Television and Totalitarianism in Czechoslovakia: From the First Democratic Republic to the Fall of Communism 9781501324758, 9781501324772, 9781501324765

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title
Copyrights
Faculty of Social Sciences
Dedication
Contents
List of Abbreviations
Acknowledgements
Preface
Introduction
1 The silent majorities, Sovietization, and ‘life within a lie’
The specificities of East European socialisms
In the shadow of Stalin’s Statue – Communism in Czechoslovakia
PRELUDE: Television as a concept between democracy and Nazism
CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 1: Czechoslovakia – The first democratic republic 1918–1938
2 Radio context: Among the first in Europe
3 Pioneers of television
Jaroslav Šafránek – the Czech Baird
4 Television as a political matter
A matter of all-state importance
CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 2: The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia 1939–1945
5 In the hands of the military
What was left after the Nazi occupation
Czechoslovak army attempts to seize control of television
What was left after the liberation
Czechoslovak military television is born!
THE MAIN ACT: Television should serve the Communist ideology
6 Context of Soviet approaches in the televisual space of the Eastern Bloc
Taking over the organizational patterns
Television content
The expansion and keeping of the colossus
CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 3: Czechoslovakia – Prelude to communism, 1945–1948
7 New totalitarianism on the horizon
Radio means power
Television harvest 1948
CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 4: Czechoslovakia – Stalinism 1948–1960
8 The birth of television in Stalinist Czechoslovakia
How the communists began to need television
1 May 1953 – we are broadcasting!
Experimental broadcasting
9 On its own feet
Television truly Czechoslovak
A sisterly division
CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 5: The golden sixties in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic 1961–1970
10 The birth of a TV nation
The helplessness of political power, the power of television
The fall of censorship and the Prague Spring
11 Occupation in 1968: We keep broadcasting!
Reaction of power
Fear of the first anniversary and reflections on the Prague Spring
CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 6: Normalization and post-totalitarianism in Czechoslovakia 1970–1989
12 Television as the last instrument of power
Color television in the black-and-white normalization period
Fear of the opposition
13 Television as a participant of the Velvet Revolution
CODA: Towards public service
CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 7: The Czech and Slovak federal republics’ return to democracy, 1989–1992
14 The birth of a public broadcaster
Conclusion
Bibliography
Sources of pictures
About the author
Index

Citation preview

Television and Totalitarianism in Czechoslovakia

Television and Totalitarianism in Czechoslovakia From the First Democratic Republic to the Fall of Communism Martin Štoll

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Inc 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in the United States of America 2019 This paperback edition published in 2021 Copyright © Martin Štoll, 2019 For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. xvii constitute an extension of this copyright page. Cover design: Alice Marwick Cover image: Photographs: Retro TV © Shutterstock/oksana2010; Screen image © Ivan Štoll All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Inc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. Names: eStoll, Martin, 1973-author. Title: Totalitarianism and television in Czechoslovakia: from the first Democratic Republic to the fall of communism / Martin eStoll, Description: New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic, [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017052594 (print) | LCCN 2017054656 (ebook) | ISBN 9781501324765 (ePDF) | ISBN 9781501324789 (ePUB) | ISBN 9781501324758 (hardback: alk.paper) Subjects: LCSH: Television broadcasting–Czechoslovakia–History–20th century. | Broadcasting policy–Czechoslovakia–History–20th century. | Czechoslovakia–Politics and government. Classification: LCC HE8700.9.C94 (ebook) | LCC HE8700.9.C94 S76 2018 (print) | DDC 384.5509437/0904–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017052594 ISBN: HB: 978-1-5013-2475-8 PB: 978-1-5013-7421-0 ePDF: 978-1-5013-2476-5 eBook: 978-1-5013-2478-9 Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

This study was supported by the Charles University Research Programme “Progres” Q18 – Social Sciences: From Multidisciplinarity to Interdisciplinarity. With other support from: Czech Literary Fund Literary Academy of Josef Škvorecký Havran publishing house Malá Skála publishing house and

Translation: Michaela Konárková Czech Reviewers: PhDr. Jarmila Cysarˇová (†) prof. PhDr. Jirˇí Knapík, Ph.D. PhDr. Mgr. Petr Bednarˇík, Ph.D. English Reviewers: Dr. Jan Cˇulík Amy Mackinnon

This text was created and the photographs were provided within the Project for the Theoretical and Historical Analysis of Czech Television.

To my father, Ivan Štoll (* December 10th, 1935 – † September 5th, 2017), who was born on the day when the very first complete Czechoslovak low-­line mechanical television was created, and who devoted his life to the popularization of science.

Prague 2010–2018

CONTENTS

List of abbreviations  xiii Acknowledgements  xvii Preface  xix



Introduction  1

1 The silent majorities, Sovietization, and ‘life within a lie’  5 The specificities of East European socialisms  9 In the shadow of Stalin’s Statue – Communism in Czechoslovakia  14

PRELUDE: Television as a concept between democracy and Nazism CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 1: Czechoslovakia – The first democratic republic 1918–1938  23

2 Radio context: Among the first in Europe  25 3 Pioneers of television  33 Jaroslav Šafránek – the Czech Baird  43

4 Television as a political matter  51 A matter of all-­state importance  55 CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 2: The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia 1939–1945  65

x

CONTENTS

5 In the hands of the military  67 What was left after the Nazi occupation  67 Czechoslovak army attempts to seize control of television  69 What was left after the liberation  73 Czechoslovak military television is born!  79

THE MAIN ACT: Television should serve the Communist ideology 6 Context of Soviet approaches in the televisual space of the Eastern Bloc  83 Taking over the organizational patterns  85 Television content  88 The expansion and keeping of the colossus  91 CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 3: Czechoslovakia – Prelude to communism, 1945–1948  95

7 New totalitarianism on the horizon  97 Radio means power  97 Television harvest 1948  99 CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 4: Czechoslovakia – Stalinism 1948–1960  105

8 The birth of television in Stalinist Czechoslovakia  107 How the communists began to need television  109 1 May 1953 – we are broadcasting!  112 Experimental broadcasting  122

9 On its own feet  135 Television truly Czechoslovak  138 A sisterly division  146 CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 5: The golden sixties in Czechoslovak Socialist Republic 1961–1970  153

CONTENTS

xi

10 The birth of a TV nation  155 The helplessness of political power, the power of television  166 The fall of censorship and the Prague Spring  175

11 Occupation in 1968: We keep broadcasting!  181 Reaction of power  185 Fear of the first anniversary and reflections on the Prague Spring  189 CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 6: Normalization and post-­totalitarianism in Czechoslovakia 1970–1989  195

12 Television as the last instrument of power  197 Color television in the black-­and-white normalization period  215 Fear of the opposition  221

13 Television as a participant of the Velvet Revolution  225

CODA: Towards public service CONTEXTUAL BOX No. 7: The Czech and Slovak federal republics’ return to democracy, 1989–1992  233

14 The birth of a public broadcaster  235

Conclusion  241

Bibliography  247 Sources of pictures  257 About the author  259 Index  261

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABC

Australian Broadcasting Company

ACUP

Archives of Charles University in Prague (Archiv Karlovy Univerzity v Praze)

ACRo

Czech Radio Archives (Archiv Cˇeského rozhlasu, ACˇro)

AMU

Academy of Performing Arts (Akademie múzických umeˇní)

APF CT

Archives and Programme Collections of Czech Television (Archiv a programové fondy Cˇeské televize)

ARD

Consortium of public broadcasters in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-­rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland)

AUK

Archiv Karlovy University (ACUP)

AV CˇR

Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (Akademie veˇd Cˇeské republiky)

BBC

British Broadcasting Corporation

CC CzCP Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (Ústrˇední výbor Komunistické strany Cˇeskoslovenska) CS

Czechoslovak

CSB

Canadian Broadcasting System

CSK

Czechoslovak Koruna (currency)

CSR

Czechoslovak Republic (CˇSR)

CRo

Czech Radio (Cˇeský rozhlas)

cˇs.

Czechoslovak (CS)

CˇSAV

The Czechoslovak Socialist Academy of Sciences (Cˇeskoslovenská socialistická akademie veˇd)

CsRo

Czechoslovak Radio, CS Radio (Cˇeskoslovenský rozhlas)

CSSR

Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (Cˇeskoslovenská socialistická republika, CˇSSR)

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CST

Czechoslovak Television (Cˇeskoslovenská televise or Cˇeskoslovenská televize, CˇST)

CT

Czech Television (Cˇeská televize, CˇT)

CTK

Czech News Agency (Cˇeskoslovenská tisková kancelárˇ, CˇTK)

CˇVUT

Czech Technical University in Prague (Cˇeské vysoké ucˇení technické v Praze)

CzCP

Communist Party of Czechoslovakia

DAMU

Theater Faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts (Fakulta divadelní AMU)

DEFA

The main state-­owned film studio in the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Film-Aktiengesellschaft)

EBU

European Broadcasting Union, also UER

Eurovision Song Contest broadcast by the EBU/UER f.

folder (archival)

fu.

fund (archival)

FAMU

Film and Television Faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts (Fakulta filmová a televizní AMU)

FF

Faculty of Arts

FITES

Czech film and television union (Filmový a televizní svaz)

FRG

Federal Republic of Germany

IBB

Internal information bulletin (Interní informacˇní bulletin)

Intervision part of the International Radio and Television Organisation (OIRT) IRT

Institute of Radio Technology (Ústav rozhlasové techniky, ÚRT)

JAMU

Janácˇek Academy of Performing Arts in Brno (Janácˇkova akademie múzických umeˇní v Brneˇ)

k.

carton (archival)

KSCˇ

Komunistická strana Cˇeskoslovenska (CzCP)

MEVRO

International Radio Exhibition (Mezinárodní výstava rozhlasu)

MNO

Ministry of National Defence (Ministerstvo národní obrany)

MPT

Ministry of Post and Telegraphs (Ministerstvo pošt a telegrafu˚)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

xv

MTI

The Military Technical Institute (Vojenský technický ústav, VTÚ)

NAMU

Academy of Performing Arts Press (Nakladatelství AMU)

NAP

National Archives in Prague (Národní archiv Praha)

NM

National Museum in Prague (Národní muzeum v Praze)

NSDAP

The National Socialist German Workers’ Party, better known as the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)

NTM

National Technical Museum in Prague (Národní technické muzeum v Praze)

NTSC

National Television System Committee

OIRT

International Radio and Television Organisation (Organization Internationale de Radiodiffussion et Télévision)

ORF

Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (Österreichischer Rundfunk)

OT

Organization Todt

PAL

Phase Alternating Line

PKK

Karel Kohout’s heritage – archive file

RAI

Italian Broadcasting Company (Radiotelevisione Italiana)

RIRC

Research Institute for Radio Communications (VÚRT)

RNTM

Talks with National Technical Museum (Rozpravy Národního technického muzea)

ROH

Revolutionary Trade Union Movement (Revolucˇní odborové hnutí)

RTL

Radio Television Luxembourg (Radio Télévision Luxembourg)

SCˇM

Czech Youth Union (Svaz cˇeské mládeže)

SECAM

Sequential Color With Memory (Séquentiel couleur à mémoire)

SLU

Silesian University in Opava (Slezská univerzita v Opaveˇ)

SNP

Slovak National Uprising (Slovenské národní povstání)

SPN

State Pedagogical Publishing (Státní pedagogické nakladatelství)

SPŠF

Technical Film High School in Cˇimelice (Strˇední pru˚myslová škola filmová v Cˇimelicích)

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

StB

State Security (Státní bezpecˇnost)

TGM

Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk

TM

Technical Magazine (Technický magazín)

TUL

Technical University in Liberec (Technická univerzita v Liberci)

UER

Union Européene de Radiodiffusion, also known as European Broacasting Union

UHF

Ultra High Frequency

UK

Charles University (Univerzita Karlova)

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UPOL

Palacký University in Olomouc (Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci)

ÚSD

The Institute for Contemporary History (Ústav pro soudobé deˇjiny)

USSR

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or The Soviet Union

ÚSTR

The Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes, Prague (Ústav pro studium totalitních režimu˚ v Praze)

ÚRT

Institute for Radio Technology (Ústav rozhlasové techniky, RIRC)

ÚVA

Central Military Archive (Ústrˇední vojenský archiv)

VHF

Very High Frequency

VŠMU

Academy of Performing Arts in Bratislava (Vysoká škola múzických umení v Bratislaveˇ)

VÚRT

Výzkumný ústav radiokomunikací (RIRC)

WDR

Westdeutscher Rundfunk (West German Broadcasting)

YMCA

Young Men’s Christian Association

ZDF

Second Channel of German Television Broadcasting (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The text of this book was written between 2010 and 2018 in Prague, Malá Skála and Želiv (Czech Republic), Bratislava (Slovakia), Jyväskylä (Finland), and Łódz´ (Poland), but the research was conducted from 2005. I would like to sincerely thank my colleagues from Czech Television: Ivo Mathé, Petr Dvorˇák, Jan Maxa, Daniel Ru˚žicˇka, Milan Kruml, Karel Sieber, Vít Charous, Gustav Erhart, Veˇra Mateˇjková, and from Czech Radio Eva Ješutová, Jaroslava Nováková, and Ivana Zuranová. During my study of primary sources I received immense help from Vlasta Meˇšt’ánková (National Archives in Prague), Jan Galuška and Jan Kramárˇ (Postal Museum Prague), Zdeneˇk Vácha, Jan Hozák, and René Melkus (National Technical Museum in Prague), Petr Polák (Tanvald City Office), Petr Cajthaml (Charles University Archives), Petr Mücke (State Regional Archives in Pardubice), Emilie Teˇšínská (The Institute of Contemporary History of the Academy of Sciences, CR), Jaroslav Rokoský (The Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes), Jaroslav Šebek (The Institute of History, Czech Academy of Sciences), Petr Szczepanik (Faculty of Arts, Charles University) in Prague, Ingrid Mayerová (Academy of Performing Arts in Bratislava), the Central Military Archive in Prague and Václav Šafránek, nephew of the television pioneer Jaroslav Šafránek. I received precious advice and guidance from a number of colleagues. First and foremost, I must thank those who reviewed my manuscript: the TV historian Jarmila Cysarˇová (†2014), Jirˇí Knapík (Silesian University in Opava), Petr Bednarˇík, Tomáš Trampota, and Jan Jirák (Charles University in Prague). My father, the physicist and popularizer of physics Ivan Štoll (Czech Technical University, †2017) and my brother Pavel Štoll (Charles University, Prague) for their invaluable advice. I have tried to gather first hand accounts of those who were involved in the early days of television broadcasting in May 1953, and would like to thank all of those who shared their memories with me. In conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude to Jana Hádková (CT), who gave me the opportunity to make the film Jaroslav Šafránek – Television Visionary (2010) and thus plunge head first into the topic; Petr Cˇornej for having inspired me to write this book; the Czech Literary Fund foundation for awarding me a special-­purpose scholarship; František Drtikol from Havran publishing house, which published an abridged version

xviii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

of this text in Czech in 2011; Lucie Kuželová (Josef Škvorecký Literary Academy and Higher Vocational School for Actors, Prague); Alice Neˇmcová Tejkalová and Jitka Kryšpínová for their financial support which contributed towards the English translation of this book (Faculty of Social Sciences Charles University in Prague); and Stanislav and Dagmar Procházka from Jyväskylä for accommodating me within my research project and Veˇra and Josef Špetl from Želiv for support. I am honoured to thank Brian Winston (former director of British Film Institute) for helping me bring this text to light, his support and the Preface, Ewa Ciszewska (University of Łódz´), who facilitated my meeting with the publisher, and Katie Gallof (Bloomsbury Publishing), for going for it, with colleagues Susan Krogulski and Erin Duffy. I would also like to thank my conscientious and reliable translator Michaela Konárková, Robert Wright and Amy Mackinnon for their careful proofreading of the text and Jan Cˇulík for many inspiring critical comments. Finally, many thanks to my wife Veˇra and our daughters Alžbeˇta and Katerˇina for their tolerance, trust, and overall support.

PREFACE

In March of 1939, the Nazis invaded, without warning, those border areas of the neighbouring Republic of Czechoslovakia inhabited by German speakers. This act-­of-war was famously described by the do-­nothing British Prime Minster of the day, Neville Chamberlain, as ‘a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing’. The consequences of that ignorance then cost us dear. Today, thanks no little to technology, the world is far less ill-­informed about itself than it then was; but understandings nevertheless tend to be confined in silos. Paradoxically, this is true of those very technologies that have improved and enabled international communications even as they allowed national systems to flourish. A forest of acronyms hides from common knowledge the organizational infrastructure of global communications. The ITU’s WARC and the UPU, the WBU and WIPO, W3C and the ISMO etc – these are still all, as it were, ‘far away countries of which we know little’. Moreover, unlike those vehicles of culture which, despite language barriers, transcend national borders – fine art and literature, music and cinema etc. – broadcasting largely remains buried in national silos. Never mind the recent erosion of the anglophone hegemony over world trade in TV programming, we still have little or no common understanding of each other’s broadcasting history and culture. Unlike film stars, TV stars, actors included, do not travel much. And neither does broadcasting scholarship. There is almost no common history of the development of brodcasting content and little work of comparison. Even between, say, Britain and the US, not much is shared. And this paucity increases with distance from the Anglosphere. The fact is that, bottom line, Richard Dimbleby is not much known in the US. Nor The Huntley-Brinkley in the UK. Never mind, say, Jan Hofer, John De Mol, Christine Ockrent, Jirˇí Pelikán. Punch up ‘Television in France’ on Amazon UK and a ‘key television studies’ text in English yields only a reference to the French version of Mr De Mol’s Big Brother. ‘German Television’ on Wikipedia cites one essay in a survey of TV in Europe. ‘Polish Television’ on Amazon leads the inquirer to a book on polishing your TV performance style. Recently, though, scholarly correctives have begun to appear and Totalitarianism and Television in Czechoslovakia, a rich case study in

xx

PREFACE

English on the complexities of how a mass medium actually fared under a Stalinist regime, is an invaluable addition to these. Martin Štoll has a neat example of both the Cold War broadcasting environment which is also an implicit indicator of the cost of our siloed ignorances. In 1967, as the change of heart that would lead to the ‘Prague Spring’ and an (albeit all too temporary) loosening of Stalinist control over Czechoslovak media, the head of the television service and a man much travelled in the West, the aforementioned Jirˇí Pelikán, was being torn off a strip by Gustáv Husák, the deputy Czechoslovak premier. At that point, Husák was, paradoxically (or at least in theory), no less a supporter of these early moves towards liberalization than was Pelikán himself. Despite this, it was still to Husák’s amazement that the broadcaster had allowed voices attacking the government to be given air-­ time. ‘What kind of morals are these?,’ he thundered. ‘Comrade, can you imagine that the West would allow communists to speak on television?’ Husák raged. To that Pelikán answered: ‘Not only can I picture it, but I have seen it with my own eyes.’ And he went on to describe arguably mainstream anglophone television’s most irreverant programme of the 1960s, the BBC’s satiric news review, That Was The Week That Was. This, then, is the context for the case study of the 39 years and 240 days of the existence of Czechoslovak Television – CST – from its start up in the early 1950s to the ‘Velvet Revolution’ of 1989, or 1992 which saw the break up of the country into the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. Martin Štoll is something of a Czech Asa Briggs, although his acount of the historic roots and developments is far more succint than the latter’s five-­volume history of the BBC. But they do share a grounding in the paper record. Štoll’s work in the Czech archives has a double focus. CST started on May Day, 1953, the third Soviet satellite television service to do so, after Warsaw and Berlin (East Germany). By 1960 there were over one million sets in use by Czechoslovakia’s 13.7 million population. This growth and its aftermath until 1989 is Štoll’s main concern. It is all too easy to dismiss popular culture under Stalinism as a species of awful warning. Stalin had articluated the limits of expression in 1932: ‘Artists must depict life truthfully. And if they do so, it is impossible for them not to realize or reflect the things in life that lead towards socialism. This is the nature of Socialist Realism’. And negativity was, therefore, not ‘truth’ but evidence of, at best, hostility and, more likely, serious mental derangement on the artist’s (or commentator’s) part. As the 1951 Czechoslovak government report on planning the TV service put it: ‘While in the capitalist world television is spread like a tool of subversion and destructive propaganda . . . only in a socialist society, as we can see in the Soviet example, does television gain its truthful and useful, social meaning’. CST was, of course, therefore ‘a television of lies’; but, in an era of ‘Fake News’ hysterics, we should be wary of dismissing its history as an irrelevance.

PREFACE

xxi

It is of more than historical importance to understand how in detailed practice a mass medium operated in such a climate. This is illuminating, then, not just as a study of pressure and the struggle against it. It also affords valuable lessons about the limitations of ‘free’ cultural expression in the West and how they must be confronted. Štoll has a second focus, valuable in a different way. The silos are far less evident when it comes to the technical history of broadcasting. This is, perforce, shared since the system engineering (aka ‘inventions’) that produced radio, television and later modes of distribution transcended (and transcend) national borders. Czechoslovakia had been founded in 1918 in the aftermath of the First World War as one of the successor states following the collapse of the AustroHungarian Empire. It was to last 74 years, six lost to the Nazi occupation which Štoll, quite properly given his focus, largely ignores. At the outset, the pre-Second World War republic developed a considerable reputation both industrially – from Bata (Bat’a) Shoes to Skoda (Škoda) cars – and culturally. It is no accident that ‘robot’ springs from the imagination of a Czech writer, Karel Cˇapek. Prague, after all, was Kafka’s city. And it should not then surprise that radio in Czechoslovakia started within six months of the British Broadcasting Company’s first transmissions in 1922. Štoll documents the Czech focus on developing radio and thereby provides an implicit corrective to the received understandings of the national silos of broadcasting history. For example, the Czechs had a magazine called Television by 1934 – the anglosphere cannot say as much. Indeed, UK national amour propre still persists in feting a failed experimentor like John Logie Baird as, spuriously, television’s inventor. The Czechs, to their credit, do not indulge in this sort of nationalistic trap with Jaroslav Šafránek, a contemporary of Baird’s who also built a mechanical scanning system in the 1930s. It was a dead end, but Šafránek points up the deficiencies of trying to position the history of broadcasting technology as an expression of national genius. On Monday 21 November 1989, as revolutionary anti-­communist events in Prague escalated, CST’s technicians demanded from their bosses ‘truthfulness, completeness, and objectivity of television news coverage.’ They were refused but within days the National Assembly had dethroned the Czech Communist Party and within weeks the last communist president, the same Gustáv Husák who couldn’t conceive of satire on television, resigned as the country’s leader. Two days later, on 29 December 1989, Václav Havel became President of Czechoslovakia. The history Štoll recovers in Totalitarianism and Television in Czechoslovakia does far more than correct our ignorance of broadcasting in ‘a far away country’ of which ‘we know nothing’. It is a valuable aid to understanding what free media everywhere entail and what dangers attend when these needs are traduced. Brian Winston

Introduction

On 1 January 1990, it was finally obvious that the fall of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia was irrevocable. Through four million TV screens, Czechoslovak Television (CST) broadcast the address of the newly elected president Václav Havel, who had come to symbolize this historical change: For forty years, on this day, you heard from my predecessors different variations on the same theme: how our country was flourishing, how many millions of tons of steel we produced, how happy we all were, how we trusted our government, and what bright perspectives were unfolding in front of us. I assume you did not propose me for this office so that I, too, would lie to you. Our country is not flourishing.1 The last sentence has become something of a legend in Czech historical memory. Thus, at that moment, CST became a co-­creator of history. ‘Every historian of the twentieth century must recognize the important role of television’, says Burton Paulu, a professor at University of Minnesota in one of the few American monographs dedicated to mass media in the Eastern Bloc (Paulu 1967: 3). The importance of television has varied across different periods and in different countries; after all, Paulu himself points out the basic facts that influence the character, range and function of broadcasting: geography, history and politics, religious traditions, language, national economic standards, and relations between neighboring countries (Paulu 1967: 5–8). This list should also include the technological as well as the creative and sociological contexts. The social roots of television in the USA and Europe are also different. While in the USA new technologies have mostly been a matter of private businesses, Europe has traditionally used them as strategic means of state control (e.g. the telegraph and telephone, but also the railways) and maintained their monopoly (historically, through Ministries of Post and  New Year’s Address to the Nation, [Novorocˇ ní projev prezidenta republiky] CST 1 January 1990.

1

2

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Telegraphs). This applied not only to the post-­feudal states and monarchies that existed before the First World War, but also all to the dictatorships that arose in twentieth century Europe. A specifically European concept of the so-­called public service broadcaster was formed in Britain shortly after the launch of BBC radio broadcasting in 1922. Nowadays, this principle can be found at the heart of television broadcasting in most democratic European countries, and took root in Eastern Europe after the fall of Communism. The purpose of this concept is the creation of a broadcaster whose content and interests are not primarily influenced by profit and which would be economically and politically independent. Public service broadcasting is ascribed a ‘special status’ in the 1997 Amsterdam Protocol and has also been given a cultural status by European Parliament. The statement that ‘[audiovisual] media services are as much cultural services as they are economic services’ from Article 5 in one of the EU directives2 reflects the roots of this cultural tradition in Europe, and includes art and cinematography, as well as the activities of radio and television broadcasters. Burton Paulu highlighted the potential for mutual inspiration between the two worlds on each side of the Atlantic Ocean when he finished his 1967 study with these words: Europe can look to American broadcasting for enthusiasm and drive as well as for production ingenuity. But the United States can acquire from Europe the concepts that broadcasting is a public service rather than an industry, and the programme policies should be determined by social values rather than investment returns. PAULU 1967: 245 It is crucial to explore the role of television as a means instate of political and socio-­cultural communication and the role that this has played in recent history. The study of a country’s television history is at the same time a study of the history of the state in itself. Television has played a direct role in major events by either reporting on them or deliberately distracting attention away from them. At times, it has even been an active co-­creator of history. It is ever present and its influence has grown with time. The role of television in twentieth century history must be examined not only from multiple perspectives, but also from the moment of its inception. The hopes that the political or industrial and business agents have cherished for television predicted its future role and, in many aspects, are even more important than the very activity and behaviour of the medium at the time of its greatest ‘glory’. The nexus between television, society, politics and other means of mass communication such as radio and film began to develop as

2

 Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010.

INTRODUCTION

3

early as the 1920s and has gone through a radical transformation in the subsequent 90 years.3 It is this realization that prompted this study. Surely, the history of Czechoslovak Television, just one of the many broadcasters in the former communist bloc, could be seen as too narrow a specialization. On the other hand, the development of Czechoslovak television also tells the story of a country which wound a long path from democracy, to Nazi occupation, to communism, revolution and back to democracy. The work is based on a long-­term study of primary sources from archives from across the Czech Republic. The most substantial part of the text consists of a chronological case study supplemented with short contextual boxes which briefly outline the social and political situation in Czechoslovakia in the given period. Life in the countries of Eastern Europe and under the Czechoslovak regime is described in the introductory chapter The silent majorities, Sovietization and ‘life within a lie’ while the chapter Context of Soviet approaches in the television space of the Eastern Bloc illustrates the basic approaches of the Soviet system and their reflection in the televisual space of Eastern Europe. The final thought goes to a reflection on the role of television in the time of dictatorship. I am of the impression that for the very first time an English-­speaking reader can come to understand Czechoslovak television. That does not mean that European or American researchers have not dedicated partial studies or monographs to the TV broadcasters of Eastern Europe, or Czechoslovak Television. Paulu himself travelled around Europe in the mid-1960s and his much-­cited Radio and Television Broadcasting on the European Continent from 1967 has come to be a precious historical document. The interest in socialism after its fall has brought about a number of important publications such as The Greengrocer and His TV: The Culture of Communism after the 1968 Prague Spring by Paulina Bren, and many inspiring articles in prestigious journals, including those written by Czech or East European researchers themselves. Several English monographs have been compiled, such as National Mythologies in Central European TV Series edited by Jan Cˇulík at the University of Glasgow. Individual countries carry out continuous research dedicated to medial history and their findings are frequently published in their national languages. In former Czechoslovakia, these studies are either dedicated to the relationship between CST and political power (Jarmila Cysarˇová, Daniel Ru˚žicˇka, Petr Kopal), the history of CST  Czech historiography has a range of synoptic publications on the history of Czech media, namely Koncˇelík – Vecˇ erˇ a – Orság 2010; Bednarˇík – Jirák – Köpplová 2011 and among the informative summarizing studies on the development of Czechoslovak Television we should mention the works of Strasmajer 1973 and 1978, Seger 1978, Štoll 2011, Kruml 2013; the development of Slovak television was described by Košcˇ o 1981 or Stadtrucker 2015.

3

4

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

and its studios as an institution (Milan Kruml, Milan Švihálek, Marek Hlavica, Ivan Stadtrucker, Martin Štoll) or partial aspects regarding the mutual influence of television production and the CST (Petr Bednarˇík, Irena Reifová, Alice Neˇmcová Tejkalová, Jakub Korda, Lucie Cˇesálková, Kamil Cˇinátl, Zuzana Töröková). Another direction has been taken by research projects focusing on the transforming role of television in the context of other media systems (Jan Jirák, Tomáš Trampota, Jaromír Volek, Václav Moravec), the historical and contemporary relationship with film production (Ivan Klimeš, Jelena Paštéková, Václav Macek, Pavel Skopal, Petr Szczepanik, Šimon Dominik), and other media (Barbara Köpplová, Jakub Koncˇelík), film (Jaromir Blažejovský, Radomir D. Kokeš), literature (Petr A. Bílek), and lifestyle (Martin Franc, Jirˇ í Knapík). Most Czech and Slovak television researchers are middle-­aged and thus have some of their own life experiences with the former political regime. This allows for insight as well as a detached view, necessary for the interpretation of archive materials. I believe that this privilege is reflected in the following story.

1 The silent majorities, Sovietization, and ‘life within a lie’

‘Whenever I turn on the radio or television, I can hear the language of history’, wrote Václav Havel’s friend and dissident Czech philosopher and essayist Milan Šimecˇka, in one of his essays. For example, I see a person on TV opening his mouth and talking, but I don’t know what he is talking about and quite certainly nor does he know what he is talking about. He can be saying that all people agree with this or that measure, but I bet that he did not ask anyone, not even his neighbor who he had met in the elevator that morning. History can assume a terribly serious face, but it only produces lies. Fortunately, people speak to each other in the language of their small histories. ŠIME Cˇ KA 1984/1992: 8 Šimecˇka defines the basic contradiction which accompanied four decades of life under socialism, or any authoritarian regime. The conflict between the great and small history which can be seen as the conflict between the private and the public in a democracy or the conflict between the unofficial and official, prohibited (or merely tolerated) and permitted in a dictatorship1 or elsewhere between the inner and the outer. Or, in Václav Havel’s words, between the truth and the lie. Havel saw the lie even as an essential component of authoritarian (communist) power and a mechanism to maintain it:

 Havel defines this system as a dictatorship of a political bureaucracy over a society which has undergone economic and social levelling. (Havel 1978/1990: 5) http://vaclavhavel.cz/ showtrans.php?cat=clanky&val=72_aj_clanky.html&typ=HTML (accessed 21 August 2017).

1

6

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; [. . .] the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. The climax of this cycle of power is that ‘[it] pretends to pretend nothing’ (Havel 1978/1990: 11). It should be noted that in their essays Šimecˇka and Havel drew from the post–1968 reality, when Czechoslovakia was occupied by the Warsaw Pact armies. This period between 1969 and 1989, when the authoritarian regime collapsed, is known in the Czechoslovak context as late socialism, post-­ totalitarianism or normalization. The word normalization itself is absurd as it abuses the term of ‘normality’, though the reality was in sharp contrast with normal and natural social frame and interpersonal relationships.2 Havel presents his concept of ‘life within a lie’ in his essay The Power of the Powerless. He introduces the character of a greengrocer, who displays the communist slogan ‘Workers of the world, unite!’ in his shop as a sign of obedience. Havel argues that the greengrocer represents three possible courses of action available to those living in an authoritarian system. The fact that the regime expects this loyalty from the greengrocer and that he automatically complies makes it possible ‘for the game to go on, for it to exist in the first place’ (Havel 1978/1990: 11). If the greengrocer was to one day decide not to ‘ingratiate’ himself with the regime, that is to live within truth, he could decide simply: ‘to not put flags in his window when his only motive for putting them there in the first place was to avoid being reported by the house warden; he does not vote in elections that he considers false; he does not hide his opinions from his superiors’ (Havel 1978/1990: 38). Havel goes on to say: This may, however, grow into something more. The greengrocer may begin to do something concrete, something that goes beyond an immediately personal self-­defensive reaction against manipulation, something that will manifest his newfound sense of higher responsibility. He may, for example, organize his fellow greengrocers to act together in defence of their interests. He may write letters to various institutions, drawing their attention to instances of disorder and injustice around him. He may seek out unofficial literature, copy it, and lend it to his friends. HAVEL 1978/1990: 38  Current academic research of the normalization period is carried out predominantly by Pavel Kolárˇ and Michal Pulmann (Kolárˇ – Pulmann 2016), who call it ‘late socialism’.

2

The silent majorities, Sovietization, and ‘life within a lie’ 7

FIGURE 1.1 and 1.2  Rallies of workers with compulsory participation on 1 May had their carnival elements close to absurdity. (© Martin Štoll, 1987).

This active attitude, not mere passive negation, can give birth to the ‘independent spiritual, social, and political life of society’ (Havel 1978/1990: 39). These three simplified levels – accepting the rules of the game, passive resistance and active defiance – are the basic models of life in the East European communist context, with each of them bearing their own consequences.

8

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

A majority of the citizens who did not support the system remained silent. Milan Šimecˇka explains: ‘For us in Eastern Europe it is not a funny term at all. Our dictatorship is able to govern so comfortably only because it is the will of the silent majority, with its consent and good-­hearted indifference/unconcern.’ And naturally, like Havel, he also reflects on the outcomes of the choice of the third, active way: ‘If this silent and apathetic majority denied their obedience to the government, for example if it stopped going to work, party meetings, parades, and all other state festivities, the regime would collapse in a couple of days and it wouldn’t even have time to punish those that started this revolt’ (Šimecˇka 1984/1992: 30–31). It was a utopia, however; its realization contributed to the fall of the communist regimes. The minorities of people who strove to keep their integrity (workers in Poland, intelligentsia in Czechoslovakia) contributed to the activation of the majorities who then occupied public squares, fought (through violent clashes in Budapest or Poznan´), created the Baltic Chain stretching across the three Baltic States and dismantled the Berlin Wall (Švec – Macura – Štoll, P. 1996; Švec 2013).

FIGURE 1.3  Demonstration of power and joy, which Communists appropriated from the tradition of volunteer Sokol. (© Ivan Štoll, 1950).

The silent majorities, Sovietization, and ‘life within a lie’ 9

Doubtlessly, mass media, censorship and propaganda played their unique role in building, fortifying and maintaining ‘life within a lie’, along with the direct cooperation of the silent majorities of all authoritarian and totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.

The specificities of East European socialisms It is beyond the scope of this work to fully describe the multifaceted nature of socialism in Eastern Europe, how it played out in each country and fluctuated over time. However, to place the evolution of television in its historical context, this chapter will unpack at least three of the core aspects of East European communism which were common across the region. First and foremost, it is necessary to disabuse the notion that socialism only appeared in Eastern Europe after the Second World War. The ideas of communism and class equality existed in Eastern Europe long before that. No matter if the communist parties were created independently or if they grew out of social democratic parties, they represented a certain radical force, though originally a marginal one, which was fortified by the crises of democracies as well as the economic crisis at the turn of the 1930s. Effective propaganda about the Soviet Revolution also had a significant impact. Many of those who truly believed in the idea of communism turned a blind eye to fragmented reports about the political trials in the USSR, the famine in Ukraine, forced collectivization and gulags. Many people were blinded by their faith in a strong ally and refused to believe those who had managed to catch a glimpse of the truth about life in the USSR. In Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Albania, and Bulgaria, communist parties were considerably active in the anti-­fascist resistance and during the Second World War, which gave them a trusted reputation when it came to the post-­war division of power. As Pavel Kolárˇ, a Czech historian settled in Florence, Italy says: ‘They were drawn from peripheral or even illegal positions right into the center of political decision making’ (Kolárˇ 2015: 113). The Soviet Union, the main coordinator of the international communist movement, commanded great sympathies from all over Eastern Europe as one of the victors over Nazism. While the Western allies honoured the spheres of influence agreed upon in Potsdam (1945) the Soviets actively supported the installation of dictatorships in Bulgaria (1944), Yugoslavia (1944), and Albania (1945), and, after some pressure, a pro-­communist government was also appointed in Romania (1945), while the Soviet army occupied Hungary (1945). As the ‘Iron Curtain’, was drawn, the Soviet imperium and its newly-­formed ‘satellites’ became a hermetically sealed bloc which began to work on its structural transformation and ideological leadership. Thus, based on the neo-­imperial doctrine of Joseph Vissarionovich

10

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Stalin, the Soviet empire was transformed into the last colonial empire (Šabata 1994: 45). The second aspect to the development of Eastern European communism is the process which John Connelly describes as self-Sovietization (Connelly 2000). The idea that the Soviet model was imposed upon the countries of Eastern Europe by external pressure alone is not quite correct. Whilst the Soviet Union did use military power (terror in Hungary, 1956; the occupation of Czechoslovakia, 1968, etc.) as well as diplomatic pressure to influence its satellite states, they were also able to leverage the local communist parties. As soon as members of the party occupied key posts in government, they began to wage their own war. Kolárˇ notes that Stalinism penetrated the whole society, ‘which, in its hope in a bright tomorrow exerted an immense measure of self-­violence’ (Kolárˇ 2015: 146), and that ‘not even in the countries with weak communist parties, such as Poland, Hungary, or Romania, had the Stalinist Terror ever been executed directly by the Soviet organs, but rather by local powers’ (Kolárˇ 2015: 137). In early 1950s Czechoslovakia, the communists used, on Stalin’s orders, unparalleled brutality to suppress not only dissenters but also members of the clergy, those who fought in the Spanish International Brigades, members of the domestic resistance, soldiers and pilots who had fought in the Second World War, as well as members of the communist party itself (11 people were sentenced to death during the so-­called ‘Slánský trial’). As the only woman to be sentenced to death, the execution of the communist deputy Milada Horáková (27 July 1950) prompted condemnation from public figures across the world, including Albert Einstein. From 1948 to 1989, it is believed that 241 people were executed under the communist regime, the vast majority at the beginning of the 1950s, with 257,000 people convicted in political trials (Pernes 2001: 401). The third and final aspect of the regime crucial also for the development of television, which will be explored in this introductory reflection, was the ‘historical encounter of dictatorship with consumer society’, which was the foundation for the authoritarian system, as Havel puts it3 (1978/1990: 17). The rivalries of the Cold War are well documented, and encompassed space exploration, nuclear energy and the arms race. To demonstrate their respective independence and self-­sufficiency, rival international organizations were established on both sides of the Iron Curtain. The Warsaw Pact (1955) was established as a counter-­balance to NATO (1949) and when the Eurovision broadcasting network was established in 1954, a communist bloc counterpart, Intervision, was created soon after in 1960, with CST, Hungarian and Polish TV broadcasters as founding members.

 English translation: http://vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=eseje&val=2_aj_esje.html&typ= HTML (accessed 15 August 2017).

3

The silent majorities, Sovietization, and ‘life within a lie’ 11

FIGURE 1.4  A traditional character of Czech statehood – a two-­tailed lion with the communist five-­pointed star. Detail of the monument at Žižkov in Prague. (© Martin Štoll, 1988).

This competition and demarcation came to influence everyday life. It was a consistent part of the propaganda of the period to compare living standards in the West and in socialist Europe. The slogan ‘to catch up and get ahead’ became especially absurd in the last two decades of the regimes as it was already clear that these standards of living had become incomparable. Until the mid-1960s, it was not possible for most Czechoslovak citizens to travel, not even to the other socialist countries. However, in the years leading up to the Soviet occupation in 1968, many people had a chance to go to the West and experience it for themselves.

12

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 1.5  Public presentation of Leningrad TV sets. (Source: AMŠ, 1953).

The regimes tried to divert the citizens’ attention towards their private lives. The centrally planned economy adopted from the Soviet example turned out to be incapable of ensuring basic living standards to all citizens. It led to the creation of new housing projects but also to ecological devastation and thus the deterioration of people’s quality of life. The consequences of this arrangement became fully manifest again after 1968, in the last two decades of the authoritarian regime, the above-­mentioned normalization. Historian Kamil Cˇ inátl described the period as a period of ‘obsessive materialism’ (2010: 177). People retreated into their private worlds, focusing on acquiring scarce goods, securing what advantages they could for their families and the building of their weekend houses in the countryside. The most powerful people in society were those with access to luxury goods, either brought from Western countries or bought in special stores. For Czechoslovaks, Yugoslav goods were considered luxurious, while citizens of the Soviet Union sought out goods from Czechoslovakia and East Germany. ‘Who doesn’t rob the state, robs his own family’ encapsulated the attitude of the times. The essence of this normalization-­era material anesthesia was summed up in the CST series The Woman behind the Counter4 (1976). The series’ portrayal of 4

 [Žena za pultem]

The silent majorities, Sovietization, and ‘life within a lie’ 13

FIGURE 1.6  The Woman behind the Counter (1977), an iconic TV series by Jaroslav Dietl (dir. Jaroslav Dudek) about the life of an efficient, kind and comradely saleswoman in a well-stocked store, though the reality was quite different. Actors from the left: Jirˇina Švorcová and Karolína Slunécˇková. (© Miloš Schmiedberger, 1977).

a woman who worked in a food shop bore little resemblance to the reality of queues and food shortages faced by those living in Eastern Europe. Nonetheless, the programme aired in many of the Eastern Bloc countries and turned its main protagonist into a superstar – Jirˇina Švorcová remembers being welcomed by television audiences during her visits to East Germany and Bulgaria (Švorcová 1983). The fruit of this constant comparison of living standards was, nevertheless, a permanent feeling of inferiority which can be considered as a lasting heritage of East European socialism – it is the cornerstone of other complexes, described today by the terms of ‘Old and New Europe’, or ‘two-speed Europe’.

14

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 1.7  What it was like in the streets in 1980s. A kiosk offers pancakes for sale and at the same time announces: ´Pancakes sold out´. (© Martin Štoll, 1985).

In the shadow of Stalin’s Statue – Communism in Czechoslovakia As outlined above, it is not possible to consider the communist era in Eastern Europe as a monolith. Political pressure and the degree of subservience to the Soviet Union varied in intensity and character at different stages of the communist period. Let us explore some of the particularities of Czechoslovak socialism. Czechoslovakia was founded in 1918 after the First World War as a democratic state, and lasted for 74 years until 1992 when the country split by peaceful agreement into the Czech and the Slovak Republic. In the 74 years of its existence, the country was a free, democratic and sovereign state for a mere 27 years: during the so-­called First Republic (1918–1938), for three years after the Second World War (1945–1948) and after the fall of communism (1989–1992). Throughout the remaining 47 years it was either directly occupied by Nazi Germany (1939–1945), or in the orbit of the Soviet Union. These two dictatorships were, naturally, utterly different – the first was a forcible occupation, during which Czechoslovakia ceased to

The silent majorities, Sovietization, and ‘life within a lie’ 15

exist and was replaced by an administrative unit of the Third Reich known as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. It was deprived of Slovakia (which began to cooperate with Hitler as an independent state) and of the borderline areas, and was composed solely of two of the historical regions of the Czech lands, Bohemia and Moravia. Under communism, the country became a Soviet outpost, formally sovereign, but closely monitored by Moscow. All in all, the final score between the dictatorship and democracy in the observed period until the break-­up of Czechoslovakia is 47:27 years. The Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (Komunistická strana Cˇ eskoslovenska, further CzCP) was founded in 1921 by a group which had seceded from the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Party, and from the very beginning it worked as the party of the masses. However, during the First Republic when Czechoslovakia was a democratic state, the communists acted as political opposition and went through an internal crisis in 1929. An extreme left wing wanted a most direct link to the politics of the Moscow centre, which was opposed by many of its members who subsequently left the party. Klement Gottwald, then an ambitious politician, was promptly elected Chairman of the Communist Party, and in 1948 became the first Communist President of Czechoslovakia. During the Second World War, the CzCP was forbidden and largely became active in the resistance. After London, Moscow became the second epicentre of the resistance during the war and like the BBC, Soviet Radio played a major role by enabling Czech and Slovak emigrants to broadcast into their country. During the war, however, the communists were preparing for the post-­war seizure of crucial positions in the government, which they realized immediately after the country’s liberation. This was the reason why they were able to take over the government of the country in 1948, that is in less than three years of post-­war democracy. Not only did they force president Edvard Beneš, Masaryk’s former closest colleague, to resign, but there was also the highly suspicious death of Masaryk’s son Jan, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs. Up to this day the communists defend their claim that it was a suicide, although the latest investigations suggest that it was a murder. A new era had begun and the Czechoslovak communist party set about reorganizing the economy, the education system and all political processes in line with the communist doctrine. Even the world of art and design was subjected to influence in the form of socialist realism. Until Stalin’s death in 1953, these first years of communism are considered to have been the most brutal of the four decades of CzCP’s supremacy. On 14 March 1953 – nine days after Stalin died – Czechoslovak Communist President Klement Gottwald died too, leaving the CzCP in a sort of crisis and confusion. Its grip on power slowly loosened. In 1956,

16

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev delivered his ‘secret speech’ to the Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, denouncing Stalin’s cult of personality. After Nikita Khrushchev’s exposure of Stalin’s so-called personality cult and the strong disillusionment regarding Stalin’s good-­ naturedness and genius, the party found out how distant it had itself become from real life and feared that it might soon lose all credit. That is why, under the presidency of Antonín Novotný, Czechoslovakia experienced a period of political liberalization which came to be known as the Prague Spring. Led by the reformist First Secretary of the Communist Party Alexander Dubcˇek, it was hoped that the cultural and social reforms of 1968 could create a gentler socialism ‘with a human face’. Nonetheless, this renaissance was considered a betrayal of communism and counter-­revolution by Brezhnev, and in August 1968 troops of the Soviet-­led Warsaw Pact invaded Czechoslovakia, with many remaining until 1991. The following two decades of the 1970s and 1980s in Czechoslovakia, as mentioned above, came to be known as ‘normalization’. The Communist Party had regained full control over all areas of life and was therefore able to return the situation to ‘normal’ – as per the communist doctrine. By no means was it a return to the times before the start of the reforms or even to the Stalinist 1950s, which were highly repressive. Rather, officially, it was an attempt to return to the euphoria of the post-­war period, when many people actually believed in the building of new communist society. By the late 1960s, apart from a handful of party officials, few cherished the idea of socialism. The arrival of the new government leaders, approved and practically appointed by Moscow, deprived people of any remaining hope in the system. Liberal political and cultural elites were silenced or emigrated, and some even committed suicide.5 Moreover, the slogan ‘With the Soviet Union Forever and Never Otherwise’ did not evoke much optimism in people as the Soviet Union was no longer perceived as the liberator, but an oppressor. The normalization period had a profound impact on the behaviour of most citizens, which has been described as internal emigration as people retreated from public life into their own private worlds. The majority was willing to tolerate the political situation as a ‘necessary evil’, and membership in the CzCP was not linked with any ideals, but rather ‘with one’s own professional rise’ (Rychlík 2015: 37). All rituals (attending rallies and meetings, hanging flags in windows, etc.) were a certain tax people paid in order to secure peace for their private lives – just like Havel’s proverbial greengrocer. To put it bluntly, this agreement is based on a mutual consensus: the power doesn’t invade the privacy of its citizens if they resign on public activities which would problematize the basic principles of normalization

5

 Among them many filmmakers and television workers – see Vorácˇ 2004.

The silent majorities, Sovietization, and ‘life within a lie’ 17

society. Thus, an impression arises that in privacy (aside from the power) people could create a certain artificial paradise of freedom. Cˇ INÁTL 2010: 171 From the moral, economic, political and cultural perspective, this is the most interesting period of destruction in the name of socialism. General disillusionment and ubiquitous apathy reigned in society. This is how Eva Kantu˚rková, one of the prohibited authors of the period, describes it in her letter to Jirˇí Pelikán, a television director in the 1960s who emigrated from the country after the occupation: With few exceptions, the level of the emptiness of thought among citizens reached such an extent as never. Not that they do not think anything: they listen to the radio, the whole of Western Bohemia watches Bavarian television, they are informed. They know everything – but nothing inspires them. No longing or ideal. They are ransacked. Disgusted by ideologies, which, one by one, had failed them. And there is no way out of this.6 Paradoxically, this omnipresent apathy was exactly what the regime needed. As stated above, it focused on the fake raising of living standards supplemented by an exact dosage of educational and entertaining stories (not just) on television. This is how the majority became silent. Šimecˇka writes that ‘[if] a government of any kind of elite secures enough space for the silent majority to develop the histories of their own personal lives while avoiding the pitfalls of great history, it does not need to fear anything’ (1984/1992: 30–31). Twenty years of normalization was a long enough time to reveal the fragility of the political structures and to expose the corrosion of the regime as well as its essence – for it was precisely in the middle of this period that dissent came to life and Havel formulated his Power of the Powerless. In the late 1970s, unofficial independent citizens’ associations began to form (such as the Charter 77, The Committee for the Defence of the Unjustly Prosecuted,7 etc.), each adding its own drop to the cup, which eventually overflowed in 1989. That is: it became evident that it was not possible to live within a lie forever. After the arrival of Gorbachev in 1985 and his plans of reforming all areas of state leadership, economy, culture and social life, known as the perestroika, Czechoslovak communists began to lose their ground. His personal visit in Prague in 1987 did not make it any easier for them as he openly declared that the Soviet Union would not interfere within the domestic 6 7

 E. Kantu˚rková’s letter to J. Pelikán from 12 December 1980. In Caccamo 2007: 137.  [Výbor na obranu nespravedliveˇ stíhaných]

18

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

affairs of the satellite states. Thus, after a series of smaller demonstrations, the one on the National Avenue (Národní trˇída) on 17 November 1989 was to spark the peaceful series of demonstrations which came to be known as the ‘Velvet Revolution’. This is how a grotesque and tragic episode of Czechoslovakia ended. Nobody suspected then that in merely three years the country would undergo another earthquake, though a cultivated one – the Czecho-Slovak divorce. Throughout the 47 years of Czechoslovak communism, the peak of ideological absurdity and self-­sovietization was perhaps best encapsulated by the erection of an enormous statue of Stalin, which was unveiled on 1 May 1955 in Prague on the top of Letná Hill. It depicted Stalin followed by two lines of people – from one side a Soviet worker, a scientist, a collective farmer, and a Red-Army soldier, from the other a Czechoslovak worker, an agriculturist, an innovator and soldier. The statue, which became known as ‘the meat queue’, was monstrous, and not only due to its massive size - it

FIGURE 1.8  The largest group sculpture of J. V. Stalin in the world, located in Prague. (© Ivan Štoll, 1955)

The silent majorities, Sovietization, and ‘life within a lie’ 19

was the largest group monument in Europe,8 and probably also in the whole world. Seventeen tons of stone were used for its construction. However, not even a full year later (in February 1956), Stalin’s so-­called personality cult was de-­mythicized and the gigantic monument became a source of controversy. Thus, as in an absurd drama, it was demolished with dynamite in November 1962. Having cost 140 million CSK to build, it took 4.5 million CSK to destroy it just seven years later. Importantly, it cost the lives of its authors as well—its sculptor Otakar Švec and his wife could not stand the political pressure and committed suicide just before their work was unveiled. It was during this period, in the early 1950s, when Stalin’s monument was being conceived, that the project of state television was being realized with similar generosity and similar importance. But let us start at the beginning.

8

 With 15.5 m (50 ft.) in height, 12 m (40 ft.) width and 22 m (72 ft.) length.

PRELUDE

Television as a concept between democracy and Nazism

CONTExTUAL BOx No. 1 Czechoslovakia – The first democratic republic 1918–1938

E

verything started at the end. The end of the Great War in 1918 re-drew the map of Europe, with some states disappearing and new ones coming into existence. Amid the debris of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Czechoslovakia was created. This process was stage-managed by the sociologist, philosopher, pedagogue and politician T. G. Masaryk. He skillfully negotiated the support of the main political players of the times (he even got the American president Woodrow Wilson on his side) for the factual recognition of the new state, which was confirmed at Versailles and later also in the Paris Peace treaty. The constitution of the new multinational state (composed primarily of Czechs, Slovaks, Germans, and Hungarians) was inspired by both the French as well as the American example. It proclaimed its government a democratic republic and installed a parliamentary system. In 1918 in Pittsburgh, Czech and Slovak compatriot organizations agreed on the form of the multinational Czecho-Slovak state, which was confirmed in October of that year by the so-called Martin Declaration on Slovak territory. A utilitarian idea of one Czechoslovak nation was introduced; however, this political union gave rise to a certain tension, caused by different ideas of parity, which would lead to the state’s eventual break-up 74 years later. This ‘first’ Czechoslovakia of the inter-war period lasted for 20 years and became known as the First Republic. Apart from Masaryk, who was president of the country for most of this period and became its icon, its other key figure was Masaryk’s Foreign Minister Edvard Beneš. In the cultural sphere, the republic became known thanks to Karel Cˇapek, who was repeatedly shortlisted for the Nobel Prize for literature (and popularized the word ‘robot’ invented by his brother), as well as Jaroslav Hašek’s humorous novel about Good Soldier Švejk, or books by the Germanwriting Franz Kafka. Artistic avant-garde flourished in photography (Josef Sudek, Jaroslav Rössler, Jan Lukas, František Drtikol), film (Alexander Hackenschmied, known later in the USA as Sasha Hammid, husband of Maya Deren and representative of the third wave of the American underground) or in theater (Jan Werich and Jirˇí Voskovec; the latter emigrated to the USA in 1948 as George Voskovec). The Czech musical world did not stop enchanting connoisseurs of classical music (Leoš Janácˇek, Bohuslav Martinu˚, Josef Suk) and Czech visual art was experiencing one of its highlights (Toyen, Jan Zrzavý, Jindrˇich Št ýrský, Josef Cˇapek, Josef Šíma, František Kupka). The chemist Jaroslav Heyrovský invented the polarograph, for which he was later awarded the Nobel Prize. The business world learned

of the shoe-making company Bata (Bat’a), owned by Tomáš Bat’a and his family in Zlín. Škoda factories, known as the European Ford, were some of the largest European armories. In the mid-1930s, on Barrandov Hill above Prague, the most state-of-the-art film studios in Europe were opened, owned by film producer and businessman Miloš Havel, uncle of the future playwright and president Václav Havel. (In a different sphere, the CzechAmerican Antonín Cˇermák became mayor of Chicago). It is a common stereotype among Czechs to consider this era an idyllic, culturally and technologically developed period. However, the republic faced not only an economic crisis, but also a growing discontent of the national minorities, namely the Sudetenland Germans, who were even elected to Parliament in the democratic election of 1935, serving as the so-called fifth column of the rising Nazism in neighbouring Germany.

2 Radio context: Among the first in Europe In the field of radiophony, Czechoslovakia occupied a prominent place in Europe. Regular radio broadcasting was launched in the country only six months after the first regular radio station in the world was founded, the BBC (14 October 1922). This guaranteed a position of honour for the little country in the middle of Europe in further negotiations on an international level concerning the division of frequencies in Europe. When the first radio conference took place in London on 18 June 1925, Czechoslovak representatives were present at the founding of the still existing and working International Radio Organization (Union Internationale de Radiodiffusion) based in Geneva and were even offered its board membership. The inter-­war period was a paradise for electro-­technical works. The dynamically developing radio industry needed crystals, amplifiers, microphones, transmitters, receivers and later electronics. The fashion of the gramophone industry reached its peak around 1929 with immense investments into the mass production of this new medium. A costly apparatus was also required by the arrival of sound film, which meant new equipment not only for the studios but also for cinemas all around the country. In the area of communication, Morse’s telegraph was most common, though gradually replaced by Hughes’s system as well as air-­post and carrier air-­tube. This series of inventions in the 1930s was enriched by the teleprinter. Telephone use was successfully expanding with the state administration strongly supporting the building of city and intercity networks. A large international telephone central office was built on Fibichova Street in Prague (1927); intense effort was invested into the automation of the process and bringing about the minimal involvement of the operators. The world-­known shoemaker, Jan Antonín Bat’a, even contributed to the founding of the Association for the Development of the Telephone in CSR 1 in 1934, and began to introduce telephone connections throughout the 1

 [Svaz pro rozvoj telefonu v CˇSR]

26

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

whole region of Zlín, making it the first compact telephone unit in the republic. From 1936 onwards, photo-­telephones were introduced, enabling not only audio, but also a video connection between the speakers – an anticipation of television and video-­telephones and chats. Czechoslovakia represented an area where the interests of transnational concerns owning mostly German and American patents clashed. Electronic components were produced by a range of local as well as foreign companies such as Telektra, Ericsson, Eta, Radiozenit, Philips, Radiovox, Microphona, and Elektrotechna, or Telegrafia, the supplier of radio appliances founded in 1919 as a parastatal company. It is the latter company I would like to draw attention to, as it went on to play an equally important role in the development of television. The discovery of electromagnetic waves transmission became a matter of interest of the state administration as well. Its use was first sought for in the army: the first transmitter was built on the Prague hill of Petrˇín by soldiers, and with the help of the carbon microphone, turned into the first wireless transmission to the radio-­technical laboratory of the Institute of Physics in the opposite area of Karlov (1919). In the next year (5 October 1920), radiotelegraphy was taken out of the military and became part of the Ministry of Post and Telegraphs2 (further MPT). There, the new department for the Study of New Discoveries in Radiophony3 was founded in 1920, and in the following year the construction of the first transmitting station was begun. As is the habit today, special-­purpose connections between the state administration and electro-­concerns were established at that time as well. The most vocal example was that of Radioslavia, a shareholding company for radiotelegraphy and wireless telephony. It was founded in November 1920 by the parastatal company Telegrafia, Czechoslovak factory for Telegraphs and Telephones, Ltd.4 in Prague, together with Krˇižík’s Czech and Moravian Electro-­technical Works, Ltd.5 in Prague-Karlín and the Parisian Compagnie générale de telegraphie sans fils. Soon, it came to hold a near monopoly position among suppliers of radio transmitters. A member of its board, Josef Strnad, will soon turn out to play his part in our story. He was one of the few at that time who anticipated the strength of radio, and later, television. As the only person in the republic to do so, he graduated in radio technology from the École superieure d’Electricité in Paris (as early as 1921, hence his relationship with the French market). Although he was a shareholder in a private company, he was also a superior building councillor at MPT; thus, between the two, he largely held the reins of radio broadcasting implementation in Czechoslovakia. In  [Ministerstvo pošt a telegrafu˚]  [Oddeˇlení pro studium nových objevu˚ v radiofonii] 4  [Cˇeskoslovenská továrna na telegrafy a telefony] 5  [Cˇeskomoravské elektrotechnické závody Fr. Krˇižíka] 2 3

Radio context: Among the first in Europe

27

September 1922, as a ministerial officer, he travelled around Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, and France with his colleague Otto Kucˇera. He examined the state of development in the field of radiophony and saw that, unlike on the continent, the British Isles were about to witness the launch of radio broadcasting in two months’ time. We can suppose that they established a range of business contacts there. After their return, Radioslavia asked the MPT to issue a licence for transmitting telegraphic as well as radio-­ telephonic news, which it was (surprisingly) granted on an off-­the-record basis on 27 December 1922. In the ministerial building in Smíchov, the company also organized one of the first public shows in the country (29 March 1923): a concert for members of the government, representatives of various institutions, and diplomats. The equipment of the production was, naturally, provided by the Radioslavia company, with Strnad giving the main speech. Only a few days before (23 March 1923) a Telegraph Law was passed (No. 60/1923) claiming that ‘It is the exclusive right of the state to constitute, maintain, and provide telegraphs in the area of the Czechoslovak Republic’ (Cˇ ábelová 2003: 34). We have to realize that none of the legislators expected that radio was going to become a mass medium. It was included among the means of individual electro-­technical communication between different subjects, as was the telephone or telegraph. That is why the concessionaire principle applied to providing broadcasting as well as to the possession of a radio receiver. Supported by this legislative adjustment, Strnad was certain that he could control everything. A turning point for Strnad came in December 1922, when he was approached, as a ministerial officer, by the editor of the daily newspaper Národní politika Miloš Cˇtrnáctý, a film businessman, and Eduard Svoboda, who wanted to found a radio company and launch its broadcasting. Svoboda was familiar with the situation in the world as he had visited the USA in 1922, where he did an internship in the broadcasting station of the American Telegraph & Telephone Corp. The gentlemen came to negotiate the rent (lending) of the transmitter from the airport in Kbely in Prague. Thus, Strnad gained time and probably realized that he could cooperate with the pioneers of radio broadcasting. If he agreed with them, his clash of interests caused by his engagement in Radioslavia and MPT would not be so obvious. That is why, in the spring of 1923, he gave his consent and the radio broadcast could be launched on the memorable date of 18 May 1923 at 8:15 p.m. from the ‘scout’ tent in Kbely. Soon afterwards (on 7 June), Radiojournal – the Czechoslovak Society for Radiophonic Reporting6 – was founded, with Cˇtrnáctý and Svoboda among its shareholders, as well as the Radioslavia company. This is how the state got into the immediate influence

6

 [Radiojournal – Cˇeskoslovenská spolecˇnost pro zpravodajství radiofonické]

28

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

of Czechoslovak radio from the very beginning. This union was formally confirmed in 1925, when the Ministry bought 51 per cent of Radiojournal shares.7 The dice were loaded from the very beginning – the Ministry awarded the licence for broadcasting and Radiojournal had to apply for its extension every three years. Although it is not my intention to go into much detail of Czechoslovak radio history, I found it important to mention these circumstances as they involve the clash forming the relations and bonds similar to those which took place during the launch of television. There can be no doubt that the whole area of radiophony was also a political matter. On 9 December 1937, fourteen years after radio broadcasting was launched, the millionth radio subscriber was celebrated, as part of a publicity campaign by the MPT called, ‘A Million Subscribers of Czechoslovak Radio’8. The millionth subscriber was a Bohosudov Electric Works collector called Julius Richter, a Sudeten German who ended up outside the Czechoslovak area after the Sudetenland was occupied by Hitler’s Reich. Nevertheless, a million subscribers were a great success for such a small country. It can be stated without any exaggeration that ‘the Czechoslovak nation’ had become a ‘radio nation’. Above all it was the activities of the radio amateurs that helped the public to accept the new medium. They were able to assemble primitive radio receivers (bypassing the need of a licence) as well as transmitters (bypassing the law of the state’s monopoly). Radio amateurs broadcast coded messages – the famous one being OK1AB, operated by Pravoslav Motycˇka. His radio amateur broadcast (8 November 1924) is the very first one known to the public. It was realized from the technician’s booth of the cinema in the Lucerna Palace. He was able to communicate with Rotterdam in the Netherlands on a short wavelength (30 November 1924) and with Massachusetts, USA (11 June 1925). Motycˇka became the secretary of the Czechoslovak Radio club and generally a well-­known figure. Jaroslav Šafránek considered the amateurs’ passion as one of the main features of the whole movement: ‘They burn with the desire to learn something about the radio’. (Šafránek 1937–38: 72) Over the course of the 1920s, Czechoslovak radio clubs were founded in larger towns (the first one on 9 April 1924), organizing all enthusiasts and namely educating: they organized meetings of radio amateurs in the immediate neighbourhood, courses for professionals as well as the general public, provided those interested with the technical background as each radio club had its own workshops as well as magazines. It was also the duty of the CS Radio Union9 to organize nation-­wide shareholder meetings of the  Let us add here that the process of nationalization had not been completed until 1938, or 1948. 8  [‘Milion koncesionárˇu˚ cˇsl. rozhlasu’] 9  [Cˇs. radiosvaz] 7

Radio context: Among the first in Europe

29

FIGURE 2.1  The cover of the weekly radio programme of Radiojournal. (Source: AMŠ, 1937).

radio clubs’ representatives. Radio amateur conventions were the biggest event of the year in this respect, and were attended by the press, but also representatives of town councils and members of parliament. Radio amateurs10 were able to form a tight-­knit pressure group. Their common goal was to push the state administration to form a legislative framework and permit short-­wave broadcasting. The radio broadcast on  During the Nazi occupation the activities of these clubs were prohibited, a number of radio amateurs were tortured to death – e.g. Dr. Baštýrˇ, the chairman of the CS Radio Union – or executed, which was the case of the editor and popularizer Mr. Práger, and probably the best-­ known Czechoslovak radio amateur and globetrotter Otakar Batlicˇka, who, according to an official report, was shot during an escape attempt from the Mauthausen concentration camp. After the end of the war, the surviving colleagues agreed that the radio codes of the victims of Nazism would not be staffed with new participants, which would symbolically, as an act of piety, allow these to ‘broadcast’ up to this day.

