According to a2zcamerablog, is a country located in Europe. For a long time subject to Turkish rule and relatively isolated from the most theatrically advanced European countries, Romania came very late in developing its own original theater. The most ancient indigenous forms were religious representations, especially on the theme of Christmas, and more or less satirical shows for puppets, influenced by the Turkish model of Karagöz. Occasional performances were performed by foreign companies, guests of the various courts during their tours in Poland or Russia. The first performance in Romania (one of ‘translation Achilles in Skyros of Metastasio) took place in Transylvania in 1782, while in the same years Bucharest had only stable companies in German, French and Russian. In Transylvania, in Oravita, the first permanent theater for performances in Romanian was opened in 1815; a Drama-Philharmonic Society was built in Iasi in 1836 and in 1840 a first National Theater directed, among others, by the playwright V. Alecsandri. Similarly, in Bucharest, where between 1780 and 1821 a Society of Heterists had acted with not only cultural but above all social and political intentions, I. Eliade-Rădulescu (1802-1872) created in 1833 a Philharmonic Society dedicated to the teaching of acting and the creation of a national repertoire, whose activity would lead in 1854 to the creation of a National Theater also in the future capital. This institution acquired particular importance after the conquest of independence, when all the theatrical forces of the nation united in a Romanian Drama and Actors Society (1877), and, thanks to some notable directors (such as A. Davila, 1862-1929 and P. Eliade), at the beginning of the new century he was able to put on a good level of shows. The years between the two wars were characterized by the birth of a certain number of private theaters, most with purely commercial intentions, but some sensitive to the more advanced currents of the new European scene. There were also national theaters in Craiova and Cluj-Napoca. After the Second World War of the twentieth century and until the end of Ceausescu’s dictatorship, the State financed numerous permanent theaters dedicated to the dramatic repertoire, which worked with a certain efficiency; in the city of Bucharest, the National was joined by the Municipal Theater, the Workers’ Theater, the Army Theater, the Youth Theater and others where they also performed in Hebrew, Yiddish, German and Hungarian. L. Ciulei and R. Padulescu. In the years following the transition to democracy, Romania suffered from a serious economic crisis which partly affected this state network, causing it to lack funding. However, there are still 15 permanent theaters in the capital, and the production of shows is regaining research and experimentalism. § Born in the first decades of the nineteenth century, the original Romanian-language theater finds its most passionate animator in V. Alecsandri. He created a real repertoire by himself, outlining two fundamental development directives: satirical comedy and historical drama. The unsurpassed art of Caragiale (1852-1912) brings the satire of costume to perfection, while BP Hasdeu (1838-1907) promotes the evolution of historical drama with a masterpiece: Răzvan e Vidra (1867). Both the dramas of Barbu Delavrancea (1858-1918) inspired by the Romanian Middle Ages (Tramonto, 1909; La tormenta, 1910; Espero, 1911), belong to the epic-dramatic vein, creating an original synthesis of romantic passion and naturalistic lucidity. still successfully represented today, both those of A. Davila (1862-1929) of Shakespearean inspiration (Prince Vlaicu). The period between the two wars represents the moment of maturation of the Romanian theater in the modern sense. M. Sorbul (1885-1966) deepens the reason-sense conflict and creates a masterpiece with Passione rossa (1916); L. Rebreanu (1885-1944) takes up the satire of political life (Gli apostoli, 1926); M. Sebastian (1907-1945) represents the efforts of the unsuitable to evade everyday reality in illusory escapes: We play at the holidays, The nameless star and, above all, Ultima ora, which is still a success today.
Ingeniously exploited, the Alecsandri-Caragiale tradition lives on in the theater of T. Mutsătescu (1903-1970), Titanic Waltz (1932), and in that of A. Kiritescu (1888-1961), which he brings to the stage in Le pettegole the chatter of modern Chirites, far more dangerous than the distant model proposed by Alecsandri. The outskirts of the city with its violent passions are at the center of the theater of GM Zamfirescu (1898-1939), also author of a dramatic trilogy of classical inspiration (I Borgia, The wedding of Perugia, Michelangelo), while racist conflicts, already dramatically expressed in the powerful work of Ronetti Roman (1853-1908) (Manasse, 1900), they find sentimental comedy solutions in Take, Ianke and Cadîr by VI Popa (1895-1946). Who raises even the theater in the sphere of pure ideas is Camil Petrescu (The dance of the elves, Strong Souls etc.) which, when inspired by the historical trend (Danton, Bălcescu), converts the epic drama into conflicts of existential choices. This theater of ideas, influenced by German expressionism, continues with L. Blaga, who elevates the myths of folklore to metaphysical meanings and symbols, also present in the theater of V. Eftimiu (1889-1973), whose Mastro Manole is from 1925 In the phase of affirmation of socialism, the theater assumed a propaganda function which impoverished it, reducing the conflict to the schematic opposition of a positive hero (the integral communist) and a negative one. Exemplary in this sense is the trilogy by A. Voitin, reunited with the title Men in Struggle (1960). Along this line are placed, but with more acceptable results, T. Soimaru (1898-1957) with Gli affaristi (1953); P. Everac, who in Open Windows (1959) tackles the theme of private property and its frustrating reflections; M. Davidoglu, who brings on the scene conflicts of technological choices against the backdrop of the new industrial complexes (The citadel of fire, 1949-50) and Aurel Baranga (1913-1979), who created a fierce satire of bureaucracy with L’agnello infuriato. Even the dramatic trend of historical inspiration bears the imprint of the new Marxist perspective: P. Anghel (b.1931) brought Michele il Bravo (1959) and Stefano the Great back to the scene (1968). The theater of H. Lovinescu (1917-1983) turns to more intimate conflicts: The citadel in pieces (1954) presents the dissolution of a bourgeois family in the phase of the rise of socialism. It should be emphasized that the greatest Romanian playwright of the twentieth century, and one of the greatest of the century, is undoubtedly E. Ionesco (1912-1994), who nevertheless, despite a strong link with his national roots, has always lived in Paris and written in French. On a line of renewal, to the conquest of truth through the study of social reality, M. Sorescu stands (1936-1996) who represents in his works the historical condition and human existence in a substantially metaphorical key, with a context language of parables, allegories, symbols (Teatro, 1980). The 1980s did not bring noteworthy innovations to dramaturgy. It should be emphasized, however, that after the upheavals of 1989, the Romanian theater is frantically dedicated to the rediscovery of the great Western authors, forgotten or unknown during the years of forced intellectual isolation.
