A very visual set, despite popular belief is not among the grateful stage properties: somehow it always raises suspicion. The strong visual starting can put the involuntarily sceptic viewers outside, and make the performance face up with a hard task: if all these impressive visual characteristic can become an inside one, and can it integrate us into the special logic of the happenings on stage? If yes, then immersing into the performance, the question is not a question anymore; if no, then that night is about it.

We may know too much about the Macbeth interpretation of Maladype according to the symbolism of the beginning picture. The stage is black, in the museum like sterile place it is generous, it is a stylized object which can show harp and a ship as well: it has arc as an instrument, varnished surface, it is a slightly rising podium. In the middle of it there is a hole, filled with soil, in it the skeleton of a fossil is standing, behind it a wall of string, which is connected to the arc rises up to the sky like a sail. On the right hand side, a corridor, marked by columns, leads to the darkness, next to it, in the empire of instruments, there is a clown-like figure in suit jacket, checked shirt, underpants. There are music and dark instincts, consciousness and unconsciousness, will and fate, and in the middle Macbeth’s squatting naked figure. This directness can be a fast made background, the marked frame of the performance, which is made of strong features, inside it the most important thing can be born: the tragically human like nature. It can motivate heroes, the rebellious one against determination, the one, who wants to get into his own hand his fate anyway, the man, who is vulnerable either to the king or to his own demons (desires and fears) and his hopeless fight and inside-outside failure.

Anyway, Zoltán Balázs’ staging does not pull back these visual ideas later, but with the scales of gags and other special, visual tools makes impossible, that the energy can be formed between the actors, which can make the too meaningful place a considerable one.

The puppet from points and commas that is moved by the actors, is good to see, but it cannot find its place in the tragedy; we can think, that the director could not decide whether it stands for the childish ego or the skeleton-death; and finally it gets the role of entertainment, which is independent from the situation. Anyway the man of lines is a good performer, because of his nature too, he is in contrast to the vivid rats that are closed inside the podium and become visual in the flashing background light. They are irretrievably “civilian”, it is even worse: not symbolically, but in reality, they are creatures of instincts. So we cannot blame them because they use the technical mishap, they try to escape one by one, as we cannot blame the viewers for the fact that this real situation on the stage, which is generated accidentally, catches more their attention than the quasi happenings, which go on between the actors. In connection with these later ones, it is hard to decide, how much can they be connected to the circumstances and the to the performances, but that lean telling of the text, which is typical for the performance, it tries to hold back the feelings, and that lack of movements, which can be understood better from the sentences, than perceptible, it is against the angers. It could be very expressively effective and convincing as the counterpoint of the inner tension, which is ready to explode. Without the necessary emotional adding it is unable to focus our attention, from which both the viewers and actors seem to be caught by the externals that come from the set. For example, how the puppet should be animated, how to pull up the zip of the costumes, how to climb the plastic skeleton and imitate desire and satisfaction on the top; later how to dig out and take apart the statue, catch the escaping rats, and take them by their tails back to the stage manager. This latest episode is a bad luck, we should not notice it, if it did not become symbolic as a self-ironic gesture and understandable scene, in which the famous lines of “The life is just a fading shadow, only one / poor ham...nothing / It has no meaning” can be heard. Ákos Orosz laments them with a plastic puppet in his lap, which has Ákos Orosz-like face, turns here and there, similar to skinned down human skin (the lines without any inner motivation can be understand from the point of the performance mostly).

Because, what has been happening to the heroes meanwhile? From Mari Benedek’s costumes and from the connections of roles we can feel, that we should pay attention mostly on Macbeth (Ákos Orosz), who more and more wants to cover his beginning nakedness and vulnerability, guiltlessness with tighter and tighter chainmail and on Lady Macbeth (Andrea Petrik). All the other characters are performed by Erika Tankó and Zoltán Lendváczky, by the puppet that they animate, and by Pár Péter Szűcs, who is always presented in the performance and serves the background music (which is sometimes too loud) from the rewritten versions of hit songs, which always reflects with its text to the given situation, and he serves all the exciting sound effects too. I am afraid, that someone may not have the play as a deep and fresh experience, with the four actors’ performance it is hard to follow the Shakespeare-like cavalcade with many characters and its complicated system of relationships, especially because, many times the “changings of clothes” are many times expressed only by openness of the lace-tights-like dress, which are zipped up till their necks. From this it can be felt that for Zoltán Balázs some kind of story would be important not the story itself – but its kind can be found out more but felt. The traitor Cawdor’s hear is put out to the peak, and the fallen leader’s rank and wealth according to the order of the king were given to Macbeth, who hopes the witches’ predictions and kills his ruler cunningly to be able to stand in his place. The thing would be interesting from now on, as because of the ruler couple’s paranoiac silliness, who are fighting with their conscience, the road of the tyrant, which leads toward coldblooded cruelty, can become forgettable, together with its all inner motivations. That way Macbeth can become a tragic hero, who in Cawdor’s fate, unwillingly can recognise the unbearable order of the hierarchical world, which does not let freedom, and he can see the appearance of free will as the only way out, it is the acting itself. He takes his fate into his own hand, and because of it, he has all the responsibilities, because of the weight of his conscience, he cannot stop on the way, which leads to his fall; following by his nightmares and visions, he gets newer and newer sins onto his soul.

