Cultural Microaggressions in Theatre Reviews

A Call for Dialogue

“It is curious that Ropes…possesses no Latino flavor or content.”—Michael Sommers’ New York Times review of Ropes by Barbara Colio at Two River Theater

It’s unfortunate—very unfortunate—that in 2016 cultural microaggressions such as this can be found in theatre reviews.

Latina/os are people from vastly different cultures, realities, and experiences. To say that something is or is not Latina/o is an attempt to flatten a deeply layered cultural group.

Unintentional or not, cultural microaggressions in reviews should be called out and examined for the harm they cause to a cultural community and to the field of theatrical criticism. Michael Sommers’ musing that Ropes has “no Latino flavor or content” is part of a larger pattern seen in American theatre criticism in which the reviewer imposes their own mistaken expectations onto an artist of color (see the highlighted sections in: Jeffrey Gantz on Edith Can Shoot Things and Hit Them by A. Rey Pamatmat, Charles Isherwood on Mala Hierba by Tanya Saracho and Destiny of Desire by Karen Zacarías, and Charles McNulty on Lydia by Octavio Solis). Such reviews suggest that, for instance, playwrights can only write about culturally specific issues or have characters that fit into the reviewer’s assumptions about that cultural community, of which they are not a part.

We, the members of the Latinx Theatre Commons, are dedicated to redefining the narrative of American Theatre—to creating and supporting plays that represent the varied and multidimensional communities that make up this country on our stages. We are also committed to defining for ourselves what it means to be Latina/o—to demonstrate the breadth of cultural experiences within our community. This is why we are beginning a dialogue in response to this review.

Latina/os are people from vastly different cultures, realities, and experiences. To say that something is or is not Latina/o is an attempt to flatten a deeply layered cultural group.

We are glad that reviewers are coming to see our shows. But we hope they come with an open mind about what it means to be Latina/o.

There is no singular Latina/o experience, nor is there a litmus test that identifies a person as Latina/o. Our cultural community has a vast spectrum of experiences which span from recent immigrants to those who have been in the US for multiple generations. Some of us grew up speaking Spanish, some of us grew up speaking Portuguese, some of us grew up speaking English, some of us grew up speaking indigenous languages. Others grew up speaking a combination of the four. Some of us only speak one of those languages. Others speak all.

Some of us create plays about our cultural identities. Some of us do not.

The fact is, we write about everything. We write about love, about astronomy, about the past, about the future, about coming out, about chasing our dreams and failing spectacularly.

Ropes is a play about family, about siblings. Perhaps Two River Theater included this play in its festival of new Latina/o work in order to make a point—to redefine what is Latina/o, to illustrate to audiences and reviewers alike that Latina/o playwrights can write about any subject.

Gabriel Gutiérrez (Prince), Varín Ayala (Paul) and Luis Moreno (Presley) in Ropes at Two River Theater. Photo by T. Charles Erickson.

We are glad that reviewers are coming to see our shows. But we hope they come with an open mind about what it means to be Latina/o. We ask that reviewers watch our plays without expectations about what a Latina/o play should be.

To call for a Latina/o play to have more “Latino flavor” is an act of exoticization. Latina/os are not exotic. We are not a flavor. We are human beings. We are Americans.

We write this article to begin a dialogue about thoughtful theatre criticism. We believe we should all strive to do better work as artists and as those who examine artistic work for the larger public.