From the perspective of another culture
NOTE: This interview took place 18 January 2002, as the film was
opening theatrically. Piñero is available on DVD, 16 July
2002. The DVD includes a documentary, A Look at Miguel Piñero
The Man.
Benjamin Bratt sits in a Four Seasons Hotel room. He looks
comfortable, if a little tired too, while sinking into one of
those fancy-fabricked, overstuffed sofas. But as soon as he
starts talking, he leans forward, displaying his passion for
Piñero, Leon Ichaso's stunning biography of
poet-playwright-junkie-thief and cofounder of the Nuyorican
Poets Café, Miguel Piñero. Piñero brings an edgy,
provocative aesthetics and subtle politics not often achieved in
narrative films, sketching a mind in constant motion, propelled
equally by fear, self-awareness, rage, and passion.
Bratt himself was born and raised in San Francisco by a single
mother, a nurse and a Peruvian Quechua Indian who became a
Native American activist once she moved to the States. In other
words, he comes with his own self-awareness and sense of
politics, as well as a profound devotion to his family.
Rightfully proud of Piñero, Bratt is eager to talk about
Piñero's importance as an artist and public figure, as well as
the various communities the film addresses and represents. The
39-year-old actor (probably best known previously for his work
on Law Order, as well as Traffic and 1993's
Blood In, Blood Out), he has regained the 20 pounds he
lost to play "Mikey" Piñero. He's energetic, gracious, and most
enthusiastic about working with Cuban born writer-director
Ichaso.
PopMatters: The film obviously reaches various audiences. Did
you have any concerns about poets who know Piñero's work, or
even more specifically, Nuyorican poets, who have a vested
interest in this representation?
Benjamin Bratt: They're the toughest crowd. We had maybe 25 or
30 of the new Nuyorican poets, the followers of Miguel Algarin,
who is the surviving best friend of Piñero. They were at the
premiere, and you could feel the bracing before the film got
underway. They were shouting and talking to the screen before
things got rolling, during the introduction. And then things
began to settle, you could feel they were falling into the
rhythm of the film. And by the end, they were whooping and
hollering. Especially after the scene on the rooftop -- "Seeking
the clouds" -- they were enthusiastic.
PM: I bet that made you feel great.
BB: It was a proud moment for me, but more importantly, it was
for them as well, because it's reflective of their experience.
PM: What kind of research did you do?
BB: I had enough familiarity with Piñero's work, to know when I
read the screenplay, that the job that Leon Ichaso did, in
matching his words with those of Piñero was done in a seamless
way, and in a way that completely reflected the power and beauty
of Piñero's poetry in particular, I was so knocked out by it
that I read it twice in one sitting, as I wasn't entirely sure
what I had just read. Because the way it was written is
reflected in the final film, in an abstracted form, almost like
a collage. And to date, even though it's a completed film, Leon
Ichaso says that he's not quite sure what it is. It feels like a
poem itself, or like song, or an abstract painting, in that it
jumps from black and white to color, time frame to time frame,
without any seeming explanation. But that was purposeful, both
in the writing and in the rendering in the film, in hopes of
conveying the kineticism and chaos that existed in Mikey's life.
And a sense of confusion too. It's a challenging film, to say
the least, told in a nonlinear form. What we're finding though,
is that even with that challenge, and a feeling of being lost at
times within the storytelling, people are emerging from theaters
with a sense of who Miguel Piñero really was, and that's the
best we can ask for. And they're inspired to find out more about
him, to read his work [Arte Público publishes Piñero's poems,
Bratt recommends La Bodega Sold Dreams; see
http://www.arte.uh.edu/].
PM: I imagine reading the script was exciting: how did you
process it as an actor, putting together a coherent performance?
BB: Recognizing that it was a huge responsibility, not only in
terms of being true to his memory and the essence of who that
man was in all of his complications, I realized from jump street
that I was going to have to be answerable to Miguel Algarin and
Miguel Piñero's family. But after I began to research his work,
I relaxed a little it, because it's all right there in the text.
And it's funny because as an acting student, especially when we
read Shakespeare, the teachers would always say, "The answers
are in the text." And that held true for Miguel Piñero. In his
poems, though he certainly understood the classical structure of
poetry, he infused his own ideas and influences and created
something new, that reflected his personal experience, the sense
of marginalization, displacement, and the great social taboos
that we as a society tend not to want to look at --
prostitution, petty crime, incarceration, incest, and childhood
neglect. And he was a remarkable artist in that I got the
impression that he didn't self-edit. His work is raw and gritty
and powerful in its fearlessness.
