The Communist Party Effect: Romanian Theatre Under the “ Auspices ” of Censorship Isabella Dra ˘ ghici (Bucharest) Hostility to theatre as a forum for free speaking and thinking was one of the main expressions of the Communist Party dictatorship in Romania between 1948 and 1989. With the introduction of the Nationalisation Law in 1948, private theatre companies disappeared. Theatre became an instrument for communist ideals and political propaganda. A system of surveillance and manipulation involving committees which controlled texts, theatrical performances and directorial visions had a dynamic presence since the beginning. Despite this oppression, we can discover a “ positive ” result of the censorship represented by oases of cultural resistance. This paper explores the Communist Party effect reflected in Romanian theatre under the “ auspices ” of censorship (1948 - 1989), with a focus on the creation of the emblematic director Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu. “ The Stalinist transformation of the Romanian culture and society was the consequence of the military Russian occupation of the country and of the political actions of the new government led by the Romanian Communist Party, who imposed the Soviet model by force, terror and propaganda. ” Gabriel Catalan 1 When considering Romanian theatre under the Communist regime, an image that comes to mind is that of a bloody wound. One can only reconstruct the past before 1990 from the perspective of the present. This wound is still alive: the effects of this tragedy, the presence of the Communist Party dictatorship in Romania for almost 50 years, are still visible almost three decades after the fall of Communism. Today we see censorship in the biggest plague on our society: corruption. Corruption, the main inheritance of Communism, has its roots in the political ideology of lying, the impairment of free speech and thought, the nullification of moral values, the abuse of power, the distortion and the manipulation of the truth and other values for the benefits of the corrupt “ elite ” and its political and economic interests. If this “ elite ” was represented until 1989 by people with a position in the Communist Party, today some of them or their relatives and close friends are still in positions of power, in political parties, in parliament or in government, in the management of theatres or other state institutions. The maleficent strategies of corruption flourished in Romania before and after 1990. State theatres (the majority in Romania), we must say, are touched by this malady. You cannot cure the past without the shield of the truth. If the reality and the distorting mirror of the ruling party was a dual game recognized in a silent complicity between theatre makers and the audience during the communist period, today this game has its players and winners within or outside theatre institutions, but against the authority of the truth. To understand this, we must look at the history of the events between 1945 and 1989, where the plague has its roots. Where, therefore, are the “ auspices ” of censorship reflected in theatre? This paper proposes possible answers for future debates. I will try in this paper to reconstruct the relationship between theatre and politics under the Communist dictatorship, focusing on the work of an emblematic stage director from that period, Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu. It is not an exhaustive study; I merely want to outline a few major aspects in a condensed way, and to emphasize the relevance of Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu for the national and international context. Researchers agree that is very hard to evaluate the huge spectrum of censorship ’ s manifestations, starting with the terrible proletkultist period (1945 - 1958/ 1960) until the “ relaxation ” of censorship (1964 - 1971), and after that the hardening of censorship again accompanied by the development of the monstrous Ceau ș escu cult (1971 - 1989). It is hard to evaluate not only because of the complexity of this phenomenon, but also because many documents disappeared in 1989, when Communism collapsed. * Communist censorship in the theatre began in 1944, after the Second World War. Marian Popescu mentions Article 16 of the Armistice Convention between the Romanian Government and the governments of the United Nations (September 12, 1944): “ The printing, the import and the distribution of periodicals or non-periodicals, in Romania, the presentation of theatre plays and films [. . .] should be executed with the approval of the High Allied Commandment ” , meaning they were “ under soviet control ” , affirms the author. 