The dissident reaction portrayed by apartment theatre on the censorship and restriction of speech of the arts during the communist regime in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s.

(1)

The dissident reaction portrayed by apartment theatre on the

censorship and restriction of speech of the arts during the

communist regime in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s.

(2)

(3)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Bram van Oostveldt for his support. My special thanks goes to Vlasta Chramostova and Tereza Bouckova for dedicating their time and memories to my research, and Tomas Stanek for making the meetings possible. I would mostly like thank Femme Fatale and Rozalie for being my life coaches. Least but not last, my thanks goes to George and Chris for their knowledge of English language.

(6)

Introduction

This thesis provides a historical overview of the Apartment Theatre of Vlasta Chramostova, which was active in the 1970s in Czechoslovakia. The thesis offers an analysis of the relation between the communist censorship in Czechoslovakia in the second half of the 20th_{Century and the}

Apartment Theatre. It carefully examines the events and the performances as a form of resistance and standing up against the censorship of the Communist Party.

In the following chapters, the thesis focuses on the relationship between the historical situation of Czechoslovakia, the censorship ordered by the establishment and the response of the Apartment Theatre. The happenings of the Apartment Theatre will be examined as a form resistance towards the censorship and the lack of free speech. It also focuses on the outcome of those

happenings for the participants as well as the effect on the political situation in Czechoslovakia that the events led to. Later, the work analyses the four plays of the Apartment Theatre as a form of resistance towards the censorship within their content. Out of the four plays performed in the Apartment Theatre, only two - Play Makbeth and Davno, davno jiz tomu aneb Zprava o pohrbivani v Cechach (Long, Long Ago ―News of the Burials in Bohemia) - are analysed from film recordings. The other two plays, Vsecky krasy sveta (All Amenities of the World) and Appellplatz II., are examined from accessible data, books, letters, interviews, and so on.

The Apartment Theatre was organised by Chramostova and her husband S. Milota in their apartment to avoid the communist censorship. The events of the Apartment Theatre took place between 1976 and 1980 in Prague and a few other cities in Czechoslovakia. The Apartment Theatre of Vlasta Chramostova was related to a dissident movement in Czechoslovakia called 'the

Underground'. This movement was using art to battle the oppressing censorship. Overall, there were over 70 performances of four plays performed as a part of the Apartment Theatre. Those plays were written by authors forbidden by the communist regime or Chramostova herself composed other texts into performances. The Apartment theatre resisted the censorship in two ways. First, the

(7)

content dissented with the regime. Second, the participants were often breaking the orders of the establishment by performing the professions that they were banned from: acting, writing, filming, etc. The Apartment Theatre was heavily criticised by the Communist Party and the Theatre’s performers as well as most of the audiences were persecuted by the establishment.

The thesis also introduces the key participants: the organisers of the Aparment Theatre, actress Vlasta Chramostova and cameraman Stanislav Milota, and Tereza Bouckova and Pavel Kohout. Chramostova edited and performed the plays Appellplatz II. and Vsecky krasy sveta (All Amenities of the World) based on writings of forbidden authors of the establishment. Pavel Kohout was a

significant contributor to the Theatre’s events. He wrote, directed and performed in the Play Makbeth and also invited his daughter Tereza Bouckova to participate. Bouckova was the youngest performer actively participating in the events.

A critical source of information for this work are interviews with Vlasta Chramostova and Tereza Bouckova. The interviews were designed according to the style of oral history, which sets the information gained in the interviews into a specific perspective. The author conducted those

interviews in March 2018. This is due to some difficulties in gaining extensive data written about this phenomenon: some documents are missing as they were destroyed by the establishment at the end of its era and others are not available due to the limited accessibility of archives.

In other works, the phenomenon of apartment theatre is also referred to as the 'Home Theatre' or 'Living Room Theatre'. This work refers to apartment theatre as a form of art in general. When the Apartment Theatre is capitalised, it refers to the specific theatre of Vlasta Chramostova. The original names of plays and texts are stated in the original language. However, Czech citations used in this work are translated into English by the author.

The next chapter is dedicated to introducing the historical background of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, in order to clarify the events that have affected the censorship in the country.

(8)

1.1. Historical background of Czechoslovakia since 1945 to 1989

Czechoslovakia was re-established after the end of World War II. This period was called The Third Republic. As agreed in the Potsdam Declaration of July 26th, 1945, the majority of German citizens were expelled from the new land of Czechoslovakia. ‘’ [The] Potsdam conference sanctioned by its Final Act the expulsion of the Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary.’’1_The

Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (Communist Party) won the first National elections since WW2 in 1946. The party started the movement of nationalisation and collectivisation and escheated most of the industrial businesses, smaller agricultural business as well as some properties.

The Czechoslovak coup d'état in 1948 made Czechoslovakia a single-party state, a state ruled by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, and on May 9th 1948 Czechoslovakia became the

‘People’s Democratic Republic’. This moment is defined by the Chamber of Deputies Parliament of the Czech Republic, as when ‘’the A new constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic was ratified.’’2

The Communist Party started treating Czechoslovakia as a nondemocratic state, which lead to the validation of the Law of Forced working camps 247/48 Sb., existing to punish politically unfit citizens.

This was a form of isolating ‘enemies of the regime’, which was the outcome of the ‘’politics of strict punishment for reaction’’3_{, and is how the Communist Party aimed to discipline people who}

for example disagreed with the regime: people who did not go to the elections, people who did not participate in festivals of the Communist Party, amongst others. The citizens faced multiple risks, such as loss of their jobs and property, imprisonment and even to be forced to the working camps or

1 Steffen Prauser and Arfon Rees, The Expulsion of ‘German’ Communities from Eastern Europe at the End of the Second World War, (Italy: European University Institute, 2004), 17.

2 Chamber of Deputies Parliament of the Czech Republic. ‘’Historie parlamentarismu a ceske ustavnosti’’ psp.cz

http://www.psp.cz/en/sqw/hp.sqw?k=697 (Accessed April 24, 2018).

3 Karel Kaplan and Jiri Bílek, PTP v letech 1950-1954, Tábory nucené práce v Československu v letech 1948- 1954, (Prague, Nakladatelství R., 1992), 79.

(9)

death. Significant changes were made in agriculture, heavy industry, and army planning during this period.

The Soviet Union started becoming more relaxed during the presidency of Nikita S. Chruscov, who was elected after Josef V. Stalin’s death in 1953. One of the most prominent and noticeable changes was when the Communist regime slowly stopped performing political executions in 1957. According to the article published by the Czech Television, ‘’The last ‘politically’ motivated execution happened in 1960.’’4

The loosening of the regime culminated in 1967/68 in time commonly known as Prague Spring, which was an attempt to re-establish democracy in the country. On August 21st, 1968 the army of the Warsaw pact occupied Czechoslovakia despite the resistance and upheaval of the nation. According to the study publication The History of Czechoslovakia of The University of Olomouc ‘’ in the beginning, the Czech society showed clearly their resistance against so-called ‘socialism with a human face’.’’5_{This discontent was evident when a few students, to protest against the regime and}

the censorship, committed public suicides. In 1969 Jan Palach (January) and Jan Zajic (February) burned themselves alive to demonstrate against the ‘normalisation' regime. The Lidovky Newspaper server published the article Moved Destinies (2015) about Palach and Zajic’s action, that ‘''Self-burning' protests after the occupation in August were motivated disagreement with the totalitarian form of government.’’6_{Despite these bold acts of self-sacrifice, people who disagreed with the}

politics of the ‘real socialism’ were still being imprisoned or executed. The website on Free Speech and Free Press on about oppression of censorship states that ‘’When people are afraid to speak their minds even in the privacy of their own homes, the fear of punishment, imprisonment, and even

4 Ceska televize 24, ‘’Popravy ve 20. Stoleti, tecky za pochmurnou historii,’’ ct24.ceskatelevize.cz, February 2, 2014,

http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24/domaci/1050208-ctvrtstoleti-od-posledni-popravy-tecky-za-pochmurnou-historii (Accessed April 30, 2018).

