The moderator of the discussion:

Péter Galambos, journalist

Invited commenters:

György Karsai, critic, theatre historian

András Forgách, writer

András Forgách, writer:

As an earlier chooser, I would start with that whether I would chose it? I got to the conclusion that it is on the border, I am sure that it would be on my list, as a strange something that cannot be listed anywhere, but I am not sure that it would be between the finalist, maybe yes, because it is such a ”sensitization” of the theatrical view, it is unique in Hungary.

So I am very happy that it is here, because thank for it we can talk about those things which would not come up in connection with other performances. I like the director very much, I have a personal prejudice in connection with him, I have worked with him, he was still a college student, when he played in The Mischievous Child in Szolnok, which I wrote. He was incredibly creative, not only as an actor as he has a very multi-talented sensibility towards all parts of theatre.

I have written different viewpoints for myself, which I will take into consideration, and I will built my opinion from them. It will be about ten points. During the last ten years an opera-like way of thinking has appeared in the Hungarian art of theatre, which was not here so intensively before. It is not only Hungarian, it is universal, to make it clear opera has started to define the place of theatre and not the other way around. The interesting things usually come from the opera or musical way of thinking. I have noticed that in a funny way in Hungary there is a club Z, by name Balázs Kovalik, Zoltán Balázs, Sándor Zsótér and Kornél Mundruczó, we can call it that way as there is a Z in all of their names... The four of them show totally different types of worlds, but there are also overlaps in connection with their shapes, culture, preparedness and the story of their lives. It can be interesting to watch and think over this performance from this point of view too.

I do not have to mention that it is a performance with music, which structure can be better defined from the point of view of opera. It is an emblematic play: it is Empedocles. It is a fragment, the writer started it three times, but he could not finish it any time, he could always write its beginning, but in an interesting way, these beginnings, these first starts, these could go on over time. The first and the third versions are similar to the three scenes of a play anyway I think he wanted to write five scenes for his play. It is interesting – here I jump a little – that Zoltán Balázs’ typical technique to choose plays that others would not, either they are esoteric, mysterious or problematic, and here he steps out mainly as an interpreter or decoder artist. He does not direct Chekhov or Shakespeare, we can do the list of The Blacks by Genet, no one has done before him in Hungary, they have not done Theomachia, or I do not know about it, and Empedocles is on this list, which is a very problematic play for the first sight as we are reading it. So he has an enormous freedom both as a director and as an interpreter, because the viewers do not know it, they have not read it, so he can do what he want to, but because of the complexity and mysteriousness of the thing on the other hand he faces up against a serious task, a barrier. That way he puts the level high.

Fragments and incompleteness. It is very interesting – and here I jump to the structure -, there is no aim where it goes, anyway we know Empedocles’ life, he jumped into Etna, he was a very important thinker, doctor, politician, philosopher and in the end he jumped into Etna: so we know the end, but Höldrelin did not write it down, we just know it, and how can the director ease this fragments and openness we can learn it clearly from the set.

There is a long table, the two ends of it is closed by two trees, we can tell that they are white trees melted into each other, there are white balls on them, this is nature, and the table is in the middle, which can function as nature, and as the very accurate formula of civilization, with the continuous laying of it, during a very decorated and complicated ceremony, so it could become the metaphor of civilization itself too. If I want the whole thing is like a catwalk, the runway of fashion shows. As it is closed in the ends, and by the end of the performance the two endings change their places, it is obvious that the director invents a very close structure here, where the aim is the arrival. I would quote there if I was able to Kafka’s fragment, according to which there is no aim – which we call aim, is the journey, or I can add to it, that this is the movement itself towards the aim. Zoli chose obviously a very closed, abstract spatial and directorial deterministic ease of the fragment-like nature of the play.

To the solution of esotericism and to the mysteriousness we can connect another metaphorical meaning of fragmental structures, that we can see theatre as an experiment with theatre. As an experiment, where the actors’ work is as important part of the performance as the so called actions, and we must say that each situations of the actors, their exercises, as I could see it in the Bárka Theatre and here too, each moments have become more intensive and deeper, the presence of the actors has become richer, than in the Bárka Theatre. It is very interesting that the director defines this fragmental structure from the point of view of the actors’ work in a way that he gives them very concrete and important tasks.