So, that was the first place to get information about him. Added
to that was filling in fine details was hearing stories from his
best friends and family members. Miguel Algarin was an
incredible resource of inspiration and insight. He advised me
from the beginning to not do Mikey a disservice by portraying
him as a one-dimensional conman and street hustler. He was that,
but he was many other things as well. One day we were talking
about him, and out of his mouth rolled this sentence: "You have
to understand that Mikey was an elegant intellectual in the
vestments of a street mime." I thought, "Oh man, this is
beautiful, this is the level at which these two men communicated
and what they felt for one another." He made me aware that Mikey
was an intellectual of sorts, and well read, and could talk
about philosophy and poetry, as well as the latest drug of
choice.
PM: Just looking at the film, it looks like a hugely
collaborative effort. How was it on the set?
BB: Well, there can't be enough said about the guidance and
leadership of Leon Ichaso. Inherent in a successful unfolding of
this particular story there had to be a bond of trust between
us, and I relied on him a great deal. He has tremendous insight
into human nature in general, and in particular into the mindset
of someone like Mikey. And he's an amazing storyteller,
incredibly impassioned. It was the way he conducted himself
daily that really got the entire crew and cast fired up. He's a
remarkable man, a true artist. So, it was one of those rare
filmmaking experiences where money really wasn't a
consideration, in terms of gaining it for yourself. It was
certainly a consideration in that it was an obstacle -- not
having it. But even that kind of helped infuse a collective
spirit of excitement about the material itself, rather than
outside elements. It was something that impassioned all of us.
PM: How did you think about portraying a character viewers might
find hard to "like"?
BB: I think it's dangerous for any actor to approach a character
with the idea that he or she is unsympathetic. I think you're
required to find something you can identify with in the
character. And I was very careful not to judge any part of
Miguel's behavior or his history. Certainly he was capable of
doing things I couldn't imagine doing, but my job was to portray
him as accurately as possible, and recognize the human elements
in him. He was deeply troubled, and a lot of his behavior came
from this sense of feeling marginalized and displaced from a
very early age. As a 7-year-old boy, he didn't ask to be
sexually molested, he didn't ask to be torn away from his
country, he didn't ask to be brought up in the tough streets of
New York in abject poverty. And yet, he was. And in spite of
those things, maybe even because of them, he made something of
himself. Those experiences became his nearest and dearest ways
of identifying himself, and wrote about them in a way that made
a traditionally artistic form new. That's what shot him to fame.
When he workshopped Short Eyes [his play about an alleged
child rapist punished by fellow inmates in the "Tombs"] in
prison, he had no notion that it was going to do what it did. He
just wrote what he knew, and when it landed at the Public
Theater and was an overnight success, that was because it was so
real, in a way that theater and film often times can't touch.
His particular personal tragedy is that, in the face of this
success, financial and critical, he refused to get away from
those influences. The things that influenced his work were
eventually what did him in.
PM: But the mainstream world that embraced him so suddenly was
still damning his experience, his race, his background. So it
makes a kind of moral sense that he wouldn't turn around
instantly and celebrate being "in."
BB: You're absolutely right. And I think there is a kind of
fatalism in the culture in general. When, from an early age,
you're made to feel "less than" based on the color of your skin
or the language that you're speaking, you grow up with a sense
that, even though you're part of "American society," you're
always just outside the establishment, defined from a
Eurocentric point of view. And sometimes those influences are
subtle or not so subtle, and racism can inform your worldview
and the way you live your life.
PM: I was just reading a piece on the Sundance Festival [2002],
discussing the "new Latino film boom." And the writer, Franc
Reyes, director of the film Empire, was posing that
question: what do you do once you get "inside"? How does this
change your sense of identification or audience?
BB: Well, that's the trick, isn't it? What I find deplorable is
that you find someone bordering on genius -- and I'm not talking
about Piñero, but Leon Ichaso -- and with all the hubbub about
the performance, he's looking for his next gig. I find that so
disturbing. I think there is a kind of bias that exists, that
unless you're telling a story that's extremely mainstream and
has a white lead in it, you're not going to have anyone knocking
down your door to make films with you. It's sad.
