Page 171 [171]
IMRE KERÉNYI: STEPHEN THE KING, 1985
the moral corruption caused by domination,*“* the compulsion to yield
oneself up emotionally,*“ and the unavoidable prevalence of fanaticism* all
obtained complex visual analysis.
While these issues were all welcome, the (not too complex) symbolism
caused some confusion. The ensuing debate mainly concerned the end scene,
which had been considerably refashioned compared to the production on
King Hill, and it was about the role of a child and the Anthem there. The child
rolled himself into a dark shroud in front of Stephen, who put down his crown
and regalia, grabbed his own head and sank to the ground. Then he raised the
boy high to show him to “the dead”, all lined up on the back ramp. The critics
of Magyar Nemzet and Film Szinhdz Muzsika identified the child with Prince
Imre, Stephen’s son (died in 1031 as an adult), with whom the mise-en-scéne
demonstrated “the future [...] with more lucidity”.**” However, in view of the
boys previous appearances, both in the production** and in the Hungarian
of History. This motif is eerily identical to the corresponding moment in King John.” (Koltai:
Törtenelem kontra Magyarorszäg, 13.) The critic refers to the moment, when in the middle
of the game of the powerful, Philip Faulconbridge (the Bastard) lifts up the corpse of King
John’s murdered nephew, the little Arthur Plantagenet in a similar way.
Cf. “When our national anthem is played in the final scene, this previously controversial
‘effect’ is not simply a patriotic coda: it accompanies a situation in which the sole political
authority, too weak not to kill, is forced to recognize his moral defeat." Mészáros: Az ősi
érdek, 7.
The mise-en-scéne made clear the strong emotional relationship of Réka and Istvan. They
run out of the stage, hand in hand, at the end of the song ‘Toltsd el sziviink fényesség’ [Fill
our hearts with brilliance] as a little girl in a green and a little boy in a white dress, in order
to run in the next moment as adults, in similar clothes, still hand in hand. When Gizella
begins to sing (between Géza, Grand Prince of the Hungarians and Asztrik, the high priest),
Réka steps farther away from Stephen, even though he is about to kiss her. At the end of the
song, Gizella and Stephen are already standing side by side, as a couple, and Réka is watching
them alone, hugged only by her father, Koppäny. The painful memory of their suggested love
determines their gaze on each other further on.
Fanaticism was emphasized by Sarolt on one side and by Torda on the other. “The most
tense, most decisive moment” of the drama was made memorable by Torda, the Taltos
(the shaman). “When Koppany was about to accept the royal sword from Stephen”, Torda
abruptly seized the symbol of peace offered to the rebel, which soon became the bloody
sword of battle in his hands. Antal László: A Táltos: Ivánka Csaba, Pesti Műsor, Vol. 35, No.
4, 22% January, 1986, 13.
Gábor: István, a király, 8.
The boy in a white peasant shirt appeared first at the beginning of the show, and the chorus
sang the song ‘Mondd, kit välasztanäl?’ [Tell me, who would you choose?] to him. Istvan,
also in a white shirt, and Koppäny were both facing him, when they sang the refrain,
“Help us!”, immediately stressing a serious question and a dramatic situation even in their
intonation. In the next scene, the boy held little Reka’s hand as the child Stephen, then he
became the bearer ofthe coronation sword later, and Stephen took the sword from his hands.
Tamás Mészáros rightly stated that the child appeared not really as a character but as a
"thought-out stage effect". In the last scene, therefore, it was not Prince Imre who turned up
unexpectedly, but “the child, already identified as Stephen, returned as a symbol, familiar
from the prologue”. Tamás Mészáros: Még egyszer Istvánról — avagy mia neve a gyereknek?,
Magyar Hirlap, Vol. 18, No. 252, 26 October, 1985, 6.
844
845
846
84
S
848
«169 +