10

30

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

long and middle waves, as in the 1920s short waves (FM – frequency modulation), were considered unfit for longer distances, thus suitable for radio amateurs. Soon afterwards, in the 1930s, it turned out that the FM frequency was far more practical and for some (e.g. military) purposes almost ideal. This is why the state insisted on controlling their distribution. The transition to short waves was a matter of discussion across Europe in the first half of the decade and caused extensive complications for the development of television. Similar topics were also discussed at the Sorbonne in Paris, where the first Amateur Radio Congress took place on 14 April 1925 and where the International Amateur Radio Union – which still exists to this day – was located. Czechoslovak delegates, naturally, took part in the congress along with 25 other founding members such as the USA and the Soviet Union. Despite all this, radio amateurs in Czechoslovakia felt misunderstood in their efforts, having been neglected, for example, during the celebrations of the millionth subscriber. ‘They were the first apostles who, not minding the strain or money, spread knowledge of the radio. Much was written about the first listeners [. . .], but nobody remembered the radio amateurs’ (Šafránek 1937–38: 72), complained Jaroslav Šafránek, the vice-­president of

FIGURE 2.2  Radioamateurs in a workshop in Pilsen. Jaroslav Šafránek is in the background. (Source: AMŠ, 1934).

Radio context: Among the first in Europe

31

FIGURE 2.3  The title page of a journal for Radio Amateus (Source: AMŠ, 1934).

Radio Union and active advocate of radio. In his two-­part article called ‘A Million Radio Subscribers and What Comes Next?’11 (1937) he posed the question as to when the second million would be accomplished. He set a new, visionary goal: And here we stand in front of another important task to accomplish, that is, the building of television. The last listeners of the second million will not only speak to the radio, they will surely be televised as well. ŠAFRÁNEK 1937–38: 108

 [‘Milion koncesionárˇu˚ rozhlasu a co dále?’]

11

3 Pioneers of television

Television was already known to 1920s Czechoslovakia. Information about television, although only in the form of scattered news from around the world, penetrated the daily, as well as the professional press, not to mention the enthusiasm of radio amateurs for any new developments in their field. Information about the miracle of ‘seeing at a distance’ was spread by Radiojournal (in remarkable visionary lectures by Eduard Svoboda), Zemeˇdeˇlský rozhlas1 and agrarian press (Jaroslav Šafránek, Marie Nesnídalová), the MPT printed material for its employees all around the country (Josef Strnad, Josef Brˇíza, Alois Singer) as well as radio amateurs among themselves (Alois Burda, Pravoslav Motycˇka, František Švadlena) by means of the CS Radio Union and the central magazine Radioamatér. In the middle of 1934, a section called Televise was founded in this magazine ‘for the popularization of radiophony’2, and published the insights of the London based B. Kryl. Readers were given thorough accounts of Baird’s live broadcast from Derby, Baird’s new 180-line television system, a vision of the construction and the future of television appliances or the discovery of the iconoscope and the new path of television. Some were lucky enough to have seen the television device with their own eyes (like Šafránek or Strnad) when at the end of the 1920s they privately, or officially (Strnad as a ministerial officer) went on study tours to the factories (Phillips, Telefunken) or at least some of the fairs in Berlin, London, or Paris. Fairs were the main means by which the wider public were able to become acquainted with the novelties of the industry. In Czechoslovakia, it was the Prague Sample Fair3 at the Výstavišteˇ Exhibition Grounds which took place between 2–10 September in 1934. It was there, in the stall of Radiotechna, where Telefunken displayed a functioning TV apparatus and the Czechoslovak public could see this miracle with their own eyes.

 [‘Agriculture Radio’]  [cˇasopis pro popularisování radiofonie] 3  [‘Pražský vzorkový veletrh’] 1 2

34

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Although the newspaper Lidové noviny placed two photographs of the apparatus on its cover in the afternoon issue on 3 September 1934, we should not mistakenly think of the event as of nation-­wide importance or as a sensation. Television was merely a technical curiosity on the flourishing radio market to which nobody ascribed much importance. That year, the fair exhibited products of 52 companies working in the radio and weak-­current industry, out of which 36 were local and 16 foreign, which by no means exceeded the record of 1926 (77 companies). On the other hand, it reflected the consolidation of the radio market – all of these were companies which had survived the fall in sales caused by the world economic crisis. It was in their interest to increase the number of sold radio appliances. Pestrý týden magazine (15 September 1934) described television as a curiosity in a half-­page article called ‘Television, or Seeing Distant Images’4. ‘This technical miracle is still in its infancy; however, it is already so clear that it draws the attention of professionals as well as lay people. We believe that television will soon be perfected; therefore, we would like to acquaint our readership with its principle’, states the author of the comment hiding behind the initials ‘K. M.’ He expresses hope that television will spread, while at the same time pointing out the obstacles which prevent this from happening. One of these is the fact that the appliance must be adjusted to be operated by lay people as well, which is still hard to attain. Further, a system of short-­wave transmitters will have to be built and ‘the price of a complete apparatus of this kind would as of now equal the price of a fairly good car’ (KM 1934). It was a laboratory transmitter and receiver with astonishing parameters. It worked on the principle of the Nipkow disk, dividing a picture into 180 lines, which means 45,000 points and 25 pictures a second. It was able to wirelessly transmit pictures and sound from one corner of the exhibition stall to the other, where the receiver was placed, equipped with 25 lamps, a Braun tube and a 20x25 centimetre screen. It projected films which were currently running in Prague cinemas. This technology was especially appreciated by the initiates, who in their oral and written reports spoke of an immense event, seeing it as such through their magnified optics. The sole article from the Fair, more narrowly focused on the radio market in Cˇ eské slovo, informs of the ‘great admiration’ aroused by the company Radiotechna (or Telefunken) ‘by its first successful display of the attempts of a television broadcast which we have already heard so much about from abroad’ (OT 1934). Thus, the most detailed description of the apparatus was provided by

4

 [‘Televise neboli videˇní na dálku’]

PIONEERS OF TELEVISION

35

FIGURE 3.1  Telefunken television equipment which the Czechoslovak public could see at the Prague Exhibition Grounds in 1934. (Source: AMŠ, 1934).

Jaroslav Slezák in Radioamatér where he, among other things, praised the pictures for being ‘very pretty, sharp, and distinct because of being black-­ and-white’ (Slezák 1934). Not everyone shared this enthusiasm, though. An unsigned manuscript of a charming article entitled The First Television Exhibition appeared, in which the author wittily captured his authentic impressions from the Fair: ‘The visitor looks at the apparatus and has no idea, shakes his head, and, as there is nothing to see, moves to the opposite corner to observe the receiving apparatus, observes something spin and oscillate, but is not any wiser than before’. He is then appalled by the fact that the only commentary on the apparatus can be obtained from a nearby standing German ‘professor’, that is, in German. ‘When we left the Exhibition Grounds, we were very much surprised that we were in Prague, the capital city of the Czechoslovak Republic’.5 This remark is also important for our further narrative as it proves that from the very beginning, the public (mainly its professional part) was irritated by the idea that in the case of television, the MPT and other official

5  Unknown (1934), The First Television Exhibition [‘První televisní výstava’], September 11. APF CT.

36

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

places were just idly waiting for the development of the whole cause in the world instead of coming up with their own strategy. It was well known that Czechoslovakia had talented technicians who could contribute to the development of Czechoslovak television technology and that it was not necessary to wait for the whole market to be ruled by foreign patents, which Czechoslovaks would eventually have to buy. This was the common view among people who were involved in the medium and could foretell its great future. The inter-­war period was pregnant with television. We must not limit our perception of this to the development of electro-­industry and technology; television was also present in the intellectual space of the era. It raised hopes, thus fitting among other avant-­garde experiments of the time. Intellectuals waged a war not only against the entertainment industry, but mainly within individual artistic disciplines, while looking for different ways to extend and interconnect their means of expression. Platforms of leftist art organizations (Deveˇtsil, Levá fronta), activities in Prague’s Aventinum or on the Brno scene aimed at more distinct developments in the possibilities of form and content; inspired, naturally, by the French, German, and Soviet avant-­garde – in the field of literature, theater, film, as well as music. It is inspiring to read the essays written by the spokesperson of the Czech avant-­garde, Karel Teige, about ‘optophonetics’, which was a theoretical idea of a wholly new medium offering a brand new communication and artistic quality: ‘the new functionality of the picture (light) and music (tone)’. In his study called Film II. Optophonetics6 from 18 July 1924, he draws one’s attention to the invention of the so-­called distant seeing which enables ‘[the] wireless transmission of the image of a person speaking to a radiotelephone transmitter’. He immediately reckons that: these scientific inventions open far-­reaching perspectives of the modern creative imagination. Film events will be screened right into our homes thanks to wireless transmission, although they took place on the other side of the world!? And the idea of converting sound into light and vice versa being the basis of the sound film, which still is, from the aesthetic point of view, a naturalist weakling, can be predicted to become the poem of the new art of optophonetics. TEIGE 1925: 102–10 So much for the visions of the prominent Czech aesthetician, art theoretician, and later practicing surrealist. From the cited passage, it is notable that from the very beginning, television was viewed as a certain chimera of new, almost

6

 [‘Film II. Optofonetika’]

PIONEERS OF TELEVISION

37

magical, dimensions; on the other hand, this naïve optimism can be justified in relation to the revolutionary discoveries made by European avant-­garde movements. It is of no surprise, then, that two students of technology and architecture in Brno, František Pilát and Otakar Vávra,7 after having made their experimental abstract film The Light Penetrates the Dark8 in 1930, also turned their attention to television. At the end of the preceding year, Pilát succeeded in constructing what was probably the first amateur TV receiver in the country. It was, naturally, based on the mechanical principle – with the Nipkow disk – that Pilát was manually spinning. We can read about this in Vávra’s memories as well: ‘In a small, probably 45 millimetre window, I saw a trial broadcast from London: some singer, mute, as he couldn’t receive a voice yet at that time’. (Vávra 1996: 31). Pilát published the description of the apparatus along with sketches and diagrams in Radioamatér, thus inspiring several other enthusiasts. Pilát seized a unique opportunity in order to get to television. As a student of light current electrical engineering he went on a work placement at Baird Television Ltd. in London in 1929. Thus, he is sure to have had the opportunity to meet with the owner of the company himself. He also claims to have met the German television pioneer Manfred Ardenn. After his arrival in October 1929, Pilát picked up Baird’s experimental live broadcast in London from his Brno station. An article has been preserved coming from the only specialized English magazine of that time, Television (1930), where Pilát had sent a photograph of his apparatus. The article claims that ‘Czechoslovakia has stolen a march on us’ and that Pilát managed to receive a good quality broadcast from London in Brno, and that in turn ‘he gave a broadcast talk from 19:55 to 20:10’9 continental time. This may have been the very first Czech contribution to the European television events. Pilát gave television a truly European dimension in the services of the Bat’a company. In 1936, the shoe manufacturing giant admitted him to its film studios as an experienced and well-­travelled professional and immediately sent him on a study tour (6 May) to the USA. ‘As part of his tour of America, Mr Pilát from the Film Department will inspect television radio apparatuses and arrange that after his arrival such demonstration

 In the coming decades, Otakar Vávra became the most important Czech director of films with historical topics, making films in all of the political regimes. He co-­founded the Film Academy (FAMU) and was a teacher of young filmmakers of the Czechoslovak New Wave – Veˇra Chytilová, Jirˇí Menzel etc. 8  [‘Sveˇtlo proniká tmou’] 9  ‘How Television is being Received. Reports from Czechoslovakia, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow and Sunderland’, in: Television for May, 1930, APF CT. 7

38

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

television apparatus will be installed in the office of the Chief’. This was an order from the file Orders of J. A. Bat’a.10 On this journey, Pilát entered a discussion with Zworykin and Sarnoff, being the only Czech who has ever met the two at the same time. Consequently, this helped confirm his idea that mechanical television was a dead end, which inspired him to carry out a kind of assessment of the development of all-­electronic television systems after his return home, in which he joyfully states: ‘The outcome was surprisingly good and the quality of the picture on 345 lines was excellent!’11 As the next step, Pilát was supposed to arrange the purchase of a television apparatus from the UK and demonstrate it to the top management of Bat’a’s company on 14 August 1936. One year later, Bat’a issued an order to build a television transmitter in Zlín12. All these events have been mapped by the contemporary historian and theoretician of audio-­visual media, Petr Szczepanik. In a balanced manner, he puts different media, even in the widest sense of the word (road network, air travel, electrification, telephonization, technological procedures in postal services, film studios, the support of radio development, the implementation of television, etc.) in the context of Bat’a’s aptitude for complex and contextual thinking. However, he comments on the plans for television as being ‘only a thought-­filled concept in Zlín’13 and it is almost certain that neither the planned realizations, nor the purchase of a television system ever took place, as there are no further reports or documents to confirm this. Enthusiasts and initiators were united in radio clubs and the CS Radio Union, with all of them supporting each other. The Brˇevnov radio club in Prague displayed similar activity under the leadership of Gustav Mahler and František Burda. While Mahler was mostly focused on promotion, lecturing, and publishing activities, Burda was endowed with an exceptional talent in finding technical solutions for almost anything – this made them an outstanding, complementary team. According to the contemporary press and Mahler’s memories, they managed in 1934 to assemble a transmitting and receiving apparatus which they tested between midnight and 00:30 in a basement. It took them several days to tune and synchronize the apparatus and determine the rev speed (Nipkow disk), which they attached with a

10  Orders of J. A. Bat’a, D. Cˇ ipera, J. Hlavnicˇka [‘Prˇíkazy J. A. Bati, D. Cˇipery, J. Hlavnicˇky’], in Szczepanik 2009: 448–449. 11  Klos, E. – Pinkavová, H.: History of Gottwaldov Film Studios in Memories of Contemporary Witnesses and in Documents [‘Historie gottwaldovského studia v pohledu pameˇtníku˚, ocˇima soucˇasníku˚ a v dokumentech’], in Szczepanik 2009: 449. 12  The town of Zlín was during the Communist Era renamed in order to celebrate the CzCP chief Klement Gottwald: Gottwaldov (1949–1990). 13  Letter of P. Szczepanik to M. Štoll, 14 October 2011, personal archives.

PIONEERS OF TELEVISION

39

FIGURE 3.2  One of many amateur-­built components of the Nipkow disc television set. (Source: AMŠ, 1934).

hand-­held drill. ‘It cost us several sleepless nights to get a handle on the 750 revs’, describes Mahler. Eventually, they succeeded. The year 1934 saw the first issue of ‘the only television magazine in Czechoslovakia; a magazine for electric music, sound film, radio, and gramophone’, called Television14. Its chief editor and publisher was Leopold Lehman, that is, not the CS Radio Union or any other official body or institution. The editorial board even set up an independent Technical Committee for Television15. On the cover of the third issue (25 April 1934) is a photograph of its members sitting around a table in a salon of the former Steiner Hotel near the iconic Powder Tower in Prague. Among them, we see representatives of the Physical Institute, the Ministry of Post and Telegraphs, and Radiojournal, as well as the co-­owner of the radio company Bratrˇi Novákové, a German technician living in Prague, and of course the editorial office members. The committee’s activity did not last long and neither did the ambitious, bilingual magazine which was to be issued fortnightly, on the tenth and twenty-­fifth of each month. Only three issues were ever produced. Šafránek aptly noted that this company ‘wasn’t received with enthusiasm. Its  [‘Televise’], No. 3., 25 April 1934. APF CT, PKK.  [Technická komise pro televisi]

14 15

40

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Czech and German background failed to ensure favour on either side and the company ceased to exist without leaving behind anything worth remembering’ (Šafránek 1936: 156). However, the above-­mentioned photograph managed to preserve a picture of the as yet unnamed member of the committee, a German scientist and professor of the municipal vocational school of technology in Podmokly (now a part of Deˇcˇín), Matthias Färber. We can learn about his activities mostly from the preserved records of the State Police Office in Deˇcˇín from 1936, as he was suspected of anti-­state activities.16 On 29 April 1925, Färber received a licence to operate a radio station. He was the twenty-­ninth person to ever receive such a licence.17 From the early 1930s, he was also involved in television and even designed (1934) a network of four main transmitters (as part of the so-called telefication of Czechoslovakia), which required research of the short-­wave emission in the mountainous terrain of the borderland. In one experiment, he succeeded in transmitting ultra-­short television waves from the top of Witzleben to Deˇcˇínský Sneˇžník, 200 kilometers away. This event was reported by Sudetendeutsche Tageszeitung on 24 August 1936, which praised the fact that the broadcast could also be received in Berlin. Färber continued to visit Germany, mainly to buy the components necessary to assemble apparatuses which he later tested in the Telefunken company. The alert employees of the Customs Office sought to confirm that he really was travelling for the proclaimed purpose. The police feared that his travels and ‘his knowledge in the line of radio could be used to the detriment of our state’. They considered the extent of his licence to see whether ‘it excluded broadcasting activity’ and tried to limit it in every possible way. Apart from the radio, he also owned a homemade television and was ordered to ‘report all attempts to receive television or ultra-­short waves outside the licenced station in the home of the licencee or the building of the municipal vocational school of technology in Podmokly at least 48 hours in advance in writing or telephonically to the telegraph construction office in Ústí nad Labem’.18 The traces of the man get lost soon during the Second World War. Just before the War he put forward a proposal to set up and use a short-­wave television of his own construction and even a plan for a transmission tower system of Czechoslovakia. Although it was supported by the Podmokly mayor (Fritz Kessler, a member of NSDAP), the request was rejected. ‘After 1945, he was not reinstated as a technical expert and died in Deˇcˇín in 1958’ (Šmíd 2012). Television in Czechoslovakia also registered several original patents. Two of them, The Device for Receiving and Transmitting Television (no. 59291, sometimes also 1046/36) and The Device for Spot-Transmission or

 Letter of State Police Force Authority in Deˇcˇín from 2 January 1936, APF CT, PKK, f. 1.  Letter of State Police Force Authority in Deˇcˇín from 20 September 1936, APF CT, PKK, f. 1. 18  Letter of State Police Force Authority in Deˇcˇín from 19 December 1936, APF CT, PKK, f. 1. 16 17

PIONEERS OF TELEVISION

41

FIGURE 3.3  The first issue of the Czech-German Television Magazine from 1934, which soon ceased to exist. (Source: AMŠ, 1934).

Electronic Reproduction (no. 59292, sometimes also 1045/36)19 offered an original improvement of global importance. The first patent ensured that each wave bringing the picture point also carried information about its exact location on the screen cover. The resolution could thus be perfected up to 400 lines (!) while the wave could contain both the picture and the sound (!). The latter suggested using not the intensity of the electronic impulses, as was common practice, but their length; it even brought up a scheme of a special electron dot-­lamp which would enable this. If the world’s professional public had paid more attention to those patents, especially the first one, the development of television would have made a giant leap to the technological level equal to that of the 1950s. However innovative, these patents were registered by a farmer, František Holecˇek, whose contribution was not taken seriously in professional circles.  [‘Zarˇízení pro vysílání a prˇíjem televise’] and [‘Zarˇízení pro bodový prˇenos nebo reprodukci elektrickou cestou’]

19

42

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

A farmer from Vracovice in the Vlašim area, he had only elementary school education, but was nonetheless endowed with a natural technical talent and his abilities managed to dazzle professionals. Šafránek recalls: That peasant devotes all his free time to the study of electricity and has a gift of very special designer skills. In the glimpse of a moment he manages to design any kind of electric device while using state-­of-the-­art knowledge from the field of electricity, radio and television being his eminent hobbies. STRASMAJER 1978: 22 The Czechoslovak patent office viewed his designs with a certain contempt, which is why Holecˇek first had his innovations patented in Paris. When he got the confirmation from France, he went on to register them with the Czechoslovak Patent Office, which took a long time to examine his proposals. In the meantime, Holecˇek discovered a way to heighten the sensitivity of the photocells approximately a thousand times, which, as a result, would not require ‘the studio to be heated with an array of reflectors, thus preventing the stay there from being unbearable’. The farmer also managed to create a receiving television lamp, ‘which does not suffer from any of the Zworykin iconoscope flaws and at the same time makes it possible to heighten the number of lines up to 500’ – this is at least a claim found in

FIGURE 3.4  František Holecˇek, peasant and amateur technician, author of two patents. (Source: AMŠ, 1934).

PIONEERS OF TELEVISION

43

the Radio Laboratory20 magazine in an article called The Czechoslovak Invention Which Will Revolutionize Television.21 The farmer built a small wind generator behind his house and it is not known until today how he managed to construe a rotor from a galvanized plate and a large blade. It is of no surprise then that in the mid-1930s he used electricity to light his house, although the village was not yet electrified at that time. Šafránek tried in vain to talk him into selling his farm and moving to a laboratory at the Physical Institute. His friendship with this remarkable man strengthened during the war years when all universities were closed and Šafránek needed to hide his own television apparatus from the Nazis. He kept part of it in Telegrafia-Pardubice and hid the rest in Holecˇek’s barn in Vracovice. ‘This was where Šafránek found a safe hiding place for his television device. It remained intact through the war and after its end Šafránek brought most of it back to Prague’, Holecˇek’s son Vladimír, told press forty years later (Krˇecˇan 1978: 14–19). Let us add here that when the communists confiscated and nationalized his property, the eccentric inventor struggled to adapt and was hospitalized with a serious cardiac condition. In September 1957, he visited the Podeˇbrady spa for treatment, but died of a lethal heart attack soon after his arrival.

Jaroslav Šafránek – the Czech Baird Fortunately, Jaroslav Šafránek’s television apparatuses did not get lost in the later years either. All the devices, including a voluminous documentation, and personal archives are kept in the depository of the National Technical Museum, where they were handed over by Marie Nesnídalová-Šafránková after her husband’s death in 1962. Thus, this precious archives were preserved, which makes it possible to reconstruct the life story of probably the most interesting personality involved in television in the inter-­war years. At the beginning of 1935, a television circle was founded at the Prague radio club, whose members were Josef Kapoun, Jirˇí Lederer, Václav Šafránek and his brother Jaroslav Šafránek. At the initial meeting, the gentlemen agreed to construct their own transmitting and receiving apparatus which would be used exclusively to demonstrate the principle of television and to popularize it outside of the confines of the CS Radio Union. They knew the Nipkow disk, Weiler wheel, and Kerr cell, the foundation stones of television, would have to be imported from abroad. The sum needed was provided by Rudolf Habersberger, ‘the supporter of technical progress’, while the rest was arranged by Adolf Ernest, the chairman of the CS Radio Union.

 [Radiolaboratorˇ]  [‘Cˇ eskoslovenský vynález, který zpu˚sobí prˇevrat v televisi’] without a date, AFP CT

20 21

44

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

For these gentlemen, it wasn’t a mere hobby. When they saw that the government had so far been hostile to television, they decided to act themselves. They maintained that television could be advanced if a proper technical cadre was educated; and such future experts could be recruited from the ranks of radio amateurs. However, in order to get acquainted with television, it was necessary to construct the transmitting and receiving apparatus and arrange for a short-wave broadcast. Šafránek, the spiritus agens, sheltered all the construction work expertly and practically, as he sponsored the activity with his own money. Nevertheless, he too ran out of money in October 1935. Therefore, he turned to the president of the Central Union of Agrarian Cooperatives22, Ferdinand Klindera, with a request (14 October 1935) for 6000 CSK, ‘as my humble private means cannot provide for further expenses and I consider it a sin to neglect the idea of television’. He goes on to suggest that ‘the checks of how the money would be used could be carried out by Agrarian Radio, which would then be in possession of the apparatus’.23 I should now go on to answer the question of why Šafránek decided to turn to the prominent Czech agrarian and explain the role of Agrarian Radio. One of the dominant formations of the political map of the First Republic, the Agrarian Party (or the Republican Party of Farmers and Peasants24), was intensely interested in promoting television. The support of radio broadcasting had been fruitful since it enabled the party to communicate directly with its voters, that is, the agrarians and peasants. The idea to found a radio board aimed at these target listeners came from Dr. Ernest as early as 1925 with its first programme broadcast on 3 January 1926. And, Ferdinand Klindera was one of the most powerful men of the whole agrarian movement. The aim of this diversion is to explain why the first presentation of Šafránek’s mechanical-­optical television apparatus, which he managed to complete with Klindera’s financial help on 5 December 1935, took place in the House of Agrarian Education25 in Vinohrady in Prague. In response to his request for money Klindera wrote: I think that the first presentation of the television devices acquired by our own means could take place in the form of a lecture organized by Agrarian Radio in the House of Agrarian Education, with the chairman Mr. Beran, and other key government officials and Republican Party representatives as guests.26  [Ústrˇední jednota hospodárˇských družstev]  Letter of J. Šafránek to F. Klindera, 14 October 1935, NAP, fu. 563, box 5, f. 8. 24  [Republikánská strana zemeˇdeˇlského a malorolnického lidu] 25  [Du˚m zemeˇdeˇlské osveˇty] 26  Letter of F. Klindera to J. Šafránek, October 18, 1935, NAP, fu. 563, box 5, f. 8. 22 23

PIONEERS OF TELEVISION

45

FIGURE 3.5  Jaroslav Šafránek, a physicist at Charles University, who devoted his life to the popularization of radio and television. In 1935 he constructed the first original Czechoslovak television equipment. (Source: AUK, 1935).

In other words: you have a unique opportunity to involve the highest agrarian representatives and win them over to fight for your cause. Thus, the day when Czechoslovak television was born was 5 December 1935. The very moment when the future television nation could watch it was Wednesday 10 December 1935. It was the thirty-­line form of television with 12.5 Hz frame frequency and a 10x15cm focusing screen. Šafránek presented it as an amateur creation and stated that television deserved the support of official institutions, mainly the MPT. His article in Vecˇerní Cˇeské slovo entitled The Magic of Distant Image Transmission27 from 12 December 1935 gave an account of the lecture. Šafránek went as far as to calculate that the construction of an amateur TV set cost a mere 400 CSK. Another lecture took place six days after the first lecture, possibly for the members of the CS Radio Union, given the information I gathered from an invitation found in the Czech Television Archives: ‘a lecture and presentation of the  [‘Kouzlo v prˇenášení obrázku˚’]

27

46

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

television apparatus introduced by the leading figures of our movement’.28 Equipped with these appliances, Šafránek set off on his nation-­wide advertising campaign across Czechoslovakia. In his Praga cabriolet he travelled the length and the breadth of the republic, driving for fifteen thousand kilometers, which, considering the low density and quality of the road network and the low velocity of the car, was an impressive performance. (Heroic was his drive to Sub-Carpathia when he managed to travel from Uzhgorod to Prague within one day, in a mere twenty hours!) His demonstrations of television were stormily applauded whenever he managed to transfer an image to the screen. The lectures were so popular that he was forced to add extra performances; in Bratislava the gendarmes even had to prevent floods of fans from entering the shows. We know from correspondence that there were 500 teachers, some of whom had travelled as far as 90km to the Mukachevo gymnasium where television was being presented. We do not have exact figures on how many people attended Šafránek’s lectures altogether, as it was not a tour but rather a series of lectures for audiences of different sizes which continued until 1938. One of the records claims that his television was seen by twenty thousand people in forty-­three different cities. Immediately after the first public demonstration of the TV apparatus, Šafránek published a book with the laconic title Television (1936)29 which was funded by the Radioobchod30 company. It is of no surprise that its introduction thanks ‘the honourable patron of Czechoslovak television, Ferdinand Klindera’ (Šafránek 1936). In the context of Czechoslovak academic literature, it represents the first original publication dealing with this topic written in the Czech language. Šafránek based his text on experimental experience. An article entitled The First Czech Book on Television31 published in Venkov magazine (15 December 1936) sung the book’s praises: ‘There is one quality which makes this book especially rare. It is not a compilation of other people’s work. Everything it contains was studied in practice by the author himself and his co-­workers’ (Kveˇch 1936). In his book, Šafránek describes the construction of his mechanical and optical system and offers an erudite description of the contemporary situation in technology and its key shift towards electronic television. He had just returned from his study tour to Paris, London, and Berlin, where he realized that the era of the Nipkow disk was over.

28  Seeing into the Distance – television. [’Videˇní do dálky – televise’.] Lecture Invitation, 7 December 1935, AFP CT, file PKK. 29  The first book in neighboring Poland was New Methods of Television [‘Nowe metody telewizji’] by Stefan Manczarski from 1929. (Michalski 2012: 8). 30  [Radiotrade] 31  [‘První cˇeská kniha o televisi’]

PIONEERS OF TELEVISION

47

Not only was Šafránek’s interest in television a natural follow-­up to his passion for radio, but it was also a professional challenge. He had already focused on the physical qualities of selenium, i.e. the basic element needed to convert light into electricity, in his dissertation which concluded his studies of mathematics and physics at the Faculty of Arts at Charles University in 1914. Although he was also inclined towards medical physics, of which he became a professor towards the end of his life, during the First Republic he devoted his time to electricity and magnetism as an experimental physicist. He constructed devices for the transmission of information (e.g. Smeˇrojev, a distant wire transmission of signal marks, 1929; an anti-­aircraft listening device, 1931; the Listening Device, 1934) for the Ministry of National Defence. In radio technology he constructed several patented prototypes (Photocell, 1931; Photoelectric device with hot cathode, 1931; Photodetector, 1931)32 and last but not least, he educated and enthused dozens of students at the Physical Institute, where he was employed his whole life, aside from the periods of the two world wars. He kept on dividing his interest among technology, experimental physics, purely theoretical physics, and physical applications in medicine, while at the same time his popularization activities regarding radio and television knew no limits. Such a broadband approach complicated his position in the scientific world, as some of his colleagues refused to consider him a ‘proper’ scientist on account of his focus on popularization. Some of them even sought to limit his career growth, thus harming Šafránek’s pedagogical work – from blocking his academic advancement or sending letters of denunciation to the Ministry of Education and National Enlightenment, to denigrating obstacles in his efforts to gain a professorial chair. After the Second World War, he co-­founded the second Medical Faculty of Charles University, located out of Prague, in his hometown of Pilsen. He became its dean (1947–1948) and, until the end of his life, Head of the Physical Institute at the Medical Faculty in Prague. We must add that to a certain extent he was the source of his own difficulties due to his strict behaviour, and mainly, his unwavering sense of justice. What remains inspiring up to this day, however, is his struggle to make science accessible to the wider public: I am an experimental physicist and what I claim I also prove. The truth is clear and must be clear, preferably to all. It is my task to share this truth with the widest possible circle of those who are interested. KUT 1968: 31 He undertook further travels across Europe to get acquainted with the state of television. As early as 1928, he set out to visit an exhibition in London

32  [‘Smeˇrojev’], 1929; [‘Naslouchacˇ’], 1934; [‘Fotocˇlánek’], 1931; [‘Fotoelektrické zarˇízení se žhavenou katodou’], 1931; [‘Fotodetektor’], 1931. In: Šafránek 1935.

48

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

where he was allegedly supposed to have met with John Logie Baird. The Scot was astonished by the extent of Šafránek’s knowledge (we should not forget that Baird had no technical education and worked by trial and error) and the two men began an interesting correspondence. During the following years (mostly by his own means), he also visited Germany, France, Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Poland, and Yugoslavia, that is at least what he states in his own biography. It becomes clear from the archives that he visited France with his faithful student and co-­worker Josef Kapoun in 1947, although he was no longer actively engaged with television. As I have stated, at the time when he was presenting his television to the chiefs of the Agrarian Party, Šafránek was already aware that technologically the medium was going to develop in a different way. At the same time, he knew that an amateur construction of the prototype of television apparatus based on electronics would be dramatically more expensive than that based on the mechanical principle. That is why he started to work on a device with a cathode ray (or Braun) tube with 240 lines resolution and a 22cm screen diagonal. The whole project was substantially supported by the State Institute for Trial Tools for Industrial and Vocational Schools33 (December 1937) which had provided the incredible total sum of 41,000 CSK. At that time, Šafránek had his Method and Device for Color Television34 (!) patented under the number of 8374–37/3, which he shared with the polar explorer and physicist František Beˇhounek35 in a letter from 2 February 1938: ‘I will be very pleased to share with you the results of my work in the field of television, where I mainly focus on the construction of colored television, whose completion is hindered solely by financial means’.36 In the course of the construction of the first Czech experimental receiver on an electronic basis Šafránek and Kapoun invited journalists in order to promote this miracle in a proper way (12 December 1938); the receiver was finished on 1 March 1939. It was formed by thirteen vacuum tubes. They also began work on the transmitting apparatus in the same way, designed the construction of a film pick-­up device, a multiplier photocell and even asked for a broadcasting licence which they received under the title TV–2. (TV–1

 [Státní ústav pro zkušební pomu˚cky škol pru˚myslových a odborných]  Unsigned: [‘Zpu˚sob a zarˇízení pro barevnou televisi’] In: ‘Czech Scientist Solves the Problem of Color Television’ [‘Cˇ eský ucˇenec vyrˇešil problém barevné televise.’] Lidový deník, Vecˇerník, January 5, 1938: 3. 35  František Beˇhounek (1898–1973) was a Czech physicist, polar and arctic explorer, and writer. He was a member of the polar expedition Amundsen-Ellsworth-Nobile (1926) and the expedition of Nobile to the North Pole. In the fifties he was one of the founders of nuclear physics in Czechoslovakia. In: Tomeš 1999 (I): 68. 36  Letter from J. Šafránek to F. Beˇhounek, 2 February 1938. ACUP, fu. 140. 33 34

PIONEERS OF TELEVISION

49

was reserved by the MPT but was never used). Televisual images were nearly ready to be broadcast from the first floor of the Physical Institute in Prague, room number 5. On 17 November 1939, the Institute was occupied by the German Army. As Šafránek also resided in the building (he rented a room there), he could take his personal things, which gave him time to secretly smuggle out and save the apparatuses. One part went to Pardubice, while the second, as mentioned previously, was sent to Holecˇek in Vracovice. His future wife Marie Nesnídalová, also a radio enthusiast, wrote about her idol: Despite being a scientist, he never began to look down on popularization, as is often the case. On the contrary, he devoted all his free time to the popularization of science. He was one of the most agile promoters of the radio, which he considers as the most suitable means of spreading interest in the achievements of physics among the wider public. His experimental lectures are in the right sense of the word overcrowded with listeners from all spheres of life. [. . .] Pilsen, his hometown, is well aware that there was not one important physical event that Šafránek would not discuss in his lectures accompanied by experiments. He isn’t showy – he is a quiet, though relentless and tenacious worker. NESNÍDALOVÁ 1937: 9–10

4 Television as a political matter

It is a matter of course to consider the officials responsible for launching television in Czechoslovakia as dull, slow, and wholly incompetent. However, their seeming inactivity had other reasons than the radioamateurs originally thought. Television was not a priority for the Ministry. It had to constitute and stabilize the postal system (the Czechoslovak Post was officially founded on 1 January 1925) and link it to the modern means of transportation (buses and airmail, which was in service from October 1920 and utilized the French-Romanian aeronautic society hired by the state). When going through the files of Czechoslovak Post employees one can find thousands and thousands of names of postmasters and deliverers from the German borders all the way to Sub-Carpathia. One gets a sense of the number of problems the Ministry had to deal with when leafing through the volumes of trade periodicals like Cˇ eskoslovenská pošta – telegraf – telefon, later called Naše pošta1. It is on those pages that television was mentioned, sporadically at first then more commonly in the thirties. It was ‘in the air’, as we can observe in the tone of a report from March 1935, whose author wondered at the fact that ‘television receivers were not present at all!’2 at the International Exhibition in Paris. Apparently, the exhibition lacked something essential. Most commonly, information about television was conveyed as part of the kaleidoscope of various ‘bits and pieces’ from abroad. They were often signed by the technical commissar of the Ministry, Josef Benˇa, who became the chief ministerial commissar in 1937 and whose name can also be found in the materials of the post-­war Ministry of the Post. He supplied postal periodicals with sensational information, such as one about a certain German, Dr. Hartman, ‘who wants to examine the sea in a thick-­walled steel sphere, equipped by devices for distant seeing, with a

 [‘Czechoslovak Post – Telegraph – Telephone’] later called [‘Our Post’]  Unsigned: International Exhibition in Paris in 1934 [‘Mezinárodní výstava v Parˇ íži v roce 1934’] Cˇeskoslovenská pošta – telegraf – telefon, N. 3, 15 March 1935, p. 68. 1 2

52

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

photoelectric cell and sharp reflectors with lenses’ (1934),3 or that during the broadcast ‘the actors, dressed in thin fabrics made of silk or cotton are seen without clothes’ (1936)4, or that ‘the engineers of the NBC, who were coming back from Bermuda where they were demonstrating television, were really surprised when they could catch the television broadcast on board SS President Roosevelt’ (1941),5 or probably by the fact that television had become stereoscopic and colored, as ‘the broadcast scene flashes with red, blue, and green light in fast sequences and the same order’ (1943).6 More importantly, Dr. Hartman provides information on the procedure of launching television broadcasting neighboring in the neighboring Germany: ‘German industry is eagerly working in this line of work and the management of the Ministry of the Post expects the first usable television receivers to appear on the market in no time’ (1934). Another ministerial commissar, Josef Brˇíza, was the author of the patent titled The Method of Radioelectric Transmission of Images and Television7 from 1937, as well as the second Czech book on television, Functioning of Modern Television Equipment.8 In the introduction, its author writes about the goal set in the very title of the book: A task which is not new, but rather thankless. He who pursues it must sail through the gorge between two reefs, otherwise he will be shipwrecked: between the Scylla of technicians who wanted to explain these complicated phenomena in a clear manner and drowned their readers in floods of pages and diagrams – and the Charybdis of lay popularizers who sacrificed the truth for the sake of easy understanding and readability. The author has tried to leave the roads taken by both of these. He wants to give a brief, technically factual, though clear explanation of the way the television set works, while keeping these principles: no history, no diagrams or formula, only distinct photos and illustrative comparisons. ˇ ÍZA 1937: 3 BR This characteristic allows us to form a clear idea of the text. It is remarkable that at its end the author concludes that ‘television will not reach equal popularity and expansion to that of the radio’ but that it would become its ‘welcome supplement’. His thesis that television ‘will never be able to

 Unsigned: Seeing into the Distance under Water [‘Videˇní na dálku pod vodou’], Cˇeskoslovenská pošta – telegraf – telefon, N. 3, 15 March 1934, p. 45. 4  Unsigned: Troubles of Television. [‘Nesnáze televise’.] Poštovní obzor, N. 5, 1936, p. 93. 5  Unsigned: Television on the Sea. [‘Televise na morˇi’.] Naše pošta, N. 2, February 1941, p. 37. 6  Unsigned: Something of Television. [‘Neˇco z televise’.] Naše pošta, N. 7, September 1943, p. 164. 7  [‘Zpu˚sob radioelektrického prˇenosu obrazu˚ a televize’] 8  [‘Jak funguje moderní televisní soustava’] 3

TELEVISION AS A POLITICAL MATTER

53

compete with the radio or the sound film or theater’, and that it would ‘rather support each of these arts to profit from their own specific technical possibilities and live their own, independent lives’ seems to be erroneous from the point of view of the limitless television optimism and the massive post-­war boom; this thesis, however, can be seen as manifesting a mature judgement defining the new medium’s place amongst other media inventions (Brˇíza 1937: 37). In short, the ministerial officials knew what they were doing. They understood their cause, were well informed about the situation in Europe as well as the whole world, and tried to avoid acting rashly. I mentioned Josef Strnad while discussing the beginnings of Radiojournal. He also presided over the Prague meeting of the International Broadcasting Union (IBU) in 1929, was active in the Electrotechnical Union and organized its regular meetings, and used his connections to launch a cycle of lectures on radio technology at Czech Technical University in Prague, thus establishing (without Šafránek and the Physical Institute) the first ‘seat of radio technology in Czechoslovakia’ (1937). It was a one-­semester course for electrotechnical engineering graduates, which was launched with a ceremony on 3 November 1937. He reached the peak of his career in the turbulent times of the Nazi occupation, when he was named the Director General of the Post (September 1939). He died a year later. The Ministry has kept a whole file of the materials gathered on the occasion of his funeral. Strnad became a member of the new Department for the Study of New Discoveries in Radiophony9 as early as 1920. It was he who enforced the testing of radiotechnical or radiophonic stations for awarding broadcasting licences. Strnad was the one who fought off the attacks of radio clubs and the CS Radio Union, as well as those of Šafránek himself. It was Strnad’s initiative in December 1934 (several months after the presentation of the first television apparatus at Prague’s Exhibition Grounds) to establish a group for the development of a trial television apparatus. Members included: Alois Singer, Miroslav Schäferling, and Josef Brˇíza. At the first stage, their task was to find out about the current situation of television and suggest when and under what conditions television broadcasting could be launched in Czechoslovakia. They began by sending three letters – to the BBC, the Italian company RAI, and the German Ministry of the Post. Then they asked the Patent Office in Prague to allow them to study all of the available patents related to the new medium. The following year, they headed to Berlin where they saw the technology with their own eyes. Subsequently, they got answers from Italy as well as Britain. The UK was currently deciding

9

 [Oddeˇlení pro studium nových objevu˚ v radiofonii]

54

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 4.1  Josef Strnad, the head of the ministry, who was in charge of the introduction of television in Czechoslovakia. (Source: Archives of Postal Museum Prague, 1940).

on the technological direction of television, whether the mechanical-­optical one presented by John Baird, or the electrical one, represented by the Marconi – E. M. I. company. It was necessary to make a strategic decision, because the choice had to be made and both alternatives required equally high investments. Which is why the BBC sent Strnad’s group a current report of the British Television Committee which had been presented by its chairman in Parliament. It contains a thorough account of the current state of television and namely the potential for further development. It is a very detailed and valuable historical document as it also contains a description of technologies used in other countries, especially the USA. Although radio amateurs continued to have the impression that the official institutions did nothing regarding television, they were wrong. In 1935, the MPT authorized a plan for the construction of a television transmitter for experimental purposes, on the mechanical-­optical principle. Soon after, it was decided to create an electronic principle transmitter instead (19 June 1936) and the construction supervision was supervised by Singer. The project was granted a total sum of 850,000 CSK (!) to be divided across three years, starting with 20,000 CSK in 1936. Not everything went according to the plan, though. ‘For other, more urgent, work it was not possible to approach television preparations to such an extent which would

TELEVISION AS A POLITICAL MATTER

55

allow the start of the assembling of the device’,10 states Singer in his report for the preceding year. Nevertheless, the preparations commenced in the following years after all. The Ministry assigned a space for the television transmitter in the building of the Technical Institute of the Postal Administration in Žižkov. The transmitter stationed at this address was eventually finished and began to send the carrier wave. However, the signal as such was never transmitted. The fact that Singer, according to the archives, asked for the last, twelfth, instalment of 40,000 CSK to ‘continue with the assembly of a trial television device’11 as late as 1939 (18 September 1939) had no effect at all. The total sum invested by the Ministry in the years 1936–1939 was, compared to the intended 850,000, merely 390,000 CSK. This comes of no surprise as the price/performance ratio in the period before the war was unpredictable. Likewise, in the context of the events of 1935 when the Sudetendeutsche Partei won seats in parliament, the state naturally concentrated on other, vital, improvements, such as fortifying the borders.

A matter of all-­state importance I have not yet mentioned the situation of the very word televise (television) in the Czech, Slovak, and Sub-Carpathian lands. The international term radio was mostly replaced by the term rozhlas12, though the original word was preserved in compounds, such as radio listener, radio concert, radio amateur, Radio Palace, etc. The English term ‘broadcasting’ was analysed by Richard Durdil, editor of Národní listy newspaper, who concluded that rozhlas was the most corresponding term. The name of the new distant vision was a matter of public debate several times; for example, on 5 May 1935, the newspaper Lidové noviny challenged their readers to send in suggestions. The combinations of appropriate words have so far been very curious: telewatcher, telelooker, distant looker or distant watcher, distant observer, or simply television watcher.13 Nevertheless, it is high time we solved the problem as television is, so to say, right around the corner.14  NAP, file of Ministry of Transportation XIII/1936.  NAP, fu. 343, box D2. 12  A word joining ‘wide spreading’ and ‘voice’. A term exactly characterizing the principle of the medium. 13  [‘teledivák’], [‘telehledicˇ’], [‘dálkohledicˇ’], [‘dálkodivák’], [‘dálkopozorovatel’], [‘televisní divák’] 14  Lidové noviny, 5 May 1935. 10 11

56

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

There were about 200 suggestions, such as view, horizon, sound-­picture, distant-­seer, radio-­seer, clarity-­shooter, voice-­picture, see-­all, eye-­seer, photo-­ seer, I-see-you.15 A similar request was made by the popular magazine Sveˇt mluví in 1935. With two words in the finale: rozvid and televise. The magazine Cˇ eskoslovenská pošta – telegraf – telefon did not stay behind and printed an article by the ministerial councilor, Josef Benˇa, called ‘What shall we call television?’16: ‘Television should have a Czech name because it is, as well as the radio, dedicated to entertaining the general public. It is not a branch of a telecommunication enterprise as is the telegraph or telephone, which the public encounters solely through offices.’ He analysed the word ‘televise’, which is of Greek-Latin origin, and discovered a logical error which also prevented a similar term ‘teleaudio’ from being accepted. In the same way as broadcasting is not distant hearing, television is by no means and never will be distant seeing. A television audience will only be able to see with the help of their device, that which will be part of the programme of the appropriate television transmitter, not that which they would wish to see but will not be broadcast anyway. The television audience will be just as passive as that of the radio and thus will only see what the transmitter will prepare and send. Logically, the word televise should not be used for the same reason; though as it has already become so popular that it cannot be got rid of, it is not right to use it in the search for the proper Czech name. Literal translations such as dálkovid or dálkohled or the looser names rozvid and rozhled all contain the same logical error and cannot thus (in our opinion) succeed. BENˇ A 1936: 155–156 How true. Let us sum up at this point. We know already that television evoked passions; we also know who the main actors of its promotion and launch were. The reader has been well acquainted with the latent as well as open struggle led by the organized radio amateurs with Šafránek as their leader against the rank of ministerial officials. The conflict had several dimensions and played out over a period of time. Most importantly, radio amateurs persistently and perhaps even pleadingly asked for the possibility of amateur television broadcasting. I have said that they saw in this an opportunity to offer a space to radio amateurs where they could familiarize themselves with the technical particulars of television and thus raise a group of technical experts for the republic. This is exactly what the Ministry feared. It was a great victory for the radio fans when they  [‘rozhled’], [‘obzor’], [‘zvukobraz’], [‘dálnohled’], [‘rádiovidec’], [‘jasnomet’], [‘hlasobraz’], [‘rozvid’], [‘okovid’], [‘fotovid’], [‘vidimvas’] 16  [‘Jak budeme rˇíkat televisi?’] 15

TELEVISION AS A POLITICAL MATTER

57

FIGURE 4.2  The cathode tube, the basis of the electronic principle of television, which was eventually accepted. (Source: AMŠ, 1937).

managed to get an official radio broadcasting licence from the Ministry (1930), which was by no means to be repeated in the television field. Strnad assigned his colleague Jindrˇich Krapka to process a report on the awarding of licences and concessions in the world and asked him to suggest a new procedure to fight against the growing number of individual requests as well as that of the CS Radio Union. Krapka points out the fact that ‘the British Postal Administration awards concessions to such broadcasting only to qualified individuals and firms, and solely for scientific and experimental purposes’. As it was already known that the optical-­mechanic way of television was on the decline and there were insufficient financial means for the second type of technology, he recommended to: award television broadcasting permits on ultra-­short wave exclusively and only to scientific institutes etc., to avoid the danger that before its official instalment, television could become discredited as to its quality (experimenters will invite friends and journalists); moreover, the fans, growing in numbers, are going to buy or construct devices which will later be unsuitable for the reception of public television programmes. Therefore, we do not recommend that the concessions be awarded as of yet!17  J. Krapka’s report, 11 September 1935. NAP, fu. 429, box 840, f. N. 22596.

17

58

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

The reference to ‘experimenters’ and ‘journalists’ was bound to be aimed at Šafránek, who was an unending nightmare for the ministerial officials. They had to admit that he was an expert, though he managed to confuse them by the fact that he never acted on behalf of his workplace, the university, but always as a private representative of the Pilsen Radio Club or CS Radio Union. Therefore, he was quite comfortably considered a private subject. In 1934, Strnad had already spoken of: a danger of hasty endeavors of private companies [. . .] which could discredit the whole cause. It is of no doubt that television widely impresses the general public and is anticipated with a great deal of impatience. If the postal administration does not proceed with at least sample television trials swiftly, it is probable that similar demonstrations of television will take place in private, as was already done by the university docent, Dr. Šafránek.18 Reading between the lines, in his opinion, Šafránek and company were a threat to state interests. Reading through all the volumes of technical magazines issued by the Ministry, as well as Brˇíza’s book, I came to understand that Šafránek must have been a real thorn in the ministerial side. Despite the multiple mentions and reports on television published in all volumes of MPT periodicals there is no mention of Šafránek whatsoever. Not a single word. Not a report of his demonstration of the television device, neither of his patents, nothing. Šafránek’s omission could have been related to one, so far not mentioned, political aspect. As I have stated, Šafránek’s activities, as well as those of the whole CS Radio Union and the development of radio broadcasting, were amply supported by the Agrarian Party. After the split of the Social Democrats in the 1920s, it became the strongest party of the First Republic which lasted until the elections in 1935. The sixteen coalition governments of the inter-­war period saw twenty-­three representatives of this party being appointed to posts of the administrator (changings off – out) of the resort, minister, or even Prime Minister. Agrarians mightily supported cooperative business and ruled the rural areas. Their publishing house published six journals, nine weekly papers, twenty-­four regional newspapers, three monthly papers, and forty-­three magazines in 1925. For twenty-­seven years the MPT, which controlled radio broadcasting – a powerful communication tool – was controlled almost exclusively by the political opposition, the Czechoslovak Socialist Party.19 The Agrarians were

 J. Strnad’s report, NAP, fu. 429, box 963, N. 75467/XVIII–1936.  [Cˇeskoslovenská strana socialistická], from 1926, called the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party [Cˇ eskoslovenská strana národneˇ socialistická].

18 19

TELEVISION AS A POLITICAL MATTER

59

FIGURE 4.3  Signature of Jaroslav Šafránek. (Source: AUK, 1932).

in control of the Ministry only for several months during Tusar’s second government. The ministerial post was most frequently occupied by Emil Franke (seven times), while the most peculiar person at the Ministry was its lawyer, Maxmilián Fatka, who was named ‘general manager of post and telegraphs within Czechoslovak territory’ as early as 4 November 1918. He was appointed minister twice (1920–1921, 1926). When he retired in 1935, T. G. Masaryk wrote him a personal letter of compliments for his services. Fatka was considered ‘a genius of the Czech Postal Service’ by some (Cˇtvrtník – Galuška – Tošnerová 2008: 117); however, the 612-page manuscript of his memoir lies unpublished in the archives of the Postal Museum in Prague to this day. President Masaryk considered the Agrarian Party as centrist, perhaps center-­left, and the National Socialists leaned to this side of the political spectrum as well. Their electorate consisted mainly of labourers (having a strong trade union called the Czech Labor Union20 with some 306,000 members), clerks, teachers, sole traders, and small farmers; the party also

 [Cˇeská obec deˇlnická]

20

60

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

assumed the role of the patron of the Czechoslovak legionnaires. Unlike its competitor, it resided in Prague, though in 1927 the party split due to the departure, or rather disunion, of its strongly anti-­presidential member Jirˇí Strˇíbrný and his followers. The illustrated situation between the two political rivals offers a clear picture of the pressure placed on television as a new means of communication. Sadly, television has been a political medium since its very beginning with different political groups hoping to get hold of its potential. If the current economic situation is not favourable, rival parties at least try to prevent each other from becoming predominant. And thus the (National Socialist) administration at the MPT understood that they could not just idly stand by; on the contrary, it would be best to gain total control over the radio and boldly found ‘its own’ television. However, this was not possible for many reasons. It was necessary to react to the provocations coming from the Agrarians, who were supported by radio amateurs, and find an effective tactic. The sarcastic articles in Venkov or Radioamatér titled When Shall We Finally See? (1936),21 Start Television Broadcasting! (1937),22 or Radio Amateurs Ask for Television! (1937)23 were nothing but provocations. For example, František Erik Šaman, author of Television, A Mirage, and a Pulled Leg (1934),24 lamented that: we simply know that, with the help of God, we will live to see television one day and we believe that it is being feverishly worked on, we know that the next radio market is yet again going to promise us that the following year will bring television receivers, we know that there is a white spot where Czechoslovakia should be in the European television chart, they are well aware of this abroad and yet we are proud of this innocence and patiently wait like a little lamb! This is what makes us think we’re smart! We wait for the best to show up. And when other countries tie us up with their television patents, we will finally know what we are paying Germany and other countries the expensive licence fees for. The ancient habit of the poor old dead duke Václav to send oxen to Germany will unfortunately only take another form, with the fee redeemed with money. The article began to heat up, turning its tone to a poeticizing pathos: One day the heavens will open up and the rain of mercy will pour into the parched hearts of the amateurs. Our hearts will rejoice in a song of  [‘Kdy konecˇneˇ budeme videˇt?’]  [‘Zahajte televisní vysílání!’] 23  [‘Radioamatérˇi žádají televisi!’] 24  [‘Televise, fata morgana a straky na vrbeˇ’] 21 22

TELEVISION AS A POLITICAL MATTER

61

praise, the Ministry of the Post will wake up, the knights of Blaník will ride up and in a hotel at Wenceslas Square the first television apparatus will be displayed. ŠAMAN 1934: 229–230 Today, such imaginative and lofty journalism is unheard of – that is, if it can be called journalism at all. Elsewhere, a colleague from Radioamatér, Sláva Necˇásek, exclaims: ‘We will not let anyone take television from us, this time, the patience of radio amateurs has been strung out to its limits!’ (Necˇásek 1934: 248–249). It is important to realize that these appeals were raised in 1934; at a time when only a privileged few had a vague idea that we would eventually have no share in the development of television in Europe. The radio amateurs began to open fire with two so-called tribunes, discussion forums, which took place on 13 March 1936 and one year later on 15 February 1937. The first event, which took place in a conference room of the Masaryk Institute of Public Education25 in Prague’s Vinohrady district, presented docent Šafránek’s paper entitled The State of the Television Today26 calling for an amateur experimental transmitter which would enable radio amateurs to get acquainted with the basics of television technology and thus ensure their professional growth. Moreover, the BBC had already started to broadcast their television programme at the very end of 1936. Thus, the pressure got stronger. The second discussion forum, this time held in the hall of the National Café in Prague, was named Why We Ask That Television Be Established Promptly.27 The attendants were welcomed by Dr. Ernest from the CS Radio Union, with Šafránek delivering the main speech. The crowded hall must have rustled as the superior departmental councilor of the Ministry, Alois Singer, walked into the lion’s den. The group around Strnad apparently didn’t want to underestimate the situation and thus they used the occasion to subdue the passions or even tactically paralyze their adversary. Singer had real plans in hand to build the Žižkov Television transmitter and to the great surprise of all present he publicly promised that ‘the Ministry of the Post will shortly comply with the calls for television broadcasting.’28 This led to a resolution formulated by Marie Nesnídalová, challenging the Ministry to ‘carry out the necessary preparations with utmost speed so that the broadcasting of amateur narrow-­bandwidth television could be started as soon as possible and thus release and support

 [Masaryku˚v lidovýchovný ústav]  [‘Dnešní stav televise’] 27  [‘Procˇ žádáme brzké vybudování cˇeskoslovenské televise?’] 28  Tribune on the Realization of Television in Czechoslovakia [‘Anketa o uskutecˇneˇní televise v Cˇeskoslovensku’.] Cˇs. Radiosveˇt, N. 2, 1937, APF, file PKK. 25 26

62

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

experiments on ultra-­short waves’.29 Point number two was a novelty suggesting that all technical and programme questions related to television be dealt with in the presence of an Advisory Board for Television Affairs30 or Television Advisory Board for Technical and Programme Affairs.31 This is how radio amateurs wanted to gain authority, although they proclaimed that it should be an institution ‘which would fully comply with democratic principles and that citizens would be granted the possibility to intervene with things which are constructed with their money and are seriously important for the development of the technical and artistic culture of the state’.32 The Ministry did not agree to this transparent proposal. Despite the fact that Singer promised to the raging amateurs that the transmitter could be launched the very same year, in less than two months (10 April 1937), at the meeting of the Czechoslovak Electrotechnical Union for Light Current Electrotechnics33 in Brno, Strnad claimed that the whole thing would take more than a year. The newspaper of the National Socialists, Cˇ eské slovo, brought a positive report: Prague will start to broadcast next year.34 We know, however, that works on the construction of the transmitter were indeed in progress, though not according to plan. In my opinion, the whole dispute was concluded when the Ministry, having calmed down the public, gained final dominance in the field and Josef Strnad gave an extensive interview to the magazine Sveˇt mluví (1937). It is titled When Will Television Come? ‘The chief television councillor’ was convinced that ‘the significance of television will be far-­reaching. I am deliberately using the future as we cannot as yet imagine in what respect television will be of the greatest importance. It is clear, however, that radio will continue to keep its function for a long time, that it will not be replaced by television, as both media will exist alongside the other’.35 When asked whether television was technically ready, he answered that from a purely technical point of view it was ‘quite’ ready. Nevertheless, if we understand television as a service similar to that of radio, it was far from being ready and would surely not be in the foreseeable future! He pointed out the fact that ‘the administration of a small state does not dispose of financial means which would allow for such costly experiments’.36 Moreover, he noted that

 Letter of the CS Radio Union to Ministry administrations on the results of the Tribune, 4 February 1937, APF, f. PKK or Radioobchod N. 2, 1937. 30  [Poradní sbor pro televisní veˇci] 31  [Poradní sbor televisní pro veˇci technické a programové] 32  Ibid. 33  [Elektrotechnický svaz cˇeskoslovenský pro slaboproudou elektrotechniku] 34  [‘Praha zacˇne vysílat v prˇíštím roce’] 35  [‘Kdy prˇijde televise’] Interview with Strnad, Sveˇt mluví N. 1–2, 1937. 36  Ibid. 29

TELEVISION AS A POLITICAL MATTER

63

the UK was switching to a higher resolution as well as an entirely different system and it would be irresponsible to equip the public with television sets which would not be able to adapt to the new type of broadcasting. In conclusion, he added that it is more ‘pressing’ to finish the construction of radio transmitters so that ‘each listener in any part of our republic can listen to the radio’. He also considered it necessary to build a new building for the radio with many modern studios. (Let us not forget that it was the year when radio gained its millionth licencee.) His final blow to all television enthusiasts was as follows: Likewise, we do not think it wise to become pioneers in this field [television] as we lack any significant tradition in the area of radio technology, which the world companies, existing for more than three decades, undoubtedly have. We are a minor European state and we cannot be pioneers in all areas of science.37 In a less exposed, professional postal newspaper, Alois Singer concluded: The standpoint of the CS Post and Telegraph Administration is to limit ourselves to trial broadcasting and not invest extensively in television, especially in times like these. It is necessary to focus only on serious state affairs, to which all other possible interests of private persons have to be subdued. SINGER 1938: 139–141 It is not difficult to guess who these private persons may have been. The amateurs did not get what they wanted and the more fortunate ones were glad that they managed to avoid imprisonment in the following years. The most interesting and hopeful period of Czechoslovak Television was over without having made a connection with the technological development of television in the world. There were no winners or losers. In retrospect it became clear that the time was not yet ripe and that people could not afford to buy expensive television sets anyway; and last but not least – there was nothing to broadcast. Nobody could imagine what kind of medium television really was, how to manage it, and what it meant to fill hours and hours with meaningful programming.

 Ibid.

37

CONTExTUAL BOx No. 2 The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia 1939–1945

B

y the Munich Agreement in the autumn of 1938, Great Britain, France, and Italy yielded to Hitler’s territorial requests and, in their struggle to prevent the outbreak of war, they sacrificed one of the last democratic states of Europe. After 15 March 1939 Czechoslovakia practically ceased to exist. The rest of the curtailed territory was invaded by the Nazi army and a new division of the Reich was formed known as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The Protectorate did not have its own foreign policy or representation and the Czech President became a mere state officer. The parliament was dissolved and the army only served to fulfil certain auxiliary tasks. All political parties were banned. (Slovakia formed its own Slovak State which collaborated with Hitler). On 28 October 1939, demonstrations commemorating the creation of Czechoslovakia took place, during which a medical student Jan Opletal was shot by a German policeman and died a few days later as a result of his injuries. His funeral turned into a national demonstration against Hitler’s rule, which inspired a wave of Nazi terror, during which nine university students were shot and 1200 other students deported to concentration camps. On 17 November 1939, the Nazis closed all Czech universities and the anniversary of that day later became International Students Day. Exactly fifty years later, on 17 November 1989, demonstrations commemorating the Nazi closure of Czech universities grew into the anti-regime protests which would bring about the fall of communism in Czechoslovakia. Hitler appointed Konstantin von Neurath, former foreign minister of the Reich as ‘Protector’ of Bohemia and Moravia. When he failed to demonstrate sufficient severity (mainly in dealing with the resistance), he was replaced in 1941 by SS and police general Reinhard Heydrich who was considered a specialist in fighting resistance movements. His policy of terror and intimidation was efficient: he did not hesitate to arrest and order the execution of the Prime Minister, Alois Eliáš, for his connections with the home resistance. In the developed system of concentration camps, the Terezín camp, which served as the assembly place of the Jewish citizens (1941–1945), the so called ‘gate to death’, played an important role as well, with 73,608 Jews waiting there for deportation. T. G. Masaryk was no longer alive, president Beneš had emigrated and founded a government-in-exile in London, which was eventually recognized by Great Britain, the USSR , and the USA . Czechoslovak pilots contributed

substantially to the success of the RAF ’s fight against Nazi Germany. Czechoslovak paratroopers Jan Kubiš and Jozef Gabcˇ ík were also trained in Great Britain before being sent back to Prague to liquidate, ‘assassinate’ Heydrich (27 May 1942). This extraordinary and unique act of courage in the history of the Second World War was punished by the Nazis with exceptional cruelty: two Czech villages, Lidice (10 June 1942) and Ležáky (24 June 1942) were burnt to the ground and almost all of their male inhabitants were killed.

5 In the hands of the military

The peripheral areas of former Czechoslovakia which became part of the Reich after the Munich conference came to be known as the Reichsgau Sudetenland. Liberec (then Reichenberg), a prosperous city of the textile industry, became the metropolis of the Sudetenland. The region’s rich manufacturing history was co-­opted to support the Nazi war effort, while its mountainous terrain granted relative safety from enemy bombs. To illustrate the extent of Nazi war production and research which was relocated to this area, the following examples should be mentioned. The company Gerätebau-Oberspace (AEG) in Hrádek nad Nisou started to produce military spotlights. In Rýnovice, Zeiss’ 4000 (!) employees began to produce submarine components, special telescopic 12-metre pipes, and aircraft instruments. Kontakta in Ruprechtice and its sister company in Hanychov focused on army tank components and portable broadcasting stations for the police. Aerophon in Jablonec nad Nisou (then Gablonz an der Neisse), which originally produced radio receivers, began to produce anti-­aircraft appliances on 60cm short waves as well as portable installations designed for aircraft and ships. The Gerewent company in Rychnov nad Nisou (with 1500 employees) focused on research and production of an appliance called ‘Berlin’, designed to observe aircraft in fog, short-­wave transmitters for combat purposes, Adler amplifiers, and dipole transmitters for short-­wave transmitting stations. Each month, its Kokonín branch produced 300 pieces of magnetrons and transmitting lamps for ultra-­short transmitting stations. Last but not least, this mountainous area also became a seat of television research, as the Nazis investigated how the short-­wave television apparatus could be utilized in the war.

