I have seen so much in Gyula. The performance of Bárka Theatre, the guest performance of the Georgian Rustaveli National Theatre, and the exam performance by the graduating students of the University of Theatre Art. In this later one twelve Hamlets were on the stage at the same time. The performances cannot be compared with one another from any point of views, I hardly have the chance to watch such a colourful selection.

Tim Carroll, who was the art director of Globe Theatre in London until 2005, he composed the performance in Bárka with the idea of “here and now”. They drew the cast on stage, the actors build in the performance those tools and music, which the viewers have brought, so they even involve the viewers into some really embarrassing moments. Those who are playful and enthusiastic are in favour! It sounds very exciting so far. The question is, that what kind of effect does the director want to bring up with the performance. If his aim is to introduce a specific interpretation of Hamlet and a pedagogical method, then it is a very exciting experiment. If he wants to entertain, he can do it. But if his aim is to make Hamlet “happen”, then the final result is still far away.

First of all it can happen that there are actors, who can fulfil this conception, but the troupe of Bárka cannot now. There are only a few good improvisers, for Tim Carroll’s idea needs the high-level possession of this ability – otherwise there would not be a tragedy but a market place-like comedy. I have watched the performance twice, in Bárka – mostly because of the advantages of the smaller place and home stage – it was much more convincing than the one in Gyula, which fell into apart by the castle walls as the result of the creative director’s idea. It took the actors into dangerous, the viewers into very uncomfortable situation, while it became clear that only a well-known stage could hold together the performance. After these two performances I would not dare to draw a far-reaching conclusion about Tim Carroll’s “genius” pedagogical method, I recognised nothing else just the hidden possibilities in Zoltán Balázs. It was not an accident that his performance was awarded by Miklós Gábor Award. The improvisation remained primitive in almost ninety-eight percent of the ideas – for example, I eat the cake, I answer the phone, I destroy bread in my visible agony – it does not worth basing a performance on the remaining two percent. Of course it is not the actors’ shame or their dissatisfaction, for this kind of exercises they have been trained neither by the university nor by Hungarian theatrical traditions. The performance is a good example for the fact, that we should not underrate improvisation, and we should not do it just for improvisation itself. It has meaning only if it gets its ideas from the material. On the festival closing, master course, which was led also by Tim Carroll we could find out precisely that its learning needs much longer time and another way of thinking and attention. We can understand why the performance by Bárka cannot work properly. The actors do not have enough energy for the content.

The question comes up: if the director trusts the troupe so much, why does not he handle the cast more generously? Of course, it is just the advertisement, that everybody plays every role. Hamlet can be only Zoltán Balázs. Kriszta Szorcsik and Olga Varjú share the roles of Gertrud and the Actor Queen, Kinga Mezei and Gabi Varga the roles of Ophelia and Fortinbras, while Zoltán Seres of Attila Egyed can be Claudius. Polonius can be played by József Czintos and Béla Gabos. The other roles are pulled out of the hat by the participants according to smaller rules. Who may be interested in Hamlet by Róbert Kardos, or in Ophelia by Kamilla Fátyol, is waiting for nothing, so the game is ruined that way – the bets are too small.

Carroll’s uncourageous half solution was enlightened insolently in the same evening by the performance, directed by Andor Lukáts. He agreed to do twelve Hamlets, and even that in each scene someone else plays each role. He would like to form the unified whole from the different parts, which is a nice idea, but it remained that way. None of them dare to mix the genders. Lukáts’ performance is an exam performance, without the fulfilment of a conception it remains a group of situation practices, it is more interesting than “possible to compete”. Some things come up from it anyway. For example, that Péter Nagy can be an exciting Hamlet in few years – his fight with his mother is the hardest scene of the performance, in this formation it was the strongest one too. The prince’s ungracefulness and shyness by László Barnák can be imagined as a base of a whole performance, the story could get a special interpretation with it. Lehel Kovács, who was hired freshly to the József Katona Theatre, is a much better Rosencrantz than Hamlet or Claudius, Balázs Mózes is a little bit hectic, János Mercs is weak in all roles now. Csaba Krisztik is the secret of future, he is remarkable from any points of view, but he is not stunning in anything. It can be experienced in the performance of the whole class well, that for Andor Lukáts the annoying speech disorders – I would say in some cases unsolvable ones – do not mean any drawback. Now after the graduation many boys still lisp or they are lisping. Only two things are worrying in it: the tendency, and if they have not been able to improve their disorder (as they are actors, this expression can be used) so far, can they have the will and patient to do it now. For example, one of the greatest actor of all time, Lajos Őze, overcame well before his university years his serious stuttering. That way he was tend to do it even afterwards outside the stage.

