Page 479 [479]
DAGMAR KROCANOVÁ
Overall, the entire interwar period in Slovak theatre is marked by a clash
between traditional Realism and Modernism. Realism in theatre maintained
the focus on dramatic texts, mostly respected traditional dramatic categories
(such as dramatic plot, dramatic conflict, dramatic tension, the principle of the
three unities, and others), and did not violate traditional composition (division
into scenes and acts) producing an illusionary performance (theatre like reality).
Modernism, especiallylyricaldrama, subdued dramatictextsemphasizingextra¬
textualand extra-linguistic elements instead. This lead to the rise of anew form
in drama and theatre: they were not like reality but they were a separate artistic
reality capable of conveying emotions by producing beauty and enchantment.
Ihe integration of epic and lyric elements in drama decomposed dramatic
characters, plot, tension, unities and composition. Whereas Realism still used
metonymy as a predominant approach to theatre, Modernism tended to exploit
metaphor instead. Drama and the theatre of ideas and of the model situation
was an attempt to preserve and update the genre: a secluded and hostile setting
with characters that had to enter mutual relations by chance produced forced
dialogues that reflected the emotions of anxiety and hostility. These elements
respected genre requirements, and enabled playwrights to preserve dramatic
characters, plot, conflict, tension and other dramatic categories. Directors of
the Slovak National Theatre usually favoured one style; for example, among
the first generation of Slovak directors, Jan Borodaé (1892-1964) adhered to
Realism even with plays that would enable him to experiment; Jan Jamnicky
(1908-1972) became famous for his staging of lyrical drama that enabled him
to apply his concept of a stage metaphor; Ferdinand Hoffmann (1908-1966)
was considered a Modernist influenced by Expressionism in theatre. Among
Czech directors of the Slovak National Theatre who significantly contributed
to the development of Slovak theatre culture in the 1920s and 1930s, we can
mention, for example, Vilém Taborsky, Bediich Jeräbek, Josef Hurt, Vaclav
Jirikovsky, Viktor Sulc, and Draho$ Zelensky.
In conclusion, the 1920s witnessed the emergence of the Slovak National
Theatre as a cultural institution that was supposed to confirm the identity
and culture of an emerging nation. Ihe emancipation process shows some
similarities with the emancipation of the Slovak language in the 19'* century.
The 1930s asserted that the institution could be legitimately called “theatre”
18 Their role in culture during the Slovak Republic was questioned after 1945, and all three of
them left the Slovak National Theatre; Borodaé was sent to revive the theatre in Koëice, a
town ceded to Hungary after the First Vienna Arbitration of 1938; Jamnicky already disagreed
with the artistic profile of the Slovak National Theatre around 1944, and left it; he became
involved in film, radio and teaching instead; Hoffmann emigrated to Italy in 1945, and later to
Argentina. Besides being a director, Hoffmann was also a dramaturge of the Slovak National
Theatre in the first years of the Slovak Republic (1939-1941); censors interfered in the case
of several plays directed by him (see footnote 19); instead of perhaps being dismissed, he was
promoted to the head of the cultural section of the Propaganda Office (1941-1945).
° 478 ¢