Risk-free theatre doesn't satisfy me - Interview with Zoltán Balázs / 2011
The guest performance series of the Maladype Theater continues at REÖK (Regional Arts Centre). In the fall semester, the audience can see Platonov and The marriage of Figaro. The ensemble - which will enliven the theatrical life of the city from February this year - has already earned a real fan base in Szeged: crowds have been interested in their three performances so far. After Platonov and before Figaro, we asked Zoltán Balázs, the leader and director of the company, about the audience in Szeged, their new performances and the eras of Maladype.
- They performed in REÖK in Szeged many times - always in front of a crowded house, and you have already “gone through” an audience meeting. What is the audience like in Szeged? Is it open or is it “needs to be educated”?
- There is no problem with the audience in Szeged, they are extremely open, their attention is amazing - I experienced this not only during the performances, but also at the audience meetings. Many people have appeared at our performances in Pest since then, which is a very good thing, as they continue to watch our destiny. We are happy with this series, which was launched by REÖK, as this way we can show a lot of colors from our operation and the series also offers a larger offer to the spectators: if someone has missed out Ubu, for example, they can come and watch Figaro. Sooner or later, everyone meets us, and we meet the audience.
- Anyway, what do you think about educating the audience? Which is usually quite important for companies like yours...
- I believe in it, although the syllable of education bothers me, because unfortunately it is pejorative. I'd rather call it “starting a dialogue”. We recently started the Free Academy, and last year we held open rehearsals for King Ubu for two months. It turned out that spectators didn’t want to be educated, but want actors and creators to open up things that preoccupy them, but don’t get to the point of being uttered or asked out loud. We don’t necessarily wait with this for the end of the performance: actors often strike at changing events during the performance. The dialogue between spectator and creator is important, I don’t believe that the spectators are silly or pliable. We want to provide a forum for dialogue, not only in audience meetings, but also in schools, through open rehearsals, through the blog on our website. They can even come to our Base in Mikszáth Square at any time. You can communicate with us quite spontaneously. We want you to really feel like you are personal acquaintances of our theater. The Free Academy, for example, is suitable for discussing unclear concepts. We dissect a given topic twice a month - with exercises, games, invited guests, spectators. I believe the spectator wants to learn, is curious, and has the right to know and ask things.
- On what concept do you choose the literary materials of your performances? Why did your season start with Platonov which has just premiered and The marriage of Figaro, which is still in the making but soon will also be shown in REÖK?
- On one hand, it is impossible to ignore the personalities that make our theater. I start from them as a director and as a company leader. I know their weaknesses, strengths, manners, and abilities that can and need to be developed. It’s important for me to be able to keep in mind the path I’ve designated for myself. Sometimes I work with very unexpected materials that are not played at home - Hölderlin, Genet, Ionesco, Weöres. At the same time, the company has also moved towards the classical formalists: Büchner, Chekhov, and we will probably have a Shakespeare performance too. The Figaro was chosen by the director, Sándor Zsótér. Stanislavsky once said that it is extremely difficult, yet impossible to direct. Probably it inspired Sanyi so much that he went with it. It is directed under very special circumstances, as on one hand the performance will be shown in our Base - which is practically a large apartment - and on the other hand Mari Törőcsik also got a role in it. Later, during the season, in our upcoming performance entitled Inferno, under my direction the audience will even be able to see one of our actor-icons, Ilona Béres. Platonov was an easy choice for me. An important question in the operation of a company is whether there is a concept, whether there is a plan, whether one can influence the environment, make offers to the participants individually and whether they are able to pass it on. The plan, the design were the things that excited me: I wanted to make a Chekhov that isn’t based on psychologizing analysis and hyperrealistic “muttering”. Platonov was Chekhov's rawest, most elaborate piece, written at the age of just nineteen. There are already many Chekhov motifs in it, but it is so instinctive, raw and cheeky that a young team tries to fill it with strength, dynamics, anger, attention and intellect. An inordinate, free and dense material.
- How does an icon working with such classic acting tools as Mari Törőcsik or Ilona Béres come to you?