What was left after the Nazi occupation Ernst Busse, the technician who ran the Hamburg laboratory of the Dutch company Philips from 1933 and decided to develop television, oscillographs, and the measurement and construction of Braun cathode ray tubes, was

68

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

commissioned by Herr Plendl, a member of the Reichsrat, to build a new institute after the one in Hamburg was shattered into pieces in a heavy bombing in 1943. Its task was to look for possible development and manufacturing in the technology of ultra-­short waves and vacuum tube arrangements. It was for this purpose that Busse was transferred to the civil service. He set out to look for a suitable building in the Sudetenland and found a useful textile factory, Palme, Stumpe and Co., in Tanvald. In October 1943, the building was rented by the Central Institute for the Research of Electron Lamps, which was in fact a branch of the Reich’s Institute for the Research of Electron Lamps. Busse was appointed director and already in March of 1944 he and 100 of his employees hurled themselves into the work of developing magnetrons, impulse broadcasting lamps, wavemeters for measuring centimeter lengths, and transmitters and receivers of ultra-­ short waves. (The Institute operated until as late as 8 May 1945.) The research station in Tanvald was later to become one of the main post-­war locations of our television story. Two months earlier, in August 1943, the building of Johann Priebsch, the Erben spinning factory in Dolní Smržovka, a village in the vicinity of Tanvald, was occupied by the German company Fernseh A. G., which we have already mentioned. It was founded in 1929 by Robert Bosch, Radio Loowe, Zeiss Ikon, and Baird Television Limited London with a capital of 100,000 Reichsmarks. It began in a modest way, with four employees and 30-line prototypes. However, four years later it was already working on 180 lines and had developed a system of recording images on film with continuous and almost immediate development (only a 15-second delay), and it was this company which started its career with regular trial broadcasting at the German Olympics (1 November 1936). With the beginning of the war, the company began to meet the demands of the empire’s Ministry of Aviation. In addition to the above-­mentioned Institute, after the bombing of Berlin by the Allied Air Forces, part of the research and manufacturing departments was transferred to the Sudetenland. A spinning factory in Smržovka was transformed so that it could accomodate the newly built vacuum laboratories and at its peak it employed 800 people. At the end of the war, there were only 450 people left, of which 40 were Czech. Georg Schubert became its director. The main secret task was ‘distant seeing’ – the manufacturing of 200-line electron Seedorf cameras. They were supposed to serve to capture the image of a landscape and its subsequent projection onto maps, which would enable a more precisely targeted bomb dropping. Apart from that the company dealt with picture telephony, or linking Braun tubes to telephone lines and transmitting images while watching the landscape with a telescope. 1000 pieces of scanning camera electrons, type Superkinoskop IS9, were planned to leave the factory yearly. Already in 1944, it was clear that the pre-­war standard of 441 television lines was insufficient; it was outmatched and

IN THE HANDS OF THE MILITARY

69

perfected to 625 lines. This definition then became a long-­time European standard for public broadcasting and it is justified to consider it as having been developed on Czechoslovakian territory. With the coming defeat of Germany at the beginning of April 1945, director Schubert decided to save what was left. He had the vacuum technology and the most important appliances from the laboratories loaded on board a train and sent, together with 15 experts, via Austria to Taufkirchen in Lower Bavaria. It was the seat of the Blaupunkt company branch which was supposed to get hold of the precious cargo. However, only a fraction of the train made it to the destination as Czech railway workers managed to shunt some of its wagons through sabotage and hide them in different places in South Bohemia. Eventually, it turned out that the director himself had escaped.

Czechoslovak army attempts to seize control of television The factory was occupied by the Red Army in May 1945 and waited for a decision of its future function. The company was renamed Televid. The Ministry of National Defence appointed Josef Bednarˇík, a young, 33-year-­ old technician in the uniform of the Czechoslovak People’s Army, to the post of director, who decided to keep the deputy of the former director, Johann Günther, as his main co-­worker. On 12 June 1945, representatives of the Czechoslovak party carried out a thorough inspection, one of a series of inspections of all factory production in the region. Its aim was to find out specifically what kind of war production took place in each of the works and possibly secure it for the purposes of the Ministry of National Defence or civil purposes of the liberated Czechoslovakia. Extensive protocols have been kept from these inspections and were declassified for the purposes of this publication in February 2011. In the one from Smržovka, a truly historic moment described by its visitors has been recorded: ‘At the time of the inspection, Russian Major Yarotsky came to the factory and claimed that on the order of Marshal Konev the factory had come under Russian control’.1 The Soviets, who were working on the development of television chains in Leningrad factories, understood that the devices as well as the ‘brains’ from the Televid company could be a precious acquision and thus they made all the necessary steps in order to gain the factory complex  Report on Inspection of Televid in Smržovka realized June 12, 1945 with the Purpose to Find Out about the Works of German Army Administration [‘Zpráva o prohlídce firmy Televid ve Smržovce provedené 12. 6. 1945 za úcˇelem zjišteˇní prací, provádeˇných firmou pro voj. neˇm. správu’], ÚVA Prague, fu. MNO 1945, box 57, N. 10.

1

70

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

together with that in Tanvald as war booty. Although the Ministry of Industry appointed Eduard Kuzník, who was an expert in technology and knew the environment very well, to the function of a temporary caretaker, the Soviet military service took the lead at the beginning of July and appointed a different Head of the Unit seated in Jablonec nad Nisou, Major Yarotsky (sometimes spelled Yarecki). It is true that he recognized the authority of the National Caretaker, but only when it came to economic questions and the issue of possible peace-­time production. When it came to military issues, he fulfilled orders from Moscow. In August, several experts from the Leningrad television institute arrived in Smržovka. Czechoslovakia did not give up on the possibility that television research and production could be extracted from the spoils of the war. Colonel Josef Trejbal from the Military Scientific-Technical Institute wrote agitated letters to the Ministry of National Defence in which he tried to draw attention to the fact that ‘it is the only factory of its kind in the republic and after the destruction of the German works perhaps in the whole of Europe’. He went on to assert that: all efforts of the General Staff should be aimed at exempting it from confiscation. If an agreement isn’t reached regarding the whole plant, then focus should be put on the production of lamps (Braun tubes, iconoscopes, special photo cells, etc).2 The Ministry of Industry even suggested to the Soviet military administration that it would financially support the operation of Televid, including all employee wages. However, their efforts were in vain. The Soviets took enormous interest in the equipment and there was an ever-­present threat that they may confiscate it. Thus, the only way to avoid being cut off was to agree on the possibility that a group of Czechoslovak experts visit the factory for a period so as to become thoroughly acquainted with the technology, which would then enable them to develop it in their own Czechoslovak facilities. That, of course, required agreement from the Soviet side and negotiations failed. On 27 September 1945, a new Minister of National Defence was appointed; this time it was an almost sixty-­year-old Major, Jan Racek, who had worked in the telegraph workshops in Pohorˇelec and Kbely between the wars. Those who knew him remember him as being honest, reliable and energetic, but they admit that his uncompromising nature could have made him some enemies. Racek’s temporary position at the Ministry came to an end on 27 February 1946 and he became chief of the Military Technical Institute in Tanvald – thus, one of the key players in the television experiments.  Letter of J. Trejbal to Army Science-Technical Institute and Ministry of National Defence, 16 July 1945, ÚVA Prague, fu. MNO 1945, box 57, N. 10.

2

IN THE HANDS OF THE MILITARY

71

Racek personally negotiated with the Soviet commanders regarding the study tour of Czechoslovak experts and it was him who pushed it through eventually. However, the Ministry of Industry intervened in the negotiations by asking the docent Jaroslav Šafránek to assist in building a team of visiting experts and to lead the selected work group himself. Racek, who knew Šafránek from his inter-­war research activities for the army, was fiercely against any kind of cooperation. He pointed to the fact that the military administration had a bad experience with him and that his ‘futile experiments have been extremely costly’.3 Even at the parliamentary level – Jan Vodicˇka, Representative and first Vice-­chairman of the defence committee, wrote that Šafránek ‘worked on wiretapping devices for the army and did practically nothing, which cost us over half a million CSK’.4 Nevertheless, the Ministry of Industry insisted and named Šafránek head of the team. Archive documents show that the Ministry representatives saw Šafránek not only as an expert, but above all as a person who could help them reach their goal of extricating television research from the military. The Ministry representatives knew only too well that television was going to be a lucrative business, although they could not imagine how or to what extent. They made brisk contact with American business partners and placed a lot of hope in the parastatal company Telegrafia in Pardubice (later Tesla Pardubice), which would be able to take over both research and production. This is where Šafránek’s faithful disciple, Josef Kapoun, took part in Šafránek’s pre-­war experiments. Šafránek, perhaps unintentionally, became a representative of the civil and business aspects of television development; at some meetings he even almost acted as an official deputy of the Pardubice factory. The trouble was that the soldiers were the first ones there – the factories in the Sudetenland became part of the war booty, and nothing was to suggest that the development of television could be transferred to Czechoslovak control. Thus, the Ministry of National Defence dominated all the debates and was clearly inclined toward military development; consequently, the installation of Šafránek as head of the team could represent a certain guarantee that the whole thing would not fall in the hands of the industry. Not surprisingly, Major Racek understood these tactics as well as a number of team members. Racek, looking for an argument as to why Šafránek could not be the head of the team, stated (well aware of the unrealistic nature of his demand) that Šafránek would have to be present in Dolní Smržovka throughout the course of the whole study stay. It was impossible for Šafránek to comply with such demand. He only visited Smržovka once a week, on Saturdays, and only for three to four hours. 3  Letter of B. Reicin to Ministry of National Defence, 12 April 1946, ÚVA Prague, fu. MNO 1946, box 6, N. 536. 4  Letter of Member of Parliament J. Vodicˇka to Office of Ministry of National Defence, 8 March 1946, ÚVA Prague, fu. MNO 1946, box 6, N. 536.

72

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Reports by the group members clearly show that Šafránek was not accepted by the group, some even blamed him for bringing ‘rupture to the group, which had a negative impact on its work results’.5 From a position of power, against the will of the majority, he named Kapoun as his deputy and team representative in negotiations with Soviet and Czech soldiers: a person who was considered to be lacking proper professional qualifications and to represent the commercial interests of Telegrafie. Accounts given by the participants recall that those Saturdays were characterized by tough discussions, usually ending in great arguments between Šafránek and Racek. To top it all off, Šafránek was supposed to collect 20,000 CSK, which Racek refused to pay. ‘It is a waste of money for [. . .] such little work’, claimed Racek, who was eventually ordered by the Ministry of Industry (13 February 1946) to make the payment. ‘Docent Šafránek never submitted any report on his activity which would make me believe that he actually worked’,6 he added. Apart from the representatives of the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of the Post, and the Czechoslovak People’s Army, the visiting group also consisted of twenty-­five Czechoslovak Radio and Charles University employees and students. The archive of the National Technical Museum in Prague has preserved a copy of a telegram from 8 October 1945, in which Šafránek summons the experts to travel to the north of the country: WE ARE LEAVING FOR TELEVID ON THURSDAY MORNING AT 6 BY THE LIBEREC FAST TRAIN MEETING ON THE TRAIN COME CERTAINLY SAFRANEK+COL5. They joined the research and production under the leadership of Russian and German workers on 11 October 1945. Josef Bednarˇík reports that Šafránek may be a great physicist, but in television he only worked as an amateur about 10 years ago and with old systems which have nothing in common with those of today. He was so surprised by what he saw at his first visit in Smržovka that he couldn’t have made an objective expert reference.7 Bednarˇík is hinting at the fact that Šafránek’s pre-­war apparatuses had reached their maximum at 240 lines, while here he was confronted with a production for 625 lines. It must have been shocking for everyone, as only a few people from the team had seen a television picture before. Unfortunately, the witnesses’ memories differ regarding the question of whether Šafránek  Minutes from Examination of J. Bednarˇík, 3 April 1946. ÚVA Prague, fu. MNO 1946, box 6, N. 536. 6  Minutes from Examination of J. Racek, 1 April 1946, ÚVA Prague, fu. MNO 1946, box 6, N. 536. 7  Minutes from Examination of J. Bednarˇík, 3 April 1946, ÚVA Prague, fu. MNO 1946, box 6, N. 536. 5

IN THE HANDS OF THE MILITARY

73

FIGURE 5.1  A group of Czechoslovak engineers in Tanvald who resurrected television research after the Nazi and Red Armies had left. (Source: Archives of Vladislav Bubeník, 1946).

championed further research for higher definition, or whether he appealed to research in ‘his’ lower definition. Some claim that it was he who enthusiastically suggested that the higher standard be maintained, others remember his conservative dwelling on the lower one, but the tried and tested norm was the core of the Saturday’s arguments.

What was left after the liberation Barely two months of examining the technology had passed when events took a rapid turn. On 3 December 1945, the group members were denied entry to the gate and after a long negotiation they were merely allowed to gather their personal things and leave. The Red Army commander, Colonel Alexei Andreianovich Seleznev, received an order to stop all work and transport all equipment to the Soviet Union. According to witnesses, all substantial equipment was loaded onto trains by the Red Army soldiers while the rest was brutally thrown into the yard from the windows – everything from apparatuses, paper documentation, and office machines, to plates from the factory canteen. After this barbarous deed, part of the group, mainly those who sympathized with Šafránek, decided to leave the ruined Televid factory; the rest (only nine members) started to meet off the record and to think of how to use the experience they had gained there to continue their research. Together they prepared a proposal to continue their research in the Military

74

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Technical Institute8 (further MTI), which was founded in the middle of 1945 as a section of the CS People’s Army and took up a former vacuum lamp factory in Tanvald. At the beginning of January, Major Racek managed to get approval from the Soviet command to load and transport the leftover, snow-­covered material to Tanvald. Everything was registered, four copies of a transfer protocol were prepared, and the parties exchanged it on 30 January. The first post-­war chapter of television development was definitely over – without any audience. ‘Our good will was of little help in the first months, when the factory rooms were emptied, there was no library left, no measuring devices, an incomplete stock of material in the storeroom and even the electric network seemed to be in a suspicious condition. It was necessary to equip the electronic laboratories as well as the laboratory for vacuum technology, reorganize the workshop and refill the storeroom with the necessary components and materials. This naturally took quite some time,’ remembers Vladislav Bubeník, an Institute employee. BUBENÍK 1999: 25–26 The situation was gloomy and required a fresh start. The only source of information for the Czech research team was their memory and everything they managed to recall from their study stay. What to do with it, though? The German Institute in Tanvald, as I have already mentioned, focused on the development and construction of special electrons for ultra-­short waves, namely magnetrons. When MTI was taking over the precincts, only a torso of the machine equipment was left: one magnetron transmitter with a variable wavelength (3–11cm), one eight segment magnetron tube for impulse transmission, and two segment magnetrons for the shortest waves (5–11cm). It was evident that if regular work was to be started, huge investments would be necessary as well as a decision regarding the focus of the research. The work content proposal of the institute from January 1946 contains a division into two main components – ultra-­short waves and ‘television’. There was even the idea to found an independent television institute. However, the minutes of an interdisciplinary meeting at the Ministry of Industry say that ‘the creation of a special television institute is not acceptable for us’ (16 January 1946) and thus a ‘mere’ Television Department9 was founded (1 March 1946). The participants also agreed that the importance of television for the national economy would only become evident in an 8- to 10-year horizon after launching of regular television broadcasting. Simultaneously, they expressed the wish that the researched technology be of completely Czechoslovak production, as ‘experimenting in the form of 8 9

 [Vojenský technický ústav]  [Televisní oddeˇlení]

IN THE HANDS OF THE MILITARY

75

copying is not desirable’.10 To mark out the direction and to provide possible corrections, a special Television Counselling Team11 was founded. There was not much to hold on to in the search for a new way. The situation had not been mapped. At that time, there was no broadcasting in Europe, not even the BBC had resumed broadcasting and nor had the USSR, which, moreover, had just acquired the German technology and was working on its development. Czechoslovak experts had a vague idea that the development of television in the USA was on a higher level than in Germany and they therefore sent an expert to negotiate possible cooperation with Standard Electric as well as a supply of appliances which could be inspiring for Czechoslovak purposes. The expert was also to enter the debate concerning the line norm that Czechoslovakia should join (405, 625, or 819 lines). In the meantime, work on the development of a trial superkinoscope and picture electron for television receivers was started in Tanvald. The UKV Technical and Physical Mechanics Works12 Tanvald, the original name of the MTI, was again under the command of Major Racek. He took on thirty three other Czech civilians, five army employees, and thirteen privates; moreover, he managed to keep on several German experts. The Institute was divided into seven laboratories: Camera, Superikonoscope, Synchronizer, Direction Device, Transmitter, Sound Transmission and Receiver. A homogeneous team was created, which was able to cooperate and offer complementary expertise. Some of them lived in the nearby town of Desná, neighboring almost directly with Tanvald, at that time called Potocˇná (Tiefenbach). They were accommodated in a villa built in 1895 by Josef Riedel, owner of the glass-­ works, and had been home to three generations of the Riedel family before the expulsion of Germans after the Second World War. František Kubícˇek remembers the three years spent in Tanvald as ‘the most beautiful period of my life’; he can recall different details, such as when he and Vlasta Svoboda started to issue a ‘magazine’ for the internal purposes (up to five pieces) called Red Indian13 (Kubícˇek 2003: 155). The group’s motto was nailed to the wall of the vacuum department: ‘Every minute is expensive; the nation expects television’ (Smola 1990). The intention to reach trial television operations as early as the end of 1948 went down in history as task number 208 of the two-­year plan (1947– 1948). Within several months they assembled a functional synchronizer in the 625-line norm, which allowed for the creation of simple television  Record of a Meeting at the Ministry of Industry, 16 January 1946, ÚVA, Prague, fu. MTI 1946, box 6, N. 224. 11  [Televisní poradní sbor] 12  [Závod UKV techniky a fysikální mechaniky Tanvald] 13  [‘Indián’]. The first monoscope, taken over from the American RCA, had a picture of a Red Indian; this term was used in television slang for a long time after then. 10

76

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 5.2  Villa of former owner of Riedl factory in Tanvald, where TV researchers lived. (Source: Tanvald City Archive, 1946).

pictures on the cathode ray tube shade, a kind of screen of a 160mm diameter. The situation was greatly improved by the fact that by mid-1946 the ‘lost’ wagons, which had been sent away before the end of the war, reappeared containing a glass lathe, furnaces and air pumps, pure chemicals for the production of screening electrons, and several measuring devices. Never before seen archive material reveals that their idyllic work was interrupted by certain events and circumstances. The first of them was the totally unexpected arrival of the empty 8040 goods train from Dresden at the station in Dolní Smržovka on the morning of 16 February 1946. It had 38 carriages; one of them was habitable and two were loaded with coal. This load had a military escort supervised by the Red Army general Georgy Zhukov and their goal was to deport all Germans working in Televid. With them, the soldiers loaded the rest of the equipment and facilities of the former Fernseh A. G. Factory. This was supposed to ensure the definitive transfer of all German know-­how in the field of short waves and television to the Soviet Union and disable all ongoing research in Czechoslovakia.

IN THE HANDS OF THE MILITARY

77

Such war booty on the part of the liberators would not be tolerated by Czechoslovak officials, who tried to prevent this grand theft by all means at hand. The dispatcher from Dolní Smržovka sent a desperate telegram to the headquarters in Hradec Králové asking for help as the train driver insisted on departing. The telegram was forwarded to the headquarters at the Ministry of National Defence in Prague, where Colonel Otakar Žampach decided that the transport should be retained ‘under any circumstances. Without the consent of CS military mission in Berlin no similar transport is to be realized’. So said Žampach in the telegram which came back to Hradec. The commander from Hradec then sent an urgent order to the dispatcher: ‘Use all means to prevent the transport of 8040!’14 Despite all of that, the train departed at 11:45pm and headed towards Zittau. The report about the whole operation states that the permission to leave was eventually issued by Major Pavlík from the Ministry. This event does not only illustrate the sovereignty of the Red Army, which acted from a position of power, but more so the intense interest in the speedy development of television. This is evident even in retrospect, as the television equipment which the GDR used to launch television was based on the Soviet model and the Smržovka technology. František Krˇížek remembers that the experts who were carted off from Dolní Smržovka were placed somewhere near Moscow and the others in a division of the former Fernseh A.G. company in German Arnstadt incorporated in the Soviet occupation zone. After 1947, these, too, were transported to the USSR, to a television institute near Leningrad [St Petersburg] and they worked on the construction and equipment of a television center in Moscow. Allegedly, they worked in very good conditions, were provided with world (even American) literature, could move freely, and could keep written contact with home. Around 1950, they returned to their families, at that time already living in the GDR. This was when they laid the foundations of the BRF 15 in East Berlin. Either way, it turned out that research and development in the field of television required coordination. That is why a remarkable group called Television16 was founded in 1947 under the auspices of the State Research Council, with representatives from the MTI (Racek, Bednarˇík, Kolesnikov) but also from the Ministry of Industry (Müller), the Ministry of Information (Erlich), the Ministry of the Post (Benˇa), Czechoslovak Radio (Stahl, Pavlícˇek), and Tesla Pardubice (Kapoun, Šafránek). Its chairman was the representative of the Postal Technical and Conditioning House, Alois Singer. Yes, it was a joke of destiny played on people from one line of work. Thus, at the first meeting on 22 March 1947, Šafránek was confronted by Singer  ÚVA, Prague, fu. MNO 1946, box 62, N. 1151.  [Betriebslaboratorium für Rundfunk und Fernsehen] 16  [Televize] 14 15

78

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

and Benˇa, his rivals or even enemies from the times of the First Republic experiments. They acted with the support of Šafránek’s sworn adversaries from the military (Racek), spurred by their recent negative experiences from Smržovka (Bednarˇík, Kolesnikov). Nevertheless, the fact that Šafránek acted on behalf of Tesla is highly surprising, as was his focusing all his efforts on the completion of his academic career at Charles University. A milestone in the history of Czechoslovak television is represented by the presence of Czechoslovak Radio at this meeting. We can say today that it was at this moment that the future development of television and radio crossed paths. A strong bond was forged between them both from the technical as well as ideological points of view, and moreover, it was, for the first time, supported by the civil state sector. At the first meeting of the committee Kazimír Stahl, technician by profession, the future General Manager of Czechoslovak Radio, announced the plan to organize an international exhibition on the occasion of the twenty-­fifth anniversary of Czechoslovak Radio (MEVRO International Radio Exhibition) in Prague. It was the first time that the idea of demonstrating the first television broadcast with apparatuses of Czechoslovak production at the exhibition appeared. As a result of the debate, Czechoslovak Radio soon signed an agreement of cooperation with the MTI – another ten radio employees joined the Tanvald factory at the beginning of May 1947 with a further five

FIGURE 5.3  Kazimír Stahl, who placed TV research under Czechoslovak Radio, and later became its director. In the picture he speaks to the Tanvald experimental local broadcasting. (Source: AMŠ, 1948).

IN THE HANDS OF THE MILITARY

79

joining later that year in October. Thus, the military administration took the first steps towards the transfer of television research to civilian space.

Czechoslovak military television is born! Within a year, the Tanvald researchers had something to show the public. In 1947, the first television chain of Czechoslovak production (camera – transmitter – receiver) was successfully completed and the first trials were conducted. Picture was sent via cable from the camera in the laboratory to a receiver installed in the restaurant opposite the building, U Mülleru˚. And thus regulars in a Tanvald pub were the first audience of post-­war television. The event is remembered by a commemorative plaque now installed on the wall of the Municipal Office on 350 Krkonošská Street in Tanvald: ‘In 1947, Tanvald was the site of the development and first public screening of the modern television picture in the CSR’. The successes of the Tanvald Group did not become known to the general public until 23 March 1948, when the first official screening was held. ‘The Military Technical Institute and Czechoslovak Radio would like to invite you to a friendly demonstration of our results to date in the field of television’, announced the invitation (Smola 1990). The event was attended by journalists as well as representatives of the radio (Kazimír Stahl) and the Institute (Josef Trejbal). Both gave speeches which were transmitted to a receiver placed in the lecture hall downstairs. Afterwards, Bubeník briefly acquainted the audience with the development of television: It was our intention to show our achievements to the public not at the time of our first successful attempts of television transmission; on the contrary, we wanted to speed up the laboratory work as much as possible, so that Czechoslovak television could get to the stage where its results become comparable or equal to those reached abroad. The fact that we have decided to invite you here today means that we are able to demonstrate the full chain of television appliances, which are: the camera, the checking studio device, the synchronization device, and the trial transmitter on one side and the prototype of a receiver on the other. BUBENÍK 1999: 27 Newspaper articles published the next day suggest that it was a successful event. ‘I saw Czechoslovak television’,17 said the Práce newspaper; We have our own television,18 informed Rudé právo; Our television is being born,19  [‘Videˇl jsem cˇeskoslovenskou televisi’]  [‘Máme svou televisi’] 19  [‘Rodí se nám televise’] 17 18

80

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 5.4  A camera with a superconductor designed by researchers at Tanvald, which later served for public television shows. (Source: AMŠ, 1947)

wrote Cˇ as in Brno; Even Czechoslovakia has television, was the praise of Nová politika Brno; We have our own television!20 boasted Stráž severu in Liberec. These articles also contain a record of what the radio and MIT employees had prepared and what could be seen on the screen – for example, sketches, news, a lecture, and dance and music shows, which means that it was the ‘first cabaret broadcast by Czechoslovak Television’. The relaxed atmosphere of all of this, as well as other trial transmissions from Tanvald, are described by their participant, Jarmil Dohnálek: Folk creativity and the sense of humour of the technicians was evident. Intentional and sometimes also unintentional visual deformations of local functionaries during their orations provoked bursts of laughter. Everyone wanted to be, so to say, on television, so there was always a great hustle in front of the camera. Everyone saw it as something new, so far unheard of. DOHNÁLEK 1999: 23–24 Task number 208 was thus fulfilled ahead of schedule. At the beginning of June, the Institute’s employees packed the necessary apparatus into 25 crates and set off to Prague to attend the exhibition, and their fame would become international.  [‘Máme vlastní televisi!’]

20

THE MAIN ACT

Television should serve the Communist ideology

6 Context of Soviet approaches in the televisual space of the Eastern Bloc1

In the field of television, the Soviet Union became the East European leader. Its experience with television broadcasting, technology and programme content dated back to the 1930s, when regular broadcasting was launched in the USSR, as one of the first five countries in the world.2 It was also the first regime to realize the propaganda potential of television to promote the country’s ‘great future’, for which it used as many as four state channels in its peak form by the end of the 1960s, which was unparallelled in any of the smaller countries of the region. Unsurprisingly, the Eastern European countries in the Soviet sphere of influence asked for help and inspiration in rolling out television and the very question of what to broadcast. It was after all in the interest of the USSR to make sure that the countries under its influence had a functioning broadcasting system. In this respect, a certain sense of rivalry crept into the field. (Czechoslovakia, for example, ‘pulled itself together’ only after the launch of television broadcasting in the countries of its closest neighbours, East Germany and Poland.) It was already crystal clear that the exchange of programmes and later even orbital stations would allow for the spread of ideology through technology. Not only in Eastern Europe, but also in countries as far away as Cuba. It would be absurd to blindly adopt Soviet experience in any of the countries of the Eastern Bloc; this group of states had never formed a monolith, but rather a complex of lands with different cultural and historical  First version of this text was published under the title Television Nations of Eastern Europe as an article a collective Czech and Slovak monography (Kanˇka – Kofránková – Mayerová – Štoll 2015). 2  Regular broadcasting in the inter-­war period was launched on 22 March 1935 in Nazi Germany, on 10 September 1935 in France, on 2 November 1936 in Great Britain, on 10 March 1939 in the USSR and on 30 April 1939 in the USA. 1

84

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 6.1  The jingle of the international organization for the exchange of television shows in the socialist bloc. (Source: APF CT, 1975).

developments. The Soviet Union differed from its ‘satellites’ in every aspect, namely the territorial vastness of the state, distribution of population throughout this vast territory, linguistic diversity (there were 130 nations and nationalities, newspapers were printed in 56 languages), differences in national traditions and cultures including diverse degrees of historical and cultural development (Šmíd 1989: unnumbered). The Soviet Union struggled to provide television coverage across its enormous landmass and it would be difficult to coordinate. Full coverage across the USSR was not achieved until the mid-1960s when individual studios were connected with the help of cables and radio relay routes, namely after the launch of satellite Lightning3 in 1965, which enabled the first signal transmissions between the Asian and the European parts of the USSR. About 40 satellites of the Orbita type4 were launched in the years

3 4

 [Mолния-Molniya]  [Oрьита]

CONTEXT OF SOVIET APPROACHES IN THE EASTERN BLOC

85

1965–1988, enabling the reception (or exchange) of Soviet programmes among other countries in the Eastern Bloc. Siberia did not receive a television signal until 1976, when another system, The Screen5, was launched into orbit. Let us add that the third orbital system was one called Moscow6 launched in 1979, whose satellite Horizon7 could receive the complete Soviet first programme – which was re-broadcast by Poland completely, for example. An important advancement for Soviet television was the construction of its Moscow headquarters in Ostankino (1967–1970), which later became even more technologically advanced in 1980 as it provided global broadcasts of the summer Olympic Games in Moscow. Despite all of these efforts, securing a unified programme for a country as large as the USSR presented major organizational problems. The main news programme Time8 had to be broadcast five times every day in order to cover the ten different time zones of the vast empire. Such problems were naturally irrelevant for the rest of the Eastern Bloc countries.

Taking over the organizational patterns The day considered to be when regular television broadcasting began in the Soviet Union is 16 June 1949. It was named The Television of the Soviet Union9 and used a post-­war norm of the 625-line television system. Gradually, broadcast operations were launched elsewhere in the USSR: in Leningrad (1948), which assumed the new 625-line system on 1 May 1951. Kiev, Ukraine was to become the third Soviet broadcasting centre (6 November 1951) while the Baltic states followed suit in the 1950s: Riga, Latvia (6 November 1954), Tallinn, Estonia (19 July 1955) and Vilnius, Lithuania (30 April 1957).10 Under the influence of the Soviet Union, television broadcasting was launched in seven of the ‘satellite’ countries of Eastern Europe in the same decade. The first one was Warsaw (25 October 1952, Telewizja Polska, TVP), followed by East Berlin (21 December 1952 – first organized by Fernsehzentrum Berlin),11 and next came Prague (1 May 1953, Cˇeskoslovenská

 [Екран-Ekran]  [Mосква-Moskva] 7  [Горизон-Horizon] 8  [‘Время-Vremya’] 9  [Tелевидение Cоветcкого Союзa-Televidenie Sovetskogo Sojuza] 10  See the study of the constituent history of Soviet television, Evans 2016. 11  Sometimes the beginnings are marked by another date, 21 December 1955, when the construction of basic lines of communication was finished, in 1956 the TV organization was named Deutscher Fernsehfunk, DFF, in 1972 renamed as Fernsehen der DDR, DDR-FS, which lasted until its termination in 1990. 5 6

86

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

televize)12. The list continues with the launch of television in Bucharest (23 August 1955, Televiziunea Românaˇ)13, then Budapest (1958, Magyár Televizió), Sofia (7 May 1959, Balgarsja televizija)14, Belgrade (1959, Jugoslovenska Radiotelevizija) and finally Tirana (29 April 1960, Rádio Televizioni Shqiptar). These countries more or less accepted the Soviet organizational approaches, although they had to adapt them to their own specific conditions. All had to consult with the Soviets. Poland had to welcome twenty-­four Leningrad specialists who came to assist, that is, oversee, the launch of its television broadcasting (Michalski 2012: 19). According to the Soviet pattern, central administration (commonly on the level of the Culture Ministry or as a special committee) was created in most of the countries. This was in charge of construction and operation as well as broadcasting. The State Committee for Television and Radio15 in Moscow was established in 1957, gaining even more power in 1970 when it was upgraded to the level of a Soviet Ministry whose chairman was a member of the government, or the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Almost all countries of the Eastern Bloc adopted this model (often with names such as the State Committee for Radio and Television) and differed only in their view on whether television and radio should be lodged under the same roof or rather as two independent organizations. Having started as a department of radio in many countries (e.g. Poland or Czechoslovakia), television gradually gained its independence. Television became an independent medium in its own right, governed by its own institutions in Czechoslovakia in 1964 and in East Germany in 1968. In Hungary, radio and television were separate from the very beginning, while in Romania both media shared common finances, planning departments, and technology. In Bulgaria, the situation took a different turn altogether, when television incorporated the radio. In Albania, television and radio broadcasters continue to share studios. In Yugoslavia, the situation was different still. Yugoslavia was a federal state and although the headquarters of Yugoslav television were in Belgrade, each state (or autonomous province) had its own radio and television committee. Each of the relatively independent Yugoslav states broadcast both the national programme, ‘Yugoslav’, which was mainly in Serbo-Croatian, as well as regional programming in the respective languages. Unlike in the other

 First under the name of Televisní studio Praha [Television Studio Prague] and Ústrˇední televisní studio [Central Television Studio], the name Cˇeskoslovenská televise [Czechoslovak Television] did not appear until 1 October 1959. 13  Sometimes stated as 21 August 1955, the official date being 31 December 1956. 14  Sometimes listed as 26 December 1959. 15  [Государственный комитет по телевидению и радиовещанию СССР, Гостелерадио СССРGostelradio] 12

CONTEXT OF SOVIET APPROACHES IN THE EASTERN BLOC

87

states of Yugoslavia, Slovenia aired Slovenian broadcasts first, and country-­ wide Yugoslav ones second. This hybrid system was particular to Yugoslav television, as was the fact that, aside from state television, a commercial station KOPER (Capodistria), supported by the Italian government, was permitted to broadcast in Italian for the country’s Italian minority. Burton Paulu asserts that ‘Yugoslav broadcasting provides an ideological bridge between the typical Communist and democratic systems’ (Paulu 1967: 57). Almost each of the Eastern Bloc televisions broadcast in multiple languages. Yugoslavia, with its ten language versions of the main news programme The Daily,16 was exceptional, though each of the states tried to cover the needs of linguistic minorities. Apart from Czech and Slovak being two equal languages (e.g. the main news programme was hosted by Czech and Slovak speakers who alternated, if not after each headline or programme, then at least on the different days of the week), Czechoslovak television offered programmes in Polish, Hungarian, and Russian. East Germany was unique in that it had a common language with its closest Western ‘capitalist’ neighbour. This troubled the ‘socialist’ ideologists of the time as the TV signal of the West German channels ARD and ZDF covered almost the

FIGURE 6.2  Soviets television sets called Leningrad purchased by Czechoslovakia to watch the first broadcast ever. (Source: AMŠ, 1954).

 [‘Dnevnik’]

16

88

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

whole territory of the GDR and thus it was not easy to prevent the nation from watching those stations. For a while, the authorities found a way around this in that the East German and Russian TV sets which were available to buy in the GDR were only able to receive VHF signals and not the UHF used by West German broadcasters. However, this changed after the launch of the second East German programme in 1969 using UHF and thus requiring TV sets which were able to receive both wavelengths. At that time, an open ideological struggle was initiated by the so-­called counter-­ programming – let us mention the programme called Black Channel,17 which selected news programmes from ARD and ZDF, provided a new ideological context and offered ‘proper’ commentary to avoid any kind of ‘misunderstanding’ on the part of the East German citizens.

Television content A brisk programme exchange was taking place within the Eastern Bloc. An important platform for this exchange was an organization called Intervision18 (5 September 1960), founded as a special unit of the international organization OIRT.19 Its founding members were the Czechoslovak, East German, Hungarian, and Polish broadcasters, who were later joined by the Soviet Union (1961), Bulgaria (1963), Romania (1963), Mongolia (1974), and Cuba (1978). Surprisingly, Finland became a member (1965), despite being simultaneously a member of the ‘competing’ West European Eurovision (founded in 1954). Naturally, each of the East European television broadcasters imported Soviet programs to a certain extent, not as a result of a political imperative, but rather to fill broadcast schedules. Bulgarian television cooperated with the Soviets most extensively; it even had twenty of its employees stationed in Moscow in order to coordinate the so-called Soviet Fridays. This kind of practice was a rarity in the Eastern Bloc. The ratio of Soviet programmes in Bulgaria was as high as ten per cent, which was quite a logical result of its historical development, as the USSR provided extensive material support for the construction of TV studios in Sofia as well as the transmitters, not to mention other cultural similarities with

 [‘Schwarzer Kanal’]  Intervision was founded, shielded by the OIRT organization and based in Prague. It was gradually joined by: People’s Republic of Albania (or ‘the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania’ from 1976), Belorussian SSR, People’s Republic of Bulgaria, People’s Republic of China, Estonian SSR, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Lithuanian SSR, Latvian SSR, Moldavian SSR, People’s Republic of Mongolia, People’s Republic of Romania, Ukrainian SSR, Democratic People’s Republic of Vietnam, Cuban Republic, and Finland. 19  [Organization Internationale de Radiodiffusion et Télevision] 17 18

CONTEXT OF SOVIET APPROACHES IN THE EASTERN BLOC

89

Russia such as the common orthodox faith. Intervision provided special live broadcasts during major events such as the celebrations of Yuri Gagarin’s space mission (1961) or celebrations of the socialist Labour Day which was broadcast by Polish TV, for example, on 1 May 1963. Polish TV also had a special department for socialist countries which selected programmes from the other befriended countries. Intervision did not just facilitate content sharing between East European broadcasters, but also other international activities such as the Teleforum shows and festivals in Moscow, the longest continuously running international television festival Golden Prague (which continues to this day), the Leipzig Festival of Cultural and Documentary Films, Sopot International Song Festival, The Sea Festival in Riga, Golden Orpheus in Bulgaria, Prix Danube in Bratislava, and others. Eastern European broadcasters also had some access to Western programmes, namely sports programmes or live broadcasts of sporting events. The first example of one such transgression of ideological boundaries was the broadcasts from the winter Olympic Games in Cortina d’Ampezzo, Italy (1956), which were broadcast in East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Other broadcasts from the West included the winter Olympics in Innsbruck (1964) and the joint cosmic flight Soyuz-Apollo (1975). Naturally, each of the Eastern Bloc countries tried to cover the whole spectrum of television genres, ranging from programmes for the young, musical programmes, documentary series, live broadcasts or recorded versions of theatrical performances, coverage of prominent social (political), cultural,

FIGURE 6.3  Yuri Gagarin in the broadcast of CST and the entire Eastern Bloc. (Source: AMŠ, 1961).

90

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

and sporting events, to news reports and propaganda.20 Needless to say, political supervision was present throughout, be it in the selection (or exclusion) of artists, songs, theatrical repertoire or even censoring cinematographic films broadcast on television. The most blatant demonstration of ideology was certainly visible in news reporting and TV journalism. Newscasts were dominated by unsubstantiated information on meeting the socialist ‘plan’ (large building projects, mining, agriculture . . .) and ‘heroes of socialist work’. News regarding the hostile ‘imperialist’ world was presented in a fittingly negative or even seditious tone. The regime used all possible means to sustain its monolithic world view, and did not tolerate alternative opinions. In short, it realized all too well that television was the most powerful tool of propaganda and the loudest trumpet of socialism. Some original programmes gained popularity in different countries; in Poland, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia, live TV broadcasts were popular, as were recordings, and later adaptations of theatrical plays – in Poland, one of the most popular programmes was called Television Theater21 (1952–2011) (!).

FIGURE 6.4  Russian language courses began broadcasting in CST in 1960. (© M. Peterka, 1967).

 There are numerous studies dedicated to the media (namely film) and propaganda of the Soviet Bloc, e.g. Taylor 1979/1998 or Powrie-Stilwell 2007. 21  [‘Teatr Telewizji’]. For more see Michalski (2012). 20

CONTEXT OF SOVIET APPROACHES IN THE EASTERN BLOC

91

Television, as a new medium still waiting to be fully utilized, employed theater to accomplish its cultural and educational mission, to provide cultural experience even to those who would not, or could not afford to, visit the theater. The same was true for sports matches, which were popular already in the radio era. Aside from political programmes there were various language courses, educational programmes of different forms called ‘television academies’, original dramatic work, and the development of cooperation with established film industries (the TV in East Germany directly cooperated with DEFA; Czechoslovak Television with the Czechoslovak State Film Agency,22 etc.) was becoming of increasing importance. One of the necessary dramaturgical keys to the production and planning of the programme was of course the wide range of different (mostly political) anniversaries, birthdays, or deaths of statesmen, and other occasions. In Hungary, there were no broadcasts on Mondays in a bid to encourage families to spend quality time together, rather than in front of the television. At the same time, the Bratislava studio in neighbouring Czechoslovakia was launched and began to broadcast Hungarian programmes for the Hungarian minority settled in southern Slovakia, and the signal could be received in Hungary as well. This custom was practiced until 1989.

The expansion and keeping of the colossus As the number of Soviet television channels was gradually increased (a second channel was launched in 1956, a third in 1965, a fourth in 1967), there was growing interest and demand for other broadcasters to widen their range of programming.23 One of the reasons for this was the attempt to introduce color television, with three different (mutually incompatible) systems of color scanning and transmission which were available in the late 1960s – the West German PAL, the French (or in a modified form Soviet) SECAM, and the American NTSC. It appeared that the new programmes were a suitable experimental space for trying out the particularities of color. On 7 November 1967, the Soviet Union became the first country of the Eastern Bloc to introduce color transmission on its newly launched fourth programme designed for culture, sports, and entertainment, with color broadcast of a parade celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Great October Revolution. Although PAL offered better color transmission than SECAM and was also more stable, it was the political decision of the Soviet

 [Cˇeskoslovenský státní film]  Second channels were launched in Latvia 1966, in Romania 1968, in East Germany 1969, in Poland, 1970, in Yugoslavia, 1970, in Czechoslovakia, 1970, in Bulgaria, 1975. Yugoslav RTV Zagreb was the only one to have launched a third programme, 1988.

22 23

92

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Union that all its satellites would have to take over the SECAM color system without exception. Quite understandably, Latvia (1974), as a Soviet Republic, and Bulgaria (1972), a faithful friend of the USSR, introduced SECAM color transmission; as did East Germany, which launched its second channel on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of its existence (3 October 1969). An interesting situation occurred in Romania, which also introduced color broadcasts in line with the Soviet standard in 1968, but later switched to the PAL system (1983). Czechoslovakia also officially opted for SECAM (1973), despite the fact that its new Prague television complex Kavcˇí Hory was equipped with PAL technology, and in order to keep its obligations to the Soviet Bloc, it went on to place a decoder in front of the transmitter and thus managed to broadcast in line with the Soviet norm. This manoeuvre made it much easier, more effective, and cheaper to change back to the Western norm after the fall of the regime, as there was no need to invest in new technologies; all there was to do was to ‘merely’ get rid of the decoder. Then there were countries which never allowed the SECAM system to be enforced and insisted on PAL – even within Eastern Europe. To an extent, there was an element of resistance in this choice, as countries attempted to maintain their own integrity, at least externally. This was mostly true for Yugoslavia and the strongly Catholic Poland (both in 1971).

FIGURE 6.5  CST broadcasting was teeming with the Russian or Soviet element in all types of programmes. The leading singer, Karel Gott, who used to go on tours with the Red Army choir, the Alexandrov Ensemble, sings in the programme Russian Romance [‘Ruské romance’]. (© Miroslav Pospíšil, 1977).

CONTEXT OF SOVIET APPROACHES IN THE EASTERN BLOC

93

To illustrate the greatness of the television nations behind the Iron Curtain it is possible to have a look at the statistics of ‘telefication’ from the end of the socialist era (1988). Television ownership was most widespread in East Germany with 363 television sets for every 1000 citizens, in comparison to West Germany, which had 373 television sets per 1000 people. The Soviet Union did far worse in this respect, but the numbers vary – 296 television sets per 1000 people may seem in comparison with the other countries rather low; however, that amounts to 84 million television sets scattered among its 278 million inhabitants. Similarly, Czechoslovakia had 287 television sets per 1000 people. It is necessary to view this data in the context of TV set production – the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and East Germany were at the same time manufacturers of TV sets, so they could also supply their domestic markets; the most massive manufacturer, of course, being the USSR. (East Germany produced TV sets under a Soviet technological licence.) This chapter has tried to show that even the Soviet, or Eastern Bloc countries, did not manage to form a compact whole. A certain extent of independent thinking or autonomy was traceable in those countries which were not directly incorporated into the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia, which shared a lot of common features of state governance with the Soviet Union, at the same time moved away from the Soviet model to a large extent, or better to say – it went its own way. The infamous interventions (Hungary, 1956; Berlin, 1961; Czechoslovakia, 1968; Poland, early 1980s) were in fact desperate attempts to solve problems by force, either external or internal, and the significance of these moments was naturally reflected on TV screens as well. For all of them, let us mention the situation in Czechoslovakia in 1968, when TV technicians were hiding in different places with walkie-­ talkies in order to confuse the invaders. Eventually, they placed their camera on the Cukrák transmitter, located near Prague, where the Warsaw Pact tanks were just approaching, and provided the TV viewers with images of historical drama in a live broadcast. We can find another infamous example of foreign intervention during the state of emergency declared in Poland in 1981–1983, when Poland’s second channel went black for two years.24 Despite all of its military interventions, the Soviet Union did not manage fully to subdue its satellite countries.

 Some countries restricted their broadcasting even without political interventions, e.g. Romania reduced broadcasting during the economic crisis in 1980; in 1985, it cancelled its second channel completely for economic reasons while the first channel was limited to mere two hours at primetime and six and half hours at weekends.

24

CONTExTUAL BOx No. 3 Czechoslovakia – Prelude to communism, 1945–1948

I

t was hoped that the period between the end of the Second World War and February 1948 would see the democratic principles of the First Republic return to Czechoslovakia. However, since the country had been shattered by Nazi violence, this would prove to be an insurmountable challenge. Key figures from the First Republic, President Edvard Beneš and the foreign minister Jan Masaryk – son of the first President T.G. Masaryk – returned from exile, but they came via Moscow. Disillusioned with the Munich Agreement, Beneš spent the war years looking for a strong ally for Czechoslovakia and came to rely on Stalin. In 1943, they even signed a Czechoslovak-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Mutual Aid, and Post-war Cooperation. This political vision accelerated the post-war course of the country right into the bosom of the Soviet Empire. The Soviet Union was considered to have liberated the country, despite the fact that the western regions of Czechoslovakia (along the Karlovy Vary-Pilsen-Cˇ eské Budeˇjovice line) were freed by General Patton and the American Army. (After 1948, this fact became a taboo, and according to official propaganda, the country’s only liberator was the USSR.) In the euphoria of the post-war period, Czechoslovak citizens put their faith in the USSR , in the hopes that it would help with reconstruction. In 1946, the Czechoslovak communists won the first post-war election, securing 40.17 per cent of votes in Czech lands, 30.37 per cent in Slovakia. The communist leader, Klement Gottwald, became Prime Minister. Czechoslovakia was transformed from a democratic state into a socalled people’s democracy, which had to deal with the difficult post-war period and re-define itself. Slovakia rejoined the country after a period of independence during the war. The Potsdam Conference legitimized the deportation of ethnic German citizens from Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary into Germany; altogether, 2,700,000 Germans were expelled. By means of Beneš’s presidential decrees, the possessions of all collaborators with Nazism were seized, two thirds of the country’s industrial potential (including the banks and the film industry) were nationalized. Beneš also carried out land reform. Some political parties were banned, the remaining four in Bohemia and two in Slovakia were united in the so-called National Front. In 1947, Czechoslovakia wanted to accept the American Marshall Plan, but Stalin personally intervened in order to remind the Czechoslovak representatives of the commitments they had made during the war, thus preventing Czechoslovakia from receiving the aid. And as the initial postwar conference of the Czechoslovak government in the spring of 1945

took place in Moscow and drafted in the so-called Košice Government Programme, the new democratic republic exposed itself to a brand new type of serfdom. Right after the communist coup in February 1948, Klement Gottwald demanded that the old and sick Edvard Beneš sign a new, undemocratic constitution created under the auspices of Moscow. Subsequently, the communist triumph was completed when Gottwald became president.

7 New totalitarianism on the horizon

Media in liberated Czechoslovakia was incorporated into the administration of the newly founded Ministry of Information, which was presided over by a member of the top management of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Václav Kopecký. The Ministry was dissolved (31 January 1953) and its responsibilities were briefly taken up by the Ministry of Education, before being handed on to the newly founded Culture Ministry. The technological aspects of the spread of the mass media, namely radio, as well as the construction of transmitters and their maintenance, was traditionally taken care of by the Ministry of the Post, which was, however, also disbanded (30 April 1954) and replaced by the Ministry of Communications.1 Immediately after the war, the leading positions and influential posts in media and the arts were occupied by communist or left-­oriented officials – at the Ministry of Information, for example, the post of the Film Department Deputy was occupied by a major Czech avant-­garde poet from the period between the wars (and co-­founder of the Surrealist Group) Víteˇzslav Nezval. Writer Ivan Olbracht was in charge of the radio.2

Radio means power At the very beginning of May 1945, a technical department was set up at the Ministry of Information whose task it was to oversee the construction of radio in Czechoslovakia. It was also supposed to cooperate with the radio department at the Ministry of the Post, monitor international meetings

 For a more detailed account of the media in Czechoslovakia between 1948 and 1950 see Bednarˇík-Cebe 2008. 2  More in Knapík 2002. 1

98

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

concerning technical matters, prepare technical documents on radio law and all decrees, create suggestions for the ‘radiophonisation’ of Czechoslovakia, and see to it that all planning for the future counted with the latest developments of radio technology. Interestingly for us, part of its work was to ‘incessantly follow new technical knowledge and professional literature, and to keep a record of its publication within the Ministry of Information, and to study and prepare for television’.3 This is apparently the first time that the word ‘television’ appeared in the vocabulary of the post-­war civilian Ministry. Czechoslovak Radio tried quickly to recover from its being uprooted during the occupation and renewed its relationships with international bodies. Its representatives played an active role at the meetings of UNESCO radio experts in Paris in July 1947 and in August of the same year at a meeting in Atlantic City at the International Telecommunication Convention. The number of registered receivers soared and was quickly approaching two million. When the communists came into power in February 1948, they were keenly aware of radio’s ability to influence. On 17 February the chief of the education department of Czechoslovak Radio, Zdeneˇk Novák, declared a state of emergency and the guards prevented employees from entering the radio building. Three days later, the only news broadcasts available were those provided by the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CzCP, that is, the office of Gustav Bareš. The deputy director and chairman of the company’s Revolutionary Trade Union Movement Committee, Kazimír Stahl, even became chairman of the Action Committees, which was a series of newly set up political organs taking part in the takeover of power. Programme director Mirko Ocˇadlík was deemed to be inconvenient and removed from his post (although he eventually returned a while later). It is telling that one of the first laws passed after the coup regarded the nationalization of the radio (number 137/1948 from 28 April 1948). Its purpose was a substantial ownership change, mainly elimination of the privately owned company Radiojournal and takeover of the radio to exclusive ownership and management of the state. Radio was defined as ‘non-­profit state company with its own status, which is free from all taxes, levies, and fees’,4 which made it an undisguised tool of power. There are documents from later years (including 1951) kept in the Ministry file which inform that ‘Czechoslovak Radio was ordered to build a number of devices which must be kept in total secrecy’ and it was supposed to become a ‘secret 3  J. Erlich, Proposal for Pragmatization [‘Návrh na pragmatisaci’], 30 November 1947. NAP, fu. 861, f. 63, N. 6440. 4  Proposal for Government Order on Organization of the CS Radio State Enterprise [‘Návrh vládního narˇízení o organisaci státního podniku Cˇs. rozhlasu.’] NAP, fu. 861, box  119, N. 8771/1948.

NEW TOTALITARIANISM ON THE HORIZON

99

enterprise’.5 One of the secret programmes was television. The Director General of CS Radio was the agile Kazimír Stahl (2 July 1948).

Television harvest 1948 In 1948, the results of the pre-­war effort and post-­war experiments of the MTI fell into the communists’ lap. It was almost June, the time of the MEVRO International Radio Exhibition6 in Prague. However, most of the exhibitors from western countries cancelled their participation after the February coup and the organizers from CS Radio had to improvise. The exhibition was conducted under the auspices of the Ministry of Information and Education, Ministry of the Post and Ministry of National Defence. The government decided to provide this support on 11 May 1948, that is just days after the communist coup. This event was intended to be used for ideological purposes. The list

FIGURE 7.1  MEVRO – The International Radio Exhibition, where Czechoslovak television apparatus was publicly presented for the first time. (Source: AMŠ, 1948).  CS Radio – Declaration of a Secret Enterprise. [‘Cˇs. rozhlas – prohlášení za tajný podnik.’] NAP, fu. 861, box 119, N. 8771/1948. 6  [‘Mezinárodní výstava rozhlasu’] 5

100

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

of people invited to the exhibition opening is remarkable. Jaroslav Šafránek was invited, along with respected politicians, artists and technicians. The exhibition (15 May – 11 July 1948) was visited by 315,000 people. The exposition of Czechoslovak Radio presented an improvised MEVRO studio. Visitors could see behind the scenes of how a radio station operated, or participate in a broadcast. People were fascinated by its dynamics, immediacy, authenticity, humour, and technical intricacy: it was the first time that a telephone had been directly connected with a studio, and was the first time that portable reportage transmitters had been used. MEVRO was a milestone in the development of television as well. It was this very occasion that the Tanvald technicians worked so hectically on their television apparatus. This time, it was no mere screening for journalists and experts; here, for the first time in history, the Czechoslovak public was shown a functional transmitting and receiving chain with two cameras, a direction and synchronization unit, sound system, and picture signal conducted by (so far only) one coaxial cable to three receivers, surrounded by crowds of viewers. As Josef Smola remembers, one of the screens had a bluish shade; the other was greenish and the third one yellowish, which, at the same time, served the technicians to determine the technologically most suitable shade for brightness and contrast. The eye of one camera was aimed at the improvised television studio, while the second one was taking the situation in the street in front of the exhibition ground. The television

FIGURE 7.2  Visitors could watch live transmissions on screens from cameras placed in front of the exhibition palace. (Source: AMŠ, 1948).

NEW TOTALITARIANISM ON THE HORIZON

101

‘broadcast’ took place three times a day for one hour, featuring The Disman Radio and Theater Company,7 radio-­style interviews with visitors were made. A number of comical situations arose, as the speaker often commented on something other than that which was being screened by the camera, which caused bursts of laughter. A newspaper at the time wrote that the television device cost 150,000 CSK and that serial production could cut the price down to some 20,000 CSK, which was still well out of reach for most Czechs. That year was rich in television encounters. Another opportunity to use the Tanvald chain and introduce the principle of television to the public came at the beginning of July when the Strahov Stadium in Prague (built shortly before the Second World War for the Sokol gymnasts to demonstrate national power to the world) hosted the eleventh All-Sokol Meeting held between 4–8 July. Czechoslovak Radio provided live broadcast entries, but the MTI employees tried something which until then was unheard of: the first

FIGURE 7.3  A camera from the Tanvald research team that was part of the exhibition exposition. (Source: AMŠ, 1948). 7

 [Dismanu˚v rozhlasový a divadelní soubor]

102

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

coordinated live broadcast from an outdoor event. They placed three cameras in the stadium and on the roof of the main terrace, the seat of the visual director. Several transmitters were positioned on the roof of the restaurant in Rieger Gardens, the building of Technical Museum, the post office in Letná, and the military mast on Petrˇín Hill. Today it sounds like a work of fiction that the camera signal was transmitted from the screen in the direction of the Petrˇín Transmitter by a kilometre-­long coaxial cable. From there, the signal was spread through the air to other signals, which was another technological primacy. This television broadcast was seen by approximately 20,000 viewers on 25 receivers stationed in the building of the Rudé právo8 newspaper, the General Hospital, and other places in Prague. Most people watched the programme at the Film Exhibition,9 which was visited by 100,000 people. Accidental reception was reported by radio amateurs in the Krkonoše Mountains. This is, however, not the end of the 1948 harvest. For the first time, people outside of Prague had a chance to watch an improvised broadcast from the East Bohemia to the Republic10 exhibition in Pardubice from 3 July to 3 October. It was not the apparatus from the Tanvald MTI, but Telegrafia, or at that time already Tesla Pardubice. This company had a substantial budget to finance the research. However, Tesla was incapable of producing the most important component, the iconoscope, and had to order it from the USA. To make the programme more attractive for viewers, the Pardubice technicians agreed to transmit extracts of Funny Work,11 written by a Soviet author, Grigori Yakovlevich Gradov. The play was staged by the Cultural Brigades, which were then active in the Pardubice region. (Tours – or raids – of the countryside by members of the Czechoslovak Socialist Youth Movement were one of the ways in which the new regime spread its ideas beyond the cities.) ‘Sweat trickles down our faces, it is a combination of exhaustion and the strong light from the reflectors; but we are doing great because we know that we are doing a great thing’, writes journalist Otakar Bru˚na (Bru˚na 1948: 26). It was in fact the first television play, and although it was shot in an amateur manner, it suggested that this genre could assert itself well in television. The Práce newspaper from 29 July wrote: The Pardubice experiment provided a new experience. The taking of close-­ups and half close-­ups was going very well, though things got worse  Rudé právo [‘Red Right’] was the main newspaper of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia.  [‘Filmová výstava’] 10  [‘Východní Cˇechy republice’] 11  [‘Smeˇšná práce’] 8 9

NEW TOTALITARIANISM ON THE HORIZON

103

when taking long shots. [. . .] The manager of the television schedule at the exhibition gladly pointed out that a group of young people together with the pride of our nationalized production – television – are in the vanguard of progress.12 The last public presentations of the MTI took place at two Prague Sample Fairs13 in the autumn of 1948 and spring of 1949. The Fairs also hold their primacies – one technical and one authorial. Firstly, the television signal from the improvised studios was sent to the Petrˇín transmitter on centimetre waves by a radio relay; this transmission was, for the first time in the country, carried out without the use of cables. Secondly, in the spring (19 March 1949) the first sketch written directly for television was performed at the Fair, called, provisionally, At the Photographer’s.14

FIGURE 7.4  The eleventh All-Sokol Meeting, the last traditional meeting of trainees. The picture captures the first online transmission from several cameras to TV sets located in various places in Prague. (Source: AMŠ, 1948).  Práce, 29 July 1948.  [Pražský vzorkový veletrh] 14  [‘U fotografa’] 12 13

104

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Within sixteen months it was possible to see the miracle of television five times in total: in Tanvald at the screening for journalists, at MEVRO, at the All-Sokol Meeting at the Pardubice Exhibition, and the two Sample Fairs. This was an unheard of harvest and everything suggested that television broadcasting had a bright future in store. Then, something unexpected happened. At the outbreak of the Cold War, all television research, experiments, and presentations in Czechoslovakia came to a halt. Not only the military administration, but also the nationalized economy, had to focus on other things. The man behind this decision was the Minister of National Defence, General Ludvík Svoboda, as well as, above all, President Gottwald’s son-­in-law, the Justice Minister and later National Defence Minister, Alexej Cˇ epicˇka. In their view, it was far more important to focus military and industrial production on defence (mainly anti-­aircraft measures). After they reached an agreement with the Ministers of Information and Industry in the autumn of 1948, television development at MTI was stopped. The Ministry of Industry also forbade further television work in Tesla Pardubice and all production was to be redirected towards radiolocation technologies. The Tanvald employees shared the same disappointment as they had just finished their second camera chain. In December, they received a military order to transfer both chains to Czechoslovak Radio management, including ten self-­made receivers.

CONTExTUAL BOx No. 4 Czechoslovakia – Stalinism 1948–1960

G

ottwald’s era was the most brutal period of Czechoslovak communism. The Czechoslovak dictator, who considered himself to be Stalin’s pupil, died only nine days after the Soviet generalissimo’s death in 1953. (According to the Soviet tradition, he was embalmed and displayed in a special mausoleum; however, his remains decomposed definitively in 1961 and this ‘exhibition’ was closed.) After Gottwald had assumed power, the parliamentary system became a mere formality. The Communist Party took hold of the reins and all subsequent elections were manipulated. Political trials were initiated (e.g. the one with Milada Horáková), terror was meted out against entrepreneurs, private farmers, intelligentsia, soldiers, and the Catholic Church. Forced labour camps were created, often in uranium mines, and people were convicted without trial. The Five-Year Plan system was adopted to plan a centralized economy. In 1953, monetary reform was carried out which robbed the majority of the nation – cash was devalued 5:1, savings accounts were devalued 50:1. A huge emphasis was placed on heavy industry and steel making; new coal mines were opened and the Soviet Union exploited precious uranium mines which were situated in the vicinity of the towns of Jáchymov and Prˇíbram. The ideology of Marxism-Leninism and socialist realism became the sole legal doctrine. Censorship was rife, just like during the Nazi occupation and periodicals and other journals were subject to close scrutiny. State controlled distribution of newsprint became another instrument of censorship. Film, radio, and the newly emerging medium of television were of intense interest to the censors. Artists could be prevented from publishing or presenting their work and books were often discarded even after coming from the printers. Despite all this however, 1950s Czechoslovakia became well-known internationally for its production of popular scientific documentaries and film animation (the work of the film magician Karel Zeman, in particular his Journey to the Beginning of Time, Zdeneˇk Miler’s animated The Little Mole and the work of Brˇetislav Pojar and Jirˇí Trnka became justly famous). Czechoslovakia also gained worldwide recognition for its multimedia project of Laterna Magika and its pavilion at EXPO 58 in Brussels.

8 The birth of television in Stalinist Czechoslovakia

As a civilian entity, Czechoslovak Radio was obliged to take over television, despite not knowing what the future would bring. The development of broadcast television had already reached such a level that it was unthinkable not to continue with it. To gain some inspiration, in December 1948, eight members of the Radio’s top management (with Stahl as director) flew to Moscow to attend a meeting of the All-Union Radio Committee.1 They came to negotiate common procedures of the socialist countries for the upcoming short-­wave radio conference in Mexico City, but their aim was also to agree on programme cooperation and to discuss ‘basic questions of the development of technical devices, their normalization and typification’. They became acquainted with the state of television in our ‘protector, ally, and liberator’, the Soviet Union.2 The highest officials determined a clear division of duties. From the perspective of that time, it seemed that technical aspects and programming were two separate things and that it was necessary to deal with them separately. Programming was to be managed by Czechoslovak Radio, which was administered by the Ministry of Information and Education: it was taken for granted that such an experienced medium would not find it difficult to come up with the programme ideas – it was to be as easy as ‘simply adding picture to the sound’. The radio workers were of a different opinion, though. This is evident from a secret study, Czechoslovak Television and Radio3 from 17 June 1949, which says: Regarding television we cannot count on its launch before the end of the first Five-Year Plan. A serious obstacle to its development is both the lack  [Всесоюзный rрадиоокомитет]  Proposal for Negotiation – Conference in Russia. [‘Návrh pro jednání – Konference v Rusku’] NAP, fu. 861, box 50, f. Exhibitions [Výstavy], N. 65927/48. 3  [Cˇ s. rozhlas a televise] 1 2

108

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

of television receivers and their costliness on the side of the consumers, while on the production side, running a television station is many times more expensive than radio.4 From a technical point of view, it was necessary to pay the utmost attention to the development of individual devices and components, and to start serial production. These were extensive tasks both in terms of the materials as well as the investment required, and this was now to be administered by the civil sector, and concentrated under one ministry. This is why in April 1949 the Institute of Radio Technology,5 later renamed the Research Institute of Radio Communications (further RIRC)6, was founded and placed in the Prague Vokovice district under the new Ministry of Communications. Employees of the Czechoslovak Radio laboratory who specialized in audio technologies worked alongside the transferred employees from Tanvald MTI who specialized in vacuum technology and electronics. It was none other than Alois Singer, technical inspector (at that time already at the governmental level), who was appointed head of the Institute. On 20 October 1950, the Ministry of Information set the institute the task of designing and building (in cooperation with the Research Institute for Vacuum Electrotechnology) a television system of original Czechoslovak production. It was supposed to start broadcasting during the first Five-Year Plan (1949–1953); or, possibly, from the 12th All-Sokol meeting which was planned for 1953. The authorities were committed to the production of a Czechoslovak TV system, regardless of the cost. A laboratory within the institute was equipped for the development of television cameras. However, it had a hard time doing its work as it possessed camera chains from Tanvald (or Czechoslovak Radio), but no vacuum tubes to build on. Moreover, there was nobody in the country who could manufacture them as industry was then focused on the needs of the Cold War. In order to attract attention to the problem, the Institute employees decided to carry out a series of trial broadcasts in May, June, and July 1950, using the old apparatuses from Tanvald. From their facilities they broadcast an improvised programme provided by Czechoslovak Radio for 90 minutes on 7 May, 60 minutes on 21 May, 90 minutes on 7 June and twice for 60 minutes on 2 July. They invited various politicians to watch, in the hopes of enthusing and persuading them about the urgent need to give a proper impulse to television development.

