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

Abstract

JEFFREY VEIDLINGER. The Moscow State Yiddish Theater: Jewish Culture on the Soviet Stage. Jewish Literature and Culture. Indiana- Michigan Series in Russian and East European Studies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000. Pp. xi + 356.The Moscow State Jewish Theater (GOSET) played significant role in the lives of Moscow theater lovers for both Jews and non- Jews alike. As result of this institution, actors and directors of the theater became national celebrities. Solomon Mikhoels, the director and leading actor of GOSET, was considered by contemporaries to be an informal leader of Soviet Jewry in the 1940s. Yet, until now, the history of Moscow's State Jewish Theater has not been thoroughly researched, and many gaps remain in our knowledge of its repertoire, staff, financial records, and the public reception of its performances. Consequently, Jeffrey Veidlinger's new book is welcome study of Moscow's State Jewish Theater in all its complexity.Veidlinger suggests that the history of Moscow's Jewish theater can serve as a window into Soviet Jewish life (p. 15). ^Vhile one can argue what kind of window the history of the GOSET opens (the of Soviet Jewish elite or Jewish masses, Jewish actors or viewers, or those JeAvs who never heard of the theater) , it is true that the theater was very important in both Soviet Jewish history and in the formation of Soviet Jewish identity.Veidlinger's book also presents insights into the development of Jewish culture in the Soviet Union. He correctly argues that the history of JeAVS in the Soviet Union was neither story of persecution nor story of voluntary assimilation but rather something in the middle, something expressed in compromise of subtle shading. Veidlinger then suggests that during the entire era of the Jewish theater (which was theoretically designed to bring Soviet ideas to the Jewish masses), Jewish -writers and artists Avere able to promote their own culture within the conditions of Soviet nationality policies (p. 3). Veidlinger shows that almost every performance of the theater had Jewish subcontext, although it was sometimes not clearly visible. He argues, for example, that the first director of the GOSET, Alexander Granovsky, was trying to promote Zionist ideas when lie staged the play 137 Chisren\i HuMeJ by Avrom Vevyorke. He argues that the number 137 refers to the famous psalm about .Jewish longing for Jerusalem (p. 76). The problem with this hypothesis is that it is difficult to prove or disprove. Even if Granovsky understood this metaphor himself, it is not certain that the actors, to say nothing about whether the viewers of the performances did. Veidlinger does not provide us with the insights of the artists themselves regarding this matter. Therefore, although this idea is quite interesting, it is not entirely convincing. The analysis of the audiences' reception of these hidden ideas also needs elaboration. Although Veidlinger says that the majority of .Jewish men had some education in Jewish matters and that the audience was more sensible to these sorts of subtexts because of the nature of the totalitarian regime (pp. 147 - 48), it is likely that only very small minority of theatergoers were able to understand these hidden meanings. …