Mircea Morariu: Why is enchanting what is hidden
“The hidden can enchant me”. Jean Starobinski starts his essays, which have been published with the Romanian tittle of Textul și interpretul, with this simple sentence of a subject and a verb. The Romanian translation was made by Ion Pop (Univers Publisher, Bukarest, 1985). „The hidden one is the other side of the presence” as the French critic goes on with it. It is a natural human desire that we would like to see more. But then Starobinski goes on that way: ”my punctual desire is to be able to see more, to refuse and transform my temporary borders; it makes me question those things, which I have known, to handle the known one, as misleading set.”
Master and Margarita, which has been performed in Radu Stanca National Theatre, enchants me. With its mystical theatrical world, grandiose, baroque-like structure, with all of that can be seen for the first sight and remain hidden from it. By being able to make you unsure of what, you have known, by that fact that it always encourages you, and asks questions. You must ask questions in connection with the performance and questions the way, how you watch it. It does it in spite of the fact, that the script, which has been written by Ilona Kiss and Zoltán Balázs, has obviously some weak points: it is not complex enough, it needs to be rethought, it needs compression. And in spite of the fact, that the main characteristic of Bulgakov’s novel, the unique metaphysical content has been sacrificed many times on the altar of visual aspect.
In spite of the fact, that those can be right, who state that Zoltán Balázs’ staging minimizes the theological dimension of the great Russian writer’s work on behalf on the theatricality. And in spite of the fact, that thanks for the process of theatre in theatre, the performance can become the celebration of Thália and can be changed into the art of director, which has been more and more determining from the XIX. century (the well-known representatives of this art often makes a deal with Faust), from the performance many important topics have been missed obviously, which can be still found in the novel.
The enchanting and the desire, to be able to see more, and to be able to step over my own temporary borders, make me go again towards Szeben, and accept the local National Theatre nice invitation to watch the second version of the performance too. In it the cooperation with the Maladype Theatre is more noticeable, partly because of the appearing of some Hungarian actors in the cast. That way a second layer of the hidden becomes visual for me too, but only one, as the performance still remains mysterious for me. But I think, it is a conscious step: remaining always mysterious, never showing yourself completely. It makes the viewers return.
After all these I am sure that the two versions wonderfully complete one another. Mainly because, the dramaturgical arc of one of them is different from the one. The performance is still similar to the representation of Judas’ gospel. It is true, that we can meet the topic of the killing of Judas in the second version too, however it is not so intensive and spectacular than in the first version, which I watched a month ago. And it is because the end of the performance, which is carried in that version mainly by Ciprian Scurtea (Judas) and Vlad Robaş (Matthew the Apostle), while in the new version it is built on the characters of Margarita (Ofelia Popii) and the Master (Marius Turdeanu), who are connected by their love even after death, and by Margarita’s possession toward Berlioz’s burnt, but in reality never completely burnt novel. I think, that the ending of the second version, somehow differently, maybe better and more understandably supports the summoning of the celebration of theatre, the famous directors and thinkers of international theatre of the past two centuries, as well as Margarita’s consent too, to become the host of this saturnalia, and to be standing naked during a whole night as the sign of her immense, unexplainable, crazy love, which she feels towards the Master. The ending of the second version, as I have said, tells less about the falsification of the Gospel, the changings of the text, and mostly shows something new in connection with the interpretation of Margarita’s sacrifice. By the meanings of the performance, and the obsessional appearance of the lost and found text, in this version somehow Ivan (Adrian Neacşu) and the Master’s (Marius Turdeanu) solidarity over life and death becomes clear in this version. I think, it supports the understandable nature of it, that they have recorded again some records, by which some technical mistakes (unfortunately not all of them), which make the understanding of the text harder. However, there is still something to improve.
Above all these the giant, overwhelming mise en scene of the Mater and Margarita in Szeben can be thanked for the character of the evil Woland. Who with the Hungarian Ákos Orosz’s performance is still very cruel, in spite of the fact, that the development of his character is less visual, less complex, than the character, who has been performed by Marina Mihu, who anyway – I still state it – shows his wonderful artistic maturity in this role. Woland’s more concentrated, more discrete presence seems to be – I tell it that way, I think about the confusing set, the Starobinski-like uncertainty – balanced by the presence of the other two characters, Behemoth (Zoltán Lendváczky) and Hella (Erika Tankó).
