- Gyula: II. Shakespeare Festival –

There is not any motorway towards Gyula, it takes at least three hours to get there - Nekrosius, Korsunovas, Purcarete and/or Szturua need to make at least a part of the professionals to get into car or board a train. Then if people are there, the town is a nice host: there is one of the biggest beaches of the country, there are excellent restaurants, even if their opening time does not fit to the festival.

In Gyula they organised the second Shakespeare festival last summer, it was the „theme song” of the forty-third term of the Castle Theatre of Gyula. The almost two longs week series of events served enough sights to enlist believers and viewers – two foreign, outstanding men of the mainstream international theatre world are not enough to make József Gedeon, the director of summer theatre, wait for the next summer with more safety than his pure hope. Last year they offered Korsunovas and Purcárete, this year Nekrosius and Szturua to the professional inquirers, who were not many and the greater amount of viewers: with the foreign guest performances something really important, generous and European phenomenon appeared in Gyula.

Next to the two foreign great people in the latest term they invited one more guest: the director of the Csongor and Tünde, which was performed for the renovation of the theatre in Székesfehérvár, so they invited Vladiszlav Trockij, who performed with the DAKH Theatre of Kiev a mystery play, the Introduction to III. Richard (see it in our separate article). There was the SÖR too, in English language (The complete work of Shakespeare in shorter version), the performance, which was directed by Lázsló Mogács was witty, fast summary of Shakespeare, it can be seen here and there for many years.

The King’s Singers originally would have performed on the stage of the Castle Theatre; the six men with wonderful voices and perfect humour, performed their program finally in the church of the centre. In it, they put on stage stylistically some Renaissance madrigal too and we could listen to of course, the most grateful play of the turn Timepiece by Patterson.

There was a professional conference too, summer-like and short; with the moderation by Adrienne Nagy Darvay (whose book: Hamlet in the turn of the century appeared nowadays) there were not boring and unclear lectures one after another, but there were interesting reports. Gábor Máté, for example, talked about his wide-ranging experiences, as he had played both Hamlet and Polonius, and above it, in the set of the later one (about which Csörsz Khell made a presentation, encouraged by projection by computer) he directed Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead by Tom Stoppard. András Demeter nowadays in Budapest, in one of the waiting rooms of the Western train station, talked about his adventurous journey of Hamlet, which can be seen in Temesvár too. Tim Carroll talked about his own Shakespeare-career, Robert Szturua in connection with Shakespeare, talked about his global theatrical experiences, in a witty and catchy way. All of it could happen during a morning, and people did not have to feel that they could not hear anything again...

The newly graduated students’ exam performance, the12 Hamlet, from the first Jordán-Lukáts class was also connected to the side events of the festival. For the performance, which was directed by Andor Lukáts first, they cut the play up, and then all young actors were given a great scene from it. That way, all of them were Hamlet, in the other scenes they were Polonius, Horatio, Laertes and the others. The performance was mostly about pedagogy and equal opportunities – so about all those things, which the profession does not take care of – and less about the play, Hamlet. About the result, must be told, that too many students graduated from this class – I do not remember if I have ever seen any art classes with so many members – and most of them would have many things to study. We saw so many Hamlet clichés, formed by superficial and formal gestures – those, who could watch through the too tiring long performance late in the evening.

In the last evening the festival hosted Macbeth by the Ballet from Győr, then the workshop-like production, which was led by Tim Carroll; in the last one, everybody could take place, who were around there, the enthusiastic reports were about many games and interesting work.

HAMLET 1.

Hamlet from Bárka Theatre was an interesting aspect of the last term: Tim Carroll interactive production thrilled up not only the actors, but the audience too. This later one – as forums on the internet report about it faithfully – treated their own participation as a real challenge, they talked excitedly about the tools and music they brought to the previous performance, and what would they take to the next one. Many of them can’t have been attracted by the so far unknown layers of the “To be or not to be” monologue by Zoltán Balázs, but mostly by the challenging new tools, which can raise the well-known risk-lover actor’s interest. It was true not only in case of Zoltán Balázs, but of the others too: the practises with the tools got over the role many times. Together with all these in Tim Carroll’s performance we could see Hamlet – that kind of Hamlet, which main character was not hesitating and indefinite at all, but really active. Anyway, he made many mistakes, at least as Hamlet. As a team leader – to continue the director’s football metaphor – he kept the controlling of the game in his hand, he told his will decisively to his partners, he improvised mostly well and he chose from the tools well (however in connection with this later one, Attila Egyed and Zoltán Seress were better from him, who played in turn Claudius and the Actor King).