PM: It is, and it's also selling everyone short, that the
category for a film has to be so narrow -- so if you're a black
director or a woman director, do you have to define yourself as
a "type" of filmmaker, as making "black" films or "women's"
films? What if you're Miguel Arteta, making Chuck & Buck
or The Good Girl, with Jennifer Anniston and Jake
Gyllenhaal?
BB: This is something Leon and I are both concerned about, and
want to change. You're not going to get anywhere, waiting around
for someone to greenlight your project if in fact your project
is told from the perspective of another culture. If you're
telling a story that has a Latino theme, a Native American
theme, or an African American theme, it's got to be "attractive"
to the white perspective. That's really the wrong way of
thinking. The fact is that we're all human beings; and no matter
what our respective histories and cultural differences are, we
all have stories that have universal themes in them. And that
waiting game will never amount in a win for you, and you need to
take charge for yourself, and gain access to platforms to tell
your own stories.
So, thank god for the advent of digital technology, the whole
process is made more available and much cheaper, so that young
people who have stories to tell can do so, and hopefully, having
done a good job, with the possibility of gaining access to the
marketplace, to distribute. That's really the problem that
people of color are up against: they're working within a system
that still doesn't acknowledge them as equal. It's troubling,
but I think that will change. And unfortunately, at this point,
the only thing that will encourage that change is to "prove"
that it's commercially viable.
PM: On some level, your work on Law & Order has made you
a familiar face for mainstream viewers, and that's partly why
the media are all over your performance in the film, rather than
talking to Leon. But isn't the eventual hope to change that
system, not to replicate it?
BB: Yeah, on some level, there's a validity to infiltrating the
system, in order to then set about making change within it.
Maybe that's what's happening here. Film is an incredibly
powerful tool in informing people globally. And when you start
getting into stories of particular cultures, it would be nice if
those stories came from an authentic place.
PM: Speaking of infiltrating, how weird is it to do something
like the Sandy Bullock movie [Miss Congeniality] and then
something like this?
BB: [laughs] It's wonderful, to be honest. It's wonderful to
work in different genres, and be free to be as silly or as tough
or as earnest as you can be. For me, my primary goal since I was
in school was to stay employed.
PM: You knew early on that you wanted to act?
BB: I discovered that that's where I was going to apply myself
in college [he attended the University of California at Santa
Barbara and then, the American Conservatory Theater in San
Francisco]. I realize that I'm in a place now where I can take
pause and wait for better scripts to come along. I don't have to
take a job just to keep food on the table anymore; those days
are gone, thankfully. As long as I feel like the work can be
good and it's a challenge, I'll take it, I'm fearless that way.
PM: I'm wondering about the political choices in the film, as in
the representations of Piñero's AIDS and sexuality?
BB: The sexual identity politics that exist within a prison
system are really complex. While it's accurate to say that Mikey
was a practicing bisexual, if you called him "gay," he'd
probably shoot you because he didn't identify himself that way
ex was just sex. And I think the same was true for the way he
made himself feel better, the way he medicated himself, whether
it was with cocaine or heroin or alcohol. He was a sensualist,
and he lived life on his own terms, whatever in the moment was
going to make him feel better, that was what he reached for.
PM: And the Nuyorican identity?
BB: I don't know the specifics of the differences of opinion
that exist between Island Puerto Ricans and Puerto Ricans who
have emigrated to the United States. I do know there is some
tension, and it's demonstrated in the film, and I find that to
be a heartbreaking scene: Miguel Piñero, after attaining success
in America, returns to his homeland, hoping to be embraced by
the island literati, and is soundly rejected by them. I think it
threw him into a tailspin that even he didn't expect. And it
further underscored that sense of displacement that he felt from
a very early age.
"Nuyorican," that moniker, is political in nature. It speaks to
a political awareness, and in particular, an awareness of where
your place is and what your intent is. It's very much like the
label of "Chicano" in California. Miguel Piñero considered
himself a militant, but a nonviolent one, and recognized that,
historically the power of words, and in particular, in art, was
enough, at times and over time, to change paradigms, and change
the way people thought about themselves. I think as he got
further into his addiction, though, he began to lose sight of
the idealism that exists in trying to bring about social change.
After a while, it's just about getting up and seeking out the
next high. And he was the conmen of conmen, working the tv shows
[guest spots on Miami Vice and Kojak, for
examples], it was a paycheck. Even I, as principled as I try to
live my life: this is the greatest racket in the world. If
you're lucky enough to work in this business, you're ahead of
the game, because you're getting paid to do something you love
to do, and handsomely, usually.
29 July 2002