 Prospective Study in Transport CS Radio and Television. [‘Výhledová studie v dopraveˇ. Cˇs. rozhlas a televise’.] 17 June 1949, NAP, fu. 861, box 119, Secret. [Confidential.] N. 73/1949. 5  [Ústav rozhlasové techniky, ÚRT] 6  [Výzkumný ústav radiokomunikací] 4

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

109

How the communists began to need television Eventually, the televisual ice in Czechoslovakia was broken in mid-1951. The Board for Research and Technical Development7 of the Ministry of Information commissioned a report (19 June 1951) on the state of television broadcasting in Czechoslovakia. It was to be the first comprehensive assessment of the medium, including its project and design. The fact that the task was called A Draft of Television Broadcasting within Reduced Spadework Time8 would suggest that television had finally caught the attention of the authorities. The report was finalized on 18 September 1951 and titled The Development and the Current Situation of Czechoslovak Television9. It gives us a picture of how attitudes towards television were changing. On page 3, for example, it is said that: While in the capitalist world television is spread like a tool of subversive and destructive propaganda concentrated on decadent culture and perverse sensation, in our country it will serve the creative and peaceful values of our socialist efforts. Only in a socialist society, as we can see in the Soviet example, does television gain its truthful and useful, social meaning. Television was thus ascribed a substantial role as the regime’s tool for the dissemination of ideas, or even as an ideological weapon to be used against the enemy. Its launching was not merely a matter for the state; its existence was also a hallmark of advancement of the whole socialist camp. (Despite the fact that radio broadcasting from the western countries reached as far as 100 kilometres inland within Czechoslovakia, it was hoped that the Czechoslovak broadcasting network could become an ideological shield.) That said, in comparison to her allies in the communist bloc, Czechoslovakia was lagging behind. The USSR renewed television broadcasting in 1948 while the neighbouring countries were making big strides towards launching their own television broadcast operations – the newly founded German Democratic Republic launched its trial programme on 4 June 1952, followed by the Polish studio in Warsaw on 25 October 1952. The above-­mentioned report into the status of Czechoslovak broadcasting even specified dates for the trials and for the launch of television broadcasting: the trial run was to take place on 15 November 1952, regular trial broadcasting was to start on 1 January 1953, with full regular

 [Sbor pro výzkum a technický rozvoj]  [‘Návrh televisního vysílání prˇi zkrácené lhu˚teˇ pro prˇípravné práce’] 9  [‘Vývoj a dnešní stav cˇeskoslovenské televise. Tajná zpráva’.] 18 September 1951, NAP, fu. 861, box 63, f. Project A Draft of Television Broadcasting within Reduced Spadework Time, Secret N. 2673/1951-taj.-V/4. 7 8

110

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

broadcasting launching on 1 January 1954. Two months later, it was specified more precisely so that trial broadcasting could start on 1 January 1953. Minister Kopecký’s duty (it was his own personal initiative) was to negotiate the launch of television as a governmental task, as television is a more effective means of information than radio. Considering the fact that television broadcasting cannot be adopted from abroad, we want to focus the listeners’ interest on television and thus distract their attention from listening to foreign propaganda. This is how television becomes an effective defensive tool.10 These deadlines, considering the speed of development, were very ambitious. It was clear that Czechoslovakia could not manufacture everything on its own and some components would have to be imported. CS Radio asked minister Kopecký (19 October 1951) for ‘the import of necessary devices’ from the USSR and the GDR.11 In the A. S. Popov Research Institute for Communications Technology12 in Krcˇ in Prague, as well as in the Tesla National Company in Strašnice in Prague, research and production groups were established and launched into the development of television receivers. First, they became acquainted with the Soviet model KVN 49 and within nine months, with mutual cooperation, they managed to develop a prototype of a Czechoslovak apparatus with 22 vacuum tubes, a 15x20cm screen, and 625 lines resolution with 25 pictures a second. Its first rehearsal took place on 15 September 1952 and Jirˇí Krˇíž described the moment in Sveˇt práce with a fair amount of drama: Voltage! The receiver prototype is on. The television transmitter is working. Everyone’s eyes are fixed to the screen. The first horizontal lines appear, drawn by the ray of light. The drawing becomes clear, gets exact contours. A perfect picture of the broadcast scene. KRˇ ÍŽ 1953 Serial production of this apparatus in Tesla was launched in July 1952 with type number 4001 and the first dozen pieces enabled people to watch the first broadcasting launch.13

10  Television – a Supplement to the Project Task [‘Televise – dodatek k projektovému úkolu’] 30 November 1951, NAP, fu. 861, box  120, f. Construction of Radio Buildings and Transmitters – Project Tasks 1947–1952 [‘Výstavba rozhlasových budov a vysílacˇu˚ – Projektové úkoly 1947–1952’]. Top secret. 11  Letter of K. Stahl to V. Kopecký, 19 October 1951, NAP, fu. 861, box 63, N. 2681/51 12  [Výzkumný ústav sdeˇlovací techniky A. S. Popova] 13  The type was in production until 1956, with 45,000 pieces leaving the production line in total. It still was not enough, as we will see.

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

111

FIGURE 8.1  Tesla 4001, the first model of the Czechoslovak television set. (Source: AMŠ, 1953).

However, all those who participated in the development of television knew that they were part of a great and strategic task. This was evident in a motto from promotional materials of the RIRC published in November 1952: We are building a theater in which the stage is not separated from the auditorium by a curtain and the orchestra; a theater where the spectator does not need to go and still remains a spectator; a theater which is not really a theater; it is neither cinema, nor radio, and yet it unites these three modern cultural media – we are building Czechoslovak Television.14 It was clear that television broadcasting would be launched soon although not according to the original schedule. Minister Kopecký delivered his promise and negotiated the whole matter with the government, which issued a final decree (Number 13) on 8 April 1952, anchoring television in the structure of state administration. The Czechoslovak Radio Committee15 was founded (based on the Soviet model) for the purpose of ‘managing radio and television work’. Officially, television became part of Czechoslovak Radio,

 Promotional handout RIRC, November 1952, In: Iluminace, N. 4, 2005, p. 103.  [Cˇ eskoslovenský rozhlasový výbor]

14 15

112

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

which was run by this committee and presided over by Kopecký. Likewise, by this same decree, the Ministry of Communications was commissioned to ‘technically provide for, equip, and prepare the Prague television studio’.16 The launch date of 1 May 1953, International Workers’ Day, was finally set. In his article regarding the thirtieth anniversary of the launch of television broadcasting in Czechoslovakia, Jan Zelenka, who was to become its general director during normalization, appreciates the chosen date, as ‘television was thus forever bound, both symbolically as well as factually, with the red festival of the working classes, the symbol of the fight for a better tomorrow’ (Zelenka 1983a: 2).

1 May 1953 – we are broadcasting! We will never know how many people witnessed that landmark moment. What we do know is that it was openly possible to receive this regular, though still trial, television broadcast in Prague and its vicinity, via the waves from the Petrˇín transmitter. Those who wanted to watch and were not radio-­ television construction amateurs had to cram into one of the twenty public places in Prague where television sets were installed. The situation for important party and government officials was of course different. They were, according to distribution lists, allowed to borrow and later (9 February 1954) even keep TV sets for use free of charge. Ladislav Štoll, Minister for Universities and Colleges, had a television appliance delivered to his flat by two porters, where his then 17-year-­old son Ivan asked whether the picture would be in color. Both laughed heartily and replied: ‘You’ll have to wait a bit more for that!’17 The most esteemed owner of the first television apparatus of Czechoslovak production was naturally the communist president Klement Gottwald, who received it as a Christmas gift in 1952 from the employees of the Tesla Strašnice national company. There was nothing to watch, though, and he didn’t live long enough to even watch the first broadcast. The original idea of the political fathers of television was crippled by a chronic lack of receivers. Although the investment plan counted on the import of approximately 200 television receivers from the other countries in the socialist camp, it was decided to import another 500 pieces from the USSR, and a state purchase of 1255 Soviet television sets, the Leningrad T–2 from GDR, would be realized. Their greenish screens were extremely

 Legal Code of the Czechoslovak Republic. Government Order No.13 of April 8, 1952. [‘Sbírka zákonu˚ a narˇízení Republiky cˇeskoslovenské, Vládní narˇízení cˇ. 13 z 8. 4. 1952.’] (In Petránˇová 1968: 4). 17  Memories of Ivan Štoll, verbally, January 2011. 16

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

113

light-­sensitive, so it was necessary to pull a little curtain over the screen before turning the set on. The Ministry of Communications – the Central Radio Communications Office18 – was to provide for and equip the Prague television studio, while the programming aspect was to be taken care of by Czechoslovak Radio. Thus, two organisations were founded to cooperate on the operation of television broadcasting: Communications Management – Television Prague19 was subject to its minister, while Television Studio Prague20 was managed by the director of Czechoslovak Radio. Moreover, Czechoslovak Radio was subject to the Czechoslovak Radio Committee, controlled by the Ministry of Information and Education. This division of responsibilities considerably complicated the first years of broadcasting, as the technicians, editors, cameramen, lighting engineers, and even janitors all answered to one supervisory body, while the directors, screenwriters, and dramaturgists liaised with another. All possible disagreements had to be resolved by the Prime Minister, remembers Milan Tomsa. At first, it was necessary to find a suitable space. In secret reports for the Ministry, it was emphasized that: Studios and operating rooms must be in an elevated place in order to enable the live broadcast of television reports through the high-­frequency transmission line and in the center of Prague, in order to ensure the cooperation of artists for the evening television programmes.21 The area of Královské Vinohrady was agreed upon as most suitable for these purposes, especially the National House of Vinohrady.22 The local Winter Garden was a large Czechoslovak Radio rehearsal studio – it was relatively easy to rid the television studio built in the yard of unwanted noises from the street and the position, of course, was almost luxurious. The National House of Vinohrady also has a very suitable dominant position for television regarding the location of cultural and political objects such as the National Theater, the Representation House, the Castle.23

 [Hlavní správa komunikací]  [Správa spoju˚ – Televise Praha] 20  [Televisní studio Praha] 21  Development and Current Situation . . . 18 September 1951. 22  [Národní du˚m na Vinohradech] 23  Draft of letter from V. Kopecký to the prime minister, without date, NAP, fu. 861, box 63. 18 19

114

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 8.2  The Burgher Hall, the place of the first CST studio in Prague, in Vladislavova Street. It was a totally inappropriately populated house. (© Miroslav Pospíšil, 1982).

Minister of Information and Education wrote this to the Prime Minister in 1951, asking the Location Committee to grant the use of this building. It was already clear at the end of the year, though, that the house would be assigned to the Ensemble of Song and Dance24 and that television would acquire the Burgher Hall25 building on Vladislavova Street, 1477/20. The building had been through a lot. It was built in 1872 and bought by the patriot group Burgher Hall. It was here that the patriots decided to organize a collection to repair the recently burnt down National Theater

 [Soubor písní a tancu˚]  [Meˇšt’anská beseda]

24 25

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

115

(1881), and its premises were even used by the actors as a rehearsal room. On 15 May 1918, Burgher Hall hosted a meeting of the Slavic nations of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which culminated in a manifesto demanding an independent Czechoslovak state. Soon after that, in 1919, this very state intended to turn the building into the seat of YMCA. This wasn’t realized, as it was assigned at the beginning of the Second World War to OT (Organization Todt), the German Reich’s organization for the construction of strategic war objects. That was the moment when it became the property of Czechoslovak Radio.26 The building was inconvenient for television for several reasons. It was preserved as an architectural monument and any construction work required permits and special care. There were tenants living in the house who could not be moved out by force, in 1955, there were still eleven of them. These inhabitants naturally complained about the level of noise of the TV studio. The house had neither technical nor personnel facilities. Initially, all adjustments and decoration rearrangements had to be carried out directly in the studio. The programme technicians, too, had no place of their own. Due to the building’s historical value, it was not possible to install air-­conditioning, and with the glare of television lighting, the rooms became incredibly hot. And finally, the requirement that the studio be in an ‘elevated’ location to ensure the reach of the Petrˇín transmitter was not fulfilled at all, as the house was in a lower part of the town, surrounded by buildings of similar height. This was why one of the first things that had to be built was the tower, where the retranslating device was placed, sending a signal to Petrˇín. A prototype transmitter was installed by Tesla Hloubeˇtín technicians at the look-­out tower on Petrˇín Hill above Prague, and was able to cover up to 1400 square kilometers around the capital city. The entire water and sewage system of the Burgher Hall had to be completely reconstructed; the first-­ floor space had to be divided to create temporary offices and to house screening technology. The assembly of television apparatus equipment did not begin before April of 1953, and required exceptional effort from all those involved. Witnesses remember the time as one of ‘excitement, self-­ sacrifice, and youthful enthusiasm, rather than sober sagacity, foresight, and thoughtful moderation’ (Vrabec 1977: 18). (The employees of the RIRC Ota Suchý and Vlastimil Svoboda were fine-­tuning the equipment into the late-­night hours before the beginning of the first television broadcast. They were later confronted by officers of the communist secret police – Státní  To have a complete picture we should add that it was in Burgher Hall where the later CST, though spread throughout many different places in Prague, ‘experienced’ the occupation of 1968 and did not stop using this space until the late 1970s. When Vladimír Železný, the general director of the first Czech private area wide television station TV NOVA (1994), was looking for a place to start broadcasting from, he could not but remember that it was this very place where the broadcasting tradition lay. Today, there is an international hotel there.

26

116

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

bezpecˇnost (StB) – who interrogated them as suspects of sabotage. There are a number of such stories. On the day of the long-­awaited first broadcast, the first Czechoslovak studio was equipped with just two cameras (one of which was a reserve), two camera stands, a film television screener, and film projectors. All other studio equipment – the lightning park, lamp stands, cables, TV dollies, microphone stands, microphones, light bulbs, and so on were rented from the Czechoslovak State Film Agency. However, television is not only about technology and creating programmes to broadcast can often be far more difficult. It is hard to believe that it was just three months before the planned launch date, on 30 January 1953, that Minister Kopecký found a person who would look after the programming section of TV. This was Karel Kohout, originally an electro-­technician. At that time he acted as director of Art Film Studio in CS State Film.27 It was time to set the emerging television in motion and he dedicated the rest of his life to this scheme. Some people say that if anyone ever did anything to push TV through, it was Kohout. Director and journalist Ladislav Daneš says: He was a typical gründer. An enthusiast, who leaped into everything with vehemence, who didn’t just act out but really lived through. He lived for his company, was as happy as a child for every success and unhappy for any loss. His bosses could rely on him. DANEŠ 2005: 78–79 Likewise, Eva Sadková, the legendary author of TV productions, remembers that: He was capable of creating something out of nothing. He surrounded himself with a team of people who didn’t care about time, money, the conditions, or the degrees of heat glowing from the reflectors. They enjoyed discovering the possibilities of the new medium. Thus, when Karlíny [Kohout’s nickname] threw me the rope, I gladly accepted it.28 Kohout became (as of 1 February 1953) Operation and Programming Director of Czechoslovak Radio – Central Television station Prague; the post of chief executive of CST was not created until August 1953 and Kohout held it for six years. (He then moved to Czechoslovak Army

 [Cˇ s. státní film]  In the Beginning the Result Was More Important than Salary. An Interview with Eva Sadková. [‘Na zacˇátku televize šlo víc o výsledek než o výdeˇlek. Rozhovor s Evou Sadkovou’.] Lidové noviny, 27 April 2000, p. 24.

27 28

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

117

FIGURE 8.3  Karel Kohout (on the right), first director and ‘founder of CST’, preparing the communist minister of education, Zdeneˇk Nejedlý, for a speech to cameras. (Source: APF CT, 1954).

Film29, but returned to television in 1965, and held various high positions regardless of the political situation.) When he was appointed to manage the programming of the emerging broadcaster, he wrote down a list of names of those who could be counted on. All of the people he spoke to were from CS State Film. The team, totalling about ten people, started to prepare the first programme for broadcast on 16 February 1953. Kohout went to the Burgher Hall on a daily basis to report the progress of his work. A prominent Czech television historian, Jarmila Cysarˇová, found his report from 19 February addressed to the Prime Minister’s Office, in which Kohout professes his doubt about whether the scheduled date for the first broadcast was realistic. In the meantime, the cultural elite started to talk about this new ‘toy’ being developed. Artists began to offer themselves to television for cooperation, including respected artists such as Václav Krška, Jan Werich, Oldrˇich Nový, Jirˇí Trnka, Elmar Klos, Oldrˇich Lipský, Jirˇí Krejcˇík, Vladimír  [Cˇ s. armádní film]

29

118

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Cˇ ech, Miloslav Cikán, Václav Gajer, Cˇ eneˇk Duba, Martin Fricˇ, and above all

Karel Pech, who became one of the most well-­known characters of the initial period of television production. Over the course of the year, Kohout sent dozens of letters offering to cooperate with many institutions including the Union of Czechoslovak Writers,30 the Academy of Performing Arts, the National Theater, CS State Film, and to the office of the Company for Promotion of Political and Scientific Knowledge.31 Among those who joined television later on were Víteˇzslav Nezval, Marie Pujmanová, Pavel Kohout, Vratislav Blažek, Jirˇí Marek, Ludvík Aškenazy, Karel Konrád, Jarmila Glazarová, Vladimír Neff, František Kožík, and Otomar Krejcˇa. Thus, Kohout had a list of 24 dramaturgists and 57 directors and actors he could rely on. However, Kohout was a general without an army. The list of people who participated in the first broadcast was as follows: directors – 0, assistant director – 1, cameramen – 2, editors – 0, production manager – 1, set designer – 1, economist – 1, building manager – 1. Only four of those, however, were employees of the Central Television Centre; the rest were ‘borrowed’ from CS State Film. It is an interesting fact that the premiere did not include a live broadcast from the studio.32 All programmes were pre-­recorded on 35mm film and screened on a telecine which could translate the signal to the broadcasting network. In the preserved Proposal for a Thematic Plan for May 195333 the whole programme is defined as ‘film broadcasting’ and reveals the authors of its individual parts. The programme was supposed to last for an hour (between 8pm and 9pm) and its contents were to be as follows: Symphonic orchestra – responsible director Lipský Poem to 1 May 1953 (to be delivered by Víteˇzslav Nezval, laureate of the Czechoslovak Peace Prize) – responsible dir. Lipský Joyful 1 May 1953, shots of Prague, Brno, Ostrava, and Bratislava – responsible dir. Klos Recent events – what happened on 1 May 1953. Recent events will conclude the first trial television broadcast in Prague – responsible dir. Klos Two other names are handwritten on the side: Jirˇí Lehovec and Borˇivoj Zeman. Their roles are not explained in any way; however, it is highly  [Svaz cˇeskoslovenských spisovatelu˚]  [Spolecˇnost pro šírˇení politických a veˇdeckých znalostí] 32  Further study (Štoll 2013a: 36–39). 33  All dates about the programme come from Proposal for a Thematic Plan [‘Návrh thematického plánu’]. 30 31

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

119

probable that Borˇivoj Zeman was one of the directors of the first day broadcast. The first day of broadcasting was thrilling. One of the movie projectors, the film scanner, broke down at around 6 pm, even though all the devices had been endlessly tested from the early morning. But at the same time everyone knew that things could fail at any time. (The equipment mostly consisted of Czechoslovak prototypes, thus nobody knew how they would work ‘for real’.) That would, however, have had an immense effect on the broadcasting, as in this case there could not have been any film projection at all (there would have been no means of transmitting the signal) and the remainder of the event would have had to have been improvised in the studio or cancelled by director Kohout. ‘The last minutes before the beginning took an extremely dramatic course’,34 he said later. While the technicians did what they could to eliminate the dysfunction, Karel Kohout did not lose time and called his friend, an actor of the National Theater František Filipovský, who hurried to his aid and was ready to improvise some of his theater roles. ‘Television broadcasting itself began at exactly the scheduled time and proceeded without any major difficulties’, (Suchý 1999: 93) remembers Suchý, who unintentionally became the first cameraman. And so there was nothing to rescue. Everything went according to the plan and in one moment Kohout decided to make use of the actor Filipovský and his improvisations. He switched on the studio cameras and the actor recited excerpts from Moliére’s The Miser. The Miser, darn it, is a heck of a part. I have played many a character – easy ones as well as those more difficult, I can’t even remember, they are countless. But this was the first time I ever played such a greedy meanie. He opened his sketch with these words and the studio was filled with the screams of the famous role: ‘Thieves! Thieves! Assassins! Murder! Just heaven! Where is my money?!’35 And, thus, Filipovský went down in the history of Czechoslovak television as the first person to broadcast live. Despite all that, Filipovský was not the first actor on the television screen. At 8 pm, Jaroslav Marvan spoke to viewers on a pre-­recorded film: ‘Good evening dear friends, Czechoslovak television has been launched . . .’. At that time he was well known for his role as a grumpy Prague ticket inspector,

 Memories of Kohout, Cˇ   eskoslovenská televize, N. 14, 1983, p. 14.  From the audio recording of the programme Five Years of Television [‘Peˇt let televise’], 1958, AFP CT.

34 35

120

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 8.4  Actors Jaroslav Marvan and František Filipovský, who were the first to appear on the CST screens on 1 May 1953. This is their photograph 16 years later during the shooting of crime series The Sinful People of the City of Prague, dir. Jirˇí Sequens. (© Jindrˇich Panácˇek, 1969)

Gustav Andeˇl [Angel] in the film, Holiday with Angel36 (1952). The film’s director, Borˇivoj Zeman, also oversaw the first day of the TV broadcast. Marvan was aware of this fact, as he states in one of his memoirs that ‘I was then the face of Mr. Andeˇl’.37 At that time, he had already been awarded the National Prize (1951) and coincidentally was given the Meritorious Artist title in 1953, which was another form of state award. This introduction was followed by a recording of the Czech Philharmonic performing Václav Dobiáš’s festive cantata Build Your Country – Fortify Peace38. This grandiose symphonic cantata became the unofficial anthem of the regime and was performed on various politically significant occasions. Dobiáš composed it in 1950. Another film broadcast that day was that of Jozef Vrabec, Executive Deputy of the Czechoslovak Radio Committee, and  [‘Dovolená s Andeˇlem’]  Memoirs of J. Marvan, Cˇ   eskoslovenská televize, N. 18, 1973, p. 5. 38  [‘Buduj vlast – posílíš mír’] 36 37

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

121

later Regional chief executive of CST for Slovakia and chief executive of Slovak Television (1959–1970). After the official speech, Nezval’s Poem to May 1, 195339 was supposed to follow, as was announced in the Thematic Plan. There is however no record of its existence and it is not known whether or not these final elements of the broadcast were realized that day. What we do know for sure, though, is that the subsequent reportage from the May Day celebrations was a viewing sensation – if only for the fact that on a television screen the size of one’s palm, the May Day parade at Wenceslas Square in Prague must have looked like a swarm of bees. In the end, it did not contain footage from Brno, Ostrava, and Bratislava as was originally planned, but still it was a great professional success. ‘To finish shooting at 1 pm and have 300 metres of a 35mm film developed, copied, edited, and soundtracked by 8 pm [approximately 10 minutes of running time], that was a great surprise’,40 remembers Karel Kohout. It may not seem like much in the age of video technologies, reality shows, satellite broadcasts, and camera phones, but for this approach to work it was highly unusual for the time. The shortest period for the news to get to the cinemas was one week after the event. Kohout spoke about the team’s motivation: On that day it was this very material which, I think, influenced the whole technology department and people around it. Something in them lit up, the awareness that we, as a team, were capable of doing fast, resourceful, and good work [. . .] and a whole new space appeared for television.41 The programme was concluded with Current Affair,42 a newsreel. The broadcast was watched by a number of high-­profile personalities, some of whom were even invited directly to the studio; some were crowded into the second floor of Burgher Hall in front of two Tanvald television sets. Bountiful refreshments were prepared for the celebration. After finishing their work, the technicians, who had just given birth to the first Czechoslovak broadcast, found this audience to be in very high spirits and the tables almost empty. Somebody handed them a piece of the last sausage. They did not eat it and instead, they took it to the RIRT lab, dried it, hung it on the notice-­board with a note saying: ‘Reward for a job well-­done’. And there it remained, according to Ota Suchý, for thirty long years.43

 [‘Básenˇ k 1. kveˇtnu 1953’]  Memoirs of K. Kohout . . ., p. 14. 41  Ibid. 42  [‘Aktualita’] 43  (dr, vac): ‘1 May 1953 – Testimony of Contemporary Witnesses Martin Glas, Miroslav Ráž, and Otakar Suchý’. [‘1. kveˇtna 1953 – sveˇdectví pameˇtníku˚ Martina Glase, Miroslava Ráže a Otakara Suchého’.], IIB Cˇ   T, N. 5, 2001, p. 13. 39 40

122

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 8.5  The confined studio of the Burgher Hall (Source: APF CT, 1954).

Experimental broadcasting How many of those celebrants fully appreciated what they had just witnessed? It may have been a political and social event which would be remembered. But what would tomorrow bring? When would the next day of broadcasting come? What would its contents be? And what would happen next? The whole week, month, year? What about every day of the following thirty, fifty, sixty years? None of those present – nor any of the viewers – could have foreseen what a momentous occasion this was. How television

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

123

FIGURE 8.6  Jingle: ‘Czechoslovak Radio – TV Studio Prague’ (Source: AMŠ, 1953).

would become a hybrid of technological and artistic creativity, a time-­ consuming medium with endless possibilities. They weren’t to know then how much money it would cost, the effort, space and technical skill that would be required; how difficult it would be to overcome the routine; how hard it would be to endure different political pressures; how many people would be tied to the screen from both sides; how much influence it would come to have on everyday life, society and in the documentation of important historical events. At the time nobody had any experience with television – the greatest living Czech experts (such as Pilát or Šafránek) only knew television from their experiments, but did not take part in its implementation. There was not even a well-­established broadcasting system in the world which could serve as an inspiration. There was nothing left to do but to set out on an independent path of trial and error. The basic technical background was set and with the excitement and eagerness of the crews there was nothing to stop them from pushing their own boundaries and those of television itself. By May 1953, television was broadcast three times a week (Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays), a routine which was unsustainable and unbearable. Despite this, the trial broadcasting of CST lasted for almost ten months: from 1 May 1953 to 25 February 1954.

124

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Behind the screen, a whole new space had opened up and television was given the green light. As it was in the state’s interest to support its perfection, it could count on generous investment. From the confidential document Proposition of Prospective Plan of Television Development in Czechoslovakia44 worked out by the Governmental Committee for Television Implementation for the Culture Ministry (31 January 1956), we know that the realization of television broadcasting was to be supported by an incredible sum of 525,403,000 CSK. The money was to be spent on the completion of the Prague Studio, the construction of a Bratislava studio, and the necessary technological research till 1960. However, at the time when the broadcasting was only just beginning, a number of workplaces were already putting intense effort into the improvement and development of new devices. The A. S. Popov Research Institute for Communications Technology focused on the construction of television relay devices for modulation transmission. The Research Institute for Vacuum Electrotechnics struggled to develop and produce the much-­needed vacuum tubes, screens, and scanning valves for super-­orthicon and vidicon cameras, while its serial production was entrusted to Tesla Rožnov and Tesla Vrchlabí. Tesla Hloubeˇtín, the Julius Fucˇík plant, worked intensely on the development and production of TV transmitters, as there were to be ten of those around the country by 1960 (Prague, Hradec Králové, Cˇ eské Budeˇjovice, Pilsen, Ústí nad Labem, Brno, Ostrava, Bratislava, Banská Bystrica and Košice) and, depending on the terrain, they were to reach heights of up to 300 metres. Tesla Strašnice and Tesla Pardubice were supposed to develop new types of TV receivers and supply the largest possible quantity on the market as soon as possible. Sales of receivers began on 15 July 1953, and it was estimated that, by 1960, 633,000 pieces of equipment would have left the production line. In 1956, the 15x20cm screen appliances were gradually replaced with enhanced products with 22x28cm screens, this being only the start. Moreover, broadcasting in color was to begin as of 1965. The television pioneers knew that television would spread just as the radio had and that ‘almost every family will own a television receiver’.45 Interestingly, television and radio were not seen to be in competition, however, the relationship of television and film had to be taken care of – that was given mainly because of the audiovisual nature of the new medium, which could threaten traditional film. Analysts from the Ministry forecast that both the audio-­visual media would undergo a significant technological

 [‘Návrh perspektivního plánu rozvoje televise na území Cˇ   eskoslovenské republiky’]  Using Film Technology in Television and Television Technology in Film. [‘Užití filmu v televisi a televise ve filmu.’] NAP, fu. 867, box  7, f. Committee for the Developing and Usage of Television [Komise pro vývoj a využití televise], N. 35 352/1955.

44 45

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

125

transformation, and warned that money should not be wasted on duplicating research. The twenty-­page long Prospective Plan of Technical Development within Culture Ministry46 (1954) outlines areas of natural overlap between film and television, as well as divergences between them. By means of television, long art films of a minor scope with a small number of actors will be disseminated, such films which do not rely on a special depiction of atmosphere through photography. Cinematography, on the contrary, will continually promote art films of monumental nature, films with great readability of scenes and images, films with a larger number of actors, etc. The document predicts the transition from the traditional, black and white broadcasting to color and wide-­screen film, later even to 3D film and stereophonic sound; to television it ascribes primary recording on to narrow, 16mm film, and the recording of broadcasts on 35mm film and on magnetic tape in the future. There was even a suggestion of building 50 special cinemas with large screens where viewers would be educated by journalistic and documentary television programmes. Moreover, film and television were to cooperate on a technological level as well, as a television camera chain was to be developed for Barrandov Studios so that the director could have a live view of what was being shot. From today’s perspective, all the predictions were gradually fulfilled. Despite this vision, it was not yet clear which part of the state administration and government structures would be responsible for the development of TV as an institution. The Czechoslovak Radio Committee, which came under the Ministry of Information and Education and was originally tasked with overseeing its development, was disbanded in October 1953. All aspects of radio and television which did not concern technology and signal transmission were transferred to the jurisdiction of the newly established Culture Ministry, where a new organ was founded – the Czechoslovak Radio Central Administration.47 Technology further remained in the competence of the Ministry of Communications and thus this two-­edged management structure was far from eliminated. The Central Television Studio, presided by Karel Kohout, was divided into an operation and maintenance section and a dramaturgy section. The dramaturgy department was divided into five sections: literary, dramatic

 Prospective Plan of Technical Development within Culture Ministry [‘Perspektivní plán technického rozvoje ministerstva kultury’]. NAP, fu. 867, box 14, N. 78 038/1954. 47  [Hlavní správa Cˇ    s. rozhlasu] 46

126

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 8.7  Ms. Vojnarová – television production of literary classics. (Source: APF CT, 1954).

and children’s programmes; music; film; politics and journalism and culture. The first months were characterized by their pioneering spirit. The employees had to walk everywhere, film reels had to be taken to the Fotografia Cooperative48 by either a taxi or tram. In order to save on the amount of editing required, cameramen gradually learned to work in such a way that they were making continuous film storytelling by changing the size of shots and using different angles, so that the sequence of pictures did not have to be further edited. If it became necessary to cut into the shot material, two cutting rooms on Jungmannova Street were used and later a 35mm cutting room was rented on Vodicˇkova Street. Improvised editing could also be realized in the Burgher Hall. After two years of broadcasting, a projection booth was installed on the balcony of the house for film scanning – however, the appliances again had to be borrowed from CS State Film. Television employees had two cars, a van, and a lorry, and later three off-­road cars at their disposal, but others had to be borrowed from the army.  [Družstvo Fotografia]

48

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

127

FIGURE 8.8  All the exterior scenes of various productions were filmed in the courtyard of the Burgher Hall. (Source: APF CT, 1956).

Everyone knew that the building with its genius loci had its limitations, though they were assured countless times that it was to be a temporary location. In October 1953, the Prague studio was visited by a ministerial committee which concluded that the studio did not meet acoustic requirements and that the picture could not convey the whole scene, which was a rather curious finding after six months of operation. It simultaneously observed that the working conditions did not comply with the hygiene standards (regarding noise, temperature, and worker safety). However, this lasted for many years. As late as 1968, the company physician complained: I have not yet seen such a collection of bad workplaces. [. . .] There is a disproportional amount of illnesses caused by mental fatigue. Television

128

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 8.9  Eduard Landish – one of the first cameramen of CST. (Source: AMŠ, 1955).

doesn’t offer enough space; people are crammed, deafened by the noise of conversations and telephones. Compared to other companies the doctor had worked for (Technoexport and The Butcher’s49), it is ‘not work that’s going on in television, it is drudgery’ (Cysarˇová 1996: 10). Despite this, everyone who was employed in television at that time remembers the days with tenderness and nostalgia.50 We must not forget to ask what was going onto the TV screen. What did television offer its viewers during this trial broadcasting period? How did it capture their attention? We could not then speak about viewer

 [Masna]  There is a large amount of memoirs, e.g. Ru˚žicˇka – Šusterová-Horcˇicˇková 2014; Daneš 2005, etc. 49 50

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

129

FIGURE 8.10  In the first years, so-­called collective television viewing prevailed. (Source: AMŠ, 1956).

ratings as we know them today; there was no need for pie charts as there was only one programme, there was limited broadcasting time and few people had TV sets of their own.51 On the other hand, what we can be sure of is that during these set broadcasting times, everyone had their television sets switched on. Viewing itself was a social event. People gathered at each others houses and this collective viewing, like that of the cinema, was considered typical. The programme of the first day of broadcasting, which has already been discussed above in detail, is an easy thing to write about, as it is noted in various media compendiums. Unfortunately, other programmes broadcast in the first years of television have not been preserved, apart from a very small number of exceptions; the only thing left is to try to reconstruct their portfolio with the help of programme schedules, and, for the period following 5 November 1953, using the annotations in the What Is on Television52

 By the end of 1953, 12,300 sets had been manufactured; however, only a fraction were actually sold. With an average monthly salary of 1,800 CSK, few people could afford the 4,000 CSK device, especially after the attack of the currency reform. 52  [‘Televise vysílá’] 51

130

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

section of the Czechoslovak Radio and Television53 magazine. One must be aware, though, that these were ‘plans’, which means that on some days several variants were prepared and it is impossible to find out today which of them were actually realized. The programme announcements to the public started with the following lines: We would like to inform you on a regular basis, even in the course of the trial broadcasts, about the programme composition of the television evenings, as well as the exact time of individual programmes. However, the experimental nature of broadcasting does not allow for this. We believe that our viewers will forgive this flaw and until we have begun with regular announcements, we will at least do our best to regularly inform you about the more important and interesting programmes of the week.54 In short, the programme was subject to alterations. And indeed, this was necessary! From the the first days of television broadcasting, national anniversaries were used as news hooks – a technique which is still used to this very day. Anniversaries can serve as inspiration and by commemorating them, television, as a cultural and social phenomenon, helps maintain a sense of continuity. Often programme employees use anniversaries as a means to somehow make up for an otherwise weak concept. Moreover, television has always been a political agent and in this sense it excelled in this role on days of national significance. As a matter of interest, let us list the different anniversaries celebrated by television: the 32nd anniversary of the Founding Congress of the CzCP, the 250th anniversary of the founding of Leningrad, the liberation of Poland by the Red Army, the 4th anniversary of the founding of the GDR, the anniversary of nationalization of industry, Klement Gottwald’s 57th birthday, the second communist president’s (Antonín Zápotocký’s) 69th birthday, and the anniversary of the 5th Congress of CzCP. These events were commemorated by a singular mention, a documentary, a topical news broadcast, a comrades’ debate in the studio, or by a thematic evening. On the anniversary of the founding of the GDR, one hour of the broadcast was filled with German folk songs and dances, the performance of a German dance group, a small choir, and soloists from the German Unions Chorus. The poetry of J. R. Becher, winner of the GDR National Prize and the Stalin

 [‘Cˇ    eskoslovenský rozhlas a televize’]  What is On Television. [‘Televise vysílá’] Cˇ    eskoslovenský rozhlas a televise, 5 November 1953, AFP CT.

53 54

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

131

Peace Prize, was recited. Czech material was provided by the national artist Otýlie Beníšková, who told a children’s story about the Ungrateful Chicken. This was followed by joyful scenes of children and young pioneers. Appreciation of the right to work, education, and organized recreation was all-­pervading, all carefully crafted to drive home the communist message that the government was taking care of working people. Likewise, anniversaries of cultural institutions or celebrities were commemorated, such as the actor Eduard Vojan (the very first television anniversary following the 1 of May, 6 May 1953), the 85th anniversary of the laying of the foundation stone of the National Theater, the writer Vladislav Vancˇura’s death in a concentration camp, the 70th anniversary of the opening of the National Theater, the 390th anniversary of the death of Michelangelo Buonarotti. One of the main features of the programme during its first months was the effort to provide a large variety of genres, diversity in scanning methods, and the search for the meaning of the medium as such. There were ‘live’ programmes broadcast from the studio, ‘filmed’ programmes from pre-­ recorded material, ‘mixed’ programmes (combination of live broadcast with pre-­filmed materials), and ‘others’. On account of the absence of any previous experience, the viewers were tested as to how much of television they could actually bear and eventually, a two-­hour broadcast became the daily norm, most commonly between 8–10pm. Initially, there were three broadcasts a week (Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays), but by the end of the first month it became clear that for reasons of both capacity and technology, it would be necessary to reduce this to two days a week (Wednesdays and Saturdays). As of 5 November, it was again possible to provide programming for three days (Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays). There have been a number of different calculations as to how many hours were broadcast during the first year, or the number of different programme types, but there are no conclusive answers. A newspaper article from May 1954, the closest source time-­wise, concludes that 161 programmes were broadcast, including 18 televised theater shows, 49 feature films of Czech, Slovak, Soviet, German, and Italian origin, 201 film novellas, puppetry, animation, political films, sports news (produced mostly by News Reporting Film55), 26 children’s programmes, 7 concerts, 4 ballets, and 7 singing or dance performances, more than 35 popular scientific and educational programmes, 12 great music-­hall and satirical evenings, as well as dozens of other minor programmes. The article ends with the following declaration: The first steps of our young television have already been made. Now we must offer this one-­year-old child not only something to lean on, but full

 [Zpravodajský film]

55

132

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

support in fulfilling its other important duties. The first and foremost being: broadcasting on more days of the week.56 The programme composition was a true search. How to meet all the expectations of the viewers and politicians, how to maintain variety and not lose integrity? Is television a mere vehicle and disseminator or does it have its own aesthetics and artistic quality? Some days were truly a pell-­mell, while others gave the impression that the authors of the first television programmes were trying to embed some logical order in the otherwise heterogeneous mixture. The relationship between television and news reporting was equally interesting. During the first phase of reporting, CST merely broadcast picture material by the Czechoslovak State Film Agency, Czechoslovak Film Newsreel57, which was also circulating in cinemas. Up-­to-date reporting on current affairs was provided by Czechoslovak Radio, with the TV screen displaying the announcement saying: ‘You are listening to radio news’. Some matters of domestic or foreign politics were discussed with studio guests during the programme called Recent News on TV. Discussions were also broadcast of new products or the situation on the market before Christmas. Martin Glas specifically recalls one item of news from 10 October 1953, in which the popular actor Miroslav Hornícˇek presented a studio debate between representatives of the consumer-­goods industry and the newly opened House of Fashion. The topic was nylon stockings. He suddenly took out a pair of nylon stockings, stretched it and asked: ‘Comrades, what is this?’ And the comrades obediently answered that it had just been developed by Czechoslovakia’s textile industry for the comfort of female comrades. TV reporting as we know it today started two years later when television was equipped with its own broadcast van (Glas 2009). What television employees were truly proud of, and what we have to duly explore at this point, are the aforementioned 18 theater shows which were screened on TV. They were performances from both Prague theaters and theaters in other cities which were staged in the film studio, either in parts or in full and screened with minimum changes. The first large piece was Eugene Onegin (13 June 1953) from the National Theater. National Theater performances of Alois Jirásek’s Ms. Vojnarová58 and Solitude59, Gorky’s The Petty Bourgeois, Ostrovsky’s Late Love, and Moliére’s The Miser were also screened on television. Gogol’s Marriage was the first uninterrupted studio

 The First Year of CST [‘První rok cˇs. televise’.] Cˇ   eskoslovenský rozhlas a televise, 3–9 May 1954, p. 2–3. 57  [‘Cˇ    eskoslovenský filmový týdeník’] 58  [‘Vojnarka’] 59  [‘Samota’] 56

THE BIRTH OF TELEVISION IN STALINIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA

133

broadcast which lasted more than 40 minutes, and what is more, it passed off without any failures. At first it seemed that the symbiosis of theater and television was natural and logical. Later, when the audience demands became more specific, it turned out that theater transferred to the studio could never have the same impact; on the contrary, it could suffer. It turned out that a TV adaptation of each theater piece was essential – or even better, that a new piece was created for television. Thus new television plays were written for the studio and a new artistic genre was born. From the 1960s it became a Monday evening specialty for the Prague as well as Bratislava studios to broadcast a television drama. The first original play was commissioned for 5 May 1953, and the 20 to 30-minute piece was to be written and shot for television, exploring the May Days of 1945. Nothing else is known about its fate, though. What we do know about is the immense popularity of the monologue and minimalist shows delivered by leading actors such as Jaroslav Pru˚ cha, Miloš Nedbal, Ladislav Pešek, and others broadcast under the common name of Heroes of the Moment,60 for the first time on 6 June 1953. Another great success was the television production of Chekov’s The Bear (11 July 1953). It has to be said that television theater productions, be they drama, ballet, or opera, were by far the most popular among viewers. Television began to realize that it was necessary to take into consideration those who were sitting in front of the TV screens. Viewers’ demands had grown over time and television had ceased to be a mere experimental toy as the trial broadcasting had proven that the effect of the new medium could be immense. For this reason attempts were made to offer a stricter programme timetable during the week, and profile individual days, mainly after 5 November 1953, when the three-­day-a-­week broadcasting schedule was resumed. On Tuesdays, broadcast schedules consisted mainly of short films, with an item of recent news broadcast live from the studio. Thursdays started with children’s broadcasts (from 5pm), and in the evenings, after a break, programming continued with previews of new films and film newsreels. Saturday was devoted to live broadcasts, most commonly of art programmes. To further understand the viewers and their opinions, the Correspondence Department was founded on 1 February 1954. Hundreds of letters from viewers helped television gain at least a basic feedback on its programming. The period of the trial broadcasting from the Central Television Studio in Prague officially ended on Thursday 25 February 1954. From that day

 [‘Hrdinové okamžiku’]

60

134

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

onwards, TV broadcasting continued as regular and legitimate, as decreed by Government Resolution Number 22, dated 9 February 1954.61 Technically speaking, it is this day – 25 February 1954 – that should be regarded as the real beginning of television broadcasting in Czechoslovakia. From that moment on, it was possible to take television seriously; not only were the party and government committed, but also the viewers. It is, however, highly probable that not even this book will manage to change the popular idea that 1 May 1953 was the first day of television broadcasting. Nevertheless, 25 February 1954 would become a crucial date in Czech and Czechoslovak national history.62

 Television in Poland marks the period of experimental broadcasting from 1952 to May 1, 1956 (Michalski 2012: 247). 62  Further study Štoll 2014: 42–44. 61

9 On its own feet

And now just a few words about Czechoslovak Television. When I last talked about it this year in March at a conference held by the employees of the Ministry of Communications, I did so with, so to speak, an affectionate clemency, as one speaks of a baby, who is, thanks to ‘mummy’ technology and ‘daddy’ programming, alive and kicking. I believe that today such tone would no longer be appropriate. Who could talk about a baby, when as of today the number of our television viewers and listeners is greater than the capacity of all Prague theaters and cinemas added together. CYSARˇOVÁ 1996: 12–13 This was announced by František Necˇásek, the chief executive of Czechoslovak Radio, in his speech on the occasion of Radio Day in 1954. He was pointing out the fact that after the difficult beginnings, Czechoslovak Television was now fully running and had a record of undeniable accomplishments. The number of viewers was rising, despite the fact that in the early days there were fears that nobody would buy a television set of their own. Still, at the end of 1953, during the period of trial broadcasting, representatives of the network of shops selling electrical goods approached the relevant secretariat of the government with a request to stop the production of TV receivers which no one was purchasing. They claimed that should sales continue to be so limited as they had been so far (i.e. about 500 TV sets a year), the supply already in stock would suffice for the next ten years. As I have already mentioned, one of the main reasons that sales of TV sets were sluggish was their high price, which subsequently had to be lowered by the Ministry of Interior Trade from 4,000 to 2,000 CSK in the winter of 1954. After the price reduction, 3,000 receivers were sold in the first three weeks alone. At the end of 1954, the first survey of domestic TV reception found that 3,833 homes were set up to receive television. The following year it was at 32,119 homes, then 47,888 homes (1956), followed by an incredible leap to 172,782 homes (1957), and after this there was exponential growth: 250,000 homes in 1958 and 518,987 homes in 1959. In some periods, as many as 15,000 new customers were registered in a month. And that is to say nothing of the numbers of actual viewers, as opposed to just TV set

136

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

owners, for it was common that friends and neighbours would gather around one television set. All for a bearable price of 15 CSK a month of licence fee. The rise of television took a toll on cinemas. In the early days of broadcast television, the Czechoslovak State Film Agency rented films to be broadcast on television, sensing no threat whatsoever. However, at the turning point of 1958, when statistics revealed a sharp decrease in the number of people visiting cinemas, the Central Film Distributing Agency1 called for negotiations. The negotiations concluded with the Partial Contract for Film Leasing Policy Intended for Broadcasting via TV Transmitters in Prague and Ostrava.2 The parties involved agreed that only 50 new films would be broadcast per year (including not only Czechoslovak ones, but also those coming from other countries of the socialist bloc, as well as from France and Italy) and 80 older films. At the same time, a ‘holdback’– the delay between the cinema premiere of a given film and its television broadcast – was fixed at six months, instead of the original two. This period was later extended.3

FIGURE 9.1  The sports broadcast was one of the main viewing magnets. (© Oldrˇich Cetl, 1957).  [Ústrˇední pu˚jcˇovna filmu˚]  [‘Dílcˇí smlouva o pu˚jcˇování filmu˚ pro vysílání televisními vysílacˇi v Praze a Ostraveˇ’] 3  Situation in Czechoslovak cinematography cf. Skopal 2012, 2014. 1 2

ON ITS OWN FEET

137

FIGURE 9.2  Sports commentator Vít Holubec. (Source: APF CT, 1958).

In the 1950s, the screenwriters and other employees engaged in programme development began to explore the expressive possibilities of television, employing all sorts of available technological innovations. It may be said that by 1961 almost all possibilities offered by the new medium had been tried out: be it news reported on the same day it was shot (about a work team sent out to help with flax harvest organized in the vicinity of Prague (1 August 1954)), a sports event reported on the same evening that it happened (a short dispatch from a USSR-CZ ice-hockey match, 10 February 1954) or the first full-length TV film (The Red Poppy,4 produced in Bratislava studios, 1955); further to this there was the first live broadcast of a ice-hockey match (CZ-Swedish ice-hockey team IF Leksland, 1955), the first broadcast from the National Theater (Smetana’s The Bartered Bride5, 1955), extensive live broadcasts from the first national mass-­gymnastic event, Spartakiad (1955), as well as the first cooperation with colleagues from elsewhere in the socialist bloc: Prague-Warsaw-Berlin (the 5th World Youth Festival, July 1955). There was also the first original TV play (Courtship in a High Class Family, or The Black Cat6), the first live broadcast from abroad (Winter Olympics in Cortina  [‘Rudý mák’]  [‘Prodaná neveˇsta’] 6  [‘Námluvy v lepší rodineˇ aneb Cˇerná kocˇka’] 4 5

138

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

d’Ampezzo, the signal travelled from Italy to the Federal Republic of Germany and GDR and then to Czechoslovakia, January 1956), the first educational programme (Television University,7 February 1956), the first transmission from Czechoslovakia to the Eurovision network (European Boxing Championship from the Prague Winter Stadium, May 1957), and of course two TV series (The Bláha Family,8 Three Men in a Cottage9). These lengthy lists could be extended infinitely; however, I am trying to show that the first eight years of regular broadcasting were of crucial importance for the profile of Czechoslovak television broadcasting. Gradually, television people were learning to work with different genres; they had stopped considering individual genres in isolation and they were no longer afraid of dramaturgical and technological challenges. Programme schedules also grew more elaborate and beyond the earlier notions which designated one type of programme for each day of the week. The development was spurred on by the acquisition of the first broadcast truck, nicknamed FORT 1 (26 January 1955), which was equipped with three cameras and was initially used for the live broadcasting of sporting events. It was evident then, and it has only been confirmed by the introduction of digital broadcasting and of the CT 4 Sport channel at the break of the millennium that sports broadcasting had the greatest potential to encourage prospective buyers of television sets and to turn Czechoslovakia into a ‘television nation’. The Sweden vs. Czechoslovakia football match and later the Winter Olympics in Italy were the first examples of a sharp rise in the sale of TV sets. Television news began broadcasting on 2 October 1956, with Television News and Matters of Interest,10 and later Television News.11 The first news readers were Jaroslav Bouz and Kamila Moucˇková. News bulletins opened (7pm) with an image of the Petrˇín Transmitter emerging in front of a revolving globe. The broadcasting programme was later extended to include Wednesdays (1955), Sundays (1956) and finally Mondays (1958), which had for the first five years been reserved for maintenance. Thus, by 1958, broadcasting became a daily matter and the estimated audience by that time had reached over one million viewers.

Television truly Czechoslovak It must be mentioned that in the period we are discussing, the demands of viewers were also gradually being met in terms of signal coverage, which was  [‘Televisní universita’]  [‘Rodina Bláhova’] 9  [‘Trˇi chlapi v chalupeˇ’] 10  [‘Televisní aktuality a zajímavosti’, TAZ] 11  [‘Televisní noviny’] 7 8

ON ITS OWN FEET

139

no longer limited to the Petrˇín Transmitter in Prague. There was a transmitter in Ostrava, and later in Bratislava. Initially, these isolated transmitters were not interlinked and broadcast only ‘local’ programmes. However, they were soon connected via the axis between other large cities in Czechoslovakia, Ostrava-Bratislava (1957) and then Prague-Bratislava (1958). Thus, even regional broadcasting in most of the country became unified. The initial proposals (e.g. the already mentioned Proposition of a Prospective Plan dating to March 1956) suggested that only one more studio would be built and it was to be located in the Slovak capital, Bratislava. The choice of the second largest city in Czechoslovakia was made to create studio infrastructure for programmes in Slovak and for Slovak viewers. The decision was made also due to the presence of characteristic cultural background: ‘the creation of quality programming requires a broad cultural basis, which other cities cannot sufficiently provide’.12 Eventually, throughout the existence of CST, four other studios were established in the largest cities in Czechoslovakia: Ostrava (31 December 1955), Bratislava (3 November 1956), Brno (6 July 1961), and Košice (25 February 1962). All studios were equipped with basic technical facilities. The Ostrava studio was located in a building at the foot of Czechoslovakia’s second television transmitter placed in Ostrava-Hošt’álkovice, close to the industrial city of Ostrava, Northern Moravia. Its original aim was to produce inexpensive programmes or broadcast those made in Prague. The small studio was about 30 square metres, was referred to as merely the ‘Announcing Room’, and its equipment consisted of a single prototype of a black and white camera and a film scanner. Similarly, the studio in the Moravian city of Brno was located in a small mezzanine space surrounded by apartments. The studio itself was provisionally equipped with four cameras, direction and sound equipment, all of which was taken from a dismantled broadcasting truck. Programmes were

FIGURE 9.3–9.7  Logos of individual regional studios of CST in order of when they started broadcasting: Prague (1953), Ostrava (1955), Bratislava (1956), Brno (1961) and Košice (1962) (Source: APF CT).  Proposition of a Prospective Plan of Television in the Area of the Czechoslovak Republic [‘Návrh perspektivního plánu rozvoje televise na území Cˇeskoslovenské republiky’]. Governmental Committee for Implementing of Television in CSR. Confidential material. [Vládní komise pro výstavbu televise v Cˇeskoslovenské republice. Du˚veˇrný materiál.] March 1956. Library of the Post Museum, Prague. 12

140

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

mostly scanned onto raw file. A more substantial studio was built only after a tragic fire broke out in the building on 21 January 1964 leaving one person dead. As the studio was renovated in the wake of the fire, broadcasting was provided using a second broadcasting truck. Slovak studios derived their experience from that of the Burgher Hall in Prague. The Košice studio began to broadcast from a former cinema building and the Bratislava studio in the country’s capital was already conceived of generously in the government’s plans: first the transmitter Kamzík was to be built, then the parallel construction of television and radio studios was to follow, and finally some already existing space was to be adapted in order to create a transmitting hall capable of accommodating an audience. Unfortunately, the order of these phases was eventually changed and the preparation began with the adaptation of a former bank building in the city center at Gottwald Square, ‘mainly on the grounds of it being a place of public rallies’.13 Other buildings were adapted later (such as the gym), and the construction of an extensive television complex in Mlýnska Dolina began as late as April 1965. It was planned in four stages (1970, 1975, 1981, 1990) and was to accommodate all aspects of TV production including film laboratories, a reporting complex, three studios (each was to be over 1000 square metres) and a programming office. Opening ceremonies always served up a combination of official speeches (e.g. that of Regional chief executive of CST for Slovakia Jozef Vrabec in Bratislava) and entertainment (a musical clown in Ostrava, entertainment shows Daisies above Brno,14 dance performances by the artistic company Slovak Folk-Art Group15), or movie presentations. Studio Bratislava launched with a broadcast of a themed stage programme from the Park of Culture and Rest. The Košice studio offered the dramaturgically most complex programme as the last of the newly opened studios: the news magazine What’s on in Our Region,16 the musical show We Found a Song,17 and a TV play Wind in the Face.18 Naturally, launch dates were chosen to coincide with important state anniversaries: Bratislava’s trial broadcasting began on the 30th anniversary of Slovak Radio broadcasting, despite the fact that the channel had only 500 registered listeners.

 Record from meeting of committee N. 4 of Ministry of Communication on selection of the place for building the transmission hall in Bratislava. [‘Zápis o poradeˇ komise cˇíslo 4 Ministerstva spojov pre predbežný výber stanoviska pre rádiokomunikacˇné prevádzkové objekty, ve veci predbežného výberu staveniska pre televizní prenosový sál v Bratislave na mieste výstavby’]. NAP, fu. 867, box 14, confidential, N. 01192. 14  [‘Sedmikrásky nad Brnem’] 15  [Slovenský l’udový umelecký kolektív] 16  [‘Cˇím žije náš kraj’] 17  [‘Našli sme pesnicˇku’] 18  [‘Vietor do tváre’] 13

ON ITS OWN FEET

141

In all of these cities, several TV receivers were located in public areas. The atmosphere of the moment was captured in a report by the Bratislava-­based daily Vecˇerník:19 A gathering. Intense and silent. Some are standing on the tips of their toes, necks outstretched. Eyes fixed on the TV set inside a shop window. The screen shows a dancing performance of the members of a youth organization, while everybody around is singing and shouting, almost as if we were not in front of the Carlton Hotel in Bratislava, but at some village festival. And though it was cold on that Saturday evening, people did not leave the screen, but patiently waited for the programme to end. [. . .] Not everyone can afford a TV set. But standing outside in the rain, snow, and frost, that would be too much even for the most devoted TV fans. There is only one thing to be done: make television broadcast accessible in more public areas in Bratislava.20 As the interconnection of transmitters proceeded, individual studios started to create programmes intended not only for regional viewers, but also for national broadcasting. Except for regional news, each had their distinct logo which introduced these programmes. There were nationwide programmes which the regional studios took turns in producing (such as youth magazines like Swallow for pioneers21 or Television Youth Club22). Moreover, the studios produced their own series or one-­offs. To this day, viewers associate the Ostrava studio with their daring journalism in Ostrava Seconds23 or The Un-Gordian Knot,24 as well as the reportage series Hunting without Weapons,25 Down the Hunting Paths,26 the educational programme The Dangerous World of Calories,27 or series such as Friends of the Green Valley28 (Švihálek 2005). Throughout the years, the Brno studio came to be known for its reporting from the famous exhibition ground in Brno and for its programmes on agriculture and south Moravian folklore, its shows for children and young people such as Tic-­tac-toe,29 Let’s Play Every Day,30

 [‘Vecˇerník’]  TV Broadcasting Started 30 Years Ago from Bratislava. [‘Prˇed 30 lety zacˇalo televizní vysílání z Bratislavy’.] IIB CˇT, N. 10, 1996, p. 13–14. 21  [‘Vlaštovka’] 22  [‘Televizní klub mladých’] 23  [‘Ostravské vterˇiny’] 24  [‘Negordický uzel’] 25  [‘Lovy beze zbraní’] 26  [‘Po loveckých stezkách’] 27  [‘Nebezpecˇný sveˇt kalorií’] 28  [‘Prˇátelé zeleného údolí’] 29  [‘Piškvorky’] 30  [‘Hrajeme si každý den’] 19 20

142

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 9.8  Cameraman Emil Rožnˇovec in the Bratislava Studio of CST in Zochova Street. (Source: AMŠ, 1959).

Rock-­paper-scissors31 and dramatic works (Malý 2011, Hlavica 2012). Bratislava entered television history with many progressive and technically experimental programmes (such as the musical programme Studio A Live32 and Triangle33), but was most famous for its quality television adaptations of famous literary works aired on Mondays – the so called Bratislava Mondays became a phenomenon. Less than six months after the first

 [‘Kámen, nu˚žky, papír’]  [‘Vysiela Štúdio A’] 33  [‘Triangel’] 31 32

ON ITS OWN FEET

143

FIGURE 9.9  Transmission car of the Brno studio. (Source: AMŠ, 1960).

broadcast (27 August 1962), the workers of Košice Studio broadcast the premiere of original screenplay Stormy Summer34 which was aired nation-­ wide, and two months later the studio aired its first live broadcast from the International Peace Marathon (Košcˇo 1981, Stadtrucker 2015). In summary, both Slovak studios, in Bratislava and Košice, developed an excellent reputation not just in terms of broadcasting, but also in terms of the overall special position among other studios, that is in the structure of television as an organization. From Prague’s point of view, however, these were second-­rate studios. This corresponded to the dominant and condescending attitude of Czechs towards Slovaks, which was manifest also on the level of government – until 1960 Slovakia was simply run by the Board of Commissioners before the Slovak parliament, the Slovak National Council, was established. In television management the very same attitude could be observed, for example, during the structural reform when the Government Resolution number 62 from 29 October 1957 transferred both radio and television under the authority of a single Czechoslovak Committee for Radio and Television. This committee had been appointed as a ‘central authority’, meaning it had a state-­wide authorization, but the Slovak  [‘Búrlivé leto’]

34

144

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Committee for Radio and Television, established at the same time, was regarded ‘only’ as a Slovak ‘national authority’. Meanwhile, the situation at the central studio in Prague’s Burger Hall was becoming critical. Studio representatives bombarded the government with requests for additional space or, even better, for a decision to be made about a ‘final location’. The situation is neatly summarized in Valter Feldstein’s address to Minister Kopecký: The arduous objective circumstances in which the Prague studio functions do not enable the creation of suitable conditions for the programmatic, technical, and operational progress which is required. Television employees have to fulfill their tasks under extremely difficult, almost inhuman, conditions, but the worst thing is that there is no space to rehearse, no space to store technical equipment which is worth millions, and that the basic hygienic, social, and fire facilities are virtually non-­existent. Besides that, it is extremely embarrassing whenever we have visitors coming to us from abroad.35 This complaint might have been one of the reasons why the government established the Interdepartmental Committee for the Development and Use of Television.36 (Among the members of the committee there was František Pilát, a radio amateur from the interwar period with whom we are already familiar.) The first meeting of this committee, at which three subcommittees were established, took place on 10 March 1955. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia also began to address the issue of television’s development (the meeting of 1 November 1955). It required the government to: a) present a prospective plan for its development by the upcoming March; b) elaborate appropriate measures in order to strengthen its organization and management starting 1 January 1956; c) finish the second phase of the construction in Burgher Hall; d) secure a suitable hall in Prague for live broadcasting with an audience and; e) plan the creation of a definitive Prague television center whose construction was to be started in 1956. The Committee produced a plan for the development of Czechoslovak Television: Proposition of a Prospective Plan of Television in the Area of Czechoslovak Republic,37 to which I have already referred. It spans over 20 pages and is sealed off by a list of tasks. The most interesting of these is

 Letter of V. Feldstein to V. Kopecký. APF CT, box PKK, f. 4.  [‘Meziresortní komise pro otázky vývoje, zhospodárneˇní provozu televisních center a využití televise v ostatních odveˇtvích’] 37  [‘Návrh perspektivního plánu rozvoje televise na území Cˇeskoslovenské republiky’] 35 36

ON ITS OWN FEET

145

the task for the Minister of Education to provide the former cinema named Skaut for the purposes of television. The mayor of Prague was to provide apartments in Burgher Hall. The Ministers of Communication and Engineering were to secure the development and production of television facilities, mainly ones for transmitting and retranslating, as well as TV sets and vacuum tubes. The most pressing question was that of space. In 1957, it was decided that a new central television complex would be built at Kavcˇí Hory, outside of the city centre. CST presented the plans for its construction to the Prague Planning Committee the following year. At that time, the construction seemed to be a matter of approximately five years, but it kept being delayed, so that it actually started in July 1962, while broadcasting itself began only in 1970. It is charming to open the pages of Milan Tomsa’s romantic vision of the future centre: Across an area of several hectares [. . .] with many dispersed buildings there will be a main building with a high retranslating tower, with larger and smaller studios, rehearsal rooms, technical support, space for relaxation with a restaurant and with equipment stores. [. . .] The tentative plans show two large theater studios, two smaller ones for less demanding dramatizations and for other genres specific to television, while several others are to be used for children’s programmes [. . .]. The operational facilities will include the necessary trapdoors, pools, turntables [. . .]. Part of the area shall also be reserved for a heliport, which would be a welcome addition for breaking news reporting. The buildings dispersed over the plain will be accompanied by a large park designed for the recreation of both the television employees and the public. TOMSA 1959: 135 The whole volume ends with a telling exclamation: ‘We are not losing and we shall never lose our direction and aim: a socialist television in a socialist Czechoslovakia’ (Tomsa 1953: 137). But it was a long time before these fantastic visions came true. Meanwhile, it was no longer possible to work in Burgher Hall alone. The cinema Skaut was renovated and it played host to CST’s production of children’s programmes which were filmed with a live studio audience (16 September 1958). Another studio was established in the building of the Crop Exchange,38 Burgher Hall was thus reserved for operations and political news broadcasts and to provide space for technical equipment. Such an expansion of the central studio may appear impressive; it is however easy to imagine the

 [Plodinová burza]

38

146

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

fragmentation of efforts, the increasing complexity of cooperation between individual divisions, sections and departments, as the Prague-­based studio had offices and studios in about 120 different locations all over the city, two thirds of these being absolutely inadequate.

A sisterly division Another significant problem was the organizational structure and its logic. Already at the foundation meeting of the Interdepartmental Committee (1955) it was declared that: even the very colleagues of a given television director do not pertain to a single institutional component. This provides less than good conditions for functional cooperation. We suggest that the studios pertain to the Ministry of Culture. Thus, both the programme and the technical operations will pertain to the Ministry of Culture. The transmitters and the telecommunication infrastructure, including the retranslating lines, could continue to be managed by the Ministry of Communications.39 It was becoming ever more apparent that this duality could not last for long and that some kind of radical solution was necessary – but what? An idea emerged that television should be linked not to radio but to film, but this had not met with approval on the part of the Ministry. The connection between television and radio made sense both historically and technologically and in most countries of the world television had been ‘born’ out of radio. There existed various models of their coexistence and up to this day it may be observed that television and radio can function both independently as well as in various types of cooperation (RTL, BBC, RAI, etc.). Recently in Slovakia, an interesting model was implemented, unifying both television and radio under one institution (1 January 2011). These two institutions – the Central Television Studio in Prague (under CS Radio) and Prague Television (under the main radio communications office) – had unequal status from the very beginning. Of course, one may always question what is more important, be it technical operations or programming, and to what extent they need each other; however, the ‘technological mummy’ had always had an advantage and enjoyed a stronger position within the CST. The ‘programmatic daddy’ had its budget included within the budget of Czechoslovak Radio. In 1958, both radio and television were extracted from the jurisdiction of the Culture Ministry and placed under the newly established Committee for Czechoslovak Television and  Komise pro vývoj a využití televise. NAP, f. 867, k. 7, cˇ. j. 35 352/1955.

39

ON ITS OWN FEET

147

FIGURE 9.10  Robinsoness – One of the first television adaptations for children. Actors from the left: Jana Rybárˇová and Ladislav Pešek, dir. Jaromír Pleskot. (© Oldrˇich Cetl, 1954).

Radio (CCTR). This committee was a central administrative body and was assigned its own budget chapter. It managed both radio and television as equal partners. The government arrived at this decision on the basis of ‘the constantly growing importance of radio and television as both a means of information and a tool for mobilizing the working masses in their efforts to build socialism’, as is stated in Resolution Number 62. The service/ programme division was abolished four months later on 1 April 1958. It was decided that studio technology would be transferred from the department of communications to the Central Television Studio in Prague. This crucial event took place on the symbolic date of 1 May 1958. The creation of the CCTR was also a significant step which enabled a smoother ideological approach to both television and radio. The government resolution states that ‘the committee organizes, governs, coordinates, and controls the activity of its subordinate units with regard to ideological-­ political, artistic and cultural, technological and financial matters and

148

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

manages matters common to both’ (Cysarˇová 1996: 14). The Party and the government were beginning to realize that without sufficient control, both media could get out of hand. In April 1957, the Central Committee discussed the report on the current situation of CST which stated that out of 143 creative employees, only 54 were Party members. For this reason, and as part of the state-­wide strategy for penalizing non-­party members, renegades and penalized Party members, the newly established CCTR was required to hire more Party members. Early in 1958, Karel Kohout, the ‘founding father of CST’ was dismissed. His position was given to Milan Krejcˇí (1 March 1958), a hitherto deputy to the chairman of the Central Committee’s department for publishing, radio,

FIGURE 9.11  Prince Bajaja – one of the first epic CST fairy tales. (Source: APF CT, 1959).