The fourth point is the esoteric solution. Can we consider it as a solution, here is Empedocles by Hölderlin, which is a mysterious play itself, it has autobiographical characteristics too obviously besides history of culture, he wrote it after a big heartbreak and we know that originally he wanted to be theologian. It is obvious that I can see a metaphor of Christ here if I want to, many characters refer to it, here with their outspread arms, with the sacrifice, the great question is that the interpretational sets of tools use not only Christian one, but many other types of cultural signs. They use not simply the Christian one, but as in the case of the so called world music we can see the mixture of styles, it is very conscious, there is a painting by Hokusai on the poster, so we cannot see Etna in the background, but a Japanese motive, which is brought there, with a strange figure in Spanish wig, fur coat, a dress with the frame of an umbrella with a world of tools, a pink corset and half naked bodies: so many things are mixed there consciously. It is a point of view, about which we can speak, if this eclecticism is solved in this performance.

I go on, if we see a performance which is not in connection with Christianity, with a religious aim, which actions are not defined, as its beginning and ending are the same, it is a mirror-like case, than what is going on in the deep, here I just throw in a name, as it happens with Greenaway, at least in case of film art, it gives really deep connotation to the story, the method of the very strong Eros, homoerotic tension and opening to widen the meaning, than there are these culture historical or theological moments.

I have to tell that sexuality gets the place of philosophy, this nice homo-erotic colour of the hardly visible nipples, of the relation between the students and their master, this demonstration of bodies, goes towards erotica anyway, the mixture of styles also makes us remember Greenaway’s baroque tide, meanwhile Zoltán Balázs uses really pure set of tools. Which is not far from Empedocles who was Plato’s great admirer (at least according to Hölderlin).

In case of Zoltán Balázs it is very important for me, and that’s why I am waiting for all performances with great interest, and follow them, it is the reason that for me seriality is the only meaningful thing in art this is my mania, it has meaning, and we can observe things, it is no use analysing the performance alone, but it is more interesting and wealthier if we can see a scale of performances.

I have seen Jack, or the Submission, Theomachia, The Blacks but who has seen only some of them, they may not recognise, that something is forming there but it has not reached the point of absolute sovereign thing, we cannot tell that it has a final directorial language, but a unique language is forming there, about which we can talk, but I emphasize only one element of it, the movements around the table here, we can refer back with the length of the table, which has appeared in case of Jack in the lines of windows, but there movements, this endless unit, with the girl, who is going up and down the stairs during Theomachia, the running man in The Blacks, at the closed tribune, but someone can find a moment which means the closed nature of time, and the inner infinity. From the point of view of Hegel we can talk about good and bad infinity, for me after I can connect to Zoltán Balázs’ thinking in its problematics, it gets into the category of good infinity.

The work with the actors is my 8th point. It is very strange because we can see a mixed group, we can see the troupe of the Bárka Theatre, those permanent actors with whom Zoltán Balázs works together, we can see new faces and it is strange to see whether a homogeneous actor playing is formed or some actors’ performance got emphasized and their performances get separated from one another. I do not want to analyse them separately I just mention. From this point of view, as I have mentioned the practices of states and operas, I would refer to that type of thinking in connection with circuses, as each tricks appear, the most weird one is the appearance of humour in Zoltán Balázs’ oeuvre, which makes me really happy, there are the three rapper students or bandits or anyone else, who are following them. So the circus-like way of thinking appears in this closed world and gets connected to the closed time. Usually my last point is the aesthetics.

In Hungarian theatre it has appeared since the 90s, then I called it: theatricality without depth, but it has appeared anyway, as in Europe it has been for 20-30 years that means that the set, the performance itself is a very strong aesthetic statement, and not a theatrical statement. It is defined form the aesthetic point of view. I have written down some painters, I do not know how well known Delveaux is, these naked women, the covered heads, or Magritte’s kiss with covered head, or Carra, who is one of my favourite Italian painters, or Chirico, where appear the half puppet, half human models in a totally abstract metaphysical area, where time and the working with time is the fundamental problem of the actors’ work. It can appear beside Zoltán Balázs’ personal intensity, like an aesthetic factor, which can work totally independently from the performance as a power which effects the viewers.

It was very interesting that there was a short cut yesterday but the performance could go on. Fortunately the working light went on to the table, and at the beginning of the performance there were long beams of light painted on the floor, so this deterministic light worked very well during the performance, maybe it was hard to the director, but it proved the power of the performance for me, that it could go on after this catastrophe too and it could become a valid performance.

György Karsai critic, theatre historian:

Attlia Forgách has told almost everything. I would like to talk about this performance from different point of view. I feel, so I think when we talk about this performance, and about those things which we have seen from Zoltán Balázs, or what was built into it, where he is, the most important thing is what is happening in this theatre here.

Zoltán Balázs always invites us to think, to play together during his performances, to try out some ideas together. It is even braver as we could not see it in case of all performances, even during this festival, it would not appear as directors’ need. Never!

