chilean theatre in the days and nights of pinochet-an interview with hector noguera

Chilean Theatre in the Days and Nights of Pinochet: An Interview with Hector NogueraAuthor(s): Susana Epstein, Ian Watson and Hector NogueraReviewed work(s):Source: TDR (1988-), Vol. 34, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 84-95Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1146008 .

Accessed: 06/01/2013 08:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TDR (1988-).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 08:21:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1146008?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Chilean Theatre in the Days and Nights of Pinochet

An Interview with Hector Noguera

Susana Epstein and Ian Watson

Hector Noguera is a professor in the theatre department of Santiago's Catholic University as well as one of Chile's leading directors and actors. He is a director of the university's professional theatre company, the School of Communication Arts' Theatre, and is a founding member of several independent groups where he continues to direct and act. Noguera is also president of the International Theatre Institute (ITI) in Chile and has represented Chile at many international conferences, including the UNESCO-sponsored meeting on Latin American theatre in Lima, Peru, in 1987, and the International School of Theatre Anthropology (ISTA) con- gress in Salento, Italy, the same year. In 1988 he was invited to direct his first English-language production at the Milwaukee Repertory Theatre, a translation of Chilean Antonio Skarmeta's Burning Patience (Ardiente Pacien- cia), a play about Pablo Neruda which Noguera had directed in Santiago the previous year.

A Note on Chilean Theatre Modern theatre in Chile began with the formation of theatre companies

at Santiago's two main universities, the Experimental Theatre Company at the University of Chile in 1941 (renamed the University of Chile Theatre Institute in 1959) and Teatro Ensayo at the Catholic University in 1943 (renamed Catholic University School of Theatre in 1979). The companies continue to play a leading role in Chile's theatre. Chile also boasts a very active independent theatre movement consisting of both professional and amateur groups which produce works ranging from the classics to plays by contemporary Chilean and international playwrights, as well as collectively created pieces.

It is impossible to earn a living from theatre in Chile, so full-time professional theatre as we know it in Europe and the U.S. does not exist. The term "commercial" is used in Chile to differentiate between amateur troupes and productions where artists receive a salary, the theatre is rented, and advertising paid for.

84



Hector Noguera 85

1. Actors threatened under the repressive regime of General Pinochet march in protest through the streets of Santiago, Chile, in Decem- ber 1987. (Photo courtesy of Hector Noguera)

Pinochet and Theatre On i i September 1973 the armed forces, led by General Augusto

Pinochet, overthrew the democratically elected Socialist-Communist co- alition government of President Salvador Allende Gossens. The coup marked the beginning of brutal repressions against leftists, trade unionists, journalists, and artists, many of whom were exiled or murdered or "disap- peared" after being arrested. During these times, theatre people did not bow down before Pinochet's dictatorship. Gradually over the years they won a space for their opposition. This opposition, along with that of others brave enough to stand against the threat of jail, banishment, or an unmarked grave, finally had its reward. In the plebiscite of 5 October 1988, Chileans voted against Pinochet continuing in power for eight more years. Pinochet agreed to step down and elections are planned for December 1989.



86 Epstein/Watson We spoke to Hector Noguera on 16 April 1988 in New York City.

WATSON: You have worked in the theatre department at the Catholic University in Santiago both before and after Pinochet seized control. What are the main differences between the two periods for you and your colleagues? NOGUERA: The most important difference, I would say, is that prior to Pinochet there was a staff of actors.

WATSON: A repertory company? NOGUERA: It wasn't repertory, but we had a group of actors. And we were much more independent. Now we have to depend much more on the university. WATSON: So you receive funding from the university? NOGUERA: Yes. But we have to give the funds back.

EPSTEIN: You borrow money from the university? NOGUERA: Not borrow exactly. They give us money and we have to pay it back.

WATSON: How do you pay it back?

NOGUERA: Through ticket sales.

WATSON: So you are required to make all the money you spend at the box office?

NOGUERA: Yes. And if we do not they say we have wasted the money. But we say we haven't wasted it. What we have done is invest it in making theatre-that is different.1 WATSON: How were you funded prior to Pinochet?

NOGUERA: We got money from the university but we did not have to repay it.

WATSON: So now there is greater economic control?

NOGUERA: Yes. That's very important. Economic control.

WATSON: Is your work censored?

