Postcolonialism and Baltic Drama

Benedikts Kalnačs, 20th Century Baltic Drama: Postcolonial Narratives, Decolonial Options. Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag, 2016

What Do Actors Do in Contemporary Theatre

The article addresses the issue of strategies of acting in contemporary (largely postdramatic)theatre. In thefirst part of thearticle, theacting isconceptualized asplaying, with referencetorelevant theories, particularly that of Thomas Pavel. The article puts forward the argumentthat the play world created in a theatre performance can be described by the continuousfictional ? real spectrum that accommodates a number of strategies of acting. Within thecontinuum, there exists an ongoing tension between the fictional and the real; theirrelationship is largely variable depending on the strategies of acting at work in a particularperformance. In the second part of the article, these strategies are divided into three groups:?being someone else?, ?being oneself ?and performing actions ? and are then analyzed on thebasisof examplesthat aredrawn primarily fromEstonian contemporary theatre

The emergence of the independent theatre scene in Estonia (1987–92)

The years 1987–92 mark the first or breakthrough stage of the Estonian transition period from being one of the Soviet republics to a newly independentdemocratic state. The cultural processes of the transition are commonly discussed in terms of re-westernization. However, the picture is more complex,as Western influences intertwined with the legacy of the Soviet cultural realm. The article looks into the interplay between various influences, analyzing theemerging independent theatre scene from both institutional and aesthetic perspectives. On the institutional level, a range of small groups emerged thatoften blurred the line between (semi-)professional and amateur theatre. On the aesthetic level, one can identify three main trends: biographical and/or culturalhistorical documentary theatre; theatre based on the ethnic heritage of different (mostly Northern) nations; postmodern aesthetics. Two more general patterns are 1) the radicalization of Soviet-era artistic searches, empowered by the rise of Estonian nationalism, and 2) the advent of postmodernism, triggered by contemporary Western ideas about theatre

Contemporary Finnish drama in Estonian Theatre in the 21st century

After regaining independence in 1991 Estonia, like other Baltic states, went through a transition period which can be described as a return to the West, i.e. Europe. By now, Estonia has joined European community and is successfully integrated with Europe. However, in regard to the country’s cultural and political identity, the process of self-determination continues, particularly on the level of regional identity: whether the newly independent Baltic countries belong to Eastern or Northern Europe? Estonia tends to position itself among Nordic countries, primarily by reason of close historical ties and linguistic kinship with Finland. In the light of current identity processes the cultural interaction between Estonia and Finland deserves attention. This paper examines only one aspect: the reception of contemporary Finnish dramaturgy in the 21st century Estonian theatre. Finnish dramas had been staged in Estonian theatres since the end of the 19th century. However, it is noticeable that their number has significantly increased since the 2000s, and the repertoire of the major Estonian theatres contains far more new, contemporary Finnish plays than well-known classics. Plays by Leea Klemola, Sirkku Peltola, Juha Jokela, Mika Myllyaho, Pipsa Lonka and others enjoy great popularity among Estonian audiences. How do these plays represent Finnish society? How were they interpreted and received in Estonian theatre? How do stage productions of Finnish plays contribute to the construction of shared Nordic identity? The paper looks for answers to these questions

Theatre: Stability and Dynamics

Käesoleva numbri teemat piiritlevad mõisted stabiilsus ja dünaamika ei ole antonüümid, s.t ei moodusta selget binaarset opositsiooni ega dihhotoomiat, ja teiseks, mõlema mõiste konnotatsioonid on positiivsed, mida ei saa niisama kindlalt väita nende otseste vastandite – labiilsuse ja staatika – kohta. Stabiilsus, mis lähtub ladina keelest (stabilis ’kindlalt seisev, kõikumatu’) tähendab süsteemi või nähtuse püsikindlat olekut ning näitab tagasisidestatud süsteemide talitlusvõimelisust. Süsteemis tegutsevatele inimestele annab stabiilsus turvatunde, mis on inimese oluline emotsionaalne vajadus. Ent niisama vajalik ja väärtustatud on dünaamika (kreeka dynamikos ’jõusse puutuv, jõu-’), mis tähendab süsteemi või nähtuse muutumist, arenemiskäiku. Tänu niisugusele positiivsele tähendussisule tunduvad stabiilsus ja dünaamika olevat head katusmõisted, mille varal on võimalik käsitleda eritasandilisi suhteid nii teatriajaloos kui ka etenduse analüüsis. Sündmusi seostades ja järjestades, s.t narratiive konstrueerides tunneb teatriloolane tavaliselt ikka huvi selle vastu, mis on muutunud, millised arengud on aset leidnud, mis on neid põhjustanud jne. Kui vaadelda teatriajalugu muutumise prisma läbi, siis tuleb mängu terve rida kategooriaid ja mõisteid, mille abil ajaloolisi protsesse on võimalik modelleerida: progress, uuendus, revolutsioon, murrang, kriis, tsüklilisus, katkestus, transformatsioon jne. Mis liiki ajalugu kirjutatakse, sõltub sellest, milliseid mudeleid eelistatakse ja väärtustatakse. Teatriajaloo uurimises on pendel liikunud uuenduse ja traditsiooni pooluste ehk dünaamika ja stabiilsuse rõhutamise vahel. Nimetatud mõistepaar kirjeldab olulisi aspekte ka teatri ontoloogias. Teatri spetsiifiliseks omaduseks peetakse etenduse kui teatrikunsti teose ainukordsust ja ebapüsivust, millega seostub dünaamika mõiste. Ent kaduvuse-ülistusega rööbiti eksisteerib iha teatrietendust ikkagi korrata ja jäädvustada, päästmaks teda mitte-olemisse ja unustusse vajumast, ning sellega seostub stabiilsuse mõiste. Performatiivne pööre on toonud püsivuse ja muutumise dialektika selgemalt ka etenduse analüüsi ja retseptsiooniuuringute diskursusse. Lineaarsete ja/või dihhotoomiliste kirjeldusmudelite taandumist niisuguste mudelite ees, mis käsitlevad protsesse ja nähtusi pidevate spektrite ja kontiinumite kaudu, võibki pidada tänapäeva teatriuurimise üldiseks epistemoloogiliseks raamistikuks.<br /

