The Moscow State Yiddish Theater: Jewish Culture on the Soviet Stage (review)

The Moscow State Yiddish Theater: Jewish Culture on the Soviet Stage. By Jeffrey Veidlinger. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2000; pp. 356. $39.95 cloth.

Yiddish Theatre on New York's Second Avenue was a purely commercial enterprise. Although some theatre directors, such as Maurice Schwartz and Joseph Adler, avoided simply producing popular comedies and musical pieces that were commonly referred to as shund (trash), the repertoire of the Yiddish theatres on the whole was shaped by the audience's predilection. Yiddish theatre in Soviet Russia, on the other hand, was virtually independent of box office success, as the state financed all theatre activity. Ironically, though, great financial loss was the reason given by Soviet officials for closing one of the most productive and artistically valuable Yiddish theatres, the Soviet State Yiddish Theater of Moscow (hereafter called by the Russian acronym GOSET).

Jeffrey Veidlinger's book, The Moscow State Yiddish Theater: Jewish Culture on the Soviet Stage, is an overdue addition to the growing body of scholarly work on Yiddish theatre. This first comprehensive study of the GOSET in English is geared toward a wide-ranging readership. For the historian, Veidlinger clearly presents the intrusion of totalitarian politics into artistic activities; for the theatre scholar, he provides evocative details and illustrative descriptions of the theatre's artistic work. In his amply documented study, Veidlinger exposes how the Soviet State infringed on the GOSET's artistic freedom. Nonetheless, the theatre successfully resisted all attempts to turn its stage into just another platform for Soviet propaganda, which was possible since the censors were not familiar with the Yiddish language nor with Jewish heritage. On the surface, the theatre conformed to the Party's policies, promoting socialist ideology; at the same time, the mere fact that Jewish history and subject matters were presented onstage undercut the official intent. The Communist Party's ultimate goal was to educate all people and transform them into good Soviet citizens; theatre became a potent means to that end. Overall, post-revolutionary Russia was favorable to minorities whose cultural activities were supported by the State. The Party was a willing partner to such theatres as the GOSET, which Jewish director Aleksandr Granovsky founded as the Yiddish Chamber Theater in Petrograd in 1918.

Granovsky soon found out that Petrograd was not the right place for his ambitious enterprise. His first productions of European symbolist and Haskalic (Jewish Enlightenment) plays were not understood by the audience and were poorly received. Therefore, Granovsky and his troupe accepted a government-sanctioned invitation to relocate in Moscow, where they established a theatre with a school, a studio, and a residence for artists. Granovsky and his first collaborators--among them the painter Marc Chagall and the critic Abraham Efros--led the theatre to a quick success. In 1921, the troupe moved to a larger space, a palace on Malaia Bronnaia, which was converted into a 500-seat auditorium. The theatre would remain there until its 1949 closing.

By 1925, however, the political climate had changed. Granovsky, frustrated by State interference with the theatre's productions, decided to stay behind in Germany when the troupe played there on its 1928 European tour. Upon the troupe's return, Solomon Mikhoels, one of the theatre's star actors, was asked to replace Granovsky. Mikhoels proved to be a highly competent artistic director. His new position allowed him to support many Yiddish writers, and he "insisted on interpreting contemporary events through the prism of Jewish history" (276).

With the Cultural Revolution of 1928-29, theatres in Soviet Russia were subject to an increased level of aesthetic censorship. Avant-garde theatre, once highly supported by the officials, lost its reputation for being an apt tool for party propaganda. As Veidlinger shows in his detailed descriptions of many productions, the socio-political changes were clearly reflected in the theatre's repertoire and production style. Mikhoels and his troupe adjusted to the new artistic criteria, thereby...