NOGUERA: At the university ... well, censorship in Chile is indirect. In the first years of Pinochet's rule it was much more difficult. We did not dare to do Chilean or Latin American plays. We only did the classics- Shakespeare, Lope de Vega, Moliere, Calderon-because with the classics you can say a lot of things indirectly. For instance, when we did Hamlet the main thing we underlined was the relationship between Hamlet and Claudius, the king who killed to make himself king. This was the sort of thing that the audience could "read." We did this kind of thing for years, always attempting a little more each time, until eventually a Chilean play, Marco Antonio de la Parra's The Raw, the Cooked and the Rotten (Lo crudo, lo cocido y lo podrido), was withdrawn the day before opening night. WATSON: When was this?

NOGUERA: The late '70s. I don't recall the precise year.2 WATSON: How did the authorities go about stopping the production?



Hector Noguera 87

NOGUERA: Several officials saw the dress rehearsal. They said they stopped the production because the play had bad language, but that was not the reason.

WATSON: Do censors see all plays before they open? NOGUERA: No. Nothing is so established. There is no group of censors. But of course at the university you have to send the play to someone who reads and approves it. And if whoever reads it does not like it, he "recom- mends" we do not do it because it could be dangerous. ... "I think it is a marvelous play but you had better not do it. It could be dangerous for you." Those are the sort of things that are said.

WATSON: This still happens?

2. Hector Noguera in a 1980 production of Hamlet at Teatro de la Universidad

Cat6lica (Catholic Univer- sity Theatre), directed by Rail Osorio. (Photo by Ra- m6n Lopez)



88 Epstein/Watson

NOGUERA: Yes. But our range is much broader than before. WATSON: Why? NOGUERA: Because ... I think it is because we have been struggling every day. Fighting every year, every month, always pressing, always pushing.

WATSON: You don't think part of the reason is that Pinochet and his government regard theatre as unimportant, something only few people are influenced by? NOGUERA: Yes, that too. But then the government contradicts itself. In 1977, for example, Jaime Vadell, a well-known director and actor, mounted Leaves from Parra's Book (Hojas de Parra), by one of our major poets, Nicanor Parra. It was one of the first plays against the government. Not directly, you understand, it was a metaphor, very allegorical, but people knew what was intended. It was done in a circus tent in the middle of Santiago and it was a big success with many people coming and filling the large tent. After one week of shows, the tent was burned down, "accidentally" of course.3

Around the same time there was a very important amateur group formed by the medical students at Chile University called Agrupaci6n Cat61ica Universitaria (Catholic University Group)-ACU. They began to make theatre. I would say that at that time this was the best theatre in Chile-the best avant-garde-and clearly directed against the government. It was very popular. They played every spring for about two or three years. All the young people went to see them. But the government began to cut the lights during performances, and when people were forced to leave they beat them and fired tear gas at them in the streets outside the theatre. Afterwards, another play called Three Marias and One Rose (Tres Marfas Una Rosa) by David Benavente was one of the first works shown in a commercial theatre that was clearly against the government. It was at this point that the government had to decide what to do with these kinds of plays because the movement was clearly growing. WATSON: This was in the late '70s? NOGUERA: Yes.4 The military police ordered the playwright and the director of Three Marias and One Rose to come and see them. This was very unusual and they were scared. When they went to the police station they had to wait in a room for many hours. Suddenly a door was opened and a person was thrown into the room. He was on the floor in front of them bleeding. They were very scared. They didn't know what would happen to them. Eventually a military man summoned them into his office. He had a copy of the play and he began reading it. He didn't even look at them, he just kept reading and reading. Eventually he lifted his eyes and looked at the playwright, David Benavente, whose middle name happens to be Pinochet. He asked him if he knew the Pinochets from such and such a village, and he named a village in the south of Chile. David said, "Yes, they are my family." The man then told him he was from the same village. "My family knows your family very well, and my father knows your father." At the end of the meeting he said, "I've read the text, it's very interesting; I like it. Very funny. I like it very much. OK, good-bye." Those sort of things happen in Chile. So you never know what to think. Later we had some idea, however, because someone got hold of a paper that belonged to the authorities, I don't know how, and it said that the



Hector Noguera 89

government had decided not to stop plays or close theatres because the scandal was too great, and because the theatre is just for a small sector of society. WATSON: This is an official, internal government document that you have read?

NOGUERA: Yes. In it they say that the theatre is just for an elite and that the best thing to do is not to stop these plays but to create something different, create an official culture on a bigger scale.