All of it was born not so immanently as they would be shown in progress, but they can be followed back from the last, Orwell-like associative picture: on the place of the fallen skeleton, the defeated Macbeth’s head was put (another copy of Ákos Orosz), and it becomes the prey of rats that now run in according to the plans. We can think it on, that who and how can be consumed by their own fears and demons, their own creature of instinct, but it is connected irretrievably to the closing picture and not to the performance.

Mária Ady, Színház, 2013

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)

In Zoltán Balázs’ staging of Macbeth in Trafó two performances seem to be condensed. The first one is very imposing, repeatedly associative, it would happen in an extreme place, next to the skeleton of a giant rat, on a podium, which surrounded by strings, which go up the sky, with a fraught gate that leads into nothing, and with rock like music of bones. Bodies are moving in it in the dimness that are naked, half-naked or partly covered by tights, the rhythm and way of their movements can become the characters of the story on their own. In a performance like this, we can see those dimensions of Macbeth’s story, which are over the happenings; the title, which is completed in comparison to Shakespeare’s one, also refers to it. Macbeth, who kills his own guest, the king just to live up to the expectations of his woman and his own rise, and his relationship to the Lady, who has given the sword into his hand, the sufferings of the conscience must be in the centre: not the action itself but the human reflections on it.

But this performance can happen only with its outlook: Pál Péter Szűcs extravagant musician, who is wearing underpants and suit jacket, on his special guitars can serve both the immersion and humour. He can make even more special the wordless parts of the performance with his excellent music, in which live rats get their role as well as a puppet of a man of sticks. It has such a strong ending picture, from which we cannot see many during a lifetime.

Anyway, Macbeth/Anatomy is not without words, as in these characteristics we can see the second performance. In which with the connection of some roles (only Ákos Orosz and Andrea Petrik perform all through the performance Macbeth and the Lady, all the other characters are performed by Zoltán Lendváczky and Erika Tankó) and with some cut, they perform from the beginning till the end Macbeth by Shakespeare, with Lőrinc Szabó translation. From it we cannot learn that Zoltán Balázs or the Maladype besides the creation of strong visual world, how differently can see the literary work, than other directors, and why is it important for them. The actors cannot live through well their roles, mostly they do not tell their texts understandably, in the big area they many times tell them incomprehensibly. That way the deep inner reflexion cannot be formed in connection with the happenings; the artistic concentration can be felt for no reason, the so far unknown dimension of the Macbeth-story do not appear. During the very few movements, we can feel the tension, but its internal and external results cannot be found, and it is hard to follow the story that way – and which is a much bigger problem is that as well as the inner changings of the characters and actors.

The first more formal performance encroaches on the second one, and the second one does not help to interpret, live through the first one, so both of them make weaker the other one – above all by the end the form gets tired too, which cannot make the telling of the text more vivid. None of them can show their whole value: so the question marks on the viewers’ forehead have not been written on by the changings of the soul of a man, called Macbeth – as they cannot get closer to it finally.

Bálint Kovács, Egyfelvonás, Origo/Kultúra, 2013

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)

1. When we talk about Mikhail Bulgakov’s tragic life and career, a famous petition has been mentioned many times, which the writer wrote in July, 1929 to Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, the bloody-handed dictator.

Theatrical mystery

The petition was written at that time, when the confused, not a little bit life threatening communist system, on different legal ways, put more and more intense and mostly psychological pressure on the writer, that way they tried to persuade the one, who was sentenced to death. The reason of this sentence was the fact, that the writer has become “a state inside the state”, “a strange phenomenon” – this outstanding nature the communist totalitarian system cannot handle for long – and consequently the fact, that he “was” a writer.

One of the most sophisticated experiment of Bulgakov’s career – he was professor, Ion Vartic – since the Romanian debut of the Russian writer in 1995 (Univers Publisher, Bucharest), when the whole novel was published first, he drew attention to two very important details in the epilogue of the famous Master and Margarita.

First, that another Bulgakov’s work, which has connection to his life, the Theatrical novel, which real tittle it A dead man’s notes. Secondly, there is a line in The Bug by Mayakovsky, which was published in 1929, where we can get examples for dead and old-fashioned words: “foolishness, bureaucracy, bohemia, Bulgakov, bickering”. “During the time of terror, when arrestment, the working camps in Siberia or simply the executions were ordinary, Bulgakov tried with desperate courage to slow down the faster and faster human and artistic breakups.” – as Ion Vartic stated it.

In both the present epilogue and in the book, titled Bulgakov şi secretul lui Koroviev: interpretare figurală la Maestrul şi Margareta (Apostrof Library & Polirom Publisher, 2006) Ion Vartic mentioned not only the petition written to Stalin, but Bulgakov’s letter too, which he sent to the soviet government on 28th Marc, 1930, which is appreciated by the analysers of the text as “the possible model of resistance”. The letter shocked us with “the informality of the writer’s tone, who does not know compromise”. “I am a MYTHICAL WRITER” as Bulgakov admitted it then (Ana-Maria Brezuleanu said in the work, titled Diavoliada, which was published by the Univers Publisher in 1998, that Bulgakov himself wrote it with capital letters), and immediately added to it “with dark and mystical colours” to emphasise “many horrific aspects of our everyday life”. According to Ion Vartic, the creation and content of Master and Margarita can be understood truly only together with the concerned letter.

