THEORETICAL CONFERENCE
"100 years NATIONAL THEATRE "

2-3 Juni 2005, Festival and Congress Centre - Varna

The Popular Repertoire of The National Theatre
(summary)
Research Fellow Aglika Stefanova

The text puts some questions about the “popular” pattern of the National Theatre’s repertoire during the first decades of its existence.
During the period of the National Revival (1762 - 1878) characterized by accelerated catching up with missed artistic experience, the terms, such as “high” and “low”, “popular” and “elitist” lose their distinguishing features. Taking into consideration the belated institutionalization of the theatre activity in Bulgaria, each theatre piece is being then taken like valuable information. Without prejudice and conservative prohibitions through the National Theatre’s stage pass any sorts of theatrical productions – and everything is being examined, because the Bulgarian theatre people, and together with them the Bulgarian spectators, need to lay up enough artistic and theoretic information for the variety of generic forms, plot options and ideological centres of interest, specific for the drama. This leads the audience, and with them the theatre critics, to be actively-critical, to adopt dynamic criteria in understanding the variety of works.
The National Theatre creates new cultural geopolitics with rules according to the cultural specification of the region: here romantic drama and melodrama are taken as tragedies, comedy is accepted only by the virtue of its didactic qualities as a correctional instance. The classics become varied with melodramas and salon comedies; modern drama co-exists peacefully with its own condescending, mass version.
The repertoire of the National Theatre’s first seasons is a pastiche of the world’s aristocratic and boulevard stages, and in this way it declares itself as a product of the “third culture” (Edgar Morin) – a product accessible to anyone, which offers itself as a “popular read” but on behalf of an official, and increasingly nationalizing itself, institution. And here the hundred-year-wars of styles and trends become reconciled. The popular, entertaining repertoire is needed for the attracting of the not yet accustomed to theatre audience, for the creation of interest in theatre and theatre habits, which will lead later to the understanding of the “high” dramaturgy of ideas.

Actors' Generations in the National Theatre
(summary)
Research Fellow Joanna Spassova-Dikova

The main problems discussed in the paper pertain to the following questions:
How many actors' generations there are in the Bulgarian National theatre during its whole history of about 100 years? What are the specific features of each generation that makes it different from the other? Which are the factors that influence the change of one actors' generation with another?

A hypothesis is made that it is possible to outline several professional actors' generations in the National theatre. Rather conventionally six generations are pointed out. There is one zero generation of amateur actors, who gave performances before the foundation of the National theatre as institution. That makes the generations of Bulgarian theatre seven and six especially connected with the name of the National theatre. The logic of such division follows the whole historical development of our theatre, its professionalization, institutionalization and modernization from the beginning until the end of 20th century.

An attempt is made to find out the specific features of each generation. Here the main criteria were the following:
1. Age (date of birth).
2. Education, acting school.
3. Working period in the National theatre.
4. Repertoire and circle of roles.
5. Directing.
6. Acting approaches and methods.

There is an accent put on the fact that both the number and the specific features of the different generations in the National theatre are connected with the factors, which have influenced the change of one generation with another. It is interesting that usually this change is made by the administration where part of the old actors are retired or fired and on their place new actors are appointed. The paper argues that although these acts often are associated with the name of a certain administrative or artistic director they are not based on complete subjectivity but are a result of objective circumstances. Moreover that as a rule the leading motive of the directors pertains to their desire the theatre system, which with the years has become outworn and outdated, to be reformed and renewed.

The National Theatre and the leading ideologemes in the course of its development till the end of the 80s of the XXth century
(summary)
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kamelia Nikolova