ON ITS OWN FEET

149

and television. In a secret resolution40 (18 September 1958) unearthed by Jarmila Cysarˇová in the television archives, the medium of television is conceived of as a tool for instruction and from this perspective the following deficiencies were defined: Remnants of dogmatism in the area of propaganda, little efficiency in economic propaganda, and a certain superficiality of foreign policy materials. Regarding the art programmes, there are traces of liberalism and objectivism, just as there are politically and creatively weak points in the area of people’s entertainment. The resolution asks for greater pugnacity of propaganda, better display of the successes of the construction of socialism, the fight for socialist morale, greater focus on socialist education of the ‘intelligentsia’; in art it requires ‘adherence to the party, folksiness, political dexterity’, as well as bringing ‘classical and modern music to the people, increasing the proportion of contemporary music; and the better political education of employees’. CYSARˇOVÁ 1996: 24–25 No wonder it was Krejcˇí who initiated large-­scale ‘political and class audits’. Between 1958 and 1959, these audits were run in all Party Organizations across the country. In television, they had three stages and affected 95 per cent of employees. If the person concerned did not outright lose their job, they were at least transferred to a different, less ideologically exposed position, or they could continue as external workers, often under a pseudonym. The purge culminated by implementing cadre rules41 which established a precise hierarchy of working positions depending on which of the Party organs was assigned control over them (or better: the approval of their personnel) – spanning from the basic Party organization to the Central Committee. It is easy to imagine what atmosphere this step created, what changes it brought to the characters of individual colleagues, and what uncertainty this brought along as to who was spying on whom and who was an informer. It should be mentioned in this context that, at that time, many contract workers of The Central Office for the Supervision of the Press42 had effectively infiltrated the ranks of television employees. This office, a central and unofficial censorship body, was created almost simultaneously with the launch of television broadcasting (22 April 1953) by a government resolution which was modeled on its Soviet counterpart. At first, it was subjected to the Party Central Committee, but six months later it was transferred into the competence of the Ministry of Interior. Within a couple of years it employed 270 regular censors (referred to as ‘assignees’ in the  [‘Rezoluce ideologického aktivu’]  The Cadre Rules of the CST [‘Kádrový porˇádek CˇST’] 42  [Hlavní správa tiskového dohledu] 40 41

150

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

jargon of the day), and 250 external workers who were recruited from remote local organizations and were therefore not directly ‘recognizable’. Some of them even belonged to the so-­called ‘special tasks department’. In practical terms, censorship meant that no screenplay could be produced without first securing the four-­angle stamp of the office. At live broadcasts of drama programmes, the censor would sit next to the director and stamp each page of the script as it went along. Cysarˇová distinguishes three types of possible intervention: a) a ban on the script or its abolition in the preparatory stages b) programmes already filmed could still be banned or be ordered to make changes after ‘approval screenings’ c) a conflict at the premiere, the prohibition of a rerun, or the order to make amends in another programme, possibly accompanied by a call for demotion. ˇ OVÁ 2002: 521–537 CYSAR In an effort to fulfill the requirements of the declaration of the 11th Party Congress (June 1958), which emphasized the role of ‘the people’s participation in management’, the twenty members of the Committee were also complemented by an advisory board. This board was designed as a ‘parliament of television and radio and television audiences’ (Cysarˇová 1996: 15) to whom the committee would be accountable, as Cysarˇová puts it. The composition of the board was to reflect the widest possible spectrum of the working class, and so the list of its members therefore included an agricultural worker from the Agricultural Cooperative JZD of Prˇerov nad Labem, a factory worker from the chocolate factory Orion Modrˇany, a housewife, an editor from Rudé právo, the head of a city archive in Cˇeské Budeˇjovice, a choreographer, a head physician from a maternity ward in Karlovy Vary, a music composer and a Stalin Award laureate, a chief executive of Tesla Pardubice, an electrician from Kladno steelworks, a chairman of the youth organization CˇSM at the Zdeneˇk Nejedlý Mine, a zoo technician from Agricultural Cooperative JZD Mlázovice, a lathe-­man from CˇKD Sokolovo, and many others. Artists and potential co-­workers of both media were only represented by the director Pavel Blumenfeld, by Václav Kašlík, a director from the National Theater, and by the writer and member of the National Assembly Alena Bernášková. The appointed chairman of the advisory board was Gustav Bareš, who worked at the Institute for the History of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, and was also one of the leaders of the radical cultural faction of the Communist Party during the February revolution.43

 See also the “detective story” by Jirˇí Knapík (2004) or his “thriller” (2006).

43

ON ITS OWN FEET

151

FIGURE 9.12  One of the logos of CST. (Source: APF CT, 1962).

It seems, however, that neither personal purges nor ideological programming were sufficient for the ruling power. Following the denouncement of Stalin’s cult of personality in 1956, and political turmoil in Poland and Hungary, the government finally decided to abolish CCTR and assume control itself in a bid to secure its grip on power. Resolution Number 63 (30 September 1959) dissolved the committee just one year and ten months after it was established, and on the following day, on 1 October 1959, Czechoslovak Radio and Czechoslovak Television became two independent central organizations, that is they were subject to direct control by the government and the Party. They had their own state budget chapters approved by the National Assembly. This date can be taken to be the birthday of Czechoslovak Television (Cˇeskoslovenská televise, CˇST) as an institution in its own right. As we shall see, it was a tamed institution. By this point in the communist era, society was largely subdued, but was eagerly awaiting a time when it would be possible to breathe freely.

CONTExTUAL BOx No. 5 The golden sixties in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic 1961–1970

A

t the beginning of the 1960s, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia found itself in a difficult position. After Krushchev’s secret speech, the party began to lose ground, and maintaining socialism by force was proving more and more difficult – people saw that the idea and its application was idealistic, moving away from real life and that the Soviet planned economy was utterly insufficient (there was an alarming lack of apartments and new housing schemes were not developing fast enough), problems were multiplying and dissatisfaction grew. The first post-war generation of young people who experienced the Stalinist period of socialism as children had grown up. Their ideas began to crystallize and it became clear that the ideological pressure had to be relaxed. This is why, on one hand, the President and the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CzCP Antonín Novotný initiated the ratification of the new Constitution (1960), in which the word socialist became part of the very name of the country – the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. On the other hand, it was necessary to initiate economic reforms which would reduce central planning and transfer at least some authority to the management of companies and factories, as the situation was already on the verge of collapse. Thus, a process of liberalization was initiated, and was manifest in all spheres of life. To the amazement of its readers, the communist newspaper Rudé právo was forced to publish the fact that the CzCP had committed crimes in the 1950s, and several political trials were re-investigated (though only those conducted against the members of the CzCP ), an amnesty was declared (1960 and 1963) and many political prisoners were released. The political pressure began to dissipate. In 1965, citizens were legally granted the right to apply for a passport and to travel outside of the Communist Bloc even for purposes other than business. (From 1948 Czechoslovaks were practically not allowed to travel anywhere; it was even difficult to travel to the Eastern Bloc countries.) From 1963 censorship was eased, and the central censorship organization called The Central Office for the Supervision of the Press [‘Hlavní správa tiskového dohledu’] was dissolved and was reformed into a new and more relaxed institution called The Central Publishing Administration [‘Ústrˇední publikacˇní správa’]. Censorship as such was even abolished completely in June 1968, just before the occupation. Moreover, in the spring of 1968, President Antonín Novotný resigned after he had been removed from the office of First Secretary, and the National Assembly elected a new President – an army

general from the Second World War operations on Soviet territory, Ludvík Svoboda. As in the rest of the western world, culture flourished in the 1960s, though under specific circumstances. There were direct influences coming from the West: Jean-Paul Sartre visited Prague, Louis Armstrong held a concert, and Allan Ginsberg – the beatnik guru – was elected The King of May. In the literary world, Milan Kundera, Arnošt Lustig, Bohumil Hrabal and Josef Škvorecký would go on to achieve global recognition, while a number of quality printed periodicals appeared on the market (e.g. Literární noviny). The works of directors such as Miloš Forman, Veˇ ra Chytilová, Jan Neˇmec, Jirˇí Menzel and Ivan Passer formed a ‘New Wave’ of Czechoslovak cinema. Fringe theaters were established (e.g. Semafor, Divadlo Járy Cimrmana) and the public theaters were not afraid to stage absurd drama. Pop music also experienced a great boom. Politicians who attempted to carry out the reforms, called ‘socialism with a human face’, became symbols or icons of their day: Alexander Dubcˇek became the First Secretary of the Communist Party in the memorable year of the Prague Spring in 1968. His colleagues such as Ota Šik, the representative of economic reforms, Eduard Goldstücker, the chair of the Czechoslovak Writers’ Union, and Josef Smrkovský, chair of the National Assembly, came to be very popular among the public. It was the moment when people started to believe politicians and became interested in public affairs, in which, of course, television played a substantial role. The summer of 1968 came to be known as the Prague (or Czechoslovak) Spring. However, this was all to come tumbling down on the night of 20th August 1968, when Czechoslovakia was suddenly occupied by the armies of the Warsaw Pact and all the hard-won freedom and reforms turned to dust.

10 The birth of a TV nation

In 1961, the number of television set owners in Czechoslovakia surpassed that magical figure of one million. Television had penetrated each and every apartment building, street, and city with its tireless and unceasing effort, while TV screens shone in many a village as well. Taking into consideration the fact that the population of Czechoslovakia was 13,741,529 that year1, and that each television subscription was watched on average by three viewers, television reached over one fourth of the population. For comparison, the number of radio subscribers in 1962 was 3,104,000 (Ješutová 2003: 613). Television’s reach was growing with each year, and along with it, its influence on the social and political climate. Milan Kruml described the 1960s as ‘The Golden Era of Czechoslovak television’ (Kruml 2013: 71). A new dimension of collective memory was created. Iconic programmes emerged such as Goals, Points, Seconds,2 which, first broadcast in 1956, is still aired up until the present day. Similarly, the show Bedtime Story3 has ‘nursed’ generations of viewers evening after evening since 1965, and this has a cherished place in Czechoslovak pop culture. At the turn of the 1960s, television programmes become part of the public space thanks to the interaction of viewers, who began to appreciate that television dealt with current topics and initiated public discussion. It hadn’t done so until then. That is why I propose the introduction of the term ‘television nation’, despite the lack of any nationalist characteristic (Štoll 2011). The millionth television subscriber, registered on 1 September 1961, who remains unknown, was not just a political and social landmark, but also a significant tribute to television and all who had worked on it during its formative years. It took fourteen years after the launch of radio broadcasting  The census took place on 1 March 1961. Available on: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8 Ceskoslovensk%C3%A1_socialistick%C3%A1_republika (accessed 11 November 2015). 2  [‘Branky, body, vterˇiny’], resp. [‘Branky, body, sekundy’] first appeared on 11 March 1956. 3  [‘Vecˇernícˇek’] 1

156

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 10.1  Map of the ten counties of Czechoslovakia with the main transmitters. (Source: AMŠ, 1964).

for the medium to attract one million subscribers, but television was able to reach this milestone in just eight. Radio, of course, paved the way for television organizationally and socially. However, it was clear from this moment that television could think about flying free from radio next and forging its own way ahead. That finally happened in 1964 when the The Act of Czechoslovak Television4 was adopted in Czechoslovak Parliament, allowing for the full legal emancipation and definitive separation from radio. In short, it was the moment when television could no longer be ignored. Up until this point, TV programmes had been watched collectively, but these sessions were gradually replaced by more intimate family circles. In the first decade, TV sets were purchased mainly by the younger generation, who understood it as a symbol of their material, and thus also social, advancement. This was true mainly in rural areas. The chronicler Antonín Boš from the small village Dlouhé Rzy in the Orlické Mountains wrote in 1965 that there were already 98 TV sets in Olešnice. Only ten years before he had noted that the first television was purchased in January 1956 by the bus driver Zdeneˇk Hejzlar and that the first ‘watched piece’ was J. K. Tyl’s play The Bagpiper from Strakonice.5 ‘There is a lot of talk about it and it is much admired. The sets are for sale in shops of the Co-­op,6 where they can be  [‘Zákon o Cˇeskoslovenské televizi cˇ. 18/1964’]  [‘Strakonický dudák’] 6  [Jednota] 4 5

THE BIRTH OF A TV NATION

157

ordered, but supplies are limited. They do not meet demand’.7 If we take into consideration that the bus driver bought his TV set in 1956 for 5,000 CSK, and that the average monthly wage that year was 1,278 CSK, 8 the device was not only a means of social advancement, but also the manifestation of courage to move with the times. There would have been no demand for the TV sets, though, if the content they offered had not been attractive. In the early days of broadcasting viewers were mainly lured by theater performances, adaptations of famous literary and drama pieces, children’s productions, vaudevilles featuring famous actors and, last but not least, sport in all its forms. At the beginning of the 1960s, the plethora of programme types and television genres was already established and original Czechoslovak series became its most interesting feature. They began to draw viewers like a magnet. The very first of these series, The Bláha Family (1959–1960), was premiered on 9 December 1959 and its nine episodes were created gradually, reacting to the responses of the audience. Set in an apartment building in Prague, the series starred many popular actors. The success of The Bláha Family prepared the grounds for what was to become the real standout success of the era: the eighteen-­episode series Three Men in a Cottage9 (1961–1964). The series follows three generations of men from the Potu˚cˇek family, who live in the fictitious village of Ouplavice and overcome their everyday problems with nonchalance and earthy humour. The few episodes that have been preserved are aired to this day despite the fact that they were originally broadcast live and only the tele-­recordings are available. The show proved to be so popular that a second series was created, Three Men a Year Later,10 along with a special version for cinema distribution. One of the screenwriters who cooperated on both series was Jaroslav Dietl, who later made his name as the main author of the series called Eliška and Her Family11 (1966), which centres on a family who runs a pub. Altogether, CST produced eleven original series in the 1960s.12 They brought immense popularity to the lead actors, but they also were the starting points for the careers of other outstanding authors who later influenced Czech TV drama production in a fundamental way: the screenwriter Jirˇí Hubacˇ, or the directors Antonín Moskalyk, Jirˇí Sequens, and František Filip. The subsequent series explored different environments, presented adaptations of Czech literary classics (Klapzuba’s Eleven,13 1968; Marriages

 Chronicle records by A. Boš. APF CT, box PKK, f. 2.  Cˇ ísla pro každého 67/68. Prague: Státní nakladatelství technické literatury, 1968. 9  [‘Trˇi muži v chalupeˇ’] 10  [‘Trˇi chlapi po roce’] 11  [‘Eliška a její rod’] 12  For more about the CST series production see: Moc 2009. 13  Eduard Bass: [‘Klapzubova jedenáctka’] 7 8

158

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 10.2  The Bláha Family (1960). The first series in the history of CST. Actors from the left: Ilja Pracharˇ, Stella Zázvorková and Ladislav Trojan, dir. Jaroslav Dudek and Stanislav Strnad. (© Oldrˇich Cetl, 1960).

of Convenience,14 1969; Mystery of the Conundrum,15 1969), experimented with documentary dramatization of historical material (The Dreyfus Affair,16 1968), as well as the format of the musical (Song for Rudolf III,17 1968 and 1969). A series of crime fiction from old Prague called The Sinful People of the City of Prague18 from 1969 presented the character of the wise police colonel Vacátko, who could solve any case with the help of his team. Vacátko  Vladimír Neff: [‘Snˇatky z rozumu’]  Jaroslav Foglar: [‘Záhada hlavolamu’] 16  [‘Dreyfusova aféra’] 17  [‘Písenˇ pro Rudolfa III’] 18  [‘Hrˇíšní lidé meˇsta pražského’] 14 15

THE BIRTH OF A TV NATION

159

FIGURE 10.3  The Bear (1961) – master adaptation of Chekhov’s play by Jan Werich and directed by Martin Fricˇ. In the picture are Werich and Stella Zázvorková. (© Karel Ješátko, 1961).

was played by Jaroslav Marvan, the very person who had launched the first TV broadcast in May 1953. Still, it is the role of colonel Vacátko by which Marvan will always be remembered. CST also produced attractive stand-­alone dramatic and entertainment productions which were widely acknowledged at international festivals. We could name the musical revue A Thousand Views behind the Scene,19 which was awarded the Bronze Rose at Montreux (1961) and a Golden Sun Boat at the television festival in Alexandria, Egypt (1961) – the very first international award for a Czechoslovak Television production – or the adaptation of Chekhov’s The Bear, whose main protagonist, Jan Werich, was awarded the Golden Nymph (1962) in Monte Carlo, as just two examples. This attention abroad is how television as a medium, apart from its distribution and reproduction functions, also gained its own share in the shaping of the cultural strata of society in its own specific way.

 [‘Tisíc pohledu˚ za kulisy’]

19

160

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

There were yet other kinds of television programmes which contributed to the growing, positive relationship of viewers with television as a whole in the 1960s: extensive topical, interactive, and courageous non-­fiction production. The very possibility of hearing openly expressed opinions in official state media, ones sometimes even critical of the conditions in the socialist regime, was as potent as dynamite. The principle of broadcasting matters live, and this set against the oncoming political thaw, enabled the creation of bold discussion-­based programmes such as Can I Have My Say?20 (from 1963) produced by the Brno studio, The Un-Gordian Knot21 (1963–1966) and Indifference Charged22 (1968) from Ostrava, or The Public Matter23 (from 1966), Probes24 (1968), Between Us25 (1968) from Prague. These programmes were closely observed for political content and subsequently brought to a halt by the censors. For the viewers at home, these programmes discussed the causes of negative economic and ecological phenomena, pried into taboo topics, and, in featuring open confrontations, made it possible for them to form their own free opinions! In the very first edition of the programme Can I Have My Say?, the host (and chief executive of the Brno studio), Josef Krˇivánek, invited, along with a random sample of citizens, the representatives of various state offices as well as ministers, something unheard of at the time. Apart from official rituals, normal people had no opportunity to set their eyes on government officials, let alone hear their opinions. These programmes and the technological possibilities of the time brought about a boom in television journalism, which has been explored in detail by the historian Jarmila Cysarˇová. The iconic programme of the 1960s was Curious Camera26 (1958–1968). The programme was launched in 1958, but it wasn’t until 1962, when it was taken over by a new production team, that it took a new direction, and began to honestly reflect the realities of life in Czechoslovakia. The journalists Vladimír Branislav, Otta Bednárˇová, Ota Nutz, Milan Tomsa, and director Milan Volf and their colleagues applied a high degree of professionalism and personal ethical characteristics in the treatment of their topics, and withstood political pressure, which led to their removal after the invasion in 1968. It was the first time in Czechoslovakia that television journalists, commentators, and documentary filmmakers became household names (such as Ladislav Daneš, Vladimír Škutina, Jirˇí Kantu˚rek, or even the TV newscasters Kamila Moucˇková and Heda Cˇechová).

 [‘Mohu do toho mluvit?’]  [‘Negordický uzel’] 22  [‘Obžalovaná je lhostejnost’] 23  [‘Veˇc verˇejná’] 24  [‘Sondy’] 25  [‘Mezi námi’] 26  [‘Zveˇdavá kamera’] 20 21

THE BIRTH OF A TV NATION

161

FIGURES 10.4 and 10.5  Curious Camera (1959–1970) – one of the most important programmes of civic and engaged journalism. Polling was one of its popular tools. At the table on the right is Vladimír Branislav, sitting. (Source: APF CT, 1964).

162

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

It was not just TV series, drama and non-­fiction which made television so popular. The programmes on offer in the 1960s were more diverse than ever before, and after the 1968 invasion, it wasn’t until the collapse of communism that viewers would be able to freely enjoy such dynamic TV once again. It is beyond the scope of this book to provide a comprehensive list of televisual achievements of 1960s Czechoslovakia. One final aspect which must not be overlooked though, is the role of television in public education. Regular TV Russian courses (1960) of course had a political element, but were also highly practical. Programmes such as TV University,27 an educational series dedicated to health, healthy diet, space, possibilities of science and technology etc., which was launched in 1956, proved to be highly popular not only in Czechoslovakia, but elsewhere in the socialist Bloc. For almost twenty years, the Ostrava-­produced Hunting without Weapons28 (1962–1981) survived many years of political upheaval and pressure, and presented talks about nature with hunters, biologists, photographers, and landscape artists. Both TV programmers and political commissioners placed great emphasis on programming for children and young people,29 divided into four age categories.30 Most of the programmes were filmed in front of live studio audiences, but TV adaptations were also produced (Robinsoness,31 1954) and later, TV series as well. TV Broadcast for Schools32 (from 1966) was for decades a core component of children’s programming, and was later used in schools.33 Older generations of viewers remember the puppets Kut’ásek and Kutilka, hand puppets such as Bear Emánek, Pepícˇek, the devil Bertík, or characters impersonated by live actors such as Ferdinand the Clown or Robot Emil, who liked to eat screws and was ‘the darling of a million of children’ (Feldstein 1964: 197). Later generations grew up watching Ju˚ and Hele, life-­ sized plush puppets operated by the principles of black light theater. Pre-­ school children’s broadcasts, however, were mainly popular for their kind hosts (e.g. Šteˇpánka Hanicˇincová, Antonín ‘Uncle’ Jedlicˇka, Josef Pehr, Miloš Nesvadba, and later Jirˇí Chalupa). In the following quotation, media theoretician Jan Jirák and media historian Barbara Köpplová summarize the role of these programmes: ‘the approach was one of personification, of television becoming another family member (who had a name, a voice, and a face)’ (Jirák-Köpplová 2014: 129). There was, however, a marked change in

 [‘Televizní universita’]  [‘Lovy beze zbraní’] 29  Further study Štoll 2018a. 30  1) Pre-­school age and the first three grades of elementary schools; 2) Pre-­pioneer age (the so-called Sparks); 3) Pioneers and elementary school pupils; 4) Adolescents aged 16–20 years (Feldstein 1964: 192). 31  [‘Robinsonka’] 32  [‘Televizní vysílání pro školy’] 33  More in Cˇesálková 2005: 39–45. 27 28

THE BIRTH OF A TV NATION

163

children’s programming in the 1960s, as the educational aspect was reduced and instead, programmes sought to promote ‘parental responsibility in the educational process’ (Jirák-Köpplová 2014: 131). Thus, even in this seemingly innocuous field, a strong ideological emphasis was placed on the responsibility of the family and the individual, though it was not as blatant as that seen in news reporting. As proof of this phenomenon, let it be said that apart from the key programme Swallow,34 which acquainted children and young people with the official political interpretations of world events, the Curious Camera journal was originally created as a programme for adolescents. As Valter Feldstein, top programme manager of CST said at that time, ‘with this type [of programme] we especially have to appreciate the creators’ desire to experiment’ (Feldstein 1964: 197). Such eagerness to search for new creative possibilities of television stemmed from the new, young authors who wanted to or were willing to cooperate. It was a happy period also because it was the late 1950s, which saw the arrival of the graduates from the recently founded Film and Television Faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts (FAMU), who had their share in the rise of the so-called Czechoslovak New Wave. And because FAMU incorporated television-­specific subjects into its curriculum, a number of graduates and even students were heading directly into working for television (Bednarˇík 2017). Two new high schools had also become a phenomenon; both founded in 1952. The first one, the Technical Film High School,35 was to find its permanent location in Cˇimelice in South Bohemia (Ptácˇek 1982). Dozens of film-­makers have studied there and marginally also TV authors, for example Jaromil Jireš, Karel Cˇáslavský, and Milan Cieslar. The second influential high school was the Technical High School of Communications in Panská Street in Prague.36 This school focused more on television and from 1954 began to engage its students in cooperation with television. Most of the graduates of these schools dedicated their lives’ work to television. The director František Filip remembers that it took a certain courage to move from film into TV production: ‘[Film] was the Olympus and television merely a child’s toy, a funny aquarium which was looked down on. However, I was fascinated by that aquarium’ (Cysarˇová, 1998a: 27). Filip entered the ‘television hall of fame’ in 1997, following a public vote.

 [‘Vlaštovka’]  [Vyšší odborná škola filmová] was originally named the Higher Technical Company Film School [Strˇední pru˚myslová škola filmová]. After 1990, the school was closed down and its tradition has since been taken up by a private Film High School [Vyšší odborná škola filmová] in Písek, and the private Film Academy of Miroslav Ondrˇícˇek [Filmová akademie Miroslava Ondrˇícˇka] since 2003 (abbreviated as FAMO). 36  [Vyšší pru˚myslová škola sdeˇlovací techniky Panská]. Originally called the Technical High School of Communications [Vyšší pru˚myslová škola sdeˇlovací techniky]. 34 35

164

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 10.6  František Filip, one of the classics of the drama series production, who was the first to enter the television Hall of Fame in 1995. Here shooting the series Marriages of Convenience. (© Jaroslav Trousil, 1968).

Other directors who were captivated by television were: Ivo Paukert, Eva Sadková, Jindrˇich Polák, Jan Mateˇjovský, Jirˇí Beˇlka, Antonín Moskalyk, Václav Vorlícˇek, Zdeneˇk Podskalský, and Jaroslav Dudek, whose works were awarded prizes at international television festivals. Two outstanding female directors of the period were Libuše Koutná and Veˇra Jordánová, who would chiefly focus on children’s programmes. Among the later directors, some were also politically active both professionally and personally, such as Jirˇí Sequens, Ludvík Ráža, Jirˇí Adamec, and Evžen Sokolovský. Along with the screenwriter Jaroslav Dietl (who will be discussed later as the most prolific author of TV series), we should name other writers such as Jirˇí Hubacˇ, Otto Zelenka, and

THE BIRTH OF A TV NATION

165

Ondrˇej Vogeltanz, the dramaturgists Zita Drdová, Jana Dudková, Bohumila Zelenková, Helena Sýkorová, and Jarmila Turnovská. A long line of outstanding journalists should also be mentioned: Jindrˇich Fairaizl, Ladislav Daneš, Miroslav Lang, Ota Nutz, Jan Neuls, Milan Vrožina, and František Mudra (Štoll 2009). This modest list proves that the TV screen had established itself alongside the silver screen as a legitimate artistic pursuit. No longer just a way to earn a living, television became a creative pursuit in its own right, and the early pioneers of programming were fuelled by a desire to overcome the lingering snobbery towards television. Undisputedly, CST at that time began to realize its need for a feedback to its impact, and was not only interested in the opinions of its viewers gained from letters,37 but also in those of the experts. In 1964, the television festival Golden Prague38 was established, and was the first international competition of its kind in the socialist Bloc. Television criticism emerged as a new genre in journalism, and programmes were scrutinized by Milan Schulz in Literární noviny, Dušan Havlícˇek in the competing Kulturní tvorba, Jirˇí Lederer in Zemeˇdeˇlské noviny and in Plamen, Eva Pleskotová in Mladá fronta, Jarmila Vyskocˇilová (later Cysarˇová) in Práce, Karel Nešvera in Vecˇerní Praha, and even the official Party daily Rudé právo gave space to the erudite insights of Jirˇí Pitterman, later on the programme director of Czech TV and co-­author of its programme conception after 1993. There were lively discussions and theoretical reflections and analyses. Professionals discussed the specific features of television as a means of communication and its status as a new artistic genre, the best way to organize its creation (and production), the effects of TV broadcasting on the viewers. A number of interesting books and texts, contributions to the theory of television, were being translated – not only the compulsory ones from Russian. The most quick-­witted among Czech theoreticians was the editor and cameraman Jan Kucˇera, and the director and programme theoretician Prˇemysl Freiman, as well as the photographer and media theoretician Ján Šmok. Another long-­term television employee, Valter Feldstein, entered the discussions, as well as other technicians, economists and statisticians, such as Jaroslav Brˇincˇil. A CST Study Department39 began to publish a range of articles in a variety of publications, including the internal periodicals Televisní tvorba and Sveˇt televise. Journals which explored the history of television and its prehistory emerged, authored by Bohumil Kut, Vladimír Strasmajer, and Lydie Petránˇová. Later on, these attempts to capture the phenomenon

 CST had an active contact with them by means of its Correspondence Department since 1956.  [‘Zlatá Praha’] 39  [Studijní odbor] 37

38

166

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

of television culminated in the publication of the three-­volume Television Dictionary40 in 1978 by CST Programme and Viewers Department41 led by Ivan Tesár. The dictionary is unrivalled to this day. This publication has not been paralleled in our history. In short, the year 1961 was ground-­breaking for many reasons: Czechoslovak TV received its millionth subscription and could technically be viewed by as many as 3.5 million viewers at the same time; the first award was received for a TV production at the international TV Festival in Montreux, which provided positive feedback to its artistic production; the Cukrák Transmitter was put into operation, and the network of main transmitters was thus completed. In the autumn, the construction of the future television studio facilities, Kavcˇí Hory, the dreamed-­of permanent location for a decent TV production, was initiated. On 12 April 1961, a special edition of TV News42 brought footage of Yuri Gagarin orbiting the globe to Czech television screens. Two days later, viewers could watch his triumphant return to the Earth in a live transmission from Moscow. The signal beamed into Czechoslovakia via Finnish Television. CST was standing at the threshold of its most fertile period. It had become an important element in further political and social development of the country. Whilst it had taken 8 years to get one million subscribers, the second million was reached just 20 months later in 196343. The TV nation was born and accepted TV as its own.

The helplessness of political power, the power of television Television was the only mass medium created in Czechoslovakia after the communist coup. Whilst the communists had seized control over radio and the print media, television, having been created under the regime’s watchful eye, was formed from the beginning just how they wanted it. During the founding period, the political pressure was not as high due to the

 [‘Televizní výkladový slovník’] – see Tesár 1978.  [Odbor výzkumu programu Cˇ ST a diváku˚ v CˇSSR] 42  [‘Televizní noviny’] 43  The third million was reached at the turn of 1978–79. The statistics reveal that already 95 per cent of Czechoslovak households owned a TV set and the average time spent with its programme was 2 to 3 hours a day. For the first time, the monthly fee was raised from 15 to 25 CSK. At the end of its existence, in 1992, Czechoslovak Television had 3,179,718 concessionaires and the fee was 50 CSK. 40 41

THE BIRTH OF A TV NATION

167

medium’s limited impact compared to film, radio and newspapers and the priority was to set television in motion. However, the arrival of the millionth subscriber in 1961 was a clear signal to the state authorities that the time had come to reign in television and push it in the desired direction. At the same time, society began to display liberalization tendencies and relaxation in all spheres of life, which the CST wanted to reflect and also promote. This was naturally in direct contradiction with its expected political role. What was to be done about this? The first thing to do was to change management. The second chief executive; Milan Krejcˇí, was replaced by Adolf Hradecký (1 September 1959), who was until then head of the Czechoslovak News Agency, CTK. His period came to be associated with a new organizational scheme of television, the establishment of the position of ‘central director’, and with the first unearthed Cadre Order of the CST,44 which set the political rules for all television employees. These and other measures were designed to further the ideological wishes of the Central Committee of the Party entitled On the Situation and New Tasks of Czechoslovak Television (24 May 1960). Whoever reads it will have no doubts: As it may be assumed that the mass development of television, whose daily broadcasts have about two million viewers, will continue, it may be stated that it represents one of the most important instruments of the education of the people in the spirit of communism [. . .] The Central Committee stresses the fact that Czechoslovak Television is a socialist television and all its activity is founded on the policies of the Czechoslovak Communist Party [. . .] The function of the Czechoslovak Television is to educate the working masses in the ideas of communism, in the spirit of proletarian internationalism and of socialist nationalism, new and common social ethics and progressive aesthetic taste, to display the variety of contemporary life in our society and to highlight new phenomena and processes which are taking place within it. The task of television is to spread the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and the findings of materialist science, to organize the masses of the working people for the fulfillment of the tasks set out by socialist construction, for the participation in conscious strengthening and deepening of the principles of socialist democracy, to propagate the consciousness of socialist statehood, to execute an effective atheist propaganda, and to guide the citizens to active participation in all that is new and progressive, to overcome the prejudices and influence of bourgeois ideology. Television must help both individuals and society with the creation of a world outlook, character, and culture of the man of the future communist society.  [‘Kádrový porˇádek CˇST’]

44

168

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

And there was, of course, a reference to Lenin: ‘The words that V. I. Lenin once spoke about film – that, for us, it is the most important of all arts – can today be fully applied also to television’.45 The political bureau of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak CP (from 3 January 1959) concluded that it was necessary to expedite construction of a network of transmitters all over the republic so that as much of the country as possible could be covered by one signal. The report of the Governmental Committee for Television Construction46 reveals that it was hoped that this nation-­wide signal would act as a bulwark against western broadcasters and ‘neutralize’47 their influence. Only then would Czechoslovakia be fully capable of fulfilling its commitment to the Soviet Union to be a reliable western border of the socialist Bloc, not just physically, but also ideologically. Also it now became possible to receive foreign programmes and send programmes abroad. Content sharing agreements were signed with all the countries of the Soviet Bloc, including China and Albania. Significantly, it was CST that played host to the first live broadcast coming to the USSR from another country on 9 May 1960. Television also succeeded politically, as it reached full emancipation and became an organization independent of Czechoslovak Radio, with a separate entry in the state budget, basically on the level of an independent ministry. The above-­mentioned Czechoslovak Television Act48 from 1964 was promulgated together with the Czechoslovak Television Statutes,49 partly as a type of safeguard. Its first Article stated: The activity of Czechoslovak Television is principally based on the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and implements political and educational work, supports creative initiatives of the People, and helps to finish the Cultural Revolution. ˇ INCˇ IL 1970: 175–176 BR Thus, all activity which would criticize the policy of the Party became illegal. However, the spirit of the 1960s was not so easily shackled.‘The Liberalization Process’ manifested itself also in such a mighty tool of power, Czechoslovak Television. Its fourth director, Jirˇí Pelikán, became the symbol of this process.  On the Situation and New Tasks of Czechoslovak. Television [‘O stavu a nových úkolech Cˇs. televise’], 24 May 1960. The Life of the Party [Život strany], N. 12, 1960. 46  [Vládní komise pro výstavbu televize] 47  Report on the Penetration of Foreign Television Broadcasting within Czechoslovakia and the Current State of the Development of CST [Zpráva o pronikání zahranicˇního televizního vysílání na území CˇSR a o soucˇasném stavu rozvoje CˇST] Státní komise pro výstavbu televise, NAP, Archive CC CzCP, fu. 02/02 Political bureau CC CzCP, in Cysarˇová 2002: 522. 48  [‘Zákon o Cˇeskoslovenské televizi cˇ. 18/1964’] 49  [‘Statut CˇST’] 45

THE BIRTH OF A TV NATION

169

He started on 1 June 1963 with the full trust of the Communist Party. He entered the Party as a young man during the Second World War, when the Communist Party was illegal, and was imprisoned by the Gestapo. After the war he studied at the High School of Politics and Social Issues50 in Prague. He was active in the communist youth movement and his career trajectory was impressive: Pelikán was a member of the CzCP’s Regional Committee in Prague, chairman of the Action Committee of the National Front, a participant in the mass purges of the ranks of college students and teachers after the communist takeover of 1948, a member of the National Assembly at the age of 25, an employee of the cultural division of the Central Committee of the CzCP secretariat, and for ten years he served as the General Secretary of the International Student Union, before being rewarded for his loyalty by being named Central Director (Chief Executive) of CST in the hope that he would make good use of his experience and international contacts, preferably with the countries of the Eastern Bloc. To the great surprise of the Party, it was precisely this international experience which made Pelikán realize that things could be different. This is evident in a conversation which took place between Pelikán and the deputy premier Gustáv Husák in 1967, after one programme was broadcast which featured several people who were not members of the communist party: ‘What kind of morals are these? Comrade, can you imagine that the West would allow communists to speak on television?’ Husák raged. To which Pelikán replied: ‘Not only can I picture it, but I have also seen it with my own eyes’. And he went on to describe the BBC’s programme That Was the Week That Was, in which socialist members of the opposition sharply criticized the government (Cysarˇová 2003a: 14). No wonder, then, that it was Pelikán who initiated a range of discussion programmes which offered space to young authors, mainly journalists. ‘Until now, each word uttered on television was taken as the official opinion and that kept the hands of our journalists tied’, he said in an interview in 1967. First and foremost, television needs to create space for a personal approach and for the right to make mistakes. [. . .] individuals who can form their own opinions. [. . .] I am convinced that we have such people but they need to get the opportunity to raise their voices. CYSARˇOVÁ 1993a: 42 One of the many cases in which Pelikán intervened was in the series Curious Camera with a programme called Choice of Occupation.51 The journalist Otka Bednárˇová, together with editor Jaroslav Patera, criticized the fact that  [Vysoká škola politická a sociální]  [‘Volba povolání’]

50 51

170

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

under communism, a family’s social background (that is, the wealth, profession, and behaviour of both parents and grandparents) could influence what schools a child was accepted into. They discovered a student at the Economics High School in Vysoké Mýto who had been expelled for these reasons after three months of her studies and instead attended a secondary medical school which was less socially valued. Bednárˇová contacted all the relevant parties, recorded her interviews with them, and proved that the student was expelled on the order of the local Party authority. The report attracted significant attention, as well as a serious dismay of the Party. On one hand, in an unpublished review, the journalist Zdeneˇk Bláha wrote that ‘it’s been a long time since we’ve seen a programme on television which would lead viewers to such a specific reflection on the question of socialist ethics and responsibility by means of simple objective analysis of a phenomenon in one’s life’ (Moulíková 2014: 19). On the other hand, the Party organs sought Otka Bednárˇová’s dismissal from television and Jaroslav Patera’s from Rudé právo newspaper. Both were interrogated by the Commission of Party Control of the CC CzCP, where they were pressurised to denounce their programme. Both responded that ‘if the functionaries can prove that the programme was mendacious or false, we [the journalists] will leave our jobs’ (Moulíková 2014: 19). Eventually, Jirˇí Pelikán was ordered to dismiss Otka Bednárˇová. He refused, only transferring her to a different editorial office, and officially reprimanded her while she agreed to stay off screen for a year. This was only one of the dozens of cases where Pelikán did what he felt was best and diverged from the wishes of the communist authorities. He supported and defended programmes like Parents and Children52 (1964) about asserting parental authority and respect for children’s privacy; Horse versus Horse53 (1964), about the malfunctioning economy of the state’s management of the mining industry; Civil Case54 (1964) about the deterrent examples of child adoption and others. In short, all these programmes were criticised by the communist officials as they were highlighting the need for the protection of the freedom and the rights of individuals and the failures of the system. All this resulted in the Party’s sharp criticism of the institution and its director in May 1965. The resolution, titled On the Situation, Activity and Tasks of Czechoslovak Television states: The ideologically faulty programmes and incorrect tendencies which are manifested by some television employees and penetrate into broadcasting, reflect an ideological instability of some of the employees working in the cultural and creative fields. As an active tool of Party  [‘Rodicˇe a deˇti’]  [‘Ku˚nˇ versus ku˚nˇ’] 54  [‘Civilní prˇe’] 52 53

THE BIRTH OF A TV NATION

171

policy, television must help to paralyze these incorrect influences among the workers on the cultural and ideological frontlines, it must effectively fight them and inform the public opinion in line with the socialist spirit in order to implement and realize the principles of the Party.55 As a result, two political deputies were appointed to Pelikán’s office to oversee his work and prevent other potential troubles.56 The Party became increasingly aware of the significance of television. In 1965, there were already over two million subscribers;57 statistically there were 478 TV sets for every 1000 Czechoslovak households, which was comparable not only with the German Democratic Republic (496 TV sets), but also with the Federal Republic of Germany (550 TV sets) (Köpplová 2003). Likewise, TV broadcast for 60.5 hours a week on the Czech circuit, 58.5 hours in Slovakia, and thus the space for ideological influence was large and the surveillance of television broadcasting was increasingly harder. In that year, construction of the giant television complexes in Prague, Kavcˇí Hory, and in Bratislava, Mlýnska Dolina, accelerated. We know today that television broadcasting was not only meant to serve official propaganda, but it was also abused by the State Security service without the knowledge of television employees. An extreme example of this abuse was Vladimír Branislav’s documentary programme The Secret of Devil’s Lake58 (1964), from the Curious Camera series. The original intention was to shoot a documentary about a lake deep in the Šumava woods in southern Bohemia, whose water, according to legends, is endowed with magical preservation faculties: it is said that you can still find a perfectly preserved rococo countess at the bottom of the lake as well as a woodsman with a horse-­drawn cart, Napoleonic soldiers, and a whole platoon of German soldiers. This legend was ‘confirmed’ by the news that the body of a student who had drowned in the lake ten years previously was recovered, and showed no signs of having decomposed. The author of the playful coverage asked professional sport divers to inspect the lake’s bed. Then he recorded how they pulled out several small crates with war ammunition. One of the divers was a state security agent, Ladislav Bittman, who conceived of an idea together with his superiors, to use the legend and the television crew for an international disinformation campaign. If some secret manuscripts from the Reich Main Security Office59 from the end of the

 On the Situation, Activity and Tasks of Czechoslovak Television [‘O stavu, cˇinnosti a úkolech Cˇs. televize’]. The Life of the Party [Život strany], N. 5, 1965. 56  Jirˇí Plachý and Jaroslav Hondlík. 57  In 1965 East Germany had 3,559,240; Poland 2,540,064; Hungary 1,000,000; Yugoslavia 777,299 and Bulgaria 287,880 subscribers (Paulu 1967: 229). 58  [‘Tajemství Cˇertova jezera’] 59  [Reichssicherheitshauptamt] 55

172

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Second World War were discovered, it would be possible to stir up the idea internationally that West Germany was the direct successor of Nazi Germany. (In 1965, the twenty-­year period for prosecution and punishment of the Nazi war crimes was to end and by discrediting Germany or certain politicians, it was hoped that this period could be prolonged.) The idea was well-­liked by the police chiefs in Moscow, who authorized the preparation of Neptun, one of the largest disinformation campaigns ever executed by the Czechoslovak State Security services. The Soviets promised to provide Nazi manuscripts from their archives.60 That took longer than the State Security Police (StB) expected and one night in June they decided to sink four ‘cardboard boxes covered in asphalt and filled with mere office paper’ (Bittman 1992: 97). The Curious Camera crew was present for the sensational discovery, although they found the timing quite suspicious. At the press conference held by the Ministry of the Interior in September 1964, in the presence of foreign journalists, the StB presented the incriminating Nazi documents which it had managed to obtain from Moscow in the meantime. The coverage, as well as the discoveries, became a European sensation and Branislav and his team were awarded a special prize at the international festival of television documentaries in Leipzig. The team continued in their investigation, and in a subsequent report, Lake Archives,61 they explored other locations related to secret Gestapo operations. Operation Neptun was successful. The Federal Republic of Germany was forced to extend the statute of limitation of war crimes by another five years. Ironically, the idea’s creator, Ladislav Bittman, emigrated to the USA in 1968, where he confessed that the discovery of the documents had been a security services plot. Despite all attempts to exert ideological control over television and its programmes, the authorities failed to stop the current of liberalization which swept through Czechoslovakia in the 1960s. In March 1966, some of the taboos of modern history, the political trials, forced collectivization, and other practices of the high Stalinism of the 1950’s became topics of discussion in wider society. Czechoslovak Television joined this sharp criticism in its programme Dispute62 in April 1966, which was a stylized trial with the members of the post-­war generation who fell victim to the false optimism of building socialism and thus could be held responsible for the deformation and devastation of moral values in society. ‘The Defendant’ was the writer and poet Pavel Kohout, who in the early 1950s wrote odes celebrating Stalinist policies, but had since become active in reform communism and went on to emigrate and become one of the authors of the Charter 77

 http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24/domaci/1028927-tajemstvi-­cerneho-jezera-­leto–1964-pod-­ taktovkou-stb (accessed 18 November 2015). 61  [‘Archivy z jezera’] 62  [‘Spor’] 60

THE BIRTH OF A TV NATION

173

FIGURE 10.7  Press conference summoned for the ‘discovery’ of the Nazi documents by the authors of Curious Camera at the bottom of the Black Lake. (© Miroslav Pospíšil, 1964).

declaration, the key document of the civic opposition movement during the normalization period. The programme’s bold conclusion was that the dividing line did not stretch between the generations, but that ‘each person should search for their own guilt and not follow the strong voice. Faith diminishes tolerance’. It was yet another bold call for the individual conscience and to challenge general, for example political, authorities. That was the ‘advocate’s’ conclusion, presented by a representative of the younger generation, the (Oscar-­winning) director Jirˇí Menzel (Cysarˇová 2003a: 41). The broadcast provoked a stormy public reaction and led to the creation of a sequel called The Jury,63 inspired by Reginald Rose’s play Twelve Angry

 [‘Porota’]

63

174

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Men. It was even more open this time. Among the jury’s members were also the popular travellers Jirˇí Hanzelka and Miroslav Zikmund, known not only for their journeys, but mainly for their Report on the Soviet Union,64 which enraged the Soviet leader Brezhnev himself. The jury formulated a very open and provocative question: ‘Pavel Kohout signed his work and that is why the young generation is allowed to criticize him. But where are the names of all the people who in the name of society made all the wrong decisions?’ (Cysarˇová 2003b: 42). After previewing the programme, the political deputies intervened and the programme was prohibited. Nevertheless, it reached the TV screens during the Prague Spring, in March 1968. ‘The Party will never allow for any infiltration of anti-Marxist or anti-­ socialist opinions into the social awareness of the public by means of the mass media, nor will the press be used against the Party or the state.’ Thus the Party raged in yet another official declaration from 30 August 1966. ‘Journalists, as political and public workers, are not mere informers and interpreters of the events, but first and foremost active agents in accomplishing the goals and the politics of the Party’. CYSARˇOVÁ 1996: 30 All this was to no avail. From February 1968, the CST workers began to ignore censorship entirely. They refused directives and challenged the existence of the main censorship office, Central Publication authority,65 as well as the press law and the CST Statutes. They were demanding things that were unheard of – the opening of the archives, programme independence, and direct responsibility to the Prime Minister, not to the Central Committee of CzCP66 – thus the aim was to depoliticize Czechoslovak Television. Furthermore, in March 1968, a miracle happened – censorship in Czechoslovakia was abolished. First by the resolution of the CC CzCP (4 March 1968) and then legally, by law 84/1968 from 26 June 1968. It was proclaimed unacceptable: ‘Censorship implies all intervention of state organs against the freedom of speech and press images and their dissemination by the mass media. The state attorney’s authority remains untouched’, said the law. ˇ OVÁ 2009: 298 CYSAR The barriers had fallen and the communist regime was suddenly toothless. CST was stronger than ever before and became an equal partner for free thinking citizens.  [‘Zpráva o Soveˇtském svazu’]  [Ústrˇední publikacˇní správa] 66  From the office meeting on 31 January 1968. (Cysarˇová 2009: 296). 64 65

THE BIRTH OF A TV NATION

175

The fall of censorship and the Prague Spring The year 1968 is an internationally known milestone in Czechoslovak history. The country experienced heady freedoms, the likes of which they had not known for decades, which were however brought to a crushing end by the troops of the Soviet-­led Warsaw Pact military alliance. The first half of the year was one of the most important periods in the history of CST. Open discussions were held not only in companies, factories, and in the streets, but also on TV. In March, Ladislav Daneš hosted a direct broadcast from a very turbulent meeting of communists in the collective farm in Horomeˇrˇice, which featured extremely sharp criticism of the CzCP politics. ‘A new trend was developing which came to influence other news programmes,’ (Cysarˇová 2009: 296) In February, the programme The Public Matter returned to TV screens and its host, Jirˇí Kantu˚rek, analysed the topic of civic activism and so-­called socialist democracy with his guests. The show also voiced the opinion that the current social system could not be improved and it was necessary to introduce a new one (Cysarˇová 2009: 296). The very same Kantu˚rek began to host a new programme in March of that year (Probes), not from the studio, but directly from fields, factories and villages. His interviewees did not mince their words in answering his questions such as ‘What has actually changed?’ or ‘Do we really have the lowest morale out of all the workers in Europe?’ In April the show Between Us featured confrontational live interviews with public figures. The government vice-­premier Ota Šik explained why economic reforms were necessary, and introduced terms such as ‘the third’ way and ‘economic democracy’ to the public. Debates with students from the Law Faculty of Charles University (Civic Education67) presented the young generation’s views on law and its possibilities under socialism. Other college students, those born in the year of the communist coup, 1948, joined a debate hosted by Jirˇí Pelikán, the director of CST, and politicians Josef Smrkovský and the chairman of the Czechoslovak Writers Union, Eduard Goldstücker, regarding the recent past and the so-­called blank spots of history, recent events that had been a taboo (Complementary Classes68). Pelikán often intervened in live broadcasts, not as a censor, but rather in order to inspire further discussions. He was satisfied to see the reactions not only of the audience in the crowded studio, but also of those watching. Following the debate Where Are We Going?,69 in which he personally explained to the public the issues of journalistic ethics and freedom of speech, he received 430 anonymous and 1730 signed reactions (Cysarˇová 2009: 303). He answered questions like: ‘Where will it end if everyone says and writes what he or she wants?’

 [‘Obcˇanská výchova’]  [‘Doplnˇovací lekce’] 69  [‘Kam speˇjeme?’] 67 68

176

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

The journalists and TV documentarists continued in their effort to uncover the misdemeanors of the past and bad practice of the present, this time with still higher intensity. For example, the authors of Curious Camera, Vladimír Branislav and Jaromír Kincl, together with director Milan Tomsa, spent a week in the Mírov jail and, right in front of the camera, demonstrated the insufficiency of the current legal norms, the lawless position of political prisoners, and their cruel treatment in the past as well as in the present (Inspection70). Something like that had been unthinkable until that moment. Their colleague, Otka Bednárˇová, criticized other aspects of the regime, such as the two-­year-­long compulsory military service from the female perspective – women and girls waiting for their men before they got back from the service. Two Years on the Palliasse,71 organized a fictitious democratic election for the camera (First-­time Election),72 looked back at the consequences of her criticized programme in Choice of Occupation (More or Less Fifteen)73. There were dozens of such programmes, produced by the other CST studios as well (e.g. the regular Ostrava Seconds74) and, generally speaking, this period can be considered the high point of television journalism and documentary television in the history of CST.75 TV journalism and documentary film making had become relevant professions, assets for society and not only for propaganda purposes. Vlastimil Vávra’s series In Aid of the Attorney-General 76 was a fine example of this. Over the course of four episodes Vávra used investigative methods to challenge the taboo circumstances surrounding the death of the Foreign Minister Jan Masaryk in March 1948. Did he really commit suicide as the communist propaganda had claimed from the very beginning, or was he murdered and thus a victim of a politically motivated crime? The Minister had been a member of Edvard Beneš’s exile government in Great Britain during the Second World War. The death of the man who had come to symbolize democracy had shocked the whole world. Was Czechoslovak democracy murdered or did it jump out of the window of its own accord? Everything pointed to the fact that things were heading in the right direction. The Central Committee Ideological Department was dissolved; and Pelikán, the CST director, dismissed his two deputies who had been appointed to oversee journalism and drama production. Most importantly, television was supported in its attempt to present a plurality of opinions on

 [‘Kontrola’]  [‘Dva roky na slamníku’] 72  [‘Poprvé k volbám’] 73  [‘Volba povolání (Plus mínus patnáct)’] 74  [‘Ostravské vterˇiny’] 75  We must mention Cysarˇová’s publication from 1993. 76  [‘Na pomoc generální prokuraturˇe’] 70 71

THE BIRTH OF A TV NATION

177

screen by the government itself. A government resolution from 21 June 1968 states: In their domestic and international news broadcasts, the Czechoslovak News Agency, Czechoslovak Radio and Czechoslovak Television will separate official information and commentaries from editorial articles and programmes, even those hosted by external co-­workers, so that it is obvious that the commentaries express their personal opinions and ideas.77 In society, the support was growing for both reforms and the government. On 27 June 1968, a day after the official dismantling of censorship, Literární listy newspaper, as well as the national journals Práce, Mladá fronta, and Zemeˇdeˇlské noviny (though not the central newspaper Rudé právo) published a manifesto by the writer Ludvík Vaculík, Two Thousand Words,78 which was eventually signed by more than a hundred thousand citizens. ‘The text tried to activate the public, not wildly but rather conceptually – to critically analyse the current state of society and suggested that step should be taken in order to solve the ongoing crisis in the system.’79 It became one of the most substantial documents of the Prague Spring and not only the author, but all of the manifesto’s signatories would be persecuted in the years to come. Already in July 1968, one of the parliament deputies and a member of the Czechoslovak People’s Army called it counter-­revolutionary, and what is more, he tried to force a declaration of martial law in parliament. CST discussed the manifesto quite openly (Current Issues80): the studio invited its author, as well as the chemist and inventor of contact lenses Otto Wichterle and the member of the Communist Party Central Committee, František Kriegel, who two months later was the only prominent politician not to sign the ‘Moscow Protocol’ from August 1968, which called for the suppression of the liberalization movement in Czechoslovakia and legitimized the occupation. The Soviet Union watched all of this with increasing resentment. Already in the spring, it had tried to pressure Alexander Dubcˇek to make personnel changes (e.g. dismiss the chief executive of CST Jirˇí Pelikán), and deemed the reforms of the Prague Spring to be antisocial and counter-revolutionary.  CSSR Government Resolution from 21 June 1968 No. 2+1 about the Measures Concerning the Activity of CPA, CS. Radio and CST [‘Usnesení vlády Cˇ eskoslovenské socialistické republiky ze dne 21. cˇervna 1968 cˇ. 2+1 o opatrˇeních v cˇinnosti Cˇ TK, Cˇ s. rozhlasu a Cˇ ST.’], APF CT, fu. VE 1, N. 1478. 78  The whole title of the petition was Two Thousand Words that Belong to Workers, Farmers, Officials, Scientists, Artists, and Everybody Else [‘Dva tisíce slov, které patrˇí deˇlníku˚m, zemeˇdeˇlcu˚m, úrˇedníku˚m, umeˇlcu˚m a všem’]. It was initiated by members of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, including, for example, inventor of the contact lens, Otto Wichterle. 79  http://www.rozhlas.cz/plus/archivplus/_zprava/kdyz-­se-rekne–2000-slov-–1230146 (acessed 20 November 2015). 80  [‘Aktuality’] 77

178

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 10.8  Political symbol of the Prague Spring, Alexander Dubcˇek (on the right) in conversation with TV journalist Jirˇí Svejkovský (in the middle). (Source: Archives of Jirˇí Svejkovský, 1968).

In mid-June, a meeting of five ‘brother nations’ from the communist bloc took place in Warsaw. The participants declared that the counter-­ revolutionary tendencies they observed in Czechoslovakia were the beginnings of a shift towards capitalism, that it was necessary to take steps against changes which would challenge the leading role of the Party, and that they were ready to help the country. This was put in the form of an ultimatum bordering on threats, which the Czechoslovak Communist Party Central Committee immediately rejected, explaining that ‘the solving of internal problems is an unalienable right of each country and its people’.81 Shortly thereafter, Leonid Brezhnev invited the Czechoslovak government and party representatives for a personal meeting. It was to take place in a railway car placed in the eastern-­most Czechoslovak town of Cˇierna nad Tisou on 29 July 1968. Being thus raked over the coals was perceived as extremely painful by the Czechoslovaks. Four days before the meeting, a petition called SOCIALISM!

 http://www.totalita.cz/kalendar/kalend_1968_07.php (accessed on November 20, 2015).

81

THE BIRTH OF A TV NATION

179

FIGURE 10.9  On the night of 20–21 August 1968, the Warsaw Pact troops crossed the border and the 21-year-long occupation began. (Source: Archives of Jirˇí Svejkovský, 1968).

ALLIANCE! SOVEREIGNTY! FREEDOM! began to circulate. Within the first two days it was signed by 85,000 citizens, and it eventually attracted 4 million signatories. The text of the petition read: We are accused of crimes we did not commit. We are ascribed intentions we have never had nor do we have them now. We are under threat of unjust punishment which, whatever form it may take, will return as a boomerang upon our judges, destroy our efforts, and, chiefly, tragically stain the socialist idea everywhere in the world for many years. It concluded with the following proclamation: It would be tragic if the personal feelings of any of you were to outweigh the responsibility that you currently have for 14,361,000 people, among whom you also belong. Act, explain, but be unified and vindicate without compromise the path upon which we have set and from which we will not stray as long as we live. We will follow your actions in the coming days, hour by hour, in our minds. We wait impatiently for your news.

180

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

We think of you. Think of us! You are writing a decisive chapter of Czechoslovak history. Write it with deliberation, but mainly with courage. Losing this unique chance would be unfortunate and the shame would fall on you. We trust you!82 The petition was read in front of the CST cameras by writer Pavel Kohout and traveller Jirˇí Hanzelka, who displayed the stacks of paper bearing the signatures in support of Alexander Dubcˇek. In the evening before the negotiation, Josef Smrkovský recited one of the sentences from the proclamation for the TV cameras: ‘We think of you. Think of us!’ Finally, during the four-­day-long negotiations in Cˇierna nad Tisou, the Czechoslovak politicians failed to reach any agreement with their Soviet counterparts. Despite this, they felt that they had handled the situation well. To this day the details of what transpired during these negotiations are shrouded in mystery, as the bilateral negotiation between Brezhnev and Dubcˇek took place without witnesses. Supposedly, it was this occasion on which one of the ultraconservative members of the Central Committee, Antonín Kapek, handed over the crucial document known as the ‘letter of invitation’, requesting military intervention in Czechoslovakia. It was on this basis that Soviet tanks, followed by transport aircraft, crossed the Czechoslovak borders on 20 August 1968 at 11pm. The invasion was officially legitimized having been a ‘request of the state’s government,’83 and consisted of 6,300 tanks and an estimated 500,000 foot soldiers, soldiers from the Polish People’s Republic, the Hungarian People’s Republic, the Bulgarian People’s Republic and the German Democratic Republic.84 These events came to define life in Czechoslovakia for the next 21 years, and were drastically to transform CST broadcasting.

 http://www.68.usd.cas.cz/files/dokumenty/edice/726.pdf (accessed 15 July 2017).  Letter of the Soviet government to UNSC Secretary-General from 21 August 1968, N. S–8759, in: Bencˇík-Domanˇský 1990: 20. 84  http://www.totalita.cz/1968/19680820.php cit. (accessed 20 November 2015). 82 83

11 Occupation in 1968: We keep broadcasting!

The courage and professional character of editors and technicians who tried to maintain free broadcasting no matter what the cost and to inform their viewers and listeners about what was happening was admirable. It is one of the highlights in the history of broadcast media in Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovak Radio earned its moral credit in the early days of the Nazi occupation in 1939, and for its illegal broadcasts during the war and the Prague Uprising and liberation in May 1945, for CST, the occupation was its first major flashpoint, a sort of coming of age. At 4:30am on 21 August 1968, the editors and directors launched a non-­ scheduled broadcast from the studio in Burgher Hall.1 However, that lasted only until 8:30am, when the studio was attacked by a group of Soviet soldiers followed by Karel Kohout, the television’s first managing director. The workers were forced to leave and the studio was shot to pieces. First and foremost, the managing director Jirˇí Pelikán resolutely refused requests by the Prague occupation forces commander to interrupt broadcasting. Editors and technicians used the fact that CST was scattered across several places throughout Prague and they hid in the second CST studio located in the former Skaut Cinema.2 From there, they could broadcast until 11:40. The group decided that it was necessary to split and broadcast from provisional spaces where they could not be reached so easily. One part drove to the Cukrák transmitter located near Prague,3 while the other  Kamil Winter, Kamila Moucˇková, Pavel Vantuch, Prˇemek Prokop, Miroslav Sígl, Oldrˇich Cˇicˇatka. 2  Olga Cˇurˇíková, Veˇra Kunderová, Petr Krul, Miroslav Tonninger, Tomislav Neklan, Julius Daneˇk were already in place, joined later by Miroslav Sígl, Jirˇí Kantu˚rek, Vladimír Tosek, Mário Ilk, Jirˇí Svejkovský, Jirˇí Škutina, Petr Ulrych, Jirˇí Hradecký. 3  Vladimír Tosek, Oldrˇich Cˇicˇatka, Alena Kejhová, Ivan Balaj, Josef Krejcˇí, J. Wackermann, Veˇra Hlinková, driver Gimboš, Libor Ševcˇík, Petr Krul, Ota Nutz. 1

182

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

groups headed to the Tesla factories, which produced television technology in Prague-Hloubeˇtín and the A. S. Popov Research Institute in Prague 4.4 From there, they were able to broadcast for almost two days, until 23 August. Nevertheless, the invaders were thorough and managed to discover their colleagues at the Cukrák transmitter. The last scenes from their broadcast showed tanks entering the area of the transmitter. This broadcast group managed to escape fully equipped to another transmitter in southern Bohemia at Klet’, which belonged to the Czechoslovak People’s Army. There, the local regional commander helped them disguise themselves as military officials and lent them uniforms. The Klet’ transmitter, however, soon found itself under artillery fire and they had to be transferred to another transmitter, Krašov. This one was physically shot to pieces on 24 August and, under the cover of darkness, the group escaped to an apartment of the local gamekeeper in the village of Holubov. One part of the group then went back to Prague and the other joined a Czechoslovak military unit located at the Austrian border (Cysarˇová 2009: 308–309). Their colleagues broadcast from alternative spaces in the research institutes in Prague before moving to an unfinished building in Prague at Na Petrˇinách. There they were even able to invite guests; actors, writers and ordinary citizens to speak on the screen. The memoires of Jirˇí Svejkovský, one of the main organizers at the time, tell of the improvised conditions as well as of the moment they acquired the footage from the streets of Prague:5 The question arose how to incorporate the footage into the broadcast. The technicians decided immediately, sat down to make a phone call, and soon after that somebody rang the bell and brought a projector. The film was projected onto a white table cloth, and they decided to film it with the studio camera. They tried it and it worked. SVEJKOVSKÝ 2010: 57 This broadcasting was forcibly brought to an end on 26 August. Some members of the group managed to remain on air by using the broadcasting vehicle which was parked in the unfinished television complex at Kavcˇí Hory.6

 Among those who broadcast from these alternative places were Miroslav Lang, Zdeneˇk Podskalský, Jirˇí Svejkovský, Petr Krul, Vladimír Škutina, Vladimír Branislav, Olga Cˇurˇíková, Kamila Moucˇková, Heda Cˇechová, Jirˇí Kantu˚rek. 5  Miroslav Fojtík, Josef Krejcˇík, Oldrˇich Kábrt, Zdeneˇk Pokorný, Jaroslav Holecˇek. 6  Ivo Paukert, Jirˇí Fairaizl, Vít Holubec, Miroslav Suchánek, Karel Mikyska, Olga Cˇurˇíková, Otka Bednárˇová, Milan Volf, Mário Ilk. 4

OCCUPATION IN 1968

183

FIGURE 11.1  The CST staff tried to resist the occupation by keeping broadcasting at all costs. They were transmitting from a building under construction in Kavcˇí Hory (above), from transmitters Kojál and Cukrák, and from a military transmitter on Klet’. (Source: APF CT, 1968).

FIGURE 11.2  Jirˇí Svejkovský and Kamila Moucˇková in the improvised studio at the television factory Tesla Hloubeˇtín in Prague on 22 August 1968. (Source: Archives of Jirˇí Svejkovský, 1968).

184

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 11.3  Veˇra Hrabánková and Jirˇí Svejkovský while broadcasting from the makeshift studio in Skaut Cinema in Prague, 21 August 1968. (Source: Archives of Jirˇí Svejkovský, 1968).

Naturally, such dramatic events were not unique to the Prague studio. For example, Lubomír Popelka, the documentary film maker, who recorded the first days of occupation in the streets of Brno, was denied access to the Brno studio by the occupation forces and thus he took his materials and left for Vienna, where they were broadcast by the ORF. In Ostrava, television employees7 left the studio the very moment the tanks were within sight and moved to a small studio in Zábrˇeh, where they created a provisional studio. From there, they were able to broadcast not just news, but also poetry and whole films, until 4 September even though the main Ostrava transmitter in Hošt’álkovice was sealed – TV technicians found a way to overcome this obstacle and use it for their transmissions. CST resumed regular broadcasting on 4 September 1968 at 7pm. The programming was patriotic and full of pathos, as the situation required. After the poem Song to My Homeland8 followed Bedrˇich Smetana’s opera Dalibor, an opera about a medieval knight unjustly imprisoned in one of the 7 8

 Ludeˇk Eliáš, Miroslav Ulcˇík, Jirˇí Nedveˇd and Jana Jurácˇková.  [‘Zpeˇv rodné zemi’]

OCCUPATION IN 1968

185

FIGURE 11.4  A plaque commemorating transmissions in August 1968, situated on the mountain of Ješteˇd above the town of Liberec. (© Martin Štoll, 2016).

towers of the Prague Castle. By the second day, iconic figures of TV journalism who had made their name during the Prague Spring returned to people’s screens. Among them were Jirˇí Svejkovský, Vladimír Škutina, and Jirˇí Kantu˚rek. ‘We are back here and back with you’, they said. It was a paraphrase of a famous declaration broadcast by Czechoslovak radio during the liberation from the Nazis in 1945. The poet Jaroslav Seifert (who went on to receive a Nobel Prize for Literature in the midst of the repressive normalization period) gave a poignant speech in which he claimed that ‘in the same way we put on a pedestal the first tank that arrived in Prague in the May of 1945, we are going to display the last one to leave our country’. That is, a Soviet tank (Cysarˇová 2009: 311).