The three Hungarian actors bring another style with themselves into the performance and they also validate it. They tell the replies differently. Their phrasing is a little bit more linear, which their Romanian colleagues get too. It is out of question that because of it, some colleagues, who are on the performance of Szeben, give that reasonable impression, that the performance is characterised by frantic pace, monotonous pronunciation, metronome like speech, tiring repetition. These characteristics can mark a precise, anyway valid method of theatre making, but taking into consideration of the greatness of the performance in Szeged, they may not be the most suitable choice. Besides these I must mention one more thing. The already mentioned style has made the second Master and Margarita colder, frostier. But as I have already mentioned it, in this version we can see better the love affair between Master and Margarita. Of course, I have mention it as an interesting thing.
At the end of the article I would mention one interesting thing. Which is in connection with my personal experience as a viewer. In connection with my subjectivity. The watched the second performance lazier. Maybe because, I have got rid of some parts of my critical tasks, meanwhile a critic goes to theatre, because he loves it, but as soon as he arrives, he cannot miss the not so comfortable reality, that he must be very careful, he must be able to remember the smallest parts, as he would argue in his critic with the reference to them. During the second performance I felt something like the old Jules Lemaître could feel, when he read again some text by Georges Poulet. Georges Poulet wrote about these feelings that way in his book, titled La Conscience critique (Romanian translation: Univers Publisher, Bukarest, 1979): “By the time I have turned to the last page, I felt myself to be drunken. I am full of the great amount of enchanting and annoying memories of enormously deep feelings, and my heart is heavy because of universal and confusing tenderness”.
Let me explain it. I have compared even the first version of the Master and Margarita to Silviu Purcărete’s wonderful Faust, which I also watched in Szeben for the first time, in September, 2007. Now the Mater and Margarita was appeared in front of me, as a part of that kind of theatrical continuum, in which we can find Purcărete ‘s Godot, The Idiot and Othello, directed by Andrij Zsoldak and Experimental Iov and Electra, which are Mihai Măniuţiu’s exceptional performances, and last but not least Gábor Tompa’s performance, titled The Rhino, which were also performed in this town. Undoubtedly it is a good performance, which had inexplicably and undeservedly short life. I remember the last scene of this performance. The prompter gives the text to Marian Râleá, who performs Berenger, who becomes Ionesco’s herald by reading the text. But not only Ionesco. But the herald of theatre in general and of the theatre of Szeben. Of this Theatre, where the performances are for the living ones. And where the staging would like to rise out attention to the history, which we live through and realise.
Mircea Morariu, Revista Familia, 2013
(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)
Master and Margarita, which has been performed in Radu Stanca National Theatre, enchants me. With its mystical theatrical world, grandiose, baroque-like structure, with all of that can be seen for the first sight and remain hidden from it. By being able to make you unsure of what, you have known, by that fact that it always encourages you, and asks questions. You must ask questions in connection with the performance and questions the way, how you watch it. It does it in spite of the fact, that the script, which has been written by Ilona Kiss and Zoltán Balázs, has obviously some weak points: it is not complex enough, it needs to be rethought, it needs compression. And in spite of the fact, that the main characteristic of Bulgakov’s novel, the unique metaphysical content has been sacrificed many times on the altar of visual aspect.
In spite of the fact, that those can be right, who state that Zoltán Balázs’ staging minimizes the theological dimension of the great Russian writer’s work on behalf on the theatricality. And in spite of the fact, that thanks for the process of theatre in theatre, the performance can become the celebration of Thália and can be changed into the art of director, which has been more and more determining from the XIX. century (the well-known representatives of this art often makes a deal with Faust), from the performance many important topics have been missed obviously, which can be still found in the novel.
The enchanting and the desire, to be able to see more, and to be able to step over my own temporary borders, make me go again towards Szeben, and accept the local National Theatre nice invitation to watch the second version of the performance too. In it the cooperation with the Maladype Theatre is more noticeable, partly because of the appearing of some Hungarian actors in the cast. That way a second layer of the hidden becomes visual for me too, but only one, as the performance still remains mysterious for me. But I think, it is a conscious step: remaining always mysterious, never showing yourself completely. It makes the viewers return.