5 Collective work, ‘’Dejiny CSR’’ Pedagogicka Fakulta Univerzity Palackeho (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackeho), 6. 6 Petr Blazek, ‘’Pohnute osudy: Palach a Zajic se upalili pro nas, chteli vyburcovat spolecnost. Sokujici svedectvi silene doby,’’ lidovky.cz, September 23, 2015, https://www.lidovky.cz/jan-palach-a-jan-zajic-zive-pochodne-1969-d8x-/lide.aspx?c=A150922_164640_lide_ELE (Accessed June 12, 2018).

(10)

death, work to suppress speech.’’7_{In 1969, a new communist government was placed in power and}

annulled many decisions made during the Prague Spring. The period of the 1970s is the so-called ‘normalisation’, as a return to the pre-Prague Spring era.

In 1977 some of the opposition to the communist government had signed the Charter 77 Declaration for human rights and created the organisation 'Charter 77'.

According to the original statement, the Charter 77 was not an organisation, due to the prohibition of the government to create and assemble any organisation with opposing opinions to the leading party.

The Charter 77 was an informal collective of individuals of different beliefs, professions and religions. The signatories were united in the belief and demand for the essential following of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights confirmed by the UN in Helsinki in 1975, which came into force in Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in 1976. The declaration states that citizens have the right to human rights and the government is obliged to follow the Universal Declaration.

The aim of Charter 77 was to demand that the government follow the Universal Declaration and to secure human rights, especially for free speech for all citizens.

The Charter 77 Declaration stated examples in what way the government broke the human rights of the citizens, including the Right to free speech and public speech, the Right to freedom from fear, the Right to education, the Right to look for information, accept information and spread

information through spoken and written word, and the Freedom to religious beliefs.8

The Charter 77 Declaration points out that due to the subordination of all state institutions to the leading party, there were no impartial institution citizens and could rely on when they met disagreement with the directive of the state.

7 Delaney Testerman, ‘’Free Speech and Free Press Around the World,’’ freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com April 3, 2015, https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/czech-republic/ (Accessed May 23, 2018).

(11)

Another statement mentioned in the Charter 77 Declaration is the violation of the human right of complete prohibition to interfere private lives of the citizens, their homes, families and correspondence. The Charter outlines the violations of citizens' private lives by the government, including telephone wiretapping, home tapping, spying, home inspections, correspondence inspections, etc.

The signing of charter 77 Declaration was open to everyone who agreed with its statements, which were exposing the violation of human rights in the country and suggesting solutions for them. It is stated in the Charter 77 Declaration that the signatories believed Charter 77 will help to ‘'ensure for the citizens of Czechoslovakia to work and live as free people.’’9

The original Charter 77 Declaration was created, and signatures were secretly collected in December 1976. The Charter 77 was planned to be presented to the government, including the signatures of people who agreed to be exposed in January 1977. ‘’However, the document was confiscated by the political police before, including the signatures of the ones who wished to stay anonymous.’’10

Although the Czechoslovak government was trying to prevent any publication of the Charter 77, on January 6th_/7th_{the full text of the Charter 77 Declaration was published in several western}

newspapers. By January 1977, the Charter had 243 signatures, and by the Velvet Revolution in 1989, the total count of signatories was 1883.

The Charter was heavily criticised by the government, and the government persecuted the signatories and their families. The government has also written and published an Anti-Charter, a document for ‘New artistic achievements in the name of socialism and peace'. 'The Institute for The Study of Totalitarian Regimes' has noted on the official site, that ‘'The Anti-charter has achieved over

9 The original document of Charter 77 Declaration from January 1, 1977.

10 Lidove Noviny, ‘’Vse o Chrate 77,’’ lidovky.cz, January 8, 2007, https://www.lidovky.cz/vse-o-charte-77-00y-/zpravy-domov.aspx?c=A070108_153710_ln_domov_vvr (Accessed May 2, 2018).

(12)

7000 signatures of mostly Czech national artists.''11_{The Anti-charter criticised Charter 77, whose}

many signatories were interrogated and imprisoned.

In 1980, Gorbachev's government started loosening the strict rules, and the opposition of the oppressing government started growing rapidly. According to the official site of the 'Institute for The Study of Totalitarian Regimes', a ‘'Special role in activating the public belonged to impulses from outside of the country, especially the election of Michail Gorbachev in USSR and start of so-called ‘rebuilding' which declared larger democratisation and a dialogue between citizens. A growth of opposing activities and first attempts for larger involvement of the public was the outcome of the ‘rebuilding'.''12

This slowly led to The Velvet Revolution, a non-violent transition of power from the one-party government to democracy, on November 17th, 1989. In 1990, the society was democratised, and the Czech and Slovakian Federative Republic was created.

The following part is introducing censorship as a discourse. It focuses on the history of censorship, as well as the forms in which censorship was reflected in history, focusing on the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic.

1.2. Censorship

Sue C. Jansen’s book on censorship claims that censorship is ‘’the knot that binds power and knowledge.’’13_{She claims that censorship binds power and knowledge in not only in totalitarian}

societies, but also in liberal, market societies. Censorship, as she says, ‘'has not only appeared in 11 Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, ‘’Anticharta,’’ ustrcr.cz https://www.ustrcr.cz/uvod/antologie-ideologickych-textu/anticharta/ (Accessed May 26, 2018).

12 Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, ‘’Opozice,’’ ustrcr.cz https://www.ustrcr.cz/uvod/cesta-k-listopadu-1989/opozice/ (Accessed June 2, 2018).

13 Sue C. Jansen, Censorship: The Knot That Binds Power and Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 1.

(13)

totalitarian regimes, but much before and later, and also in other more liberal societies.''14_However,

the history of censorship is proven to start much earlier in our society. Censorship was officially established in the second half of the 15th_{Century. The website Totalita.cz}15_{mentions the first official}

censorship of written word, describing that ‘'Shortly, after the invention of letterpress by Johanes Gutenberg, the Archbishop of Mainz established an office for censorship in 1486. Since then, censorship has been present not only in letterpress but also all media invented since then.''16

Censorship has been used as a tool for leadership to dominate societies and individuals since its official establishment. Knowledge and information have been shaped by the ones in power for controlling purposes. As Epp Lauk states in Practice of Soviet Censorship in the Press (1999) ‘’Throughout the history of mankind, powerholders have been keen on having control over the content and distribution of public information in a society.’’17_{This use of this tool by the powerful}

significantly expanded during the second half of the 20th_{Century in totalitarian societies. Censorship}

was not only enforced on written documents, but also on speech and art.