First of all about the topic: we cannot talk about a common cultural treasure that is performed here. We can expect that the audience has known the topic. We can think about the way, how it is put on stage. It is a historical drama as Empedocles was a real person, not Plato anyway but somebody else. Pre-Socratic philosophers were his partners, his forerunners in thinking, and he brought something new that he - as he told it at the end at the other side of the table where he got finally, I do not know how well could it be understood as a joke - , would like to understand the mechanism of nature to get on the same level with God that way. There is not any arrogance in it, when he made himself called as God, from his point of view. It is a complicated story in the Sicilian surrounding from the V. century...

András Forgách:

...I would like to tell – sorry to interrupt you - , that in the play Hölderlin talks about Plato. He forms a fiction. In real life we know that he was the member of the Pre-Socratic group. That way Plato came into my mind.

György Karsai:

I would like to go on to the text and speaking. It was a brave decision too that Judit Góczán and Zoltán Balázs use Gábor Hajnal’s translation, they have had it and did not get it retranslated. It brings up questions for me. The first time when I read Gábor Hajnal’s translation I thought it to be old fashioned. Maybe it could become more alive with another text, meanwhile the text and its presentation mean a fantastic experience in this surrounding. The performance could show us that a connection can be formed between the stage and the audience if there is a permanent tension.

It is shown there between – and I will tell many examples if I have time – the movements and the text. There is a wonderfully slowed down monotonous movement, which is a kind of challenge too. It is a little bit annoying to tell the truth, that when we arrive to theatre we feel that we join into something.

This story does not begin here and there – I repeat that this gives the invitation like feeling of the performance which is obvious with the setting and the table - , it goes on with the same speed, the same way, we get one piece of this whole endless story.

The most important piece of it as it will be the end of Empedocles’ story. In contrast with this slowed down moment we get a live dialogue during the first two-thirds of the performance, sometimes a speeded up social discussion. The characters do not speak that way as it is indicated by their movements. I cry out inside again and again that well they know what they can do. It brings up thrilling feeling in the viewers – or at least inside me.

The rap: I have noticed humour in The Blacks too. I think it is a strong and important performance. That kind of performance makes us remember it. Here the different genres are mixed very punctually. Everybody raises his head when the rap sounds in the performance to which Artúr Kálid’s Empedocles answers too. It has its precise place in the scale which the performance wants to show, that how many function can this character have in the life of this town, he is a philosopher, ringleader and doctor at the same time. In the text everything has its textual and conversational elements too. There was something in the tone of a priest, then sometimes he gets up against the leader of the other town as a ringleader. And then when it is rap everybody has to decide themselves that whether he leads as a ringleader or not. Probably he has this role in this town.

The three men in wigs: this is a choir. I think they get eclecticism in too, there is a sign of antique drama playing very punctually again on its place, a choir that sounds precisely, this is up to the genre in which they are playing. There are the women on the other side, who form their choir in a more complicated way. The veil can hide, we cannot see under it, we cannot find out that who is under it. There is tension again, that I am looking for Nóra Parti, because I would like to see her.

The space: the set table is a very complicated question, obviously it is a visual focus. It is there in the focus, you cannot leave it meanwhile it has a space formation power. It is not a table of course. There the direction opens the gate very wide. We can mention for example: the famous scene of Hair, when Berger dances on the table, and they have to take care not to kick the plates. Inside the performance it is a coherent scene, for me as a viewer it is very good that I can understand it, and then when I go outside into the street and talk to people who have had the same experience, then... well yes there is a football championship, then it is said that you can remember it too... these moments, the solution are the parts of the game.

If we are there by the set table, then talk about this type of moving. Who is this Manes, who sets the table? Well we have time to think about who he is, he must be a figure form under earth as it is signed by his colours. But we do not have to make it so concrete. A good figure from under is in black, but then he has the Turkish hat on his head, and a light pink corset. I was sitting quite close, and I liked these small details. There was a point when the whole group had the same kind of shoes; everybody had greyish leather shoes, both men and women wore it, except the two characters: Manes and Empedocles. Empedocles was bare foot, Manes had black shoes. They have formed a separate world, which will get its importance at the end. On the two thrones - which is another layer of interpretation - , which is a castle-like dining place, and they are on the two ends of a giant table, on the one end the king is sitting on the other end there is the secret, the place of his partner. But then the table is obviously not a table, but a strip, a fencing strip, where they live through the conflicts. There are always parallel movements with the area of this table. These characters, who are going around and around the table, never meet.

