Page 131 [131]
OCR
ENDRE MARTON: CHAPTERS ON LENIN, 1970 “richness” that could depict “the human polyphony ringing from the clarity and certainty of Lenin’s thinking”.** That is why multiple actors recited texts which were attributed to one name in the script. Additionally, musicality and choreography became key elements of the mise-en-scéne, the former mostly based on the much-touted vocal talent of the National’s actors, the latter as the dynamics of formalized movement“ and the visuals (composed of projected images). This dynamics also “underlined and emphasized the point of the text almost musically, and gave a subconscious meaning to sets of problems that were otherwise too complex to react to”.” The staging of the first chapter built on a low-key, slightly stylized depiction of the things mentioned in the letters from exile. Leafless branches, running brooks, rails in motion, etc, turned up on differently sized screens, together with the play of light and shadow on stage, while larger groups of people appeared in well-lit circles, or just a single actor, separated from the darkness by a headlight. In the second chapter, the actors were placed in front of “graphically elaborate, but unidentifiable images”®** of the backdrop, sitting on bentwood chairs. They read excerpts of the meeting minutes from bound volumes, sometimes standing up or stepping forward, structuring the flow of the argument with each empathetic movement. The third chapter did not use background images (apart from the video of water springing up between exploded blocks of ice), in order to “compose the space solely with actors and light, to structure the empty stage with them”, strongly basing the composition on counterpoints.$* The fourth chapter also declined to use projection, it extinguished even movement, sat the actors back down on the chairs to cite the words of the two friends almost motionlessly, with the bare backdrop brightly lit in light blue and the projection screens still hanging low. Using tools in this variation, from a slight hint to full abstraction, the mise-en-scene made an attempt at “forming intellectual contact with its audience”. In other words, having a distance from Socialist Realism, but following a Marxist ideal, the production created the possibility of “communal 635 Sas: Fejezetek Leninről — Döntés, 4. 636 The critic of Pest Megyei Hírlap thought that it contradicted the teleology of the text. He stated that Gyurkós goal was to avoid "heroic appearances stiffening into sculpture. This is contrary to the performance team moving with rigid body in geometric shapes, the empty stage space with the projected images and some actors’ declamatory style. The production as a whole is like a heroic gesture.” Kriszt: Fejezetek Leninrôl, 4. Almási: Viták a köznapisäggal, 1329. Molnar Gal: Rendelkezéproba, 216-217. Ibid., 218. Cf. “On one pole, a choir of women bursting into arioso voices are telling the military history of the siege of the fortifications in Kronstadt. On the other pole, Lenin [Tamas Major] is speaking about something very different, and yet the same: the relationship of the working class and the peasantry.” M.B.B.: Fejezetek Leninrôl, 5. 641 Sas: Fejezetek Leninrél — Döntés, 5. 63 S 63: æ 63 © 640 «129 +