‘’Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes of the 20th century have created the most complicated and all-embracing machineries of manipulation information and public opinion by using the mass media and censorship.’’18_{Censorship had several purposes in totalitarian societies. Not only was it a tool to}

regulate but also to keep establishing the future of the communist regime and shaping society’s opinion to a suitable form. Lauk also claims, that ‘’ […] the system of total control penetrated all spheres of the life in the Soviet Union. Official censorship on various levels became a necessary agent for the maintenance of the Soviet State and the Communist Party.’’19_{The Soviet Union did not only}

14 Jansen, ‘’Censorship,’’ 1.

15 A website of collected works of historians about the totalitarian regime between 1945 – 1989 in Czechoslovakia.

16 Cysarova, Jarmila. ‘’Totalita.’’ Totalita.cz http://www.totalita.cz/vysvetlivky/cenzura.php (Accessed May 1, 2018).

17 Epp Lauk, ‘’Practice of Soviet Censorship in the Press The Case of Estonia,’’ researchgate.net, 1999,

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Epp_Lauk/publication/237295105_Practice_of_Soviet_Censorship_in_th e_Press_The_Case_of_Estonia/links/56274e3b08aed3d3f139c961/Practice-of-Soviet-Censorship-in-the-Press-The-Case-of-Estonia.pdf (Accessed March 25, 2018), 19.

18 Lauk, ‘’ Practice of Soviet Censorship in the Press,’’ 19. 19 Lauk, ’’Practice of Soviet Censorship in the Press,’’ 19.

(14)

censor media, but it also restricted access and participation to theatres, cinemas, exhibitions, sport and people's lives. By doing so, the Soviet Union was aiming to control the citizens in behaving according to the beliefs of the party instead of adhering to human rights in any capacity. There are two kinds of censorship Lauk acknowledges in her research:

‘'the preliminary and post-publishing censorship, which are both preventive and restrictive by nature. As a mechanism of control, censorship can also be repressive: it can destroy literature, films, paintings etc. and persecute people who create and/or distribute what is forbidden by authorities. In addition to having all the characteristics as mentioned above, Soviet censorship was also prescriptive, or "creative", playing.''20

The censorship performed by the authorities in the Soviet Union served both of these purposes. The restriction of free speech in media, as well as the ‘creative’ role of moulding the people’s ideal society required to live under the communist regime, obedient and subdued.

V. Lenin appreciated media as a tool for controlling and sustaining power, as his words are captured in Lenin's Collected Works (1972), ‘’[t]he press must serve as an instrument of socialist construction, give publicity to the successes achieved by the model communes in all their details, must study the causes of these successes.’’21

Jakubowitz in Media as Agents of Change (1995) analyses Lenin’s attempts to create an obedient society. Jakubowitz writes that Lenin’s aim was to create “an ideologically correct symbolic environment, filled with content designed to socialize the audience to the ideas and values of Communism (...)”22_{The purpose of censorship in totalitarian regimes in the 20}th_{century was to}

socialise the citizens in order to achieve an ideal communist society. The censorship served as one of the key roles in accomplishing those aims.

20 Lauk, ’’Practice of Soviet Censorship in the Press,’’ 19.

21 Vladimir Lenin, Lenin’s Collected Works, trans. Clemens Dutt, ed. Robert Daglish, (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972), 1.

22 Karol Jakubowicz, Media as Agents of Change, ed: D.L. Paletz; K. Jakubowicz; P. Novosel (New Jersey: Hampton Press, 1995) 19.

(15)

1.2.1. Censorship in Czechoslovakia during the communist

regime

The Communist Party made many changes during their leadership in Czechoslovakia. Several forms of censorship were applied in the country, and the Communist Party used their political power within the culture and media. Since 1945 there was no official censorship in Czechoslovakia,

(16)

which could censor media and culture according to agreed regulations. The Main Management of Press Control was established on August 1st_{, 1953, based on a government order no. 17/1953 Sb.}23

The Communist Party controlled all the media and culture. The Ministry of Interior aimed to dispose of all the liberal discourse and replace it with ideological phrases. Everyday control of media and culture was processed by the Culture board within the Main Management of Press Control, which consisted of members of the Communist Party. Furthermore, most of the national media was directed by members of the Communist Party, as well as the newspaper, magazine, and book printing businesses. The media was nationalised and led by the sympathisers of the communists in order to censor the content. All the non-communist media was gradually banned completely. In an

educational document 20th_{Century published by the National Museum in Prague (2014), it is stated} that: ‘’In 1954, an abolishment, or merging of 98 magazines and cost reduction caused another change in the situation of media.’’24_{The Culture board instructed exactly what could and could not}

be published. Reporters, publishers, TV, radio and organisations of culture events had to submit all the material to the Culture board to be approved before publishing.

The Culture board members often watched theatre performances to make sure that the scripts did not include double meanings and that the participants and audiences did not make inappropriate opposing comments. As it is noted in the National Museum document (2014) ‘’Until 1955, the Culture board finalised creating the rules of censorship of media, but also exhibitions, theatre programs, posters, postcards, stickers and even obituaries.’’25_{The regime tried to isolate}

Czechoslovakia from any western culture and news. In this period, censorship controlled post offices, private letters were opened, advertisements and even death certificates were censured. Jan Culik in the archive of his cultural and political online daily points out an example of censorship: “For 23 Czechoslovak Socialist Government, Vládní nařízení o volbě závodní rady a o hrazení nákladů její činnosti, Antonin Zapotocky. 17/1953 Sb., Prague, Chamber of Deputies Parliament of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, http://public.psp.cz/en/sqw/sbirka.sqw?cz=17&r=1953 (Accessed April 24, 2018).

24 National Museum, ‘’Vyvoj medii od unora 1948 do konce 50, let,’’ http://dvacatestoleti.eu

http://dvacatestoleti.eu/data/files/MH_ML_8_unor1948_50leta.pdf, 4. (Accessed May 4, 2018).

(17)

example, an interview with Vaclav Havel: Serving the Truth by the Testimony of Today was censored and removed from the Theatre Newspapers in January 1968.”26_{This happened due to the supposed}

controversial material not following the censors of the Communist Party Central Committee. During the Prague Spring period, censorship was partly abolished. After the election of Dubcek, he started to loosen the restrictions of the censorship established during the previous years. In her essay Socialism With a Human Face (2015) Anna J. Stoneman demonstrates, that ‘’Dubcek's intent was to revitalize and re-popularize KSC socialism by eliminating its most oppressive features, but his doing so gave rise to a brief, eight-month period of utter freedom, characterized by hitherto censored dissemination and discussion of information.’’27

Due to this, many western playwrights were translated into Czech, liberal and alternative films were made, plays and books were published, and theatres were able to widen their repertoire to performances that were blacklisted before. In her work on communism after 1968 (2010) Paulina Bren states, that ‘’Through these newly opened media channels, citizens were able to directly communicate with previously censored political thinkers, providing the citizens a first non-propagandized look at Czechoslovak and Soviet history.’’28

In 1968, official abolishment of censorship was confirmed by the 84/1968 Sb. Legislation which described censorship as ‘’inadmissible’’, an ‘’act of violation of human rights and freedom of speech and picture and their spreading by media caused by the state’s offices.’’29_{Dubcek's leadership}

allowed the citizens to behave in the form of freedom that could be established under the

communist regime. However, as Michael Long states in Making History: Czech Voices of Dissent and the revolution of 1989 ‘’ […] Dubcek provoked serious criticism from the Soviet-allied leaders of other

26 Culik, Jan. ‘’Censorship in Bohemia’’ britskelisty.cz http://www.britskelisty.cz/9903/19990326r.html

(Accessed May 12, 2018).

