THEATRE ARTISTS AND THE AUTHORITIES IN BULGARIA IN THE 1960s:
MEMORIES OF CONFLICTS, CONFLICT OF MEMORIES 1
Natalia Hristova
For more than thirty years my research focus has been on Bulgarian
culture in the second half of the 20th century. In the last twenty years I branched
out from the archive and literary works into the sprawling memoir literature,
and I have been conducting interviews with Bulgarian intellectuals. I cannot
recall whether my choice for interviews was based on the fact of my personal
acquaintance with writers, or whether I was attracted to critical authors and
their literature. Most likely, the two coincided.
During the two post-socialist decades I also started looking more closely
at theater artists and cineastes, in other words with representatives of those arts
that have an immediate effect on the audience. The project “Remembering
communism” allowed me to concentrate on those theater artists who created or
witnessed repressed plays and who kept and shared their memory (traumatic or
not). In quantity most of them turned out to be from the 1960s. I tried to explain
the reasons for this phenomenon in my chapter.
The sixth decade of the twentieth century was different and equally impressive in the
East and West, both in spirit and with its specific social and cultural events. The postwar
depression had been overcome. The new generations opposed the preceding permeation of life
with ideologies and confrontation; they were striving for a vibrant personal self-realization.
The 1960s in Bulgaria, approached from the perspective of the theatrical reincarnations, seem
just as vital, liberating and free, although they have, as elsewhere, their specific features.
During the transitional decades (1990s-2000s), amidst the hype to share, collect and publish
memories of communism, theatre professionals, too, produced recollections about the mental
and moral damages incurred by official censorship, which ranged from sharp criticism to
discontinuation of individual productions. The project “Theatrical Tensions,” realized in a
This article is part of the international project “Remembering Communism: Methodological and Practical Issues
of Approaching the Recent Past in Eastern Europe”, which was hosted by the Institute of Slavic Studies of the
University of Leipzig and sponsored by the VolkswagenStiftung for the period of three years (2006-2009).
1
1
special issue of the theatrical almanac Gestus is a typical example of this trend.2 The members
of the editorial board announce in the foreword, that “they shall concentrate their attention on
the curious story of several theatrical performances that have become subject to verbal
mythologization in the existence of Bulgarian Theatre.”3
In all memories repressions are condemned, perceived most generally as inadmissible
then and unforgivable today, a violation of the freedom of creative expression, even though
some recollections show understanding towards the specific character of the period by
interpreting the reasons that have provoked the authorities to suppress the plays. There are
also discrepancies in the information and precision of detail between the different authors
either about the socialist period in general, or with regards to a specific theatrical staging. One
can also notice a selectivity of memory. The reason for this “conflict of remembering” is to be
found in the different positions occupied by the memoirists at the time, i.e. the creators or
witnesses of the specific performance, and in the way playwrights, producers, stage artists,
composers or audience experienced “martyrdom” and “heroism,” the social positions brought
to the fore by the political situation of the transition period. Some of the memoirs are
definitely an attempt to counteract these dominant tendencies.
This text accordingly focuses on a close interpretation of the memories of the
theatrical events rather than on the events themselves. The analysis is based on shorthand
minutes from discussions and the reviews in the press from those days, but predominantly on
the published surveys with creators and witnesses. Since there are no archival data about the
discontinuation of some of the performances, one can reconstruct how this has happened only
from memoirs and interviews. I stress this fact to counter the generally accepted thesis that
memories are too subjective, and therefore unreliable sources of information to be used only
2
3
Gestus – Teatralen almanah, Sofia: Fondatsiia “Ideia za teatîr,” 2003.
Ibid., 19.
2
as auxiliary sources – for “coloration” and some “atmosphere”. This excessive suspicion
towards memoiristic literature can be a hindrance to a reliable historical reconstruction.
In this study I analyze in particular the memoirs pertaining to the following plays:
Improvisation by Radoi Ralin and Valeri Petrov, staged in the State Satirical Theatre in
1962/1963 season; Abel’s mistake by Emil Manov, staged in the People’s Theatre in
Dimitrovgrad, The Poet and the Mountain by Ivan Teofilov, Theatre of the Armed Forces in
Sofia, Sky and Earth by Kliment Tsachev in the Drama Theatre in Pleven (all three performed
during season 1963/1964) ; and We Are 25 Years Old by Nedialko Iordanov, Drama Theatre
in Burgas, season 1969/1970.
During the 1960s, other plays performed in different theatres in the capital and in the
countryside were also repressed: The True Ivailo by Stefan Tsanev, Machovo Bîrdo by Miron
Ivanov, We Do not Believe in Storks by Nedialko Iordanov, The Old Man and the Arrow by
Nikola Rusev, I was also He and Communists by Georgi Markov. The reason for excluding
them from this study is that there is only one published recollection about each one of them.
Therefore, it cannot be established whether there is a conflict of remembering, and if there is,
whether it is due to a difference in position (creators or witnesses), or to the respondent’s
desire to write a marketable autobiography.
Radoi Ralin and Valeri Petrov’s Improvisation enjoys the most extensive analysis in
the memoirs, as it was the big theatrical event from the period of tangible liberalization of
spiritual life at the beginning of the 1960s. The production enjoyed extraordinary spectator
interest and provoked a nervous and inadequate reaction from the authorities. It was promptly
suspended from the theatre’s repertoire without any written order or explanation, a moment
for which there are numerous stories in the memoirs, since all contemporaries preserve it in
their minds as an exceptional experience. By the end of the decade, other theatres in Sofia and
3
in the country produced problematic plays, subsequently repressed by the authorities, but their
impact on theatre artists and fans was not on the same scale as Improvisation.
