Gotowa bibliografia na temat „Teatr Mały (Warsaw, Poland)”

Byron twierdził, że Manfred nie był przeznaczony na scenę, ale jego poemat dramatyczny był sporadycznie wystawiany w dziewiętnastowiecznym teatrze. W 1848 roku Robert Schumann zaadaptował poemat do wykonania scenicznego, skomponował uwerturę i muzykę incydentalną. Manfreda w wersji Schumanna wystawiono w warszawskim Teatrze Wielkim z Józefem Kotarbińskim, znanym aktorem, kierownikiem teatru i krytykiem, w roli głównej. Po realizacji rozgorzała gorąca debata w prasie. Główny spór dotyczył tego, czy „dramat metafizyczny” Byrona nadaje się na scenę i czy jest istotny dla polskiej publiczności końca XIX wieku. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zbadanie głównych kwestii podejmowanych w tej debacie poprzez analizę recenzji tej realizacji w prasie warszawskiej. Ponieważ recenzje są z natury subiektywne, ich badanie ujawnia znacznie więcej preferencji literackich i teatralnych ich autorów niż informacji o samym spektaklu i daje wgląd we wczesne etapy rozwoju tzw. Młodej Polski, z naciskiem na indywidualizm i podmiotowość, zainteresowanie metafizyką i dominację liryzmu. Warszawskiego Manfreda z 1892 roku można więc uznać za próbę wprowadzenia do teatru wielkiej poezji romantycznej, torującej drogę teatralnym inscenizacjom polskiego dramatu romantycznego, który Kotarbiński miał wystawić jako dyrektor Teatru Miejskiego w Krakowie. Artykuł wpisuje się także w historię recepcji Byrona w Polsce. The 1892 Manfred in Warsaw Teatr Wielki Byron claimed that Manfred had not been intended for the stage, but his dramatic poem was occasionally produced in the nineteenth-century theatre. In 1848 Robert Schumann adapted the poem for stage performance, composing the Overture and incidental music. Schumann’s version of Manfred was staged in Warsaw Teatr Wielki, with Józef Kotarbiński, a well-known actor, theatre manager and critic as the protagonist. The production was followed by a heated debate in the press. The central controversy focused on whether Byron’s “metaphysical drama” was suitable for the stage and relevant for the late nineteenth-century Polish audience. The aim of this paper is to examine central issues in this debate by scrutinizing the press reviews of the Warsaw production. As the reviews are by their very nature subjective, their examination reveals much more about their authors’ literary and theatrical preferences than about the performance itself, and provides an insight in the early stages of the development of the so-called Young Poland movement (Młoda Polska), with its emphasis on individualism and subjectivity, interest in metaphysics, and prevalence of lyricism. The 1892 Manfred in Warsaw may be seen as an attempt at introducing great Romantic poetry in the theatre, paving the way for the theatre productions of Polish Romantic drama, which Kotarbiński was to stage as the manager of Teatr Miejski in Kraków. The article also contributes to the history of Byron’s reception in Poland.

Tadeusz Słobodzianek's play, Our Class, addresses the 1941 massacre in the village of Jedwabne, Poland, where an estimated 1,600 local Jews were rounded up by their neighbors, locked inside a barn, and burned to death. First staged in London at the Royal National Theatre in 2009, and later remounted at Teatr na Woli in Warsaw, the play investigates the relationship between anti-Semitism and Polish national identity, exploring how theatre can shape our understanding of history.

In Autumn 1986 Teatr Provisorium from eastern Poland became the latest of the radical groups from that country to visit Britain after an imposed absence. Like the pioneering Teatr Osmego Dnia a year earlier (featured in NTQ8), they came through the support of the Chapter Arts Centre. Cardiff, the Brith Gof Theatre from Aberystwyth. and contacts at Warwick University. Shortly after their previous English performances at the first LIFT festival, most of the company were imprisoned under martial law – what Poles call ‘the War State’ – and one of their company left Poland for good shortly after his release. In the Spring of 1986 they were officially downgraded to the status of unpaid amateurs in an effort to reduce their output. But the company's director. Janusz Oprynski, believes that their work has not changed fundamentally since its foundation: ‘The theatrical space has not changed; nor has our way of creating a theatrical reality. The most important thing is that drama gives us a possibility of transposing personal experience into the language of theatre and this is perhaps – it should be – the most interesting part of theatre work’. In this composite piece, the full context is provided by the whole company in discussion with Tony Howard, who also describes their most recent productions, and finally Piotr Kuhiwczak, a Warsaw lecturer and essayist, speaks with Janusz Oprynski shortly after his arrival in Britain. The translation is by Barbara Plebanek.