27 Anna J. Stoneman, ‘’Socialism With a Human Face: The Leadership and Legacy of the Prague Spring,’’ The History Teacher 49 (November 2015): 105.

28 Bren, Paulina, The Greengrocer and His TV: The Culture of Communism After the 1968 Prague Spring, (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2010), 105.

(18)

Soviet bloc governments by formally abolishing all forms of censorship.’’30_{On August 21, 1968, the}

army of Warsaw’s pact invaded Czechoslovakia in fear that more countries within the Soviet Union would demand more freedom. Moreover, shortly after the Soviet invasion, the legislation banning censorship in Czechoslovakia was cancelled, and the Office for media and information seized control of the media again. This was done by creating an Office for Press and Information on August 30th_,

1968.

Josef Smrkovsky suggested to determine an auto-censorship (self-censorship) due to the culture board members shortage. Therefore, everybody was responsible for what they published or said themselves. The ones who did not abide by this faced losing their job and even exile. Journalists and the press strictly refused. James F. Brown in Relations Between the Soviet Union and Its Eastern European Allies (1975) wrote, that ‘’Censorship of speech, press, travel, and the arts was re-imposed in full. Literary and artistic products of the Prague Spring were destroyed. Czechoslovakia was launched into a decades-long, stultifying period of "normalisation."31

The censorship during the period of normalisation was strict. Books were banned from libraries, academic books were blacklisted (such as the History of Czech literature), and playwrights and poets were forced into working camps or isolated from the public (imprisoned or secured). Government order 127/1968 Sb. broadened sanctions for not following the code of censorship, such as loss of journalist registration or total abolishment of the media (which actually led press and culture to auto-censorship anyway). Referring to the government order 127/1968 Sb. published on the website Totalita.cz: ‘'In the benefit of further peaceful progress, it is necessary to prevent press and other informative media any action, that might be disrupting important internal interests as well as foreign politics of the nation.''32_{This order later allowed the Communist Party to use the media to} 30 Michael Long, Making History: Czech Voices of Dissent and the Revolution of 1989, (Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield, 2005), 2.

31 J. F. Brown, "Relations Between the Soviet Union and Its Eastern European Allies: A Survey." United States:Project RAND (1975), 150.

32 Czechoslovak Socialist Government, Vládní nařízení o některých přechodných opatřeních v oblasti tisku a ostatních hromadných informačních prostředků, Ludvik Svoboda. 127/1968 Sb., Prague, Chamber of Deputies Parliament of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, http://www.totalita.cz/txt/txt_zakon_1968-127.pdf

(19)

control the nation informing the general public about actions of the Communist Party and to sustain general beliefs in those actions.

Many people started opposing the restrictions of free speech in arts, by refusing to perform their jobs, making dissent events and meetings for the opposition and even sacrificing their lives in protest against censorship. ‘’On January 16, 1969, a student by the name of Jan Palach set himself on fire in central Prague to protest the censorship of free speech.’’33_{In the 1970s the opposition to the}

Communist Party started expanding which led to the creation and signing of Charter 77. Janusz Bugajski writes in Czechoslovakia: Charter 77s Decade of Dissent (1987), that ‘’Vaclav Havel and many other leading dissidents, including Ludvik Vaculik, the author of the "Two Thousand Words"

manifesto, produced a second manifesto - the Charter 77 Declaration.’’34_{And Paulina Bren (2010)}

described the Charter 77, as a ‘’document (which) called the government to task for violations of rights guaranteed in treaties signed by the Communist government, including "freedom of public expression" and "freedom of religious confession.’’35

After the publication of the Charter 77 Declaration in multiple western newspapers, for example, Le Monde, The Times, New York Times, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, all the signatories were interrogated, and many arrested by the State Police. The Communist Party started a campaign against the signatories, aiming to isolate them from the society through exile and personal

censorship.

The signing and publication of the Charter 77 lead to a creation of the Committee for the defence of criminal offences VONS, a defence of people who were interrogated or arrested as political prisoners for opposing the regime. The Committee was active until 1989, although many of the members were also imprisoned or otherwise persecuted between 1978 and 1989. Since 1977,

(Accessed May 4, 2018).

33 Skoug, N. Kenneth, Czechoslovakia's Lost Fight for Freedom, 1967-1969: An American Embassy Perspective. (Westport: Praeger, 1999), 23.

34 Bugajski, Janusz. Czechoslovakia: Charter 77's Decade of Dissent, (New York: Praeger, 1987), 108. 35 Bren, ‘’ The Greengrocer and His TV,’’ 61.

(20)

more opposing organisations started rising up, which led to demonstrations in 1988 and eventually to the Velvet Revolution 17th_{November 1989.}

The legislation of inadmissibility of censorship was renewed after the Velvet Revolution in 1990, however, "conformism and absence of independent critical thinking were significant in the country many years after the Velvet Revolution as a heritage of many years of the totalitarian censorship."36_{The absence of freedom of speech during the communist regime has prominently left}

a mark on the culture of Czechoslovakia.

The next chapter will introduce oral history as a form of research. It will introduce the importance of this for the thesis, although, it will also depict disadvantages the author must be aware of. At the end of the chapter, a manual applied to the interview style research will be described.

1.3. Oral history as a source of information for the thesis

The choice for oral history as one of the approaches for gaining information for my thesis derived from several motives. The first motive was my previous interest in oral history as a source of data, especially due to the value of accessing more resources that are not publicly stated and more personal perspectives on the events I am researching. The second reason for the use of oral history was the limited amount of material written about this topic. Although there are some existing written documents on the Apartment Theatre, most of them are already inspired by personal perspectives of the events, and oral history was one of the approaches to gain the information used in them. The third motive and reason was my interest in information that is lacking from archives due to their destruction just before or straight after the fall of communism in Czechoslovakia. Ondrej Kundra (2017) inspects the role of the Soviet agents' and the Czechoslovak political police's action during the communist regime and especially after. In his research, he talks about several occasions of 36 Culik, "Censorship in Bohemia,’’ (Accessed May 5, 2018).

(21)

in which documents were destroyed, which was a popular process during the political shifts around 1989. He states, that ‘'Sometimes they (Czechoslovak political police) were caught burning the documents or even shredding them in heavy agricultural machinery.''37

The lack of information about the Apartment Theatre is also due to the censorship of arts and speech during the time of communism when the inconvenient dissident theatre scene was active.