- It was my idea and Sanyi's. I almost worked with Mari in the National Theatre, she would have played a male role in The Duchess of Malfi, but she had to be hospitalized then. So this is my debt towards her: now, indirectly, through the company, we can still work together. By the way, this qualifies Törőcsik and Béres much more: they are in such a condition that they still want something unexpected, unusual to happen to them. It is a great recognition that they vote trust for our ensemble.
- Maladype has been around for a long time, yet it's been like you've been picked up lately. From the inside, is this the best era of Maladype?
- Many people say that, but we don't feel that way. When Maladype started, we received insane press coverage, and our performances were called the feast of Hungarian theater. Then, after The Blacks premiered, a few backed away because they couldn’t follow. Now, I am not thinking primarily of the audience, but of the profession. Many were frightened that they needed more attention than they “liked / disliked”. After a while, certain writers and analysts — although the analysis was just missing from their work — glued to us the formalist adjective. At that time, strangely, several branches of professional attention emerged, but Maladype was in constant operation and always in a fairly frequented position. There was a time when some - out of social reasons: few started a family, I couldn’t give them enough money - left the band. Then there was the fact that we were trying to follow an increasingly bolder, but increasingly one-of-a-kind philosophy, where certain acting habits were automatically filtered through the sieve, but that was also normal. Then came Leonce and Lena, which counts as a part of another new era. I just had an unfortunate horse-riding accident, I was lying at home for three months after the surgery, and I was thinking: I wanted to make Leonce and Lena a company piece that brings together the members who just graduated from college at the time, but I didn’t want us to do our own “a hundred after another” Leonce-reading. I wanted the actors to come up with variations, thoughts, spontaneous ideas. So that’s how it came to be that each scene was made in four variations. Theater is usually risk-free, everyone knows exactly what they are doing, finds the props, and so on. I felt it didn’t satisfy me, and then, thank God, with a new impetus, we offered ourselves a new opportunity. We later built Egg(s)Hell, Ubu and Lorenzaccio on this. This conscious change, of course, required partners. I am a happy person and director because on the one hand I have never had to compromise and on the other hand I have found friends in the actors and direct staff who are partners in change, in constant experimentation. They understand, represent and work to a high standard for it. It is independent from whether or not we are recognized, but the fact is that we have a strong audience, and we are also receiving professional attention at home and abroad.
- You maintain your actors strongly both physically and mentally. I recently attended a university lecture by Sándor Zsótér, where he was asked what makes a good actor. He replied that he was open minded, curious, and so on. A couple of actors and companies came to my mind based on his response, and Maladype was among the first. What acting qualities do you expect from them?
- Sanyi preceded me with the answer. It’s no coincidence that Lorenzaccio did so well: his personal world, his ironic, scratchy humor, his intellect rarely meets an entire band. It happens more with one actor - now, for example, with Éva Kerekes in Örkény. So I agree with Sanyi. In addition to being open, an actor must be demanding of himself, his partners, and the material. You should not be afraid of change, and you should be specifically excited about the possibility of change. Abroad, they always think our actors are acrobats or dancers. Of course, this is not the case: they are prose actors who are good with their bodies. Basically, it all depends on the mental condition, how attention, intellect and thoughts can be organized in the brain. The actor doesn’t have to be a groping creature of instinct in the dark who then either feels something or not. Using his instincts well, yet interpreting his own situation in the given piece and company, he has to come up with newer and newer suggestions for himself and his environment.
- Small, alternative, companies working with strong workshops and work ethic based on thinking together like you run the risk of burning out in the process of thinking together leading to explode what has worked well so far. Like Krétakör. Do you see a chance for this in the - hopefully distant - future of Maladype?
- The danger was in our seventh year around my accident. However, we’ve embarked on another seven-year series: we’re in our third year now, we have four more, I hope. Since the company is ten years old next year, I’d rather count on another ten from next year, and I’ll be very happy to have twenty years once. Although Ariane Mnouchkin - who is now celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Sun Theater - says she herself doesn’t believe they could spend that much time together, and there were so many opportunities and problems during that time that the company could have disintegrated every day. There are good and bad examples. I feel the team will still stay together for the next four years, moving forward very cleanly and consciously. Especially - and this is the most important - if you have such strong and good playmates as the Szeged audience.