I do not state that there is not a hidden, over thought Hamlet interpretation and the representation of diverse relationships in the performance by Bárka, but more elementally works in it a theatrical language, a playful form. As the performances are going on this seems to be stronger.

Next to the choosing of the tools and the drawing of the roles, the performance has one more characteristic: the choice of places, so the place of the play. In Gyula, the performance was thought out into the castle – this play did not let many variations (which are there, Attila Vidnyánszky used completely in Shakespeare-wreath last year). From the stage of the castle (apart from the offered corridors and stairs) was very difficult and hard to play the whole auditorium, both the play and the audience were hard to concentrate outside and the attention too.

The actors of Hamlet in the performance in Gyula tried to be more reserved from the point of view of the tools, they sacrificed the third act to the need of place changing. Most of the scenes, which were played on the side of the castle, fell simply apart, the pure technical formation (running over the moat, climbing on the wall and so on) used the actors more. The scene by Hamlet and Ophelia could not be heard or watched, Claudius’ prayer was out of the context, Hamlet’s great monologue disappeared into nothing while the frightened audience could watch only how Zoltán Balázs balanced on the top of wall of the castle, the most strictly way between the “to be or not to be” by words – at that moment, theatre disappeared. The fourth act we could watch again almost comfortably on the stage of the castle: it was an easy release, great relief. Hamlet died standing.

HAMLET 2.

Hamlet died standing also in the performance from the Lithuanian Meno Fortas Theatre, which was directed by Eimuntas Nekrosius – he fell on a stick, deadly. We could watch this performance six years ago in Theatre Víg – now it started its tenth term, in perfect condition – but many people came to Gyula to see it second time too.

They did it well: new characteristics, solutions by actors and directors could be seen, which were unrecognisable for the first time, which was sensational that time – that a rock star, Andrius Mamontovas played Hamlet – we do not even recognise today, it is playful – at least for this performance, for this role – he matured to be an actor. Yes, today it is more recognisable that how many perfect actors are around him; for example Vytautas Rumsas, who plays a strong, young Claudius, or Viktorija Kuodyte, who plays Ophelia.

The circus-like music together with the “Flea Waltz”, the ice-cold objective world, in the surrounding of shoes with metal fronts, there is surprisingly rich base of humour, there are many laughs and comedy. Ophelia is a really fresh and happy phenomenon in the “empire of ice”, who teases her brother, Laertes with joy, then rolls on the ground with Hamlet too, their playful silent scene forms from the artificial respiration to a kiss. Everyone gets involved in the comedy by the wondering actors, even Hamlet’s father’s ghost, in his thick fur coat.

The really strong theatrical jokes work beautifully: the glass broke up, when they need it, at the end of Claudius’ prayer; Polonius also suffocates well, after that Hamlet pushes into water that pipe, through which he would get air from his hiding place, the sword, which is pulled out of the melting ice-berg is really effective, as well as the white shirt, which melts, falls down from the hero during the great monologue.

I realised only now how important role is played by the dead father in Hamlet by Nekrosius: Hamlet never interiorises the ambition of revenge. No: this Hamlet during his strong father life, must have had a good time in his shadow, he lived his life without any problems, so the duty of justice by revenge, which his father’s ghost put on himself, pushed him away elementally. This ghost is very active and alive: he appears many times (only to Hamlet) to remind his weak son to his exercise. (The narrowing of the circles of characters can be explained by prioritizing the relationship between the father and son, as well as the leaving of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern too: they do not need any intrigue against Hamlet, he has bigger problems too...)

According to this interpretation, not only Hamlet’s struggle gets darker shade, but all of his acts, until his death, as all of them hard to do for him, they are against him. His father is the part of his tragedy, and Nekrosius with a fantastically effective, both in sound and picture strong, last scene, with some kind of epilogue puts the father against in the forefront, who looks at the army of dead people that way he knows: he is the fate himself. His last moment is about the tragic understanding: he does not want it that way. He robust actor throws this desperately into the infinite place of the darkening stage.