Key to the labyrinth

I think, that the performance, which was performed in the Radu Stanca National Theatre, which is fatally but aimfully different from the text of Bulgakov’s novel, and based on the script, which was written by Zoltán Balázs, director, in cooperation with Ilona Kiss, cannot be understood without the knowledge of the above mentioned letters: this baroque-like strong performance, which has great forms, it is enchanting, overwhelming, sometimes it is hard to follow, it has many dark depth, with many, many times not too understandable symbols, with intentional missing, which has double meaning, with weird things, with many unjustified adding, with characters, who are appear inexplicably, and then disappear, and it flows as wild tide. It is no matter, how free the script is, no matter how rich in mysteries it is, no matter how complicated the dialogues are, they can be very surprising, rich and sometimes the symbols can be messy in it, the Master and Margarite, which was performed in cooperation of the National Theatre of Szeben and the Maladype Theatre of Budapest, can keep the mystical nature of the original text, and that speciality, that it is the chronicle of Moscow in the 30s and of the happenings of the soviet world. Meanwhile it must have been this kind of chronicle before.

In the performance we could know the Master (Marius Turdeanu) and Margarita’s (Ofelia Popii) unhappy, tragic, impossible love story. I would be happy if it appears a little bit more pregnant. As we meet Ivan’s, the writer’s story, who is the Master’s employee and herald at the same time, his is a fragile and rebellious soul, who gets to know the reality of destruction, which becomes the symbol of the communist system, in the psychiatry. Ivan and the Master are in the same cell at some point, Ivan may become the saviour of that Manuscript, which the Master would like to burn. “The manuscript has never burnt!” we can see many expressions of this replica in the vision of the performance, it is easy to compare to the outcry of “burn all of his books”, which can be heard in Tempest by Shakespeare.

The characteristic symptomatic appearance of the hypocrisy and the reversal point of view are also presented, which are depended on the compromise, possibilities, context of the people, who have organised leading position in dictatorships (we can see an informative part, at the beginning of the performance, which make us remember those ideological ideas, which the communism can fulfil that way, that they manipulated everything, even the art too, with imitation and moral resignations in connection with it). The reality of trumped-up charges and traps, which ended in open trials and often refusals, are also mentioned. I think about here the free interpretation of Jesus (Ofelia Popii) and Judas’ (Ciprian Scurtea) story, which ended up in the killing of Judas, but not in a simple way, but with the help of manipulation, as a reflexion to the rewriting once made by Matthew the Evangelist (Vlad Robaş). The censors of that time (Adrian Matioc and Cătălin Pătru) order the cunning refusals, who are the reincarnations of the prosecutors and people, the agents and informants from the past century.

We can also see the episodes of compromising, arresting (Archibald Archibaldovich’s story – Dan Glasu) or of the disappearing (as it has happened to Libodjev too - Florin Coşuleţ). In the script and in the performance too we can see a world, which is opportunist, confused, in panic, coward, grotesque, depraved, and which is directly subordinated to the evil, who is reincarnated in the building of Kremlin and the world, which is polluted by it, which I can see as the part of everyday life, and about which Bulgakov also wrote in his letters, mentioned above (Ema Veţean, Serenela Mureşan, Eduard Pătraşcu, Diana Fufezan, Mihai Coman, Viorel Raţă, Cristina Ragos, Arina Ioana Trif, Gabriela Neagu, Éva Ungvári, Sanda Anastasof). The world of Woland’s puppets, fulfillers, slaves failed and get changed, Woland appears on the stage as the reincarnation of the Satan, in a wonderful, multicoloured way, the burlesque-macabre like appearances proves the modest knowledge of the character, which are connected to nice gestures and sounds, and to all of these Mariana Mihu’s exceptional actor performance can be connected, which inventively experiences the emotional waves.

Isolda Vîrsta’s notice, who is one of the interpreters of the novel: “the reader can face up continuously with the connection of different elements; the combination of time layers, the lyrical sideways, which emphasise the deep philosophical and social ideas, the connection of satire and parodic, the romantic irony, in which we can find tragic tones too. The contrast, as an artistic tool, it can be found easily.” (from Mihail Bulgakov – Colecţia Monografii, Univers Publisher, 1989, Bucharest).

Naturally for both Ilona Kiss and Zoltán Balázs, who are the script writer, and for the director, Balázs too, it must be an almost impossible task to show all aspects and meanings of the novel, even if the performance always tries to keep most of the modern transcript of the Faust-myth, which Bulgakov dealt with. The novel itself is heterogenous, so it keeps many pledges of the blurred points of view. The script can be valid, and the staging can reflect authentically the complexity of Bulgakov’s novel, and it can create both aesthetically and artistically a really convincing, independent aesthetic performance, because the director uses the excellent basic idea of theatrum mundi as a help, and he puts most of the happenings into theatrical place, so that way a vivid, dynamic, changing theatrical mystery can be created by him.

We are watching as in a theatre

2. So thanks for the big and detailed set, we can find ourselves inside a totally true-to-scale variety theatre, which has been dreamt by Velica Panduru (who is anyway the designer of some purposefully weird and because of accused by being very theatrical costumes) and by Zoltán Balázs himself. This theatre can thank its functionality and technical stability for Ion Cornescu, engineer’s extraordinary abilities. This theatre anyway has saved many parts from the characteristics of an Armenian church, which the director saw somewhere in Poland. That way the sacral and the prophane are connected, and that kind of mysticism remains, which Bulgakov himself insists on, at the same time the details of the theatre history too, and that fact, that the place of the religious theatres of the middle age, was the churches many times. Between the walls of this theatre Arnoul and Simon worked in Greta too, whose cruel Belial was similar to Mephistopheles of the Master and Margarita.

