Blahoslav Uhlár (born August 26, 1951) made his production debut in the Academy of Performing Arts (VŠMU) Theater Studio at the Reduta Theater in Bratislava (1973), and later was among the group of artists who founded the Theater for Children and Youth in Trnava (1974). What kind of feelings was this young artist bringing to the professional stage at a time when the atmosphere was generally less kind to progressive theater? What was he to do when on one hand he was a fresh graduate full of ideas for new directing concepts and socially relevant topics, and on the other hand he had to face everyday reality which was preventing him from expressing his ideas fully and openly? But it was not only his problem; it was the problem of the entire younger generation. The 1970s universities have produced such talented directors as L. Vajdička, S. Párnický, J. Bednárik, J. Nvota, M. Kákoš, R. Polák, as well as many set designers, actors, and others. Not all of them were eager to be yes-men, many of them wanted to follow their own paths, trying new and unknown methods in theater work. Therefore they looked for – and let’s mention here that they also found – the ways which would allow them to do all that; the means which would bypass ruling mechanisms and provide an opportunity to do what did not seem feasible: create a new world view, unique both in its content and form.

How did they go about it? From the organizational standpoint there was a tendency to avoid the central authority. In those days entire groups of new generation artists were leaving for rural professional theaters in Martin, Prešov, Nitra, Košice, Zvolen, and also they used this opportunity to establish the Theater for Children and Youth in Trnava. The professional theaters were looking for ways to work outside the realms of familiar repertoire, and formed various interest groups in studios, “subtheaters”, clubs, etc. Other creative outlets emerged from close cooperation with amateur companies which helped them mount many projects, which would have been otherwise impossible to produce on a regular stage. 

At the time there was a predominant trend to interpret classical or even newer foreign and domestic dramatic literature in such a directorial manner that the playwright’s general humanistic and progressive attitudes were used as an artistic antidote to the unsatisfying present times. Directors and other cocreators were inserting their own interpretations and viewpoints into both thematic and semantic layers of plays in order to express their critical attitudes and often bold ideas, contrasting with the official ideology. Plays based on contemporary scripts produced by teams of peers became another venue for expressing ideas. The new literary and dramatic production of the 1970s and 1980s was characterized not by a classical approach to playwriting according to Aristotelian laws, but the development of various storylines, scripts, directing adaptations and text improvisations representative of the individual groups and creative teams’ ideas, expressing their attitudes and artistic needs. Hand in hand with that went the emphasis on theatrical drama, supressing the dominant role of the text while stirring up all visual and acoustic components of the dramatic synthesis. The role of the companies was elevated by celebrating the uniqueness of each actor’s performance, while demanding the individual’s attitude towards the personified characters and stories.

These changes in the new theater in the 1970s and 1980s were tied to the most progressive currents of the 1960s. This way continuity was preserved and even developed creatively, though the political climate had changed. But do not think that this theater revival movement was some kind of hidden wave. In some instances the artistic results were so obvious that the entire dramatic community acknowledged them by many festivals and several awards. Another fact that definitely played in favor of the theaters was that most of the positive critiques were coming from their peers who were not only helping them explain their artistic compositions but were willing to accept certain generalizations. Of course, a comprehensive and objective evaluation still remains to be written. Many young artists also paid a toll for their inexperience, as we witnessed some embarrassing attempts and puzzling compromises. But that came with the territory.

To a large degree all of the above can be applied to director Blahoslav Uhlár. While he embodies the most typical representatives of his generation, he always belonged among the most opinionated and most uncompromising in his work. During his fifteen year career he directed close to 50 plays not only in his home Theater for Children and Youth, but also in Bratislava, Banská Bystrica, Spišská Nová Ves, Prešov and with the amateur company in Kopánka. Some of these plays were among the most intriguing results of Slovak theater at the time, others evoked discussions, gained admirers and, obviously, provoked disapproval.