WATSON: You mean they wanted to alter the theatre in some way. Make theatre more populist? NOGUERA: No. They just wanted to create something different, but they didn't specify what. Something much larger because theatre is only for a minority. In Santiago, for instance, if a play is a big success maybe 20-30,000 people will see it at most. I think that's why the government puts so much money into TV.

WATSON: The government puts a lot of money into TV? NOGUERA: Yes, and the actors have a lot of work on TV. In serials, for example. I think that this could be part of their plan. WATSON: Is TV programming controlled by the government? NOGUERA: Of course. Absolutely. WATSON: Much more than the theatre?

NOGUERA: Much more. The theatre is controlled in a different way. We have taxes for the theatre. The independent theatres don't get a penny from the government, but still they often have to pay 20 percent of every ticket sold as tax. Not the university theatres, only the independent theatres. There is a government commission which goes to see the plays. Not as censors, butjust to say if the play is "cultural" or not. If they say the play is not cultural you have to pay the 20 percent tax on every ticket. WATSON: What is considered cultural?

NOGUERA: You never know. The play Burning Patience, about Neruda, that I am directing in Milwaukee, was not considered cultural. There is no criteria. If they stated a criteria you could do things within those limits, but no, that is not the way the government works. There is no criteria so you have to decide how much you are prepared to risk. That's why there is no censorship. If there was, you could study the guidelines before doing a production. But this arrangement allows them to say that we don't have censorship. They decide if it is cultural or not. And if it is cultural they will recommend students to go and see the play. If it is not, they tax us instead. WATSON: Is the 20 percent tax sufficient deterrent to stop companies from producing the plays they want to do? NOGUERA: No, what we do is raise the prices, and the actors earn less, nothing sometimes, because you cannot raise prices too much. WATSON: The actors are paid collectively, out of what the play earns? NOGUERA: Yes.

EPSTEIN: What is the government trying to achieve by not providing criteria? Clearly they don't debilitate the theatre. On the contrary, it seems



9o Epstein/Watson

3. A 1987 production of Chekhov's Three Sisters at Catholic University Theatre in Santiago. Left to right: Amparo Noguera, Maria Izquierdo, Loreto Valen- zuela, Cristo Cucumides. (Photo by Ram6n Lopez)

that their approach consolidates theatre workers in opposition. Are they being smart by not declaring criteria or are they just inefficient and unable to control what is happening in Chile?

NOGUERA: Maybe both. As Ariel Dorfman said the other day here in New York: If I have a tree you can cut it down, but if you do, I can plant two more in its place. You can cut them down also, but then I will plant four in their place and so on. In the end it is very difficult to cut down all the trees. That is what really happened. And because it did, they had to tolerate the theatre.

EPSTEIN: But they could have stopped you. Repression in Latin America can stop theatre. NOGUERA: I think they are unable to control the theatre.

EPSTEIN: So you have won a victory in a sense. The community has won a victory. NOGUERA: Yes.

EPSTEIN: Which is a wonderful source of revitalization, an inspiration to continue working. NOGUERA: Yes. That's why they are threatening us now, because they failed.



Hector Noguera 91I EPSTEIN: And they look ridiculous when they do.

NOGUERA: Yes. Pinochet said that he didn't believe the recent death threats against actors, directors, and writers. He said that they were in- vented by the actors because they are very theatrical, always making things up. He said that maybe someone threatened us because some of us are very bad actors, and that some of us deserved to be threatened because we are such bad actors. It is very difficult to understand things in Chile because anything can happen to you and nothing can happen to you at the same time.5

WATSON: I wanted to ask you something else. You described the writ- er's and director's visit to the police station, the tent being burned down, and many of us here in the U.S. heard about the threats against theatre people that you just referred to. Why are actors, writers, and directors in Chile prepared to risk so much for something so unimportant to the vast majority of the Chilean people? If you want to criticize, to change the status quo, aren't there more effective ways of doing this than through theatre?

NOGUERA: Possibly, but we are theatre people. The theatre is our weapon. And our weapon is not as unimportant as your question implies. The government likes to give the impression that we are peripheral, but we are not. The proof is the threats. If theatre were unimportant there would be no threats. Why threaten people who are insignificant? If we are threatened it is because they fear we have influence. Socially we are important. We are part of the community, a real part of the community. When many people from foreign countries came last November [1987] in solidar- ity with us against the threats, many Chilean people also came.

