Oldal 98 [98]
OCR
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-enscene 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 + % +
