Reviewed by:

• Mussolini’s Theatre: Fascist Experiments in Art and Politics by Patricia Gaborik
• Alessandro Clericuzio

While much has been written about fascism and cinema, architecture, and literature, theatre studies has only recently offered new insights into Italy’s ventennio, the dark years of dictatorship that ended with the Allied invasion of Sicily during World War II. This is the task undertaken by Patricia Gaborik in Mussolini’s Theatre, a must-read for anyone interested in Italian studies or in the intersection between politics and drama. While sidestepping the concept of Benito Mussolini as actor—e.g., the mesmerizing frontman with powerful eyes and dramatic body language—this study explores lesser-known avenues such as those of the dictator-as-spectator, critic, impresario, playwright, and censor. All these roles no doubt had to do with his exercise of power, which means that the connections between thespian aesthetics and politics (and therefore history) are of major import.

Gaborik investigates the role of theatre in the personal and professional life of Il Duce, starting [End Page 119] from his tastes as a theatregoer and then as prime minister. His favorite writers for the stage had to embody certain sentiments—apart from being “on his team”—meaning that they had to show respect and admiration for Blackshirt philosophy. Gabriele D’Annunzio and George Bernard Shaw, with their ideals of the Superman, for instance, met with Mussolini’s approval. Luigi Pirandello’s theatre, which played between reality and imagination, and his belief in the possibility of building alternative worlds appealed to Mussolini’s self-centered view of life and government. More significantly, in the case of Pirandello, who was highly estimated abroad, Mussolini used the artist as a cultural ambassador for fascist propaganda. Gaborik demonstrates the important role theatre played in telegraphing the Mussolini government’s beliefs abroad.

Il Duce was also a meticulous censor, and he banned or heavily edited works that did not meet his criteria. Delving into archives, memoirs, and current scholarship, Gaborik manages to present a thorough reconstruction of the activities of theatre censorship, taking considerable note of the many contradictions of a difficult and at times ambiguous practice. For instance, she discusses the ways Mussolini was aided in this endeavor by Leopoldo Zurlo, whose task was to approve, reject, or suspend plays. This latter case was applied when “any determination was considered too ‘sensitive.’ It was a strategy that amounted to ignoring the problem and hoping it would just go away” (156–57).

Zurlo was not a fascist, but when he was given the task of controlling what the audience could see or not see on stage, he was always ready to comply with what Mussolini’s thoughts and desires could be. Thus, politics, religion, and, most important of all, morality were fascist bulwarks that needed to be protected. Foreign drama—particularly Russian and British plays—was constantly marginalized, but international affairs was not the only reason. French playwrights, longtime rivals of Italians, were ostracized as well, especially if they depicted “depraved” behavior. A play that dramatized a ménage à trois, for instance, would run the risk of being read as a spoof of Il Duce’s extramarital affair with Claretta Petacci. Zurlo initially attempted to clear plays dealing with homosexuality (mainly female), but soon stopped, defining them as “sad,” even though he lived more uxorio with Chief of Police Carmine Senise. In other words, sexual deviation from heterosexual, monogamous norms was frowned upon: whether it was heterosexual adultery or homosexual attraction, the required visa for production was not granted.

Theatre was one of the most important fronts for propaganda, or, for what Gaborik aptly terms, “strategic aestheticism.” For Gaborik, the aesthetics of a given theatre piece were just as meaningful as the underlying political ideologies being communicated to a public. Throughout her book, Mussolini’s love for the stage is evident, including his role as an impresario. Through his financial support of dramatic activities, a modern form of director-driven theatre developed on the ashes of the nineteenth-century model of actor-driven theatre. The government’s contributions in...

 审阅者：

• 
  墨索里尼的戏剧：法西斯艺术与政治实验帕特里夏·加博里克
•  亚历山德罗·克莱里库齐奥

虽然关于法西斯主义和电影、建筑和文学的文章很多，但戏剧研究直到最近才为意大利的“ventennio”提供了新的见解，即二战期间盟军入侵西西里岛结束的独裁统治的黑暗岁月。这是帕特里夏·加博里克在墨索里尼剧院承担的任务，对于任何对意大利研究或政治与戏剧交叉感兴趣的人来说，这是一本必读之书。虽然回避了贝尼托·墨索里尼作为演员的概念——例如，具有强大眼睛和戏剧性肢体语言的迷人主唱——但这项研究探索了鲜为人知的途径，例如作为旁观者的独裁者、评论家、剧作家和审查员。所有这些角色无疑都与他行使权力有关，这意味着戏剧美学与政治（以及历史）之间的联系具有重要意义。

加博里克调查了戏剧在领袖个人和职业生活中的作用，从他作为戏剧观众和总理的品味开始[结束第 119 页]。他最喜欢的舞台作家必须体现某些情感——除了“在他的团队中”之外——这意味着他们必须对黑衫哲学表现出尊重和钦佩。例如，加布里埃尔·邓南遮和萧伯纳的超人理想就得到了墨索里尼的认可。路易吉·皮兰德娄的戏剧在现实与想象之间发挥作用，他对建立另类世界的可能性的信念吸引了墨索里尼以自我为中心的生活和政府观。更重要的是，在国外受到高度评价的皮兰德娄，墨索里尼利用这位艺术家作为法西斯宣传的文化大使。加博里克展示了戏剧在向海外传达墨索里尼政府信仰方面所发挥的重要作用。

领袖也是一位一丝不苟的审查员，他禁止或大量编辑不符合他标准的作品。加博里克深入研究档案、回忆录和当前的学术成果，成功地对剧院审查活动进行了彻底的重建，并充分注意到了这一困难且有时模棱两可的实践中的许多矛盾。例如，她讨论了莱奥波尔多·祖洛（Leopoldo Zurlo）在这一努力中为墨索里尼提供帮助的方式，后者的任务是批准、拒绝或暂停戏剧。后一种情况适用于“任何决定都被认为过于‘敏感’。这是一种相当于忽视问题并希望它自行消失的策略”（156-57）。

祖洛不是法西斯主义者，但当他被赋予控制观众在舞台上能看到或看不到的东西的任务时，他总是准备好遵守墨索里尼的想法和愿望。因此，政治、宗教，以及最重要的道德，都是需要保护的法西斯堡垒。外国戏剧——尤其是俄罗斯和英国的戏剧——不断被边缘化，但国际事务并不是唯一的原因。法国剧作家是意大利剧作家的长期竞争对手，也受到排斥，特别是如果他们描绘“堕落”行为。例如，一部戏剧化三人行的戏剧可能会被解读为对领袖与克拉雷塔·佩塔奇婚外情的恶搞。祖洛最初试图清除有关同性恋（主要是女性）的戏剧，但很快就停止了，并将其定义为“悲伤”，尽管他与警察局长卡迈恩·塞尼斯一起生活得更加奢侈。换句话说，偏离异性恋、一夫一妻制规范的性行为是不被允许的：无论是异性通奸还是同性恋吸引，都不会获得生产所需的签证。

戏剧是宣传最重要的战线之一，或者用加博里克恰当的话说，是“战略唯美主义”。对于加博里克来说，一部戏剧作品的美学与向公众传达的潜在政治意识形态一样有意义。在她的书中，墨索里尼对舞台的热爱显而易见，包括他作为指挥的角色。通过他对戏剧活动的财政支持，一种现代形式的导演驱动戏剧在十九世纪演员驱动戏剧模式的废墟上发展起来。政府的贡献...