Maladype has a heroic fight with Acropolis by Wyspianski in the Bárka Theatre. The ghost of the place is floating there above their heads: they are fighting for theatre in the fencing hall that is hardly suitable for it. „People’s aim is the fight itself”, as the great classic writer made Adam speak flying in the space. Actors can fight only to give effect to the sentence by Madách. They fight with the text, with the circumstances, and secretly they may hope to get their aim with it. Probably they are not right. This fight can be heroic too but it does not mean theatre itself.

The premier became a gossip news in the culture media. They had something to talk about. Two of them directs a play, they do not do it together. Sándor Zsótér and Zoltán Balázs share it like brothers would do. On the base of fifty-fifty.

I did not mention The Tragedy of Men for my own sake before, as some Hungarian literature analysts put in a loose parallel next to Acropolis, Faust by Goethe and Madách’s work too, as each literary works connects together in the same drama “the culture circles which exist separately in the time”. Wyspianski has gone against anyway the usual dramatic thinking, his mythical vision throws away the hero who has a new figure in each era (as Adam or Faust). He has left the actions in their traditional way, stepped over the keeping of the time line, the direct dramaturgical line between the scenes but many times (as in the first and second scene of Acropolis) even that inner coherence that can connect together the scenes next to each other.

“The work as a poem is a whole one” – states György Spiró, the most important Hungarian translator and experimenter of Whyspianski. It is a close result of all these that there is not any theatrical tradition of the drama with four scenes, which was written in 1904. We could hear it in Hungarian on stage for the first time with Vince Hajba modern-like translation. Wyspianski – however as a set designer, consultant and not a professional director he would become a theatrical person himself too – knew the problem that was caused by the performability of his play. In his stage directions that were written also as poems (!) he mentioned many times the expression of impossibility on stage.

Acropolis is that kind of score “where there are unplayable parts”, as Spiró wrote it and “the score as a whole thing is against the performable play”. But Zsóter would not be Zsótér and Balázs would not be Balázs if they were stopped by it. Is it unperformable? Then let’s see it! Is it unsolvable and mysterious? Let’s do it!

They divided the four scenes into two (they can do it as the scenes of Acropolis can be treated as isolated plays), both of them work with their own designer team but with the same troupe, with Maladype. Zsótér gets the first two scenes (the resurrection of the angels and the legends of Troy), Balázs gets the last two (Jacob and Esau’s story, and King David’s mono drama). The two directors’ points of view, if we take into consideration their similarities and differences can be placed next to each other. On the basics. The whole thing does not work or fall because of it.

The basic story of the drama is childishly charming, Wyspianski gives the Greek Acropolis name to Wawel of Krakow, where at Easter, during the night of resurrection the statues which are there, the tombs and figures of tapestries get into life. The first two scenes, directed by Sándor Zsótér can get into life thanks to Mária Ambrus’ ingenious sets. Mari Benedek’s costumes, the silver dresses of the fight for love with their ringing wind harps and the “scene of Troy” with its togas made from big patterned terry bath sheet – one by one and together too, are brilliant.

The stage is surrounded by the line of chairs for the viewers. On the huge place in the middle there is a signed plan of a church (or castle), made by big phone books, full of with side aisles, offsets like an opened ruin from the ancient time. There are charmed, incense-scented, ghostly lights. The sight is archaic and bravely modern at the same time, it pulls us into the past, and keeps us in the present. There are human sized statues rolled on wheels threw into the place, they are not realistic according to the ancient ones, but they are really modern, they do not show imagined pictures but everyday realism. According to the director’s nice thinking the actors are talking to statues, touch them, caress them, love them, but when the statues “answer”, then the actors speak not to their actor partners but turned to another statue - that way all dramatic hero get doubled on Zsóter’s stage: they become statues and actors, artificial and real, dead and resurrected at the same time.