The fact that plays like Sky and Earth by Kliment Tsachev, Abel’s Mistake by Emil
Manov and We Are 25 Years Old by Nedialko Iordanov were sanctioned at the national
review of Bulgarian drama and theatre made them popular on the national scale. The critical
publicity the three performances received, however, was not equivalent. Abel’s Mistake and
We Are 25 Years Old faced strong support both from the spectators in Dimitrovgrad and
Burgas, as well as from theatre critics and the wider circle of intellectuals both during the
discussions and after the imposed sanctions. This was due to the prestige of the creators, the
current topics that were skillfully interpreted in the script, and the performance, which
received a high aesthetic evaluation from leading specialists. The case with Sky and Earth was
somewhat different. Even though it boasted innovative stylistics, the poor literature material
and the mediocre performance of the actors on the stage in Sofia made it both more difficult
to defend, and predetermined its faster oblivion.
“Improvisation with Amputation”
In the early 1960s the new critical dramaturgical wave was just beginning to rise.
Theatre artists were under the strong influence of the warming political and cultural climate
and were ready to give their best in order to preserve, and if possible continue, this positive
trend: “Together with [the playwrights] Valeri and Radoi, says director Grisha Ostrovski, we
wanted to support the warming, we thought, we believed, that we were called upon not to sit
aside in silence, but to fight for that new climate as much as we could…”4“We thought that
with our production [Improvisation] we would be able to support the processes of the so
called brightening,” adds actor Vеli Chaushev.5 Very soon, however, the play came to be
4
5
Ibid., 111.
Ibid., 119.
4
referred to as “Improvisation with Amputation.” Radoi Ralin’s epigram from 1962, like other
satirical texts of his, was attributed to the spectators.6 It expressed in synthesized form the
conflict between theatre artists and the authorities.
Hardly any documentary evidence has remained about the production. Exceptions are
Nacho Papazov’s report, read at the meeting of the Science and Culture Department of the
Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) with the management of the
creative unions, editors-in-chief of the newspapers, the Bulgarian Telegraph Agency, the
Radio etc., which took place on 1 April 1 1963,7 as well as Todor Zhivkov’s report presented
to the Union of Bulgarian Writers, on 15 April, 1963.8 The playbill is also preserved: a
parody text, including “statements” by the authors, the director, composer and artist, the
“literature” used, instructions on the “correct” behaviour during the performance and a
“menu” from the theatre’s buffet. In addition, the final text is preserved in the archives of the
Satirical Theatre, on which the censors’ notes can be seen, or more precisely, the censors’
notes which had been requested by the governing authorities and then the corrections inserted
by one of the creators.9 I am also in possession of a photocopy of the whole script, provided to
me by Valeri Petrov, but have not managed to discover the final dramaturgical text. What
episodes and what sketches have been performed can be inferred only from the actors’
recollections.
It all started at the beginning of 1962, when Valeri Petrov and Radoi Ralin travelled to
the writers’ creative base in Khisaria, in order to write the script for a satirical variety show
with the consciously selected title Improvisation. Their objective was to achieve such
immediacy and lightness of the text that would suggest to the spectators the feeling that
everything was being improvised on the spot. In fact the two authors are very different both in
6
Avramov, Dimitîr. Dialog mezhdu dve izkustva, Sofia: Bîlgarski pisatel, 1993, 376.
TsDA, Fond ІB, op. 5, а. е. 570.
8
Zhivkov, Тodor. Za literaturata, Sofia: Bîlgarski pisatel, 1981, 131.
9
Archive of the State Satirical Theatre “Aleko Konstantinov” Sofia.
7
5
terms of personal character and artistic approach, and this difference was revealed in the
writing of the separate scenes.
The composer Kiril Donchev defines Improvisation as “satirical spectacle...,eclectic...,
composed of sketches, songs, dialogues, monologues...”10 The actor Veli Chaushev in his
recollections mentions “a humorous variety performance.” He provides interesting data about
the discrepancy between the initial idea and the play’s realization:
According to the original idea the play would have been performed in three parts: 1 st evening
– parts 1 and 2; 2nd evening – parts 2 and 3; 3rd evening – parts 1 and 3. The script was long,
it was impossible to perform in a single evening. It was clear from the beginning, though, that
there would be some cancellations and gradually the separate scenes started to fit together
into one performance. From the very first draft the concept of an open dialogue with the
audience was present. At the left end of the stage there was a 2-3 meter platform towards the
audience hall. I was entering the stage from the audience and along the platform, which
destroyed the illusion of the “fourth wall.” Everything was boiling in one and the same
cauldron – both actors and audience...11
Most actors, who have performed in the play, remember the contents of the scenes, in
which they themselves took part. Chaushev, for example, tells about a suspended episode,
containing a pun on the word “thaw”:
An Eskimo igloo, the Eskimos sit and shiver. One enthusiastic Eskimo rushes from the
outside, shouting:“Brothers, come out! The thaw has started! The Ice is melting! Come on,
everybody out!” Everybody rushes out, except for Grisha Vachkov who stays in the igloo.