WATSON: People who have nothing to do with the theatre? NOGUERA: Nothing. Many people came, and we had permission to make a demonstration in one place, a specific place. We worked for two days preparing it, and at the last moment the police came and said, "You cannot hold your demonstration here." We asked, "But where?" "Any- where you want, but not here." Everyone went in procession through the city looking for a place to hold the demonstration, and we found one. We held the rally with all the foreign actors and the local people. So it is important. The government may like to think it is not important because they feel that only massive things are significant, but that's not true. Theatre is not massive in Chile like in some other parts of the world, but the Chilean theatre is able to permeate society in a way the mass media cannot. People are deluged with the mass media-they consume and forget. But the permeability of a play is something very important. Even if only I,ooo people, 200, less even, say 1oo, see a play, if it is important those people will be touched and it will spread. It is like water, it dampens and gradually everything underneath gets wet.

WATSON: In 1970 Jorge Diaz wrote that one of the problems he saw facing Latin American theatre was the difficulty in producing a "reading" of the social reality given the continent's ever-changing sociopolitical com- plexities.6 The theatre you are describing, Chile's theatre in the late 198os, seems to have overcome that problem. Why? What has changed? Has reaction to the political repression been enough for the theatre to produce a "reading" of the social reality, or is it because there is a particularly talented group of writers, actors, and directors working in Chile at the moment?



92 Epstein/Watson NOGUERA: It is a very interesting question. I remember that before Pinochet the theatre was important in Chile. It was very important. So it is not only a reaction against the repression. No, it is something that our theatre has. Because we have it we can react in the way we are reacting now. Why? Two reasons come to mind at the moment. Because of the universities. Our modern theatre was founded in the universities and these universities are still very important throughout Latin America. The independent theatre, which is so important now, grew out of these universities. Most of the people of my generation studied in the university drama schools and many of them are now leading actors, writers, and directors. Many of them also teach, have private drama schools which are influencing the new generation of theatre workers. The universities have parented the professional theatre that is happening now. On the other side, many people in Chile make theatre. In almost every school there is a drama group. I would say 80 percent of private schools have theatre groups because the Catholic church has always been in favor of the theatre, especially in the slum areas. Out of this experience many young, unemployed people get together and make their own plays, collectively created pieces about them- selves. I remember that before the coup, in 1969 and '70 we organized a national festival of nonprofessional theatre at the Catholic University in which the only obligation for those taking part was that they had to present a play about the region they were from. We mounted two festivals and it was astonishing to see so many kinds of theatre, so many styles, so many different ways of viewing reality. In a week you could see the human geography of the entire country. That was before Pinochet, but many of them were critical of the system even then. So maybe the combination of these nonprofessional groups and the university companies are the reason for our strong theatre.

WATSON: Magaly Muguercia, in a paper she presented in Lima at the 1987 UNESCO conference on Latin American theatre, argues that many Latin American playwrights are turning away from the sociopolitical con- cerns that dominated the last two decades to focus on self-examination, on the question of individual and national identity. Is that true in Chile?7

NOGUERA: Yes, it's beginning to happen. In the late '70s and early '80s it was very important to center our work on the political situation. But we have won a space now-with the limitations I described, with the taxes and everything else. Much of the press is now directed against the government in Chile, so we, the theatre people, are free to be more introspective. But the work is always related to the political situation. Politics are a backdrop to everything. WATSON: Many important international theatre artists have refused to perform and/or have their plays done in Chile since the coup, as a form of protest against Pinochet. How important a factor has this isolation been in Chilean theatre?

NOGUERA: We have been very isolated. And it is the worst thing you can do to the people of a country. I don't know if an economic boycott is good or bad, I don't know that, but I am absolutely sure that a cultural boycott is the worst thing that you can do to people. Cultural boycotts only help the oppressor because a repressive government wants to keep its artists in the margin, not to "feed" them. If foreign intellectuals or artists do not allow their works to enter the country they are contributing to our marginalization. If I want to do a foreign play in Santiago it is not going to



Hector Noguera 93

make money for me because of the conditions. It is impossible to make money from the theatre. I want to do certain foreign plays in my country because I know they are important for the people, for thinking, to develop something. It is not to support the government, not to make myself or the actors rich, it is because we need that play.

So if someone says I do not want my play performed in Chile because it is a fascist country, he is helping the government, not me, because I need that play. Without that play the government has more space for their culture. We have to construct a country, a parallel country, and put the culture of the world in our parallel land in order to help our own country grow. The only way that I can be efficient against an oppressive government is to enlarge my ground so there is no place for the oppressor's culture. But to enlarge my ground does not mean that there is only one type of artistic expression. No, it can be as many as possible. But not fascist. That is why we need the plays, the music, the films, the poems, the videos, everything. The best way to help an oppressed people is to inject culture into their country, not withdraw it.