Two productions are characteristic of Uhlár’s beginnings: “Know-Nothing in Sun City”, and “Scapin’s Mischievous Adventures” (both 1975). Here he let loose the actors’ motions, enthusiasm and ability to paint basic personality type traits without excessive psychological overtones. The performances were created with an ensemble which included M. Zednikovič, V. Jedľovský, P. Kuba and others on the backdrop of a dynamic stage designed by T. Berka. The principles of Uhlár’s initial directorial efforts were thus formed through the playfulness of recent VŠMU graduates. Some serious undertones can be heard during this early period, but they did not seem to be as pressing as in his later stages. In these first plays he was mapping out the surrounding environment, as demonstrated in Chekhov’s “Wedding” and Gorky’s “Children” (1974), which he prepared for the stage during his VŠMU studies. Together with his ensemble he brought them to Trnava, as well as Hrubín’s adaptation of a fairy tale “Beauty and the Beast” (1976).

Within a short period of time Uhlár’s program matured. The first expression of his distinctive artistic form and uncompromising opinions was the production of Štejn’s “Version” (1977), dealing with the life and fate of the poet Alexander Blok. It is noteworthy that even later Uhlár kept coming back to the poetry of breakthrough personalities, such as Majakovskij, Novomeský and others. He searched for his role models in rebels who surpassed their times with their democratic thoughts and who challenged the grayness and mediocrity of the various kinds of political machinery. Needless to say, Uhlár’s interests obviously laid with expressing opinions on present times, which he found very unsatisfactory, rather than adapting old material. That is why he tackled such productions as Stodola’s “Jožko Púčik and His Career” (1978), Gogoľ’s “The Inspector General” (1978), and “The Wedding” (1980), where he could expand on the above mentioned interpretations of classical foreign and domestic works in a way that would allow him to express his own individual and collective civic positions as openly as possible. He followed this creative direction with presentations of Suchovo-Kobilyn’s plays “Krečinskij’s Wedding” (1981), and “The Process” (1983), Moli?re’s “Tartuffe” (1984), and Voltaire’s “l’Ingénu” (1985).

All these productions document Uhlár’s grotesque vision of the world and his ability to capture the tragic ridicule of the times he lived in. With satire and an ironic grin, through his protagonists he portrays clerks, upper class and ruling society characters, who with their dehumanizing mannerisms display their superiority above others. Together with the set designers Mária Zubajová and later Ján Zavarský, he searched for the expressive physical staging that would symbolize both pretentiousness as well as the disintegration of power from the inside. A great example is Zavarský’s set for “The Wedding” where the stage is surrounded by passable diagonal walls. The architectural and geometric sectioning of the “Tartuffe” set becomes a clearly defined space for mixing all different kinds of elements from assorted time periods; after all, even the characters in this post-modern synthesis are defined by uncertain rankings and their moral shapelessness. 

Very soon Uhlár’s work started to assert another stream of thinking which gradually gained its momentum and has been dominating his productions in recent years. No, we do not mean to suggest splitting the director’s work into two parts; both lines start from identical thought processes and merge into one inseparable attitude portrayed through similar means, usually bursting the bubble of illusions, in cooperation with the same members of the theater company. But if we do separate the second stream from the first one it is only to demonstrate the new approach that it brings to Slovak theater, corresponding with the similar trends in European and world theater in recent decades.

In short, this novelty – which is actually nothing new in the history of the theater – is called author’s theater or workshop. Briefly, this type of dramatic creativity emphasises the teamwork of all elements and their participation in all aspects of the performance, not only in predetermined areas. The actors become equal partners and co-creators of the script, the set designer joins in with his own interpretation, and the director shapes and synthesizes these stimuli without being the sole predetermined decision maker. This logically limits the role of the literary source. Ideally, the text for a given play should be created in the theater and represent the will, opinions and attitudes of the entire company. This means that a ready-made classical literary text is not being adapted or subsequently interpreted through the process of preparation, but a new, more fitting text is being created. All of this is supposed to ensure the fullest possible expression of thoughts, philosophical and artistic viewpoints, and therefore the most thorough and uncorrupted approach to reality, the biggest possible space for the truth. Among other things that means a much more open expression of opinions which are no longer hiding behind the classical text and its modern interpretation, but to put it bluntly, they are expressed in plays with ostentatious directness. Uhlár is simply becoming radical.