Reaction of power Naturally, the situation had radically changed. Despite the abolition of censorship several months before, the Prime Minister’s office issued an emergency measure at the end of August (30 August), establishing a new censor, the Office for Press and Information. The main duty of this office

186

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

was to regulate the activity of the press, radio, and television, while forbidding any kind of criticism of the Warsaw Pact countries or of the presence of the foreign armies. It was also forbidden to publish any information regarding the damage caused by the occupation, the number of injured people or casualties. It was prohibited to use the words occupier and occupation (Cysarˇová 2009: s. 310). The re-­imposition of censorship, not merely as an emergency measure, became official on 13 September. The National Assembly, which had abolished censorship on 26 June, now issued new law No. 127/1968, which created a new censorship institution, The Government Committee for Press and Information. Many years later, Jirˇí Pelikán remembers how provocative the August broadcasting must have seemed to the Soviet communists. The fact that the materials reached Vienna through different routes made it possible for the whole world to watch what was happening in our country. During the Hungarian uprising in 1956, only photographs leaked from the country, also with a delay, but it drove Brezhnev mad that the invasion of Czechoslovakia appeared on TV screens. CYSARˇOVÁ 2003b: 46 Pelikán’s destiny was now sealed. He was branded a counter-­revolutionary. We can understand now that television was used to broadcast a number of programmes on a daily basis which intended to create an atmosphere of political anxiety in the country, stir up waves of nationalism and antiSoviet moods. This was the logical conclusion of Soviet journalists in their so called White Book, a propaganda piece whose main goal was to discredit the CzCP and the counter-­revolution. CYSARˇOVÁ 2009: 312 Pelikán was given the position of culture councilor at the Czechoslovak Embassy in Rome, which was nothing other than a one-­way ticket out of Czechoslovakia. He left, deciding never to return, and started the life of an exile, convinced he could better help his country from abroad.9 He founded the emigré magazine Listy, which became one of the most important platforms of Czech culture and politics in exile.  In Rome, Pelikán survived an assassination attempt orchestrated by the Czech Secret Police (StB) and became a key target of the secret services and propaganda actions. He lived in the Italian metropolis until his death in 1999. He received Italian citizenship, became a member of the European Parliament for the Italian Socialist Party (1979–1989), where he became ‘the voice of the Prague Spring in Strasbourg Parliament’, (Pelikán 2003) and after the fall of communism in Czechoslovakia he was a member of Václav Havel’s advisory board.

9

OCCUPATION IN 1968

187

In CST the government replaced Pelikán with a government commissioner, Bohumil Švec. He was not able to suppress the intense effort of TV staff to maintain continuity with the free atmosphere of the Prague Spring. In the programme We Are with You, Be with Us,10 Jirˇí Kantu˚rek and Vladimír Škutina kept on inviting Dubcˇek and Smrkovský to their studio, as well as artists such as Marta Kubišová who had also become an icon of the Prague Spring. Kubišová’s song Prayer for Marta11 was an anthem of the times, a symbol of the struggle against occupation with Petr Rada’s lyrics such as ‘Let peace remain in this country (. . .) When the power that you have lost is returned, it returns to you, the people,’ it went.12 It was not a coincidence that this song was resurrected to become a symbol of the ‘Velvet Revolution’ in 1989, bridging the twenty-one years of freedom lost and found. Other discussion programmes continued, such as Talks with People,13 How Are You, and What Are You Up To?,14 but they were gradually cancelled. At the end of the year, the managing director Švec, as a person linked to Dubcˇek’s administration, was removed and replaced by Josef Šmídmajer. His time in office, however short, represents a kind of coda to the second, free decade of CST existence. On 16 January 1969, an Arts Faculty student, Jan Palach, burned himself to death on Wenceslas Square in Prague in protest against the occupation.15 Although the Federal Committee for Press and Information16 instructed all editors to publish only the official government and party news in relation to his tragic death, TV journalists used the power of a live broadcast to spark a national period of mourning. Eleven journalists and documentary film makers, all well-­known TV personalities from the Prague Spring, held a minute of silence in front of the whole nation to commemorate the dead student before going on to discuss the matter.17

 [‘Jsme s vámi, bud’te s námi’]  [‘Modlitba pro Martu’] 12  It is actually a paraphrase of one of the greatest Czech thinkers and philosophers, Jan Ámos Komenský (Comenius), the protestant pastor and educator in the 17th century. 13  [‘Hovory s lidmi’] 14  [‘Jak se máte-­co deˇláte?’] 15  He had several followers whose immolation remained, however, unreported. On 20 January 1969, a twenty-­five-year old worker, Josef Hlavatý, set himself on fire in Pilsen on the monument of first president T. G. Masaryk; another eighteen-­year old student, Jan Zajíc in Šumperk followed on 25 February, and on 9 April, a thirty-­nine-year old worker Evžen Plocek immolated himself in Jihlava. A chart of selected cases of political self-­immolation in the Soviet Bloc lists at least 17 cases in the years 1968–1989 (Blažek 2012: 250–339). 16  [Federální výbor pro tisk a informace] 17  Vladimír Branislav, Ladislav Daneš, Jindrˇich Fairaizl, Arnošt Frydrych, Jirˇí Kantu˚rek, Karel Kyncl, Zdeneˇk Lavicˇka, Karel Pech, Jirˇí Svejkovský, Vladimír Škutina, and Jirˇí Tonninger. 10 11

188

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

This demonstration of independence was the last drop in the proverbial cup of the authorities’ patience. The programme was analysed by the government (24 January) and the Central Committee of the CzCP (27 January), and, in line with their decisions, the Federal Committee for Press and Information issued the directive Immediate Measures for Television, Radio, and Press.18 It founded an ideological corps ‘composed of politically stable representatives of the CzCP’s Central Committee apparatus, government, and the National Front’, which would evaluate programmes and discuss the future. The directive also proclaimed that ‘TV screens will not feature’ any of the journalists and speakers who participated in the Relay Race program, while the document goes on to outline future plans for them: ‘Škutina is to leave television, [. . .] Kyncl and Daneš will be sent abroad [. . .] Moucˇková will take a one month sabbatical and her continued employment will be reviewed upon her return’. Finally, it was decided that all broadcasters ‘will receive a special training regarding the political line of television broadcasting as well as the correct form of introducing programmes and news on the screen’, and a necessary mechanism would be installed ‘allowing for the preliminary inspection of programmes and the responsibility of those in charge will be strictly defined’ (Daneš 2005: 118). A year later, when the new and completely changed management of CST looked back, it diagnosed the Relay Race programme as ‘[a] typical demonstration of the coercive methods and tactical maneuvers of several right-­wing journalists, which were a common practice of Czechoslovak Television in the course of 1968. The programme was supposed to create a psychosis that would result in a crisis following Palach’s death. It contributed to the undermining of trust in the rule of the Party and the government’.19 A chill set in at CST. It was clear that the hopes of the Prague Spring had dissolved, and by the fall of 1968 an international agreement regarding the ‘temporary’ stay of the occupying forces had been signed. In April 1969, Alexander Dubcˇek, the symbol of the Prague Spring, was removed from his post as the CzCP’s First Secretary and replaced with Gustáv Husák. Television was included in the list of counter-­revolutionary forces and the brave August 1968 broadcasting was declared illegal (Ru˚žicˇka 2015a: 73). All demonstrations of free thinking, authentic television broadcasts and passionate debates were gone, as were the courageous TV adaptations of formerly censored literary works. Managing director Šmídmajer did not obey orders dictated from above and merely transferred a number of people to work in different departments. Although they ceased to appear on TV screens, they participated in the  [‘Okamžitá opatrˇení v televizi, v rozhlase a tisku’]  Evaluation of the Work CT Prague Party Organization in the Years 1968–1969. [‘Hodnocení práce stranické organizace CˇT Praha za období let 1968–69’]. January 1970. p. 10 (Cysarˇová 1998b: supplement).

18 19

OCCUPATION IN 1968

189

preparation of a second channel which was to be launched in the coming years. He only terminated the contracts of those employees who were abroad, thus enabling them to stay there, or of those who wanted to leave television of their own accord. But this was not enough for the regime. Šmídmajer himself was subsequently removed on 6 August 1969 and replaced by Jan Zelenka. He was instructed to keep a tight rein on television, which he did, and he served in this post for the next twenty years.

Fear of the first anniversary and reflections on the Prague Spring For the situation to ‘consolidate’, mechanisms were employed which would ensure television’s functioning as the main communication tool of political power. For this, three steps needed to be taken. Firstly, the first anniversary of the occupation, or of ‘brotherly assistance’, as it was described by the regime, had to be handled with special care. By now, television was paralyzed by the regime’s interventions in its governance, so that it was unable to repeat the situation of August 1968. Nevertheless, the communists truly feared this anniversary. The mass protests against the occupation which took place from 17 November 1968 were still fresh in their minds: students and many workers went on strike while scientists and artists gathered in Slovanský Du˚m to denounce censorship. Likewise, the authorities could not forget the spontaneous demonstrations of joy which followed the broadcast of the two-­round World Ice-Hockey Championship in Stockholm in March 1969. There, Czechoslovakia beat the USSR 2:0 and then 4:3. Fans’ excitement at the victory over the Soviets was immense and it led to various incidents. Vehicles at the Soviet military headquarters in Ústí nad Labem were set on fire, while in Mladá Boleslav, people directly clashed with Soviet soldiers and a shop of the Soviet airline Aeroflot in Prague was broken into and destroyed. However, in Prague it is known today that this attack was a pretext for the aggression of the power rulers and a targeted provocation of the Secret Police (StB) (Kalous 2002). It was crucial to ensure that the first anniversary of the 21 August occupation passed off without a hitch. Party leaders moved the armed forces closer to Prague and the security apparatus was put on high alert. The army provided 20,000 soldiers, 310 tanks, and more than 200 armoured vehicles. The Frontiers Guard20 and People’s Militia21 were also on alert. In the same way, television management was also prepared. It declared a special state of emergency, decided on a special protection of the CST  [Pohranicˇní stráž]  [Lidové milice]

20 21

190

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

buildings by the police,22 and those who were not directly related to CST broadcasting (namely ‘foreign reporters and correspondents from capitalist states’23) were to have their access to the building restricted. In a backup studio with its fallback crew, which was ready to switch on to a live broadcast of Gustáv Husák’s meeting, all broadcast equipment was checked on CST director’s order, and additional security was provided. Most importantly: the news and the whole programme were pre-­recorded. There were to be no live broadcasts (Ru˚žicˇka 1999a). Therefore, the broadcast material from that day has been preserved (Ru˚žicˇka 2003: 24–25). On the eve of the anniversary, the announcer assured all citizens in a pre-­recorded session that even though ‘there have been minor attempts yesterday and the day before at Wenceslas Square in Prague’, the security units had ‘handled the disruptors energetically and reinstalled order within a short time’. The official proclamation stated that ‘we will use all means to maintain peace, security, and public order’ (Ru˚žicˇka 1999a: 24). On the day of the anniversary, the announcer only read the official report of the Czechoslovak News Agency and then informed the public that comrades Husák and Štrougal (the federal government’s Prime Minister) had received a delegation of farmers from northern Bohemia about an ongoing archaeological excavation in Hungary. Further items included the news that a sea dragon had attacked divers in Mauritius, and an update about the well-­being of a whale in Sydney (Ru˚žicˇka 1999a: 24). One day later the announcer read a communiqué from the session of the Central Committee of the CzCP which ‘was happy to announce that the energetic measures against counter-­revolutionary elements . . . were successful and had unanimous support of the majority of the citizens’ (Ru˚žicˇka 1999a: 25). Secondly, it was the task of the new TV management to deal with the ‘1968 Prague Spring’ and to defame it by portraying it as the wrong path, thus legitimizing the political status quo and the occupation. Between the years 1969 and 1971, a large number of programmes sought to discredit the supporters of democratic reforms in the CzCP and any divergent opinions in society. Patriots Unmasked24, aired on 5 September 1969, interpreted the demonstration on Wenceslas Square to commemorate the first anniversary of the occupation as a ‘presentation of reactionary elements who are trying to mar positive developments in our country’. According to the commentary, it was a ‘long-­prepared event of counter-­ revolutionary forces which intended to steer our country into a deep crisis’.  [Verˇejná bezpecˇnost]  CS Television Management Measures for Securing Peace and Order during the Broadcasting in the Days of 15–22 August, 1969. [‘Opatrˇení vedení Cˇs. televize k zabezpecˇení klidu a porˇádku prˇi vysílání ve dnech 15–22. 8. 1969’] (Ru˚žicˇka 1999a). 24  [‘Vlastenci bez masky’] 22 23

OCCUPATION IN 1968

191

The Soviet documentary Czechoslovakia – the Year of Trials,25 was broadcast on 15 September, which explained the development of the first half of 1968 as the outcome of ‘the influence of anti-­socialist and opportunist forces’.26 In a similar vein, on the next International Students’ Day, television broadcast the programme November 17 and Student Reality27 about ‘disoriented and easily manipulated youth’. Television went on to redress some of its ‘errors’ broadcast during the Prague Spring. A three-­part propaganda film The Jan Masaryk Case: Facts about the Birth of one the most Significant Anti-­ communist Campaigns of Last Year, 28 returned to the controversial topic of Jan Masaryk’s death in 1948, attempting to drive home the idea that the former Foreign Minister had taken his own life. With the same aim of immediate vindication of the new regime, utterly positive films were produced: Ninety-­nine Signatures29 (11 May 1970) about a petition from the CˇKD Prague factory asking the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party to save socialism; August Pastoral30 (10 September 1970) about a village which struggled to be called Brežneˇves (Brezhnev Village) where they had ‘beautiful moments with the Soviet soldiers’; or Living Together31 (6 December 1970) about the cohabitation of Czechs with the Soviet soldiers, especially young girls who started to date them, explaining why they did so. These are only a few of many examples. Initially, the TV management could not find any of the well-­known journalists to participate in the realization of these programmes. Generally, there was an atmosphere of passive resistance among TV employees and some of them were not willing to serve these purposes. That is why all these programmes are signed by the few recurring names of Miroslav Hladký, Jaroslav Hužera, Miloš Pavlinec, Zdeneˇk Lavicˇka, or the cameraman Antonín Kovács. Hladký became a leading figure in normalization era broadcast journalism and documentary journalism. In April 1969, he became the chief director of TV News; he also participated in the dissolution of the Main Editorial Office of Documentary Journalism and News. He signed the petition Word to My Own Ranks32 published in the chief communist daily

 [‘Cˇeskoslovensko – rok zkoušek’]  http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/vse-­o-ct/historie/ceskoslovenska-­televize/1968–1969/1969/ kalendarium/ (accessed 6 July 2017). 27  [‘17. listopad a studentská soucˇasnost’] 28  [‘Causa Jan Masaryk’] Aired episodes: 19 December 1969 The Campaign and Its Authors [‘Kampanˇ a její autorˇi’]; 1 January 1970 Witnesses and Witnesses [‘Sveˇdkové a sveˇdkové’]; 6 February 1970 Diplomat, Politician, Person [‘Diplomat, politik, cˇloveˇk’]. Directed by Miroslav Hladký. 29  [‘Devadesát deveˇt podpisu˚’] 30  [‘Srpnové pastorale’] 31  [‘Žijeme spolu’] 32  [‘Slovo do vlastních rˇad’] 25

26

192

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Rudé právo (17 May 1969), in which journalists publicly acknowledged normalization and repented for the errors they had committed. Along with the report of a peaceful day during the occupation’s first anniversary and apart from the questioning of the political developments prior to August 1968, there was yet another task: TV management had to complete the personnel purges inside CST. The editorial team of Curious Camera was dissolved as of 30 April 1970. Indeed, its output was ‘rightist, revisionist, anti-Soviet, and anti-­socialist’, and its authors were deemed to be organizers of ‘various coercive actions’ (Ru˚žicˇka 2015: 73). Vladimír Branislav and Otka Bednárˇová were challenged to reflect critically on their previous work. Bednárˇová wrote in her reply: I have always focused on backing my programmes with facts, on not distorting them and on not stirring up any passions or moods which could be in contradiction to objectivity. I have always tried to do my job honestly, conscientiously and in a respectable manner. That is why I cannot distance myself from the editorial activities required of me. To do so would be a denial of all my moral principles, and that I cannot do. Branislav wrote his reply in a similar vein: Today it would not be honourable to change my opinions which I expressed on air on Czechoslovak Television just for the sake of keeping the job I love. By doing so I would have to denounce myself, too. CYSARˇOVÁ 2010b: 17 Both were fired by the end of the year. Bednárˇová earned her living as a cloakroom attendant and housekeeper and was active in dissident circles – later she signed the Charter 77 proclamation, became a co-­founder of the Committee for the Defence of the Unjustly Prosecuted, was put on trial with Václav Havel and others, and in 1979 she was sentenced to three years in prison for subversion. Branislav worked under various pen names as a freelance scriptwriter and later as a sandwich maker and a junkyard worker. Zelenka carried out a massive personnel purge in 1970, when the CzCP Central Committee issued its main ideological document Lessons Drawn from the Crisis.33 This text, as Czech historian Kamil Cˇinátl puts it,

 Lessons Drawn from the Crisis Development in the Party and Society after the 13th Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia [‘Poucˇení z krizového vývoje; fully titled Poucˇení z krizového vývoje ve straneˇ a spolecˇnosti po XIII. sjezdu KSCˇ’]. Issued on 14 December 1970 as a supplement to the Rudé právo daily, in 1971 as an independent brochure.

33

OCCUPATION IN 1968

193

‘established the definitive, ideologically binding interpretation of the year 1968 and the events that preceded it’ (Cˇinátl 2010: 28). Political purges and cadre interviews were carried out all around the country, approving 1,508,326 Communist Party members. The key question asked in these interviews related to the person’s approval of the invasion and their acceptance of it as necessary international military assistance. In television, the purge was conducted using a questionnaire which asked things like: What were your attitudes towards the period August 1968 to April 1969? Did you engage in any political activities? How exactly did you support the new political course of CST as of August 1969? How do you want to contribute to the fulfilment of current political and economic tasks in television and society? Based on their answers, employees were divided into three groups: a) Those who were allowed to keep on working in CST with no change in their responsibilities. b) Those with prior problematic attitudes, but currently willing to use their positive understanding of the political developments in 1969 and 1970 in a different segment or in a different post. c) Those who could not work for Czechoslovak Television as the commission concluded that their activity either consciously went against the basic principles of socialism in Czechoslovakia or they were supportive of such activity.34 The latter ones received a notice explaining that they ‘had violated the socialist order by their activities and thus cannot be trusted to carry out the current post’. This campaign, formally justified by the replacement of old party membership cards, resulted in the departure of 56 people, one percent of the programming staff as well as technical employees. In 1971, the central director Jan Zelenka looked back at these changes on the pages of the programme declaration of Czechoslovak Television.35 He complained that ‘in all those different historical reflections [. . .] you can hear that radio and television played a significant part in the destruction of the years 1968–69. They brought chaos to the minds of people and became a tool of the right wing which had created an open threat of counter-­ revolution, a total catastrophe’. He went on to add: ‘When this destruction

 On 1 September 1970, the director issued General Director’s Decision No. 13 [‘Rozhodnutí ústrˇedního rˇeditele cˇ. 13’] which included a questionnaire to complete a ‘state and political audit in order to cleanse the staff of workers with right-­wing opportunist, antisocial, and antiSoviet attitudes’ (Cysarˇová 1998b: 47). 35  [‘Cˇeskoslovenská televize’] 34

194

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

affected television, it was not easy to get this huge and sensitive machine to run smoothly’.36 Gustáv Husák, the general secretary of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communists had made a similar complaint. At a meeting in June 1970 he put it aptly: Experience from the years 1968–69 has taught us the hard lesson that mass media cannot be considered as tools of mere propaganda, but rather as an exceptionally important tool of political power.37

 Cˇeskoslovenská televize 1971, in Ru˚žicˇka 2015a: 74.  Rudé právo, 27. 6. 1970, p. 3

36 37

CONTExTUAL BOx No. 6 Normalization and post-totalitarianism in Czechoslovakia 1970–1989

T

he two decades after the invasion came to be known as ‘normalization’. Václav Havel coined for it the term ‘post-totalitarianism’, describing the development stage after stages of hardcore Stalinism, political thaw and struggle for democracy. This was a period in which political pressure on society was resumed, although it did not use the brutal means of the 1950s. There are, however, other terms, such as Late Stalinism, moderate Stalinism and real-socialism. The period from 1968 to 1970 made it clear that the renewed dictatorship began to interfere artfully with citizens’ lives by political purges and by establishing a new type of social contract. In this new contract, in return for their political disengagement, citizens were offered a socialist consumerist paradise, public tolerance of their private worlds, and the possibility to relax with the help of sterile and distorted art and entertainment. The only real political outcome of the previous reform movement (which was by now declared a ‘counter-revolution’) that had not been annulled, was the federal set-up of Czechoslovakia (dating from 28 October 1968), whereby the single central government and parliament were supplemented by two other, Czech and Slovak, governments and parliaments. This set-up reflected the continual and latent demand of Slovaks to acquire a degree of autonomy or equality in certain decisionmaking processes. Gustáv Husák, a Slovak, replaced Dubcˇek as the leader of the Communist Party in April 1969. He was to become the face of normalization. (The generations born in the normalization period, including the author of this study, are euphemistically referred to as ‘Husák’s children’.) In 1969, the government issued a ban on raising the price of basic foods, it sped up house building, raised family benefits, and introduced a married couples’ allowance. The status quo was cemented on 6 May 1970, when a new Czechoslovak-Soviet agreement on friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance was signed. Large numbers of people managed to leave the country before the national borders were again closed. The power of the state secret police, the StB, grew again, persecuting both proven and potential political opponents. The resistance movement was not organized on a large scale, and a number of important initiatives came from emigrant circles abroad. (Josef Škvorecký and his wife Zdena Salivarová, for example, continued for the whole two decades to publish Czech exile literature in their SixtyEight Publishers publishing house based in Toronto, as did the publishing

house Index in Cologne; other emigrants were also very active, such as Pavel Tigrid, Jirˇí Pelikán, and others). Within the country, an unofficial ‘second culture’ formed and its participants were persecuted. It was aided from abroad: for example, the fine arts were supported from the USA by Meda Mládková, a gallery owner and benefactor. Non-official literary works which were typed out in a small number of copies, secretly distributed and further copied, came to be known as ‘samizdat’. In a similar vein, so-called ‘apartment theater’ performances were organized, but these were often raided by the secret police. Music, other than that which was officially produced, was punished as ‘anti-socialist’. Members of the underground rock band Plastic People of the Universe were even arrested and sent to prison. This was the impulse for a declaration, written by Václav Havel and Zdeneˇk Mlynárˇ, for which Pavel Kohout coined the title Charter 77. The declaration represented an open and public appeal that the government should respect human rights and follow the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights it had signed in 1975 in Helsinki. The Charter attracted significant attention in capitalist countries (its translation was published in Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, The Times, and The New York Times). To sign the Charter in Czechoslovakia meant an end to one’s career, becoming the target of the secret police’s attention, and, in many cases, it led to hours-long police interviews or even imprisonment (for example, the philosopher Jan Patocˇka who died during one of these prolonged interrogations). The Charter 77 elicited a hysterical reaction from the regime in which television again played a major role. However, despite all attempts to apply further political pressure, things began to change with the death of Brezhnev and the advent of Gorbachev in the early 1980s. Eventually, after 21 years of occupation, tension between the public and the authorities imploded. It happened in Prague at the National Avenue (Národní trˇída) on 17 November 1989. The events which followed came to be known as the ‘Velvet Revolution’. The name most likely reflected the fact that, despite clashes between demonstrators and the police, no one was killed. Communism fell without an armed struggle; communist officials resigned of their own accord. When, in December 1989, the communist parliament unequivocally elected the most persecuted and despised dissident, Václav Havel, as president of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, it was so surreal and absurd that it could have been penned by Havel himself.

12 Television as the last instrument of power

Normalization meant instilling new norms and values. For these purposes, television was the best tool for reaching the masses. The Realization Directive of the Main Programme Tasks of Czechoslovak Television,1 approved by the Central Committee of the CzCP, put it bluntly: . . . to help the party to renew unity on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, fortify the function of the socialist state as the power organ of the working class and working people, use relentless factual propaganda to renew the firm friendship of our nations with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, acquaint the viewers with the issues of the international communist and workers’ movement, and to strengthen feelings of international solidarity as well as to present our viewers the main tendencies of the politics and economics of the advanced capitalist countries.2 This obvious identification of the medium with ideological propaganda was quite open and propaganda on the TV screens was quite predictable. This is how, among others, Jan Zelenka presented it in his publication, which was intended for the viewing public in the midst of normalization in 1983. I do not try to hide the fact that we are mindful of keeping the ideological function in the forefront of our attention. Quite openly we serve the socialist society, we want the ideas and policies of the Communist Party to reach the awareness of our viewers, to help them identify with them it and realize the tendencies, problems of life within our country, as well  [‘Realizacˇní smeˇrnice hlavních programových úkolu˚ CˇST’]  Analytical Report on the Political and Ideological Activity of CST since November 1968 and Programme, Organizational, and Cadre Measures [‘Rozborová zpráva o politickoideovém pu˚sobení CˇST od listopadu 1968 a programových, organizacˇních a kádrových opatrˇeních’], p. 8, in Cysarˇová 1998b: supplement.

1 2

198

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 12.1  Director and his author. Jan Zelenka (left), director of CST during the ‘normalization’ period 1969–1989 and Jaroslav Dietl, the most prolific screenwriter of CST. The photo captures them during the shooting of the New Year’s Eve Show The Fierce and Playful New Year’s Eve [‘Silvestr hravý a dravý’]. (© Jirˇina Cynibulková, 1978).

as the outside world, and to understand the essential importance of the unity of socialist partnership. ZELENKA 1983b: 31 The viewers knew and understood the code of this communication propaganda quite well – the vocabulary, style, figures of speech, formulations, and ideas attacked them from all sides, not just from the TV or film screens. Nobody was surprised when documentaries like Confession3(1971), which told the story of exemplary communist party members, were aired as well as others of this kind (Current Questions on the Development of Our Society,4 3 4

 [‘Vyznání’]  [‘Aktuální otázky rozvoje naší spolecˇnosti’]

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

199

1980; Leninism: Everlasting Doctrine,5 1980). These films served as blatant propaganda of communist ideas; they were examples of how the viewers should think and behave. Such examples, naturally, also came from the Soviet television output, such as Viktor Pushkariov, Workman,6 subtitled ‘a Portrait of one of the Millions of Soviet Workers’, or All Their Sons7 about Soviet land forces (both from 1987). Apart from documentary and journalistic programmes, which were served on a daily basis (Speaking of the Conclusions from the 15th CzCP Congress8, 1977), there were also programmes promoting friendship with the Soviet Union, such as the magazine about the Soviet Union Rendezvous with Friends9 (from 1978). It was common for various cultural events to have a political dimension, such as Political Song Festival in Sokolov.10 The exemplary cooperation with the USSR culminated when the only Czechoslovak (and first non-Soviet) cosmonaut, Vladimír Remek, thanked Leonid Brezhnev and the Soviet Union in a live broadcast from the Soyuz 28 spacecraft, for the possibility of seeing the Earth from space.11 Another group of programmes is represented by extensive projects praising the role of Communist Party in the context of recent historical developments: 15 episodes of 60 Years of CzCP12 (1981), a series of 40 episodes interpreting the history of Czechoslovakia from the communist point of view, Chronicle of Our Life13 (1985), and mainly three drama series: Gottwald14 (to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the birth of the first worker president and dictator, 1986), the 22-episode series The Natives15 (about the coming of age of a young communist, 1988) and the greatest project of CST ever, The Thirty Cases of Major Zeman16 (1976– 1979). The last-­mentioned project is considered an emblematic example of the abuse of dramatic production to present an ideologically distorted interpretation of this period. It introduces a socialist investigator who solves any case, with the verve and commitment of James Bond, and although he has a moment of ideological doubt in the midst of the series, he subsequently

 [‘Leninismus: veˇcˇneˇ živé ucˇení’]  [‘Deˇlník Viktor Puškarjov’] 7  [‘Všichni jejich synové’] 8  [‘Hovorˇíme o záveˇrech XV. sjezdu KSCˇ’] 9  [‘Dostavenícˇko s prˇáteli’] 10  [‘Festival politické písneˇ Sokolov’] 11  We should mention here that Remek was the 87th person in space and a citizen of the third country in the world which ‘got to see space’. This privilege was of Soviet compensation for the invasion in 1968. 12  [‘60 let KSCˇ’] 13  [‘Kronika našeho života’] 14  [‘Gottwald’] 15  [‘Rodáci’] 16  [‘Trˇicet prˇípadu˚ majora Zemana’] 5 6

200

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 12.2  Vladimír Brabec as the starring actor of Czechoslovak ‘James Bond’, major Jan Zeman, in the history-­twisting series The Thirty Cases of Major Zeman. (© Jaromír Komárek, 1976).

realizes his error and once again sets on the ‘right’ path.17 The series also caused a number of controversial reactions when it was re-broadcast after 1989; CT decided that it was necessary to create a documentary for each of the episodes explaining ‘how things were in reality’ and introduced each of them with a debate (Thirty Returns,18 1999). For its relentless ideological work, television received many awards from the Party. While in 1969 it was condemned as a counter-­revolutionary force, now it was decorated with the highest state orders: the Order of Labour (1973) ‘for the contribution to the consolidation of society and fulfillment of the conclusions from the 14th Congress of the CzCP’ and the Victorious February Order for its ‘outstanding contribution to the building

 More in Ru˚žicˇka 2005; Bílek 2013.  [‘Trˇicet návratu˚’]

17 18

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

201

FIGURE 12.3  Director of CST Jan Zelenka introduces the first and only Czechoslovak cosmonaut, Vladimír Remek, in the Seat for the Guest programme. (© Vlasta Gronská, 1982).

of a socialist country’. In 1988, in the last full year of Czechoslovak communism, the secretariat of the Central Committee gave thanks to the ‘increased awareness of television viewers related to the work of the party organs and organizations’.19 Jan Zelenka20 himself was honoured and in the 1980s he was invited to become a candidate of the Central Committee of the CzCP (1981), before receiving membership in 1986 (Bednarˇík 2015: 124). Aside from his ideological reliability and managerial competence he created and at first also hosted programmes such as Seat for the Guest21. ‘Seat for the Guest proves that we have top elites among our intelligentsia and that these people are connected with the working classes and serve our Party’, wrote Zelenka.

 25 February 1988 material from the Secretariat of the CC CzCP. ˇ ád práce] (1973), [R ˇ ád Víteˇzného února] (1983).  [R 21  [‘Krˇeslo pro hosta’] 19 20

202

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Watching such personalities on the TV screen is compelling. Live broadcasts about the heroes of the socialist workforce are indeed also powerful. Thus, we show on the TV News each evening the exemplary workers, foremen, and engineers whose ability to deal with economic hardships sets an example for others or, even, a pretext for the criticism of those lagging behind. People like seeing good examples. ZELENKA 1983b: 35 Both the authorities and TV managers were pleased with the ideological development of TV programming. However, the satisfactory relationship between television and its viewers was to be reached in another way. Political and propaganda-­based content was not attractive to viewers. The nation, its members fleeing to the privacy contained behind the fences of their weekend houses, would be instead engaged by either entertainment programmes (such as the great New Year’s Eve vaudevilles or a copy of the East German show Ein

FIGURE 12.4  Caption introducing one of the CST documentary series at the beginning of the normalization period. It says: ‘Czechoslovak Television Prague, Main Department of Propaganda and Documentary Production presents . . .’ Propaganda was at that time an open form of communication. (Screenshot from The house in Vladislavova Street or the history of The Burgher Hall [‘Du˚m ve Vladislavoveˇ ulici aneb historie Meˇšt’anské besedy’]). (Source: APF CT, 1973).

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

203

FIGURE 12.5  One of the many political debates on the CST screen, here called (somewhat paradoxically) the Free Tribune. (© J. Šimek, 1982).

Kessel Buntes called Televarieté), or by fairy tales for adults – the TV series. These shows were original dramatic output, created and appreciated at home long before Brazilian telenovelas and American soap operas invaded TV screens after the fall of the communist regime. Quite incredibly, CST created 280 series catering for a whole spectrum of interests and tastes in the

204

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 12.6  Televarieté (1971–1997) – entertainment show inspired by the East German TV show Ein Kessel Buntes. In the foreground are its hosts and authors Vladimír Dvorˇák and Jirˇina Bohdalová. (© Miroslav Pospíšil, 1977).

course of its existence, some of which became quite iconic in Czechoslovakia. Some of them are worth a closer look as they represent specific functions. The first of these functions was direct politicization, which would comprise the above-­mentioned works. But the second function was that of direct apoliticization, or depoliticization. Here belongs the plethora of television serial drama productions, ranging from comedic series about relationships, through historical TV series, all the way to productions for the family and children. Most of these programmes took place in a world familiar to the viewers, for example within the village (The Cottagers,22 1975; Doctor from the

 [‘Chalupárˇi’]

22

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

205

Reserved Property,23 1981), the urban city (There Was Once a House,24 1974; Today in One House,25 1981) the family (Just an Ordinary Family,26 1971; The Novák Dynasty,27 1981) or the many various levels of school (e.g. We All Attend School,28 1983; Third Floor29, 1985). Alternatively, other programmes were placed in attractive and exceptional environments, such as the kitchens of luxurious hotels (Embarrassment of Cook Svatopluk,30 1985), a dam (Good Water, 1985), the world of horse racing (The Great Saddle, 1982), or behind the scenes of the demanding work of the Prague Ambulance Service (The Ambulance,31 1984). Traditionally, popular crime

FIGURE 12.7  The Cottagers was one of the first normalization series, about village relationships, which was well tried and tested and popular. Actors from the left: Josef Kemr and Jirˇí Sovák, dir. František Filip. (© Ivan Minárˇ, 1975).  [‘Doktor z vejminku’]  [‘Byl jednou jeden du˚m’] 25  [‘Dnes v jednom domeˇ’] 26  [‘Taková normální rodinka’] 27  [‘Dynastie Nováku˚’] 28  [‘My všichni školou povinní’] 29  [‘Trˇetí patro’] 30  [‘Rozpaky kucharˇe Svatopluka’] 31  [‘Sanitka’] 23 24

206

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 12.8  On social and political orders, CST also created series dealing with various types of education – here a photo from the shooting of the series Third Floor dedicated to the problems of vocational students. (© Jaroslav Trousil, 1985).

and detective series (e.g. Prague Panopticon,32 1986; Adventures of Criminalistics,33 1989) built on the time-­proven narratives featuring capable and popular detectives or criminal police departments dealing with as utterly apolitical crimes as possible. History series chose topics solely from the nineteenth century, such as Alexander Dumas Senior34 (1970) about the French writer, an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre35 (1972), or the story of a patriotic bourgeois family living in Prague from the nineteenth century, Bad Blood36(1986) which was a follow up to the popular Marriages of Convenience37 from 1968.

 [‘Panoptikum meˇsta pražského’]  [‘Dobrodružství kriminalistiky’] 34  [‘Alexander Dumas starší’] 35  [‘Jana Eyrová’] 36  [‘Zlá krev’] 37  [‘Snˇatky z rozumu’] 32 33

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

207

The TV series for families and children built on Czechoslovakia’s existing reputation for excellence in animation and productions for children.38 A number of these were made as co-productions with the Barrandov Studios, some were even co-­produced with the West German TV station WRD. Series like Mr. Tau39 (1972–1977), about a man with a magic hat and umbrella who could transform into a pocket-­size figure, became a hit even outside the Eastern Bloc. Other such apolitical series which provided an escape from reality included the fairy-­tale series Arabela (1980), showed

FIGURE 12.9  Mr. Tau – one of the successful co-­production projects for children realized with the West (!) German TV WRD. (1969, 1970–1978, 1988) Here a photo from the shooting of the epizode Mr. Tau and the Sorceress. [‘Pan Tau a kouzelnice’]) (© Josef Vítek, 1977).

 A significant film which belongs among popular highlights to this day, and not only in Czechia, is Three Wishes for Cinderella [‘Trˇi orˇíšky pro Popelku’] (1973). (Skopal 2016) 39  [‘Pan Tau’] 38

208

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 12.10  Krkonoše Fairly Tales [‘Krkonošské pohádky’] (1973–1984) based on Marie Kubátová’s books was the first series with actors for The Bad Time Stories. Actors from the left: František Peterka and Ilja Pracharˇ, dir. Veˇra Jordánová. (© Ivan Minárˇ, 1974).

how Hansel and Gretel entered a fairy-­tale and the fairy-­tale characters then entered the real world; The Visitors40 (1983) was about time travellers who went back in time from 2484 to 1984 to save the planet; and Circus Humberto (1988) a spectacular saga about comedians and circus people roaming around Europe. The third type of series popular at the time could be decribed as metaphorical. Either by coincidence or design, the series offered analogies which were not overtly political, but viewers could read between the lines and find hidden political meaning in them. The series F. L. Veˇk was an adaptation of the Czech novel by Alois Jirásek written at the turn of the twentieth century. Its author, who was even then one of the nation’s most respected writers and one who, in a patriotic and renaissance spirit, mapped

 [‘Návšteˇvníci’]

40

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

209

FIGURE 12.11  Jú and Hele are plush characters, controlled using the principle of black theater in a programme for children called Your Chum Studio. [‘Studio kamarád’] (1981–1991). Inspiration was found partly in Sesame Street. The two characters were created by Stanislav Holý and screenplay writer Alena Jurásková. (© P. Hodan, 1982).

the history of the Czech nation in his literary works, was discredited in the Stalinist era by forceful, communist misinterpretations and the megalomaniac promotion of his oeuvre. F. L. Veˇk is the story of a patriotic Czech who leaves his small town and moves to Prague at the end of the eighteenth century, where he ends up meeting W. A. Mozart and all those who promoted Czech as a spoken language, and longs for equality with the German element there. Work began on a TV adaptation presenting an authentic portrayal of the romantic nature of the nineteenth-century Czech National Revival in the midst of historical Prague shortly before the beginning of normalization,

210

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 12.12  F. L. Veˇk (1969), an adaptation of a Czech literary classic, situated at the beginning of the national revival of the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Since it was broadcast shortly after the occupation began in 1968, the audience felt a number of parallels. Actors from the left: Radoslav Brzobohatý and Vlastimil Brodský, dir. František Filip. (© Miloš Schmiedberger, 1969).

making it onto TV screens in 1971. The series faced extensive censorship (religious symbols were removed and the whole of Episode 13 was banned), but the authorities did not dare to ban the classic completely. The main characters of the series long for their country’s independence and hope that the strong Czech nation will be able to free itself from its shackles. ‘The Czech candle has not been extinguished; it is merely asleep!’ are the concluding words of the main character. Given the year and political situation this could have been perceived as subversive. One of the most interesting types of programming from this period are those programmes which were ordered by the regime, but pretended to be apolitical. ‘In an ideal situation, an engaging programme was seasoned with elements of propaganda’, writes the Head of the Media Studies Department

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

211

at Charles University in Prague, Petr Bednarˇík (Bednarˇík 2015: 125a). These works were labelled ‘contemporary series’. Propaganda was considered to be television’s most valuable offering: While American producers and authors today admit with resignation that series production in their country is increasingly subject to the pressure of advertising and cheap entertainment, television series in the socialist countries aim, first and foremost, to capture the real problems of contemporary man, his life, and the world he lives in. TESÁR 1983: 29 Obviously, the series did not portray reality as it was experienced by many people, but rather an ideological construct created by the regime.41 The seemingly innocent series The Woman behind the Counter (1977), centred on the life of a deli sales assistant named Anna Holubová. The aim of the series was to construct an archetype of the exemplary socialist woman. This character not only manages to do her work with perfection and sorts out various personal problems, but she is, above all, a ‘woman of firm moral principles and exceptional personal qualities who enters the lives of the other members of her co-­workers through their commonly shared work place’ (Marešová 2010: 86). The political awareness of this shopkeeper was emphasised by the fact that she was played by the most ardent of communist actresses, Jirˇina Švorcová. She, as well as the heroine the actress created, immediately became a celebrity and an icon. The idyllic portrayal of a well-­stocked supermarket had little bearing on reality. Under communism, shoppers had to queue to buy exotic fruit, or sleep in front of shops in order to buy a piece of furniture in the morning before it sold out. Alternatively, friends would help them get some goods under-­the-counter. The series was bordering on the absurd when, in the fourth episode, the heroine received an accidental delivery of two thousand chocolate bunnies, or in the tenth episode, where she complained that she had so many bananas that she did not know where to put them. A shop with such a politically conscious heroine was a utopia or maybe even a dream for some, but by no means did it resemble reality. The British-Czech scholar, Jan Cˇulík, has argued that: ‘The main purpose of this TV series was to legitimize the post-­invasion regime. The Woman behind the Counter tried hard to construct the illusion that the supporters of the post-­invasion regime were in

 More in (Carpentier-Reifová, Bednarˇík, Dominik 2013; Reifová, Bednarˇík 2008a; Kopal 2005, 2014, 2016, 2018).

41

212

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 12.13  In a number of series the authors attempted so-called soft propaganda – they portrayed incessant office meetings, party offence of all kinds or politics on all levels while the main characters struggled with their own flaws and doubts. This was at least the case in the series directed by Jaroslav Dudek, such as The Region in the North (1980). (© Prˇiba Mrázová, 1980).

fact well-­loved members of the Czech national community’ (Cˇulík 2013: 110). This series was created by Jaroslav Dietl, a skilled scriptwriter who was involved in all major TV series made by Czechoslovak Television from the very beginning. He was a workaholic (having written 27 series, 9 theater plays and 14 film screenplays) and a master of transforming the political into something seemingly apolitical. His series created exemplary socialist characters who had their faults and doubts, but in the end always realized that they were wrong. After the success of the The Woman Behind the Counter, he scripted a series about a group of young engineers who were

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

213

trying to perfect a loom (The Engineer Odyssey42, 1979) and another one about men collecting the harvest (Tin Cavalry,43 1979). Among his other heroes and their environments are, for example, the bandmaster of a miners’ music band (The Dispatcher,44 1972). Dietl also wrote saga of a glass-­maker and his family (The Sons and Daughters of Jakub the Glass-­maker,45 1984) and TV series about various apolitical officials one of whom who served as the foreman of a collectivized agriculture cooperative (JZD) (The Youngest of the Hamr Family,46 1975), another as a chairman of a local national committee (Man at City Hall,47 1976) and yet another as the secretary of a regional committee of the communist party in a larger town (The Region in the North,48 1980). Regardless of how well they were written, these works discreetly reinforced the idea of socialism and, apart from the two last-­ mentioned, pretended to focus on their protagonists’ personal lives and their relationship to their work. Dietl ‘was hired to mask a kind of ambiguity found in society’, says Paulina Bren. ‘He did it while entertaining the whole nation’ (Bren 2010/2013: 293). His series, described by film theoretician Jaromír Blažejovský (Blažejovský 2014), were successful not because they were propaganda-­based, but because they could pretend that they were merely soft propaganda with whose assertions (success of socialist agriculture, of socialist healthcare, of apartment construction . . .) and a moderate dose of ‘constructive’ communal criticism the unprejudiced viewer could identify. Dietl’s TV series starred a number of famous actors and they have remained popular to this day among older viewers. As stated in a newspaper article, ‘many representatives of the current Czechoslovak TV series have found their way into the hearts of millions’ (Tesár 1983: 29). The peak of Dietl’s career was the series The Hospital at the End of the City49 (1978 and second series 1981), which, alongside The Woman behind the Counter, is considered to be one of the most typical series of the normalization era. The hospital environment (long before M. A. S. H. and others made it to Central Europe) offered Dietl an apolitical environment in which to develop characters and follow their transformation. Unlike the main character, Sova, a Senior Consultant and highly respected orthopaedic specialist, the young and flirtatious doctor Blažej turns out to be, despite his  [‘Inženýrský odyssea’]  [‘Plechová kavalérie’] 44  [‘Dispecˇer’] 45  [‘Synové a dcery Jakuba sklárˇe’] 46  [‘Nejmladší z rodu Hamru˚’] 47  [‘Muž na radnici’] 48  [‘Okres na severu’] 49  [‘Nemocnice na kraji meˇsta’] 42 43

214

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 12.14  One of the most popular Czechoslovak series, The Hospital at the End of the City (1978 and 1981), also directed by Jaroslav Dudek. (© Prˇiba Mrázová, 1978).

professionalism, a characterless cynic, especially in his treatment of women. While the aging and wise-­cracking doctor Štrosmajer is able to stay on top of things, the ambitious doctor Cvach is, on the contrary, a prototype of an ingratiating amateur. These relationships are dominated by the young and personable doctor Alžbeˇta Cˇenˇková, who also serves as the unifying story line. Themes of professionalism, courage, character, and love drive the 20-episode series, while politics receives but a fleeting mention. However, just as The Woman behind the Counter did not feature a real supermarket, this series did not feature a typical hospital either. In reality, healthcare in Czechoslovakia was beset by material problems while doctors and nurses weren’t known for their upbeat nature. ‘Dietl portrayed the hospital as we would like to see it, regardless of the political regime’, wrote Petr Bednarˇík and Irena Reifová. ‘A hospital in which we only see the successfully treated patients, where staff are supervised by a strict head nurse, the corridors and the wards are clean, and medicine is always available. This is why the series could easily be screened also in capitalist West Germany’ (Bednarˇík-Reifová 2008: 73).

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

215

Today, Dietl’s series are considered as an important part of the country’s cultural heritage. Some are undeniably dramatic and feature skilful direction and acting. At the same time, they discreetly satisfied political requirements. The playwright and politically persecuted dissident Václav Havel wrote to his wife Olga in the midst of the normalization period (1980): I have seen some more episodes of this Dietl series which were not as idiotic as the one I mentioned last time, but it is still typical Dietl with all that brings. I would like to write an essay about this phenomenon.50

Color television in the black-­and-white normalization period The impression that Czechoslovak normalization culture was comprised of only propaganda and of TV series which twisted reality would, however, be wrong. There was also music, theater, film, and other productions which existed in a kind of grey zone, between the state-­sanctioned official culture and the independent world of the underground. Authors and performers who operated in this grey zone were in constant danger; however, they were tolerated. Folk music was another example of alternative culture free from ideological pressure; moreover, through its close links to nature it offered a moderate parallel to the hippy movement. The original and highly personal songwriting of the genre bordered on protest songs, its supporters gathered in thousands at festivals closely observed by the police. Attending these concerts was a political demonstration of a kind.51 Folk songwriters looked for ways to appeal to their listeners and viewers through ambiguities, parallels, metaphors; some of them managed to maintain a free-­thinking attitude even within the officially approved limits. The authors from this grey zone were permitted to appear on TV, but they were limited to low-­profile programmes. They were nevertheless also present in the public sphere. Some of the projects which television had not been able to produce itself for ideological reasons actually eventually made their way onto the TV screens. For example, the six-­part documentary series about young couples entitled Marriage Stories52 (1986) was in fact a filmed sociological experiment. In her longitudinal documentaries, the young

 Václav Havel’s letter from October 4, 1980 (Havel 1999: 234).  More in Houda 2014. 52  [‘Manželské etudy’] 50 51

216

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

director Helena Trˇeštíková53 followed six couples for six years from the moment of their weddings, meanwhile diagnosing the causes of the frequent break-­ups of these marriages. These problems were not only caused by the relationships as such, but the material conditions as well as the entire bleak atmosphere found in society were significant factors, and thus, the documentaries became a critique of the historical moment as a whole. Quite surprisingly, this series was broadcast by Czechoslovak Television as part of the youth programme Television Youth Club,54 a programme that was always introduced and concluded with a debate on a given topic. However strict the ideological conditions in CST may have been, Zelenka’s management undeniably allowed for the creation of a number of quality dramatic programmes, numerous first-­rate theater performances recorded for television (the Welcome to the Theater55 cycle), as well as concerts of classical music (e.g. the traditional festival Prague Spring or Zelenka’s own programme Music from the Respirium56). He was aware of the fact that the specifics of television allow for more than only entertainment or informational forms of communication, but, at the same time, he knew ‘his’ audience. As a TV professional, he wanted to offer a diverse programme ‘so that the viewer liked his television’ ”(Zelenka 1983b: 33). To that end, he worked with skilled authors such as the director František Filip, or, apart from Dietl, scriptwriters such as Jirˇí Hubacˇ, Oldrˇich Daneˇk, Petr Zikmund (the pseudonym of Jan Otcˇenášek), Zdeneˇk Sveˇrák,57 and others who the StB lists deemed to be threats of the second and third order (Žácˇek 2003 VI.: 13). The psychological films dealing with alcoholism, trust, and failure such as The Fall of Icarus58 (1977) and Birds of Passage59 (1977), honour and friendship (Unripe Raspberries,60 (1982), the single mother’s lot (The Needle,61 (1982)), the defence of one’s dignity (The Platfus Case,62 (1985), or the apocrypha from ancient Greece found in the The Woman from Corinthus63 (1986), surely belong to the treasure trove of European TV  Helena Trˇeštíková, one of the most renowned Czech film makers, has used this method throughout her whole career. For her film René (2008), in which she followed the originally young offender, she received the so-called European Oscar, Prix Arte European Film Academy Documentary 2008. See also Beaton 2018. 54  [‘Televizní klub mladých’] 55  [‘Zveme vás do divadla’] 56  [‘Hudba z respiria’] 57  Zdeneˇk Sveˇrák is an actor and screeplay writer of Oscar-­nominated film My Sweet Little Village [Vesnicˇko má strˇedisková] (dir. Jirˇí Menzel, 1985) and later Oscar-winning film Kolya [Kolja] (dir. Jan Sveˇrák, 1996). 58  [‘Ikaru˚v pád’] 59  [‘Tažní ptáci’] 60  [‘Nezralé maliny’] 61  [‘Jehla’] 62  [‘Prˇípad Platfus’] 63  [‘Žena z Korinta’] 53

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

217

FIGURE 12.15  Among the internationally acclaimed highlights of television dramaturgy, The Fall of Icarus (1977) by Jirˇí Hubacˇ, directed by František Filip. Actor Vladimír Menšík. (© Ivan Minárˇ, 1977).

drama production. They were also praised at international festivals, namely for the individual performances of actors (Jana Brejchová in Plovdiv, Vladimír Menšík in Monte Carlo, etc.). Likewise, the so-­called Bratislava Mondays became a phenomenon, broadcasting original TV drama performances from the Slovak central television studio. They were often adaptations of classical theatrical or literary works and maintained an exceptionally high standard. Moreover, what was ideologically impossible in Prague, became possible in one of the smaller studios of CST. The dramatic productions from Brno were quite remarkable (e.g. American Tragedy, 1976) (Hlavica 2012), as were documentary programmes from Ostrava (e.g. the one about traditional crafts Witnesses of the Past,64 1985) or from Košice. Due to the participation of some undesirable persons, who often worked under pseudonyms, some projects were intentionally moved to other cities, such as Bratislava. This is  [‘Za sveˇdky minulosti’]

64

218

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

how the animated series about two clumsy neighbours, Pat and Mat, was created, or the documentary series which explored new findings about space with the astronomer Jirˇí Grygar, Space Windows Wide Open65 (1981). One of its participants was the then politically inconvenient journalist Vladimír Železný (pseudonym Vladimír Silný), who became the general director of the strongest commercial television in the Czech Republic after 1989, TV NOVA. According to broadcast guidelines, 60 per cent of television output had to consist of content produced in the Eastern Bloc, but for the rest, they were able to screen programmes made in the capitalist world. Czechoslovak viewers were therefore able to watch the English series The Forsyte Saga, The Professionals, Dempsey and Makepeace, Randall and Hopkirk Deceased, the French detective series Comissaire Moulin, the German Tatort (Crime Scene), the Italian La Piovra (The Octopus), the Australian All the Rivers Run and a whole range of films, mainly from France. Local audiences became acquainted with French actors such as Louis de Funés, Jean Paul Belmondo, Alain Delon, Pierre Richard, and the Italians Bud Spencer (Carlo Pedersoli) and Terrence Hill (Mario Girotti). An exceptional occasion for the viewers was the broadcast of the Soviet-American series The Unknown War66 (1980), which was created in conjunction with the Central Studio for Documentary Film of the USSR and the American company AiR Time International. It was directed by the Soviet pro-­regime director Roman Karmen, featuring the American actor Burt Lancaster. In Czechoslovakia, it was viewed by an estimated audience of 7–8 million viewers. The range of programmes on offer increased dramatically under normalization, and CST reached new heights of creativity, but also technologically. At the beginning of 1970, the TV studios Kavcˇí Hory, Prague, came into use, putting an end to the use of provisional spaces in Burgher Hall and elsewhere in Prague. Nine years later, the TV news studio was completed. Slovakia also opened the first two buildings of the Mlýnska Dolina television complex and other studios followed. The technical parameters of broadcasting were further perfected. A trial run of the station of satellite connections (1971) was launched, transmission facilities were further upgraded, while the design of the new 93 metre-­high transmitter on the Ješteˇd mountain in the form of a rotational hyperboloid received the prestigious architectonic Perrot Prize in France (architect Karel Hubácˇek, 1973). The transmitter became a well-­known landmark. In 1981,

 [‘Okna vesmíru dokorˇán’]  [‘Velká vlastenecká válka’]

65 66

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

219

FIGURE 12.16  A 93 metre-­high transmitter on Mount Ješteˇd near Liberec was built in 1973. The building is a national cultural monument and is on the list of proposed UNESCO objects. (© Martin Štoll, 2014).

radio and television broadcasters experimented with joint stereophonic broadcasts at the final concert of the Prague Spring festival of classical music. Experiments with other information transmissions were carried out, such as teletext (1982 trial, 1988 regular). The most influential and exciting new feature was, however, the introduction of the second channel of CST and the beginning of color broadcasting. On 10 May 1970, a second channel was launched, representing

220

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

FIGURE 12.17  Old ad on Czechoslovak TV by ORAVA (Source: AMŠ, 1979).

a kind of ‘counterpoint to the first channel with regard to content and genre’. (Košcˇo 1981: 39) Its creative team contained a number of people who had been prevented from appearing on TV in the wake of the 1968 invasion. It was this channel that started to experiment with color broadcasting: the first attempt at color transmission was the World Championship in skiing in the High Tatra Mountains on 14 February 1970. Regular color broadcasts began on 9 May 1973, and toward the end of the year even some of the programmes of the first channel were broadcast in colour. Regular color broadcasting on the first channel started also on 9 May, two years later, in 1975. CST also kept pace with new video technologies and from 1980 it recorded its programmes on FUJI half-­inch tape.

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

221

FIGURE 12.18  During the 1980s, the production of video technology was steadily rising and, in particular, news and journalism stopped using film material. Instead of VCR, the term ‘magnetoscope’ was used, but this term did not survive. (© V. Šimek, 1989).

Fear of the opposition Let us return to the political context. The slogans declaring ‘forever’ with the Soviet Union may have rid the nation of hope, but certain events would force the powers and, respectively, television, not only to take a stand, but also to react. TV management and the authorities were on high alert around the anniversaries of certain controversial events, such as the ‘Palach Week’ in January, which commemorated the self-­immolation of the student Jan Palach, in 1969, 21 August when demonstrations to mark the Warsaw Pact ‘brotherly assistance’ could take place and of course International Students’ Day on 17 November. These dates posed a high risk of unrest, although after the radical suppression of demonstrations on these days in 1969 the danger of uncontrollable events subsided. Television management signed a new contract at the very beginning of normalization (1 January 1971) with the Ministry of National Defence’s Main Political Authority, one that ensured cooperation in the promotion of the Warsaw Pact forces and the Czechoslovak

222

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

People’s Army. More concretely, this meant that the army editorial office of the Prague and Bratislava studios would take on seven military officers and other personnel from the Ministry of the Interior in order to control the content in this area. As of 1972, television adopted what were known as thematic and ideological production and broadcasting plans, ones which had to be periodically approved by the Ideological Commission of CC CzCP. The consulting phase of individual projects in their preparatory stages, as well as the programmes’ feedback, were carried out by the Central Committee’s Department for Mass Media. An even more exclusive political union was the secret contract of CST with the Federal Ministry of the Interior (23 July 1975) concerning the ‘free use of film materials whose acquisition was funded by the ministry’ (Cysarˇová 2003a: 15). In effect, this meant the wholly unscrupulous possibility of using materials acquired by the secret police (StB) in order to discredit various individuals, e.g. emigrants or dissidents. This soon became very useful when the Charter 77 Proclamation, a human rights manifesto, was published in January 1977.67 The text and its publication elicited a hysterical reaction from the communists and triggered a massive counter-­campaign. It manifested itself on the TV screens in at least three programmes: in the ten-­minute segment Who Is Václav Havel?68 (20 January), and in the programmes From A Counter-revolutionary’s Diary69 (22 January), and The Grand Game70 (23 January). The speed with which the TV employees were able to prepare these programmes was actually quite impressive. The first film introduced Václav Havel’s family situation, referred to his bourgeois origins, and in the evaluation of his dramatic work it (quite aptly) observed that ‘it has nothing in common with socialist culture’. Havel was thus portrayed as enemy number one. The second film used numerous secret police shots in order to discredit Pavel Kohout, the writer and Prague Spring activist. He was portrayed as wealthy and the television station subsequently received numerous letters in which the viewers ‘were outraged at the fact that he lived such a comfortable life and yet he was dissatisfied’. The third film was pure agitprop ‘about the activity of foreign espionage centres, residents, and residencies in Czechoslovakia and the people who subvert our socialist regime’ (Ru˚žicˇka 2002: 11). The climax of this campaign, however, was the convention of the representatives of Czechoslovakia’s Artistic Union representatives in the

 [‘Prohlášení Charty 77’]  [‘Kdo je Václav Havel?’] 69  [‘Z deníku kontrarevolucionárˇe’] 70  [‘Vysoká hra’] 67 68

TELEVISION AS THE L AST INSTRUMENT OF POWER

223

National Theater’s historic building on 28 January 1977. In a live broadcast they condemned ‘subversive elements’ and publicly expressed support for the regime. The most engaged of them did so directly in front of the cameras, while others did so by their mere presence, without even realizing it. ‘This is why we hold in contempt those who, in the unbridled pride of their narcissistic haughtiness, for selfish interests, or even for filthy lucre in various places all over the world – even in our land a small group of such backsliders and traitors can be found – divorce and isolate themselves from their own people’.71 Jirˇina Švorcová, who was to become the popular Woman behind the Counter, stormed off the stage. The document, signed by everyone in attendance called For New Creative Deeds in the Name of Socialism and Peace72 and became known as the Anti-Charter. Historian and former dissident Petruška Šustrová described the absurd situation caused by the wilful act perpetuated by the power wielders, with the following words: ‘The regime thus pitted against each other the official personalities and the representatives of unofficial culture, the permitted versus the prohibited, and, in many cases, turned friends and former colleagues into enemies’ (Šustrová – Mlejnek 2012: 219). After all, the regime had its own way with the main representatives of dissent, who, apart from Charter 77, united in the civic activity of The Committee for the Defence of the Unjustly Prosecuted and were then sentenced to prison in one of the greatest political trials of the normalization period. Six personalities were sentenced to a total of 21.5 years of imprisonment for ‘subversion of the republic’: Havel for 4.5 years and the former TV journalist from the 1960s, Otka Bednárˇová, for 3 years. After this experience and the subversive broadcasting which took place in August 1968, the secret police, in cooperation with the Ministry of National Defence, devised a television and radio protection plan in 1977 to protect the airwaves in times of national crisis from ‘abuse by anti-­state elements and anti-­socialist forces’. Called WAVE73 it outlined measures for the capture of buildings, interruption of broadcasting, and the transmission of back-­up programming under the direction of the secret police. ‘For twelve years, the plan sat in the safes without any change. It was updated in the summer of 1989’, says Daniel Ru˚žicˇka (Ru˚žicˇka 1998b). We must remember that the regime’s sense of insecurity and fear of opposition was heightened by events in neighbouring socialist Poland, where the Polish opposition trade union movement Solidarity was founded in 1980. A union movement with mass support, it was able to demand an open

 Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, ‘Czechoslovak Anti-Charter 1977’, Making the History of 1989, Item #22, https://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/22 (accessed 12 November 2016). 72  [‘Za nové tvu˚rcˇí cˇiny ve jménu socialismu a míru’] 73  [VLNA] 71

224

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

dialogue with the authorities. (Martial law was subsequently imposed and members of the movement were subjected to political persecution.) When the Polish cardinal Karol Wojtyla, later known as John Paul II, was appointed Pope in 1978 (the first Slav to hold the position), it was perceived by the Czechoslovak regime as another threat to its grip on power, as one of the goals of communism was to eliminate the church and all religious belief. Following the collapse of communism it was revealed that the Soviet authorities had plotted with the KGB to assassinate John Paul II in 1981. Hope for change in the Soviet Bloc spread suddenly after the death of the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in 1982, and even more so when two of his replacements (Konstantin Chernenko and Yuri Andropov) died shortly afterwards, thus requiring the central party of the empire to turn to someone younger for direction. It discovered Mikhail Gorbachev. With him, the ice began to break, foreign policy was re-­evaluated and thus the relationships between the superpowers improved (i.e. his several meetings with Ronald Reagan), while the terms of glasnost (political openness) and perestroika (reformation) became symbols of a certain political thaw in all spheres of life. In 1987, Gorbachev visited Prague and announced to Czechoslovak communists that the Soviet Union was dealing with so many problems that it could no longer pay attention to the other countries of the Eastern Bloc. Naturally, this was a blow to the Czechoslovak leadership, and one after which they only tightened their reins.74 The so-­called perestroika television programmes did not take effect in CST until quite late, around 1988. The Economic Notebook75 and Probes were marginally journalistic programmes but they allowed for a certain amount of criticism to be heard (Bednarˇík 2015b:124–141). This was, however, a display of desperate backwardness, as more and more open criticism of the regime started appearing in all spheres of life, namely in film, in documentaries especially. The same went for all the countries of the Eastern Bloc (Schlegel 1999, Švec-Macura-Štoll, P. 1996, Švec 2013, Štoll 2016).

 See the study on glasnost in Soviet cinematography (Horton-Brashinsky 1992).  [‘Hospodárˇský zápisník’]

74 75

13 Television as a participant of the Velvet Revolution

A discreet brass sculpture of a human hand with its two fingers fixed in the ‘V’ sign for peace commemorates the first protest which was to grow into a movement that toppled 41 years of communism in Czechoslovakia. During that first fateful demonstration, demonstrators – who had come out into the streets to mark the International Students’ Day on 17 November – were violently pushed back by cordons or armed police. ‘We cannot stand like this, against each other, we are part of one nation,’ the protesters cried, adding, ‘We like you’ and ‘Freedom!’. The police used force to disperse the demonstration. Many were beaten with batons and dozens were detained. In comparison to the previous anti-demonstration police actions, when water cannon had been used, this time the actions of the police were exceptionally physically brutal. Images of students and young people being brutally beaten proved to be the final straw which brought many more people out onto the streets. Student demonstrators were joined by artists and a revolution was born. After 21 long years of tight control, the protests were a critical test for Czechoslovak television. The situation was quite different from 1968: the country was not threatened from abroad, there were no calls to shut down the broadcasters, nor was it necessary for them to go into hiding. On the contrary. The question was, could television as an institution become a partner in social change, and was it capable of doing so at all? It was the most powerful tool for communication, and thus its behaviour became a sort of litmus test, ‘a signal which helped people estimate the behaviour of the party and the government in various situations, and, in turn, what degree of freedom it would provide for them, as citizens’, wrote media historian Milan Šmíd, who has written several accounts of the dynamic changes which took place within Czechoslovak television during the early days of the Velvet Revolution (Šmíd 2015: 100).