Oral traditions have been the way of passing information on for centuries and still are for many illiterate societies. Makong’o, Maina and Oboka write about the beneficial aspects of oral tradition in their publication History and Government from One that ‘’Oral tradition (…) contains important information about the people whose oral traditions are being studied.’’38_{Orally passed}

histories have been one of the primary and most used forms of keeping the information about the past alive through speech, song, and so on. The Oral History Society uses the words of oral historian Graham Smith where he explains the historical evolution of the oral tradition, and states that ‘’For centuries the use of oral sources in understanding the past was commonplace.’’39_{Throughout the}

time, oral traditions were given less importance, and a lower level of reliability and written

documents became the main source and form of preserving information. Smith also states, that ‘’As a result, while oral sources often played a significant part in the writing of histories, these were just as often downplayed in comparison with evidence drawn from documents.’’40

Oral history became an acknowledged form of documenting histories again in the 1970s. It mainly served the past of communities examined, and the aim was to gain an inside perspective on events, rather than pure data. A form of oral history emerged in Czechoslovakia already in 1928 and modestly appeared in the first half of the century due to the restrictions the communist regime. 37 Ondrej Kundra, Putinovi Agenti (Prague: Albatros Media, 2017), 191 – 192.

38 Julius Makong’o, Ephalina Wycliffe and Maina Oboka, History and Government from One (Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers, 2003), 4.

39 Smith, Graham. ‘’History of Oral history,’’ ohs.org.uk http://www.ohs.org.uk/about/history-of-oral-history/

(Accessed February 25, 2018).

(22)

Czech oral historian Miroslav Vanek described the position of oral history in the Czechoslovakian past as "There were several cases of oral history during the communist regime, when the interviewees and the interviewers were ideologically acceptable. After 1989 oral historians had to fill in gaps caused by the censorship of the regime and the loss of the documents destroyed by the communist regime before 1989"41_.

Oral history achieved a new level of appreciation with the invention of the tape recording in the 1940s. After that, it gained popularity in the 21st_{century with digital recording and archiving. The}

Oral History Association website states, that “Oral history is both the oldest type of historical inquiry, predating the written word, and one of the most modern [types].’’42

1.3.1. Advantages and disadvantages of oral history as a form of

gaining and preserving information

The purpose of oral history is to collect and record information about the past through people’s memories. Through the use of interviews, historians gain information about events from the perspective of the insiders. Huizinga Instituut, the research institute of cultural history, explains the beneficial aspects of oral history as

Oral history is a form of historiography that is based on retrospective memories of eyewitnesses, usually on the basis of interviews. This field also includes reflection on the development of the discipline, on interviewing as a method, on the relationship between interviewer and interviewee and on the functioning of memory.43

The memory of the interviewees offers a subjective experience of the past events and can already compliment written documents about the events. Oral history can also fill in gaps in written documents or add information that might balance out the objectivity of it. Oral history can be 41 Miroslav Vaněk, Orální historie. Metodické a „technické“ postupy, (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2003) 37 – 40.

42 Oral History Association, ‘’Oral History: Defined,’’ oralhistory.org http://www.oralhistory.org/about/do-oral-history/ (Accessed March 5, 2018).

43 Research Institute and Graduate School of Cultural History, ‘'What is Oral History'', uizingainstituut.nl,

(23)

defined as a form of examination and explanation of recent history of communities or social groups, which D. Henige describes in his book Oral Historiography (1982) as ‘’by means of life histories or personal recollections where informants speak about their own experiences’’44

Using oral history complements this research through an insiders' perspective and

experience of the past events. This is not only because of the lack of written documentation of the Apartment Theatre from its time due to censorship but also as addition of personal perspective to the written documentation that is existing about it. In Oral History Methodology David Russel argued, that this is ‘’Because of their focus on the subjective, oral histories can provide insights not normally found in more traditional reviews or summaries.’’45_{Because of the power of censorship during}

communism in Czechoslovakia, I believe it is essential to gain as much information as possible from the opposition of the communist regime that was restricted from a free speech at the time. An argument of J. L. Gorman in his article Precision of History is, that ‘' [Other ways of reaching for information, such as oral history] takes into account the idea of objectivity, best defined, perhaps, as the achievement of a ‘'superior'' explanation of events, one that better than any other accurately reflects the historical state of affairs.''46

Oral history is a beneficial form of gaining information about past events. However, it also offers several risks that must be considered when one is working with material gathered by

interviews. The lack of objectivity to the information is one of the main issues oral history is facing. Alessandro Portelli in his writing on meanings in oral history Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories states, that ‘'Oral sources are not objective. This, of course, applies to every source, though the holiness of writing often leads us to forget it. But the inherent non-objectivity of oral sources lies in specific intrinsic characteristics, the most important being that they are Artificial, variable and

44 David P. Henige, Oral Historiography, (London: Longman, 1982), 2.

45 David A. Russel, ‘’ Oral History Workshop’’ (manual, Santa Barbara: University of California, 1988), 1. 46 Jonathan L. Gorman, ‘’Precision in history,’’ in Substance and form in history, ed. L. Pompa and A. H. Dray (Edinburgh: The University of Edinburg Press, 1981), 131.

(24)

partial.’’47_{When using oral history as a source, one must be aware of those characteristics this form}

carries and take them into account. There are two layers of risks that come with a lack of objectivity in oral history. The first layer is the one of the interviewee, whose memory is partial, variable and artificial. The second is the interviewer’s risk of lack of objectivity, which Joanna Scott suggests in her work on objectivity in oral narratives, as ‘'Aside from historical truthfulness, the other basic problem for oral history in these volumes is the question of the oral historian's own subjectivity.''48_{The second}

layer is the one of the interviewer, who also has a personal, subjective view on the described event, or one could be created during the interview based upon the interactions between the interviewer and interviewee. Therefore, the subjectivity of the interviewer plays as much importance as one of the interviewees. It is impossible to segregate the interviewer from the examined topic and from the interviewee. Therefore, the subject of interest, as Scott states ‘’has decidedly shifted from the 'objective' observer to the subjective interaction between the observed and the observer.’’49_This

subjective relationship does not necessarily mean that the outcome cannot be as close to objectivity as possible. This depends on the methodology that the historian follows in order to achieve this.

Henry Hodysh writes in his Research Notes on Problems of Objectivity in Oral History, that ‘’First, the historian should be aware of the values and assumptions that inform his or her personal perspective on history and, more particularly, the models employed in historical research.’’50_{It is}

important to realise that there is some data that is chosen, and some that might be discarded, although they are of equal importance. The historian should be aware of that in order to overlook the topic from a greater distance. Hodysh also suggests, that ‘’Where possible, the recollections of oral history should be employed in concert with documentary evidence, not only to verify the understanding of the subjects, but to gather as much evidence as possible in order to increase the 47 Alessandro Portelli, Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories, The: Form and Meaning in Oral History, (Kuwer Academic Publishers, 2010), 53.

48 Joanna C. Scott, Objectivity and Subjectivities: Indochina's Refugees: Oral Histories from Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, (McFarland, 1989), 2.

49 Scott, ‘’Objectivity and Subjectivities,’’ 2.

50 Henry W. Hodysh and R. Gordon McIntosh, ‘’Problems of Objectivity in Oral History,’’ Historical Studies in Education, (Spring 1989): 145.

(25)

quantity as well as perhaps improve the quality of data to be used in the description and explanation of events.’’51_{This method can help the historian to keep the best objective perspective on the topic}

as possible, especially by combining written documents and interviews. In this thesis, I will also use a combination of documents and information gathered from the interviews I held in Prague in 2018.

