Page 101 [101]
OCR
ENDRE MARTON: KING LEAR, 1964. power, according to the accurate insight of Péter Nádas in connection with the 1974 revival, the creators merely "fulfil their duty. Ihey stage King Lear. They retell the story. As a nice, well rounded, almost happy-ending tale.""! STAGING Endre Marton’s mise-en-scene was hallmarked with its moderation, its “grand, yet restrained style","? which, however, could not become a benefit for this four-hour tragedy performance played in three parts.” Due to his instructions, the acting noticeably left behind “the harsh sentimentality and empty effect-seeking of romanticism”##and it was devoid of cheap “sadness”.4 At the same time, he avoided “the pitfalls of the approach that was tailored to the aberrations of modern psychology”,“f in the sense that he did not sought his answers for the questions behind the interplay of actions and reactions in terms of psychological realism. But this “halfway” position brought about a sort of indeterminacy, accurately registered by Tamäs Koltai on the occasion of the 1974 revival: “This King Lear is not a social drama because it does not refer to the circumstances among which it plays out. It is not a psychological drama, as it does not establish links between the players: they are all left to themselves to build up a character that cannot find a way to other characters. But it is not even drama enough, because the situations are not acted out”? The recording of the performance does not commemorate an Endre Marton who, according to his students, was “an excellent analyst as a teacher”,*°*® instead it supports those later critics who complained about the “narrow horizon” of the production, and showed how much it lacked “the meticulous accuracy of drama analysis and the justification of the deeper content of the 451 Péter Nadas: Nézétér, Budapest, Magvetö, 1983, 16. 152 Ottó Hámori: Lear király. Shakespeare tragédiája a Nemzeti Színházban, Film Színház Muzsika, Vol. 8, No. 22, 294 May, 1964, 5. 153 According to Péter Léner, Marton "had been careful since the late 1950s to allow only the necessary physical actions instead of routine, banal, ‘general’ movements for actors. It was not so spectacular, but it had become an important element of his style.” Léner: Pista bácsi, Tanár úr, Karcsi, 177. 154 d.t.: Lear király, 2. 155 Cf. "Do it hard, manly... Dont be sad — we hear the director’s instructions again and again at the rehearsals of King Lear at the National." Fencsik: , Lear szerepével", 2. 156 d.t.: Lear király, 2. 157 Tamás Koltai: Lear király. Shakespeare drámájának fölújítása a Nemzeti Színházban, Népszabadság, Vol. 32, No. 248, 23 October, 1974, 7. Koltai: Keresztutak, 10. Péter Nadas’s account of Marton’s King Lear, László Vámoss Antony and Cleopatra (Víg Theatre, 1974) and Ottó Ádáms Othello (Madách Theatre, 1973) "runs into the analysis of Shakespeare’s works with the excuse that the narrow horizon of the productions does not offer much possibility for other kinds of intellectual activity.” Nadas: Nézétér, 16. a S 45: ® 45 © + 99 +