This stream in Uhlár’s work starts with “Episode 39-44” (1979), and continues with mature clownery pieces like “Princess Maru” (1979), “The Night of Miracles” (1982), then “Commune de Paris” (1981), “Big Karbus Barbus” (1982), and its presence is clearly confirmed in a series of plays from the latest seasons: “Quintet” (1985), “Where the North Is” (1987), “Amateur Actors” (1987), “So What?” (1988), “Sense Nonsense” (1988), “Vinegar” (1988), “TANAP” (1985), and “The Second to Last Supper” (1989). Besides these Uhlár has been teaching summer creative workshops with amateur actors since 1985.

Some plays of this kind are characterized by the creative input of actors, who function as co-creators of the individual scenes and as artists who are allowed to fully develop their creative fantasies in clowneries, expressing psychologically unburdened free motion, and improvisation. To a certain degree it is the experience of the first years of the Trnava Theater for Children and Youth paying dividends and developing acting, of course, with an expanded ensemble (L. Moravčík, I. Žirková, S. Mrvečková-Kočanová G. Šefčovičová, J. Filip, V. Oktavec, E. Jamrich, M. Monček, V. Pavlíková, L. Kerata, T. Vokoun and many others.) If the storylines and texts were written before, since 1987 the creation of text and individual lines spoken by characters on stage had moved entirely into the rehearsal room. The actors portray themselves, their own experiences, and through a kind of esthetic psychological drama they express their feelings about a world appearing to be in crisis. At this time Uhlár starts regular cooperation with the amateur theater DISK in Kopánka and with the Ukrainian National Theater in Prešov. Social conflicts and political deformities find their voices inside the plays, as if the ensembles wanted to create miniature prototypes of social structure and its contradictions. The human creativity confronts the abuse of power and bureaucratic dictatorship painted in broad strokes. Playfulness, creativity, and imagination meet clichéd mechanisms with dehumanized preponderance of force. This state of mind, this life feeling is best suited by a form which Uhlár calls decomposition. It does not depict the world in some overall and sensible form, but rather as a broken puzzle, as the destruction of man, as a disturbed historical and social consciousness.

Enter the set designer Miloš Karásek, who joins Uhlár’s creative workshop at this stage. Their collaboration brings the strictest judgment of our society of the late 1980s coupled with the most outspoken refusal of the Slovak theater traditions. Their plays as well as their joined proclamations with published manifestos represent the radical farewell to the past. They intentionally provoke to break down the established clichés. When we step aside and evaluate the situation shortly after the Velvet Revolution, it is easy to discover that Uhlár and Karásek’s last seasons matured into the anticipation of events. Their plays presented a very sensitive barometer of people’s moods and at the same time they participated in creation of public opinion. Break the old rotten world! That was the hidden motif of Uhlár’s work, that was the desire of his colleagues, that was what the audiences felt and that was understood by critics who analyzed his work in detail.

“The artist’s mission is not to endorse the existing values but to permanently confirm them,” says Blahoslav Uhlár. He is so true to his creed that if something does not hold up to his artistic confirmation, he is willing to renounce it. It may seem like a negative program, but that would be true only if he refused healthy and normal issues. Uhlár, however, rejects the deformations in the name of his belief in human creativity. He is a director full of contradictions who will never be satisfied. He does not place primary importance on achieving a perfect shape or clean form or antiseptically precise expressions. He does not yearn to establish himself as a generally respected and conforming artist. He follows a different path – the road to spiritual restlessness, the path of searching, the way of permanent opposition.