They ask him: “Why don’t you come out? A warming has begun...” “Well, he says, last year I
went out and caught a terrible cold...“12
For Itskhak Fintsi the play was “a composition of theatrical miniatures, united under
the common title ‘Improvisation.’ Some of them were written by Valeri Petrov, others – by
Radoi Ralin. There were songs, scenes, sketches, made by the producer Grisha Ostrovski.”13
Fintsi is the only actor to indicate the co-authorship of Ostrovski, something routine for the
plays staged by this director. Vasil Popov remembers his part in an episode staged around
“Song about the Guards of the Lighthouse” by Valeri Petrov: “In it, through the alternation of
Gestus – Teatralen almanah, 124.
Ibid., 118.
12
Belchev, Rumen. Satiritsite, Sofia: Impuls, 2007, 93.
13
Gestus – Teatralen almanah, 126.
10
11
6
prose and verse, the expansion of the bureaucracy and the meaninglessness of some
‘important’ positions is revealed...”14 Tatiana Lolova recalls a sketch, ridiculing the appeal to
economize on everything.15
In his memoiristic book Bulgarian Literature of the Thaw Period, Bulgarian émigré
writer and translator in the USA Atanas Slavov defined Improvisation as “a play, consisting
of separate episodes, connected through intermedia in the spirit of the show, all of which
were in fact sharp criticism of the Establishment and the political means it used.”16 Most
detailed and trustworthy are Dimitîr Avramov’s memories, together with Radoi Ralin’s, who
was a close friend of the renowned Bulgarian aesthetician. The entire text, related to the genre
and contents of the play, is worth quoting as it provides extensive information:
“Improvisation was a brilliant stage improvisation. The subtitle tried in vain to make the
genre more specific:“satirical variety show.” Now it must be supplemented: for the first time
in Bulgaria (I am afraid it was also for the last) the spirit of the variety shows, of the review
in a torrent of cheerful and sad scenes, full of sparkling wit, of music, dances and songs, of
circus performances and what not, for the first time ever the cheerful, as if untroubled spirit
of life-assertion and humanity was subordinated to most serious, and even fateful civil tasks.
Like never before, the negative, malformed, vicious phenomena in our reality, in their overall
horrifying spectre were subjected to destructive criticism with laughter, music and songs –
without any order, genre hierarchy, subordination – just like that, as we were encountering
them in our everyday lives: the harmful administration in the area of culture, the system of
privileges, the metastases of corruption, the parade phraseology, obscuring the actual
situation, the intolerance in discussions and the assignment of devastating political labels, the
triteness of popular culture, the parvenu narrow-mindedness, the irregularities and
carelessness in construction, the new omnipresent pickles Max and Moritz in the roles of
leading economic, engineering, business, educational, diplomatic etc. figures, the
heartlessness and dangerous consequences of the bureaucracy, the tactics of our Tartuffes,
the criminal absence of self-criticism in the governing bodies, their practical and complete
disconnect from the people and their needs, the stupid and expensive overzealousness of the
office-seekers, the rigidness and impossibility for personal initiative, the sad destiny of the
scientists, unable to tell the truth even when they know it, the fatal power of delusions,
transformations of the cult psychology, the meaningless fear of punishment and sanctions, the
suspiciousness and distrust, the lack of comradeship and genuine human relations, in this
environment...” 17
14
Ibid., 129.
Belchev, Satiritsite, 93.
16
Slavov, Atanas. Bîlgarskata literatura na razmraziavaneto, Sofia: Khristo Botev, 1994, 152.
17
Avramov, Dialog mezhdu dve izkustva, 373-374.
15
7
It is difficult to firmly allege that all of the above mentioned issues were part only of
the production and not of the original script, which was available to Avramov. Nevertheless
Improvisation can still be read as expressing the faith of the authors in artistic freedom, and as
alluding to the main vices of socialism, evident already at the beginning of 1960s.
The difference in the authors’ and witnesses’ recollections about the play’s genre and
contents is obvious. It is interesting that even though the authors had themselves specified in
parenthesis the genre as “satirical variety show,” there was a certain hesitation by those
remembering the play to use thе term. Instead, they tended to talk about the genre in a
descriptive manner. There is no conflict of remembering with regards to the contents. There
are however, evident differences in the stories of the authors and the theatre critics. The more
extensive information provided by the latter is due to both the analytical temptations of their
profession and to the powerful reaction of spectators, during and after the performances.
Everybody without exception, however, clearly remembered the enormous success of the
play among the audience. Improvisation was among the most popular plays in its day and
there are hardly any authors of scholarly texts or memoirs, related to the culture of the 1960s,
who do not mention it.18
Here are some recollections from actors and critics:
Improvisation exploded and literally shook the audience. There were no reviews about the
play. Its popularity spread from mouth to mouth. It was not included in the palette of our
major theatre critics... Our theatre was in its peak. People joked: “Why don’t you sell the
tickets for Improvisation in exchange for dollars at the KOREKOM?” There was a certain
confessional element in the reactions of the audience. Not laughter, but exorcism of bad
spirits – that’s what the play provoked. Frequent attenders of the performance were Khristo
Ganev, Rangel Vîlchanov, Johnny Penkov… - all of them friends of Valeri Petrov’s. Now it’s
been almost 40 years since that time, and Improvisation is still remembered. There is even a
18
Atanas Slavov in Idem, Bîlgarskata literatura na razmraziavaneto,152; Dimitîr Avramov in Idem, Dialog
mezhdu dve izkustva, 371-376; Maria Balkanska, Tatiana Lolova, Itshak Fintsi, Veli Chaushev in: Belchev,
Satiritsite, 89-101; Grisha Ostrovski, Veli Chaushev, Maria Balkanska, Kiril Donchev, Itskhak Fintsi, Vasil
Popov, Konstantin Kotsev in: Gestus – Teatralen almanah, 105-132; Sarandev, Ivan, and Valeri Petrov.