The first scene of the performance can be connected to the arsenal of the theatre in theatre – in which Pilate and Afranius are talking – and which is completed by the second scene, which is connected to the story of the foundation of Christianity, but also to the falsification of the apocryphal texts.

The importance of these two scenes, that they have to explain the next two scenes. These are very important. These have important, spectacular, emotional and artistic adding from the theatrical point of view. Thanks for the earlier one, we can take part in a variety performance, in a real cabaret (the choreographer of the performance is also Zoltán Balázs). The performance is a crucial test, for which the actors of Szeben need maximal virtuosity, who with the leading of master Zeno Apostolache learn to play more instruments during a record short time. They do it so well, that I have to admit, for some moments, I have believed, that I listened to well veiled playback. During the second key scene, we can take part in a celebration, seems to be a pagan ceremony, where the great ones of universal theatre are presented too. From Denis Diderot to his work, titled The Paradox of Acting, has been referred to many times, from Stanislavsky through Meyerhold but there are Appia, Craig and Max Reinhardt, Artaud and Brecht, there Nyemirovics-Dancsenko and Ljubimov, Eugenio Barba and Nekrosius, Liviu Ciulei and Silviu Purcărete appear too, there are people and artists, who could revolutionize by their work the theatre art, the philosophy and aesthetic of theatrical performance.

Theatre and film

This present Master and Margarita, which I could take place in, thanks for the connection of theatre and film, is written on the stage. For the performance they have recorded many scenes in advance, they can deepen the material of the grammar and semantics of the performance, they can strengthen its visual rhetoric, and make possible the usage of different plans (my ideas go many times toward the Life with an Idiot, which I watched also on this stage).

There are film-like cuts too, which can make the staging unique, and make us remember a shooting, and it can be thanked for that transparent screen, which divides and also connects the different parts of the performance and emphasises its kaleidoscope like nature. The camera appears in Matthew the Apostol’s hand that time, when he gets the exercise to kill Jesus. Besides this, the performance has a modern musical world, which strengthens even more the weird and mystical nature of the performance.

Above all, we should mention the troupe of Szeben, who are more merged, professional, their very convincing artistic performance, this complex and long-lasted common work, thankfully together with those well-known performers, as Andrij Zsoldak, Mihai Măniuţiu, Gábor Tompa and Jurij Kordonszkij, Silviu Purcărete, who is always presented, Alexandru Dabija and Masahiro Yasuda.

I heard, that the version, which I have seen is only one version of the performance, which Zoltán Balázs has performed in Szeben. And that the other version, in which the Hungarian actors of the Maladype Theatre, also take part, and it must complete this one. That the scenes of the performance, I have seen, become complete after watching the second version too. I hope, that once I can watch it too. After all I have seen, I am curiously waiting for it.

Mircea Morariu, Adevărul, 2013

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)

“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)

In the National Theatre of Szeben, with Zoltán Balázs’ staging the Master and Margarita has been performed, and it has made the most of the novel by Bulgakov. The multi-layered nature of the play, which is thought to be one of the most important writings of the twentieth century, becomes more complex in the performances in Szeben. The director, by choosing a less common form, has formed two performances, with two, partly different casts, in which there are different meanings and endings, the texts get used wonderfully, and tremendously the mysteries of Christianity and the always exciting blasphemy.

We must see both version of Master and Margarita by Zoltán Balázs. And not because the changing of Woland and his followers, are necessary or would have been reasonable, but because the two version together can offer that worthy overall picture for those, who are interested in this hardly understandable and adaptable text. Because the two endings together, are not just simple average adaptation, but the two possible interpretations of the novel, these are two different theological contemplation about life, death, Christianity, Jesus’ life. The performance in Szeben, does not neglect the soviet layer of Moscow, but it becomes immersed in the theological parts of the text mostly, and that way it deals with Jesus’ existence, the reality of gospels and the occult side of it.

In the wonderful set (it is a little bit severe but rightfully), which is designed by Velica Panduru – for which the director has got the inspiration from the old Armenian church, which he discovered in Polland – the happenings reach each other and are connected and they are searching for their own rhythm. This rhythm I have not felt stable enough yet, maybe because the fact, that the interpretations, which are shown by the staging, many time get lost and end up in a huge sea of symbols. The set serves beautifully the mysticism (there is a half circled place, there are old, middle aged walls of a church, which are floating in pale lights of candles, there are columns, behind which we can suddenly see a beam of light, a character, or even the Satan itself or a member of his followers), but the surrealist magic, which is shown by the director, stays in the background from some point of view, maybe because the common usage of filmed scenes. Some records are made alive, others have been recorded in advance. I feel to be a problem, that the pre-recorded parts make the acceptance harder, and instead of increasing the mythical atmosphere of the performance and leading us into the deeper meanings of the text, they just put these layers next to each other, and after a while they become predictable. Even more, as the transparent screen would have obviously the aim to connect the pictures happening in the set and ones of the film, but its effect is not strong enough, as the aim has not been fulfilled well. It works well only in the scene at the end of the second version (here Woland is performed by Ákos Orosz), when Judas goes down into the catacombs and he got killed there. The lights of candles and the old walls can rise the strange illusion of a Jerusalem, two thousand years ago, in which you can see “dimly because of a mirror”, to stay at the same period. Those few words, with which Judas accepts the mystification of history, according to which Jesus’ whole story is only his fiction, and the whole two thousand years old, Christian religion is built on lies, rightfully these are one of the strongest moments of the performance. The symbols, which the director uses during the second version, are somehow clearer. Woland (the Satan), the great director of the mystification and things of the world, with the later killed Judas, he can create this wonderful story... Jesus and Pontius Pilate go into the world together to tell their story. And they reach until the soviet Moscow, into a variety theatre, where the existence of Jesus is denied wildly. The deny is strengthen by the Satan himself. But why?