226

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

For several years, viewers had witnessed the tension between the thaw of perestroika, and the continuing sterility of Czechoslovak television. Whilst theater, film and music pushed the boundaries, television programmes which were critical of the regime remained rare, and were only screened at obscure times. To anyone watching the main news programme of CST, it may have looked as though normalization was as tough as ever – coverage of events such as the officially permitted demonstration of the so-called Five Initiatives (association of five civic resistance platforms, including Charter 77) and demonstrations to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Prague (10 December 1988) were presented with a spirit of contempt towards the enemies of socialism. As was common for the era, it was suggested that these anti-­socialist elements were financed by the Charter 77 Foundation from Sweden and by the western secret services. When on 16 January 1989, the day of the 20th anniversary of Jan Palach’s self-­immolation, representatives of the popular dissent and others wanted to lay flowers on the site, the police and the People’s Militia closed Wenceslas Square and detained most of the participants. Václav Havel was among them. A TV announcer, in line with totalitarian rhetoric, reported from the scene: ‘Now let’s take a look at Wenceslas Square, where the anti-­socialist forces have attempted a provocation’. The editors used a close-up of a young man with a ‘suspicious’ jacket with the sign ‘Original American’ written on it. A documentary about those who organized such demonstrations appeared in September 1989 bearing the ironic title They Call Themselves Independent1 (Ru˚žicˇka 1998a: 14). Just as at the beginning of normalization, many other programmes started to stress the role of Czechoslovak exiles in organizing anti-­state events, namely the ‘CIA agent’ Pavel Tigrid in Paris, Jirˇí Pelikán in Rome, the Voice of America, Radio Vatican, and Radio Free Europe. In October, the programme Newsboy2 took aim directly at Charter 77 and the publishers of the samizdat magazines Vokno and Voknoviny (Ru˚žicˇka 1999b: 14) with the claim ‘[that] hardly one day passes by without the western media disseminating sensational news from our country. They do not care about objectivity; first and foremost, they promote anything which serves to challenge the construction effort of our country’ (Ru˚žicˇka 2000: 12). Changes could have been implemented at Czechoslovak Television in November 1989, had it had a courageous and enlightened chief executive, as it had been the case in the 1960s. Jan Zelenka can congratulate himself for deciding to retire in June 1989 (!) after twenty years of service in socialist television, thus bearing no responsibility for the course of events during the

1 2

ˇ íkají si nezávislí’]  [‘R  [‘Kamelot’]

TELEVISION AS A PARTICIPANT OF THE VELVET REVOLUTION

227

broadcasting of the following November. His successor, Libor Batrla, his former deputy for dramatic work and educational programmes who had worked in television since 1979, was quite a featureless personality and could not quite handle the crucial situation. Therefore, television employees themselves took the initiative. Four days after the first demonstration on the National Avenue (Národní trˇída), on Monday 21 November 1989, the broadcast technicians called a trade union meeting in the garage of the Kavcˇí Hory complex. They demanded ‘truthfulness, completeness, and objectivity of television news coverage’ from the director. He rejected those demands and argued that that gathering did not represent the opinion of all the employees. This reaction, however, triggered an avalanche. In the afternoon of the same day, some 1500 employees of CST gathered in the garage and their meeting was broadcast live on an internal circuit. They also radicalized their demands: they wanted punishment for those who violently attacked the National Avenue protestors, they wanted the government, and the Central Committee of the CzCP to resign and they gave vociferous support for the proclamation of the new (so far non-­political) Civic Forum, represented by Václav Havel. Footage from these garage meetings was broadcast by the Austrian TV station ORF. The employees threatened to go on strike if they were not granted permission to broadcast live from the daily mass demonstrations taking place on Wenceslas Square. And thus, the events inside the stagnant institution, drowsy with normalization lethargy, took a rapid turn. On the following day (22 November), short live broadcasts from the Wenceslas Square demonstrations were included in the programme Contact3 although they were abruptly interrupted by the censors when two people started to openly criticize the government to the camera. On the following day (23 November), it was not possible to broadcast live from the demonstration of two hundred thousand people; however, representatives of the protesting citizens were invited to participate in the news broadcast. On the same day, a crowd booed Miroslav Šteˇpán, the Secretary of the Prague communist party’s municipal committee, after he had said: ‘There is no country, neither developing nor socialist nor communist, where fifteen-­year-old children would decide when the president should stay or go, or who should become the president’. In response, the crowd chanted: ‘We are not children’. This was a turning point in the way in which citizens communicated with representatives of the regime and the scene was now broadcast on television. For CST as an institution and its role in the whole situation this was a key moment. CST chief executive Batrla knew that the stakes were high and that it was going to become more and more difficult to toe the line of socialist television. It may have been him who asked for the TV

3

 [‘Kontakt’]

228

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

building to be protected, and during the following night the area of Kavcˇí Hory was besieged by 100 emergency unit policemen. When confronted, Batrla asserted that it was merely an exercise (Ru˚žicˇka 2015b: 287). One of the chief executive’s secretaries later remembered that there were 20 uniformed policemen present in the conference room, in charge of ‘the director’s security’ (Ru˚žicˇka 2015b: 288). And, quite naturally, people were afraid that the regime would activate the VLNA anti-revolutionary measures. A banner asking: ‘When will we hear the truth on Czech Television?’ was draped across the CST garage (Cysarˇová 2002: 536). The coming two days (Friday 24 November and Saturday 25 November) proved to be critical. An extraordinary session of the Central Committee of the CzCP was held and despite the proposal to keep the mass media under control in any circumstances (using violence if necessary), the central committee decided to resign and a new committee was to be elected. Thus, the communist party central committee publically displayed its reluctance to use power against the opposition and the media. Viewers could not believe their eyes when they saw the Party’s General Secretary, Miloš Jakeš, resigning from his post, and welcomed it with extraordinary joy. The news spread like wildfire: a concert of classical music in Smetana Hall in Prague was interrupted and everyone applauded. People stood, yelled and some cried tears of joy. At a demonstration in Wenceslas Square, Alexander Dubcˇek, a key figure in the Prague Spring, appeared in public for the first time after twenty years in seclusion. The TV broadcast authentic footage of the police brutality on National Avenue captured by students of the Prague Film Academy (FAMU) (Kotek 2000). The next day, even Wenceslas Square could no longer accommodate the thousands of protestors and the demonstrations were relocated to Letná Park, where the annual May Day Parades usually took place. This time, television covered the protest in its entirety. That same morning, in Saint Vitus Cathedral at Prague Castle, a pontifical mass was held in honour of the recently canonized Czech patron, Saint Agnes of Bohemia. This too was broadcast on television. People could see that ‘their’ television was changing radically, as this was the first broadcast of a religious event in the history of Czechoslovak television. ‘The CST management was already on the defensive and caught in the whirlwind of events’ (Šmíd 2015: 100). Director Batrla agreed to the creation of a Central Programming Board which was to have 26 members from across the political spectrum, including the opposition. He further consented that the live evening debate programme On Current Issues4 could feature representatives of the political opposition, namely the director of the Institute of Prognostics of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Valtr Komárek and, for the very first time, Václav Havel. The artful

4

 [‘Na aktuální téma’]

TELEVISION AS A PARTICIPANT OF THE VELVET REVOLUTION

229

argumentation which Valtr Komárek presented during this debate brought him a great deal of public popularity and he came close to becoming a presidential candidate. He was a representative of an official organization, while Havel at that point was still mostly unknown to the general public. Now television had become an active agent in political developments. Its attitude persuaded the remaining, hesitant citizens that the situation had changed to such an extent that they would be able to openly express their free will in the general strike planned for the upcoming Monday (Šmíd 2015: 105–106). On Sunday (26 November), television covered the speech of the federal Prime Minister, Ladislav Adamec, which legitimized the opposition. The Prime Minister even guaranteed that State Security would not resort to any more provocations. On the day of the General Strike (27 November), Václav Havel introduced on camera the programme of the Civic Forum5 movement, the CST founded an all-­television branch of the Civic Forum and the chief executive Libor Batrla was removed from office.

FIGURE 13.1  Václav Havel, symbol of the resistance against totalitarianism, who became the first president after 1989, in the CT talkshow Beautiful Losses [‘Krásný ztráty’] in 2003 talking to Czechoslovak-born Madeleine Albright, former US Secretary of State. (© Jirˇí Cˇervený, 2003).

5

 [Obcˇanské fórum]

230

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

He was replaced by the communist federal government spokesman and former CST commentator Miroslav Pavel. His role was twofold. On the very first day in his new job he announced to the TV employees that ‘television has ceased to be the ideological tool of one political party’ (Ru˚žicˇka 2015b: 289); however, at the end of December he issued a controversial reorganizational decree (26/1989), claiming that CST continued to be a state medium, but employees’ resistance forced him to revoke it at the beginning of January. Some television employees still remember how difficult it was for him to keep reorganization within the socialist limits. They recall the conflicts that arose when dramaturgy was ordered to prevent the broadcasting of the so-­called Student Broadcast prepared by FAMU students or the live broadcasts featuring various personalities (e.g. Kotek 2002). During the ten days between 17 and 27 November 1989, television embraced radical change. If the democratic tendencies in the CST broadcasting in the 1960s had taken several years to be pushed through and climaxed in the days of the occupation, that same process took only a matter of days in 1989. The communist regime now had no strong foreign power to back it up. The Soviet Union kept Gorbachev’s promise and did not interfere. The weak chief executive could not oppose, not even with the help of the police, the desire of TV employees to document the unfolding events. After the first massive Saturday demonstration at Letná Park, it became obvious that any attempt to cling to the original concept of television as a propaganda machine of the communist party had become obsolete, ridiculous even. On 29 November 1989, twelve days after the clash on National Avenue, the Federal Assembly voted to annul the constitutional article which guaranteed the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia’s leading role in society. President Gustáv Husák, the face of normalization, resigned and two days before the end of the year, playwright Václav Havel became Czechoslovakia’s President.

CODA

Towards public service

CONTExTUAL BOx No. 7: The Czech and Slovak federal republics’ return to democracy, 1989–1992

I

n the first free elections in 1990, Czechoslovak citizens rejected the Communist Party (it received only 13% of the votes) and voted for those forces that had been actively involved in the fall of the totalitarian regime. Václav Havel’s movement, Civic Forum, soon split into two parties, the Civic Democratic Party (ODS ), and the Czechoslovak Social Democratic Party (CˇSSD ). The two parties would come to dominate Czech politics over the course of the next two decades. The new political system introduced pluralist democracy and a thorough economic reform. Companies and factories were denationalized, or rather, privatized, by means of the so called ‘voucher privatization’ which gave each citizen the option to acquire a small share in a business. The media were also gradually denationalized. New private newspapers emerged while private book publishers sprang up in huge numbers. However, not all institutions survived privatization and many significantly reduced their activity – such was the case of the Barrandov Film Studios and the Krátký film (Short Film) studios. The ‘temporary’ presence of the Warsaw Pact armies was terminated – and the last Soviet soldier left the country on 27 May, 1991. The Warsaw Pact was ceremonially disbanded in Prague. A number of foreign politicians and artists, of whom Czechoslovak citizens could formerly only dream, began to visit the country – historically, the first American president arrived (George Bush, who symbolically rang the bell of freedom on Wenceslas Square in January 1990), the Pope (John Paul II ), the Dalai Lama, and a number of celebrities (The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd performed at Prague’s Strahov stadium – one of the largest stadiums in the world). The country sought integration into Western political and defense structures, mainly NATO and the European Union. At the same time, it had to deal with Slovak demands for a greater autonomy. These first manifested themselves by a stormy, yet polite argument about inserting a hyphen in the name of Czecho-Slovakia and later led to the country changing its name to the ‘Czech and Slovak Federal Republic’. However, the country eventually split peacefully in what came to be known as the Velvet Divorce. Thus, on the 1st of January, 1993, two new countries emerged on the map of Europe: the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. Thus, 74 years after Czechoslovakia emerged from the ruins of the AustroHungarian Empire in 1918, the country ceased to exist.

14 The birth of a public broadcaster

This is where our story of socialist television in Czechoslovakia could have ended. However, it should be noted that the transformation from a totalitarian broadcaster into a medium of public service was not a straightforward process. Naturally, television was to undergo an extensive personnel change within its 10,000 employees.1 It was not only a question of ideology, but also one of efficiency. New Czechoslovak Television had to be able to compete under the conditions of a market economy. The new chief executive, a renowned television journalist from the 1960s, Jindrˇich Fairaizl, took up his post on January 11, 1990 and became a symbol of this new direction. Unfortunately, he soon stood down due to health problems and was replaced by Jirˇí Kantu˚rek, his colleague from the time of the Prague Spring. Kantu˚rek was also the last director of the federal CST. The so called Cadre Order was canceled and a rehabilitation committee was set up, which tried to right the wrongs inflicted on the employees after 1968. People were sent letters of apology or even offers to return to television work. The committee debated 207 cases and rehabilitated 156 employees. That is how, for example, Vladimír Branislav, the director of Curious Camera, returned and became an outstanding and influential dramaturgist of documentary film in the 1990s. Similarly, the significant literary and television journalist Jirˇí Pitterman became the first new programme director, who had a major influence on the character of the future medium of public service by the clear profiling of the two main channels, renamed as F1 (Federal) and CˇTV (Czech Circuit) and S1 (Slovak Circuit). (In May 1990, television launched a third channel, OK3 – Open Channel 3, which was composed of broadcasting taken from foreign televisions, such as CNN, the French TV5, La Sept, and the German RTL. The Slovak circuit’s third channel was TA3, which is a pun, as it is pronounced as Tatry, of a mountain range in Slovakia. A number of employees were forced to

1

 The reduction was instigated by the government on February 14, 1990.

236

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

leave the CST due to the lustration law, which forbade former officials of the socialist state apparatus to occupy high ranking posts in public television. Some of those who left soon found new jobs in private television channels. In the first months, the post-­communist government failed to come up with a clear idea of how to transform television. One of the federal government proclamations stated that ‘we consider it necessary to maintain state radio and television broadcasting, as it is an important democratic tool for the realization of informational needs of the state and society, and a distinctive element of national culture’ (Šmíd 2002: 9). Others voiced the opinion that one public channel would be sufficient for this purpose and the other could be prepared for future use by private companies. Eventually, ‘an important role was played by the fruitful exchange of opinions within the Council of Europe, which Czechoslovakia entered in 1991’ (Šmíd 2002: 9), and it was there where the basic idea of public service television was formulated in the new act on the operation of radio and television broadcasting.2 It was very modern as it dealt with three basic transformative elements: to demonopolize the system of licensing, and the basics of the so-­called dual system, that is the parallel existence of public service and private business in the field of audiovision. The first such a license was issued in November 1992 to the first private television FTV Premiéra. (One of its programme advisers was Jirˇí Menzel, the Oscar-­ winning director. This television network was launched on June 20, 1993.) It was followed by TV NOVA (as of February 1994), which had a transformative effect on the Czech media landscape. One of the programming phenomena of this last, democratic phase of CST was the return of the formerly forbidden writers and scriptwriters of television drama (e.g. Alexandra Berková and her series of therapeutic relationship sessions What Now? And Then What?3, 1991; Eva Kantu˚rková and the adaptation of her book published in exile My Companions in the Bleak House4 about a communist prison, 1992; or the TV adaptation of detective stories by the Toronto exile Josef Škvorecký, Sins for Father Knox,5 1992)6. However, a whole new generation of authors appeared (e.g. the first film of Igor Chaun and the outstanding scriptwriter of the post-­revolutionary period Petr Jarchovský, Very Believable Stories,7 1991). The long-­awaited US soap operas Dallas (1978) and The Thorn Birds (1983) appeared on the

 Act  468/1991 Coll. On Radio and Television Broadcasting [‘Zákon o provozování rozhlasového a televizního vysílání’]. 3  [‘Co ted’ a co potom’] 4  [‘Prˇítelkyneˇ z domu smutku’] 5  [‘Hrˇ íchy pro pátera Knoxe’] 6  Study on the transformations of this kind of dramatic work in Korda 2012. 7  [‘Velmi uveˇrˇitelné prˇíbeˇhy’] 2

THE BIRTH OF THE PUBLIC BROADCASTER

237

FIGURE 14.1 and 14.2  In the field of TV journalism and documentary, a number of private companies appeared to provide their programmes for CST, so its monopoly fell. One of them was FEBIO established by Slovak director Fero Fenicˇ. One of the most significant series of films reflecting the time was The Eye – a Look at the Present, which began broadcasting in 1992. (Screenshots from The Eye No. 1: From Here to There [‘Odsud – potial’], camera: Vlastimil Hamerník and Ivan Vojnár, dir. Fero Fenicˇ, 1992. Source: Archives of FEBIO, 1992).

238

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

TV screens. TV programmes dealing with social and ethnic minorities appeared (Romale, 1992, for the Roma), as well as those dealing with environmental problems (Don’t Give Up,8 1992), and problems in conflict areas (Our People in Need,9 1990). The regular programme Canvass10 (1992–1995) featured for the very first time classic Czechoslovak documentaries made in the Krátký Film (Short Film) Studios, i.e. outside of CST, which had been banned under the communist regime. This new range of programmes also featured socially-­critical original documents from the EYE11 series (as of 1992) and the GEN12 portrait series featuring the ‘elite of the nation’ produced by the newly created FEBIO company of the Slovak director Fero Fenicˇ, who later substantially influenced the nature of Czech television documentary production of the 1990s. Naturally, a number of discussion programmes popped up, such as in ‘the good old’ 1960s. These featured debates and interviews about art and culture (The Bat Club,13 Eye to Eye14), as well as open political debates which discussed the feverish changes that were taking place in the Republic. The main debating programme was called Events of the Week,15 which the CST used to serve its viewers at the time of Sunday lunch from October 21, 1990. It was originally hosted by the sports journalist Otakar Cˇ erný and his Slovak colleague Zuzana Bubílková and it featured politicians from across the political spectrum. These often emotionally intense discussions clearly expressed the significance of the affairs the country was in the midst of. In the arguments and attitudes of Slovak politicians, viewers could witness flashes and, later, clear formulations of their demand for greater autonomy of Slovakia within the federation. It would seem that with the breakup of the state, CST would also split into two national television institutions. However, this was not the case. Already in May 1991, the Slovak parliament set up Slovak Television as a ‘national, independent, public, information, and educational institution,’ which solely prepared programme for federal broadcasting. The Czech party had to react to compensate for this imbalance and it did so by an act promulgated in November 1991,16 by which it founded an institution called  [‘Nedej se’]  [‘Náš cˇloveˇk v tísni’] 10  [‘Kanafas’] 11  [‘OKO’] 12  [‘GEN – galerie elity národa’] 13  [‘Klub Netopýr’] 14  [‘Z ocˇí do ocˇí’] 15  [‘Co týden dal’] 16  Czech Television Act no. 483/1991 Coll. November 7, 1991 [‘Zákon 483/1991 Sb. o Cˇeské televizi, 7. 11. 1991’]. 8 9

THE BIRTH OF THE PUBLIC BROADCASTER

239

Czech Television as of January 1, 1992. It was defined as an institution and medium of public service and it clearly declared, for the first time, what this public service actually involved, and how its independence from the direct influence of political parties would be safeguarded.17 That is how a remarkable and quite absurd situation came about: instead of one television, there were actually three independent televisions, two national and one federal, during the last year of the countries’ common existence – while there was only one TV screen. With the termination of Czechoslovakia on December 31, 1992, the federal institution was simply dissolved and all its liabilities and competencies, and its legal succession, was taken over by Czech Television and Slovak Television in the newly independent countries. Czechoslovak television played its last historical part also in the last moments of the existence of Czechoslovakia. Ten minutes before midnight the TV screens featured a round table with two glasses of white wine and the then Prime Minister of the Czech federal government Jan Stráský, who represented the President of the Republic (Václav Havel had resigned in the summer of 1992 as he did not want to be involved in the breakup of Czechoslovakia) and the Slovak Federal Assembly chairman, Michal Kovácˇ, who subsequently became the first President of the Slovak Republic. Together they said goodbye to the television viewers. For the last time the common national anthem was played, which for decades had been composed of two songs: the Czech Where Is My Home? and the Slovak Lightning over the Tatras.18

FIGURE 14.3  The logo of Czechoslovak Television, an institution which was founded under a totalitarian regime and after almost 40 years came to an end in freedom and democracy. (Source: APF CT, 1975).  Financing of public service television was not resolved until 1994 by the Radio and Television License Fees Act no. 252/1994 Coll. [‘Zákonem 252/1994 Sb. o rozhlasových a televizních poplatcích’]. 18  [‘Kde domov mu˚ j?’], [‘Nad Tatrou sa blýska’] 17

240

TOTALITARIANISM AND TELEVISION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

This is how, after 39 years and 240 days of existence, Czechoslovak Television ceased to be, the dream of radio amateurs of the First Republic finally realized on the basis of Nazi technical military research by dictate and according to the Soviet model by the Communist Party. That was the end of an institution which had not only disseminated propaganda, but at least twice demonstrated its social importance in the loosening of totalitarian reins. This was the end of a television which lured its viewers by means of numerous TV series featuring constructed contemporary reality, a television which was able to demonstrate quite fiercely that it was capable of giving space to strong opinions and fierce social criticism, which did not have to be limited to the dissemination of Marxist and Leninist propaganda. It was a television which was capable of becoming a partner to its viewers at the time when the nation found itself under threat, as well as during moments of hope.

Conclusion

The history of Czechoslovak Television is parallel to the history of the Central European country. Television as a medium as well as an institution, including its products, was an indisputable part of the history. Both on the conceptual level and as a real institution, it played different roles. It was dependent on the course of history, it was conditioned by it, but, at the same time, it directly influenced and co-­created it. Its development can be divided into 5 stages: a) the creation of the concept of television (before it was founded), b) the steps leading to the beginning of broadcasting, and then actual broadcasting until 1961, c) its socially critical role in the 1960s until the arrival of Jan Zelenka in 1969, d) its role of an ideological tool in the period of normalization and its share in the regime’s collapse, e) its search for a role in a democracy until the breakup of Czechoslovakia, which has led to its demise. These individual stages are inwardly consistent in their parameters; the individual processes always mature until a certain breaking point. I consider the year 1961, as suggested in the relevant chapter above, as exceptional for many reasons. This was the time when Czechoslovak Television acquired its millionth subscriber and was awarded the first international festival prize for one of its productions. Alongside the synchronous view, we have also followed a different dynamic of development, independent of these stages – the dependence or the intensity of interconnectedness with the governing regime – while during the First Republic, television’s potential was, analogously derived from the power of the radio and it was subjected to the political struggle of the democratic parties, after the Second World War a more realistic, technological form of television (created by the Nazis) emerged in the struggle of weak Czechoslovakia with its the strong liberator, the USSR. At this time, Czechoslovak Television as a real project fit into the propaganda plan of the communist dictatorship from the very beginning. In fact, Czechoslovak Television did not experience any but the communist era, with the exception of the last three years after the fall of the regime.

242

CONCLUSION

Still, it cannot be claimed that the almost forty-­year-long period (between the first political impulse to create it in 1951 and the fall of the regime in 1989) represented a kind of monolith in its relationship to the ruling powers. On the contrary – it is for this reason that I have gone into such lengths of depicting in minute detail all the contextual transformations, indications of freedom and political thaw, as well as the symptoms of a political clampdown – these developments had an impact on the inner climate of the institution as well as its output. From today’s perspective, the very first stage seems almost unbelievable, from experimental broadcasting to the first personnel purges in 1958 – during this period Czechoslovak Television had to fulfil its propaganda role (celebrating all the political anniversaries), yet it carried out an intensive search for fundamental expressive and organizational possibilities of the new medium. This must have been an adventure, whose actors had to be ready, day by day, to jump into the unknown, experimenting with new genres, new footage, new combinations of broadcasting techniques. The regime itself did not know then what to expect from television, its factual reach was (due to the slowly rising number of subscribers, or sale of TV sets) quite small, and so it was possible that such a large number of the TV employees were not members of the communist party. It was the era of the first chief executive, Karel Kohout, which broadened the limits of the possible in all aspects of Czechoslovak Television’s output and its institutional structures (see its permanent disputes with Czechoslovak Communications). In the above mentioned, year 1958, it seemed as if the regime suddenly realized that television, as a strong propaganda tool, could easily get out of control, and started its moves to control it, introducing cadre rules and personnel purges. These steps taken by the chief executive Hradecký, however, did not reflect reality – the social and political context in Czechoslovakia started to change at this time. In less than four years, television itself began to ask to be able to fulfil its reflective social role. The intensity with which it grasped this role under the next chief executive, Jirˇí Pelikán, was a surprise for the party and, at the time of the occupation in 1968, even for the Soviet leader Brezhnev himself. It was as if television had matured under Pelikán’s leadership and no longer thought of what to produce and how, but started to ask new important questions such as: Why? What can be changed? What is wrong? Parallel to a human coming of age, Czechoslovak Television in the 1960s resembled a teenager who is ignorant of things, who is interested and is being provocative. As a result of all that, Czechoslovak Television achieved remarkable maturity and was valued for its integrity of opinion and character by the time of the arrival of the Warsaw Pact armies in 1968. Unfortunately, at the moment of maturity, the cold shower of normalization came, anesthetizing all curiosity and interest, taking the wind out of all hopes and longings. Massive all-­state personnel purges in 1969–1972 were a kind of narcosis for society and thus also

CONCLUSION

243

television, where it was demonstrated by disseminating hollow propaganda which could not be trusted by anyone, its authors notwithstanding. However, Czechoslovak Television struggled hard not to lose viewers for good – it tried to draw them back by other means and so define a space where it could communicate with the normalized viewer. This common ground was established by broadcasting the numerous ‘contemporary’ series, entertainment productions, and everything that aimed to neutralize any civic activities aimed against the system. This television, impersonated by Jan Zelenka, became a world of its own, devotedly, even bluntly serving its ideological clients (only the Anti-Charter campaign in 1977 represented a break from this lethargy), almost as if it did not notice that, with the arrival of Gorbachev in the USSR, the context had begun to transform. Thus, although the fact that the socialist house of cards had begun to crumble during the 1980 was noticed by the theater, music, literature and film, where new spaces, metaphor and direct criticism began to appear gradually, television, in the seclusion of its ivory tower, still protected its standpoints and almost became its own petrified monument. Possibly, the communist party relied on Czechoslovak Television as one of its last steadfast pillars of factual political power. This is why, perhaps, those 10 days which shattered the CST in the fall of 1989 were so dramatic, and all the attempts at keeping the original line quickly became almost ridiculous. I believe that I have shown that, from the programming perspective, the television output had its ups and downs in all the stages of its development. This was unrelated to political pressure. A series of films from the beginning of the 1970s made to discredit the liberalization process of the 1960s was particularly despicable; however, at the same time, iconic dramatic works were created (e.g. the detective stories set in the 1920s The Sinful People of the City of Prague, adaptations of classic literary works, F. L. Veˇk, and productions for children, such as Mr. Tau). Equally, it cannot be claimed that all programmes and works from the exuberant 1960s are masterpieces, although it is quite difficult to find examples of works which were unaffected by the critical spirit and the originality of this decade. It is also not true that CST was encapsulated exclusively in the programme offer of the socialist Bloc and Intervision; I have mentioned examples of televised productions of the western purview and namely pointed out CST’s own series which were co-­produced with West-German partners (Mr. Tau, Hospital at the End of the City, Arabela, Visitors, Circus Humberto, Criminalistics Adventures etc). These works belong to the timeless golden fund of Czechoslovak cine­ matography, not to mention all the – e.g. musical or dramatic – programmes, which were praised and received awards at international forums. It is impossible to emphasize enough how useful television was in fulfilling its educational and cultivating role with all its theater or concert broadcasts, and adaptations of literary and drama classics. In the 1960s, it also played a

244

CONCLUSION

part in the creation of a very wide stream of light and entertainment music (which in the normalization era was curtailed into official pop), not to mention the role it played in the world of sports or fairy-­tales, namely animated ones. It is equally hard to describe the damage the very same TV caused in children’s and youth broadcasting, when it purposefully inculcated in young viewers a unified worldview and failed to develop their critical thinking; furthermore, it had a negative impact on the aesthetic awareness of its viewers and consciously stultified their ethical and moral imperatives with a lie (in news coverage, in documentaries, and in journalism). The border between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ thus does not dwell in the different stages of its development, but it is rather present in the whole production of CST from the time of its founding until its collapse. And of course, between the extreme cases, a whole world of all the remaining programmes lies, which for better or worse, were servile or less servile, or just filled the programme schedules of all the 39 years with a gray mass. We have also tracked the development of the institution itself, as well as the relevant developments in technology. We have seen that already at the conceptual stage, television was a subject of intensive government interest and after the war it became the result of a lost battle between a David and a Goliath. Furthermore, different sections of the Czechoslovak state structures wrestled for their influence through television (the military versus the industry) and it was the Cold War which caused the cultural sector to win over the military. And it was, yet again, the Cold War which, paradoxically, sped up the launching of television under the auspices of Czechoslovak Radio in order to facilitate the defense of the socialist Bloc in the air. The marriage of both types of broadcasting, radio and television, was quite determining and logical for the new medium, with the third agent of the television launching process being the technical aspects represented by telecommunications. The ambiguity of television, astride radio and telecommunications, was eventually solved, just as the marriage with radio ended in divorce 11 years later (in 1964, when Czechoslovak Radio and Czechoslovak Television were established by law as two independent institutions). In the midst of all this, television as an institution expanded to the whole of Czechoslovakia with the growing reach of the signal as well as the building of outposts in cities (Ostrava, Bratislava, Brno, Košice), or else in the construction of modern facilities in its centers in Prague and Bratislava. The very end and break-­up of the institution in 1992 was handled with grace, perhaps analogically to the break-­up of the federation itself, having created in advance the two, Czech and Slovak, institutions which could handle the break-­up of the giant institution smoothly. Technologically, CST never lagged behind its other partners from the socialist Bloc, it instituted a comparable rise of broadcast hours and

CONCLUSION

245

introduced a second channel and color broadcasting, having managed to solve the question of the color norm quite independently, almost rebelliously. It was also active in the international programme exchange, in live broadcasts (namely the sporting events), implementing video technologies, and teletext. Television as an institution also understood its responsibility for the reflection of the field itself when it started supporting systematically (apart from PR and communication with its viewers through programme magazines) the publication of specialized texts, including translations dealing with new developments and trends in the whole television world, and published more than just the occasional publication, but also its professional journal Televizní tvorba. Unfortunately, this research programme of CST was closed down with the arrival of democracy (1994), creating a great reflective vacuum until the present day. Still, the texts, mostly from the 1960s, belong among the pillars of original Czechoslovak thinking about television and continue to be inspiring even today. We have followed the history of television broadcasting which was influenced by state interference, and communist ideology. I believe that it has been sufficiently demonstrated that nothing was as black-­and-white as it seemed; that CST found itself in a permanent dialectic process, ‘between a rock and a hard place – on one hand, it tried to comply with the wishes of ordinary viewers who demanded light entertainment, often with a more or less subtle tinge of the retro, on the other hand, the pressure of critics and the communist party authorities that demanded a political and educational character of broadcasting kept returning in waves.’ (Franc – Knapík 2013: 408–409). It can even be claimed that it was the reaction to the political pressure that made it possible even for Czechoslovak Television (although to a much smaller extent than in cinematography) to produce critical works with an artistic dimension. Inside the institution, there was the incessant setting of the limits of the possible, not only in the pioneering period but also in the thick of normalization. It is difficult to assess the role of TV employees in retrospect, who (along with the utter opportunists) tried to work professionally within the limits of the institution, who found pleasure and fulfillment in their work, and who attempted to transgress the defined limits, even if they often failed. Likewise, we cannot adore only those who were in opposition, it is necessary to be aware of their gradual intellectual development, as was the case of Jirˇí Pelikán himself, who matured into an influential emigrant and an opponent of the regime from the position of a devout communist from the Stalinist era. Most interestingly, after 1989, the employees of normalization TV did not undergo any self-­reflection of their work – these talented craftspeople left or were made to leave, but they found new opportunities in the emerging private televisions and actually moved up in many respects. One of the few who publicly commented on this complicated topic was the well-­known

246

CONCLUSION

economic commentator Jirˇí Hrabovský: ‘Those who claim that they were forced to join the communist party are lying. Neither did I have to do so. The only thing I would have had to do upon refusing to apply was to accept the fact that I would not able to work on a level that I had always dreamed of, that I would not earn that much money, and I would not have been allowed to travel abroad that often. I could not do without this. If you call this opportunistic, I will bow my head and be silent’ (Wanatowiczová 2004: 24). In conclusion, it must be said that despite all the political orders, personnel purges, increases or decreases of the level of censorship, political pressure, greater or smaller infiltrations of the secret police or the military into the institution and content, despite all the campaigns and anti-­campaigns, CST fulfilled a crucial role ‘in the process of the so-­called democratization of culture and art’ (Franc – Knapík 2013: 414). It drew its viewers’ attention to current affairs, to different types of art, informing them about them, mediated them, and formed its own specific way of communication. In the 1960s, it became one of the main platforms of socially critical reflection and, at the most momentous time in its history during the country’s occupation in 1968, it proved that it had not completely succumbed to political pressure and managed to keep a face which could make its audiences proud.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archival sources National archives CR, funds: 292, 343, 371, 429, 563, 861, 867, 867 Vojenský ústrˇední archiv (Central military Archives), folders: MNO 1945, MNO 1946, VTÚ 1946, VTÚ 1947, VTÚ 1951 Archiv a programové fondy Cˇeské televize, složky pozu˚stalosti K. Kohouta: 1–4, Deˇjiny CˇT (Archives and CT Programme Collection, folders from K. Kohout’s heritage: 1–4, History of CT) Archiv a programové fondy Cˇeského rozhlasu, spisová složka SM–34/50, SM–36/52 (Archives and Czech Radio Programme Collection, records folder SM–34/50, SM–36/52) Archiv Národního technického muzea v Praze, fond Jaroslav Šafránek, 1–6 (National Technical Museum Archives in Prague, Jaroslav Šafránek Fund, 1–6) Archiv Univerzity Karlovy, fondy: Lékarˇská fakulta UK, prof. Dr. Jaroslav Šafránek, Prˇírodoveˇdecká fakulty UK (Charles University Archives, funds: Faculty of Medicine, prof. Dr. Jaroslav Šafránek, Faculty of Science)

Primary and secondary literature Beaton, S. (2018), Chronicling Private Lives: The Narratives of Fulfilment in Helena Trˇeštíková’s Longitudinal Films. A PhD thesis, Glasgow University, Glasgow Bednarˇík P. – Jirák, J. – Köpplová, B. (2011), Deˇjiny cˇeských médií. Od pocˇátku˚ do soucˇasnosti. [History of the Czech Media. From the Beginning to This Day] Prague: Grada Bednarˇík P. – Cebe, J. (2008), ‘Vývoj médií v Cˇeskoslovensku od února 1948 do prosince 1950’ [‘Development of Media in Czechoslovakia from February 1948 to December 1950’], in Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae, C – Literární historie. Vol. 53, Prague (54–56) Bednarˇík, P. – Reifová, I. (2008), ‘Normalizacˇní televizní seriál: socialistická konstrukce reality’ [‘Normalization TV Series: Socialist Construction of Reality’] in Sborník Národního muzea v Praze [National Museum of Prague ˇ ada C – Literární historie, sv. 53, N. 1–4, (71–74) Almanac], R Bednarˇík, P. (2015a), ‘Média v Cˇeskoslovensku v letech 1945–1989 a jejich vliv na každodenní život’ [‘Media in Czechoslovakia in 1945–1989 and Their Influence on Everyday Life’], in Pažout 2015: 50–75 Bednarˇík, P. (2015b), ‘Program Cˇeskoslovenské televize v osmdesátých letech dvacátého století’ [‘Programme of Czechoslovak Television in the 1980s’], in Malý 2015 (124–141)

248

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bednarˇík, P. (2017), ‘FAMU – Filmová a televizní fakulta Akademie múzických umeˇní v Praze.’ [‘FAMU – Film and TV Faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague’], in Franc 2017: 172–271 Benˇa, J. (1936), ‘Jak budeme rˇíkat televisi?’ [‘What Shall We Call Television?’], in Cˇeskoslovenská pošta – telegraf – telefon, No. 7, 15 September Bencˇík, A. – Domanˇský, J. (1990), 21. srpen 1968 [August 21, 1968], Prague: Tvorba Beránek, J. (ed.) (2015), 68–69: Kveˇty jara – plody podzimu [68–69: Flowers of the Spring – Fruits of the Autumn] Prague: Syndikát novinárˇu˚ CˇR – Klub novinárˇu˚ Pražského jara’68 Bílek, P. A. – Cˇinátlová, B. (2010), Tesilová kavalerie [Tesil Cavalry] Prˇíbram: Pistorius & Olšanská Bílek, P. A. (2013), ‘The Cases of Major Zeman: Domestication and Ideological Conversion of a James Bond Narrative in the Czech TV Serial Context of the 1970s,’ in Cˇulík 2013: 48–67 Bittman, L. (1992), Špionážní oprátky: pohledy do zákulisí cˇeskoslovenské zpravodajské služby [Espionage Nooses: Views behind the Scene of the Czechoslovak Intelligence Service] Prague: Mladá fronta Blažejovský, J. (2014), ‘O normalizacˇní televizi natvrdo’ [‘Hard Facts on Normalization Television’], Cinepur (92): 47–48. Prague: Sdružení prˇátel Cinepuru Blažek, P. (2012), ‘Sebeupálení jako forma radikálního politického protestu ve sveˇteˇ’ [‘Self-­immolation as a Form of Radical Political Protest in the World’], in Blažek-Svoboda 2012: 339–250 Blažek, P.- Svoboda, L. (2012), Solitér. Pocta historikovi Václavu Veberovi [Solitaire A Loner. Homage to the Historian Václav Veber]. Prague: ÚSTR Bren, P. (2010/2013), The Greengrocer and His TV: The Culture of Communism after the 1968 Prague Spring. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. (Czech translation 2013) ˇ ízení a organizace CˇST’ [‘Management and Organization of Brˇincˇil, J. (1970), ‘R Czechoslovak Television’], in: Televize známá neznámá I. [Television Known and Unknown I.], Prague: Cˇ ST Brˇíza, J. (1938), Jak funguje moderní televisní souprava. [Functioning of Modern Television Equipment’], Prague: Poštovní služba Bru˚na, O. (1948), Od brigády ke kulturnímu družstvu [From a Brigade to a Cultural Cooperative] Vysoké Mýto: Jednotný svaz cˇeských zemeˇdeˇlcu˚, Okresní vedení SCˇM, Okresní osveˇtová rada Bubeník, V. (1999), ‘Vzpomínky na vývoj naší televize v letech 1945–1948’ [‘Memories of Developing Our Television 1945–1948’], Deˇjiny veˇdy a techniky, Vol. 6., N. 160, Prague: NTM. Cˇábelová, L. (2003), Radiojournal. Rozhlasové vysílání v Cˇechách a na Moraveˇ v letech 1923–1939. [Radiojournal. Radio Broadcasting in Bohemia and Moravia in 1923–1939], Prague: Karolinum Caccamo, F. (2007), Jirˇí Pelikán. Un Lungo viaggio nell’arcipelago socialista [Jirˇí Pelikán and His Journey through Socialism], Venezia: Marsilio Editori Carpentier Reifová, I. – Bednarˇík, P. – Dominik, Š. (2013), ‘Between Politics and Soap. The Articulation of Ideology and Melodrama in Czechoslovak Communist Television Serials 1975-89’. In: Goddard 2013: 91–98 Cˇesálková, L. (2005), ‘Pan ucˇitel televize. TVŠ: televizní vysílání pro školní trˇídy i

BIBLIOGRAPHY

249

domácnosti’ [‘Television as Teacher. TBS: Television Broadcasting for Schools and Households’], Iluminace Vol. 17, N. 4, (39–56). Cˇinátl, K. (2010): ‘Jazyk normalizacˇní moci’ [‘The Language of the Normalization Power-wielders’], in Bílek–Cˇinátlová 2010: 28–42 Conelly, J. (2000), Captive University: The Sovietization of East German, Czech, and Polish Higher Education, 1945–1956, Capell Hill: University of North Carolina Press Cˇtvrtník, P. – Galuška, J. – Tošnerová, P. (2008), Poštovnictví v Cˇechách, na Moraveˇ a ve Slezsku [Postal Service in Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia], Liberec: 555 Cˇulík, J. (ed.) (2013), National Mythologies in Central European TV Series. How J. R. Won the Cold War. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press Cysarˇová, J. (1993), Cˇeská televizní publicistika: Sveˇdectví šedesátých let [Czech Television Journalism: Testimony of the 1960s], Prague: ÚSD AV CˇR Cysarˇová, J. (1996), Televize a totalitní moc 1953–1967. [Television and Totalitarian Power 1953–1967], Prague: ÚSD AV CˇR Cysarˇová, J. (1998a), 16x život s televizí. Hovory za obrazovkou [16x Life with Television. Talks behind the TV Screen], Prague: FITES Cysarˇová, J. (1998b), Televize a totalitní moc 1969–1975 [Television and Totalitarian Power 1969–1975], Prague: ÚSD AV CˇR Cysarˇová, J. (2002), ‘Cˇeskoslovenská televize a politická moc 1953–1989’ [‘Czechoslovak Television and Political Power 1953–1989’], in Soudobé deˇjiny, No. 3–4: 521–537 Cysarˇová, J. (2003a), ‘Padesát let televize: dlouhá cesta k nezávislosti.’ [‘Fifty Years of Television: A Long Journey towards Independence.’], in: Listy N. 2: 13–24 Cysarˇová, J. (2003b), ‘V Cˇeskoslovenské televizi’ [‘In Czechoslovak Television’], in Jirˇí Pelikán 1923–1999. Prague: Obcˇanský dialog Cysarˇová, J. (2009), ‘Rok 1968 na obrazovkách CˇT’ [‘The Year 1968 on the Screens of CT’], in Pražské jaro 1968: Literatura-­film-média. Prague: Literární akademie: 295–316 Cysarˇová, J. (2010a), ‘Život na vlastní úcˇet – Cˇeská publicistka Otta Bednárˇová’ [‘Life on Her Own Account – Czech Journalist Otta Bednárˇová’], in Synchron No. 1 (37) Cysarˇová, J. (2010b), ‘Život na vlastní úcˇet – Cˇeská publicistka Otta Bednárˇová’ [‘Life on Her Own Account – Czech Journalist Otta Bednárˇová’], in Synchron No. 3, (17) Daneš, L. (2005), Mu˚j život s múzami, televizí a tak vu˚bec [My Life with the Muses, Television, and So On], Prague: Malá Skála Dohnálek, J. (1999), ‘Zrození cˇs. televize v Tanvaldeˇ’ [‘Birth of CS Television in Tanvald’], Deˇjiny veˇdy a techniky, Vol. 6., No. 160, Prague: NTM Evans, Ch. E. (2016), Between Truth and Time: A History of Soviet Central Television. New Haven – Connecticut: Yale University Press Feldstein, V. (1964), Televize vcˇera, dnes a zítra [Television Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow], Prague: Orbis Franc, M. – Knapík, J. (2013), Volný cˇas v cˇeských zemích 1957–1967 [Leisure in the Czech Lands 1957–1967], Prague: Academia Franc, M. (2015), ‘Televize, samoobsluha a superžena’. [Television, Supermarket and Superwoman], Soudobé deˇjiny, XXII (1–2), Prague: ÚSD AV CˇR

250

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Franc, M. et al. (2017), Deˇjiny Akademie múzických umeˇní v Praze [The History of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague], Prague: NAMU Glas, M. (2009), ‘Vzpomínky na pocˇátky televize u nás’ [‘Memories of the Beginning of Television in Our Country’], Synchron, No. 5–6, 2008: 27–29; No. 1, 2009: 25–29; No. 4, 2009: 31–35 Goddard, P. (2013), Popular Television in Authoritarian Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press Havel, V. (1978/1990), Moc bezmocných [The Power of the Powerless], Prague: Lidové noviny Havel, V. (1985/1999), Dopisy Olze [Letters to Olga], Brno: Atlantis. Hlavica, M. (2012), Dramatická tvorba Brneˇnského studia Cˇeskoslovenské televise 1961–1991. [Dramatic Programmes Produced by the Brno Studio of CST 1961–1991], Brno: JAMU Horton, A. – Brashinsky, M. (1992), The Zero Hour: Glasnost and Soviet Cinema in Transition. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Houda, P. (2014), Intelektuální protest, nebo masová zábava? Folk jako spolecˇenský fenomén v dobeˇ tzv. normalizace [Intellectual Protest or Mass Entertainment? Folk Music as a Social Phenomenon in the so-­called Normalization Period]. Prague: Academia. Ješutová, R. (ed.) (2003), Od mikrofonu k posluchacˇu˚m. Z osmi desetiletí cˇeského rozhlasu. [From the Microphone to the Listeners. From the Eight Decades of Czech Radio]. Prague: CˇRo Jirák, J. – Köpplová, B. (2014), ‘Nabídka televizních programu˚ deˇtskému publiku v 60. letech’ [‘Offer of Television Programmes for Children in the 1960s’], in Knapík 2014: 121–130 Kalous, J. (2002), ‘CˇSSR-Okupanti 4:3. Analýza jedné brˇeznové noci’ [‘CSSROccupiers 4:3. Analysis of One Evening in March’], in Pameˇt’ a deˇjiny No. 9: 22–43 Kanˇka, P. – Kofránková, V. – Mayerová, I. – Štoll, M. (2015), Autor-­vize-meze-­ televize. [Author-Vision-Limits-Television], Prague-Bratislava: ÚSTR-CTVŠMU Km (1934), Televise neboli videˇní obrazu˚ na dálku [‘Television or Distant Seeing of Images’], Pestrý týden, September 15: 22 Knapík, J. (2002), Kdo byl kdo v naší kulturní politice 1948–1953 [Who Was Who in Our Cultural Politics 1948–1953], Prague: Libri Knapík, J. (2004), Únor a kultura: soveˇtizace cˇeské kultury 1948–1950 [February and Culture: Sovietization of Czech Culture 1948–1950], Prague: Libri Knapík, J. (2006), V zajetí moci. Kulturní politika, její systém a aktérˇi 1948–1956 [Captured by the Power. Cultural Politics, Its System and Participants 1948–1956], Prague: Libri Knapík, J. et al. (2014), Deˇti, mládež a socialismus v Cˇeskoslovensku v 50. a 60. letech [Children, Juveniles and Socialism in Czechoslovakia in the 1950s and 1960s], Opava: SLU Knapík, J. – Franc, M. (eds.) (2018), Mezi pionýrským šátkem a mopedem: Deˇti, mládež a socialismus v cˇeských zemích 1948–1970. [Between the Pioneer Scarf and the Moped: Children, Juveniles and Socialism in the Czech Lands 1948– 1970], Prague: Academia Kolárˇ, P. (2015), ‘Cˇtyrˇi “základní rozpory” východoevropského komunismu’ [‘Four

BIBLIOGRAPHY

251

“Basic Contradictions” in East-European Communism’], Soudobé deˇjiny XXII (1–2). Prague: ÚSD AV CˇR: 130–165 Kolárˇ, P. – Pullmann, M. (2016), Co byla normalizace? Studie o pozdním socialismu. [What was Normalization? Studies in Late Socialism], Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové Noviny – ÚSTR Koncˇelík, J. – Vecˇerˇa, P. – Orság, P. (2010), Deˇjiny cˇeských médií 20. století [History of the Czech Media in the 20th Century], Prague: Portál Kopal, P. (ed.) (2005), Film a deˇjiny [Film and History], Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny Kopal, P. (ed.) (2014), Film a deˇjiny 4. Normalizace [Film and History 4. Normalization], Prague: Casablanka – ÚSTR Kopal, P. et al. (2016), Film a deˇjiny 5. Prˇestavba [Film and History 5. Perestroika], Prague: Casablanka – ÚSTR Kopal, P. (ed.) (2018), Film a deˇjiny 7. Propaganda. [Film and History 7. Propaganda] Prague: Casablanka – ÚSTR Köpplová, B. et al. (2003), Deˇjiny cˇeských médií v datech [History of the Czech Media in Dates], Prague: Karolinum Korda, J. (2012), Cˇeské televizní krimi série a jejich žánrové souvislosti (1989– 2009) [Czech Television Crime Series and Their Genre Connections (1989– 2009)], Olomouc 2012: UPOL Košcˇo, J. (1981), Vývoj televízie (s osobitným zretel’om na vývoj televízie na Slovensku) [Development of Television (With Special Regard to Slovakia)], Bratislava: SPN Kotek, P. (2000), Kronika Studentského vysílání [Chronicle of Student Broadcasting], Prague: Malá Skála Krˇecˇan, Z. (1987), ‘Jak rolník Holecˇek prˇenášel obraz’ [‘How Farmer Holecˇek Transmitted an Image’], in Technický magazín, N. 12 Krˇíž, J. (1953): ‘Budujeme televisní vysílacˇ’ [‘We are Building a Television Transmitter’], Sveˇt práce, N. 6, 5 February Kruml, M. (2013), Televize? Televize! Procházka prvními šesti dekádami televizního vysílání u nás pro zacˇátecˇníky i pokrocˇilé [Television? Television! A Brief Walk Through Six Decades of TV Broadcasting for Beginners and Advanced Pupils], Prague: CˇT Kubícˇek, F. (2003), ‘Z historie Cˇs. televize trochu jinak aneb televize a já’ [‘From the History of Czechoslovak Television from Another Point of View or Television and Me’], History of Czechoslovak Television a little differently, or Television and Me, Vol. 2, No. 179, Prague: NTM Kut, B. (1968): Pocˇátky televize v CˇSR [The Beginnings of Television in Czechoslovakia], 1 Vol., Prague: manuscript Kveˇch, J. (1936), ‘První cˇeská knížka o televisi’ [‘The First Czech Book on Television’], in Venkov, 15 December Malý, I. (2015), Cˇeská spolecˇnost a kultura v osmdesátých letech dvacátého století [Czech Society and Culture in the 1980s], Prague: NM Malý, P. – Orošová, H. – Chloupek, J. – Cˇermák, P. (eds.) (2011), 50 let televizního studia Brno [50 Years of the Brno Television Studio], Brno: CˇT Marešová, I. (2010), ‘Romance za pultem: Pru˚vodce po trˇech re-­prezentativních prostorech normalizacˇních milostných prˇíbeˇhu˚’ [‘A Romance behind the Counter: A Guide through Three Representative Spaces of Normalization Love Stories’] in Bílek-Cˇinátlová 2010: 83–94

252

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Masaryk, T. G. (1918/1994), Nová Evropa [New Europe], Brno: Doplneˇk Michalski, D. (2012), To była bardzo dobra telewizja. Cze˛s´c´ 1: Misja emisji [That Was a Very Good Television. Part 1: The Broadcasting Mission], Cracow: Wydawnictwo MG Moc, J. (2009), Seriály od A do Z. Lexikon cˇeských seriálu˚ [TV series from A to Z. A Lexicon of Czech TV Series], Prague: CˇT Moulíková, D. (2014), ‘Zveˇdavá kamera ocˇima jejích tvu˚rcu˚’ [‘Curious Camera through the Eyes of Its Producers], MA. Diss., Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague. Necˇásek, S. (1934), ‘Neviditelné cˇeskoslovenské videˇní do dálky’ [‘Invisible Czechoslovak Seeing into the Distance’], Radioamatér, No. 9 Nesnídalová, M. (1937), Do sveˇta za radiem. Myšlenky a obrázky z cesty do Holandska [Travelling Abroad in Pursuit of the Radio. Thoughts and Pictures from a trip to the Netherlands], Pilsen: Radioklub O (1934), Procházka podzimním radiotrhem [‘A Walk Through the Autumn Radio Fair’], Cˇeské slovo, 8 September: 8 Paulu, B. (1967), Radio and Television Broadcasting on the European Continent. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Pažout, J. (ed.) (2015): Každodenní život v Cˇeskoslovensku 1945/48–1989 [Everyday Life in Czechoslovakia 1945/48–1989], Prague – Liberec: ÚSTR and TUL Pelikán, J. (2003), ‘Krásná trpká cesta’ [‘Beautiful and Bitter Journey’], in Listy No. 2: 18–24 Pernes, J. (2001), ‘Politické procesy – tragické znamení doby’ [‘Political Trials – a Tragic sign of the Times’], in: Kdy, kde, procˇ a jak se to stalo Ru˚žicˇka v cˇeských deˇjinách [When, Where, Why and How it Happened in Czech History], Prague: Reader’s Digest výbeˇr Petránˇová, L. (1968), ‘Pocˇátky cˇeskoslovenské televize’ [‘Beginnings of Czechoslovak Television’], Televizní tvorba, No. 1, Prague: CˇST Powrie, P. – Stilwell, R. J. (eds) (2007), Composing for the Screen in Germany and the USSR: Cultural Politics and Propaganda. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Ptácˇek, J. (ed.) (1982), 30 let Strˇední pru˚myslové školy filmové v Cˇimelicích [30 Years of Technical Film High School in Cˇimelice], Cˇimelice: SPŠF Reifová, I. – Bednarˇík, P. (2008a): ‘Televizní seriál – záhada popkulturního sebeveˇdomí’ [‘Television Series – A Mystery of Pop-­culture Conscience’], in Mediální studia N. 1 ˇ íkají si nezávislí’ [‘A View into Ru˚žicˇka, D. (1998a), ‘Pohled do televizního archivu. R the Television Archives. They Call Themselves Independent.’], IIB CˇT No. 12 Ru˚žicˇka, D. (1998b), ‘Akce VLNA – televize meˇla být obsazena’ [‘Action WAVE – Television Was to Be Seized’], IIB CˇT No. 12 Ru˚žicˇka, D. (1999a), ‘ “Palachu˚v týden” objektivem Televizních novin’ [‘ “The Palach Week” through the Lens of TV News’], IIB CˇT No. 1: 14 Ru˚žicˇka, D. (1999b), ‘21. srpen 1969 a CˇST’ [‘21 August 1969 and CST’], IIB CˇT No. 7–8: 19 Ru˚žicˇka, D. (2000), ‘Vysílalo se v rˇíjnu 1989’ [‘Broadcast in October 1989’], IIB CˇT No. 10: 12 Ru˚žicˇka, D. (2002), ‘CˇST proti Charteˇ 77’ [‘CST against Charter 77’], IIB CˇT No. 1: 11

BIBLIOGRAPHY

253

Ru˚žicˇka, D. (2003), ‘Jak CˇST informovala o událostech 21. srpna 1969’ [‘How CST Informed about the Events of 21 August 1969’], IIB CˇT No. 7–9: 24–25 Ru˚žicˇka, D. (2005), Major Zeman – propaganda nebo krimi? Zákulisí vzniku seriálu [Major Zeman – Propaganda or A Crime Series? Backstage of the Series’ Creation], Prague: Práh Ru˚žicˇka, D. (2015a), ‘Cˇs. televize v érˇe Jana Zelenky’ [‘Czechoslovak Television in Jan Zelenka’s Era’], in Beránek 2015: I: 73–75, II: 127–131, III: 197–201 Ru˚žicˇka, D. (2015b), ‘Sametová revoluce v Cˇeskoslovenské televizi’ [‘Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovak Television’], in Beránek 2015: 287–289 Ru˚žicˇka, D. – Šustrová-Horcˇicˇková, J. (2014), Každý den jsem meˇla premiéru – Prˇíbeˇh první televizní hlasatelky [Every Day Was My Premiere—Story of the First Female TV Presenter], Prague: JaS Rychlík, J. (2015), ‘Každodennost v Cˇeskoslovensku v období tzv. normalizace’ [‘Everyday Life in Czechoslovakia during the So-Called Normalization Period’], in Pažout, J. (ed) 2015: 34–47 Šabata, J. (1994), ‘Masarykova Nová Evropa’. [‘Masaryk’s New Europe’], in Masaryk 1918/1994: 15–50 Šafránek, J. (1935), Curriculum vitae, Prague: self-published, printed on his own expense Šafránek, J. (1936), Televise [Television], Prague: Radioobchod Šafránek, J. (1937–1938), ‘Milion posluchacˇu˚ rozhlasu a co dále?’ [‘One Million of Radio Listeners and What Comes Next?’], Special Issue of Osveˇta venkova, 1 (3) Šaman, E. F. (1934), ‘Televise, fata morgana a straky na vrbeˇ’ [‘Television, A Mirage and a Pulled Leg’], Radioamatér N. 9, 1934 Schlegel, H. J. (1999) Die subversive Kamera: zur anderen Realität in mittel- und osteuropäischen Dokumentarfilm [Subversive Camera: the Other Reality in Documentary Film of Central and Eastern Europe], Stuttgart-Konstanz: Haus des Dokumentarfilm Seger, J. (1978), Televize – dílo generací [Television – Work of Generations], Prague 1978: NDAS Šimecˇka, M. (1984/1992), Kruhová obrana [Circular Defense], Cologne: Index; Prague: Archa Singer, A. (1938), ‘O televisním vysílání’ [‘On Television Broadcasting’], Cˇeskoslovenská pošta – telegraf – telefon, No. 6, June Skopal, P. (2012), Naplánovaná kinematografie. Cˇeský filmový pru˚mysl 1945 až 1960 [Planned Cinematography. Czech Film Industry 1945 to 1960], Prague: Academia Skopal, P. (2014), Filmová kultura severního trojúhelníku. Filmy, kina a diváci cˇeských zemí, NDR a Polska 1945–1970 [Film Culture of the Northern Triangle. Films, Cinemas and Spectators from the Czech Lands, East Germany and Poland 1945–1970], Brno: Host Skopal, P. (ed.) (2016), Trˇi orˇíšky pro Popelku [Three Wishes for Cinderella], Prague: NFA Slezák, J. (1934), ‘Prohlédli jste si dobrˇe veletrh?’ [‘Did You See the Trade Fair Well?’], Radioamatér, No. 10: 125 Šmíd, M. (1989), Televize ve sveˇteˇ [Television in the World], Prague: CˇST Šmíd M. (2002), ‘Desetiletí Cˇeské televize’ [‘Ten Years of Czech Television’], in: Prvních deset let Cˇeské televize [The First Decade of Czech Television], Prague: CˇT

254

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Šmíd, M. (2012), ‘Když byla televize v plenkách’ [‘When the Television Was in Nappies’], in www.louc.cz, (accessed 8 February 2016). Šmíd, M. (2015), ‘Cˇeskoslovenská televize a její role v procesu politické zmeˇny 1989’ [‘Czechoslovak Television and Its Role in the Process of Political Change in 1989’], in Kanˇka–Kofránková-Mayerová–Štoll, M. 2015: 99–107 Smola, J. (1990), ‘Pru˚kopníci ze severu. Tanvald – rodišteˇ cˇeskoslovenské televize’ [‘Pioneers from the North. Tanvald – The Birthplace of Czechoslovak Television.’], in Rudé právo, March 28, 1990 Stadtrucker, I. (2015), Dejiny Slovenskej televízie [A History of Slovak Television], Bratislava: Perfekt Štoll, M. (ed.) (2009), Cˇeský film. Režisérˇi-­dokumentaristé [Czech Film. DirectorsDocumentarists], Prague: Libri Štoll, M. (2011), 1. 5. 1953 – Zahájení televizního vysílání. Zrození televizního národa [May 1, 1953 – The Launch of Television Broadcasting. The Birth of a Television Nation], Prague: Havran Štoll, M. (2013a), ‘Televise? Prˇísneˇ tajné! Zahájení vysílání jako státní zájem’ [‘Television? Top Secret! Broadcasting as a State Interest’], Deˇjiny a soucˇasnost N. 5, Prague Štoll, M. (2013b), Trˇi podoby televize [Three Faces of Television], Prague: Literární akademie Štoll, M. (2014a), ‘Hájení skoncˇilo. Prvních trˇi sta dnu˚ televize’ [‘Protection Has Finished. First Three Hundred Days of Television’], Deˇjiny a soucˇasnost No. 2, Prague: 42–44 Štoll, M. (2014b) ‘Investicˇní úkol 622/55. Výstavba televize v Bratislaveˇ’ [‘Investment Scheme 622/55. The Construction of Television in Bratislava’], Kino-Ikon No. 2, Bratislava: 238–251 Štoll, M. (2016), ‘Dýchej! aneb odkaz povratné kamery v dokumentárním filmu zemí východního bloku.’ [‘Breathe!’ or the Legacy of ‘Subversive Camera’ in the Documentary Film of the Eastern Bloc Countries], in: Kopal 2016: 98–112 Štoll, M. (2018a), ‘Sveˇdomí a tendencˇnost, tehdy a dnes. Dveˇ tvárˇe Prˇemysla Freimana’. [Consciousness and Tendency, Then and Today. Two Faces of Prˇemysl Freiman], in: Kopal 2018 Štoll, M. (2018b), ‘Televizní a rozhlasové vysílání pro deˇti a mládež’. [Television and Radio Broadcasting for Children and Youth], in Knapík – Franc 2018 Strasmajer, V. (1973), Cesta k divákovi. 20 let Cˇeskoslovenské televize [A Journey towards the Viewer. 20 Years of Czechoslovak Television], Prague: CST Strasmajer, V. (1978), Historie televize v Cˇeskoslovensku I. [A History of Television in Czechoslovakia I.], Prague: UK – SPN Suchý, O. (1999), ‘Vzpomínky na budování televize v letech 1951–1954’ [‘Memories of Developing Television in 1951–1954’], Deˇjiny veˇdy a techniky, No. 6., Prague: NTM: 91–95 Šustrová, P. – Mlejnek, jr. J. (2012), Zaostrˇeno na komunismus [Focus on Communism], Prague: Nadacˇní fond angažovaných nestraníku˚ v Euroslavica. Švec, L. (2013), Perestrojka, pobaltské republiky a Cˇeskoslovensko 1988–1991 [Perestroika, the Baltic States and Czechoslovakia 1988–1991], Prague: Dokorˇán Švec, L. – Macura, V. – Štoll, P. (1996), Deˇjiny pobaltských zemí [A History of the Baltic States], Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny Svejkovský, J. (2010), Cˇas marných nadeˇjí. Roky 1968 a 1969 ve zpravodajství CˇST

BIBLIOGRAPHY

255

[Time of Vain Hopes. Years 1968 and 1969 in CST News Coverage.], Prague: Epocha Švihálek, M. (2005), Padesát let televizního studia Ostrava [Fify Years of the Ostrava Television Studio], Ostrava: CˇT Švorcová, J. (1983), ‘Zasloužilá umeˇlkyneˇ Jirˇina Švorcová’ [‘The Honoured Artist Jirˇina Švorcová’], in Tisíc tvárˇí televize Szczepanik, P. (2009): Konzervy se slovy. Pocˇátky zvukového filmu a cˇeská mediální kultura 30. let [Tin Cans Containing Words. The Beginnings of Sound Film and Czech Media Culture in the 1930s], Brno: Host Taylor, R. (1979/1998), Film propaganda. Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. London – New York: I. B. Tauris Publishers Teige, K. (1925), Film. [Film], Prague: Nakladatelství Václava Petra. Tesár, I. (1983), ‘. . . ocˇima sociologa’ [‘. . . through the Eyes of a Sociologist’], in Tisíc tvárˇí televize Tesár, I. (ed.) (1978), Televizní výkladový slovník. I., II., III. [Television Encyclopaedia I., II., III.] Prague: CˇST Tisíc tvárˇí televize (cˇtení o televizi) (1983) [A Thousand Faces of Television (Reading about Television)], Prague: Panorama Tomeš, J. (1999), Cˇeský biografický slovník 20. století [A Czech Biographical Dictionary of the 20th Century] vol. I. – III., Prague: Paseka – Petr Meissner Tomsa, M. (1959), Zázraky televize [The Miracles of Television], Prague: Práce Töröková, Z. (2013), Hudobno-­slovné relácie pre deti a mládež v Slovenskej televízii v Bratislave [Music and the Spoken Word Broadcasts for Children and Juveniles on Slovak Television in Bratislava], Bratislava: Petrus Publishers Vávra, O. (1996), Podivný život režiséra [The Peculiar Life of a Film Director], Prague: Prostor Vorácˇ, J. (2004), Cˇeský film v exilu. Kapitoly z deˇjin po roce 1968 [Czech Film in Exile. Chapters on History after 1968], Brno: Host Vrabec, J. (1977), Organizace televizní tvorby – Základní vývoj podmínek tvorby a výroby programu v prvních patnácti letech cˇinnosti Cˇeskoslovenské televize [The Organization of Television Production – The Basic Developments of the Producing and Programming Conditions in the First Fifteen Years of Czechoslovak Television], Prague: SPN Wanatowiczová, K. (2004), ‘Tvárˇe Husákovy televize’ [“The Faces of Husák’s Television”], in Týden No. 44: 18–24 Zelenka, J. (1983a), ‘K jubileu na slovícˇko se svými diváky’ [‘Making an Anniversary: a Few Words to Our Viewers’], Cˇeskoslovenská televize, No. 18 Zelenka, J. (1983b), ‘Chceme, aby divák meˇl rád svou televizi’ [‘We Want the Viewer to Like His TV’], in Tisíc tvárˇí televize Žácˇek, P. (2003), ‘StB versus CˇST’ [‘StB versus CST’] I. (4/2003), II. (5/2003) III. (6/2003: 23–24), IV. (7–9/2003: 28–29), V (10/2003), VI. (11/2003: 13–14), IIB CˇT, Prague: CˇT

Contemporary press Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae, A–Zet, Cinepur, Cˇeské slovo, Cˇeskoslovenská pošta – telegraf – telefon, Cˇeskoslovenský rozhlas a televise, Cˇs. Radiosveˇt, Deˇjiny a

256

BIBLIOGRAPHY

soucˇasnost, Deˇjiny veˇdy a techniky, Filmové a televizní noviny, Iluminace, Interní informacˇní bulettin CˇT, Kino-Ikon, Kurýr, Lidové noviny, Lidový deník, Lípa, Listy, Literární noviny, Mediální studia, Národní listy, Osveˇta venkova, Pameˇt’ a deˇjiny, Poštovní listy, Poštovní obzor, Poštovní úrˇedník, Poštovní zameˇstnanec, Právo lidu, Prˇítomnost, Radio a televise, Radioamatér, Radiojournal, Radioobchod, Severocˇeský deník Liberec, Soudobé deˇjiny, Sveˇt mluví, Synchron, Technický magazín, Televise, Televizní tvorba, Tvorba, Týden, Týden rozhlasu, Týdeník televize, Vecˇerník Praha, Venkov, Veˇstník Ministerstva dopravy, Veˇstník Ministerstva pošt a telegrafu˚

SOURCES OF PICTURES

Owners of photograph rights Archives and Programme Collections of CT (APF CT) Archives of Charles University (AUK) Archives of FEBIO Archives of Jirˇí Svejkovský Archives of Martin Štoll (AMŠ) Archives of the Postal Museum Prague Archives of Vladislav Bubeník Oldrˇich Cetl Jirˇina Cynibulková Jirˇí Cˇ ervený Vlasta Gronská P. Hodan Karel Ješátko Jaromír Komárek Malá Skála Publishing House (Martin Štoll) Ivan Minárˇ Prˇiba Mrázová Jindrˇich Panácˇek M. Peterka Miroslav Pospíšil Miloš Schmiedberger J. Šimek V. Šimek Ivan Štoll Martin Štoll Tanvald City Archive Jaroslav Trousil Josef Vítek All enquiries regarding the photo rights should be directed to the Malá Skála Publishing House (CZ) or to the author.