2 The Communist regime imposed the Stalinist ideology, starting a huge process of political surveillance, control and repression. The leader of the Bloc of Democratic Parties, the Communist Party, manipulated the results of the vote in 1946, and the bloc was declared “ elected ” with a majority of almost 80 %. 3 New laws shocked the country. On June 11, 1948, law no. 119, the “ Law of Nationalisation ” changed property rights. All private companies, including theatre companies, disappeared. The law destroyed private property; the only owner was now the state (Fig. 1). Fig. 1: The Law of Nationalisation (Law no. 119) published in Monitorul Oficial, Year CXVI - No. 133 bis, Friday, 11 June 1948 (first page). Law no. 265/ July 18, 1947 stipulated that all theatre institutions, operas, and philharmonic orchestras were now subordinate to and under the control of the Ministry of Arts, later named the Ministry of Arts and Information. Theatre became an important instrument of political propaganda. Censorship was a major means of controlling cultural productions. In August 1947, a set of 45 rules was given for theatre plays and repertory. The ideology was to create “ art for the masses ” ; the plays had to be controlled by “ committees for lecturing ” in order to respect the principles imposed by the party; the repertory had to include 99 The Communist Party Effect: Romanian Theatre Under the “ Auspices ” of Censorship Romanian and Soviet plays. 4 On December 30, 1947, King Mihai of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was forced to abdicate. Romania became the “ Popular Republic of Romania ” . The Communist Party ( “ The Workers ’ Party ” at that time) then became the ruling party for more than 50 years. Theatre managers were replaced by people from within the Communist regime, some of them just workers with no education. Several professors, actors and directors who did not agree with Communist politics suffered persecution by the State Security (The Political Police). In fact, all areas of society were purged of “ dangerous elements ” . Repression of those who did not agree with the Communist Party ideology was terrible. Approximately two million people died, suffered persecution in political jails or became victims during the Romanian Communist Dictatorship. Some of them were “ lucky ” enough not to die, but their lives were destroyed. Alice Voinescu, Professor of Drama and Aesthetics, Doctor in Philosophy conferred by the Sorbonne University, lost her job and was sentenced to jail (1951) for 19 months as “ an enemy of the people ” . Marioara Voiculescu, a famous Romanian actress, was removed from the National Theatre of Bucharest, her house was confiscated and she spent her life persecuted by the State Security. Ion Lupeni, Titus Lapte ș and Ion Ilie (actors at the National Theatre Bucharest) were investigated by the State Security (1949) for “ hostile attitudes against the Communist regime ” 5 . Lucian Blaga, the famous Romanian philosopher, diplomat, writer, playwright and member of the Romanian Academy lost his distinction of “ academic ” and was marginalized by the Communist authorities. It seems that only a few theatre makers were against the new regime; the majority accepted this authority and were rewarded with good positions and careers, as was the case for Lucia Sturdza Bulandra, Marietta Sadova, Beate Fredanov, George Vraca, Dina Cocea, George Calboreanu, Costache Antoniu and Radu Beligan. 6 The professionalism and talent of many of them cannot be questioned, but if one looks at their careers, one wonders if they would have been as successful if they had chosen to defy the monstrous ideology. Theatre had to promote the soviet fight against the “ bourgeois ” and Western culture and thinking and to implement social-realism. The social model was the “ worker ” , the “ comrade ” . This was the proletkultist period. The strong anti-capitalist propaganda involved the banning of several renowned Romanian and foreign playwrights or writers, such as Lucian Blaga, Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran, Eugen Ionescu, Ernest Hemingway, André Malraux and André Gide. Hundreds of thousands of volumes were confiscated from libraries, bookshops and schools. Many Russian writers and playwrights were introduced. In 1949, censorship meant total control of information (books, newspapers and mass media), control of cultural products and theatrical representations. The