The meanings are less understandable during the first version, in which Jesus and Pilate arrive from the outside world, and by getting into the “magic circle” of the Satan they become the part of his programme. The director now had different ideas. The story in this case is mystified by Máté Lévi instead of Judas, who has noted directly wrong on a parchment – in the performance with a camera, which can see everything – Jesus and the philosopher’s acts, and that way he changes it totally.

However, both versions are based on Bulgakov’s novel, both of them are its commentaries. And it seems to be that the love affair between Master and Margarita cannot be opened enough, the director has been more interested in the Christian mysteries, and – as it has already been mentioned – the irresistible temptation of blasphemy, which has caught both the readers and viewers of the 21st century.

The surrealist atmosphere, which covers some scenes as fog, is an interesting element. The music variety show must be between the well-made scenes, and the live music has an interesting effect in a place – in the old church and theatre – where anyway the followers of Satan and the characters of communist Moscow can meet in front of the viewers... This momentum is characterised by some kind of liveliness and mysterious humour, from it there can be more in other scenes too. As well as the ball, which is kept in hell – based on a beautiful idea by the director – where Queen Margarita welcomes the great performers of theatre, from Diderot to Nekrosius, from Peter Brook to Silviu Purcărete. A little bit faster tempo and a time, which is shorter with some minutes could make this scene more dynamic.

The have recorded most of the scenes between the Master and Margarita, which, according to me, gets very important live energy from the performance, as in this love connection all the love stories of the world can meet each other, in them life and death, God and Satan are mixed. From it the novel about Jesus and Pilate has made. Both Marius Turdeanu (Master), and Ofelia Popii (Margarita) are perfect choices, and they perform with the right energy. Turdeanu is a perfect embodiment of that fragile nature, which can move mountains, she performs the author, who has been tempted by his own story. Popii performs the woman, who saves the world, in whom we can find Maria Magdolna and Eve, the sin and the virtue too, she embodies the overwhelming beauty of the rural power, the queen, as she appears in the ball stepping down the stairs in her black dress. And meanwhile, both of them are not on the stage enough...

In the first version of the performance Mariana Mihu’s performance is extraordinary in the role of Woland. Only a few of them have been able to form this role so well during the last years of Romanian theatre. Mariana Mihu shows the strangest Satan. She is sometimes active, then passive director of this performance, but he has not got absolute power. She can find the meaning of that language, in which the word “strange” has a real meaning, her presence on stage does not seem to be a worldly one, all her gestures, pronunciation, voice sign that SOMETHING happens here.

Monica Andronescu, yorick.ro, 2013

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)

I wrote these lines a little after midnight. Because I would like to write that way, that I was still under the impression of the performance of Master and Margarita, which I have watched on the International Theatre Festival of Szeben just now as a professional blogger. Because I feel, that about this performance I should write, when it is still hot. Because if I left some hours past, the feeling would cool down in me, so it is harder to write a complex text of your heart. However, it is not so complex, which I am writing now, but you must understand, what I am talking about, the almost live text is better than a dead one. :D

Before I would start analysing the performance, I would tell something. I know, that those people will read these lines, who has entered this Chinese Cultural Republic (by its nickname it is a reference – Chinese – to his own blog; trans.), and they have not got used to neither my 2.0 service, nor to the style of blog writing. For them I must make the following things clear: that person writes it, who has a bottle of beer in front of him (which he bought in the petrol station next to the hotel), and who needs a 15 minutes long walk in Szeben to collect his ideas after the performance. So he is someone, who has his own bugs, as everybody else. Somebody, how I can tell it, is not employed by any literary magazine, who is not an avatar or the artificial intelligence. Well, if you have not understood it yet, I still would like to tell that those who are similarly odd like me, go to theatres for pleasure, not because they have to.

Let’s talk about the important things. Before I have watched the Master and Margarita I had coffee with Ruxa and Andrea (as I am the odd one, I also ate a pizza), when the question rose up in me: who a play can be made from Bulgakov’s novel? For my question the play itself gives the answer: it is impossible. So not a convincing, well-made play, not that one, which make you see the light at the end of the tunnel of success.

For me the performance of Master and Margarita is that kind, in which everything can be found, without being complete, without becoming the feng shui complete and complacent in it, it is an example of wonderful artistic self-sufficiency, as the great performances are. The set is interesting, the cast is good, in its fast rhythm there are many changes (I likes it multimedia nature, however, it was a little bit too much), the text is perfect too (to tell the truth the cut fragments from Bulgakov’s text). But there are some parts, which can be parts of an ontological puzzle (let me use this kind of educational expressions), which have lost in a nightmarish dream, that way they can never create that picture, about which the puzzle has dreamt. So the performance cannot persuade me.

