Seite 98 [98]
THE FINAL PERFORMANCE OF THE OLD NATIONAL THEATRE
regarding the proceedings of the National Iheatre, all this is impossible to
perceive in the mid-1970s recording. If we want to consider the possible
causes of this paradox, we must pinpoint accurately the historical position
of the production. Firstly, we should consider in due weight the fact that the
premiere of Endre Martons mise-en-scéne took place barely three months
after the Royal Shakespeare Company’s King Lear guest performance in
Budapest (27'* February 1964), directed by Peter Brook. So the National’s
King Lear was staged directly on the heels of such a production that proved
genuinely pivotal in the 20th-century history of playing Shakespeare,*” and
had “such a magical effect on world-theatre that it practically paralyzed or
hypnotized further directors of the play.”“* Secondly, it was five weeks after
the opening on 28" June, 1964 that the iron curtain of the old, Blaha Lujza
Square building of the National Theatre (to be exploded nine months later)
came down for the last time, and many of the recollections mention that the
preparations to the new premiere and the farewell took place simultaneously,
exerting an extreme emotional strain on the company. Marton’s mise-en¬
scene can be interpreted today, first and foremost, as homage to the past,
while contemporary critics cheered it for “opening inspiring vistas to the
future”, for “our” Lear holding its own against that of the West, and with it
the actors “already embarked on the building of the invisible walls of a new
National Theatre”.**4 Despite its innovations, the production could not release
itself from the influence of Brook’s masterpiece “constantly haunting in the
air”,#?° or those retraction forces that were fettering the proceedings of the
National Theatre, not only in terms of aesthetics but also of human politics.“
In addition, the success story of the production cannot be separated from
the ongoing civil war between Endre Marton and Tamas Major, which split
the company into two parties,’ pushed the theatre more and more into
432 Cf, Tamas Koltai: Peter Brook, Budapest, Gondolat, 1976, 97-137 or Árpád Kékesi Kun:
A rendezes szinhaza, Budapest, Osiris, 2007, 273-275.
4133 Koltai: Peter Brook, 132-133.
#4 Miklös Gyärfäs: Epülö szinhäz. A Nemzeti Szinhäz Lear kiräly-elöadäsäröl, Nepszabadsag,
Vol. 22, No. 134, 10 June, 1964, 8.
Flóra Fencsik: , Lear szerepével búcsúzom a Nemzetitől...", Esti Hírlap, Vol. 9, No. 94, 224
April, 1964, 2.
Péter Léner’s two remarks become important in this respect. After 1945, “the National
became a gathering and hiding place for significant artists of different styles and mentalities.
[...] This diversity could only produce artistic achievement for a short time; it induced
many conflicts and even tragedies.” In addition, “there were 70 actors under contract at the
National Theatre. Marton said it was impossible to keep a company with 25 Kossuth Prize
winners together.” Léner: Pista bácsi, Tanár úr, Karcsi, 155. and 173.
While Marton did not stage Shakespeare at the National after King Lear, Major staged
six of his plays, until Gábor Székely and Gábor Zsámbéki, appointed as chief directors in
1978, came up with their own works (Székely with Troilus and Cressida in January 1980 and
Zsámbéki with the two parts of Henry IV in December 1980). It was rather impertinent for
Major to stage and play the title hero in a parody of King Lear, adapted by Gábor Görgey and
435
436
43
S
+ % +