In this performance there are not any physical connections. I agree with those points that András has mentioned in connection with eroticism and that he likes seeing female breasts in theatre, it is not bad if they are there, but they have not brought up those erotic attraction to the viewers, I think. It is so weird, all these clothes, the old powdered wigs, the skirts, all these and the giant fur coat. When Manes, Pausanias in the end put his hand on Empedocles’ head, this movement could have many meanings from Christianity up until the Buddhism. And then I feel like to understand the tree, which is not a tree of course, there are not branches, they are not imitated to be a tree, its from is similar to a tree, as they are made of strings, and those part which are hanging there are much more ominous and similar to weeping willows. From the Indian way of thinking the picture of Buddha is there immediately, where Buddha is sitting at the foot of his tree, it is good for him and he has become wise. The first part of the play is about the fact that he is sitting there with motionless face and they can do anything what they want to, he has already arrived, they cannot touch him. Then he can be moved from this position - I do not want to talk about why -, in a logical and coherent way inside the performance, to make him move to the other side, where maybe a clown like figure who is marked on his head, non-European, but Eastern like way, or something like it, a figure who is similar to Buddha touches him. It means the transfer of power, blessing, the ending and the end of something. All of it is very complex.

Again about the setting of the table. It is an enormously exciting phenomenon, and there is my only problem, at about the 5th minutes of the performance the viewers can understand that the performance will finish when the setting is over. But what is he setting, for whom and what will happen with it? It is obvious that he is not setting for a meal. Somebody is setting to sit somewhere. But there are no chairs. Then what he is putting on the table, it will be a dinner of fish with three courses, but practically there will be only two, as the number of cutleries is enough only for two. This process is a very well placed scale of events. When people start thinking it over, then they can see more and more layers of it, and it is good to play with it. Meanwhile for example, this table, this can be a seesaw with trees at the ends, but it can be a bridge, which leads from somewhere to the other place.

And in the end about the bodies and costumes. Judit Gombár has created something great again. This monotonous feeling, which characterises the whole performance, does not mean that there is some kind of leisure feeling in this performance. We have to watch very carefully continuously. The things happen and form continuously and this is another perfect example of creating tension.

András Forgách:

I would like to ask one more thing, why there are 13 sets? Why are not 12 and one more? I always want it to remain 12.

Zoltán Balázs the director of the performance:

I think that 13 people celebrate this performance not 12. I have a musician, about whom we have not talked a lot, and he holds together all my performances. His name is Kornél Mogyoró, and he gives his life and blood for this performance. What he does is almost as complicated as Balázs Dévai’s setting, or any other of my actors’ work is.

There is this kind of thinking in Hungary that directors should be put into any kind of group then they can be interpreted easily. Zoltán Balázs nowadays is the representative of the theatre of ceremony. But it is not true, as ceremonies are not so simple, and those things that happen together in one place and time are not obviously ceremonies.

I think this strange setting of it all tries to interpret my relation to time. As András has mentioned The Blacks, the runners in case of Theomachia, the figure who is going up the spiral stairs, where the story strengthens the walking around the circle. I thing I have got a role, torn out of continuous time, from which I could see one important element of that, which is emphasised for me by some people, whether the beginning, the middle or the end of it. The important thing is that why that exact one.

In case of Empedocles I can see someone’s final days, ending moments, and meanwhile I can understand many things from the background story, as I cannot see the sin, which he did, that he told himself to be God, but because they always refer to it this Calvary cannot begin at the last moments, that is why I understand many things during the backward effecting linearity of time. The eternity of the setting, and the tension in it, if there is, is interesting for me, that waiting and predictability proves the fact that people know that life is as long as it is marked, but they do not know when it will happen. It could happen any time, as in the case of Empedocles it is wonderful, that he could leave this story any time, he would not need to play through the whole one and half an hour, he could say after five minutes, that it was enough, than to say continuously that I would leave, leave, leave.

For some reason he would not leave. This man is going to set until he decides that the moment has come when he does not have any other things to say, he has done everything and did not manage to. He could stop Balázs Dévai’s setting any time if Artúr thought about it seriously that the time was coming. But all of it is only about the suffering of a figure who always tries to define himself, his intention to analyse, himself, his life and his sins, or even to make a list of his mistakes and that way indicates the direction and time for the viewers in which they can become the part of this performance.

I would not like to make viewers hurry. I think if somebody comes to theatre they want to watch it, wait something form it, want to understand it, as they see obviously that the title is Empedocles and the writer is Hölderlin. It is not a popular category of We are not afraid of wolf, they must take their time to it. I think that those people, who work in it, they know precisely what they do. So for me there are 13 as it is celebrated by 13 people.

Péter Galambos, POSZT.hu, 2006

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)