Skin Deep (Theater)

Point 1: It is indeed a queer parody.

“Queerness can be seen as an oppositional stance not simply to essentialist formations of gay and lesbian identities, but to a much wider application of the depth model of identity which underwrites the epistemology deployed by the bourgeoisie in their ascendancy to and maintenance of dominant power. As such, the queer label contains a critique of a more vast and comprehensive system of class-based practices of which sex/gender identity is only a part. ( Moe Meyer, 1994: 87-88 )

PETA’s Skin Deep has misrepresented the use of the popular “A”lienation Effect which originated from Bertolt Brecht’s idea to break the fourth wall of the stage and establish relationships to the audience for critical evaluation of moral and social values (queer and campy) of the people.


Point 2: It is mindful to say that the production displayed a CAMPY performance.

To use Meyer’s topic of Acting Camp in his introduction to The Politics and Poetics of Camp from the book Performance Analysis, 2001: It would mean that the production would discuss the parodic label of queer. The term “camp” would lead the audience into the concept of “self.” Nor Domingo, Skin Deep director, would lead the audience and substitute the “self” as performative, improvisational, discontinuous and constituted by repetitive and stylized acts instead of providing the notion of “self” as unique, abiding and continuous. He (Domingo) has a gift of a visionary artist but needs further maturity in stylized blocking.

In Domingo’s theatrical elements, he explored intelligently the uses of music, dance, lighting, sound, set, costumes and actors. Stand outs were actors Rem Zamora as Dr. Beau (though weak at times in creating the imagery of a circus master); Erick Bisa as Ciso; Gail Guanlao-Billones as Amor de Sangre; Diana Malahay as Happy; Jonjon Villareal’s magical lighting which juxtaposed very smooth transitional devices per scene; Christine Crame Santillan’s expressionistic-styled choreography and the elegance of repetitive gestures and movements made even more exciting visually. Contrary to its stellar staging and elements were Leo Abaya’s set which did not make it flattering for both actors and the director; Kalila Aguilos’ costumes were a bit confused and half-baked. It did not solidly justify the “campy” appearance and expressionistic mood. Lucien Letaba, Vincent De Jesus and Melvin Corpin’s composition and arrangement in music had a very “un”-unified aural output.


Point 3: It can only reach only to those who are much connected to the artificialities of the world ( the bourgeois society ).

It can be argued innocuously that Skin Deep displayed all modes of sexual identities (heterosexual, homosexual, metrosexual) but did not display all social identities (rich, upper middle, middle, lower middle, lower and outcasts).

The other half which constitutes the major population in reality was totally alienated from this material. This is partially a success and a work that should be in progress.

The parody of beauty and truth is seen through the playwright’s intention to share tragic disappointments in life. In his program notes, Vincent De Jesus, the annotator of this production’s plot, exploits his personal version of queerness and physical instabilities. Taking into consideration of the majority of the population in the country, this piece can never reach out what PETA’s dream vision of becoming the PEOPLE’S THEATER. This is a dangerous decision to include in their repertoire of plays.

These two opposing forces, Vincent De Jesus’ dramatic material text versus PETA’s vision of a People’s Theater, are a misnomer for PETA artists dealing a strict mission to Philippine Theater.