It is long, too long. And I am not talking about its almost three hours length. But that the most important thing, what the performance would like to express, has been diluted. I have mentioned the multimedia-like sequences (there are records about the actresses, which are shown on a big screen, similarly to a big curtain), many times these are seemed to be useless for me. And there is a musical moment too, (anyway I appreciate the actors’ performances a lot, who have learnt to play those instruments, and they did not do it bad, however they were not too good as well), when we can listen to the songs in German, which I would have liked anyway, if they were about three minutes long. But that way, for more than ten minutes, they seem to be too much for me.

According to me, the performers on the stage, were very good in the prose than in the acting. Of course, in case of this kind of text, which many times you can understand only with the dictionary next to you, it is very hard to create something overwhelming (It is meaning: improvise). I do not know, how can this text be made to be more playable. I can tell, only those that I have seen: they have been reciters not actors. The text is seemed to be playing with the actors, and not the actors perform the text. And I did not like it. The books are to be read and not to be watched.

One of the controversial moments, is about which I have heard before I have watched the performance: “Oh, pay attention, because Ofelia Popii will get naked”, which made me immediately to frown. Because (calm down, prudishness is like an exotic fruit on the ice field, so it is far from me), I do not like very much – sorry for the expression – when the breasts are shown to be artistic act. However, about Ofelia’s naked body in the Master and Margarita I have nothing to tell. Above it, it seems to be a very good solution to ease the intensity of the ball (however very failed one) held by the devil, where Margarita was the host, and where many people have arrived to express their respect, they are those who have been important for the theatre up until then. So for me, this get naked moment has not seemed to be a forced one, it is fitted into the “film”, if I can use than kind of barbaric expressions in this context.

On the other hand, I do not understand the scene after the part, which has been discussed above, when Ofelia, who has dressed meanwhile, takes off again partly her dresses, to put the Master’s hand on her breasts. I feel it unnecessary. That is all about it.

The play is performed with a ten minutes long break. During it almost the quarter of the viewers have disappeared. I stayed, because I was interested in the end of the performance. But it was a program-like interest. So it was not that kind of interest, which is fed by the desire of knowledge, when we do not want to know the end of something, but that how it goes on (soon I will get into a group if I go on with these expressions...). I am not sure that this feeling would be the best compliment, which the performance can get.

Whether I would recommend this performance or not? I have no idea. Get your own conclusion and decide. As you are nobody else but other odd people.

Cristian China-Birta, cristianchinabirta.ro, 2013

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)

The co-productions of Radu Stanca National Theatre from Szeben seems to be a useful method to get into the aesthetic blood circulation of the new theatrical reality, and by the leading performers of theatre into the international net too. It does not mean anything new, as they annually work together with important institutions, national theatres and well-known festivals too. In the present program of the festival there are many co-productions, the advantages of it I do not mention now.

The Master and Margarita is the stage adaptation of Bulgakov’s novel, which was put on stage by Zoltán Balázs, who at the same time is the director of the co-production partner of the performance, of the Maladype Theatre of Budapest too. We can talk about a brave adaptation, which does not deny the soul of the original work anyway, in it we can clearly feel the Hungarian artist’s personality.

The key for its stage adaptation is the theatre and its approach in theatre, it is that kind of perspective, in which Woland can become a historical leader. Bulgakov’s story, which goes on more levels can be found in the performance too, and they seem to be multiplied. Zoltán Balázs uses many theatrical, cabaret-like, filmish expressive tools, from the singing and the live music through the projection, until the real time film shooting too. The director can avoid crowding in spite of the fact, that his staging is rich in metaphysical layers, he changes different levels and guides the viewers in parallel narratives. Like in case of the novel, the performance also has rich layers of meaning, common references and quotes. Zoltán Balázs can complete them with meaningful theatrical poetic layers, he puts in some references from Diderot, Bob Wilson and Silviu Purcărete in connection with many important characters of the modern stage practice and thinking. The replica and the obvious sign, when on one of the pieces of set they place visible a poster, refer to his enthusiasm towards Purcărete’s Faust.

However thanks for its rich layers of meaning, seriousness and common sense, the watching of the performance can be difficult, in Master and Margarita we can find some humour, which makes the acceptance easier. The music parts also help, which happen alive with the contribution of the actors, who because of this occasion, have learnt to play some instruments. It is almost cliché that all the actors Ofelia Popii, Marius Turdeanu, Pali Vecsei, Adrian Neacşu, Diana Fufezean, Adrian Matioc and so on, perform perfectly; Mariana Mihu is perfect in the role of Woland. The actress rules well and perfectly balance the singing, the gestures and the corporeality, the character that she performs is evil, racy and complicated.

Oltiţa Cântec, Observator Cultural, 2013

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)

On 29th August on the Open-Air Theatre of Városmajor, in the Competition Programme of Szemle Plus, the co-performance of METTRIN and Maladype, The Suit closed us out of the reality of everyday life for sixty-five minutes.

The basic situation of Can Themba’s story, which takes place in Sophiatown, during the time of apartheid, is simple: Philemon catches Matilda with her lover, the man escapes, and the husband makes his wife that his suit, which he has left behind, treat as a vivid guest – this situation takes away intellectual freedom and human dignity as well from everybody. They cannot adapt to it, just break, get silent and get lost.