Janusz Korczak’s insights concerning children are as fresh and valuable today as they were when he promoted them. He believed that by enabling children to run their own journal in a democratic atmosphere through participation it will have a positive effect on them, make them more responsible and increase their self-esteem and social status. From the writings and recordings of the counselors and orphans from Korczak’s orphanage in Warsaw and the facilities of the Korczak archives at the Ghetto Fighters’ Museum in Israel and Korczakianum in Poland we elicited information pertaining to the subject of the newspaper that was produced at the orphanage and the weekly newspaper Mały Przegląd [The Little Review], which was promoted and produced under the wings of Janusz Korczak, Stefania Wilczyńska and Igor Newerly. A critical analysis of the original copies of the content of Mały Przegląd has enabled us to make a direct comparison between the subject matters chosen then and now and the whole concept of children’s newspapers. Findings show that Korczak outlines the problems that schools may face when they want to produce a school newspaper. He also addresses the issue of relevant subjects that will be of interest to children mainly because the newspaper is produced by children for children, their participation reinforcing the feeling of belonging. In the past few years, youth newspapers at schools have taken a turn due to technological progress and new and modern media possibilities. Korczak’s promotion of progressive educational techniques included real opportunities for youth empowerment in a democratic set-up.

Despite the progress made in recent years regarding our understanding of various aspects of operational planning in the Polish People’s Army, many detailed issues still require a more thorough analysis. One such issue regards operational studies of the Western Theater of Military Operations. This study uses four reports that document consultations between Poland and other members of the Warsaw Pact between 1970–1976 on improving the methods of carrying out this task.

The paper discusses Oliver Frljić’s production of Klątwa(Engl.: “The Curse”) which is based on the play with the same title by Stanisław Wyspiański. Klątwapremiered in Teatr Powszechny in Warsaw on 18 February 2017 and created the biggest theatre scandal in the early theatre history in Poland as both the right-wing government and the right-wing movement in Poland regarded it as blasphemous and – unsuccessfully – tried to prevent further performances. In KlątwaOliver Frljić questions the understanding of historiography promoted by the Polish government that prefers to focus only on stories about heroes and he criticises both the abuse of power in the church and in the institutionalized theatre. The strategies of Oliver Frljić’s political theatre are analyzed in the light of Jacques Rancière’s thoughts about critical theatre. In Klątwa Frljić develops a theatre of dissensus in the sense of Rancière. He undertakes a “dissensual re-configuration”[1]of political theatre by changing the frames, by playing around and by questioning the means used in theatre. But Frljić also deviates from this strategy when he creates images on stage that convey meanings directly and simply. Yet, these images fit into Frljić’s strategy of questioning the official Polish historiography by deconstructing the symbols it is based on. Oliver Frljić’s theatre of emancipation, a theatre that believes in the potential of the spectator to emancipate him- or herself as suggested by Rancière in The Emancipated Spectator (Rancière 2009), manages to make visible authoritarian and undemocratic developments in Polish politics and to offer a critical approach to history in contrast to the one-sided view the Polish government tries to establish. [1]Rancière 2010, p. 140.

“Di Ufgabn Fun Yidishizm”. Debates on Modern Yiddish Culture in Interwar PolandModern secular Yiddish culture reached the peak of its development during the 1920s and Poland was at that time one of the main centres where Yiddish literature, theatre, press, scholarship and schools flourished. This paper outlines the basic prin­ciples of Yiddishism, a Diaspora-based national movement that saw language and cul­ture as the cornerstones of a secular Jewish identity. It also presents some of the major theoretical questions faced by its supporters. What were the goals of Yiddishism? How Jewish should Yiddish culture be? Should it simply be a culture in Yiddish or should it incorporate elements of the Jewish religious heritage? If so, which ones? Who exactly were the so-called “Jewish masses” so often referred to as the target readership/audi­ence of the modern Yiddish cultural project? How could the challenges of geographi­cal dispersion be overcome? The arguments presented in this paper are based mostly on material found in the weekly Literarishe Bleter , where these and other questions surfaced time and again. Founded in Warsaw in 1924 by a group of Yiddish writers, it was the longest lasting and probably the most influential Yiddish literary journal of the its time. Throughout the interwar period it was a place where all supporters of the Yiddish language movement crossed intellectual paths, either as collaborators or adversaries. Today, Literarishe Bleter enable its modern reader to see the complexity of what it meant to strive towards cultural autonomy in interwar Poland. Czym jest jidyszyzm? Debaty o nowoczesnej kulturze jidysz w międzywojennej Polsce Jidyszyzm, czyli projekt budowania nowoczesnej tożsamości narodowej w oparciu o kulturę jidysz, rozkwitł najpełniej w latach dwudziestych XX wieku. W tym okresie Polska była jednym z najważniejszych, o ile nie najważniejszym ośrodkiem ruchu jidyszystycznego. To tutaj rozwijała się literatura jidysz, prasa, teatr, nauka oraz szkolnictwo w tym języku. Niniejszy artykuł przedstawia podstawowe teoretyczne założenia jidyszyzmu oraz pytania, z którymi musieli zmierzyć się jego zwolennicy. Jak żydowska winna być kultura jidysz? Czy wystarczy, by była kulturą w jidysz, czy też powinna opierać się na elementach tradycji religijnej, a jeśli tak, to jakich? O kim myślano, pisząc o tzw. „masach żydowskich”, odbiorcach kultury jidysz? Czy mimo geograficznego rozproszenia mówców jidysz na pięciu kontynentach możliwe było stworzenie jednej spójnej, ponadpaństwowej kultury narodowej? Przedstawione w tym artykule rozważania międzywojennych jidyszystów pochodzą przede wszystkim z tygodnika "Literarisze Bleter", jidyszowego czasopisma literackiego założonego w Warszawie w 1924 roku przez grupę młodych pisarzy. Tygodnik ten był najdłużej wychodzącym jidyszowym czasopismem literackim w okresie międzywojennym, z czasem stał się też jednym z najbardziej opiniotwórczych periodyków. Na jego łamach spotykali się wszyscy pisarze, publicyści, działacze społeczni zaangażowani w rozwój języka oraz instytucji kultury jidysz – jedni w roli współpracowników, inni adwersarzy. Współczesnemu czytelnikowi i badaczowi polemiki z "Literarisze Bleter" odsłaniają teoretyczne i praktyczne problemy, z którymi musieli mierzyć się zwolennicy żydowskiej autonomii kulturalnej w międzywojennej Polsce.

