Das gefesselte Burgtheater. 1776 bis in unsere Tage by Gerhard Klingenberg

Abstract

248 Reviews Das gefesselteBurgtheater. 1776 bis in unsere Tage. By Gerhard Klingenberg. Vienna: Molden. 2003. 224 pp. 22,80. isbn 3-85485-097-2. Founded as a 'national theatre' in theEnlightenment sense in 1776, transformed from a court theatre to a state theatre after the FirstWorld War, long regarded ? at least internally ? as the premier theatre of German-speaking Europe, sentimentalized by Hermann Bahr in 1926 as the 'Haustheater' of Austria, the Burgtheater has acquired mythical status as an institution central to the 'identity' of the country. In talking of its ideal ethos, Raoul Asian, speaking in the Ronacher on 30 April 1945, shortly after the bombing of the house on the Ring, defined an 'idea' embodied in the performers and staffof the theatre, and in itspublic; Gerhard Klingenberg, who was itsdirector from 1971 to 1976, essentially views it from the perspective of successive directors who failed to impose artistic aspirations ? explicitly the goal of 'literary' theatre? and to keep abreast with contemporary taste and contemporary issues. Basically, he is looking for the roots of the problems he sees himself as having inherited on his own appointment in 1971. Since its early years under Joseph II, when itwas 'modern, committed, courageous', the Burgtheater has, in Klingenberg's view, failed to fulfil its mission because ofweaknesses built into itsgovernance, which have leftdirectors powerless against an over-powerful administration (firstCourt Chamberlains, later the Bundestheaterverwaltung) and a cosseted and often conspiratorial acting company, with the press abetting conspiracies against successive directors. These factors, he argues, inevitably produced an unimaginative and timid repertoire. His examples of directors whose good intentions have been conspicuously frustrated by one or more of them include Schienther, Wildgans and his own immediate predecessor, Paul Hoffmann. The few exceptions, who succeeded in reforming the repertoire and enhancing the standards of the theatre, include Joseph Schreyvogel (but only until Czernin's appointment as Court Chamberlain in 1824), Laube (but only for his first two years in command), Dingelstedt, Max Burckhard and Albert Heine (until the imposition of what was then called the Staatstheaterverwaltung under Adolf Vetter). Among his own successors, eventually freed from an apparatus of state administration, Klingenberg has praise in particular forKlaus Bachler. His book is polemical in intention and style, and does not pretend to scholarship: Klingenberg does not listhis sources in detail, and his criteria for judging developments in the repertoire are crude (plays are either 'substantial' ['wesentlich'] or 'trivial'). I think his criticisms of an apparently apolitical ? and certainly never left-wing ? tradition of theatre undervalue the extent to which the discourse of theatre inVienna has in fact consistently been informed by political tensions. But he tells his storywith constant reference to the political background, and it adds up to a lively challenge tomore respectful views of Burgtheater tradition. University of Exeter W. E. Yates ...