Page 84 [84]
FREEDOM FIGHT FOR LOVE, AN EXCELLENT FARCE AND SOME MUSIC BY LEHÄR
underscored the “constructive message” of disclosing a society based on lies
and seeking lies in art, even though the adaptors could have made positive
figures more sympathetic and “the lords advising dishonest counsels and the
aristocracy dancing at the party” more satirical.***
The legitimate presence of The Count of Luxembourg in socialist theatre
culture was justified, on the one hand, by the improved play’s “beautiful
content that goes through the formulaic story” and proclaims “the right of
the heart, the victory of love in the face of the all-conquering, corrupt and
vile capital.” On the other hand, the gesture of “belying a lie by its own
means” in order to take “sardonic, farcical and hearty revenge” was also
stressed.*© This latter is particularly important because half a decade before
Brecht’s reception in Hungary came to the fore, and moreover, in the field of
playing operettas, the production had set an example of making a “Fabel” that
encouraged both actors and spectators to take critical positions. A few years
later, the concept of “alienation” started to be applied for that in professional
public discourse.*" It is foreshadowed by Béla Matrai-Betegh’s wording:
“Lehar’s bribing, soothing and emotionally mesmerizing music” sounds
“a wake-up call” this time, and “it evokes some nostalgia too, [...] but from
a critical point of view, no one is longing for an age in which love, morality,
youth and joy could lie so much in the ringing language of money”.*”
The critical potential of the story was exploited in the much-increased
dialogues, which sometimes replaced certain songs. Partly because of this
and partly because of the aim of limiting the length of the production, Miklés
Rékai, who arranged the music to the new play, made serious cuts in the
composition. While some of the songs were given to other characters (e.g.
358 Gombos: Luxemburg grófja, 4.
359 Balázs: Luxemburg grófja, 562.
360 Mátrai-Betegh: Luxemburg grófja, 5.
361 When Béla Mätrai-Betegh sums up the story of The Count of Luxembourg, he immediately
adds that “it is a fairy tale but only as far as the audience is watching faithfully, dreamily
and in an utterly relaxed manner some bohemian counts and bourgeois free spirits, silly
girls, plump Romeos and sly matchmakers frisking around. The spectators at the beginning
of the century believed this play, empathized with this enchanted company, cherished this
mad world and would have been glad to imitate it.” Without referring to either Brecht or
his term, Mätrai-Betegh describes, in fact, what Brecht called a carousel-type theatre. This
encourages unconditional identification with stage figures and events. He contrasted it
with the planetarium-type theatre, which encourages distance, and that’s what could be
recognized in the production of the Operetta Theatre. “Ihey managed to cock a snook at
this world [...]. They reproached this world, delighting in the mood of operettas, by its own
means, by the mood of operettas itself. Consequently, today’s spectator is no longer watching
this flirtatious carnival dreamily and utterly relaxed, but also [...] critically and genuinely
amused by the credulity which believed it to be true, and also willing to judge the reality
flashing from under the bourgeois fairy tale. This realization, this sobering up, which does
not ruin entertainment at all, but makes it more pungent and complex, is due to reworking,
staging and acting.” Ibid. (My italics — A.K.K.)
3 Ibid.
+ 82 +