The idea of worshiping Orthodoxy may have long hindered the recognition of the work in Poland itself, where Catholic religion became a component of national emblematics, although it premiered in Poland at the Warsaw Bolshoi Theater in 1926. But in the reference literature it is noted that “much greater success than in Warsaw was “King Roger” in musical Prague (1932) and later in Palermo in Sicily in 1949, where he was staged at the local Teatro Massimo with the participation of the famous Italian artists, in a re-enactment of Bronislaw Horowicz and under the direction of Mieczyslaw Mezheevsky”. And further the author of the same essay in the “Guide to the Opera” J. Kanski noted: “King Roger is an unusual opera. Unusual was already conceived in the imagination of the composer and masterfully realized by Yaroslav Ivashkevich the concept of libretto, which made the place of the action medieval Sicily, interweaving the atmosphere of austere asceticism of the then Christianity with the colorful and mysterious world of Arabic and Byzantine culture, in the figure of the Pastor, who later transformed into the Greek god Dionysus)”. Later on, Kanysky states a whole list of “oddities” that distanced this work from the general public – and the first in that list is “the strangeness of the music itself”, in which the opera-ballet and cantat-oratorial typological components exhibit a high level of artistry, has direct analogues neither in Polish nor in the world as a whole. J. Kansky’s sentence is as follows: what remains of Shimanovsky’s “work is beautiful and lonely”. Such a summary clearly ignores the Eastern and Central European analogies, since the impulse for K. Shimanovsky’s “Dionysian mysteriousness” can be traced back to O. Borodin’s “Polovtsian Ecstatic” the glorification of “severe asceticism” in “St. Francis of Assisi” by O. Messian, whose spiritual ideas were nourished by the Hesychastic energy of the prayerful ecstasy of the mysteriousness of O. Scriabin. However the recognition of K. Shimanovsky really only took place at the beginning of the third millennium, and the Christian background of the Scriabin ecstatic, which was vigorously discussed in the Odesa press in the 1910’s, along with the mysterious samples of the “Drama of the Spirit” by V. Rebikov – was not extended in the 1920’s – 1930’s, when only the folkloristic national-demonstration innovations of the composer were appreciated. In S. Gelman’s preface to the publication of the score of this work by K. Shimanovsky we find some reflections on its genre meaning, from which it is clear that “King Roger” does not represent a pure operatic discovery, but rather constitutes the border of opera and musical drama, marked, however, equally by elements of oratorial, and even features of the mysterious spectacle. This commentary sees the Wagnerian influence, without noticing at the same time the Eastern European origins of K. Shimanovsky’s score and the outspoken scribbling of the composition born in the Ukrainian South. In general, the work has the features of stage oratory, as we find it in the version of I. Stravinsky’s works, and later by K. Orff.

AbstractThe numerous Polish productions of Macbeth in an overt or covert fashion address issues that have been at the core of political debate in the past decade, such as the state’s engagement in military missions that are in fact real wars. Furthermore, they also comment on the new Polish political system (is it still “new”?) and the situation of individuals in it, how they can profit in it. The paper discusses productions such as Andrzej Wajda’s (2004) from the Stary Theatre in Kraków, Maja Kleczewska’s (2004) from the Kochanowski Theatre in Opole, Grzegorz Jarzyna’s (2005; the full title is “2007: Macbeth”) from the Teatr Rozmaitości (TR) in Warsaw, and Piotr Kruszczyński’s (2005) from the Polski Theatre in Warsaw.