Literaturni anketi, Plovdiv: Hermes, 1997, 171-173; Hristova, Natalia. Spetsifika na bîlgarskoto disidentstvo:
Vlast i inteligentsiia 1956-1989, Sofia: Letera, 2005, 229-231, 249-251; Migev, Vladimir. Bîlgarskite pisateli i
politicheskiiat zhivot v Bîlgariia 1944-1970, Sofia: IK “KOTA” 2001, 195; Kalinova, Evgenia, and Iskra Baeva.
Bîlgarskite prekhodi 1939-2002, Sofia: Paradigma, 2002, 170.
8
true case when two people met, fell in love and got married because of Improvisation. He had
one extra ticket, she was waiting in hope of buying an extra ticket in front of the theatre
entrance, they entered together, laughed and laughter brought them so close together that
they remained together for the rest of their lives...”(Veli Chaushev)19
“Improvisation” was an enormous success. The tickets for the play were like “foreign
currency.” If one got two tickets for ‘Improvisation’ from the box-office he could achieve a
whole lot of things: get spare parts for his car, anything missing from the market. One could
even obtain a court resolution, get through to a dentist or doctor, find lodging; one could do a
lot...” (Itskhak Fintsi)20
And I think that it won’t be an exaggeration, if I say that together with the General Art
Exhibition of 1962 these were the two greatest and noisiest cultural events at the end of that
turbulent year. Improvisation was a real feast of laughter. The laughter, the joyful mood –
they started even before the beginning of the play – based on the stories, told by those lucky
ones, who had already had the chance to see it. They were lucky, indeed, for obtaining a
single ticket cost enormous efforts and nerve-wracking difficulties. ‘Fans’ from other towns,
from various parts of Bulgaria, came to see the play. ( Dimitîr Avramov)21
Probably the strongest evidence for the huge popularity of Improvisation is contained in the
recollections of Grisha Ostrovski:
Nobody who ever saw the play has ever forgotten it. Years ago I received a note through a
colleague of mine from the director of one of the major plants in Ruse, who said that he was
ready and willing to finance the re-staging of the play. He wanted to see it again and he also
wanted the new generations to be able to see it as well. However, the atmosphere of the time
and of the play cannot be re-created. Alas!22
While there were no contradictions with regard to the popularity of the play, there
were differences in trying to explain it. Both the director and composer focus on the rumour
of the eventual sanction as the main factor for the immense spectators’ interest. Moreover, it
becomes clear from the memories of Ostrovski that the inexplicable desire not to miss the
show was observed also among high officials, prompting them to seek tickets through their
“connections.” This phenomenon can be explained mainly with the spirit of the 1960s, with
the provocation, coming from the newness of the feeling of established borders and their
violation, with the perception of life “as a show,” even by some nomenclature figures.
Gestus – Teatralen almanah, 120.
Ibid, 128.
21
Avramov, Dialog mezhdu dve izkustva, 372.
22
Gestus – Teatralen almanah, 110.
19
20
9
The conflict between critical intellectuals and the authorities is of course not particular
to any specific time and place; however, its concrete manifestations vary across countries and
time periods. At the beginning of the 1960s there were extensive discussions about the
tangible liberalization of the political and spiritual climate. The theatre artists reacted
“appropriately” to the opportunities for free writing and talking, created by the authorities.
“Appropriately” in the case of Improvisation came to be interpreted by the play’s creators and
participants as the need to help the party overcome the “personality cult” and the “lacquering
of reality” by representing “actual life” with its entire contradictions and even its viciousness.
Evidently in the beginning (during the preparation and the first performances of the play) their
efforts were perceived in the same manner by the party leaders. However, their instinct for
self-preservation and power was too strong, recently embodied by a new head of the BCP and
the state: Zhivkov, a very skilled politician. This perhaps explains why their reactions were
invisible and the sanctions skilfully and discreetly imposed, without a written ordinance,
without public criticism. In 1963 Improvisation was irrevocably suspended.
The memoirs of the creators both reveal the complicated play (or outwitting) between
them and the authorities, and make visible “the oppression exercised subtly upon the
theatrical team through clever selection of the method to counteract the famous “satirical
variety show.”
In most of the published recollections, the authors insist on what the actor Konstantin Kotsev
straightforwardly relates: “None of the actors thought that we were doing anything in
defiance of the authorities. We just did our job, precisely as it was assigned to us.”23
These are positions remarkable for their lack of pretence and self-promotion. It must,
of course, be taken into account that the memories were published in 2003, and were written
not earlier than 2002, when the self-proclaiming of “heroes” and “martyrs” over the previous
23
Ibid., 131.
10
decade had provoked not only mockery, but also contempt. It is only natural that a producer
like Grisha Ostrovski, a composer like Kiril Donchev (not to mention Valeri Petrov, who
preserves complete silence on the issue), and also the actors, try to counteract this “new
autobiographical wave” not with emotional talk about their popularity during Improvisation,
but with a calm, factual and objective assessment of the repression and their reaction to it.
Specific information regarding the problems has been given only by the producer
Grisha Ostrovski. The first disconcerting signals came from what he calls “fans of the
performance.” They started to avoid him and even stopped greeting him. Tension seemed to
increase with each and every day. At the same time, the tireless Radoi Ralin started a
telephone offensive directed towards public figures, asking questions: “Do you like
Improvisation? What do you think of it?” He would persist until he got answers, although in
most cases that answer came in some vague phrases. On a certain occasion one of the heads of
the cultural department at the Central Committee applied the standard practice – tried to set
the author (Valeri Petrov was at that time in Africa) against the director with the words:
“Radoi, your text is very good, but Grisha has disfigured it!...” “Why! How? What?” – asked
Radoi. “Well, take the ending, for example… The ending is pessimistic, sombre.” Radoi
Ralin, as can be expected, shouted at that high party clerk.
The situation around the producer, as he himself shared, continued to be normal,
nobody asked him to go anywhere; no claims were raised against him. The authorities had
chosen to act through the manager of the Satirical Theatre Boian Danovski, “an old adherent,
associate and member of the party. And that is precisely why he was the only one to serve as a
scapegoat, without any consideration for his opinion, convictions, artistic intentions, and
even civil positions. He was summoned for a conversation at the Central Committee. And one
more time after that. What happened there nobody can say...” 24
24
Ibid., 115.
11
Boian Danovski invited Ostrovski to his office for a conversation. The entire story told
by the Bulgarian producer reveals his sensitivity to, and compassion for his close colleague
and manager, but it is also a philosophical analysis of the time, of the customs, manners and
methods of the authorities. Despite Danovski’s forced aggressive tone and stern
administrative language, and the accusations that Ostrovski assumed the pose of a “hero” and
“martyr” uninterested in the faith of the theatre, Ostrovski displayed firmness bordering, as he
himself says, on cruelty. He refused to make any amendments to the text and offered
Danovski to do it himself. Hurt and agitated, the manager did that. Already on the next day he
announced the editing of the text – in front of the entire author’s and actor’s personnel. 25
At the end of his memoirs Ostrovski tells about “an ordinance from above based on
which an internal meeting of the artistic staff was summoned to discuss and express a position
regarding the play.” It cannot, however, be firmly stated that that discussion has ever taken
place. Ostrovski is the only one to mention it. Everybody else – the composer, actors, literary
manager of the theatre Maria Balkanska -- expressly state (probably because they have been
explicitly asked) that they cannot recollect any such meeting. It is possible, of course, that this
was a conscious or subconscious forgetting, resulting from the painfulness caused by that
situation. “Crocodile tears were pouring, everybody repented the short-sightedness that had
allowed that text to be approved, what improvidence and cheap vanity possessed everybody,
so that they can enjoy success, what triteness...” etc., etc.. -- recollects the producer. 26
That discussion, if we trust Ostrovski’s memory, took place at the end of 1963, after
Improvisation was suspended from the theatre’s repertoire with the explicit consent (or under
the explicit order) of Todor Zhivkov. At a dinner celebrating the 5th anniversary from the
establishment of the Satirical Theatre, the first secretary of the party and chairman of the
Council of Ministers held an ironic discussion with Boian Danovski in his usual style:
25
26
Ibid., 116-117.
Ibid., 117.
12
After the fiftieth performance Improvisation was suspended without much ado. Todor Zhivkov
[at the anniversary banquet] made a joke in his usual style: “Well, I heard that you
discontinued Improvisation, Ha-ha-ha...” Then Boian Danovski – the most elevated theatrical
artist, the man whom we owe our formation and development – said: “Comrade Zhivkov, if
you only knew how difficult it is to manage a satirical theatre! If you and I could only change
places...” Todor Zhivkov immediately interrupted him: “What! To change places! I also
thought I was on this position just briefly, but I started to like it and I won’t move from my
place. You will remain manager of the Satirical Theatre, and I – general secretary of the
Party! 27
The memories of contemporaries and later researchers are quite different. Atanas
Slavov states that after every case of pressure exercised by the authorities, the theatrical team
acted by reworking whole scenes and introducing new episodes.28 More reliable, however,
seems the assertion of Kiril Donchev “The text was not amended,”29 because he was one of
the creators of the production, the composer of the music, and would not forget anything,
related to his direct work.
Improvisation -- both according to archival evidence and to published memoirs, was
the first serious public conflict between theatre artists and the authorities in the 1960s. Until
the end of the decade the tensions fluctuated, but never escalated to official sanctions. This
would cool down the confrontational edge of the more critically minded intellectuals and
allow for the untroubled functioning of the political system. A rather precise and insightful
explanation of this relationship is found in Vasil Popov’s recollections :
It is interesting that, as it seems, it was only with ‘Improvisation’ that the management of the
theatre had fights with the ‘bosses’ and it appears that this is what made it necessary to
discontinue the play earlier. There were also other plays that could have been declared
ideologically unreliable. However we always managed to get away with it. We were not under
very strong pressure. We were the STATE satirical theatre. Todor Zhivkov was proud of us
and praised us that after the Satirical Theatre of the USSR, we were the second one in the
entire socialist block. He bragged about us being critical. A demagogy, but it somewhat
helped the theatre develop in its own way, according to its own means for looking after its
own artistic face. For those years of greyness and uniformity, this was something. And with us
it was always both ways.” 30
27
Ibid., 121.
Slavov, Bîlgarskata literatura na razmraziavaneto, 152.
29
Gestus – Teatralen almanah, 2003, 125.
30
Ibid., 130.
28
13
The Experimental Theatre – 1963/1964 Season
The possibilities for reactions in critical situations were different for the dramatic
theatres in the countryside. Unlike their counterparts in the capital, they enjoyed neither the
protection of the satirical genre, nor Todor Zhivkov’s “goodwill” (however symbolic). On the
one hand, directors had to choose their repertoire from a list of acceptable plays issued by the
Theatre Department at the Ministry of Culture. On the other hand, the local town and district
committees of the BCP exercised tight control over the production process. Theatre artists,
thus, had many obstacles and circumstances to overcome in order to stage a valuable and
appreciated by the spectators performance. To this we can add that the preferences for one or
another play were sometimes purely arbitrary. This becomes evident in the memoirs on three
of the repressed performances from the 1963/1964 season:

Abel’s Mistake by Emil Manov, staged and performed by the People’s Theatre
in Dimitrovgrad. Producer: Assen Shopov, scenographer-architect: Angel
Akhrianov.

The Poet and the Mountains (Travel Notes in Two Parts) by Ivan Teofilov,
Theatre of the Armed Forces, Sofia. Producer: Leon Daniel, scenographer:
Mladen Mladenov, composer: Kiril Donchev.

Sky and Earth by Kliment Tsachev, Drama Theatre in Pleven. Producer: Boris
Spirov, artist-scenographer Svetlin Rusev.
The Scandal with Abel’s Mistake started when the play took part in the Third National
Review of Bulgarian Drama and Theatre. On 10 June 1964 an emotional and highly critical
discussion of the play took place where the accusation of “deviation from socialist realism”
was leveled and it was suspended from the stage. The theatre refused to engage in self-
14
criticism and during the next season it was closed down and turned into a branch of the Drama
Theatre of Khaskovo.31 The recollections about the play’s popularity are relatively short due
to the overlap with the ones about the sanction, and the instant reaction of the audiences in
Dimitrovgrad and Sofia to its performance at the national review. The evidence about the
atypically active defense of the play and the theatre are an indisputable proof not only for its
popularity but also for the awoken latent resistance in the name of a just idea.
The recollections about all sanctioned performances from the 1960s reveal that during
the preliminary round in the regional centers they were well received by the public and the
juries, and even granted awards for stage production, scenography, and actors’ performance.
Obviously at this stage there were no suspicions of “ideologically incorrect positions” or
“deviation from socialist realism,” otherwise they would have neither been admitted by the
controlling institutions, nor rewarded and sent to the final stages of the Third National
Review, where official critics had the final say. This indicates that between the first and the
second round something was happening and this was not necessarily unpredictable, given the
standing conflict between the artists and the authorities.
Most of the facts in the recollections of the creators coincide, such as the rumor about
the sharp critical orientation of the performance that led to the overcrowding of the theatre;
the presence of Todor Zhivkov and other supreme party leaders in the official box; Zhivkov’s
sharp reaction in leaving right after the performance; the missing information in the official
newspaper Rabotnichesko Delo; the several well-intentioned opinions of different
representatives of the authorities before the discussions. There is no conflict in the stories
about the active public defense of the theatre following the resolution to disband it and turn it
into a branch of the Khaskovo theatre, as well as in the information for open counteraction by
31
Ibid., 23-24.
15
miners and engineers, made in their speeches and even by hooting against Todor Zhivkov
during his visit in Dimitrovgrad.
The next production that received heavy criticism during the Third National Review
in 1964 is Sky and Earth. The stigma of “ideological inconsistency” in this case was a coverup for disagreements and intrigues within the theatrical circles. The show was not suspended
and performances were held in Pleven and in other district theatres. What is distinct about this
play (and also about The Poet and the Mountain to be discussed below) is that only the
creators published their memories. This fact is indicative. On the one hand, it attests to their
personal trauma as the sanctions had a strong emotional impact and direct influence over their
future creative work. On the other hand, it confirms the direct link between cultural scandal
and popularity. The absence of a scandal leads to missing or fewer memories about the event
in the spectators.
What happened with the performance of Sky and Earth at the National Review can
hardly be called repression and this explains the multitude of common recollections. There are
no discrepancies in the evaluations of Kliment Tsachev’s play, defined as poor literature.
Everyone mentions the good partnership between the producer Boris Spirov and the artistscenographer Svetlin Rusev, everyone remembers the enthusiasm with which they have
worked on the spectacle, everyone is persuaded that the sanction came as a result of the
malevolence on behalf of their colleagues.32 Everyone also remembers the poor acting
performance in Sofia, everyone mentions with admiration Svetlin Rusev’s speech in defense
of the performance, delivered in the language and the pathos of the educated young
intelligentsia who have already appeared with their free and modernistic works. The accent in
32
Ibid., 184.
16
the recollections is definitely on the experimental stylistics of the performance and
particularly on the exceptional debut scenographic work by Svetlin Rusev. 33
The case with The Poet and the Mountain is to a certain extent similar to the other two
repressed productions from season 1963/1964: the play was suspended from the poster of the
theatre after its seventh performance. The officially stated reasons were ideological, but
according to the creators’ memoirs, ill-wishers inside the theatrical staff personally influenced
Todor Zhivkov.34 At the same time, this production was also quite different. Not simply
because it had no relation to the Third National Review but because it was among the first
innovative productions in the 1960s in all aspects from dramaturgy to producer’s vision,
scenography, musical lay-out, as well as acting. According to the recollections, the production
enjoyed extraordinary success and was performed in front of full halls.
The authorities, however, were not prepared to permit such innovativeness and
expression of creative freedom. This, coupled with the disclosures about a plot for an armed
coup d’état against Todor Zhivkov, organized by the group of the generals Anev and
Gorunya,35 better explain the repression of this particular production of the Theatre of the
Armed Forces. The minister of the People’s Defense Dobri Dzhurov and the Chief of the
Supreme Political Administration of the Bulgarian People’s Army general Nikolai Chernev
were acquainted with the extreme political situation and very well understood the reasons for
the attack on the theatre. As Mladen Mladenov recollects, during the last performance, the
minister of culture Petar Vutov indignantly turned to Dobri Dzhurov and asked him loudly:
“Don’t you see what this is?..“ Confused, but otherwise good-natured and well-intentioned,
33
Svetlin Rusev, a representative of the group of artists from Pleven, was among the most gifted painters, who
had been first noticed at the First Youths’ Exhibition in 1961 in Sofia.
34
Gestus – Teatralen almanah, 133.
35
Ivan Todorov-Gorunya, a former guerrilla fighter, perished during the attempt to arrest him in 1965.
17
the general answered in the possibly most innocent and naive way: “Well, our actors are
performing very well...” 36
The recollections about all three plays share some common themes: they dwell on the
struggle to create experimental and innovative theatre based on contemporary topics; they
mention the very good partnership between producers and scenographers; they criticize in
retrospect the excessive emotional reaction; they analyze the “real” reasons for the sanction as
opposed to the official ones. More importantly, there is an honest attempt to reconstruct the
events accurately and to demystify the facts, circumstances and consequences of the culturaltheatrical scandals from the first half of the1960s. “The Martyrdom” and “heroism,” as
already mentioned, are worn out and discredited at the beginning of the new century.
Interestingly, the pendulum of the recollection and self-identification does not swing
backwards – towards reconciliation or idealization, but
calms down and becomes fixed on
the general social and cultural milieu and the individual’s role in the specific recollection.
The Grand Finale
Nedialko Iordanov’s play We Are 25 Years Old37 staged at the Drama Theatre of
Burgas, season 1969/1970, was also sanctioned, this time at the Fourth National Review of
the Bulgarian Drama and Theatre. At first glance only due to chronological reasons it may be
called “the final chord” or “the grand finale.” A more important reason, however, is the
dramatic tension at the end of the decade, created as a result of the consequences of the
watermark year 1968. With regards to Bulgaria it had another significant jubilee – the
celebration of the 25-year anniversary of 9 September 1944 in 1969.38
Gestus – Teatralen almanah, 163.
Producer is Asen Shopov, scenographer architect Angel Akhrianov.
38
The date 9 September 1944 was of such major significance during the socialist period that it was engraved on
the state coat of arms alongside with the year of the establishment of the first Bulgarian state, 681. This
36
37
18
The scandal with this production was almost as big as the scandal with Abel’s Mistake
and the reasons were the presence and similar reaction of Todor Zhivkov at the concluding
performance in Sofia; the vehement criticism in the press; and above all, the demonstrative
overwhelming support by the audience. In the recollections on the play the main motif is the
aspiration towards objective reporting of the events without narratives of martyrdom. At the
same time, colleagues accused of toadyism are concretely named. For instance, scenographer
Angel Akhrianov both in 1990 and in year 2000 could not miss the opportunity to share his
recollection about Boian Balabanov -- the author of the praised by Zhivkov play Birds Fly in
Two. In a speech Balabanov gave right after a performance at the People’s Theatre during the
Fourth Theatre Review, he reportedly said: “Please excuse me comrade Zhivkov, but last
night while watching this disgrace [in reference to We Are 25 Years Old] and while I was
observing all the snobs of Sofia gathered in one place to applaud this disgrace, I thought –
Good gracious, isn’t there anyone to throw a bomb over the National Theatre, so that we will
all pass away, but together with us so will the snobs.” 39
Much more detailed, factual, and emotionally colored are Iordanov’s recollections,
shared in his memoiristic novel Hello, Me. 40 Here for the first time the writer describes the
real event which had given him the idea for his play: a party he attended organized by a
supreme nomenclature official in “...the governmental residential block on Lenin Boulevard –
extremely luxurious for its time. With a door-keeper. With a huge foyer and several
elevators... It was for the first time that I ended up in such furnishing.”41 The complete
recollection of Iordanov’s experience from that evening sounds frank and authentic, without
any attempt to color it with contemporary emotions and assessments. He mentions both his
designation prompted an apocryphal jocular reading of the coat-of-arms as an obituary notice, marking the year
of birth and the year of alleged death. This ironic touch proves the ambiguity of life during socialist era, but it
does not diminish and could not diminish the strength of official ideology.