After all these I am sure that the two versions wonderfully complete one another. Mainly because, the dramaturgical arc of one of them is different from the one. The performance is still similar to the representation of Judas’ gospel. It is true, that we can meet the topic of the killing of Judas in the second version too, however it is not so intensive and spectacular than in the first version, which I watched a month ago. And it is because the end of the performance, which is carried in that version mainly by Ciprian Scurtea (Judas) and Vlad Robaş (Matthew the Apostle), while in the new version it is built on the characters of Margarita (Ofelia Popii) and the Master (Marius Turdeanu), who are connected by their love even after death, and by Margarita’s possession toward Berlioz’s burnt, but in reality never completely burnt novel. I think, that the ending of the second version, somehow differently, maybe better and more understandably supports the summoning of the celebration of theatre, the famous directors and thinkers of international theatre of the past two centuries, as well as Margarita’s consent too, to become the host of this saturnalia, and to be standing naked during a whole night as the sign of her immense, unexplainable, crazy love, which she feels towards the Master. The ending of the second version, as I have said, tells less about the falsification of the Gospel, the changings of the text, and mostly shows something new in connection with the interpretation of Margarita’s sacrifice. By the meanings of the performance, and the obsessional appearance of the lost and found text, in this version somehow Ivan (Adrian Neacşu) and the Master’s (Marius Turdeanu) solidarity over life and death becomes clear in this version. I think, it supports the understandable nature of it, that they have recorded again some records, by which some technical mistakes (unfortunately not all of them), which make the understanding of the text harder. However, there is still something to improve.
Above all these the giant, overwhelming mise en scene of the Mater and Margarita in Szeben can be thanked for the character of the evil Woland. Who with the Hungarian Ákos Orosz’s performance is still very cruel, in spite of the fact, that the development of his character is less visual, less complex, than the character, who has been performed by Marina Mihu, who anyway – I still state it – shows his wonderful artistic maturity in this role. Woland’s more concentrated, more discrete presence seems to be – I tell it that way, I think about the confusing set, the Starobinski-like uncertainty – balanced by the presence of the other two characters, Behemoth (Zoltán Lendváczky) and Hella (Erika Tankó).
The three Hungarian actors bring another style with themselves into the performance and they also validate it. They tell the replies differently. Their phrasing is a little bit more linear, which their Romanian colleagues get too. It is out of question that because of it, some colleagues, who are on the performance of Szeben, give that reasonable impression, that the performance is characterised by frantic pace, monotonous pronunciation, metronome like speech, tiring repetition. These characteristics can mark a precise, anyway valid method of theatre making, but taking into consideration of the greatness of the performance in Szeged, they may not be the most suitable choice. Besides these I must mention one more thing. The already mentioned style has made the second Master and Margarita colder, frostier. But as I have already mentioned it, in this version we can see better the love affair between Master and Margarita. Of course, I have mention it as an interesting thing.
At the end of the article I would mention one interesting thing. Which is in connection with my personal experience as a viewer. In connection with my subjectivity. The watched the second performance lazier. Maybe because, I have got rid of some parts of my critical tasks, meanwhile a critic goes to theatre, because he loves it, but as soon as he arrives, he cannot miss the not so comfortable reality, that he must be very careful, he must be able to remember the smallest parts, as he would argue in his critic with the reference to them. During the second performance I felt something like the old Jules Lemaître could feel, when he read again some text by Georges Poulet. Georges Poulet wrote about these feelings that way in his book, titled La Conscience critique (Romanian translation: Univers Publisher, Bukarest, 1979): “By the time I have turned to the last page, I felt myself to be drunken. I am full of the great amount of enchanting and annoying memories of enormously deep feelings, and my heart is heavy because of universal and confusing tenderness”.
Let me explain it. I have compared even the first version of the Master and Margarita to Silviu Purcărete’s wonderful Faust, which I also watched in Szeben for the first time, in September, 2007. Now the Mater and Margarita was appeared in front of me, as a part of that kind of theatrical continuum, in which we can find Purcărete ‘s Godot, The Idiot and Othello, directed by Andrij Zsoldak and Experimental Iov and Electra, which are Mihai Măniuţiu’s exceptional performances, and last but not least Gábor Tompa’s performance, titled The Rhino, which were also performed in this town. Undoubtedly it is a good performance, which had inexplicably and undeservedly short life. I remember the last scene of this performance. The prompter gives the text to Marian Râleá, who performs Berenger, who becomes Ionesco’s herald by reading the text. But not only Ionesco. But the herald of theatre in general and of the theatre of Szeben. Of this Theatre, where the performances are for the living ones. And where the staging would like to rise out attention to the history, which we live through and realise.
Mircea Morariu, Revista Familia, 2013
(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)