Control Committee (which had different names and branches over time) was often present at rehearsals and if they objected to anything, changes had to be made. In any case, the plays were censored beforehand so that they adhered to the ideological lines of the party. A political education series in which Stalin ’ s writings were presented was introduced to every theatre institution. The hardest period for Romanian theatre was the “ proletkultist period ” between 1945 and 1958/ 1960 (several historians considered this period to be between 1947/ 1948 and 1955). After the death of Stalin in 1953, the “ atmosphere ” changed. Starting with the Ceau ș escu regime (1965), a kind of “ liberalization ” was permitted. At the end of the 1960s, censorship became more relaxed. In 1971, with the famous “ Thesis of the Communist Party ” , Ceau ș escu reintroduced cen- 100 Isabella Dra ˘ ghici (Bucharest) sorship. Many plays were forbidden by censors and the directors bore the consequences. After 1971, the most important Romanian stage directors went into exile in Europe or the United States (for example, Radu Penciulescu to Sweden, David Esrig to Germany, Liviu Ciulei and Andrei Ș erban to the United States, Lucian Giurchescu to Denmark). How can we see in this context the “ auspices ” of censorship? Is this only an irony or can we find a “ positive ” aspect as a result of this maleficent system? We can discuss “ auspices ” in this context, in terms of ‘ positive ’ effects of this oppression. It might sound paradoxical, but sometimes terror empowers people and makes them more creative. Sometimes it destroys artists, but sometimes it makes them resourceful. The artist can escape through his art, through metaphor, suggestion and allusion from the imposed and fake reality. This was what happened in Romanian theatre. The theatre makers tried to find a way to express a critique of the system, to form competitive teams and to explore an original aesthetic. Although the theatre was infested with communist plays, topics, ideology and soviet models, several artists were able to create, through their performances, oases of cultural resistance. The critic Olti ț a Cântec asserts: “ The artist - playwright, director, actor - encodes a multiplicity of allusions to the political power which are received in a conspiracy with the auditorium that was hard to supervise. ” 7 One example is Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu ’ s play Diminea ț a ˘ pierduta ˘ (Lost Morning) at the Bulandra Theatre, in which the critique of the totalitarian communist regime was obvious. The Communist regime created forty new theatres all around Romania, with the purpose of creating “ art for the masses ” (the soviet politics of art) and establishing its ideology. The positive aspect was that young actors and directors had the chance to work, to create new teams and to explore new theatrical techniques. In miserable conditions, under surveillance, they resisted and created amazing performances. They had the chance to use their talent in small towns, to create cultural oases of theatrical life (e. g. The Young Generation Theatre in Piatra- Neam ț ). The obsession of the ruling party with using theatre as an instrument for political propaganda can be seen in many provinces where workers were organized by the party in amateur teams and often acted on stage. The censorship isolated Romanian theatre and culture from the Free World (the Western World). The perfect isolation behind the Iron Curtain was broken only by several theatre teams or stage directors who were sent to international theatre festivals for the fame of the Communist regime. Hostility against theatre as a forum for free speaking and thinking as one of the main expressions of the Communist Party dictatorship in Romania, between 1948 and 1989 stimulated the actors ’ spirit of sacrifice: in the 1980s actors played in very cold halls without heating in winter time. They risked not only their health, but also their freedom, because of the roles played against the recommendations of the communist activists. Sometimes the rehearsals with censors differed from what was performed at the premiere. Liviu Mali ţ a offers in Teatrul românesc sub cenzura comunista ˘ 8 significant documentation to show theatre censorship that was exercised in a pyramidal construction all over the country, using organisations, services and censors in a rigorous hierarchical system of surveillance and control. If, at the beginning of censorship, several actors, such as Alice Cocea, Elvira Popescu, Jean Yonnel, or