It was a good decision, that before the performance there was a warming conversation by Zoltán Balázs, together with Ganga Tsengiwe, the ambassador of South Africa and Adrián Kovács, composer. They talked about the historical-political background, Sophiatown, the apartheid, the South-African cultural place of the play, and even about the formal and musical language of jazz-opera. It is important, as Balázs’ staging very fast separates the story from the pure telling of the happenings, and he abstracts it into a closed, visionary, ideal area, where social violence, the power inside a marriage, the jealousy, possession and humiliation are presented at the same time on different level of stress.

Aesthetically the performance is extraordinary unified: Zoltán Balázs as a director, librettist, set designer and the former of the movements, together with Adrián Kovács composer, Zsolt Lukács dramaturg and Daniella Sovány costume designer, have built such a structure, in which the word, music, body, light and the object can continuously redefine each other.

Zoltán Balázs can surf between styles, authors, eras and topics, his staging characteristic is recognisable immediately: he is of global theatrical proportions but his theatre is stubbornly individual creative one, which does not reproduce the form language of any school, but creates its own rules, then consistently applies them. It is good to be his viewer, as we can never know, whet we should expect, he always surprises us, makes us think it over, he always creates a new aesthetic-emotional area. Besides all: the open-air stage many times “breaks” the performances of permanent theatres, they lose their power, their interpreting moments get lost because of the circumstances, now and here it has not happened: the performance had its undamaged intensity.

The set makes us see an electric circuit and ribbing, cable track and basket of ribs at the same time. Philemon and Matilda seem to get stuck inside of a huge system, where tension is going around without any cuts, the structure keeps them alive and at the same time it keeps them captive, that way the objective world becomes the machine of confinement and captivity.

Adrián Kovács’ jazz-opera is the nervous system of the performance and the live orchestra – András Szép, Benedek Kárpáti, Szabolcs Dörnyei/Balázs Rodek, Balázs Rabóczki/Zsolt Magda and Tamás Gyányi – can move tension around that way between the scenes, as the electricity goes around in a closed circuit.

Csilla Radnay’s Matilda has an excellent singer and artistic presence: her voice is technically extraordinary and she show the whole emotional and physical story of the role. When she sings, we cannot decide even for a moment, where the musicality finishes and where the artistic work begins.

Barna Kelemen Bányai’s Philemon is an emotional monolith, and it makes him frightening: seemingly, without any properties, without any spectacular artistic demonstration he can show a man’s suffering, then the transformation, where the hurt man himself, has become the torturer of the other one – his virtuosity is that he shows almost nothing from his virtuosity.

Ferenc Fehér’s K.K. is the lover and the Suit at the same time, he elevates the metaphor into an individual artistic presence; his physical presence is disturbing, his dancer quality is premium, his body is sometime human-like then an object, sometimes it is a memory, then a frightening one, by it, the suit is not a property any more, but the torturing conscience that has become free from behind the forth wall of the stage.

The Suit is excellent, because all of its meanings are going around in the same perfectly closed aesthetic circuit: it is beautiful and cruel, abstract, intellectual and elementary – it is another meisterstück by Zoltán Balázs.

Éva Farkas, Iza színházban járt, 2026

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)

Open-Air Stage of Városmajor, Szemle Plus

However, there is not any physical violence in The Suit, which has been made as a co-production of METTRIN and Maladype Theatre, there is not any lack of aggression neither in the cheated husband’s nor in the punished wife’s story, and especially in case of the musical composition by Adrián Kovács. Zoltán Balázs goes on with Mothobi Mutloatse and Barney Simon’s stage adaptation, which has been put on stage in Europe by Peter Brook for the first time. The lead-in conversation enlightens mostly this original myth and the circumstances of its formation, and it cannot fulfil so well that function, to be able to lead the viewers into performance, which can be really seen, but maybe it is not so necessary.

The Suit is full of performing passion, inspired and exciting ideas and overwhelming energy, the distancing nature of the strange language and the musical surrounding of the “jazz-opera” support the hidden and underlying statements, but in spite of its qualities, sometimes it seems to be incomplete. It is a very original idea too, that the suit, which has been left behind by her lover, which as a punishment, the unfaithful Matilda has to treat as a live man and always hosts it, by the performance of Ferenc Fehér, dancer, becomes alive in reality too. It is twisted a little bit because Ferenc Fehér performs the suit and the lover as well, and the difference between the two I does not become obvious for the first time, the lover seems to be presented in the scene for long before Ferenc Fehér puts on balaclava and takes the role of the suit clearly. Maybe it is difficult because Matilda’s unfaithfulness is mostly because of the loneliness of the role of the wife, and of the missing shining and excitement of her previous career as a singer, and it is not because of the lover himself. The lover does not even tell anything, Ferenc Fehér just moves his mouth for the dialogue, which Csilla Radnay sings alone, and from the point of the movements on stage, the technical appearance of the suit is brilliant, however from the point of dramaturgical fixation it is less punctual.