EPSTEIN: Is the isolation changing? NOGUERA: Yes it is. People are starting to come to Chile and that is very important. Eugenio Barba's Odin Teatret is coming in December 1988, for instance. And also Chilean people are going abroad-some to direct, some playwrights and actors. This interchange is very important. EPSTEIN: How long has this been going on?

NOGUERA: Two, three years. There hasn't been time for it to make a real impression yet. Our reality is so complex, so difficult to describe, because sometimes you can see us peaceful, everything going smoothly, but it is so hard at the same time. Not only because of the threats. Much worse things have happened: they burned the circus tent, they beat audi- ences and actors, and they murder people. I was working with the actor

4. The Night of the Kites (La Noche de los Volan- tines, 1989) directed by Nissim Sharim of Teatro Ic- tus in Santiago. (Photo by Bob Borowicz)



94 Epstein/Watson Roberto Parada, for example, and during intermission he found out that the paramilitary police had killed his son. But he refused to stop the performance. The intermission was extended while he spent a little time with his daughter. Then, to the surprise of the audience who had also heard of the murder, he continued. At the end of the play he said, "I dedicate this performance to my precious son." That's all. And during the latest threats they couldn't stop one performance, even when people telephoned actors during the night and said, "If you go to the performance tomorrow we will bomb the theatre or your home when you come back." And sometimes when they were alone in the house the phones would begin ringing to let them know that they were being watched. But not even one performance was stopped.

There are so many examples. Jaime Vadell had to stop performing his piece in the tent after they destroyed it, but he is still making theatre in his own way, only now he does it in regular theatres. And the ACU performances ended with the coup, but two important playwrights from the group, Gregory Cohen and Marco Antonio de la Parra, continue to write very interesting plays. There is a new generation of actors, playwrights, and directors who were born during the repressions, but they keep working in spite of them. If someone puts a wall in front of you, you cannot move directly forward, but you can veer to the right or left and continue. EPSTEIN: Things sound very stimulating. NOGUERA: Yes, but I am concerned about sounding too positive, of making everything sound too heroic. I think that the theatre is heroic in Chile but inside of that heroism many things happen. Sometimes you lose hope, sometimes people becomejealous of each other, sometimes there are many groups that disband after only a few months together. I would not like to give the impression that everything is always looking up. Some- times you feel very disappointed and lonely. It is very difficult to live in a dictatorship.

Notes

I. A postscript: Some nine months after this interview, in early 1989, Noguera and his colleagues were informed that the Catholic University will no longer support their theatre. They have been told that they must raise money from the private sector-an almost impossible task in a country like Chile-if they wish to continue mounting productions.

2. The production Noguera refers to was in June 1978. Following its cancellation by the university authorities, the play was produced by an independent group, Imagen, and was a great success (Boyle 1988:214).

3. For more details about the production see Boyle (1988:211). 4. The production Noguera refers to was mounted in 1979 (Boyle 1988:213). 5. In November 1987 over 70 of Chile's leading actors, directors, and playwrights

received death threats. These threats led to an international outcry which cul- minated in delegates from many countries joining their Chilean colleagues in the huge protest demonstration Noguera refers to later in the interview.

6. See Diaz (1970:85). 7. Muguercia's paper, "?Nuevos caminos en el teatro latinoamericano?" was pre-

sented at the Seminario Regional sobre Creacio Teatral en America Latina y el Caribe, held in Lima from 13-16 April 1987. The paper has subsequently been published (Muguercia 1987).



Hector Noguera 95

References Boyle, Catherine M. 1988 "From Resistance to Revelation: The Contemporary Theatre in

Chile." The New Theatre Quarterly IV (no. 15):209-21.

Diaz, Jorge 1970 "Reflections on the Chilean Theatre." The Drama Review 14, no. 2

(T46):84-86.

Muguercia, Magaly 1987 "?Nuevos caminos en el teatro latinoamericano?" Conjunto 73 (Julio-

Septiembre): 15-28.

Susana Epstein is a TDR contributing editor and teaches languages at New York University.

Ian Watson teaches theatre at the University of Pennsylvania and is particularly interested in group theatre and the work of Eugenio Barba.



chilean theatre in the days and nights of pinochet-an interview with hector noguera

Documents