The art and mass understanding are so different phrases that if you like it, we made a mistake in case of King Ubu, when we went against directly the viewers. They became angry, because they understood too well, what was told to them.”

Alfred Jarry wrote all of it in 1896 in the Theatrical questions, in his art-poetical like article, and as I am reading these lines, I must agree with them: it is a many times repeated cliché, according to it the writer was before his own time, but now it must be taken seriously.

Papa Ubu is a legend, with an exciting previous life and a noisy after life. “Ubu is the atomic bomb of art” – as a French critic wrote it in 1965. Ubu is such an emblematic figure as Hamlet or Don Juan are, but anyway he is totally different, as his far relatives, who can be called by names, as – Magdolna Jákfalvi, who translated the quote above. She is the theatre historian, who has dealt with Jarry and the Ubu-phenomenon deeply, mentioned – “...he creates a myth, but he himself has not become hero of stories any other time. Ubu is that type of dramatic figure, that has neither an author of its own nor permanent text.” (A. Jarry: The Ubus, Bp., Orpheusz Kiadó, 1996, page 227.)

We cannot mention many figures from the drama literature of the world, who has an almost complete but continuously changing legend before their first forming, so before their first appearance on stage. Jarry’s immortal figure, King Ubu may be the most well-know one of the few existing, and here we do not have to think about the many times quoted real source. According to it the highly imaginative students of the secondary grammar school of Rennes, did not have to support a lot to make parodies of their hated physic teacher, Monsieur Félix-Frédéric Hébert, who has bizarre physical characteristics. According to the sources the students got most of the inspiration from his enormous nose, and giant stomach. Drawings, tales, shorter and longer texts, true (ok, almost true) stories appeared about his characteristic figure, and as Mister Hébert’s concrete physical characteristics became less stressed than the possibilities with Rabelais nature in it, his unbelievable figure went through a viewable metamorphosis. Pictures were born from the words, from the puppet were made, from where it is only a step to put him on stage by real human performers.

In our case it has become more steps, as a thin month before the premiere of the drama in Paris, it could not be known, that who would play the title role. Jarry solved bravely the professional actors’ serious hesitation, between the others, because of Papa Ubu first speech (“merdre”, so “shit” by word), which later got theatrical historian importance, when he put on stage next to the actors civilian people, who he invited in from the street. As a courteous (and sarcastic) author, he gave a manual too to his nonsense play: in black cyclist-dress, his hair was stuck to his head, with white painted face, in front of the curtain he read up his study about the nature of Ubu, which he had already given to the viewers in the hall. The viewers of the dress rehearsal accepted for a long time the performance, which was talking about familiar (as it was very similar to some scenes of Shakespeare, Corneille, Molière and Racine’s dramas) topics in an unusual language and form, but during the third act the scandal begun. The naturalist André Antoine found loudly offensive, when Ubu turned a key in an open armed helper’s stomach, and the man let down his arms to it, to indicate an open door. Firmin Gémier, who was Papa Ubu, learnt from the happenings, and on the premier the next day, he used the horn of an omnibus, to keep under his control the too loud viewers.

The most “key scene” would not rise much sensation on the stage today, as in case of amateur or student troupes’ performances much braver solutions can be seen. Then what did bring up a scandal in Paris at the turn of the century? Let’s think about it: it was not twenty years ago that Ibsen wrote the Nora or The Ghosts, in connection with these an everyday argument has started because of the ideas, which appeared on stage but had meant a taboo there so far. The shock was just going away, when came a man, named Jarry, who dealt with unnamed topics, and above all he served them pouring with cruel satire: King Ubu is digging on the huge rubbish heap of an irreal, illogical, absurd, un-understandable world. Against all appearance, it happens in a place, which has never existed anywhere, anytime (Poland is somewhere far away according to Jarry’s special etymology, which mixes the ancient Greek things with the French ones, and it means “somewhere far away”). It is cruelly funny, banal story according to some of its interpreters it makes parody of the northern people’s belief in greatness: after the great heroic acts here is the time of wild burlesque. It is not so nice to face up with it, as one of the critics of the drama, Louis Dumur wrote it: “Ubu is the deformed summary of all those meanness, vileness and disgusting cowardice, which the human-like animals of the society hide in themselves.”