“What does an endeavor to reconstruct the history of the Bulgarian National Theatre mean today?” is the question posed as a starting point in the text. The answer suggested is that in the contemporary cultural context such endeavor is in the attempt the National Theatre (its past) to be archived: once like an exponent for the museums of the national (regional) and the world (global) cultures so it could be contemplated and studied, and second – like a material for recycling, i.e. as something, which must be constantly reworked and experienced again and again.
The chosen strategy for the reconstruction of the National Theatre's image, formed during the process of its one-century-long existence, is to search for that image through the prism of its being connected to some key ideologemes throughout its development until the end of the 80s of the XXth century. Three ideologemes, that have dominated contiguously the period from the beginning of the XXth century till the World War I, the 20s and the 30s and the socialist times, are traced. In the first period it is the ideologeme for the confirmation of the state (as it hasn't been long since the country achieved its independency). The second period is with the ideologeme for the “loss of the national ideals” after the failures in the wars and the need for a total renewal of the state. And in the third – it is the ideologeme for the building of the socialist country. A considerable part of the text is dedicated to the analysis of the concrete and determining influences each of the mentioned ideologemes has practiced on the institutional and aesthetic status of the National Theatre. After that its entire reconstructed image is being generalized and defined. Its principal characteristics are two: 1) due to the flow of circumstances, the National Theatre has been established and in the following periods continues to be re-established as and instead of the Bulgarian theatre as whole; 2) it is the centre, serving as a pattern for the forming of the whole periphery by means of either following or rejection.
The article ends with the conclusion that after the clarification of the particular basic status the National Theatre has, it becomes comparatively easy to make out its complex developments happening after the 90s of the XXth century (i.e. after the changes in Eastern Europe), as well as to look for the answer to the question arising inevitably with such historical and theoretical recapitulations: what would be the most adequate and useful mode of existence for the National Theatre today? Both these problems acquire a separate detailed and thorough research and that is why they are not subject to the text. Just two comments on them are mentioned. The first one concerns the reflexes of the National Theatre and the permanently established societal attitudes to see it as the centre, where in one or another way the shaping and re-shaping of the theatre in Bulgaria is being made, or at least, initiated. This explains the blend in its repertoire during the 90s of traditional, avant-garde, popular etc. kinds of spectacles, as an attempt to introduce in Bulgaria the variety of theatrical ideas, practices and receptive strategies, which characterize the theatre network in the developed democratic countries. The second comment goes about the statement that if there is a question about what the National Theatre today should be, according to its background and to the contemporary cultural context, then an immediate answer can be outlined: as far as the National Theatre is one in the line of national theatres in Europe (and the world), then it should be recognizable for the “contemplating in all the theatres its own spectacle, mankind” (Lyotard) just as such, i.e. as national. And this implies that the National Theatre should preserve and present the archive of both its own and the world's theatrical heritage (dramaturgy, styles of staging and acting, principle value attitudes), and to keep on archiving the theatrical contemporaneity incessantly, i.e. the achievements and interesting discoveries of the actual theatre practice in Bulgaria.

How the National Theatre has been existing as a “people's/popular” theatre during the passed at about 100 years from its founding?
(summary)
PhD, Assoc. Prof. Nikolay Iordanov

The article's aim is to elucidate the problem of the birth of a figure such as a “National theatre” within the Bulgarian cultural milieu. With the existing demographic structure of the population (nearly 80% urban and 20% rural population), which remains almost without change from the time right after the Liberation up to the middle of the XXth century, i.e. with the existing lack in real potential of viewers and in real cultural market, the now-forming professional troupes in Bulgaria can survive only if they receive public support for theatre activity. How to motivate, then, such subsidies in front of the state and the municipalities? The theatre people could convince society in the usefulness of their mission, only by basing their arguments on the glory attributed to the role, which theatre played during the times of the National Revival, a role strongly connected with the values attributed to the enlightenment of the people. And even in the first governmental reports, motivating the decisions taken in favor of the theatre activity in Bulgaria, and in the first theatre press reviews, we can come across the insistence, that Bulgarian theatre is theatre of the people, popular one. And namely by taking that image of being “people's/popular”, theatre activity becomes included in the projects of the Bulgarian state and becomes legally-regulated, subsidized and institutionalized.
In the period between 1903 – 1907 prof. Shishmanov, in his capacity of Minister of the national enlightenment directly initiates, ideologizes and realizes his project for a National Theatre, established as a state cultural structure. Shishmanov realizes this enterprise by using and increasing the available public resources: a granted subsidy for theatre activity from the state; a fund for the raising of a theatre building in the capital; a troupe of the best actors available, so far, in Bulgaria.
Shishmanov's positivist project, where the state is seen as the builder and patron but also as the guardian, is being indirectly put under critical reconsideration a bit later by Pencho Slaveykov who is the National Theatre's director in the period between March 1908 – April 1909 and opposes in terms of value the notions of “people's/popular” and “national”. Pencho Slaveykov's project for a “national theatre” independent from the state, combines the Nietzschean individualism with the spirit of the Enlightenment, and is the only alternative for the theatre model in Bulgaria, which solidifies itself more and more in the period after the Liberation until World War I by adopting the shape of a hybrid figure: a state theatre, that is legalised as “people's/popular”. This project meets equal misunderstanding from both – the romantically sentimental actor's guild whose aspirations are for the achievement of a secured-by-the-state status, and from the paternalistic state, preoccupied with building of modern society.
In conclusion the article tries to see the development of the so outlined theatre model in Bulgaria throughout the different historical periods.

The National Theatre – Norm and Departure
(summary)
PhD, Assoc. Prof. Romeo Popiliev

The article examines the National Theatre “Ivan Vazov” as a mode of existence based on a norm, which develops through its own departures. I discuss this subject through the examination and analysis of the place the theatre building occupies in the town-planning, as well as the symbolic of the buildings, which surround it. Since its very beginning the National Theatre has been given two tasks: to introduce the European traditional theatre norms, and to leave its stage open for the modern aesthetic and even for some of the elements of the avant-garde. Norm and departure become equally active forces in the 20s and the 30s and in that way the opposition itself gets reconciled. After 1944 the theatre falls into a deep aesthetic anomy, and even though it is not stated publicly, it loses its statute as an aesthetic legislator. In the last 10 years, however, the theatre turned out again to be the space to take on the basic part of the aesthetic innovations in our theatre. Obviously this is its future: to optimally offer productions of the best quality, to the optimal quantity of spectators in their optimal variety. And all this has to take place in a time, when there are no more norms needed for the reporting of the departure.