Csilla Radnay’s fascinating performance as an actress and singer does not mean just the performance of Matilda, but almost the creation of the whole atmosphere of the performance. Philemon’s cheated nature, as Barna Kelemen Bányai performs him, is hurting, but his always intensively threatening presence is preceded by the act as the unaware, happy husband, with almost childish happiness of life, can be seen in the way as Philemon starts his day. Barna Kelemen Bányai on his own leads an entertaining dialogue with his friends, who are travelling together with him by bus.

The visual appearance is stylizer, but it is very thick and full of stimulus. In Daniella Sovány’s costume designs the African culture first appears as some referring spice, than Matilda’s headscarf is a little bit too much, they seem to change their clothes continuously in the ominous rib cage-like forest of the set, which was designed by Zoltán Balázs himself. At a point, Philemon tells by words, that there will not be any physical violence here, the suit as the tool of psychological warfare is there to stand in for the physical violence, so its deputy embodiment.

If we treat it that way, then we do not need to understand fully the cultural and social context of the story, which happens during the time of apartheid, in which for this woman and for this couple this humiliation means inevitably the destruction finally.

Enikő Gergics, Élet és Irodalom, 2026

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)

Zoltán Balázs many times thinks about ideas, which seem to be crazy. We can say, that it is the usual thing in his case. Now he puts on stage the well-known South African writer, Can Themba’s short story, The Suit, but it has not been enough for him in prose, he has made a jazz-opera, to be written from it.

For Peter Brook, who was the best director of all the time anyway, the prose version was enough. But Balázs likes to put himself on probe a lot, and those, who are working with him. He has found out, that the genre of the performance would be jazz-opera, which has not been existed before. Anyway, Gershwin’s Porgy and Bess song is usually told to be that, but there are those, who do not agree with it. Anyway, that one is a grand play, and this is a chamber one. Its music has been composed by Adrián Kovács, and he puts the actors and musicians in difficult position, and of course himself too.

Bold risk taking

The performance was performed first on the original place of Maladype Theatre, in Bánk in the METTRIN Arts Centre, from where it would go on a thick international tour too. Between the performances of the Festival Plus, Krisztina Peremartoni has chosen it onto the Open-Air Stage of Városmajor, which proves some courage from her. To take performance, which was made into a chamber hall, in front of the auditorium, which has 800 seats, into the open air, obviously not into perfect acoustic circumstances, it can be risky anyway.

According to the story, Matilda has cheated her husband, who finds it out. He finds out a special punishment, according to it, the left suit of the lover, the wife has to treat day by day as a guest, serves it, feeds it, gives drink to it, she must be kind to it. The piece of cloths has become the embodiment of the lover. The object comes to life. Once in the National Puppet Theatre they performed the Aventures little opera by György Ligeti, that way, where a male suit and a female dress were quarrelling and tore each other up. The dead objects come to life. During the earlier performance of The Suit, they moved the clothes, they animated it. Balázs chose the different solution, the dead object is performed by Ferenc Fehér, dancer. He is going around in the flat. He is in their way with creative movements. He makes their life of marriage impossible. As an exclamation mark, as a litmus paper, he brings up our attention onto its faults. He takes attention. He can see everything. He is a lover, who activates himself well. Sometimes he is a phantom and then he is demonstratively presented. It must be interesting, if he also sang, but he does not do it, he expresses everything with movements, the desire and aggression as well.

Incredible sounds

Csilla Radnay sings wonderfully as Matilda. Unrealistic sounds, for example even those which are similar to a screaming frightening, can come out of her. According to her role, she is beautiful and depraved, mysterious and moody. She is unbearable, but she is unbearably attractive too. She is desperately and unavoidably woman. She is dangerous. She tempting and ready for sin. She can cause eternal pain. Her husband’s aim is to give it her back exponentially. He tortures her. He bothers her and disturbs her.

To illustrate it, Kovács composes melodies, which are not easy to hum. Some of them torture the actress in the strict sense of the word. The changes of styles and moods are sharp, sometimes they are very high up to the sky, and then the sounds are hurtfully sharp. Radnay is one of the Hungarian actresses, who can sing the best, so she can handle it very well. It is an extraordinary fulfilment and great performance!

Barna Kelemen Bányai is Philemon, the husband. About Radnay we have known that her musicality is great, for me in case of him it is a surprise. He does not have to “cut” those kinds of “turns”, extreme melodies as his partner does, sometimes he just grumbles, snorts, hisses, sighs but he can do it with the right rhythm and tone. As Radnay is feminine, he is absolutely masculine.

They abuse each other

Philemon and Matilda can be a perfect pair anyway. But it is not that way. They abuse each other, almost literally tear the skin down from each other. They can look at the other one, as they would like to kill by their eyes. They are radical, turn into absurd, because of it they are sometimes funny, they are unbearable, but they are painfully human from that point of view too, that they ruin it, which could move, maybe they would ruin their whole life.

Adrián Kovács’ music, which matches well to quarrels, disappointments, rises, breakdowns, which sometimes sounds as a cry for help, is played by a five membered orchestra perfectly, with András Szép’s leading. They breath together with the performance. They are sitting on the stage. We can see their faces too, and the moods of the situations are reflected on them too. Balázs has designed the sets, which is built up from the imitations of human ribs and spine. Finally, Matilda closes herself into these, she keeps distance from everything and everybody. But it is impossible. We have become witnesses of serious things. The South African story is agonizingly crucial here too.

The viewers have celebrated the performance for long, with thundering applause and crying of Bravos.

Gábor Bóta, Pepita Magazin, 2026

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)