And what is over the burlesque, so what does Ubu tell us here and now? Of course, according to time, regime, reigning direction of the wind and thousands of other definable and undefinable aspects, always other things. From now on, we can talk about two very different kinds of interpretations shortly from its national performing history, which is not too rich (about it you should see the already quoted study by Jákfalvi).

It sounds incredible, but the performance of the play in stone theatre happened only in 1984, in the József Katona Theatre: after it, Gábor Zsámbéki staging stayed on repertoire for almost a century, which had huge worldwide success by the viewers and critics. If we watch it again published on DV, it still catches our attention when Papa Ubu complains about the fact that he can see Russians everywhere. There was a great amount of system-critical in the performance, the director said it too on a viewers’ meeting in 2008: however, the Hungarian soft dictature did not adore the suspicious, irresponsible and bloodthirsty King Ubu, but after the two leaders of the Katona, Gábor Zsámbéki and Gábor Székely could calm down Mister Aczél, that their performance was not about the that time close to explode relationship of Poland and Russia, they got the permission. Of course, after the premiere the quoted line had to be eliminated – on the tv recording it was there, as in 1989 nobody was disturbed by it anyway...

László Sinkó and Juli Básti ugly, disgusting “pair of caretakers” are the very repulsive but irresistibly funny representatives of an era, of a feeling of life. Their desire for power, which eats up and vomits everybody, their old and intimate relationship that is kept by rude and common sexuality, their idea that all people can be used, torn, according to them they are useless puppets, is horrifying, and the situations, which are theatrical (are made to it) in an emphasized way, can give to the viewers the possibility of stylization and abstraction, which he desired so much.

The performance, which is on repertoire form more than two and half years, and more relaxed, uses it as a tool. This performance reacts and views its own time totally differently: the King Ubu, which is performed by Maladype Theatre, is a work by the director, Zoltán Balázs. Here everything comes from the space and the playing method of the young troupe. There is a huge pile of packages of newspapers in the corner of a room, only four actors perform the great amount of characters: with paper, scissors, glue, wooden sticks and with eternal ideas and wild playful mood. They do all of it with extraordinary energies, bravely and unscrupulously jumping on the border of the role and reality – they read up from the papers, which gets into their hands accidentally, they comment on news of that day, they react very fast, and of course, the connect the mythical figure of Ubu to the interesting and uninteresting reports of today.

Jarry’s figure started his world captivating way as a student joke, and in the performance of Maladype with its excellent rhythm, it can return back to the area of sources, which were made forgotten by the frightening Ubu figures of the dictatorships of the XX. century. We quote with agreement Péter Gál Molnár’s critic: “The Ubu on the Mikszáth Square is not about the political freedom. It is not even a patriotic act against canonised aesthetics. It is the ascension to throne of the playfulness, which has lost its chains, and of the free imagination, and of the artistic believable power.”

At the beginning of our article we have defined Jarry as a prophet, and when we read the end of his article, which we have quoted, out impression becomes a reality: one of the bravest forerunners of the theatrical ways of the XX. century, suggested with not a little irony his own long march together with many pitfalls, which on its own would last from the avant-garde till the mainstream.

First, he talks about those, “who are older than us”, so about his peers, who moved in traditional theatres well, but had a contradictory relationship with any new things: “Do not push them aside, as we have not been in the XVII. century anymore; we are waiting for their, according to themselves and to the ideas, which fill their lives, clever souls to stop (we do not expect any other things) and then we suddenly become serious and fat and Ubus, and after the writing of our books, which become traditional fast, we all become majors of towns, where at the time of our acceptance as professors, we are greeted with a Serves vase by the fire fighters, and we give to our children their moustaches on velvet cushion; then the young ones come, who find us really old fashioned, and they will write ballads to make us angry; and there is no reason to make it stop.”

Tamás Jászay, Ózon, 2011

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)