playwrights and authors (Eugen Ionescu, Mircea Eliade, Emil Cioran), and other cultural personalities (Ion Perlea, the composer and conductor; Constantin Brâncu ș i, the sculptor) accepted selfexile, later it became almost impossible to 101 The Communist Party Effect: Romanian Theatre Under the “ Auspices ” of Censorship leave the country. Several stage directors were able to leave after 1971 because they were renowned. During this exile, they developed important careers in the international arena. Censorship therefore paradoxically stimulated their careers. Even if theatre was no longer a visible form of social/ political critique and freedom of thought was within the limits imposed by the party, several artists discovered a way to rebuild theatre aesthetics on new foundations. * For several directors, for example, Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu (born 1938), censorship was not felt so excessively. At least three of her plays with obvious attacks on communism escaped censorship: Maestrul ș i Margareta (The Master and Margarita) by Bulgakov (The Little Theatre, 1980), Ivona, Principesa Burgundiei (Ivona, Princess of Burgundy) by W. Gombrovicz (The Little Theatre, 1983), and Diminea ț a ˘ pierduta ˘ (Lost Morning), a play inspired by the novel of the same name by Gabriela Adame ș teanu (Bulandra Theatre, 1986). I will analyse one of these plays, but before that I will provide a portrait of the artist. An emblem for Romanian theatre, the most important woman stage director, with more than 100 plays, many of them well known in a European context, Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu obtained, from her early career, national and international recognition. With the support of Giorgio Strehler, who played a crucial role in her artistic life, her career became more international. Poland, Hungary, Spain, Italy, France, Mexico, Greece, Israel, UK, U. S. A. were only a few countries in which she worked. She has a prolific activity from 1968 until 2009, when she decided to retire. Considered an avant-garde director, Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu staged classical, contemporary plays, dramatizations, or personal scripts, expressing her artistry in different types of theatrical aesthetics: realistic, poetical, expressionist, or theatre of the absurd. A powerful but also sensitive, empathic and creative approach defined her working style. She adhered to an aesthetics focused on the actor, “ the solar plexus ” of the performance. Her plays covered a wide range of interests: from social, political, historical and psychological topics, to those related to myth, anthropology and ethnography. As a prominent professor and dean of the Department of Theatre at I.A.T.C./ U.N.A.T.C. (Theatrical Art and Cinema Institute/ National University of Theatre and Cinema) Bucharest, she inspired many students who became renowned directors. In 2013 she received an honorary doctorate from the National University of Theatre and Cinema (U.N.A.T.C.) for her exceptional teaching. Awarded many distinctions and prizes, including the Prize of the Romanian Academy (1973), the “ Salvo Randone ” Prize for her entire career (Italy, 1995), The National Order “ Faithful Service in Officer Grade ” (2000), The Cross of the Royal House of Romania (2001), Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu always had a modest attitude reinforced by a real passion for theatre. Her career included not only the plays discussed here, but also other revolutionary productions, such as Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare (Special Prize of the Jury at the Theatre Festival in Durham, United Kingdom, 1978), made with her students; The Master and Margarita by Bulgakov (Little Theatre, 1980); Ivona, Princess of Burgundy by Gombrowicz (Little Theatre, 1983); Lost Morning by Adame ș teanu (Bulandra Theatre, 1986); The Pelican by Strindberg (Levant Theatre, 1995); Turandot by Gozzi (Bulandra Theatre, 1999) and Odiseea 21 (an itinerant performance on a ship, recreated in several seaports in the Mediterranean Sea; Bulandra Theatre, Toursky Theatre and The International Institute of Mediterranean Theatre, 2001). 