All that sense of lack, which have come up in connection with Hamlets of the term, can be replaced by Robert Sturua and the performance by the Georgian National Theatre. Everything has been done against it what could be: it started late, it was hot in the theatre, the air was steady, during the first scene broke down and remained that way the translation machine. But those who could leave the disturbing circumstances behind, could watch a really serious theatre. Sturua’s performance is perfect, the whole of it, it is like a brave, wild, expressive painting, which people can watch with open mouth while they have not been thrown out of the museum.

The actors are well-prepared, professionals, excellent. The choreography is composed till the last step, the lights go there and then when they have to. There are not any empty places, the whole stage is playing. There are not any useless tools, words or movements. It is punctual, over-thought and composed. The actors move together with the music, with the text, the rhythm, which is given by the play and the director is there all through the performance. This chamber-like performance, which is performed in a rather small place, gives the feeling of a monumental opera. Sturua does not explain Hamlet, he does not pack together the lesson or actual things of it into a three hours long performance. He is not interested in its moral and political darkness, not even in the Danish prince’s spiritual shades. He grabs the importance of it with the help of humour and poetry of the play. He elevates it. He knows well, why does he perform it. He does not fall on knees in front of the invulnerability of the text or of its structure. He bravely changes and cuts scenes. He shows Hamlet with an older actor than usual, and Gertrud with a much younger, than usually do. We cannot hear “to be or not to be”, and the killed Polonius comes back as a gravedigger.

There is not only one role, that is played around by everybody, but he derives Hamlet from his surroundings. In this prominent company nobody is more exalted than our hero is.

The curiosity of the performance is Gertrud’s character and Nino Kasradze’s play. The director puts a great emphasis on the queen, almost as big as on Hamlet, he interprets accurately her feelings, the motivations of her behaviour. Her personality is not obvious at all, she is rehabilitated from a certain point of view. Kasradze is that kind of actress, about whom Hungarian theatres can only dream nowadays. We cannot find words for the delight, which a couple of us could experience.

Robert Sturua’s success is not surprising. He has performed successfully Shakespeare and Brecht all over Europe. In 1992 he put on stage Hamlet in London, and the British Hamlet Society chose it into the ten best performances of fifty years. Another of his famous Hamlet performances was the one, which he directed in Satyricon in Moscow in 1998.

All of these are just short preview from the II. Shakespeare Festival, where the Hungarian viewers could also watch Hamlet directed by another great master of European theatre, by Eimuntas Nekrosius, which has been living its eleventh season. There was a Twelfth Night (István Örkény Theatre), Macbeth (Ballet from Győr), Introduction to III. Richard – in mode of Vladislav Trotsky. As a release the funs of movie could enrich their theatrical experiences with film showing, the lovers of fine arts, could watch János Kass’ graphic exhibition.

Unfortunately the Festival in Gyula is small for an international one. For the present. If József Gedeon and the selectors of the programmes of the festival can keep this standard from years to years, the Shakespeare Festival would become one of the most prestigious theatrical event in Hungary. Because for example, a Georgian guest performance like this would require on its on to organise, finance and support a festival for it.

Orsolya Kővári, Kritika, 2006

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)