Page 109 [109]
OCR
ENDRE MARTON: THE DEATH OF MARAT, 1966 the main cause of the production’s supposed “epochal importance”,*** which made quite a few critics write about “the rebirth of the National Theatre and, perhaps more broadly, our ‘national theatre”.*® Cultural journalism called Marton’s mise-en-scéne one of the greatest artistic achievements of 1966,‘ and critics described how we were able to “have a contribution to the history of theatre again” with the interpretation of the play and with the director’s and actors" work." However, this was only possible with the critics" keeping the range of interpretations under complete control. Even the National Iheatre sought to help and govern reception by relying on only historical facts in its publications and focusing on the three protagonists by means of 18'* century documents and cleverly selected images.*** (Not to mention the fact that only adults were allowed to see the show, which was “not for youth”.“”’) Without “doublespeak”,® the revolution had to be understood as the one that started in 1789, and in no way could be associated with 1956, which was called a counterrevolution then, anyway. At most it could also be associated with 1917, but only as an uprising whose historical consequences all mankind must face, not as an event the ideals of which were gradually desecrated in the decades that ensued. It was only Judit Szant6 referring to a statement by Weiss, who said that the figure of Napoleon “represents Stalinism, lying in the background of Marat’s aspirations, and recognized by de Sade”.*°! But she also avoided expanding this interpretation, i.e. de Sade’s charge of a perverted revolution 194 István Zsugán: Az egyetlen választás. A Marat halála a Nemzeti Színházban, Esti Hírlap, Vol. 11, No. 30, 54 February, 1966, 2. Judit Sz. Szántó: Marat és De Sade, in Zsuzsa Gál M. (ed.): Színházművészeti Almanach, Budapest, Színháztudományi Intézet, 1966, 5. — Cf. also "one of the most exciting dramas and the most memorable show of the decade" (Anna Földes: Nagy mű, nagy előadás, Nők Lapja, Vol. 18, No. 8, 194 February, 1966, 25.); “the most valuable production of the National Theatre in this decade" (Pál Geszti: Charentoni színjáték, Képes Újság, Vol. 7, No. 21, 21" May, 1966, 8.); "an outstanding event in our theatrical life" (Ervin Szombathelyi: Marat halála. Peter Weiss drámája a Nemzeti Színházban, Népszava, Vol. 94, No. 35, 119 February, 1966, 2.); “a serious and cathartic experience you will hardly forget. It’s real THEATRE all in upper case.” (Zsugän: Az egyetlen välasztäs, 2.); “concerning its interest, novelty and importance, we have not seen a similar production on Hungarian stages for a long time” Kéry: , Tanuljatok látni", 8.). Together with Maria Sulyok’s “whole series of roles played by means of the widest range of skills”, Janos Ferencsik’s “conducting praised with rapture at home and abroad”, and also Andras Kovacs’s film “Cold Days, attracting worldwide attention”. G.P.: Szamvetés és előretekintés, 9. Sz. Szántó: Marat és De Sade, 8. Cf. "The theatre has published a small booklet and we must be very grateful for the diverse information we learn from it." László Bernáth: Nézőtéri jegyzetek, Munka 16:3 (1966), 28. István Gábor: Színházi figyelő, Köznevelés 22:6 (1966), 236. Magdolna Jákfalvi: Kettős beszéd — egyenes értés, in Tamás Kisantal — Anna Menyhért (eds.): Művészet és hatalom. A Kádár-korszak művészete, Budapest, LHarmattan — József Attila Kör, 2005, 94—108. 501 Sz. Szántó: Marat és De Sade, 6. 49 a 496 49 S 49 £3 49 © 50 Ss + 107 +