Barbara Fábián, Páholy, 2011
Translation by Zsuzsanna Juraszek
- They performed in REÖK in Szeged many times - always in front of a crowded house, and you have already “gone through” an audience meeting. What is the audience like in Szeged? Is it open or is it “needs to be educated”?
- There is no problem with the audience in Szeged, they are extremely open, their attention is amazing - I experienced this not only during the performances, but also at the audience meetings. Many people have appeared at our performances in Pest since then, which is a very good thing, as they continue to watch our destiny. We are happy with this series, which was launched by REÖK, as this way we can show a lot of colors from our operation and the series also offers a larger offer to the spectators: if someone has missed out Ubu, for example, they can come and watch Figaro. Sooner or later, everyone meets us, and we meet the audience.
- Anyway, what do you think about educating the audience? Which is usually quite important for companies like yours...
- I believe in it, although the syllable of education bothers me, because unfortunately it is pejorative. I'd rather call it “starting a dialogue”. We recently started the Free Academy, and last year we held open rehearsals for King Ubu for two months. It turned out that spectators didn’t want to be educated, but want actors and creators to open up things that preoccupy them, but don’t get to the point of being uttered or asked out loud. We don’t necessarily wait with this for the end of the performance: actors often strike at changing events during the performance. The dialogue between spectator and creator is important, I don’t believe that the spectators are silly or pliable. We want to provide a forum for dialogue, not only in audience meetings, but also in schools, through open rehearsals, through the blog on our website. They can even come to our Base in Mikszáth Square at any time. You can communicate with us quite spontaneously. We want you to really feel like you are personal acquaintances of our theater. The Free Academy, for example, is suitable for discussing unclear concepts. We dissect a given topic twice a month - with exercises, games, invited guests, spectators. I believe the spectator wants to learn, is curious, and has the right to know and ask things.
- On what concept do you choose the literary materials of your performances? Why did your season start with Platonov which has just premiered and The marriage of Figaro, which is still in the making but soon will also be shown in REÖK?
- On one hand, it is impossible to ignore the personalities that make our theater. I start from them as a director and as a company leader. I know their weaknesses, strengths, manners, and abilities that can and need to be developed. It’s important for me to be able to keep in mind the path I’ve designated for myself. Sometimes I work with very unexpected materials that are not played at home - Hölderlin, Genet, Ionesco, Weöres. At the same time, the company has also moved towards the classical formalists: Büchner, Chekhov, and we will probably have a Shakespeare performance too. The Figaro was chosen by the director, Sándor Zsótér. Stanislavsky once said that it is extremely difficult, yet impossible to direct. Probably it inspired Sanyi so much that he went with it. It is directed under very special circumstances, as on one hand the performance will be shown in our Base - which is practically a large apartment - and on the other hand Mari Törőcsik also got a role in it. Later, during the season, in our upcoming performance entitled Inferno, under my direction the audience will even be able to see one of our actor-icons, Ilona Béres. Platonov was an easy choice for me. An important question in the operation of a company is whether there is a concept, whether there is a plan, whether one can influence the environment, make offers to the participants individually and whether they are able to pass it on. The plan, the design were the things that excited me: I wanted to make a Chekhov that isn’t based on psychologizing analysis and hyperrealistic “muttering”. Platonov was Chekhov's rawest, most elaborate piece, written at the age of just nineteen. There are already many Chekhov motifs in it, but it is so instinctive, raw and cheeky that a young team tries to fill it with strength, dynamics, anger, attention and intellect. An inordinate, free and dense material.
- How does an icon working with such classic acting tools as Mari Törőcsik or Ilona Béres come to you?
- It was my idea and Sanyi's. I almost worked with Mari in the National Theatre, she would have played a male role in The Duchess of Malfi, but she had to be hospitalized then. So this is my debt towards her: now, indirectly, through the company, we can still work together. By the way, this qualifies Törőcsik and Béres much more: they are in such a condition that they still want something unexpected, unusual to happen to them. It is a great recognition that they vote trust for our ensemble.
