the text in 15 days and put it on as a rehearsal for him
after which I can set a date for the opening and he can attend. And
so I closeted myself in the theater and ended up directing myself as
I put it together. Finally Howard Zinn arrived, we met and talked a
lot about the play and the next day he came to the rehearsal. Even
though everything was hastily put together, the script, the
movements, he liked what he saw. Despite that, I told him that it was
not what would be presented at the opening and I requested a month
and a half more (before the opening). He was here for the first few
days of April, and we agreed that the opening would be on May 26. He
arrived three days before and was awarded Honoris Causa and his book,
A People's History of the United States was published.

The opened on the 26th, but was a completely different version from
what he had seen at the rehearsal, which had only been a rough
version, because after that I put it all together. I dedicated myself
to putting it on stage. I was in a kind of trance. I didnât sleep,
didnât eat. I got up at dawn because I knew that the work was in a
vacuum. My career was at stake. From the outset I knew I couldnât
imitate Karl Marx. I wouldnât wear a beard or makeup, because Marx is
an icon, but he was also a human being and instead of imitating Marx
I decide to find what there was of Marx in me, what I had of Marx,
what his ideas had to do with me. With that as a beginning, I tried
to present the man through his thinking, his ideology, his
relationship with his family and through his humanism. It was
impudent of me because everyone was waiting for a man with a beard,
long hair, and I presented him through me because any other way would
have been to continue respecting an icon, and I tried to de-sanctify
the image that everyone has of him. I really enjoyed that role more
than any other even though every presentation is different, every
play follows its own path, and luckily I felt it deeply from the
beginning and that helped me mount the work in record time. I didnât
want complicated scenery; a simple stage setting but more complex
acting. I would throw myself into the role and seek the truth, and it
turned out fine.

I learned something about Howard Zinnâs visit and he has said that
yours is the best stage presentation of his work that he has seen.
Would you speak a little about the relationship between you two
following the presentation?

He was very nice and was interested in what parts of the play would
be cut. He confessed to me that he thought that the monologue in Cuba
couldnât be included because there are parts that are very sensitive
and he was surprised when he saw that the cuts were precisely those
which would have meant preaching to the choir. He expected that I
would have cut the other parts and would have left the preachy part
but I left the most sensitive parts because I had a lot of freedom
(in mounting the play) and so I decided not to cut it, and he found
that fascinating. We communicated with each other easily even though
he doesnât fully understand Spanish. Heâs very pleasant and open. In
the US many versions of Marx in Soho have been seen. Nearly all
universities have presented it. Moreover, itâs been on Broadway and
has been seen internationally, but itâs never been put on in Spanish
and he was very interested in how it had been done in Cuba. He
thought that the work would be "very Cuban", but when he saw that I
was adapting it for Latin America he in greed and was very pleased.
He sent me an e-mail saying that I had made his play famous in Latin
America. He praised the production highly and used it to describe
this countryâs artistic level, as Cuban theater is very active, in
the vanguard as it were. I believe he was more interested in it from
the political perspective without much artistic expectation, but I
always felt that if it wasnât well done there was no sense in putting
it on. If it has any political, ideological, practical value, it is
because it was well adapted. If it had flopped, no one would have
talked about it.

The adaptation was recently televised. What was it like adapting Marx
in Soho to the small screen without losing the intensity that is so
different in two such different mediums?

I had to throw myself once again into the play. Jorge Alonso Padilla,
the director, and RaÃl GarcÃa, the co-director, saw it on stage and
the next day they called me filled with enthusiasm telling me they
wanted to adapt it for TV. I asked about the script and they gave it
to me. When I saw it I loved it as it was very ingenious and solved
many of the problems involved in bringing it to TV. I tell you that
once more I had to use my imagination because the theater is for a
more limited audience and TV is for millions. Padilla, RaÃl and I
understood that, and used my theater presentation as a guide, but a
TV broadcast is different. My first challenge was to shed the
excessive theatricality even though I feel that the spectator should
understand that itâs a theater piece adapted for TV and I couldnât
just make it ânaturalâ with understated acting or tone it down. The
three of us were aware of the importance of the extras to give it
atmosphere. In the end it was very well done because the script was
technically very good from the start. Padilla made a very secure
adaptation and that is a great help to an actor.

Throughout Latin America there is a trend to the left. During your
tour, how was it received by those Latin American audiences?

For me it was a real surprise. The communication, the level of
acceptance was very impressive. When I was in Perà the audience
reaction was exciting. I was going to do the show at universities,
but I realized that on that tour the University of San Marcos, the
oldest on the continent and with a leftist tradition, had not been
included. Vallejo studied there and I asked to put the play on there.
It was spectacular. That was the first time it had been given before
a Latin American audience.

Later, in Costa Rica, a country with a great cultural tradition and
many prejudices concerning Cuba, I was quite concerned. The work was
part of the Costa Rican Arts Festival program, a very important
international festival. It was included because the Festivalâs
director had been in Cuba and seen it here. On the first night the
theater was completely filled and the console broke 10 minutes before
the play was to begin. The technicians there told me it was sabotage
because I was Cuban, and I told them I would go on without music,
with just a light, but the play would go on. Well, it wasnât
sabotage. The console had really broken, and they brought another one
from a nearby theater and publicâs reaction was totally unexpected; I
received an impressive ovation. The play defended Marxâs ideas but
humanizing him instead of making him cold, and they found that very
interesting; it moved them. In Cuba the audience is moved in a
different way because everyone here has studied Marxism. There (in
Costa Rica) they have also studied him, but from a different point of
view and so it was viewed differently. In Cuba you show Karl Marx
attacking capitalism and itâs nothing new, but in Costa Rica the
progressives that attended liked it because what they saw and heard
was presented with humor. Later I was in Chile and it was also very
well received. The theaters were full; hundreds of people.

As you yourself have said, in Cuba the work is received differently
than it is abroad and its success is attributed in good part to the
fact that the creatorâs philosophy has for the past 45 years served
as the basis of the social process.

Howard Zinn is very familiar with the biography of Karl Marx, his
thinking, and Zinn is a man with a very special sense of humor.
Zinnâs original text is very well balanced, not paternalistic,
written by an absolute detractor of capitalism, but also an absolute
detractor of what was called âreal socialismâ. Howard Zinn is a
profound Marxist. He is a man who isnât easily taken in by what
happened in âreal socialismâ. He is a severe critic of Stalinism and
that is seen in his work. In Cuba this criticism says a lot because
the socialism camp didnât collapse because of a war, it imploded
because of its internal contradictions and errors. This has been
brilliantly analyzed by Fidel and I have recently seen an article by
Armando Hart in Cubarte in which he tears into the errors committed
there. Howard Zinn follows that same line. The diverse interaction
within different audiences says that this is a polemical work and a
piece of theater that says many things.


Walter Lippmann
Havana, Cuba
"Un paraiso bajo el bloqueo"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
=================================

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism