The Cornerstone of Dissent: The Role of Theatre in the Velvet Revolution of Czechoslovakia
Protest rally at Wenceslas Square, Prague, Czechoslovakia during the Velvet Revolution in 1989. Wikimedia Commons.
By Sarah Grace Seggerman, Baylor University
Anticipation and excitement coursed through the National Theatre of Great Britain’s audience awaiting Václav Havel’s darkly comedic production of Audience. They whispered among themselves regarding the current status of the Czechoslovakian playwright who, as of that very day, February 10, 1978, resided in jail (Astor et al. 2). A nervous tension held the audience together as they murmured about the unfortunate fact that Havel’s works were banned in Czechoslovakia. Specifically, his seemingly innocent plays were outlawed for poking fun at the current Czechoslovak government; simultaneously, they were welcomed by the Czechoslovak people who pined for revolution. A hush spread across the crowd as the lights dimmed within the house. The curtains drew back, and the stage lights flicked on as the audience settled into a state of distress for the Czechoslovak people (Astor et al. 1).
In spring of 1968, the people of Czechoslovakia held newfound hope as the idea of “Socialism with a Human Face” spread across the country and the Czechoslovak populus witnessed widespread societal liberalization (Hodges 8). This period, the Prague Spring, laid the groundwork for the revolutionary process eventually enacted in 1989. Theatre artists utilized their increased freedom of expression to create commentary plays and writings which expressed numerous complaints regarding the current state of the country (Hodges 9). However, within months, this freedom was readily destroyed by Soviet tanks which plunged the population back into suppression, but this time with the taste of freedom on their tongues (Hodges 10). Writers felt spurred on by these events to subvert censorship and expressed their true feelings regarding the suppression they faced, such as playwright Václav Havel (Oslzlý 98). By 1989, the revolutionary dam burst as dissidents, including theatre artists, carved the path for a future free of communism. This cultivates a necessary question: How did Václav Havel and other dissidents’ theatrical approach to the Velvet Revolution impact the nature of dissidence and in what ways did theatre itself act as an advocate of the revolution? As numerous groups strove for freedom, theatre artists, beyond just Havel, collaborated with fellow revolutionaries to achieve success. This paper argues that Václav Havel and other dissidents’ theatrical approach molded a unique form of nonviolent dissent during the Velvet Revolution, cultivating a like minded community of intellectual artists who struck the final blow on the already–crumbling communist regime in Czechoslovakia. This event stemmed in part from the revolutionary seeds planted by theatre artists through their subtle dissident writings and ingenuity in creating locations of dissent within the theaters themselves.
The Groundwork of Theatre Artists Creating Dissidence
Theatre artists played a crucial role in laying the groundwork for Czechoslovak dissidence through their initial writings and protests. Following the Prague Spring, the Soviet invasion caused mass imprisonment and bans of all material that was considered subversive by the regime. Many artists feared for their safety and the continuation of their craft; thus, some felt it necessary to flee the country, while those who remained were met with extreme censorship (Hodges 11). Playwright Václav Havel explained that he found his inability to create “very trying” and he continued to “write as if [his] plays could still be performed at the Theatre on the Balustrade.” (Blair). The government comprehended the “power of the written word” and greatly feared the strength of influential writers (Oslzlý 97). It was clear that creatives had the ability to alter the minds of their theatre communities simply through written works. All material that produced a message was suspect in the eyes of the communist powers. Thus, writers’ jobs were stolen from beneath them and they were forced into oblivion with the inability to publish (Oslzlý 98). In fact, during one of Havel’s numerous prison stays, they even refused him use of paper and pen (“Actions on Behalf of Czech Intellectuals”). In order to create a semblance of normalcy, playwrights produced versions of their plays at off-mainstream theatres which lacked high censorship levels (Chtiguel, “Without Theatre” 91).
In order for artists to subvert censors, ingenuitive measures were taken in regard to the format of productions. For example, Havel wrote and secretly circulated his “Vaněk” play scripts (Hodges 30). These works featured an individual named Vaněk who subtly resembled Havel’s own lived experiences under the oppressive communist regime (Hodges 24). Havel himself stated that theatre was, “bound up with the here and now”; thus, personal experiences seemed to affect his writings (Blair). Even in his early adulthood, Havel’s first play exhibited a comedic interpretation of his frustrations with his superiors in the army (Havel, Disturbing the Peace 38). Clearly, he had a tendency toward subtly expressing his current experiences through his art. However, because of the strict censorship of written words, many theatre artists shifted toward movement pieces (Chtiguel, “Without Theatre” 92). Often directors allowed for the spoken portion of their show to be minimal and devised during rehearsal, with movement as the major focus instead (Oslzlý 99). Many theatres leaned heavily on a silent motion picture or Commedia dell’arte approach to their productions (Chtiguel, “Without Theatre” 92). These styles emphasized physicality as the message, comparable to mime or clown work. Thus, the authorities had difficulty censoring these non-written works which allowed artists greater freedom to express their discontent (Oslzlý 99). This personalized format of creation allowed smaller theatres the ability to cultivate subtle political messages and consequently reach wider audiences (Chtiguel, “Without Theatre” 93).
These theatre artists crafted pieces specifically addressing the audiences’ emotions during a time of suppression. They desired to connect with their “minds and souls” and present audiences with a truthful expression of their current society (Chtiguel, “Without Theatre” 90). Shockingly, these artists were generally not funded for their work considering its subversive tendency; thus, they were producing these productions simply for the good of the people (Chtiguel, “Without Theatre” 93). Interestingly, many of the ordinary citizens would not have been invested in theatre if they existed in a normal democratic society (Oslzlý 101). However, the climate of the country necessitated a power to rally behind; thus, they used theatre as this place for community connection. Theatre artists and Czechoslovak citizens created a community built on mutual understanding of shared suppression. Artists felt passionate about their mission and were even willing to be thrown into jail for the cause. For example, Havel explained he would “speak out, regardless of whether [he] [would] be arrested or called a national hero” (Echikson). Clearly, rather than beginning with militant demonstrations of revolt, artists chose to subvert censors and craft subtle messages to unify their audiences under the banner of freedom.
The Theatres as Locations of Dissent
Theatrical establishments themselves acted as cultivation points for dissidence by functioning as central locations of meeting. Prague’s mainstream theatres, referred to as stone theatres, were generally controlled by Communist Party members and received ample funding. However, this fact meant that the artists were not allowed freedom of expression and were required to follow strict guidelines (Chtiguel, “Without Theatre” 89). Thus, in order to find true expressive art, audiences visited the less prominent theatres, referred to as authorial theatres (Oslzlý 99). These theatres “substituted for the lack of free media” as well as cultivating a connection between audiences and performers which aided in dismantling decades worth of “brainwashing and propaganda” (Chtiguel, “Without Theatre” 93, 94). Audiences viewed these authorial theatres as safe spaces which allowed them to act as physical cornerstones of the Velvet Revolution. The subversive tendencies of these theaters functioned as a beacon for dissidents; thus, creating “a link between official theatres and…dissident culture” (Oslzlý 102). By 1986, theatrical dissidents had crafted and published a letter demanding freedom of speech (Oslzlý 102). While their requests were not granted, this acted as a precedent for theatre artists to readily sign the iconic document “A Few Sentences” which espoused freedom in June of 1989. Simultaneously, artists began to enact these desires for freedom by staging banned plays as a form of revolt (Oslzlý 103).
On the night of November 17, 1989, the theaters took on a role beyond mere symbolic significance. Students led a ceremony through Prague in order to pay respect to the 50th anniversary of Jan Opletal’s death, a student murdered by the Nazis (Chtiguel, “Czechoslovak Theatre” 21). However, the students were met with aggressive action by the police, spurring their revolutionary desire further (Oslzlý 104). During the subsequent days, theatre students spoke to audiences about the revolution as well as attempting to convince the theatrical establishments and workers to strike (Chtiguel, “Czechoslovak Theatre” 21). Authorial theatres quickly agreed; however, stone theatres swayed in their convictions. Eventually, the stone theatres agreed to strike because they understood the importance of the revolt and comprehended that it was impossible to continue performing while their fellow citizens and artists were attacked (Chtiguel, “Czechoslovak Theatre” 21). This action exhibited a strong stance against the communist regime considering the stone theaters’ usual funding (Oslzlý 104). The theaters transformed into meeting places for theatre artists and intellectuals to collaborate and discuss their plans for demonstrations as well as how they would restructure the government if they were successful (Oslzlý 106). The press reported that the Prague theatres had “turned into political debating chambers” (Ash). The theatre artists notified the public of their revolutionary ideals by reading “declarations from the [theatre] balconies on Wenceslas Square.” Across the country, theaters began to strike and acted as central locations of revolution for smaller communities (Oslzlý 106). Thus, these locations of art and culture performed the role of cultivation points for dissidence.
The Community-Driven Nature of Dissent
Theatre artists approached dissidence as an artistic community which cultivated the nonviolent, community-driven nature of the Velvet Revolution. Many theatre artists did not intend to become renowned dissidents. For example, Havel gained fame following a public call for his freedom from prison, through which the media claimed he had “transformed from an isolated dissident into a national hero” (Echikson). In fact, the dissident community strengthened due to the many individuals that felt that they were members of a secret club through their connection to subversive theatres. These theatres reminded Czechoslovak citizens of the freedom they could experience if they separated from the current regime (Hodges 28). The artists’ willingness to oppose censorship escalated the audience’s hope and drive for freedom. Slowly, non-dissidents and even those who had previously stood with the communist government began to shift to supporting theatre artists’ dissident agendas (Havel, “Testing Ground” 374).
Theatre people across the globe began to join ranks to support the dissidents in Czechoslovakia. In the United States, theatre practitioners offered Havel jobs within their theatres in order to save him from further imprisonment; however, Havel refused these offers because he could not abandon his country (Freedman 18). At the National Theatre of Great Britain, articles were distributed throughout the theatre to remind the audiences of the turmoil that the playwright was undergoing (Astor et al. 1). Even the Royal Shakespeare Company addressed the audience to write letters to aid Havel and the dissidents’ plight (Kyncl). Havel was quickly gaining world renown through his productions being performed everywhere across the globe, except for in his home country (Ash). In response, theatre people rallied together and successfully petitioned to free Havel and other dissidents from prison (Rohan). Newspapers even reported that petitions were passed through the audiences in theatres and were readily signed (“Tom Stoppard Stopped by Czechs”). Average individuals fought for the freedom of theatre artists because they feared the disappearance of some of their favorite television stars (Rohan). Czech citizens trusted the theatre artists in charge because they had built relationships with them through their performances onstage and on television (Oslzlý 106).
Students spearheaded the demonstration on November 17 and crafted it specifically to be peaceful by having the event approved, following legal paths, and carrying flowers. However, the excitement of the moment took over and the students chose to head for the center of the city, Wenceslas Square. In response, the police aggressively attacked the peaceful students (Kenney 282). The students of the Theatre Academy of the Arts were determined to notify the citizens of the aggression. They traveled between theatres, interrupting performances, to alert audiences as well as beg the theatres to strike following the horrific events (Chtiguel, “Czechoslovak Theatre” 22) The audiences listened attentively and were stunned by the descriptions of the gory attack (Oslzlý 104). In fact, a student from the Faculty of Arts of Brno University, bloodied by the police, burst into the improv play Rozrazil and the actors proceeded to include him into the performance to talk about his horrifying experience (Oslzlý 104; Chtiguel, “Czechoslovak Theatre” 22). Rozrazil was already prone to political commentary against the regime; thus, the student was readily welcomed to speak and this event acted as “a powerful fusion of life and art” (Chtiguel, “Czechoslovak Theatre” 22). In the following days, the theatre students invited theatre artists to conferences to campaign for strikes (Oslzlý 104). As a result, students were allowed to take up residence in the theatres and “theatre people – actors, directors, [and] technicians” facilitated demonstrations, circulated pamphlets, and held improvisational events to exhibit their plight to the Czech people (Oslzlý 106). In fact, theatre artists traveled outside Prague to factories and farms to speak to the community and gain support for the revolt (Chtiguel, “Without Theatre” 94). Thus, a combination of students and theatre artists worked together to create a peaceful protest. As claimed by dramaturg Petr Oslzlý, “The Velvet Revolution… was started by students, along with the theatre artists…” (“Interviews with Petr Oslzlý”). In order to craft a peaceful and thoughtful revolution, theatre artists collaborated with students to craft “demonstrations as great theatre performances.” They divided work among them as if for a live production and filled their actions with emotion (Oslzlý 107). These theatre artists had essentially been preparing their entire careers for a situation that required great levels of improvisational and public speaking abilities. Not only did they hold the technical requirements necessary, but they held the adoration of the community as well. Czechoslovak citizens were prepared to follow the advice of their favorite performers and supported them with cries of “Long live the actors!” (Chtiguel, “Czechoslovak Theatre” 25). Finally, the Velvet Revolution resembled theatre because “in the theatre, real blood never flows” (Oslzlý 108). Thus, theatre artists cultivated a revolution that would run as smoothly and peacefully as possible. The goal of art is to create, not destroy; the artists of the Velvet Revolution created much more than simply theatre, but rather a home that they were proud of.
Conclusion
The Velvet Revolution of Czechoslovakia was spurred on by the theatrical community’s distinct approach to dissidence which resulted in the “velvet” nature of the revolution itself. First, through their initial writings and plays, artists exhibited to their audiences the errors of the society in which they were living and the freedom that could be possible if they were to make bold steps. Thus, audiences slowly grew to understand the revolutionary mindset and were eventually willing to aid theatre artists upon the arrival of November 1989. Second, the theaters themselves functioned as home bases for revolutionaries in which they could thoughtfully craft plans. Additionally, the willingness of regime funded stone theatres to strike exhibited that the communist government was close to falling. This assurance propelled the revolution and the artist's belief that change was possible. Third, the community developed through theatre was unbreakable and the artists created a peaceful form of protest. Across the globe, communities aided the revolution by remotely engaging because of their connection to theatre and the hope to keep Czech theatres above water. The success of the revolution was undeniably connected to the theatrical community and their distinct approach to dissidence.
This paper aims to credit the work of theatre artists across the globe during a time of Czechoslovak strife. Theatre is often discredited as a form of fine art; yet when an in-depth study is conducted regarding its international significance, theatre cannot be disregarded. It is important to comprehend the significance of theatrical intellectuals transitioning to higher positions of power, such as Havel becoming president and his fellow dissidents becoming members of his Advisory Board (Oslzlý 108). This research prompts the questions, did Havel and his fellow dissidents carry their distinct theatrical approach into their governmental positions as well and how did these theatrical qualities that were crucial in the Velvet Revolution influence their leadership styles? Further research could bring more respect to the work of theatrical individuals and aid in advancing academics' understanding of theatre in society. Theatre has always provided a space for undervalued and underrepresented individuals to exhibit their distaste for the government or express their pleas for aid regarding social issues. Theatre artists hold the power to disseminate information into the public consciousness and alter viewpoints through an impassioned form of art, just as they did in 1989.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
“Actions on Behalf of Czech Intellectuals.” CSCE Weekly Review. June 27-July 3, 1980, Czechoslovakia General Subject Files. Box 5, Folder 4, Keston Center, Waco, TX.
Astor, David, Edward Crankshaw, and Dan Jacobson. “A Few Words to the Audience About Havel.” Czechoslovakia General Subject Files. Box 5, Folder 4, Keston Center, Waco, TX.
Blair, Erica. “Doing Without Utopias: An Interview with Václav Havel.” Translated by A.G. Brain. TLS. January 2, 1987. Czechoslovakia General Subject Files. Box 5, Folder 4, Keston Center, Waco, TX.
Echikson, William. “Following the Path of Conscience.” The Christian Science Monitor. May 25, 1989. Czechoslovakia General Subject Files. Box 5, Folder 4, Keston Center, Waco, TX.
Freedman, Samuel G. “Portrait of a Playwright as an Enemy of the State.” International Herald Tribune. March 25, 1986, 18. Czechoslovakia General Subject Files. Box 5, Folder 4, Keston Center, Waco, TX.
Garton Ash, Timothy. “The King of Bohemia.” The Spectator. December 9, 1989. Czechoslovakia General Subject Files. Box 5, Folder 4, Keston Center, Waco, TX.
Havel, Václav. Disturbing the Peace: a Conversation with Karel Hvízdala. Translated by Paul Wilson, New York, Knopf, 1990, pp. 38.
Havel, Václav. “Testing Ground.” In Open Letters: Selected Writings, 1956-1990. Edited by Paul Wilson. New York, Knopf, 1991, pp. 374.
“Interviews with Michael Zantovsky, Martin Palous, Helena Klimova, Jan Zelenka, Petr Oslzly and Frantisek Skala, Havel Conversations: Demonstrating the Power of Words.” The Vaclav Havel Library Foundation, 2020, Digital Public Library of America, http://dpanther.fiu.edu/sobek/FI14103468/00001.
Kyncl, Karel. “Royal Shakespeare Company Audience Announcement Before Redevelopment.” Czechoslovakia General Subject Files. Box 5, Folder 4, Keston Center, Waco, TX.
Oslzlý, Petr. “On Stage with the Velvet Revolution.” The Drama Review, vol. 34, no. 3, October 1990, pp. 97-108. https://doi.org/10.2307/1146074.
Rohan, Jiri. “Czechoslovakia’s Art World Sticks Up for Havel.” January 28, 1989. BBC Central Talks and Features Current Affairs Unit. Caris Talk No. 23/89. Czechoslovakia General Subject Files. Box 4, Folder 10, Keston Center, Waco, TX.
“Tom Stoppard Stopped By Czechs.” 1977. Czechoslovakia General Subject Files. Box 5, Folder 4, Keston Center, Waco, TX.
Secondary Sources
Chtiguel, Olga F. “Czechoslovak Theatre During the Velvet Revolution.” Soviet and East European Performance, vol. 10, no. 2, 1990, pp. 21-26. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/czechoslovak-theatre-during-velvet-revolution/docview/1306222291/se-2.
Chtiguel, Olga F. “Without Theatre, the Czechoslovak Revolution Could Not Have Been Won.” The Drama Review, vol. 34, no. 3, 1990, pp. 88-96. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/1146073.
Hodges, Rachel Melissa. The Art of Revolution: The Political Impact of Playwright Václav Havel. 1999. American University, Master’s Thesis. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, http://ezproxy.baylor.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/art-revolution-political-impact-playwright-vaclav/docview/304492775/se-2?accountid=7014.
Kenney, Padraic. A Carnival of Revolution: Central Europe 1989. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2002.
Rosenberger, Chandler. “The Dissident Mind: Václav Havel as Revolutionary Intellectual.” The Journal of the Historical Society, vol. 6, no. 3, 2006, pp. 465-480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5923.2006.00188.x.
“Students’ Fight for Freedom and Democracy, Day of (Struggle for Freedom and Democracy Day, World Students’ Day).” Holidays Around the World, 6th ed, edited by Pearline Jaikumar, Omnigraphics, Inc, 2018. Credo Reference, https://search.credoreference.com/articles/Qm9va0FydGljbGU6Mzc5ODk=?aid=102336.