The National Theatre Facing The Challenges Of The New Time
(summary)
Prof. Dr. Vassil Stefanov

The forthcoming celebration of the National Theatre's 100th anniversary provided the occasion for exchange of opinions in the press deliberating on the actual “date of birth” of the theatre. Considerations were stated that the factual history of the National Theatre is longer and had begun at least 12 years earlier. The grounds for such difference in the opinions on the 100th anniversary are lie in the lack of an official administrative certificate, documenting the commencement of the first state theatre in Bulgaria. Despite that lack, a short tradition has existed already: in 1954 was celebrated the 50th anniversary of the theatre, followed by its 75th in 1979. And for that reason the reaction of those whose attempts in clarifying a disputable historical truth and thus throwing an unnecessary shadow of doubt on the theatre's jubilee, seems rather belated today.

The changes brought in during the last 10-15 years, faced the National Theatre with new challenges. This theatre had always been regarded as a representative national institute, and as such had been given certain privileges. In the years of the changes all those privileges vanished. The team of actors was radically diminished to the amount of 37 people. The financial frame got strongly narrowed. And all this was made possible due to the lack (existing a hundred years already!) of a special statute, acknowledged by the state, which would give the National Theatre the rights and guaranties respective of its rank.

The National Theatre - Globally-Local Perspectives
(summary)
PhD, Assoc. Prof. Violeta Decheva

The article traces down the basic constructs that shape the meanings of the national name, which the National Theatre has embodied as a nationally representative institution. The aim is to distinguish the historical characteristics of a Bulgarian national theatre within the context of its kin European institutions.

1. The attribute “popular” (or “people's”), having resisted in its fate many changes and convulsions, is an expression of the prevailing and achieved by consensus understanding of the “national”. This is the understanding of the national, which conceives it as originating from “family”, and “people” therefore is a synonym of “Bulgarian”. In this sense, “people's” still continues to implicate the positioning of the Bulgarian outside of any institutions, but in a communal immanence, which “travels through time” and embodies the Bulgarian “spirit”. The manifestations of that spirit are always collective, not civic. They are laid over the “eternal virtues” (Iv. Elenkov) of a mythological community, they are “of the people”.
2. The National Theatre has embodied the understanding of a “cultural institution” (propounded in the beginning by Pencho Slaveykov), which presents the works of the nation's strongest artists and thus becomes welded through the creations of its own representatives. In this modern conception (grounded also in the ideology of the Tarnovo Constitution), by virtue of common language and territory, the representatives of the Bulgarian ethnos, create its fund of works of art, which gets updated through history, but always appears as a step towards what is universal, towards the domain of the universal world of artistic culture.

Since its very beginning and then in its positioning in the Bulgarian culture all through the XXth century, the National Theatre has been constituted by the convergence of both these conceptions for the national. The intense, contradictory intertwining of the two conceptions for the “Bulgarian” has constituted the theatre's very national name. It has marked its risings and its shaking crises. And that is why in situations of crisis the need to choose between the two meanings of national, has been always reawaken. More precisely, it had been needed to choose which of the two to be in at least the leading position: roughly speaking, the collective-mythical (the traditionalist) or the personal-historical (the modern).
How do we think the national now, and how do we expect the National Theatre to represent it? Where is the theatre's place in the national state today? Are we ready to face the questions, which globalization as a process puts to the development of culture?
The article sketches the crisis of the national state and the place of its representative institutions, among which are the national theatres: Deutsches Theater, Burgtheater, Royal National Theate, Comedie Francaise, Teatr Dramatyczny in Warsaw etc. Defended is the thesis that, for them is typical the universal “high modernism” (Fr. Jameson), which as a type of discourse is representative for the culture of the respective national theatres.
The global crisis of the national and the implications of that crisis in the Bulgarian cultural environment are being outlined, together with the layering of new local problems. The shrinkage of the Bulgarian theatre after the changes of 1989 is being traced out, as well as the weakening in the interest on the side of the national state towards investing in its future. As a result to that process, as well as to the characteristics of the historical genesis of the meanings of “national” in the representation of the National Theatre “Ivan Vazov”, after the fall of the communist regime in 1989, it formed itself as a center of variously directed searches in the Bulgarian theatre, and not as a representative of a type of discourse, similar to the “high modernism” of its kin theatres.
What will choose a small culture like the Bulgarian culture: a strengthening of the National Theatre and a special statute for its development against the background of the weakening of the whole Bulgarian theatre or its marginalizing as a national institution, in result of the local effects of the process of globalization and the changes after 1989?