(Ne)pilkoji zona: lietuvių teatro kritika 1920-1980 m.

LTProfesionalios lietuvių teatro kritikos formavimąsi siejame su poetu, dramaturgu, kritiku Baliu Sruoga (1896-1947). Pradedant jo tekstais apie lietuviškuosius vakarus, spektaklių recenzijomis bei analitiniais straipsniais ir baigiant aukštajam mokslui prilygintinu Teatro seminaru (1926-1943), Sruogos poveikis ir įtaka Lietuvos teatro raidai irjo recepcijai neabejotini. Sruoga vienas pirmųjų prakalbo ir apie kritikos kaip nepriklausomos, profesiškai brandžios institucijos poreikį, ir apie kritikos, kaip atstovaujančios teatro mokslui, metodologinio pa(si)rengimo būtinumą. Suderinęs ne tik poeto ir dramaturgo, bet ir literatūros bei teatro kritiko, istoriko pašaukimą, jis ir iš analizuotų reiškinių reikalavo meninės kokybės, prasmingumo, paveikumo. Galima net sakyti, kad Sruogos autoritetas prisidėjo prie tokios mūsų dramos teatro istorijos, kokią turime šiandien: iki šiol naudojamės jo apibrėžta Valstybės teatro raidos periodizacija, spektaklių interpretacijomis, režisūros, vaidybos, dramaturgijos vertinimais. Sruogos asmenybė „performuluoja“ kritikos kaip institucijos istoriją į kritikos kaip autorinio diskurso istoriją - gausus jo recenzijų, analitinių, satyrinių ar pamfletinių straipsnių palikimas atspindi ir paties autoriaus aistringą charakterį, ir jo vertinimų, estinių pažiūrų dinamišką kaitą. Ši kaita paženklino ir gerokai vėlesnius, pvz., sovietmečio, lietuvių teatro tyrimus, ką jau kalbėti apie amžininkus, kuriuos Sruoga provokavo aštrioms diskusijoms, nesibodėdamas drąsių, net žeidžiančių žodžių, palyginimų. Taigi ieškodami profesionalios lietuviškos [dramos] teatro kritikos ištakų „susiduriame“ su Sruoga. Vis dėlto apsiriboti viena, kad ir kokia autoritetinga ji būtų, asmenybe nesinorėjo. Nebuvo ir tikslo rašyti teatro kritikos istoriją.Vienas iš šios knygos atsiradimo motyvų - patyrinėti, kas be Sruogos sudarė tarpukario, o tiksliau - tuomečio profesionalaus lietuvių teatro kritikos lauką, kokius uždavinius ir kaip sprendė po skirtingus laikraščius ir žurnalus išsibarstę recenzijų, poleminių ir probleminių straipsnių autoriai. Iš pradžių suskliaustas j nepriklausomos Lietuvos laikotarpį ir Valstybės dramos raidos ypatumus, šis tyrimas išsiplėtė iki vokiečių ir sovietų okupacijos metų. Išsiplėtė todėl, kad jame atsidūrė kai kurie Sruogos mokiniai, o okupuotos Lietuvos laikotarpiai, per kuriuos vėl buvo rašoma „nauja“ teatro istorija, iškreipė irją, ir pačios kritikos sampratą. Kilo nauji klausimai - kas ir kaip keitė kritikos „balsą“, kaip jai pavyko „išlikti“, kada kritika išsilaisvino iš jai primestų (ar sąmoningai pasirinktų) sprendimų? Matant (skaitant), kaip kritika vėl (nuo 1968-ųjų) virsta asmenybių lauku, atstovaujančiu nebe vienai politinei ir jai pajungtai estetinei doktrinai, o individualiam mąstymui ir vertinimui, atsirado galimybė ne tiek konceptualizuoti, kiek sugretinti du Lietuvos dramos teatro ir teatro kritikos raidos laikotarpius ir įvardyti tuos, kurie tapo - per ginčus, diskusijas, per [savo] mokyklas ir savo kartos teatro pavyzdžius - šios raidos dalimi. Atsirado galimybė nužymėti lietuviškos kritikos gyvavimo, keitimosi punktyrus, kurie, tik iš dalies atspindėdami tam tikrą nuoseklumą, šioje knygoje pateikiami ir pro meninių, ir politinių / ideologinių kontekstų prizmę. Juk ne tik teatras yra savo laiko ir savo amžininkams skirta meninė praktika, bet ir kritika yra [savo] laiko ir meninės praktikos inspiruota veikla. [Iš Pratarmės]

ENThe focus of this study is the situation and development of Lithuanian drama theatre criticism from 1920 to 1980. In 1920, two years after the country declared independence, a professional Lithuanian Drama Theatre was established. The theatre was founded by what was then the Lithuanian Society of Artists, which united professionals from all fields of art; in 1922, the theatre was nationalised and renamed the State Drama, and in 1925, it was once again renamed the State Theatre, now housing three troupes: drama, opera and ballet - under one roof. Between 1920 and 1940, theatre received increasingly more attention from the press, theatre journalism became more active, information was being provided and plays were being reviewed in increasingly diverse forms. These processes were encouraged, on the one hand, by the establishment of the State Theatre as the primary representative of national performing arts in the fledgling independent state, and, on the other hand, by theatre inevitably becoming more autonomous and diversified. With the