102 Isabella Dra ˘ ghici (Bucharest) * Ivona, principesa Burgundiei (Ivona, Princess of Burgundy) by Witold Gombrowicz, is one of the most appreciated plays in Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu ’ s career. She was awarded the title “ Amicus Poloniae ” by the Polish Government for this outstanding production, and she received the A. T. M. 9 prize for the best play (Fig. 2), the best actor (Rodica Negrea) and the best scenography (Marie Jeanne Lecca). The premiere took place at Teatrul Mic (The Little Theatre) in Bucharest on November 4, 1983. In the theatre journal Teatrul, no. 3/ 1984, Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu confesses: The play Ivona, Princess of Burgundy has meant for me a very special experience. I would say that I worked on it as a mathematical calculus, an algebraic equation. I was concerned about a theatrical language study that would formally correspond to Gombrowicz's theory of Form but also expresses, nearly a clear political attitude, the truth of the feelings and the logic of demonstration to dismantle the orlogy blocked by the ‘ sandwire ’ that is Ivona. 10 The director's preoccupation with subtly reflecting the message of the play, retaining what personally marked her, the monstrous allegory of History, the denunciation of a political system of terror, lullabied by the grotesque of the lie and the cult of the forms augmented by false nobility, can be seen in her directorial workbook quoted in Mnemosina, bunica lui Orfeu 11 . For Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu, Ivona constitutes, first of all, the perfect mechanism that triggers and fixes Gombrowicz ’ s concept of the “ Imperative of Form ” , starting from the idea that people give form to each other. 12 Buzoianu Fig. 2: Diploma for The Best Performance on 1983 awarded to Ivona, Princess of Burgundy from The Little Theatre, conferred by The Association of Theatre and Music Institutions (A. T. M.) from The Socialist Republic of Romania (R. S. R.). The title of the performance was Ivona, Principesa Burgundiei, not Yvonna as the ctitics mentioned. 103 The Communist Party Effect: Romanian Theatre Under the “ Auspices ” of Censorship quotes Gombrowicz who explains the essence of his aesthetics: when a man imposes his form, he is the subject of form, he creates form, but in contact with other people, the form is distorted, and man becomes an object, he is, in a way, created by others. 13 Reflections on this concept transpire in her vision, mirroring the communist dictatorship: paradoxically, Ivona, who doesn ’ t talk at all, the only pure expression of the truth, in a fake reality, shows and creates the real Form of the Truth. She is fragile; she will be a victim, but only in a horizontal register. The manipulation, the control is valid and vivid only on the level of words and actions. The reality of silence and feelings has the power to reflect the real, the power to cure the impossibility of free speech, free actions and free thought (Fig. 3). In the play we can discover a “ psychoanalysis of the individual and of the group, an abstract history of a rigid, dehumanized world ” 14 . The rape of conscience is at the centre of the narration, repeating itself indefinitely in the cycle of history: the young King Philip, married to the strange and silent Ivona, reflects the dictatorial and criminal pattern of his father, King Ignatius. Ivona is the victim, the only truth in a structure of feigned values under the artificial incidence of the fake Form, the Power. The royal court is in fact a “ yard of miracles, in which a single spectacle is played endlessly in circles: the spectacle of the structure and mechanism of Form imposed by the Power held by a minority group, perfectly organized into the pantomime of leadership ” , and Ivona is “ the tragic clown by suffering, ridiculous because of the inability to defend herself ” , dangerous because she resembles, on the frozen ground of form, deforming feelings: fear, shame, pity and especially love, compassion, solidarity. 15 The distortion of the real is also exemplified by the proteic scenography designed by Marie Jeanne Lecca: a representation of the crystal ’ s structure made of metal in the exterior and with elastic strings inside, on which the actors climb (Fig. 4). Fig. 4: Ivona, Princess of Burgundy ’ s set design created by Lia Man ț oc. Copyright: The Little Theatre (Teatrul Mic), photo credit: Ileana Muncaciu. Fig. 3: Scenes from Ivona, Princess of Burgundy, directed by Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu. Central-down: The actress Rodica Negrea interpreting the main role Ivona. Copyright: The Little Theatre (Teatrul Mic), photo credit: Ileana Muncaciu. 