1.3.2. Method and steps of interviewing in oral history according

to David E. Russel’s Oral History Workshop Manual (1988)

During the preparation for the interviews, a workshop by David E. Russel was used as a guidance for the design and approach to the interviews. The structure of the work was essential in performing the interviews. Therefore an overview of this inspiration will be applied further to offer a connection with the outcome.

Recent works on oral history deal with the matter of interviewing, for example in The Oral History Reader edited by Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson (online 3rd edition, 2015). Those works focus on the style if interviewing taking into consideration the position of the interviewer and the interviewee into a greater detail than Russel. The specific role of the interviewer as an insider or an outsider is essential in Belinda Bozzoli's essay Interviewing the Woman of Phokeng. She talks about the great value of the insider position during interviewing. The role of the insider can offer a safer environment for the interviewee; however, it can lack objectivity, which the outsider position of the interviewer has.52_{For this thesis, the author was in the role of the outsider, unrelated to the}

51 Hodysh and McIntosh, ‘’Problems of Objectivity in Oral History,’’ 145.

52 Belinda Bozzoli, ‘’Interviewing the Woman of Phokeng: Consciousness and Gender, Insider and Outsider,’’ in The Oral History Reader, ed. Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson (London: Routledge, 2015), 212 – 222.

(26)

interviewee by any personal bond, therefore had the advantage of a more objective perspective. Due to the outsider position of the interviewer in the case of this thesis, Russel’s workshop was a suitable guidance of the process.

In the introduction to Interviewing chapter of Perks and Thomson’s collection of works, they state, ‘’As oral history techniques have been adopted all over the world, so there has been growing awareness that interviewing is culturally specific […].’’53_{By this, they are not only referring to a}

cultural but also individual differences. The importance of preparing and designing interview with a vast knowledge of the interviewee's background is necessary. This was indeed part of the process of designing the interviews for this thesis. Both Chramostova and Bouckova are people of specific history and position, which was taken into consideration when designing the interviews. Although those works were interesting, the content was not essential to the design of the interviews. On the other hand, Russel's work was essential when preparing, performing and concluding the interviews.

Russel suggests that the interviewer carries out a preliminary research. This consists of several steps, including a literary research about the subject of the interview and a creation of a biographical file. These steps are there to provide a deep knowledge of the interviewee and the topic discussed. In the case of multiple interviewees, an order of their conductance should be designed, in order to gain as much valuable information as possible. The last step of the preliminary research is contacting the subjects and planning the interviews with them.

In the case of this thesis, those steps were performed as follows. In the preparation for the interview with Vlasta Chramostova, I have completed all the preliminary steps. I have gathered documented data about the Apartment Theatre as well as the historical and political context of the events. I have used Chramostova's autobiography for the purpose of personal background

information. I have contacted her and explained the purpose of the interview and overall topics I was researching. I have also contacted Tereza Bouckova, another participant on the Apartment Theatre, 53 Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson, The Oral History Reader, 3rd_{ed. (London: Routledge, 2015), (online), 137.}

(27)

and completed all the steps in her case as well, although the information about her personal life was limited, so I realised I would have to conclude them in the interview.

The practical part of the process of gaining information by using oral history is described by Russel, as designing a treatment. This stands for conducting the interview and writing a treatment. The practical part is indeed also influenced by the interviewer’s preliminary research, as well as interpersonal skills. The importance of social skills in combination with the suggested steps in interviewing is necessary.

During the practical part of the Oral historical research used in this work, I have designed and conducted both of the interviews in March 2018 in Prague. Chramostova’s interview lasted just under one hour, Bouckova’s interview’s duration was one hour and a half, due to the more detailed information that was needed. The questions asked in the interviews were constructed prior. However, there were many topics mentioned that derived from the interview itself and varied slightly in the case of both interviewees.

This thesis is the outcome of the last step. The analysis of the preliminary research and the interviews are resulting in this work. The combination of written data and the personal perspective on the events is the major methodology used in gathering the material for this research.

The next chapter is dedicated to the dissident scene in the Czechoslovakian Socialist Republic. It will depict their actions of the resisting movement, which was using art to fight for freedom.

(28)

2. Underground and Dissident theatre scene and its responses to

censorship

The censorship of the Communist Party was applied to the structure and actions of all institutions, organisations and personal lives of the citizens in the Czechoslovakian Socialist Republic. This especially applied to public activities, all of which were under the control of the Communist Party, and due to the nationalisation of all institution, the nation had natural control over the employees and organisations.

Jan Purkert states in his article The Apartment Theatre of Vlasta Chramostova published in the Theatre-Architecture.eu, that ‘’All public activities that were existing outside of the supervision of the leading party were eliminated.’’54_{Due to the power of the Communist Party, many artists and}

intellectuals had to perform their work and political beliefs illegally and privately. This was an opposing movement of those who knowingly extricated themselves from the establishment of the Communist Party. They turned to illegality mostly using art in an attempt to achieve change in the country and to portray their disagreement with the behaviour of the leading party.

A part of this dissident movement in the Czechoslovakian Socialist Republic was called the Underground. The Underground was a movement of writers, musicians, artists and many others, who 54 Purket, Jan. ‘’Bytove Divadlo Vlasty Chramotove.’’ theatre-architecture.eu.

(29)

were ‘unfit’ the establishment and therefore forbidden by the government from doing their profession legally.

One of the active participants on the opposing movement to the establishment, a writer Ivan Martin Jirous, described Underground as, ‘’[being] created by people, who understood, that inside of legality is not a chance for a change, people, who are not trying to perform legally. Underground is an activity of artists and intellectuals; whose work is unacceptable for the establishment and who are actively trying to use their work for the destruction of the

establishment.''55_{The Underground was specific for using artistic tools to present their opposing}

statements to the establishment. Not all artists were necessarily part of this movement, however, it was a group connecting art with resistance. The participants of the Apartment Theatre were also connected to this movement, especially in the second half of the 1970s, at the moment that Charter 77 was created.

Many forms of dissident art were used with the aim to accomplish the change in the politics within the country towards free expression and to follow human rights. However, I will only focus on the theatrical Underground scene, although all dissidents and opposing movements were all

connected by the common disagreement with the establishment of the country.

The dissident theatre scene was not only made active by the work of professionals, but there was also a large number of amateur theatre companies who were also performing plays by forbidden authors. One of the most well-known amateur companies was Divadlo na Tahu, which performed several plays written by the forbidden playwright and future president of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel. The plays were not performed regularly, and usually only for intimate groups of dissidents; however, they also once performed Havel’s play The Beggar’s Opera, an adaptation of John Gay’s play from 1728, in a public hall with official permission in 1975. Historian Jiri Vorac states in his work

55 Ivan Martin Jirous, Zpráva o třetím českém hudebním obrození, ed. Jan Sulc ŠULC, Jan (Praha: Torst, 2008), 2.

(30)

Theatre and Dissent (1998) that: ‘’[t]he memorable performance of The Beggar’s Opera in Horni Pocernice made history in Czech theatre as the first independent theatre production since nationalisation in 1945.’’56

Another form of dissident theatrical activity was the use of anonymity or nicknames when authors were publishing their work, or when theatres were producing their work. Vorac (1998) illustrates an example, stating that ‘'the director Jaroslav Vostry, wrote the comedy Tri v tom (1978), which was performed since 1978 in Cinoherni Klub Theatre using a cover name of the director Jiri Menzel.’’57_{Dissident playwright Vaclav Havel’s plays were also performed by professional theatres,}

for example by theatre groups as HaDivadlo and Divadlo na provazku, which performed his play Tomorrow (1988). The play Tomorrow, as Vorac (1998) explains was performed ‘’(…) under a

collective project Rozrazil J/’88, which was a cover for the authorship of Vaclav Havel.’’58_{The project}

Rozrazil was a form of a scenic magazine, which started as a reaction to censorship and prohibition of publications and magazines, including theatrical reviews. The dramaturg of the Divadlo na provazku Petr Oslzly stated, that ‘'We said to ourselves, if we cannot print theatrical magazines, we will perform them.''59_{The performances were reacting on the political situation within the country,}

commenting on democracy, censorship and leadership of the country.