In the walls like tea light in a cemetery, in plastic hearts colorful laser light is dancing. At the end of the “main aisle” standing like an altar, red geraniums are lighting next to a retro coffee maker. Around the “building” there are foldout books of tales standing on their edges. Klio during the first scene grabs one of them, and he is thinking about whether throws away knowledge from himself when the resurrected ones tempt him to love. The angels are moving on goods lift which is used on constructions between the flies and stage, between the sky and earth. They “bring to life” each other from their statue like life, the antique figures of different tombs, to start a Bacchanalia full of love up until they have time and it is not getting light. We have to understand this Bacchanalia of course, from Zsótér’s point of view. Which means that this romantic over turning appears mostly in words. From the poetic text which is said by frozen face, focused on one point and in a narrative style. The actors’ task to make the melodic text of the drama plastic and understandable to the audience with that minimalist technique, which is asked by the director. For it they have to understand what they say first of all. It is hard for the ears if they are looking for words, start it many times and their speech technique is under trained. It would not be improved on the stage.

Maladype still has problem with pure speech. We can hear (if we can as the huge space can absorb sounds) Wyspianski’s rampant poetic hustle but no matter how hard we want to we cannot always understand it. It would worth to make a survey that how many people and how much could understand for the first sight from the second scene where the noble characters of Troy are hardly identifiable – I admit that not much. (However, Hector appears who is about to fight against Ajax, but we do not reach up until their fight, or Paris and Helene, the two lovers, who are making love carefree, while the others are fighting but they are just poetic symbols too.)

The third scene must be easy for the audience, as everybody knows Jacob and Esau’s biblical chapter. There is new place, new staff, new director. And yes, it is a story which can be told, it has a beginning and an end, conflict and release, lesson and tone. The original one has it. The one which is directed by Zoltán Balázs from it, does not have many.

Actors of Maladype are moving slowly like sleepwalkers around the edges of the stage which is covered by carpets in Judit Gombár’s oversized, floor long, black silver dresses with painted arms. Sometimes they stop, knee down, there are congas in their hands (Isaak holds it on his head like the symbol of his greatness), then they start moving again, with rigid postures and contrived like clock works that are winded. Their movements give frames to the play. The actions are going on in the middle of the desert made of carpets, the actors are coming towards to the players on the imagined diagonals from the edges. They are moving on and on like black ghosts, birds of death with broken wings. The cumbersomely long arms of their dresses are on the floor. There is an orange dome of drapery above them. It comes down from above for the first time at the meeting of Jacob and Rachel, it surrounds them, forms a tent for their love. Then during the fourth scene Szabolcs Hámori, the opera singer tidies it to his waist, and while he is singing he is moving around his axle slowly, then the giant skirt winds around him. Rarely happens with me that I get outside so much that I can see in front of me.

I usually immerse in it till my neck, even if it is bad. But what can I do with a theatre which does not affect but fails? It is not beautiful but does the polite. Which is over directed. It is mechanical, rigid and factory-like. Everything which is human like, they clean away from it: glance, gesture, sigh. It is over mannered. We, the viewers in spite of our wills becomes sights too, like sparkles on the Christmas tree, as we are holding awkwardly the lighting candles in our hands, Zoltán Balázs’ returning props.
Artúr Kálid gets grey into the group, Éva Bakos is frantic because of compliance, Kamilla Fátyol and Hermina Fátyol are pale, Balázs Dévai could give more of himself, Zoltán Oláh gives less from his speech problems, Kristóf Horváth as Jacob fights not only with the angel but with the role too. Nóra Parti sparkles her knowledge, when she “tries to bring to life” the valiant with sword. Ádám Tompa – not only as the valiant – tunes well into the strange theatrical atmosphere.

Szabolcs Hámori would get all respect for his performance during the 4th scene, who with professional humility and with deep empathy shows – during the night hours – with László Sáry’s composition the oratory mono drama of Kind David who is the composer of the psalms. “The angels are sitting” around him, they are the actors of Maladype. They are singing as a synchronised choir with Kornél Mogyoró’s leading. They are whispering Wyspianski’s poetic experience or they are playing it rhythmically on congas.

They are playing endlessly and we should listen to it. Whether it is weird or not, I syllabify that how many will the singer have to turn from the music.

Csaba Králl, Kritika, 2006

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)