Theater and censorship. The case of Director Jonas Jurašas

Teatro cenzūra – lietuvių teatrologijoje atskirai plačiau dar nenagrinėta tema. Rašiniuose apie konkrečius sovietmečiu kūrusius teatro menininkus ar kitose publikacijose aptariami konkretūs teatro cenzūros atvejai, tačiau atskiros teatro cenzūrai skirtos studijos kol kas dar nėra buvę. Šioje publikacijoje nagrinėjami teatro ir jį įvairiais istoriniais laikotarpiais skirtingai veikusios cenzūros santykiai, iš naujo peržiūrimas vienas garsiausių Lietuvos teatro cenzūros atvejų – režisieriaus Jono Jurašo kūrinių žalojimo istorija bei jos pasekmės. Trumpai apžvelgus teatro cenzūros istoriją pereinama prie konkretaus, chronologiškai apibrėžto ir ryškiausiais teatro cenzūros pavyzdžiais pasižyminčio Lietuvos istorijos periodo, t. y. sovietų okupacijos laikotarpio, galiausiai – prie menininko kūrinių cenzūros analizės, kuri ne tik atskleidžia daugialypį cenzūros poveikį teatrui, bet ir galimą poveikį pačiam menininkui.Theater censorship is anissue that has not been individually and widely discussed yet. Particular cases of censorship have been looked into in essays on specifictheaterartistswho worked during the Soviet era; however, there is still no study to examine the phenomenon of theater censorship as a whole. This publication begins to explore the relationship between theater and censorship during various periods of time in history and re-examines the most famous cases of censorship in Lithuanian theater – the demolition of director’s Jonas Jurašas’ works and its consequences. Starting with a brief overview of theater censorship history, the article goes on to mention examples of contemporary censorship in theater, followed by a discussion of a specific, chronologically bounded historical period of time that packed with prime examples of theater censorship in Lithuania – the period of Soviet occupation; eventually, censorship of specific the atrical works is analysed. The publication mentions Jonas Jurašas whose example shows that persistent censorship can force an artist to become directly involved in politics. In addition to the anti-Soviet ideas reflected in his plays, censorship can beidentifiedas one of Jurašas’ successfactors with the audience. Ironically, censorship had a positive and stimulating influenceon this artist’s creative process. It follows that the effect of censorship on theater should not be evaluated unilaterally. In the majority of cases the effect was negative–during certain historical periods of time censorship impeded the development of theater, constrained the possibilities of theater artists to express themselves, so influencing the quality of their works, damaging entire generations of artists and destroying the fates of numerous individuals. Yet censorship, paradoxically, had a positive influenceas well–it increased the resourcefulness of those who sought to bypass it, encouraging a wider variety of artistic search methods and bringing forth the formation of individual aesthetics (in Lithuanian theater – Aesop’s language)