Page 142 [142]
OCR
THE SHIFTING POINT OF FEAR AND TREMBLING all the 53 scenes of the five acts into 12 episodes and gave them titles. He used this Brechtian method (originally devised for the spectators’ orientation) in the spirit of Stanislavsky so that his actors could keep the actual objectives (incorporated in the titles) in mind.* But a special effect was dislocating the theatre of make-believe, as “the voice of the author” could be heard from time to time. When the characterization of certain figures on stage (in fact Gogol’s remarks for actors) were recited by Imre Sinkovits and scenes were standing still for a while, spectators could find these remarks fit for the actors so much “as if they had been written into the play during rehearsals”.°®* STAGING Having been developed for the Leningrad production and left unaltered in Budapest, the mise-en-scéne aimed at “a subtle display of the interpretation of the dramatic text" and was based on a clear-cut conception,°® not to say unique with regards to the literary criticism and the theatre history of the play. (Fantastic realism®”’ as its main principle had been unprecedented in Hungary since “our tradition of representing the abuse of power in the country comes from Kalman Mikszath and Zsigmond Moricz”,* outstanding writers of the late 19" and early 20" centuries. Endre Gellért’s staging obviously followed this tradition at the beginning of the 1950s.%°) Occasionally turning up as 683 Cf. Major: Tanultam, 7. — Tovstonogov asked the actors to write down the titles for themselves. “The purpose of this task was to make it clear to all actors what each episode was about, what it aimed at.” Saad: A revizor probain, 3. Koltai: Tovsztonogov és A revizor, 10. Mihälyi: Tovsztonogov-Latinovits, 776. This conception was summed up by the director himself six months before the premiere in an interview of Népszabadsäg, published on 6" August, 1972. Most reviewers were echoing this conception later. The term, supposed to come from Pushkin in reference to Gogol’s works, was also introduced by Tovstonogov in the above-mentioned interview. Mihälyi: Tovsztonogov-Latinovits, 775. Gäbor Mihälyi also pointed out that “some of the essential elements of Tovstonogov’s 684 685 686 687 688 689 conception had already been applied in Gellert’s mise-en-scene. [1] In particular, the fact that in contrast to [Max] Reinhardt’s staging, which had put the pseudo-government inspector in the center, this time the mayor became the main character of the show.” (Ibid. 775-776.) In a review on Gellert’s staging, written with purblind Marxism, György Lukäcs had called Reinhardt’s approach the gladly interrupted “bourgeois tradition”. (György Lukács: Gogoly: A revizor. A Magyar Színház bemutatója, Szabad Nép, Vol. 9, No. 123, 29" May, 1951, 5.) Referring to Lukacs, Péter Molnar Gal also noted that Reinhardt “had diverted the power of social critique to the tricks and pranks of acon man”. (Molnar G.: Tovsztonogov, 7.) [2] “Fear may have been the reason for misunderstanding even in Gellért’s staging, but it had not received as much emphasis as in Tovstonogov’s production. Gellért had wanted to draw our attention primarily to the intimidation of the mayor and his clique and favored the joy of getting rid of these rats and worms of the past so that we could laugh at them. [We must not forget that the production was created in the midst of the Rakosi regime, the rage of + 140 +
