Page 159 [159]
OCR
IMRE KERÉNYI: KING JOHN, 1984 "truly cruel", "far more cruel than the cases when theatre gets puzzled by its abysmal seriousness”.’”! Since the production at the Castle Theatre was more stylized, “the rough power of acting”’” got reduced, and since it was “inevitably more refined, it lost something of its brashness”.””? Compared to the college performance, the moments that wiped the smile off the spectators’ face were considerably deeper. In other words, “the upward process of the play, in which the bloody serious embraces the bloody ironic, had become more pronounced”.’”* The mise-en-scene did not turn all sentiments into comedy, as it ranged from the absurdly exaggerated to the highly impassioned. It yielded to “the intensity of truly dramatic moments”, making the audience aware of the fact that “the bloody and depressing spectacle of the Grand Mechanism is played by men, not puppets”, and helping to discern “the anxiety and threat that emerge from behind the jokes”.”” Consequently, the ironic distance from characters and situations, “the demonstrative gesture of alienation was no performance, I went home in a bad mood, but after the college performance, I was in a really good mood. [...] Its cruel events were not narrative, but truly cruel and cathartic. In the production of the Castle Theatre, the Brechtian elements of acting are more intense, but they are not organic enough. [...] If theatre plays a disturbing, cruel story, it must be expressed through clear truths. [...] This type of performance requires a homogeneous medium. [...]. It requires ensemble acting, which is very difficult to create. On the small stage of the Odry, in that small auditorium, everything gets dense, at best, in a good performance.” But Ruszt also said that he loved “the kind of theatre that Imre Kerényi makes. I like the way he creates a background for the word, for a given gesture with a meaningful pantomime, with silent figures: the way he expands the interpretation of the play, the content of the moments. It’s all very exciting, very strong, very deep. I felt the actors’ rather superfluous approach to some situations compared to these elements.” When the interviewer noted that Pal Macsai’s Pembroke leaves the stage with Isabel, a hit by Charles Aznavour at the end, Ruszt said that “these are the elements I have a problem with. They get detached from the structure of the production and create completely private effects. There are only a few moments, one or two elements. [...] For example, the armor is rattling, which is obviously exaggerated. But its goal is to make me recognize that we live in a life-threatening world. If I only laugh at it, there’s no point, no truth. [...] It is the political machinery that is the point, and it refers to every moment of the production. It exposes this value system unmistakably, as they mop the floor, Pembroke comes in and examines it with a snow-white handkerchief to see if it is dirty. This will guide me, the spectator about the world we live in here. After this you cannot joke around here. Any acting elements that slightly lose their gravity, disturb the value system. History culminates in the city of Angers’ being destroyed. As a spectator, I should not think about theatre and fun here but about destroyed cities. [...] If a character of this town appears on stage in a funny way, it looks like we are just joking. [...] The basic situation of this production, its dangerous nature is an instrument which actors are not allowed to misuse or to take easily. The credibility of emotions is provided by truth to the spectator. If an actor focuses on the form instead of the content he has to create in a situation, he is like a weightlifter who is fooling me: just pretending to lift 120 kilos.” P. Horvath: Színházról fiataloknak, 28-29. Mészáros: A korszerűtlen ésszerűség, 7. Koltai: Kicsontozott királydráma, 29. Mészáros: A korszerűtlen ésszerűség, 7. Bulla: János király, 4. Takacs: ,Egy Pembroke az eredmény!”, 6. 771 a 72 773 774 775