Constructing Finno-Ugric Identity through Theatre

The article investigates the construction of transnational Finno-Ugric identity through the theatre festival Mayatul and different performative strategies. This kind of identity construction is investigated through the framework of identity politics and transnationalism. The definition of the Finno-Ugric peoples (Finns, Estonians, Hungarians, Samis, Mordvins, Komi, Udmurts and others) is based foremost on their language kinship. It is believed that similar characteristics of languages and a similar natural environment and climate have shaped the close-to-nature lifestyle and the particular perception of the world shared by the Finno-Ugric peoples.Essential platforms for constructing transnational Finno-Ugric identity are different theatre festivals, among which Mayatul (since 1992) is the most prominent. The majority of productions at the festival are performed in Finno-Ugric languages and interpret the literary texts or folklore of these peoples. However, only a few productions strive for indigenous aesthetics like those of Estonian theatre director Anne Türnpu. The Finno-Ugric peoples’ identity is predominantly a minority identity because mostly they represent a small national and language group in a bigger state like Russia, and only Finland and Hungary have enjoyed one hundred years of independence. Nevertheless, all countries and nations embrace smaller ethnic or cultural minorities, thus minority identity is a universal concept. Theatre festivals are able to unite minority identities into larger transnational identites, even when it is just an imagined community

Draamateooria probleeme. I

Vormistatud pdf-na html versioonisthttp://tartu.ester.ee/record=b1059281~S1*es

Teatriuuenduse retseptsioonist sünkroonkriitikas. The Reception of Theatrical Renewal in Contemporary Criticism

The article focuses on the critical reception of innovative theatre productions in the 1960s and 1970s (directors Evald Hermaküla, Jaan Tooming, Kaarin Raid), in which the conflict of discourses in theatre theory becomes obvious and the metalanguage of criticism changes. Censorship made criticism difficult, because it forced the critics to use Marxist terminology in order to protect the productions from attacks based on Soviet ideology. Innovative theatre productions were seen as artistic experiments, but the results were appraised differently. Criticism was divided in regard to the following questions: the relation between the literary text and the means of expression on stage (primarily a question of staying true to the author), about the productions as such in their different meanings, and the actor’s relationship to the director. In the theatre world, the young directors’ renewal was most actively opposed by director Voldemar Panso, who dismissed it as a foreign and hostile direction in opposition to his own aesthetical programme. Kaarel Ird protected the young directors active at the Vanemuine Theatre (of which he was in charge) using Marxist rhetoric of somewhat demagogical character. Some critics, such as Valdeko Tobro, tried to place this new, modernistic type of theatre in familiar aesthetical and rhetorical categories using the aesthetics of Stanislavskian psychological realism. Psychological realism was treated as the tradition and mainstream of Estonian theatre, and any divergence from it was considered dangerous. The semi-underground journal Thespis (1972-1973) used the same metalanguage as the theatre directors. In Thespis, young intellectuals and critics discussed the relationship between theatre and reality, theatre as game and ritual as well as other questions, connecting with Artaud, Grotowski and Brook’s theatrical ideas. The reception of the production Külalised ( The Visitors, 1974) shows how the descriptive language used in criticism was approaching the ideas of the young directors, which were beginning to edge out the vocabulary of Marxist aesthetics. The discourse conflict was considerably mollified. However, the new language of theatre did not receive full recognition; the disputes about the changes of literary text and within which borders interpretation was allowed to operate continued. Another bone of contention was the perspective on the development of Estonian theatre – some critics awaited a synthesis based on psychological realism while others supported artistic pluralism