104 Isabella Dra ˘ ghici (Bucharest) This corresponds to the intimate structure of the text, explains Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu: Rigid and at the same time proteic décor, it contains Form and Deformation. We were not just looking for a décor, but also a carcass for actors. The actor in decoration: a snail wearing his shell on his back. The image of the show had to suggest the actor caught in this cage, in a perfectly enclosed environment, from which he can not go out. Under this carcass there are events, changes, the space is apparently transformable, but there is no way out. 16 Lia Man ț oc's costumes symbolise the contrasts between the two worlds. The blackleather military costumes of the royal court or costumes of various materials that were easily pulled off by Ivona suggest two existential states: terror, in the first case, stunned but cyclic through multiple reflections in the collective character; and the state of humanity, in the latter case, persistent, fragile, exposed to violence, ultimately to crime. The idea of multiplying the conflict is indicated by the scenographic solution of a varnished, reflective floor. A political avant-garde play in which rigour, order and discipline are the housing of a repressive system has an immediate message that is easily recognizable by the audience. How was it possible for a play with such a virulent anti-communist message to withstand censorship? One explanation is that the director of that period, who was very involved in the Communist Party, probably protected the play, as the stage director suggests. The success of the play could be another answer. A canonical performance, a step towards the notoriety for Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu, Ivona, Principesa Burgundiei is one of the most relevant plays against the Communist Dictatorship. “ We are Ivona ” is a favourite expression of Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu, which deeply reflects the entire society at that time (Fig. 5). Fig. 5: The actor Mitica ˘ Popescu interpreting King Ignatius in Ivona, Princess of Burgundy. Copyright: The Little Theatre (Teatrul Mic), photo credit: Ileana Muncaciu. The extraordinary capacity of the director to tackle political-themed pieces that confront the totalitarian communist system and disguise them in forms that can escape censorship, yet remain identifiable to the audience, is also visible in this play. Her imaginative power, the multidimensional vision of the scenic approach, her ability to build human typologies, arousing in the actors the necessary resources for the role, the courage to assume the script and the replies that unleashed communist abuses are only a few aspects that outline the director's strong personality. Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu did not conceptualise her aesthetics, even if she was considered an avant-garde director. Her style was intuitive, feminine-proteic, empathic, anchored in sensations that open the gates of essential thinking: Every single play for me is a devastating experience. First I do not know, but I feel. Organically, sharp, tormenting. Intuitions are crunching in sediments. Much later I can explain, try to represent, break down the suffocating avalanche of sensations. Inevitably, the experience changes the intuition in style. I hate definitions, routine, sclerosis. I try to look, though, lucidly and 105 The Communist Party Effect: Romanian Theatre Under the “ Auspices ” of Censorship frightenedly, at the dazzling mirror of the definitions. In a rare space, I plant an essential image. I interfere with the unbearable materiality of a hyper-realist detail, as if viewed through the lens of an optical instrument. 17 The theatre must allow the expression of any theatrical aesthetics, provided that it convinces, by connecting man with universality: Any theatrical aesthetics has the right to exist, to the extent that it is strong enough to convince. Nothing can be convincing unless it manages the contact of a human spirit with the universal spirit at a certain moment in the history of civilization and culture. 18 The theatre created by Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu is a visual theatre. Whether it addresses the genre of psychological dramas (Ibsen or Chekhov), the pre-expressionist (Strindberg), the surrealist (E. Ionescu, M. Vi ş niec), the popular, mythological or fantastic (fairy tales), the image is the engine that drives the creative effervescence of the director, in a tumultuous ocean of sensitivity. This sensitivity reinforced by the power of imagination, and a vivid social consciousness outlines a personal aesthetics of resistance to the dictatorial regime. Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina ’ s plays as oases of freedom and truth in the alienated world of Communism prove the artist ’ s ability to go beyond the vicissitudes of history. * The case study that we have explored above demonstrates that Romanian Communist censorship was not able to destroy the talent and the professionalism of theatre makers. Marina Constantinescu has claimed since 1995 that even if a revival in the Romanian Theatre was visible after 1990, especially with the return of great expat stage directors, such as Liviu Ciulei, Andrei Ș erban, Radu Penciulescu and David Esrig, soon the political nomenclature took back their places and changed the face and the direction of the Romanian theatre. “ Unfortunately, beginning in 1994, the Romanian theatre began to regress ” 19 , she writes in a passage from 1995, and unfortunately this is true of 2016/ / 2018 as well. During the Communist period, the enemy was visible; it is declared. Today, the corrupt system lacks a clear face, but it is ubiquitous. Theatre no longer has the privileged position that it had before, during Communism, asserts Marian Popescu. Artists are marginalized, and the incertitude generated by the political management is generalized. 20 The politicisation of the management of theatres after the fall of Communism makes the flourishing of corruption in state institutions possible. Politics today plays the same significant role in artists ’ careers that it played before: Politics here play an important role because, as before 1989, following the same scenario, attracting famous names from art and culture for the sake of image is a way for The Ruling Party or the Opposition to legitimise itself. But only very few artists have built a career without political support; many are those who wanted or accepted being enrolled in political parties. 21 Romanian theatre as a critical practice of ideological oppression varies between two extremes: the huge courage and humanism of some directors and actors, and the obsession of the restrictive control of all plays by the Communist authorities. Communist censorship isolated but strengthened, in a way, the destiny of Romanian theatre. Face to face with the cultural crimes of Communism, seeing the wounds of the past, you have only one choice, one salvation: to hope that there is always light beyond the darkness. 106 Isabella Dra ˘ ghici (Bucharest) Notes 1 Gabriel Catalan, “ Teatrul ș i muzica în România în primii ani de comunism ” ( “ Theatre and Music of Romania in the First Years of Communism ” ), in: Revista Arhivelor 86 (2009), Vol. I, Issue 1, p. 202. http: / / www. arhivelenationale.ro/ images/ custom/ image/ serban/ RA%201%202009/ 15%20catalan,% 20gabriel.pdf [accessed 25 October 2016]. 2 Marian Popescu, Scenele teatrului românesc 1945 - 2004 (The Romanian Theatre Stages 1945 - 2004). Bucharest 2004, p. 81 (my translation). 3 Florin Constantiniu, O istorie sincera ˘ a poporului român (An Honest History of the Romanian People), Bucharest 2011, p. 458 (my translation). 4 Gabriel Catalan, “ Teatrul ș i muzica în România în primii ani de comunism ” , p. 201. 5 Ibid., p. 196. 6 Ibid., p. 197. 7 Olti ț a Cântec, “ Teatrul postbelic ideologizat ” ( “ The Post War Romanian Theatre Under the Control of Communist Ideology ” ), in: Colloquium Politicum 1 (2010), I, no. 1, p. 61 (my translation). 8 Liviu Mali ț a, Teatrul românesc sub cenzura comunista ˘ (Romanian Theatre Under Communist Censorship), Cluj-Napoca: Casa Ca ˘ rţ ii de Ş tiin ţ a ˘ , 2009. 9 A. T. M. - The Association of People of Art from the R. S. R. (The Socialist Republic of Romania) from the Theatrical and Musical Institutions. 10 Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu, “ A Theatrical Language Study ” , in: Teatrul, 3 (1984), Funda ț ia culturala ˘ „ Camil Petrescu ” , Revista Teatrul azi (supliment) (2005), p. 41 (my translation). 11 Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu, Mnemosina, bunica lui Orfeu (Mnemosyne, Orpheus ’ s Grandma), Bucharest 2005, p. 76. 12 Ibid., pp. 76. 13 Ibid., pp. 76 - 77. 14 Ibid., p. 77 (my translation). 15 Ibid., p. 79 (my translation). 16 Ca ˘ ta ˘ lina Buzoianu, “ A Theatrical Language Study ” , p. 34 (my translation). 17 Ibid., p. 32 (my translation). 18 Ibid. 19 Marina Constantinescu, “ Once Upon a Time in Romania. . . Five Years of Post-Communist Romanian Theater ” , in: Kalina Stefanova (ed.), Eastern European Theatre After the Iron Curtain, Amsterdam 1995, p. 198. 20 Marian Popescu, Scenele teatrului românesc, p. 18. 21 Ibid., p. 19 (my translation). 107 The Communist Party Effect: Romanian Theatre Under the “ Auspices ” of Censorship