Apartment theatres were an important type of dissident theatre performing alternative culture opposing the censured culture. Vladimir writes about the apartment theatres at the theatre database Divadlo.cz (2001), as ‘’We can talk about it everywhere, where we can assume a moment of ‘un-officiality’, rather forced by political power, or chosen aesthetically, or ethically, it is a

phenomenon ancient, and it is a form of theatrical culture not only used in Czechoslovakia.''60_Private

performances comparable to the apartment theatres this thesis examines can be seen throughout 56 Jiri Vorac, ‘’Divadlo a dissent: Prispevek k dejinam divadelni opozice (1970 – 1989),’’ Sbornik Praci Filosoficke Fakulty Brnenske University 1 (1998): 30.

57 Vorac, ‘’Divadlo a dissent,’’ 5. 58 Vorac, ‘’Divadlo a dissent,’’ 36.

59 Petr Oslzly (Theatrical Dramaturg), interview with Jiri Vorac, October 1995, Brno.

60 Just, Vladimir. ‘’Bytove Divadlo.’’ divadlo.cz http://host.divadlo.cz/art/clanek.asp?id=1612 (Accessed April 21, 2018).

(31)

the history. Although, iIt received an illegal label when it became a form of opposition to oppressing leaderships. The illegal status was used during the National revival in 19th_{Century in the land of}

Bohemian Kingdom, it was a form of opposition during the German occupation in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and during the 1970s it was a form of expression and critique of the

establishment in the Czechoslovakian Socialist Republic. Vorac (1998) describes the dissident theatrical activities during the communist regime, as ‘’activities which had a form of staged theatre, such as the Apartment theatre of Vlasta Chramostova and the Divadlo na tahu, or staged readings, eg. Divadlo u stolu. They were performing in privacy, and since the end of the 1980s they were occasionally presented in a semi-official form.''61

The following part will introduce the Apartment Theatre of Vlasta Chramostova as a cultural event organised to satisfy the artistic desire of Chramostova and her audiences. It will offer an introduction to the issue of censorship within the event and the participants involved in the Apartment Theatre.

(32)

2.1. The Apartment Theatre of Vlasta Chramostova

The most famous apartment theatre during the 1970s in Czechoslovakia was the one of V. Chramostova and her husband S. Milota in their apartment in Prague. From the first performance in 1976, until the last one in 1980, there were over 70 performances organised in their apartment in Prague, as well as several other apartments and other private spaces around Czechoslovakia. Vorac (1998) writes, that ‘‘Although, the performances took place also outside of Chramostova’s

apartment, in other apartments in Prague, in Brno, Olomouc, etc., the performers were not afraid to perform outside of the dissident circles, due to technical and safety reasons, the audiences usually came from small, enclosed communities. ‘‘62

Four plays were performed in the Apartment Theatre, Vsecky krasy sveta (1976 – 1977), Appellplatz (1977 – 1978), Play Makbeth (1978 – 1979), and Davno, davno jiz tomu aneb Zprava o pohrbivani v Cechach (1979 – 1980). At the first initiative to organise an illegal private performance, Chramostova remembers: ‘’I said to myself, that here in Bohemia are such conditions, where writers write for themselves just ‘in the drawer‘ and for the Samizdat63_{, so I said to myself, that I will make}

‘for myself‘ theatre.‘‘64_{In her interview with Jiri Vorac, Chramostova states that her impulse to start}

the Apartment theatre was the thought that ‘‘[a]n actor who does not act is dead. And I won’t be dead. ‘‘65_{Chramostova organised the first performance in her apartment in 1976, to honour Czech}

forbidden poet Jaroslav Seifert's 75th birthday. 62 Vorac, ‘’Divadlo a dissent,’’ 24.

63( Author’s note) A form of dissident publishing and reproducing of written work unofficially due to censorship, used in oppressed countries of the Eastern Bloc

64 Vlasta Chramostova (Organiser and Performer in the Apartment Theatre), in discussion with the author, March 16, 2018, Prague.

(33)

The apartment theatre of V. Chramostova was open to anyone who was willing to risk their future. As Chramostova states in her interview with Jiri Vorac, ‘‘the ticket was not for money, but for courage. ‘‘66_{Due to the censorship of the leading party, any gathering of people with opposing}

opinions to the establishment was strictly forbidden, spied on and persecuted. Dissidents‘ actions were watched closely by the establishment, therefore an appearance at one of the performances in the apartments V. Chramostova performed in was dangerous not only for the performers but also for the audiences. The police often interrupted performances later and even arrested the performers before, eventually, the audiences' too before the event. Tereza Bouckova remembered in an

interview, ‘‘[a]t first, they were trying to scare the spectators away, but there were many people who had nothing to lose and went to the performances anyway, then they started arresting us (the performers).‘‘67_{The performers and the spectators of the Apartment theatre were often punished by}

being arrested, dismissed from work, or even driven by the police many kilometres outside of Prague and left there.

The audiences mostly consisted of dissidents, and later signatories of the Charter 77 Declaration who, by their presence, not only wanted to witness professional theatre that was performed by forbidden actors and written by forbidden writers, but also to come together with others who disbelieved in the establishment. According to the testimony of the spectators, ‘’the performances in the Apartment theatre of Vlasta Chramostova created the feeling of enrichment to the audiences, which was later one of the causes of their resistance against the communist

regime.‘‘68

Although the Apartment of Vlasta Chramostova was inspired by her desire to keep performing (which she mentions in her autobiography Vlasta Chramostova), it also emerged from 66 Vlasta Chramostova (Organiser and Performer in the Apartment Theatre), interview with Jiri Vorac, October 25, 1995, Prague.

67 Tereza Bouckova (Spectator and Performer in the Apartment Theatre), in discussion with the author, March 12, 2018, Prague.

(34)

her urge to celebrate J. Seifert’s work. The other reason to keep organising the performances was the possibility of free speech and expression of the performers and the audiences which was evident in the political beliefs of all the performances.

Chramostova’s desire for free expression and to keep acting was reflected in the plays and connected the dissident audiences to their everyday life. The subculture of the dissident theatre has therefore contributed to the future development of the country towards the fall of communism. The participants on Chramostova's performances as well as other dissidents were due to their endeavour to practice free speech eventually heroised after the Velvet Revolution in 1989.

