Seite 69 [69]
IMRE APÁTHY: ORPHEUS, 1952
counter-response came in a short article of Világosság, which categorically
stated that "the play received harsh criticism, because the adaptation did
not achieve a useful goal. [...] Comrade Hamos snubbed criticism in his
statement, rejecting all the objections plainly. He did not even try to make
his claims credible by accepting one. [...] But a writer cannot deny criticism
with such superiority, with such aristocratism."?? In the era of perpetual
self-criticism, the pursuit of rational explanation was not harmless at all, and
after Free Wind, The Golden Star and Orpheus Hámos no longer worked for
the Operetta Theatre.
STAGING
Imre Apathy increased the impact of the text by countless suggestions for his
actors, especially in comic scenes, but the mise-en-scéne was given far less
attention than the writer/dramaturg’s work, lashed out in long paragraphs.
Apathy, known for his precise creation of performance texts, came from
the legendary Miivész Theatre, operating between April 1945 and July
1949. He was placed to the Vidam Theatre and the Kis Komedia after the
nationalization, then he became chief director at the Operetta Theatre. He
sought to work out both the high and the satirical line of Orpheus, but the
latter succeeded more, demonstrating that “the director has 100 ideas for the
writer and the actors where the libretto provides opportunities for interesting
actions and meticulous acting”.*** This alone would not have been condemned
as a mistake, since satire, as a genre and a mode of representation, had come
to the foreground at that time. For example, the Ministry of Culture required
defeats the hellish covenant of the enemies of peace.” Hamos stated that (2) “Orpheus is not
a ‘key drama’. It is not a satirical copy of real events.” There are hints for real events and real
people, “but the play primarily works with symbols representing greater things.” (3) Hamos
also responded to the mistake of the underestimated danger of the enemy. “In my opinion,
an operetta, by means of its own genre, can only go up to a certain limit in the representation
of a dangerous and evil enemy: it provides satire, in which the enemy exposes himself and
makes us laugh at them.” (4) He defended allegory, even though some critics objected it, since
they found it unnecessary, when events and individuals can already be represented directly.
“Allegory is not a thick bush in which the author hides. It is an independent and timeless
genre, because it expresses certain things from a different aspect, by means of fairy tale and
satire.” And to the charge of (5) failing to represent John Stix’s comic figure in an adequate
way, he replied that “in his character, satire brings a silly king, a talentless potentate losing
power, to the stage. This character is said to be sympathetic. No, he isn’t. Just amusing.” At
the same time, Hamos criticized his critics for “not respecting the new way: the search for a
way of satire mobilized for a higher purpose”. No author: Amit a kritikusok kérnek számon a
szerzőtől s amit a szerző kér számon a kritikusoktól. Hámos György, az Orfeusz szövegírója
felel az elhangzott bírálatokra, Független Magyarország, Vol. 14, No. 12, 24" March, 1952, 7.
23 No author: Írói magatartás, 6.
294 Antal: Orfeusz, 7.
+ 67 +