breakthrough in directing in the West and in Soviet Russia, the move towards autonomy in theatre had a huge impact on the emergence of theatre studies and new research in theatre history, and, more specifically in Lithuania, on the increasing relevance and problematisation of the relationships between theatre and society, performing arts and literature, creativity and politics, theatre and criticism. The interwar press, theatre criticism and journalism played not only the role of mediator between art and its consumers, but also the equally important function of consolidating the nation and the prevailing politics of the state, which the theatre had to represent. In this context, the issues of artistic and creative autonomy, aesthetic exploration and experimentation, and of the theatre’s liberation and modernisation became relevant.As far as the development of interwar theatre criticism is concerned, two decade-long periods can be distinguished, the first being 1920-1929, which coincided with the processes of increasing professionalism, or institutionalisation, of both theatre and criticism, and the formation of aesthetic attitudes. Meanwhile, the second decade, 1930-1939, was when both the theatre and the critics, having gained a strong institutional position, were confronted with aesthetic as well as political and ideological choices. The turning point between these two decades was marked by the arrival of the director and actor Andrius Oleka-Žilinskas, who came to Kaunas in 1929 from Moscow (the Moscow Art Theatre) and the changes in directing and acting that he initiated, as well as the policy of ‘art for art’s sake’, which, given the context of what was then a highly topical debate on national art, i. e., art devoted to the needs of the state, was later held against the theatre director himself, who was forced to leave Lithuania in 1935. Given the turbulent nature of the two decades, both in the cultural and political spheres, the field of interest for criticism expanded beyond reflecting on the performing arts, even pulling theatre itself into ideological confrontations. In their first decade, theatre and criticism developed together. Having the singular State Drama as the main object of criticism can be considered both an advantage and a disadvantage. An advantage, because the reviewers, who represented various different publications, in effect wrote a varied, dynamic and detailed chronicle of the theatre’s life. The singular object encouraged the critics to look for more varied forms of writing, put forth different issues, and take an interest in the history of theatre and the theatrical achievements of neighbouring countries, comparing and analysing them.Such diversity in the press (however short-lived) also made criticism more independent, and helped crystallise certain methods for evaluating, understanding and analysing a performance. The writer, playwright and critic Balys Sruoga (1896-1947) made a particularly significant contribution in this field, not only in discussing the issue ofmaking criticism more scholarly and professional, but also by founding the university-level Theatre Seminar (1926-1943), which can be regarded as the first national school of criticism (as well as theatre history and theory). The works of Balys Sruoga and his personality were at the centre of the discourse of interwar criticism, which was later developed by his students in their own way during the Soviet period. They were the participants of the seminar who did not emigrate to the West when Lithuania became occupied by the Soviets, and some of whom suffered from Stalinist repressions. A disadvantage is that (especially) in the first decade of theatre development, it was sufficient for the critics to base their work on experience with early 20th-century professional Russian and foreign theatre and, of course, the amateur Lithuanian-Western movement that became widespread in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In other words, in the first decade of its existence, the theatre, which was considered professional, did not develop a unique enough direction, nor did it set out or carry out such tasks or goals that would have artistically or aesthetically challenged the audience or the reviewers. Criticism was thus under threat of becoming complacent towards the limitations of the theatre, conditioned by the capabilities of its semi-professional creators, the tastes of the public, and the official cultural policy of the state. [...]. [From the publication]