The theatrical material that was used in the Apartment theatre of Vlasta Chramostova, as mentioned previously, was written by authors whose work was officially banned by the government in the Czechoslovakian Socialist Republic. However, as J. Vorac says, ‘‘[f]rom a historical discourse, there is an interesting fact, which the theatre had its own writers, that playwrights wrote especially for Chramostova's events and the specific actors, who performed there. ‘‘69_{This is in case of the later}

three plays Chramostova performed, however, the first one was based on an unpublished collection of J. Seifert’s first prose, which he wrote before Chramostova started organising the apartment theatre. Jaroslav Seifert (1901 – 1986), a Czech poet, translator and journalist is the only Czech to receive Nobel Prize for literature. For his public criticising of the invasion of the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, he was forced from writing and publishing publicly.

Seifert gave Chramostova his prose as the material to use in her first performance, and she designed, and Lubos Pistorius directed a play inspired by the work, Vsecky krasy sveta (All Amenities of the World) (1976). The first performance was largely successful in the dissident circles and activated not only further work in the Apartment theatre, but also inspired others to keep working on the resistance to the establishment, and not only by using art. Chramostova remembers that ‘‘[s]ome of the writers who came to watch said: if an actress does this for thirty people, I will start

(35)

writing again.‘‘70_{Therefore, the next three plays performed in Chramostova’s apartment were written}

especially for the events, by Pavel Kohout, Frantisek Pavlicek, and also Milan Uhde. However, Uhde’s work was not performed in the end due to the termination of Chramostova’s Apartment theatre.

Vlasta Chramostova defines the primary significance of the Apartment theatre in her interview with J. Vorac, as ‘'we were doing art freely and exclusively according to our own ideas.''71

The Apartment theatre of Vlasta Chramostova ignored censorship and therefore resisted it by its own existence, and therefore connected the audience and the performers by a collective risk of their freedom.

The following chapter will focus on the participants in the Apartment Theatre to portray the personal situations of the nonconformist citizens within the establishment.

70 Chramostova, discussion 71 Chramostova, interview

(36)

2.2. Biographies of significant protagonists of the Apartment

Theatre

The next four subchapters offer a brief bibliography of Vlasta Chramostova, Stanislav Milota, Tereza Bouckova and Pavel Kohout. These were chosen due to their significance within the events of the Apartment Theatre. The lives of those mentioned above were affected by censorship during the communist era, which will create a background for understanding the following chapters.

(37)

2.2.1. Vlasta Chramostova

Vlasta Chramostova was born in 1926 in Brno. From 1941 – 1945 she studied acting at the State Conservatoire in Brno. However, the Conservatoire closed down in the middle of the Second World War, and she had to work in a German factory near Brno. After the Second World War, she performed in The National Theatre in Brno. Later she joined the Vinohradske Theatre in Prague. Her career as an actress was rising, and she soon became an accredited actress. The theatre scene in the 1950's was influenced by the communist ideology and due to her success, Chramostova's career was also influenced by the regime. The friendship of her first husband Milos Pavlinec with Otto Sling72

caused Pavlinec to be banned from performing his profession as the Director of The Czechoslovakian Radio. Chramostova’s career was also endangered due to her husband’s friendships.

The State Police tried several times to persuade her to cooperate with them due to her contacts with the opposition. Chramostova blamed her lack of cooperation on her health and a workload; however, the State Police increased their pressure. Finally, in 1957, after she broke up with Milos Pavlinec, Chramostova signed an agreement of cooperation with The State Police. In her autobiography, Chramostova honestly explains her reasons, which were not only the fear of The State Police but also the desire to be famous and successful. She also joined the Communist Party in 1962 and was a member for six years. In 1968 she started living with her current husband Stanislav Milota, whom she helped filming the invasion of the Troops of the Warsaw Pact. Chramostova left the Communist Party after the invasion as well as the Vinohradske Theatre. Since then, Chramostova was officially banned from performing as an actress. She continued performing in her Apartment Theatre and continued to resist the censorship and constant bullying of the leading party.

(38)

She was one of the first signatories of The Charter 77 Declaration. Therefore she also became an enemy of the establishment. Chramostova was listed as one of the people who were threatening the safety of the state. After the Velvet Revolution, she returned to her profession and symbolically ended her career at The National Theatre in Prague.

(39)

2.2.2. Stanislav Milota

Stanislav Milota was born in Prague in 1933. He joined the Barrandov Film Studios, where he was trained as a cameraman assistant. In 1963 Milota filmed On the Tightrope which started his career as a talented and successful cameraman. In 1968 he filmed The Cremator - a film for which Milota won a price for the best camera in an international festival in Sitges in 1972. The Cremator was banned immediately after its premiere because the communist government saw a parallel between the revolt against Nazism portrayed in the movie and revolt against communism. The Cremator was only allowed to be seen again after The Velvet Revolution. During the Warsaw Pact invasion in Czechoslovakia in 1968, Milota took his camera and filmed the events of the occupation. Milota also filmed Jan Palach’s funeral, who sacrificed his life in a protest for free speech and human rights by setting himself on fire in the Wenceslaw’s Square in 1969. Due to Milota's documentation of those events, he was fired from the Barrandov Studios and his public career as a cameraman ended. Stanislav Milota signed the Charter 77 Declaration, by which he confirmed his professional ban, however, he documented one of the performances of the Apartment Theatre he had organised with his wife Vlasta Chramostova in their apartment. The film documenting the performance was

smuggled to Austria, and it was premiered in Austrian TV ORF in an edited version. After the Velvet Revolution, Milota joined Vaclav Havel's presidential office. Milota has never officially returned to filming after 1989.

(40)

2.2.3. Tereza Bouckova

Tereza Bouckova was born in 1957 in Prague. After finishing high school, she repeatedly applied for The Academy of Performing Arts in Prague, however, due to her father's political status as a dissident, she was never accepted. Her maiden name created difficulties during her youth,

including education, as well as her dream career as an actress. She spent a year in a language course learning English, and she had to work manually as a cleaner and a postwoman. She repeatedly tried to join professional and amateur theatres around Prague, and although she was accepted several times, all theatre ensembles changed their decision soon after due to the pressure of the

establishment and punishment for employing ‘unfitting' citizens in anything other than manual professions. In a personal interview with the author, she stated, that ‘'[w]hen my father suggested, that I could join the Apartment theatre of Vlasta Chramostova, I was excited. I spent a year with Chramostova preparing for the auditions for The Academy of Performing Arts, and due to the rejection, I was glad I could perform.''73_{Bouckova performed in Play Macbeth, written by her father}

Pavel Kohout, and also helped during the organisation of the events and as an assistant during the film documentation of the last performance Davno, davno jiz tomu aneb Zprava o Pohrbivani v Cechach (Long, Long Ago ―News of the Burials in Bohemia). As well as most of the people involved in Chramostova's apartment theatre, she also signed the Charter 77 Declaration, she was the

youngest participant in the Apartment theatre, as well as one of the youngest signatories. By signing the Charter 77 and actively participating in the apartment theatre, she confirmed her political opposition to the establishment and was interrogated and imprisoned. Bouckova has never returned

73 Tereza Bouckova (Spectator and Performed in the Apartment Theatre), in discussion with the author, March 12, 2018, Prague.

The dissident reaction portrayed by apartment theatre on the censorship and restriction of speech of the arts during the communist regime in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s.