Prof. Martin Štoll, Ph.D. (born in Prague, 1973 – in Czechoslovakia) is a Czech documentary director, historian and theoretician of film and television. He graduated from the Film Faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague (FAMU, 2001), where he also taught. He has worked for Czech Television, and was Principal of the Literary Academy (The Josef Škvorecký Private College). He is the author of fifty-five documentary films and a number of publications on Czech and East-European cinema. He has lectured at universities in Finland, Poland, Great Britain and Slovakia, where he was appointed Professor of Film and Multimedia at the Film Faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts in Bratislava (VŠMU, 2017). He currently teaches at the Faculty of Social Sciences at Charles University in Prague, the Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism.

INDEX

17. listopad a studentská soucˇasnost [‘November 17 and Student Reality’] 191 60 let KSCˇ [‘60 Years of the CzCP’] 199 60 Years of the CzCP [‘60 let KSCˇ ’] 199 Adamec, Jirˇ í (TV director) 164 Adamec, Ladislav (Czech Prime Minister) 229 Adventures of Criminalistics [‘Dobrodružství kriminalistiky’] 206 Aktualita [‘Current Affair’] 121 Aktuální otázky rozvoje naší spolecˇnosti [‘Current Questions on the Development of Our Society’] 198 Albright, Madeleine (US Secretary of State of Czech origin) 229 Alexander Dumas Senior [‘Alexander Dumas starší’] 206 Alexander Dumas starší [‘Alexander Dumas Senior’] 206 All the Rivers Run 218 All Their Sons [‘Všichni jejich synové’] 199 American Tragedy 217 Amundsen, Roald (polar explorer) 48 Andropov, Yuri Vladimirovich (RussianSoviet leader) 224 Anticharta [‘Anti-Charter’] 223, 243 Anti-Charter [‘Anticharta’] 223, 243 Arabela 207, 243 Archivy z jezera [‘Lake Archives’] 172 Ardenn, Manfred (German technician) 37 Armstrong, Louis (American singer) 154 Arnošt, Frydrych (TV technician) 187

Aškenazy, Ludvík (Czech writer) 118 August Pastoral [‘Srpnové pastorale’] 191 Bad Blood [‘Zlá krev’] 206 Baird, John Logie (Scottish TV inventor) xxi, 33, 37, 43, 48, 54, 68 Balaj, Ivan (TV technician) 181 Bareš, Gustav (the CC CzCP ideologue) 150 Bass, Eduard (Czech writer) 157 Baštýrˇ , Alfred (Czech filmmaker and radio amateur) 29 Bat’a (Bata), Jan Antonín (Czech businessman) xxi, 25, 37–38 Bat’a (Bata), Tomáš (Czech businessman) xxi, 24, 37 Batlicˇka, Otakar (radioamateur and writer) 29 Batrla, Libor (8th CST chief executive) 227, 228, 229 Beautiful Losses’ [‘Krásný ztráty’] 229 Beaton, Sam (Scottish film theorist) 216 Becher, Johannes Robert (German poet) 130 Bednarˇ ík, Josef (Czech radio technician) 69, 72, 77, 78 Bednarˇ ík, Petr (Czech media scholar and historian) xvii, 3, 4, 98, 163, 201, 211, 214, 224 Bednárˇ ová, Otta (TV journalist) 160, 169, 170, 176, 182, 192, 223 Bedtime Story [‘Vecˇernícˇek’] 156 Beˇhounek, František (Czech physicist and polar explorer) 48 Beˇlka, Jirˇ í (TV director) 164 Belmondo, Jean Paul (French actor) 218 Benˇa, Josef (Czech technician in MPT) 51, 56, 77

262

INDEX

Beneš, Edvard (2nd President of Czechoslovakia) 15, 23, 65, 95, 96, 176 Beníšková, Otýlie (Czech actress) 131 Beran, Rudolf (Prime Minister of Czechoslovakia) 44 Bernášková, Alena (Czech actress) 150 Between Us [‘Mezi námi’] 160 Big Brother xix Bílá kniha [‘White Book’] 186 Bílek, Petr A. (Czech literary theoretician) 4, 200 Birds of Passage [‘Tažní ptáci’] 216 Bittman, Ladislav (Czech security agent) 171, 172 Black Channel [‘Schwarzer Kanal’] 88 Bláha, Zdeneˇk (Czech journalist) 170 Blažejovský, Jaromír (Czech film theoretician) 4, 213 Blažek, Petr (Czech historian) 187 Blažek, Vratislav (Czech screenplay writer) 118 Blumenfeld, Pavel (Czech TV and film director) 150 Bohdalová, Jirˇ ina (Czech actress) 204 Boš, Antonín (Czech chronicler) 156 Bouz, Jaroslav (Czech TV journalist) 138 Brabec, Vladimír (Czech actor) 200 Branislav, Vladimír (Czech TV journalist) 160, 161, 171, 172, 176, 182, 187, 192, 235 Branky, body, sekundy [‘Goals, Points, Seconds’] 155 Branky, body, vterˇiny [‘Goals, Points, Seconds’] 155 Brashinsky, Michael (Russian film critic) 224 Braun, Karl Ferdinand (German physicist and inventor) 34, 48, 67, 68, 70 Brejchová, Jana (Czech actor) 217 Bren, Paulina (American media theoretician and historian) 3, 213 Brezhnev, Leonid Ilych (RussianUkrainian-Soviet leader) 16, 173, 178, 180, 186, 191, 196, 199, 224, 242

Briggs, Asa (British historian) 20 Brˇ incˇil, Jaroslav (Czech TV economist) 165, 168 Brˇ íza, Josef (Czech MPT technician) 33, 52, 53 58 Brodský, Vlastimil (Czech actor) 210 Brontë, Charlotte (English writer) 206 Bru˚na, Otakar (Czech journalist) 102 Brzobohatý, Radoslav (Czech actor) 210 Bubeník, Vladislav (Czech technician) 73, 74, 79 Bubílková, Zuzana (Slovak TV journalist) 238 Burda, Alois (Czech radio amateur) 33 Burda, František (Czech radio amateur) 38 Búrlivé leto [‘Stormy Summer’] 143 Bush, George H. W. (41st President of the USA) 233 Busse, Ernst (German technician) 67, 68 Byl jednou jeden du˚m [‘There Was Once a House’] 205 Cˇábelová, Lenka (Czech radio theoretician) 27 Cajthaml, Petr (Czech historian and archivist) 17 Can I Have My Say? [‘Mohu do toho mluvit?’] 160 Canvass [‘Kanafas’] 238 Cˇapek, Josef (Czech painter and writer) 23 Cˇapek, Karel (Czech writer, journalist and playwright) 21, 23 Carpentier-Reifová, Irena (Czech theorist of media and popular culture) 4, 211, 214 Causa Jan Masaryk [‘The Jan Masaryk Case’] 191 Cˇech, Vladimír (Czech film director) 117 Cˇechová, Heda (Czech TV presenter) 160, 182 Cˇepicˇka, Alexej (Czech defense minister) 104 Cˇermák, Antonín (Czech mayor of Chicago) 24 Cˇerný, Otakar (Czech TV sport journalist) 238

INDEX

Cˇervený, Jirˇí (Czech photographer) 229 Cˇesálková, Lucie (Czech film historian and theoretician) 4, 162 Cˇeskoslovensko – rok zkoušek [‘Czechoslovakia—the Year of Trials’] 191 Cˇeskoslovenský filmový týdeník [‘Czechoslovak Film Weekly’] 132 Cesta do praveˇku [‘Journey to the Beginning of Time’] 105 Cetl, Oldrˇ ich (Czech photographer) 136, 147, 158 Chalupa, Jirˇ í (Czech TV screenplay writer) 162 Chalupárˇi [‘The Cottagers’] 204, 205 Chamberlain, Neville (British Prime Minister) 19 Charous, Vít (Czech TV archivist) 17 Charter 77 Proclamation [‘Prohlášení Charty 77’] 17, 172, 192, 196, 222, 223, 226 Chaun, Igor (Czech TV director) 236 Chekov, Anton Pavlovich (Russian writer, short-­story writer and playwright) 133 Chernenko, Konstantin Ustinovich (Russian-Soviet leader) 224 Choice of Occupation [‘Volba povolání’] 169, 176 Chronicle of Our Life [‘Kronika našeho života’] 199 Chytilová, Veˇra (Czech film director) 37, 154 Cˇicˇatka, Oldrˇ ich (Czech TV technician) 181 Cikán, Miloslav (Czech film director) 118 Cˇím žije náš kraj [‘What’s on in Our Region’] 140 Cˇinátl, Kamil (Czech historian) 4, 12, 192 Circus Humberto 208, 243 Ciszewska, Ewa (Polish film historian and theoretician) xviii Civic Education [‘Obcˇanská výchova’] 175 Civil Case [‘Civilní prˇ e’] 170 Civilní prˇe [‘Civil Case’] 170

263

Co ted’ a co potom [‘What Now? And Then What?’] 236 Co týden dal [‘Events of the Week’] 238 Comenius – Komenský, Jan Ámos (Czech educationalist and philosopher) 187 Comissaire Moulin 218 Comment on the Day – Relay Race of TV Journalists [‘Slovo ke dni – Štafeta televizních publicistu˚’] 187, 188 Complementary Classes [‘Doplnˇovací lekce’] 175 Confession [‘Vyznání’] 198 Connelly, John (American historian) 10 Contact [‘Kontakt’] 227 Cˇornej, Petr (Czech historian) xvii Courtship in a High Class Family, or The Black Cat [‘Námluvy v lepší rodineˇ aneb Cˇerná kocˇka’] 137 Cˇtrnáctý, Miloš (Czech film businessman and co-­owner of Radiojournal) 27 Cˇtvrtník, Pavel (Czech historian) 59 Cˇulík, Jan (Czech-British literary translator, historian, theoretician) xviii, 3, 211, 212 Cˇurˇ íková, Olga (Czech TV presenter) 181, 182 Curious Camera [‘Zveˇdavá kamera’] 160, 161, 163, 169, 171, 172, 173, 176, 192, 235 Current Affair [‘Aktualita’] 121 Current Questions on the Development of Our Society [‘Aktuální otázky rozvoje naší spolecˇnosti’] 198 Cynibulková, Jirˇ ina (Czech photographer) 198 Cysarˇ ová, Jarmila (Czech TV journalist and historian) 3, 17, 117, 128, 135, 148, 149, 150, 160, 163, 165, 168, 169, 173, 174, 175, 176, 182, 185, 186, 186, 188, 192, 193, 197, 222, 228 Czechoslovak Film Weekly [‘Cˇeskoslovenský filmový týdeník’] 132 Czechoslovakia—the Year of Trials [‘Cˇeskoslovensko – rok zkoušek’] 191

264

INDEX

Daisies above Brno [‘Sedmikrásky nad Brnem’] 140 Dalai Lama 233 Dalibor 185 Dallas 235 Daneˇk, Julius (Czech TV technician) 181 Danˇek, Oldrˇ ich (Czech TV scriptwriter) 216 Daneš, Ladislav (Czech TV journalist) 116, 128, 160, 165, 175, 187 De Mol, John (Dutch TV producer and presenter) 19 Deˇlník Viktor Puškarjov [‘Viktor Pushkariov, Workman’] 199 Delon, Alain (French actor) 218 Dempsey and Makepeace 218 Deren, Maya (American film director and experimenter) 23 Devadesát deveˇt podpisu˚ [‘Ninety-­nine Signatures’] 191 Dietl, Jaroslav (Czech TV screenplay writer) 13, 157, 164, 198, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216 Dimbleby, Richard (British journalist and TV News commentator) 19 Disman, Miloslav (Czech radio director) 101 Dispecˇer [‘The Dispatcher’] 213 Dispute [‘Spor’] 172 Dnes v jednom domeˇ [‘Today in One House’] 205 Dnevnik [‘The Daily’] (Yugoslavia) 87 Dobiáš, Václav (Czech music composer) 120 Dobrá voda [‘Good Water’] 205 Dobrodružství kriminalistiky [‘Adventures of Criminalistics’] 206 Doctor from the Reserved Property [‘Doktor z vejminku’] 205 Dohnálek, Jarmil (Czech technician) 80 Doktor z vejminku [‘Doctor from the Reserved Property’] 205 Dominik, Šimon (Czech film historian) 4 Don’t GiveUp [‘Nedej se’] 238 Doplnˇovací lekce [‘Complementary Classes’] 175 Dostavenícˇko s prˇáteli [‘Rendezvous with Friends’] 199

Dovolená s Andeˇlem [‘Holiday with Angel’] 120 Down the Hunting Paths [‘Po loveckých stezkách’] 141 Drdová, Zita (Czech TV dramaturge and screenplay writer) 165 Dreyfusova aféra [‘The Dreyfus Affair’] 158 Drtikol, František (Czech owner of publishing house) xvii Drtikol, František (Czech photographer) 23 Duba, Cˇeneˇk (Czech film director) 118 Dubcˇek, Alexander (Slovak politician) 16, 154, 177, 178, 180, 188, 228 Dudek, Jaroslav (Czech TV director) 13, 158, 164, 212, 214 Dudková, Jana (Czech TV screenplay writer) 165 Duffy, Erin (American editor of Bloomsbury Publishing) xviii Du˚m ve Vladislavoveˇ ulici aneb historie Meˇšt’anské besedy [‘The house in Vladislavova Street or the history of The Burgher Hall’] 202 Durdil, Richard (Czech journalist) 55 Dva roky na slamníku [‘Two Years on the Palliasse’] 176 Dva tisíce slov [‘Two Thousand Words’] 177 Dvorˇ ák, Petr (Czech TV NOVA and later CT chief executive) xvii Dvorˇ ák, Vladimír (Czech screenplay writer and actor) 204 Dynastie Nováku˚ [‘The Novák Dynasty’] 205 Economic Notebook [‘Hospodárˇ ský zápisník’] 224 Ein Kessel Buntes 203, 204 Eliáš, Alois (Czech Prime Minister during the times of Protectorate of Bohemia nad Moravia) 65 Eliáš, Ludeˇk (Czech television technician)184 Eliška a její rod [‘Eliška and Her Family’] 157

INDEX

Eliška and Her Family [‘Eliška a její rod’] 154 Embarrassment of Cook Svatopluk [‘Rozpaky kucharˇ e Svatopluka’] 205 Erhart, Gustav (Czech TV archivist) xvii Erlich, J. (Czech technician in MIO) 98 Ernest, Adolf (Czech chemist and chairman of CS Radio Union) 43, 44, 61 Eugene Onegin 132 European Boxing Championship 138 Events of the Week [‘Co týden dal’] 238 Eye to Eye [‘Z ocˇí do ocˇí’] 238 F. L. Veˇk 208, 209, 210, 243 Fairaizl, Jindrˇ ich (Czech TV journalist and 10th CST chief executive) 165, 182, 187, 235 Färber, Matthias (German TV experimenter) 40 Fatka, Maxmilián (Czech minister of the Post Office) 59 Feldstein, Valter (Czech TV programme manager) 144, 162, 163, 165 Fenicˇ, Fero (Slovak-Czech film director and producer) 237, 238 Festival politické písneˇ Sokolov [‘Political Song Festival in Sokolov’] 199 Filip, František (Czech TV director) 157, 163, 164, 205, 210, 216, 217 Filipovský, František (Czech actor) 119, 120 First-­time Election [‘Poprvé k volbám’] 176 Foglar, Jaroslav (Czech writer) 158 Fojtík, Miroslav (Czech TV cameraman) 182 Forman, Miloš (Czech-American Film director, Oscar winner) 154 Franc, Martin (Czech historian) 4, 245, 246 Franke, Emil (Czech minister of the Post Office) 59 Free Tribune [‘Volná tribuna’] 203 Freiman, Prˇ emysl (Czech film and TV director and programme manager) 165

265

Fricˇ, Martin (Czech film and TV director) 118, 159 Friends of the Green Valley [‘Prˇ átelé zeleného údolí’] 141 From A Counter-­revolutionary’s Diary [‘Z deníku kontrarevolucionárˇ e’] 222 Funés, Louis de (French actor) 218 Funny Work [‘Smeˇšná práce’] 102 Gabcˇík, Jozef (Slovak soldier, who participated in ‘Heydrich’s assassination’) 66 Gagarin, Yuri (Soviet astronaut) 89, 166 Gajer, Václav (Czech film and TV director) 118 Gallof, Katie (American editor of Bloomsbury Publishing) xviii Galuška, Jan (Czech director of the Post office Museum) xvii, 59 GEN – Elite National Gallery [‘GEN – Galerie elity národa’] 238 GEN – Galerie elity národa [‘GEN – Elite National Gallery’] 238 Gimboš, ? (Czech TV driver) 181 Ginsberg, Allan (American poet) 154 Girotti, Mario (pseudonym Terrence Hill) (Italian actor) 218 Glas, Martin (Czech TV technician) 121, 132 Glazarová, Jarmila (Czech writer) 118 Goals, Points, Seconds [‘Branky, body, vterˇ iny’]/[‘Branky, body, sekundy’] 155 Gogol, Nikolai Vasilievich (Russian playwright and writer) 132 Goldstücker, Eduard (Czech politican and literary scholar) 154, 175 Good Soldier Švejk [‘Osudy dobrého vojáka Švejka’] 23 Good Water [‘Dobrá voda’] 205 Gorbachev, Mikhail Sergeyevich (Russian-Soviet leader) 17, 196, 224, 230, 243 Gorky, Maxim (Russian and Soviet writer and playwright) 132 Gott, Karel (Czech pop singer) 92

266

INDEX

Gottwald [‘Gottwald’] 199 Gottwald, Klement (4th President of Czechoslovakia) 15, 38, 95, 96, 104, 112, 130, 140, 199 Gradov, Grigori Yakovlevich (Soviet playwright) 102 Gronská, Vlasta (Czech photographer) 201 Grygar, Jirˇ í (Czech physicist and astronomer) 218 Habersberger, Rudolf (Czech politician) 43 Hackenschmied, Alexander (Hammid) 23 Hádková, Jana (Czech film historian and theoretician) xvii Hamerník, Vlastimil (Czech TV cameraman) 237 Hammid, Sasha (Hackenschmied) (Czech-American photographer, film director and editor) 23 Hanicˇincová, Šteˇpánka (Czech TV actress and TV idol) 162 Hanzelka, Jirˇ í (Czech traveler and writer) 174, 180 Hartman, Dr. (German journalist) 51, 52 Hašek, Jaroslav (Czech writer) 23 Havel, Miloš (Czech film producer) 24 Havel, Václav (Czech playwright, dissident and 9th president of Czechoslovakia and 1st President of the Czech Republic) xxi, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 21, 24, 186, 192, 195, 196, 215, 222, 223, 226, 227, 228, 229, 229, 230, 233, 239 Havlícˇek, Dušan (Czech journalist) 165 Havlová, Olga (Czech humanitarian worker and wife of Václav Havel) 215 Hejzlar, Zdeneˇk (Czech bus driver) 156 Heroes of the Moment [‘Hrdinové okamžiku’] 133 Heydrich, Reinhard (German Nazi politician, SS and police general) 65, 66 Heyrovský, Jaroslav (Czech chemist, Nobel Prize Winner) 23

Hill, Terrence (pseudonym of Mario Girotti) (Italian actor) 218 Hitler, Adolf (Austrian and German Nazi Leader) 15, 28, 65 Hladký, Miroslav (Czech TV director and theoretician) 191 Hlavatý, Josef (Czech worker who immolated himself) 187 Hlavica, Marek (Czech film and TV historian and theoretician) 4, 142, 217 Hlinková, Veˇra (Czech TV dramaturgy) 181 Hodan, P. (Czech photographer) 209 Hofer, Jan (German journalist and TV presenter) 19 Holecˇek, František (Czech radio and TV experimenter and inventor) 41, 42, 43, 49 Holecˇek, Jaroslav (Czech TV cameraman) 182 Holiday with Angel [‘Dovolená s Andeˇlem’] 120 Holubec, Vít (Czech sports TV journalist) 137, 182 Holý, Stanislav (Czech painter) 209 Hondlík, Jaroslav (Czech political deputy in CST) 171 Horáková, Milada (Czech lawyer and victim of political trials in Czechoslovakia) 10, 105 Hornícˇek, Miroslav (Czech actor, writer and playwright) 132 Horse versus Horse [‘Ku˚nˇ versus ku˚nˇ’] 170 Horton, Andrew(American professor of Literature and Film) 224 Hospodárˇský zápisník [‘Economic Notebook’] 224 Hovorˇíme o záveˇrech XV. sjezdu KSCˇ [‘Speaking of the Conclusions from the 15th CzCP Congress’] 199 Hovory s lidmi [‘Talks with People’] 187 How Are You, What Are You Up to? [‘Jak se máte-­co deˇláte?’] 187 Hozák, Jan (Czech historian and archivist) xvii Hrabal, Bohumil (Czech writer) 154

INDEX

Hrabánková, Veˇra (Czech TV journalist and presenter) 184 Hradecký, Adolf (3rd CST chief executive) 167, 242 Hradecký, Jirˇ í (Czech TV journalist) 181 Hrajeme si každý den [‘Let’s Play Every Day’] 141 Hrdinové okamžiku [‘Heroes of the Moment’] 133 Hrˇíchy pro pátera Knoxe [‘Sins for Father Knox’] 236 Hrˇíšní lidé meˇsta pražského [‘The Sinful People of the City of Prague’] 120, 158, 243 Hubacˇ, Jirˇ í (Czech playwright and TV screenplay writer) 157, 164, 216, 217 Hubácˇek, Karel (Czech architect) 218 Hudba z respiria [‘Music from the Respirium’] 216 Hunting without Weapons [‘Lovy beze zbraní’] 141, 162 Husák, Gustáv (Slovak politician, 8th President of Czechoslovakia) xx, xxi, 169, 188, 190, 194, 195, 230 Hužera, Jaroslav (Czech film and TV director) 191 Ikaru˚v pád [‘The Fall of Icarus’] 216, 217 Ilk, Mário (Czech TV journalist) 181, 182 In Aid of the Attorney-General [‘Na pomoc generální prokuraturˇ e’] 176 Indifference Charged [‘Obžalovaná je lhostejnost’] 160 Inspection [‘Kontrola’] 176 Inženýrská odyssea [‘The Engineer Odyssey’] 213 Jak se máte – co deˇláte? [‘How Are You, What Are You Up to?’] 187 Jana Eyrová [‘Jane Eyre’] 206 Janácˇek, Leoš (Czech composer) 23 Jane Eyre [‘Jana Eyrová’] 26 Jarchovský, Petr (Czech screenplay writer) 236

267

Jaroslav Šafránek – Television Visionary [‘Vizionárˇ televize Jaroslav Šafránek’] xvii Jedlicˇka, Antonín (Czech actor) 162 Jehla [‘The Needle’] 216 Ješátko, Karel (Czech photographer) 159 Ješutová, Eva (Czech Radio historian and archivist) xvii Jirák, Jan (Czech media theoretician) xvii, 3, 4, 162, 163 Jirásek, Alois (Czech author and playwright) 132, 208 John Paul II. (Polish Pope) 224, 233 Jordánová, Veˇra (Czech TV director) 164, 208 Journey to the Beginning of Time [‘Cesta do praveˇku’] 105 Jsme s vámi, bud’te s námi [‘We Are with You, Be with Us’] 187 Jurásková, Alena (Czech screenplay writer) 209 Just an Ordinary Family [‘Taková normální rodinka’] 205 Kábrt, Oldrˇ ich (Czech TV cameraman) 182 Kafka, Franz (Prague German writer) xxi, 23 Kalous, Jan (Czech historian) 189 Kam speˇjeme? [‘Where are We Going?’] 175 Kamelot [‘Newsboy’] 226 Kámen, nu˚žky, papír [‘Rock-­paperscissors’] 142 Kanafas [‘Canvass’] 238 Kantu˚rek, Jirˇ í (Czech TV journalist and 11th CST chief executive) 160, 175, 181, 182, 185, 187, 235 Kantu˚rková, Eva (Czech writer and playwright) 236 Kapek, Antonín (Czech politician) 180 Kapoun, Josef (Czech technician) 43, 48, 71, 72, 77 Karmen, Roman (Soviet film director) 218 Kašlík, Václav (Czech film director) 150

268

INDEX

Kdo je Václav Havel? [‘Who Is Václav Havel?’] 222 Kejhová, Alena (Czech TV journalist) 181 Kemr, Josef (Czech actor) 205 Khrushchev, Nikita (Soviet leader) 16, 153 Kincl, Jaromír (Czech TV journalist) 176 Klapzuba’s Eleven [‘Klapzubova jedenáctka’] 157 Klapzubova jedenáctka [‘Klapzuba’s Eleven’] 157 Klimeš, Ivan (Czech film historian) 4 Klindera, Ferdinand (Czech agrarian politician) 44, 46 Klos, Elmar (Film director, Oscar winner) 38, 117, 118 Klub Netopýr [‘The Bat Club’] 238 Knapík, Jirˇ í (Czech historian) xvii, 4, 97, 150, 245, 246 Kohout, Karel (1st CST chief executive) 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 125, 148, 181, 242 Kohout, Pavel (Czech writer and playwright) 118, 172, 174, 180, 196, 222 Kokeš, Radomír D. (Czech film theoretician) 4 Kolárˇ , Pavel (Czech-Italian historian) 6, 9, 10 Kolesnikov, Alexandr (Czech technician) 77, 78 Kolja [‘Kolya’] 216 Kolya [‘Kolja’] 216 Komárek, Jaromír (Czech photographer) 200 Komárek, Valtr (Czech politician) 228, 229 Komenský, Jan Ámos (Comenius) (Czech philosopher) 187 Konárková, Michaela (Czech translator) xviii Koncˇelík, Jakub (Czech media historian) 3, 4 Konev, Ivan Stepanovich (Soviet military commander) 69 Konrád, Karel (Czech writer) 118 Kontakt [‘Contact’] 227

Kontrola [‘Inspection’] 176 Kopal, Petr (Czech historian) 3, 211 Kopecký, Václav (Czech Minister of Information) 97, 110, 111, 112, 113, 116, 144 Köpplová, Barbara (Czech media historian) 3, 4, 162, 163, 171 Korda, Jakub (Czech film and TV theoretician and historian) 4, 236 Košcˇo, Ján (Slovak TV historian) 3, 143, 220 Kotek, Petr (Czech film and TV director) 228, 230 Koutná, Libuše (Czech TV director) 164 Kovácˇ, Michal (Slovak politician and later President of the Slovak Republic) 239 Kovács, Antonín (Czech TV cameraman) 191 Kožík, František (Czech writer and playwright) 118 Kramárˇ , Jan (Czech historian of Post Office and archivist) xvii Krapka, Jindrˇ ich (Czech Ministry of Information official) 57 Krásný ztráty [‘Beautiful Losses’] 229 Krejcˇa, Otomar (Czech theatre director) 118 Krejcˇí, Milan (2nd CST chief executive) 148, 149, 167 Krejcˇík, Jirˇí (Czech film and TV director) 117 Krejcˇík, Josef (Czech TV cameraman) 181, 182 Krˇeslo pro hosta [‘Seat for the Guest’] 201 Kriegel, František (Czech politician) 177 Krˇ ivánek, Josef (CST Studio Brno chief executive) 160 Krkonoše Fairly Tales [‘Krkonošské pohádky’] 208 Krkonošské pohádky [‘Krkonoše Fairy Tales’] 208 Krogulski, Susan (American editor of Bloomsbury Publishing) xviii Kronika našeho života [‘Chronicle of Our Life’] 199

INDEX

Krška, Václav (Czech film director) 117 Krtecˇek [‘The Little Mole’] 105 Krul, Petr (Czech TV journalist) 181, 182 Kruml, Milan (Czech TV programme manager, theoretician and historian) xvii, 3, 4, 155 Kryl, B. (Czech journalist and radio experimenter) 33 Kryšpínová, Jitka (Czech historian and secretary at the Faculty of Social Sciences) xviii Kubícˇek, František (Czech technician) 75 Kubiš, Jan (Czech soldier, who participated in ‘Heydrich’s assassination’) 66 Kubišová, Marta (Czech pop singer) 187 Kucˇera, Jan (Czech film and TV cameraman, editor, director and theretician) 165 Kucˇera, Otto (Czech scientist) 27 Ku˚nˇ versus ku˚nˇ [‘Horse versus Horse’] 170 Kundera, Milan (Czech-French Writer) 154 Kunderová, Veˇra (Czech TV presenter) 181 Kupka, František (Czech painter) 23 Kut, Bohumil (Czech TV historian) 47, 165 Kuželová, Lucie (Czech businesswoman in art school) xviii Kuzník, Eduard (Czech ministry official) 70 Kveˇch, Josef (Czech journalist) 46 Kyncl, Karel (Czech radio and TV journalist) 187, 188 La Piovra (The Octopus) 218 Lake Archives [‘Archivy z jezera’] 172 Lakomec [‘The Miser’] 119, 132 Lancaster, Burt (American actor) 218 Landish, Eduard (Czech TV cameraman) 128 Lang, Miroslav (Czech TV director) 165, 182

269

Late Love (Ostrovsky) 132 Lavicˇka, Zdeneˇk (Czech TV director) 187, 191 Lederer, Jirˇ í (Czech radio and TV journalist) 43, 165 Lehman, Leopold (Czech publisher) 39 Lehovec, Jirˇ í (Czech photographer, film director and cameraman) 118 Lenin, Vladimir Ilych (Russian revolutionary and Soviet leader) 168 Leninism: Everlasting Doctrine [‘Leninismus: veˇcˇneˇ živé ucˇení’] 199 Leninismus: veˇcˇneˇ živé ucˇení [‘Leninism: Everlasting Doctrine’] 199 Lessons Drawn from the Crisis [‘Poucˇení z krizového vývoje’] 192 Let’s Play Every Day [‘Hrajeme si každý den’] 141 Lipský, Oldrˇ ich (Czech film and TV director) 117, 118 Living Together [‘Žijeme spolu’] 191 Lovy beze zbraní [‘Hunting without Weapons’] 141, 162 Lukas, Jan (Czech photographer) 23 Lustig, Arnošt (Czech writer) 154 M. A. S. H. 213 Macek, Václav (Slovak film historian) 4 Mackinnon, Amy (Scottish translator and journalist) xviii Macura, Vladimír (Czech writer and semiotician) 8, 224 Mahler, Gustav (Czech radio amateur and TV experimenter) 38, 39 Man at City Hall [‘Muž na radnici’] 213 Manželské etudy [‘Marriage Stories’] 215 Marek, Jirˇ í (Czech writer) 118 Marešová, Ina (Czech literary theoretician) 211 Marriage (Gogol) 132 Marriage Stories [‘Manželské etudy’] 215 Marriages of Convenience [‘Snˇatky z rozumu’] 158, 164, 206 Martinu˚, Bohuslav (Czech music composer) 23

270

INDEX

Marvan, Jaroslav (Czech actor) 119, 120, 159 Masaryk, Jan (Czechoslovak Minister of Foreign Affairs, son of TGM) 15, 95, 176, 191 Masaryk, Tomáš Garrigue (TGM) (philosopher and 1st President of Czechoslovakia) 15, 23, 59, 65, 95, 187 Mateˇjková, Veˇra (Czech archivist) xvii Mateˇjovský, Jan (Czech TV director) 164 Mathé, Ivo (Czech TV producer and later 1st CT chief executive) xvii Maxa, Jan (CT manager) xvii Mayerová, Ingrid (Slovak film and TV screenplay writer and pedagogue at VŠMU) xvii, 83 Medveˇd [‘The Bear’] (1953) 133 Medveˇd [‘The Bear’] (1961) 159 Melkus, René (Czech archivist) xvii Menšík, Vladimír (Czech actor) 217 Menzel, Jirˇ í (Czech film actor and director, Oscar winner) 37, 154, 173, 216, 236, Meˇšt’ánková, Vlasta (Czech archivist) xvii Mezi námi [‘Between Us’] 160 Michalski, Dariusz (Polish media historian and journalist) 46, 86, 90, 133 Michelangelo Buonarotti (Italian painter and sculptor) 131 Miler, Zdeneˇk (Czech film director, animator) 105 Minárˇ , Ivan (Czech photographer) 205, 208, 217 Mládková, Meda (Czech-American gallery owner and donor) 196 Mlejnek, Josef, jr. (Czech historian) 223 Mlynárˇ , Zdeneˇk (Czech politician) 196 Modlitba pro Martu [‘Prayer for Marta’] 187 Mohu do toho mluvit? [‘Can I Have My Say?’] 160 Moliére (French actor and playwright) 119, 132 Moravec, Václav (Czech TV presenter and media theoretician) 4

Moskalyk, Antonín (Czech film and TV director) 157, 164 Motycˇka, Pravoslav (Czech radio amateur) 28, 33 Moucˇková, Kamila (Czech TV presenter and journalist) 160, 181, 182, 184, 188 Moulíková, Dominika (Czech graduate in Media Studies) 170 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus (Austrian composer) 209 Mr. Tau [‘Pan Tau’] 207, 243 Mr. Tau and the Sorceress [‘Pan Tau a kouzelnice’] 207 Mrázová, Prˇ iba (Czech photographer) 212, 214 Ms. Vojnarová [‘Vojnarka’] 126, 132 Mücke, Petr (Czech archivist) xvii Mudra, František (Czech TV director) 165 Müller, ? (Czech official of the Industry Ministry) 77 Music from the Respirium [‘Hudba z respiria’] 216 Muž na radnici [‘Man at City Hall’] 213 My Companions in the Bleak House [‘Prˇ ítelkyneˇ z domu smutku’] 236 My Sweet Little Village [‘Vesnicˇko, má strˇ edisková’] 216 My všichni školou povinní [‘We All Attend School’] 205 Mystery of the Conundrum [‘Záhada hlavolamu’] 158 Na aktuální téma [‘On Current Issues’] 228 Na pomoc generální prokuraturˇe [‘In Aid of the Attorney-General’] 176 Námluvy v lepší rodineˇ aneb Cˇerná kocˇka [‘Courtship in a High Class Family, or The Black Cat’] 137 Náš cˇloveˇk v tísni [‘Our People in Need’] 238 Našli sme pesnicˇku [‘We Found a Song’] 140 Návšteˇvníci [‘The Visitors’] 208, 243

INDEX

Nebezpecˇný sveˇt kalorií [‘The Dangerous World of Calories’] 141 Necˇásek, František (CS Radio chief executive) 35 Necˇásek, Sláva (Czech journalist) 61 Nedbal, Miloš (Czech actor) 133 Nedej se [‘Don’t Give Up’] 238 Neff, Vladimír (Czech writer) 118, 158 Negordický uzel [‘The Un-Gordian Knot’] 141, 160 Nejedlý, Zdeneˇk (Czech musicologist and Culture Minister) 117, 150 Nejmladší z rodu Hamru˚ [‘The Youngest of the Hamr family’] 213 Neklan, Tomislav (Czech TV journalist) 181 Neˇmcová Tejkalová, Alice (Czech sports and media theoretician) xviii, 4 Neˇmec, Jan (Czech film and TV director) 154 Nemocnice na kraji meˇsta [‘The Hospital at the End of the City’] 213, 214, 243 Nesnídalová, Marie (Czech radio amateur, wife of J. Šafránek) 33, 43, 49, 61 Nesvadba, Miloš (Czech painter and TV actor) 162 Nešvera, Karel (Czech journalist) 165 Neuls, Jan (Czech TV director) 165 Neurath, Konstantin von (German Nazi Politician) 65 Newsboy [‘Kamelot’] 226 Nezralé maliny [‘Unripe Raspberries’] 216 Nezval, Víteˇzslav (Czech writer and poet) 97, 118, 121 Ninety-­nine Signatures [‘Devadesát deveˇt podpisu˚’] 191 Nipkow, Paul Gottlieb (German TV inventor) 34, 37, 38, 39, 43, 46 Nobile, Umberto (Italian aeronaut) 48 Novák, Zdeneˇk (CS radio official) 98 Nováková, Jaroslava (Czech archivist) 17 November 17 and Student Reality [‘17. listopad a studentská soucˇasnost’] 191

271

Novotný, Antonín (6th President of Czechoslovakia) 16, 153 Nový, Oldrˇ ich (Czech film and TV actor) 117 Nutz, Ota (Czech TV journalist and producer) 160, 165, 181 Obcˇanská výchova [‘Civic Education’] 175 Obžalovaná je lhostejnost [‘Indifference Charged’] 160 Ockrent, Christine (Belgian TV journalist) ix Okna vesmíru dokorˇán [‘Space Windows Wide Open’] 218 OKO – pohled na soucˇasnost [‘The Eye – a Look at the Present’] 237, 238 Okres na severu [‘The Region in the North’] 212, 213 Olbracht, Ivan (Czech writer) 97 On Current Issues [‘Na aktuální téma’] 228 Ondrˇ ícˇek, Miroslav (Czech film cameraman, Oscar-­nominated colleague of Miloš Forman) 163 Opletal, Jan (Czech student shot by the Nazis) 65 Orság, Petr (Czech media historian) 3 Ostrava Seconds [‘Ostravské vterˇ iny’] 141 Ostravské vterˇiny [‘Ostrava Seconds’] 141 Ostrovsky, Alexander Nikolayevich (Russian playwright) 132 Osudy dobrého vojáka Švejka [‘Good Soldier Švejk’] 23 Otcˇenášek, Jan (see Zikmund, Petr) (Czech author and TV screenplay writer) 216 Our People in Need [‘Náš cˇloveˇk v tísni’] 238 Palach, Jan (Czech student who immolated himself) 187, 188, 221, 226 Pan Tau [‘Mr. Tau’] 207, 243 Pan Tau a kouzelnice [‘Mr. Tau and the Sorceress’] 207

272

INDEX

Panácˇek, Jindrˇ ich (Czech photographer) 120 Panoptikum meˇsta pražského [‘Prague Panopticon’] 206 Parents and Children [‘Rodicˇe a deˇti’] 170 Passer, Ivan (Czech-American film director) 154 Paštéková, Jelena (Slovak film historian) 4 Patera, Jaroslav (Czech journalist) 169, 170 Patocˇka, Jan (Czech philosopher) 196 Patriots Unmasked [‘Vlastenci bez masky’] 190 Patton, George S. (American Military General) 95 Paukert, Ivo (Czech TV director) 164, 182 Paulu, Burton (American media theoretician) 1, 2, 3, 87, 171 Pavel, Miroslav (Czech TV journalist and 9th CST chief executive) 230 Pavlícˇek, ? (Czech CS Radio offiacial) 77 Pavlík, ? (Major working at the Ministry of Defense) 77 Pavlinec, Miloš (Czech TV director) 191 Pech, Karel (Czech TV director) 118, 187 Pedersoli, Carlo (pseudonym Bud Spencer) (Italian Actor) 218 Pehr, Josef (Czech TV actor) 162 Pelikán, Jirˇ í (Czech-Italian politician, 4th chief executive of CST) ix, xx, 17, 168, 169, 170, 171, 175, 176, 177, 181, 186, 187, 196, 226, 242, 245 Pernes, Jirˇ í (Czech historian) 10 Pešek, Ladislav (Czech actor) 133, 147 Peterka, František (Czech actor) 208 Peterka, M. (Czech photographer) 90 Petránˇová, Lydie (Czech TV historian) 165 Pilát, František (Czech technician and TV experimenter) 37, 38, 123, 144 Pink Floyd (English music band) 233 Pinkavová, Hana (Czech film and TV director) 38

Písenˇ pro Rudolfa III. [‘Song for Rudolf III’] 158 Piškvorky [‘Tic-­tac-toe’] 141 Pitterman, Jirˇ í (Czech journalist and CT programme manager) 165 Plachý, Jirˇ í (political deputy in CST) 171 Plechová kavalérie [‘Tin Cavalry’] 213 Plendl, Herr (German technician and officer) 68 Pleskot, Jaromír (Czech TV director) 147 Pleskotová, Eva (Czech journalist) 165 Plocek, Evžen (Czech worker who immolated himself) 187 Po loveckých stezkách [‘Down the Hunting Paths’] 141 Podskalský, Zdeneˇk (Czech TV director) 164, 182 Pojar, Brˇ etislav (Czech film director and animator) 105 Pokorný, Zdeneˇk (Czech TV cameraman) 182 Polák, Jindrˇ ich (Czech film and TV director) 164 Polák, Petr (Czech Mayor of Tanvald City) 17 Political Song Festival in Sokolov [‘Festival politické písneˇ Sokolov’] 199 Popelka, Lubomír (Czech TV cameraman) 184 Poprvé k volbám [‘First-­time Election’] 176 Porota [‘The Jury’] 173 Pospíšil, Miroslav (Czech photographer) 92, 114, 173, 204 Poucˇení z krizového vývoje [‘Lessons Drawn from the Crisis’] 192 Powrie, Phill (British film theoretician and historian) 90 Pracharˇ , Ilja (Czech actor) 158, 208 Práger, V. (Czech radio amateur) 29 Prague Panopticon [‘Panoptikum meˇsta pražského’] 206 Prˇátelé zeleného údolí [‘Friends of the Green Valley’] 141 Prayer for Marta [‘Modlitba pro Martu’] 187

INDEX

Princ Bajaja [‘Prince Bajaja’] 148 Prince Bajaja [‘Princ Bajaja’] 148 Prˇípad Platfus [‘The Platfus Case’] 216 Prˇítelkyneˇ z domu smutku [‘My Companions in the Bleak House’] 236 Probes [‘Sondy’] 160 Procházka, Stanislav (Czech-Finnish violinist) xviii Procházková, Dagmar (Czech-Finnish violinist) xviii Prodaná neveˇsta [‘The Bartered Bride’] 137 Prohlášení Charty 77 [‘Charter 77 Proclamation’] 17, 172, 192, 196, 222, 223, 226 Pru˚cha, Jaroslav (Czech theatre director and actor) 133 Pujmanová, Marie (Czech writer) 118 Racek, Jan (Czech Army Major) 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78 Rada, Petr (Czech poet, author of song lyrics) 187 Randall and Hopkirk 218 Ráž, Miroslav (Czech TV and radio technician, CST manager) 121 Ráža, Ludvík (Czech film and TV director) 164 Reagan, Ronald (40th President of the USA) 224 Reicin, Bedrˇ ich (Czechoslovak soldier, Brigade General) 71 Reifová, Irena (Czech theorist of media and popular culture) 4, 211, 214 Remek, Vladimír (Czech astronaut) 199, 201 Rendezvous with Friends [‘Dostavenícˇko s prˇ áteli’] 199 René 216 Report on the Soviet Union [‘Zpráva o Soveˇtském svazu’] 174 Richard, Pierre (French actor) 218 Richter, Julius (German worker) 28 Riedel, Josef (Czech glass entrepreneur) 75 Robinsoness [‘Robinsonka’] 147, 162 Robinsonka [‘Robinsoness’] 147, 162

273

Rock-­paper-scissors [‘Kámen, nu˚žky, papír’] 142 Rodáci [‘The Natives’] 199 Rodicˇe a deˇti [‘Parents and Children’] 170 Rodina Bláhova [‘The Bláha Family’] 138, 157, 158 Rokoský, Jaroslav (Czech historian) xviii Rolling Stones (British rock music band) 233 Romale 238 Rose, Reginald (American author and screenplay writer) 173 Rössler, Jaroslav (Czech photographer) 23 Rožnˇovec, Emil (Slovak TV cameraman) 142 Rozpaky kucharˇe Svatopluka [‘Embarrassment of Cook Svatopluk’] 205 Rudý mák [‘The Red Poppy’] 137 Ruské romance [‘Russian Romance’] 92 Russian Romance [‘Ruské romance’] 92 Ru˚žicˇka, Daniel (Czech TV producer and TV historian) xvii, 3, 128, 188, 190, 192, 194, 200, 222, 223, 226, 228, 229 Rybárˇ ová, Jana (Czech actress) 147 Rychlík, Jan (Czech historian) 16 Šabata, Jaroslav (Czech philosopher and dissident) 10 Sadková, Eva (Czech TV director) 116, 164 Šafránek, Jaroslav (Czech physicist and TV inventor) xxi, xvii, 17, 28, 30, 31, 33, 39, 40, 42, 43–49, 53, 56, 58, 59, 61, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 100, 123 Šafránek, Václav (Czech businessman in radio technology, brother of J. Šafránek) xvii, 43 Salivarová, Zdena (Czech-Canadian writer and publisher, wife of J. Škvorecký) 195 Šaman, František Erik (Czech journalist and radio amateur) 60, 61 Samota [‘Solitude’] 132

274

INDEX

Sanitka [‘The Ambulance’] 205 Sarnoff, David (American radio and TV inventor) 38 Sartre, Jean-Paul (French philosopher and writer) 154 Schäferling, Miroslav (Czech radio amateur) 53 Schlegel, Hans Joachim (German film historian and organizer) 224 Schmiedberger, Miloš (Czech photographer) 13, 210 Schubert, Georg (German technician and officer) 68, 69 Schulz, Milan (Czech journalist) 165 Schwarzer Kanal [‘Black Channel’] 88 Seat for the Guest [‘Krˇ eslo pro hosta’] 201 Šebek, Jaroslav (Czech historian) xvii Sedmikrásky nad Brnem [‘Daisies above Brno’] 140 Seger, Jirˇ í (Czech technician and TV historian) 3 Seifert, Jaroslav (Czech poet, Nobel Prize winner) 185 Seleznev, Alexei Andreianovich (Soviet Colonel of Red Army) 73 Sequens, Jirˇ í (Czech TV and film director) 120, 157, 164 Sesame Street 209 Ševcˇík, Libor (Czech TV journalist) 181 Sieber, Karel (CT archivist) xvii Sígl, Miroslav (Czech TV journalist) 181 Šik, Ota (Czech-Swiss economist) 154, 175 Silný, Vladimír (pseudonym of Vladimír Železný) (Czech TV journalist and chief executive of TV NOVA) 218 Silvestr hravý a dravý [‘The Fierce and Playful New Year’s Eve’] 198 Šíma, Josef (Czech-French painter) 23 Šimecˇka, Milan (Slovak philosopher and dissident) 5, 6, 8, 17 Šimek, J. (Czech photographer) 203, 221 Singer, Alois (Czech radio technician and MPT official) 33, 53, 54, 55, 61, 62, 63, 77, 108 Sins for Father Knox [‘Hrˇ íchy pro pátera Knoxe’] 236

Skopal, Pavel (Czech film historian and theoretician) 4, 136, 207 Škutina, Vladimír (Czech TV journalist and writer) 160, 181, 182, 185, 187, 188 Škvorecký, Josef (Czech-Canadian writer and publisher) xviii, 154, 195, 236 Slánský, Rudolf (Czech politician, victim of political trials in Czechoslovakia) 10 Slezák, Jaroslav (Czech journalist) 35 Slovo do vlastních rˇad [‘Word to My Own Ranks’] 191 Slovo ke dni – Štafeta televizních publicistu˚ [‘Comment on the Day – Relay Race of TV Journalists’] 187, 188 Slunécˇková, Karolína (Czech actress) 13 Smeˇšná práce [‘Funny Work’] 102 Smetana, Bedrˇ ich (Czech composer) 137, 184, 228 Šmíd, Milan (Czech media and TV theoretician and historian) 40, 84, 225, 228, 229, 236 Šmídmajer, Josef (6th CST chief executive) 187, 188, 189 Šmok, Ján (Czech photographer and pedagogue, theoretician) 165 Smola, Josef (Czech journalist) 75, 79, 100 Smrkovský, Josef (Czech politician) 154, 175, 180, 187 Snˇatky z rozumu [‘Marriages of Convenience’] 158, 164, 206 Sokolovský, Evžen (Czech TV director) 164 Solitude [‘Samota’] 132 Sondy [‘Probes’] 160 Song for Rudolf III [‘Písenˇ pro Rudolfa III.’] 158 Song to My Homeland [‘Zpeˇv rodné zemi’] 184 Sovák, Jirˇ í (Czech actor) 205 Space Windows Wide Open [‘Okna vesmíru dokorˇ án’] 218 Speaking of the Conclusions from the 15th CzCP Congress [‘Hovorˇ íme o záveˇrech XV. sjezdu KSCˇ’] 199

INDEX

Spencer, Bud (pseudonym of Carlo Pedersoli) (Italian actor) 218 Špetl Josef (Czech textile manager) xviii Špetlová Veˇra (Czech pedagogue) xviii Spor [‘Dispute’] 172 Srpnové pastorale [‘August Pastoral’] 191 Stadtrucker, Ivan (Slovak TV manager) 3, 4, 143 Stahl, Kazimír (CS Radio chief executive) 77, 78, 79, 98, 99, 107, 110 Stalin, Joseph Vissarionovich (GeorgianSoviet leader) xx, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 95, 105, 130, 150, 151 Šteˇpán, Miroslav (Czech politician) 227 Stilwell, Robynn J. (American music theorist) 90 Štoll, Ivan (Czech physicist and popularizer of science) xvii, 8, 18, 112 Štoll, Ladislav (Czech literary theoretician, culture and Universities Minister) 112 Štoll, Martin (Czech TV director, theoretician and media historian) xx, xxi, 3, 4, 7, 11, 14, 38, 83, 118, 134, 155, 162, 165, 185, 219, 224, 261 Štoll, Pavel (Czech scholar specialising in Czech-Baltic relationships) xvii, 8, 224 Štollová, Alžbeˇta (child) xviii Štollová, Katerˇ ina (child) xviii Štollová, Veˇra (Czech graphic designer) xviii Stormy Summer [‘Búrlivé leto’] 143 Strakonický dudák [‘The Bagpiper from Strakonice’] 156 Stráský, Jan (Czech Prime Minister) 239 Strasmajer, Vladimír (Czech TV historian) 3, 42, 165 Strˇ íbrný, Jirˇ í (Czech politician, minister and owner of newspapers) 60 Strnad, Josef (Chief executive of the Post Office) 26, 27, 33, 53, 54, 57, 58, 61, 62 Strnad, Stanislav (Czech TV director) 158

275

Štrougal, Lubomír (Czech Prime Minister) 190 Studio A Live [‘Vysiela Štúdio A’] 142 Studio kamarád [‘Your Chum Studio’] 209 Štýrský, Jindrˇ ich (Czech painter) 23 Suchý, Otakar (Czech TV technician) 115, 119, 121 Sudek, Josef (Czech photographer) 23 Suk, Josef (Czech composer) 23 Šusterová-Horcˇicˇková, Jarmila (Czech TV presenter) 128 Šustrová, Petruška (Czech journalist and dissident) 223 Švadlena, František (Czech radio amateur) 33 Švec, Bohumil (5th CST chief executive) 187 Švec, Luboš (Czech sociologist and historian) 8, 224 Švec, Otakar (Czech sculptor) 19 Svejkovský, Jirˇ í (Czech TV journalist) 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187 Sveˇrák, Jan (Czech film director, Oscar winner) 216 Sveˇrák, Zdeneˇk (Czech actor, screenplay writer, playwright, Oscar winner) 216 Švihálek, Milan (Czech TV journalist and screenplay writer) 4, 141 Svoboda, Eduard (Czech radio technician and co-­owner of Radiojournal) 27, 33 Svoboda, Ludvík (Czech General and 7th President of Czechoslovakia) 104 Svoboda, Vlastimil (Czech technician) 75, 115, 154 Švorcová, Jirˇ ina (Czech actress) 13, 211, 223 Swallow [‘Vlaštovka’] 141, 163 Sýkorová, Helena (Czech TV screenplay writer) 165 Synové a dcery Jakuba sklárˇe [‘The Sons and Daughters of Jakub the Glass-­maker’] 213

276

INDEX

Szczepanik, Petr (Czech media theoretician) xvii, 4, 38 Tajemství Cˇertova jezera [‘The Secret of Devil’s Lake’] 171 Taková normální rodinka [‘Just an Ordinary Family’] 205 Talks with People [‘Hovory s lidmi’] 187 Tatort (Crime Scene) 218 Taylor, Richard (British political scientist) 90 Tažní ptáci [‘Birds of Passage’] 216 Teatr Telewizji [‘Television Theater’] 90 Teige, Karel (Czech critic, art theoretician, artist) 36 Televarieté 203, 204 Television News [‘Televisní noviny’] 138 Television News and Matters of Interest [‘Televisní aktuality a zajímavosti’] 138 Television Theater [‘Teatr Telewizji’] 90 Television University [‘Televisní universita’] 138, 162 Television Youth Club [‘Televizní klub mladých’] 141, 216 Televisní aktuality a zajímavosti [‘Television News and Matters of Interest’] 138 Televisní noviny [‘Television News’] 138 Televisní universita [‘Television University’] 138, 162 Televizní klub mladých [‘Television Youth Club’] 141, 216 Televizní noviny [‘TV News’] 165, 195 Televizní universita [‘TV University’] 162 Televizní vysílání pro školy [‘TV Broadcast for Schools’] 162 Tesár, Ivan (Czech TV dramaturg) 166, 211, 213 Teˇšínská, Emilie (Czech historian of science) xvii That Was the Week That Was xx, 169 The Ambulance [‘Sanitka’] 205 The Bagpiper from Strakonice [‘Strakonický dudák’] 156

The Bartered Bride [‘Prodaná neveˇsta’] 137 The Bat Club [‘Klub Netopýr’] 238 The Bear [‘Medveˇd’] (1953) 133 The Bear [‘Medveˇd’] (1961) 159 The Bláha Family [‘Rodina Bláhova’] 138, 157, 158 The Cottagers [‘Chalupárˇ i’] 204, 205 The Daily [‘Dnevnik’] 87 The Dangerous World of Calories [‘Nebezpecˇný sveˇt kalorií’] 141 The Dispatcher [‘Dispecˇer’] 213 The Dreyfus Affair [‘Dreyfusova aféra’] 158 The Engineer Odyssey [‘Inženýrská odyssea’] 213 The Eye – a Look at the Present [‘OKO – pohled na soucˇasnost’] 237, 238 The Fall of Icarus [‘Ikaru˚v pád’] 216, 217 The Fierce and Playful New Year’s Eve [‘Silvestr hravý a dravý’] 198 The Forsyte Saga 218 The Grand Game [‘Vysoká hra’] 222 The Great Saddle [‘Velké sedlo’] 205 The Hospital at the End of the City [‘Nemocnice na kraji meˇsta’] 213, 214, 243 The house in Vladislavova Street or the history of The Burgher Hall [‘Du˚m ve Vladislavoveˇ ulici aneb historie Meˇšt’anské besedy’] 202 The Huntley-Brinkley ix The Jan Masaryk Case [‘Causa Jan Masaryk’] 191 The Jury [‘Porota’] 173 The Little Mole [‘Krtecˇek’] 105 The Miser [‘Lakomec’] 119, 132 The Natives [‘Rodáci’] 199 The Needle [‘Jehla’] 216 The Novák Dynasty [‘Dynastie Nováku˚’] 205 The Petty Bourgeois (Gorky’s) 132 The Platfus Case [‘Prˇ ípad Platfus’] 216 The Professionals 218 The Public Matter [‘Veˇc verˇ ejná’] 160, 175 The Red Poppy [‘Rudý mák’] 137

INDEX

The Region in the North [‘Okres na severu’] 212, 213 The Secret of Devil’s Lake [‘Tajemství Cˇ ertova jezera’] 171 The Sinful People of the City of Prague [‘Hrˇ íšní lidé meˇsta pražského’] 120, 158, 243 The Sons and Daughters of Jakub the Glass-­maker [‘Synové a dcery Jakuba sklárˇ e’] 213 The Thirty Cases of Major Zeman [‘Trˇ icet prˇ ípadu˚ majora Zemana’] 199, 200 The Thorn Birds 236 The Unknown War [‘Velká vlastenecká válka’] 218 The Visitors [‘Návšteˇvníci’] 208, 243 The Woman behind the Counter [‘Žena za pultem’] 12, 13, 211, 212, 213, 214 The Woman from Corinthus [‘Žena z Korinta’] 216 The Youngest of the Hamr family [‘Nejmladší z rodu Hamru˚’] 213 There Was Once a House [‘Byl jednou jeden du˚m’] 205 Third Floor [‘Trˇetí patro’] 205, 206 Thirty Returns [‘Trˇicet návratu˚’] 200 A Thousand Views behind the Scene [‘Tisíc pohledu˚ za kulisy’] 159 Three Men a Year Later [‘Trˇi chlapi po roce’] 157 Three Men and a Cottage [‘Trˇi chlapi v chalupeˇ’] 157 Tic-­tac-toe [‘Piškvorky’] 141 Tigrid, Pavel (Czech-French journalist and politician) 196, 226 Time [‘Время-Vremya’] (USSR) 85 Tin Cavalry [‘Plechová kavalérie’] 213 Tisíc pohledu˚ za kulisy [‘A Thousand Views behind the Scene’] 159 Today in One House [‘Dnes v jednom domeˇ’] 205 Tomeš, Josef (Czech historian) 48 Tomsa, Milan (Czech TV director) 113, 145, 160, 176 Tonninger, Jirˇ í (Czech TV journalist) 181, 187

277

Töröková, Zuzana (Slovak media theoretician) 4 Tosek, Vladimír (Czech TV journalist) 181 Tošnerová, Patricia (Czech historian) 59 Toyen (pseudonym of Marie Cˇ ermínová) (Czech painter) 23 Trampota, Tomáš (Czech sociologist and media theoretician) xvii Trejbal, Josef (Czech Colonel) 70, 79 Trˇ eštíková, Helena (Czech film and TV director) 216 Trˇetí patro [‘Third Floor’] 205, 206 Trˇi chlapi po roce [‘Three Men a Year Later’] 157 Trˇi chlapi v chalupeˇ [‘Three Men and a Cottage’] 157 Triangel [‘Triangle’] 142 Triangle [‘Triangel’] 142 Trˇicet návratu˚ [‘Thirty Returns’] 200 Trˇicet prˇípadu˚ majora Zemana [‘The Thirty Cases of Major Zeman’] 199, 200 Trnka, Jirˇ í (Czech film director and animator) 105, 117 Trojan, Ladislav (Czech actor) 158 Trousil, Jaroslav (Czech photographer) 164, 206 Turnovská, Jarmila (Czech TV screenplay writer) 165 TV Broadcast for Schools [‘Televizní vysílání pro školy’] 162 TV News [‘Televizní noviny’] 165, 191 TV University [‘Televizní universita’] 162 Twelve Angry Men 173 Two Thousand Words [‘Dva tisíce slov’] 177 Two Years on the Palliasse [‘Dva roky na slamníku’] 176 Tyl, Josef Kajetán (Czech playwright and journalist) 156 Ulrych, Petr (Czech TV journalist) 181 Unripe Raspberries [‘Nezralé maliny’] 216

278

INDEX

Vácha, Zdeneˇk (Czech archivist) xvii Vaculík, Ludvík (Czech writer and dissident) 177 Vancˇura, Vladislav (Czech writer and film director) 131 Vávra, Otakar (Czech film director and pedagogue) 37 Vávra, Vlastimil (Czech TV director) 176 Veˇc verˇejná [‘The Public Matter’] 160, 175 Vecˇerˇ a, Pavel (Czech media historian) 3 Vecˇernícˇek [‘Bedtime Story’] 156 Velká vlastenecká válka [‘The Unknown War’] 218 Velké sedlo [‘The Great Saddle’] 205 Velmi uveˇrˇitelné prˇíbeˇhy [‘Very Believable Stories’] 236 Very Believable Stories [‘Velmi uveˇrˇ itelné prˇ íbeˇhy’] 236 Vesnicˇko, má strˇedisková [‘My Sweet Little Village’] 216 Vietor do tváre [‘Wind in the Face’] 140 Viktor Pushkariov, Workman [‘Deˇlník Viktor Puškarjov’] 199 Vizionárˇ televize Jaroslav Šafránek [‘Jaroslav Šafránek – Television Visionary’] xvii Vlastenci bez masky [‘Patriots Unmasked’] 190 Vlaštovka [‘Swallow’] 141, 163 Vodicˇka, Jan (Czechoslovakia´s representative) 71 Vogeltanz, Ondrˇ ej (Czech TV screenplay writer) 165 Vojan, Eduard (Czech actor) 131 Vojnár, Ivan (Slovak-Czech film and TV cameraman) 237 Vojnarka [‘Ms. Vojnarová’] 126, 132 Volba povolání [‘Choice of Occupation’] 169, 176 Volek, Jaromír (Czech sociologist) 4 Volf, Milan (Czech TV director and journalist) 160, 182 Volná tribuna [‘Free Tribune’] 203 Vorácˇ, Jirˇ í (Czech film theoretician and historian) 16 Vorlícˇek, Václav (Czech film and TV director) 164

Voskovec, George (Jirˇ í) (CzechAmerican actor and playwright) 23 Voskovec, Jirˇ í (George) (CzechAmerican actor and playwright) 23 Vrabec, Jan (Czech TV manager) 115 Vrabec, Jozef (Slovak CST official) 120, 140 Vremya [‘Время-Time’] (USSR) 85 Vrožina, Milan (Czech TV director and cameraman) 165 Všichni jejich synové [‘All Their Sons’] 199 Vysiela Štúdio A [‘Studio A Live’] 142 Vyskocˇilová, Jarmila (later Cysarˇ ová) (Czech TV journalist) 165 Vysoká hra [‘The Grand Game’] 222 Vyznání [‘Confession’] 198 Wackermann, J. (Czech TV journalist) 181 Wanatowiczová, Krystyna (Czech journalist) 245 We All Attend School [‘My všichni školou povinní’] 205 We Are with You, Be with Us [‘Jsme s vámi, bud’te s námi’] 187 We Found a Song [‘Našli sme pesnicˇku’] 140 Welcome to the Theater [‘Zveme vás do divadla’] 216 Werich, Jan (Czech actor, writer, screenplay writer and playwright) 23, 117, 159 What Now? And Then What? [‘Co ted’? A co potom’] 236 What’s on in Our Region [‘Cˇ ím žije náš kraj’] 140 Where are We Going? [‘Kam speˇjeme?’] 175 White Book [‘Bílá kniha’] 186 Who Is Václav Havel? [‘Kdo je Václav Havel?’] 222 Wichterle, Otto (Czech chemist, inventor of soft contact lenses) 177 Wilson, Woodrow (28th President of the USA) 23 Wind in the Face [‘Vietor do tváre’] 140

INDEX

Winston, Brian (British media theoretician and historian) xviii Winter Olympics in Cortina d’Ampezzo 89, 137 Witnesses of the Past [‘Za sveˇdky minulosti’] 217 Word to My Own Ranks [‘Slovo do vlastních rˇ ad’] 191 Wright, Robert (American translator) xviii Yarotsky, Major (Soviet Soldier) 69, 70 Your Chum Studio [‘Studio kamarád’] 209 Z deníku kontrarevolucionárˇe [‘From A Counter-revolutionary’s Diary’] 222 Z ocˇí do ocˇí [‘Eye to Eye’] 238 Za sveˇdky minulosti [‘Witnesses of the Past’] 217 Žácˇek, Pavel (Czech historian) 216 Záhada hlavolamu [‘Mystery of the Conundrum’] 158 Zajíc, Jan (Czech student who immolated himself) 187 Žampach, Otakar (Czech Colonel, Ministry of National Defense) 77 Zápotocký, Antonín (5th President of Czechoslovakia) 130, 153 Zázvorková, Stella (Czech actress) 158, 159 Zelenka, Jan (7th CST chief executive) 112, 189, 192, 193, 197, 198, 201, 202, 216, 226, 241, 243

279

Zelenka, Otto (Czech TV screenplay writer) 164 Zelenková, Bohumila (Czech screenplay writer) 165 Železný, Vladimír (pseudonym Vladimír Silný) (Czech TV journalist and TV NOVA chief executive) 115, 218 Zeman, Borˇ ivoj (Czech film and TV director) 118, 119, 120 Zeman, Karel (Czech film director) 105 Žena z Korinta [‘The Woman from Corinthus’] 216 Žena za pultem [‘The Woman behind the Counter’] 12, 13, 211, 212, 213, 214 Žijeme spolu [‘Living Together’] 191 Zikmund, Miroslav (Czech traveler and writer) 174 Zikmund, Petr (pseudonym of Jan Otcˇenášek) (Czech writer and TV screenplay writer) 216 Zlá krev [‘Bad Blood’] 206 Zpeˇv rodné zemi [‘Song to My Homeland’] 184 Zpráva o Soveˇtském svazu [‘Report on the Soviet Union’] 174 Zrzavý, Jan (Czech painter) 23 Zuranová, Ivana (Czech archivist) xvii Zveˇdavá kamera [‘Curious Camera’] 160, 161, 163, 169, 171, 172, 173, 176, 192, 235 Zveme vás do divadla [‘Welcome to the Theater’] 216 Zworykin, Vladimir (Russian-American TV inventor) 38, 42