39
Gestus – Teatralen almanah, 218.
40
Iordanov, Nedialko. Zdravei, Az, Sofia: New Media Group, 2007, 403-444.
41
Ibid., 407.
19
perplexity and indignation at the western furnishing, the western drinks, the snobbism and the
unscrupulous interactions among the guests – completely foreign to the ordinary Bulgarian.
At the same time, he also records his subsequent realization that things are not as they seem to
be at first glance: at midnight the young people are involved in a quiet, intellectual discussion.
This event provides the plot for his play, revolving around the lives of two
generations: of fathers in the year 1944, and of their sons and daughters in 1969. All of them
are at the age of twenty-five in the two respective time periods. The roles are performed by
the same actors. The main idea is that no matter how different their ideals and lives are,
fathers and children ultimately resemble each other both in their mistakes, and in their
aspirations. “I will not hide it – I wanted to show that I am able to write ‘party’ plays as well”
Iordanov states honestly. 42
Like the audience in Burgas, the jury at the regional review in Plovdiv and the critics
initially expressed their positive assessment of the play. The situation significantly changed
after the performance on 19 June 1969 at the People’ Theatre during the final stage of the
Fourth National Review. Todor Zhivkov was present, accompanied by Stanko Todorov, Pavel
Matev and other Politburo members. Zhivkov’s reaction was both expected and unexpected. It
was expected because, as all the creators of the play mention, he had just returned from a
meeting in Moscow where the events in Czechoslovakia had been discussed and where a
resolution had been taken about the suppression of the political and socio-cultural life. It was
at the same time unexpected, because the main accent of the play was on the valuable
continuity between the generations, even though the twenty-five-year-olds in 1969 were
realistically and provocatively represented as passionately dancing twist, demonstratively
dressed according to the western fashion.
Ibid., 403. His ambition was sharpened by the flop of his previous plays “We Don’t Believe in Storks” and
“Hope for Tomorrow.” The latter was denied permission by the Ministry of Culture to be staged in the Soviet
Union.
42
20
According to Iordanov himself, the reason for Zhivkov’s reaction could be a
misunderstanding about one of the dialogues between two characters in the play:
Ani: He may be alive. He certainly is alive. What do you think, is he alive?
Rositsa: Even if he is alive, you won’t recognize him. He will be fifty years old. And probably
he is gone bald-headed. And with a belly...” “Here the applauses, goes on Iordanov, were
frenetic and all eyes were turned to the box upstairs. Upon my word, I did not mean the
appearance of Todor Zhivkov, but that is how it came out.” 43
There is no factual discrepancy in the recollections of all creators and contemporaries
regarding the subsequent fate of the play. In their narratives the extreme dramatization of the
repression is absent, and one can discern an attempt to explain it with the realities of the time.
Iordanov’s more extensive narration is due both to the genre in which it is related, and to the
interweaving of this episode with a personal, as well as a worldly plot. In an interview I took
with him in 2009, he elaborates even more specifically on his assessment of cultural life
towards the end of 1960s. I will quote from it extensively below:
Question: The story in your memoirs about what had happened with We Believe
in Storks is quite consistent. What would you say today, in the summer of 2009, about
the intellectual climate and cultural life in Burgas during 1966?
Answer: It was a wonderful time. [I was] Twenty-five years old! An absolute ‘rebel,’
not thinking about any consequences whatsoever. The beard. The Beatles. The dangerous
play. The dangerous poems. The pleasure of electrifying the audience which is standing in
lines for tickets at the theatre’s ticket-office. The editorial articles in the newspapers. The
secretary in ideology. The threats...
Generally speaking – one lives an interesting life, one is resisting. And there is what to
resist. One is taking the risk. Young people admire you. The old people are indignant. Slight
vanity, but a clear conscience that you are doing something useful.
Golden days. It will never come back. At that point, the theatre in Burgas, the
Bulgarian theatre in general, were the only place where one could utter some truths. And the
people were mad about theatre. The theatrical performances were the rehearsals for the first
demonstrations of democracy. That was the place where many and different people in the
theatre hall would react boldly and applaud, one single word even. This could not happen
anywhere else.
And now who goes to the theatre to hear something prohibited?
Question: I shall ask you the same thing about We are 25 Years Old during 1969?
Answer: That was very serious. A slap in the face… Personally Todor Zhivkov to
make a demonstration at the end of the performance! In the leading articles there were
fearsome assessments. To quote from memory: “The play is propagating the apocalypse and
the collapse of communist ideas among our young people...” For such offences they used to
43
Ibid., 426-427.
21
send to camps. And me – they simply fired me from work. And after half a year they restored
me in the theatre. The times were unstable – freezing, unfreezing and freezing again. In fact is
that is how our life and our creative work were done – but thank God, it did not reflect on
what we were writing. On the contrary, it was nice.”
In conclusion, if we try to generalize about the evolution of postsocialist recollections
vis-à-vis the theatrical repressions of the 1960s, we can observe with sufficient certainty that
the emotions and the extremely negative assessments about socialism have subsided. In
addition, the drive to proclaim someone (or oneself) as a hero or martyr has also diminished.
Finally, one can perceive a tinge of nostalgia for bygone youth and for the lost rebelliousness,
and a slight bitterness, tending towards disappointment from life and the possibilities for
creative realization nowadays.
22