This paper (particularly your appendix) is very useful for furthering research in the field of transnational theatrical tourism.
What is it specifically about these plays or these productions of plays that made them Inturist’s choices? If we are speaking of the height of Stalinism, any public performances would more or less need to fall within the strict and shifting official state ideology. What made these 76 productions, and not others by the same companies, the productions put on display for the world? If all of these companies were supposedly the best models of Soviet theatre, then why not other performances from their repertoires?
You mention that Inturist provided “alternative performances.” I’d like to hear more about this. Was this merely to foster the illusion of choice for the foreign guests? What performances didn't make the cut for the "main list" but were approved "alternates"?
I am also interested in how the specific productions of the same script were received, both by international visitors and by Inturist. I imagine that the MXT and Vakhtangov productions of Egor Bulychyov and the Others or that the Realistic Theatre and Vakhtangov productions of Pogodin’s Aristocrats (check the spelling in the appendix) at were not only different because of the years separating the festivals. How did the aesthetics of these various theatres foment complexity in the presentation of an ideal “Soviet theatre” to the rest of the world?