Oldal 274 [274]
OCR
ANDRÁS VISKY but he is an angel, and as God’s anti-footman he seems a devil of smaller format than Mephistopheles. This is also demonstrated by the fact that there is no pact between the Lord and Lucifer, there’s no agreement one can call on. History is a dream which, however — this exemplary dream-dramaturgy! — we must make the viewer forget in order to preserve the dramatic deeds for him. The awakening, the intrusion of the pregnant Eve among us, this deus ex machina must be a great and experiential turn of events, not merely a simple reminder of the “unseriousness” of the theatrical play up to that point. Antal Németh writes about the highly successful Vienna production, which, by the way, he names a “cash register piece” (not bad!): “The main objective of the [Hermann] Robbeling dramaturgy was the most thorough possible elimination of resemblances to Faust, so that nothing should remind the viewer of Goethe’s opus.”?! That’s understandable. And for us, our main objective was a sweeping, accosting, then-and-there performance that wipes away all prior knowledge and invites the viewer into his own life. Lucifer carries forward the tradition of the small(er) platea-devils, dipped, of course, into the conceptual world of the Enlightenment. Because of the Phalanstery scene, Madach is forced (or so it seems, at least) to forgive him, since there, in the community of overdone scientificality, handled ironically, Lucifer becomes Adam’s co-conspirator, and — for the duration of one scene — not his opponent. He contradicts his own principles when he introduces Adam to the self-annihilating world of “cold” science. Another possible parallel comes up, which may assist the concrete thespian construction of the character in depicting the chief plot lines. And this is the example of the prodigal son: the older son who stays at home and doesn’t squander his patrimony resembles this Lucifer in several ways, since, per definitionem he, too, regards himself as a member of his father’s house. Most importantly, Lucifer’s sense of offense is striking: he feels he has been unjustly sentenced to repeat a grade. In the example of the prodigal son, the debauched wastrel, who nonetheless returns, chastened, becomes the positive hero, while the elder sibling is, in fact, condemned as a calculating mediocrity. Purcarete initially headed in the direction of radical minimalism. The absence of masks (and other items) at the end of the Roman scene lead in a different direction. They don’t crucify the apostle Peter upside down on the twobranched wooden ladder — I’m going to miss that! His speech is simple and free of anger: he is the sad, tired prophet who does not believe in the greatness of his mission, but despite that, still carries the miracle through to the end in the name of “holy love.” He doesn’t even take stock of his actions: he performs what the text prescribes with wavering faith. He is not only the apostle-actor but also Silviu Purcärete. And the miracle happens. 91 Koltai: Ibid., 38. s 272 +