HAMLET 3.

The Georgian Hamlet pushes the tragedy from itself – at least its traditionally heavy, gloomy and irrevocable version. In the back part of the stage, between two curtains there are cabins, in them figures of shadow play appear at the begging of the performance, then actors step forward, only one figure remains inside, as it is floating over the ground with airy lightness, and another figure, a puppet is sitting in front of the curtain, and reading newspaper. He can be the doorman, who is waiting for the end of the performance, he would go home. From some point of view, he is.

Robert Szturua’s Hamlet is not the first one in the line, in his case, anyway: it is the seventh one. The third one at home, in Tbilisi, in Rusztavel Theatre. He had had four abroad – so far. One of them was chosen to be the best of all Halmets.

I think that Szturua’s Hamlets have told almost everything about the play, and the relationship between the play and the director too. This performance proves, that not all of them, it makes people wonder: there are ammunitions here for an eighth and even ninth Hamlet too.

It is true, that there are not any new possibilities on the field of interpretation. Szturua’s performance supposes the knowledge of the play – the great amount of stylistic changes indicate it, that many striking, virtuoso solutions, which do not strengthen each other, they do not even form a complex or one type of world, but they emphasize their formation elements, their theatrical nature, the mosaic nature of the play. It is similar to a carpet that covers the whole playground: it is stained. (The set and the costumes, which are from the same style are made by Mirian Shvelidze.) All elements have an important connection with the texture of drama, they can effect in connection with it.

For example: Gertrud is a real great lady, a mincer queen, in the values of whom the playing of roles is much more important than the persistence, the steady personality and other not trendy characteristics. Nino Kasradze’s performance a colour-changing, sparkling phenomenon comes to life, who is interested only in her appearance and performance. Who can tell that this interpretation is strange from Gertrud?

Claudius (Beso Zanguri) is her worthy partner. He is an alpha male, who does not kill for some great aims, for example for power, but because that way he can be the first in the line. He enjoys the set of reign, its spectacular surrounding, and he does not have any moral scruples. His prayer is an inventory mostly: let’s see what I have done to get here?

Hamlet (Zaza Papuashvili) is not a fiery youngster. He is not a youngster – he has jovial outlook, a little bit overweight and a little bit not too young man, who is not well in this royal court, however he tries to find his place in it in many forms. He starts the great monologue many times – than for the third time he fires the text up instead, as there is no mean to tell it (those can understand this scene for sure, who know, what is that Hamlet does not tell).

The performance is similar to the one, which would be performed by a troupe of wondering actors. Obviously that is why, that with their performance they play the real examples of the roles – so Gertrud and Claudius as well – so the actors follow them like shadow players. There is not any shock or cataclysm: even Hamlet does not play that the recognition and realisation would have any real steaks. The royal couple play their sinful action with professional activity and playful smile. Then Claudius starts immediately to pray.

Ophelia (Iamze Sukhitashvili) is an airy prima ballerina – she jumps and flutters, she does not really understand, what to the intriguers want from her, but then she obeys playfully. Anyway, in her love towards Hamlet there is not any joke, not even any funny lightness – the suddenly appearing gloominess covers the area of play. Ophelia dies and rises – or she does not die really, just in it...As Polonius does not do it too, later he is the gravedigger, and it does seem to be the result of thrift with the actors: Polonius philosophizes in the grave.

Polonius is similar to Shylock the most: his stooped figure, his hat and mentality cannot be accidental quote, according to me. As there are not anything by accident in the precisely – not only from the point of view of movement – choreographed performance: the changes are there to make us turn our eyes somewhere else.

Meanwhile, we look at the enervated puppet obviously in the back of the stage many times. Everyone can understand in his or her own tempo that Fortinbras is the one, who is reading newspaper in a bored way. But maybe the most experienced theatre habitats would be surprised, when – after their beautifully worked out, unpleasantly prolonged collective death – Hamlet comes back with springy steps, in Fortinbras-puppet’s costume, and without the smallest sing of emotional shock he ends the performance. Szturua is insolently easy-going, he is a great theatrical magician – he has extraordinary actors. I must remember: this Hamlet does (not) also die standing.

Judit Csáki, Színház, 2006

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)