I recently appeared in a production of Protest. one of the better-known one-act plays written by former Czech President Vaclav Havel. It’s is an hour-long dialogue between two characters. Stanek, an outwardly prosperous writer, is a toer of the communist party line; Vanek, a fellow writer, is a known political dissident recently paroled from prison (and Havel avatar.)
Havel sets the play at Stanek’s home amid the trappings of his success. After first citing those trappings as marks of distinction elevating him above Vanek’s outsider status, Stanek eventually dissembles in effort to rationalize his efforts to achieve and protect that status. Vanek, conversely, has no social or financial standing to maintain; he doggedly pursues his political outlook unencumbered by earthy rewards. While the Central European communist world in which Havel wrote is in dustbin of history, his play’s value stands outside of judgments of the particular regime it depicts. It makes statements on human dynamics that are universal. It is also highlights the ongoing influence of Greek drama in contemporary theater.
The play is a study in human relations. It pits an insider against an outsider; a self-centered pragmatist against a selfless ideologue. They are former fellow travelers in the art world early in their careers who now find themselves on opposite sides of the same political trench. The set-up translates to any number of contemporary scenarios from corporate boardrooms to democratic politics. Two friends early in life, initially like-minded, see their relationship strained under the pressures of adulthood.
The play’s dialogue also owes a great deal to Greek theater. Not only is its subject political, its structure is rhetorical. The audience is invited to witness a conversation in the hope that they might continue it. This type of debate – on ethics, on the role of government – is a hallmark of Greek drama. Most artists and politicians (Havel was both) love to talk. Conversation is not only the substance of this play it is its only action (if you don’t count drinking and smoking.) Modern audiences may find it a strain. The relentless focus on dialogue reflects the constraints on Havel as a dissident playwright; the work was printed in poor samizdat copies and performed furtively in basements, and could not rely on any elaborate stage effects for its dramatic power. His style is, therefore, necessarily straightforward. Stanek cites his garden as an outward symbol of his prosperity, and brings Vanek slippers as a way to assert control in his home and banish a sign of Vanek’s humble means – his worn pair of boots – from his view. Otherwise, there is little in the way of literary analogy, symbolism, or heightened poetic language. The play is a political debate.
Given the change in the political environment for which is what written, therefore, where is its lasting value? It is certainly a valuable historical assessment of Czech dissident politics. Take the play out of its communist base, however, and it illustrates the choices two individuals make within a larger system: one to protect himself, the other to work for the common good. This discussion of the ethics of public life is enduring across cultures. Having read and now acted Havel’s work, one can sense his belief in the importance of this kind of debate. He is as interested in how his characters go about making and justifying decisions as he is about the decisions themselves. One also wonders whether Havel, when writing the play, had ambitions for it to last beyond the life of the communist regime he was opposing. In addition to capturing life under communism, his drama examines why different people choose to act the way they do – why where they stand depends on where they sit. Looking at his characters’ motivations, and not just the circumstances in which they act, is at the core of Havel’s message.
