Questions on the periodisation of Soviet censorship in Lithuanian theatre

Šio straipsnio tikslas – išskirti ir apibrėžti sovietinės okupacijos metais Lietuvoje veikusios politinės-ideologinės teatro cenzūros istorijos periodus atsižvelgiant į bendras sovietmečio istorijos periodizavimo tendencijas, šio laikotarpio lietuvių teatro raidos ir visuomeninių pokyčių kryptis. Periodai išskiriami atsispiriant nuo SSRS politinės cenzūros periodizavimo modelio, pritaikant jį Lietuvoje veikusios meno kontrolės sistemos specifikai. Straipsnyje iš- skiriami sovietinės politinės teatro cenzūros formavimosi ir veikimo Lietuvoje etapai, įvardijami būdingiausi bruožai ir tendencijos. Atsižvelgiant į pokyčius oficialiajame diskurse, svarstomi kūrėjų santykių su režimu ir savicenzūros klausimai.The aim of this article is to distinguish and determine the periods of history of Soviet political-ideological theatre censorship executed in Lithuania during the years of occupation. It is done considering general tendencies of periodising Soviet history, the direction of the development of Lithuanian theatre and social changes. The periods are distinguished by removing the model of periodisation of the USSR’s political censorship and adapting it to the particularities of the art control system that operated in Lithuania. The author suggests dividing the history of Soviet political-ideological theatre censorship in Lithuania into two periods. The first period of indoctrination and implementation (1940–1969) can be described by the unilateral implementation of Soviet ideology, establishment of institutions of censorship, adaptation of the model of the theatre system found in the Soviet Union and rigourous repressive censorship. The second period is introduced as a period of institutional stagnation (1969–1990). During this period, the Soviet indoctrinated and implemented institutional system of theatre censorship functioned simultaneously with its capillary structures, control over discourse became a norm, and the official discourse that was formed by the censorship became accustomed, rather than being repressively enforced. In such conditions, the minor changes in regime lost their importance. Even though censorship dynamically reacted to them, its principles and effect shifted. Only at this point can we talk about substantial possibilities to adapt to it and try to circumvent the boundaries of such prohibitions