- Maladype has been around for a long time, yet it's been like you've been picked up lately. From the inside, is this the best era of Maladype?
- Many people say that, but we don't feel that way. When Maladype started, we received insane press coverage, and our performances were called the feast of Hungarian theater. Then, after The Blacks premiered, a few backed away because they couldn’t follow. Now, I am not thinking primarily of the audience, but of the profession. Many were frightened that they needed more attention than they “liked / disliked”. After a while, certain writers and analysts — although the analysis was just missing from their work — glued to us the formalist adjective. At that time, strangely, several branches of professional attention emerged, but Maladype was in constant operation and always in a fairly frequented position. There was a time when some - out of social reasons: few started a family, I couldn’t give them enough money - left the band. Then there was the fact that we were trying to follow an increasingly bolder, but increasingly one-of-a-kind philosophy, where certain acting habits were automatically filtered through the sieve, but that was also normal. Then came Leonce and Lena, which counts as a part of another new era. I just had an unfortunate horse-riding accident, I was lying at home for three months after the surgery, and I was thinking: I wanted to make Leonce and Lena a company piece that brings together the members who just graduated from college at the time, but I didn’t want us to do our own “a hundred after another” Leonce-reading. I wanted the actors to come up with variations, thoughts, spontaneous ideas. So that’s how it came to be that each scene was made in four variations. Theater is usually risk-free, everyone knows exactly what they are doing, finds the props, and so on. I felt it didn’t satisfy me, and then, thank God, with a new impetus, we offered ourselves a new opportunity. We later built Egg(s)Hell, Ubu and Lorenzaccio on this. This conscious change, of course, required partners. I am a happy person and director because on the one hand I have never had to compromise and on the other hand I have found friends in the actors and direct staff who are partners in change, in constant experimentation. They understand, represent and work to a high standard for it. It is independent from whether or not we are recognized, but the fact is that we have a strong audience, and we are also receiving professional attention at home and abroad.
- You maintain your actors strongly both physically and mentally. I recently attended a university lecture by Sándor Zsótér, where he was asked what makes a good actor. He replied that he was open minded, curious, and so on. A couple of actors and companies came to my mind based on his response, and Maladype was among the first. What acting qualities do you expect from them?
- Sanyi preceded me with the answer. It’s no coincidence that Lorenzaccio did so well: his personal world, his ironic, scratchy humor, his intellect rarely meets an entire band. It happens more with one actor - now, for example, with Éva Kerekes in Örkény. So I agree with Sanyi. In addition to being open, an actor must be demanding of himself, his partners, and the material. You should not be afraid of change, and you should be specifically excited about the possibility of change. Abroad, they always think our actors are acrobats or dancers. Of course, this is not the case: they are prose actors who are good with their bodies. Basically, it all depends on the mental condition, how attention, intellect and thoughts can be organized in the brain. The actor doesn’t have to be a groping creature of instinct in the dark who then either feels something or not. Using his instincts well, yet interpreting his own situation in the given piece and company, he has to come up with newer and newer suggestions for himself and his environment.
- Small, alternative, companies working with strong workshops and work ethic based on thinking together like you run the risk of burning out in the process of thinking together leading to explode what has worked well so far. Like Krétakör. Do you see a chance for this in the - hopefully distant - future of Maladype?
- The danger was in our seventh year around my accident. However, we’ve embarked on another seven-year series: we’re in our third year now, we have four more, I hope. Since the company is ten years old next year, I’d rather count on another ten from next year, and I’ll be very happy to have twenty years once. Although Ariane Mnouchkin - who is now celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Sun Theater - says she herself doesn’t believe they could spend that much time together, and there were so many opportunities and problems during that time that the company could have disintegrated every day. There are good and bad examples. I feel the team will still stay together for the next four years, moving forward very cleanly and consciously. Especially - and this is the most important - if you have such strong and good playmates as the Szeged audience.
Barbara Fábián, Páholy, 2011
Translation by Zsuzsanna Juraszek