Tag: theatre

The Threesome Tango: Spectator-Theatre-State

The Threesome Tango: Spectator-Theatre-State

They say in Russia: “If he beats you, it means he loves you”. This attitude, which may strike a foreigner as a bizarre one, can hardly surprise any Russian as a thing much out of the ordinary. Recently the media and social networks were racked with violent debates on the issue of decriminalizing domestic violence. Even though the draft of the law that will decriminalize domestic violence has been denounced by the general public, it has been passed by the legislators, and now beating up one’s near and dear ones is not a crime but a misdemeanor to be looked into by administrative bodies (in the case of the first offence, that is).

© Serge Kutuzov

In Russia the theater is an object of great love, and it is something to take pride in and brag about. As one of Chekhov’s characters worded it, “We can’t do without the theatre”, and the public, even if bemoaning the high prices of the tickets, still will now and then fall to a theatre-going spree. The spectator is a co-creator of the performance, just like the actor. The contemporary theatre won’t stand for its audience to stay unconcerned and apathetic, but will demand from it the maximum degree of involvement. Unlike the actors, the spectator is “a player who plays many roles”, and thus has to know how to tune to each new show, how to be sensitive, daring, and prepared for the discoveries that are to be made. I teach a class at the Moscow School of Journalism, of the Central House of the Journalists’, my course is an optional one, it is titled “Profession: Theatergoer”, and its objective is to teach theatre-goers to understand and accept theatrical experiments and forms that are most diverse. The theatre can do without the director, the playwright, the designer, and even without actors, but not without the public; that very public which has so often been reproached for the lack of comprehension, narrow-mindedness (the stalls and the gallery alike), ignorance, and shallowness. Yet without it the theatre can’t exist. In my first lecture I suggested to my students (the first group turned out to be 100 percent female, ages ranging from 17 to 65) to answer the question: “Why do you go to the theatre?” The answers more or less neatly fell into the following groups:

  • Need to have social interaction, to communicate with live people
  • Tradition/habit
  • To “go out”/it is fashionable
  • Seeking emotional impact
  • Seeking aesthetic pleasure
  • Self-improvement
  • To forget about problems! escapism
  • For entertainment
  • In search of a miracle!

My colleagues (critics also are spectators, aren’t they?) insist that theatre helps them to develop their own creative faculties, helps them to study, to learn new things, and instructs them in understanding oneself and the history of our country. As to the role of the theatre in social shifts, its ability to change the surrounding life, to help us understand people belonging to cultures different from ours, to be less ethno-centric, and more tolerant, why, we have had talks about this too.

The theatre does influence the public, that’s indisputable, but the reverse is also true: in the recent years the public in Russia has been wielding considerable influence over the theatre. And when I say “influence”, I don’t mean the effect that the audience’s bursting into applause or angry shouts may have upon the development of any performance, nor the fact that shows that fail to win the public close and get excluded from theatre repertoires. Critical reviews don’t have that strong a sway over theatre life as letters from audience members. Letters addressed to the office of the Public Prosecutor, or other governmental bodies of similar caliber, in which the writers demand that their addressees have this or that show shut down, and the author punished. People who work in theatres now know the articles of the RF Criminal Code that cover offending religious feelings of the believers inside out – the offence that is mostly imputed by the vigilant public to the directors who are alert to social controversies and touch upon socially raw spots. The “Free Word” association made a report titled “Russia, 2016-2017. Violations of and the government imposed restrictions upon the freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of expression”, with one of the chapters devoted to censorship in theatre: the “culture managing” governmental bodies acting dictatorial, depriving “harmful” art of state subsidizing, censorship introduced due to “feelings of the believers being offended”.

The precedent case, the one that became the symbol of oppression and bans in the sphere of theatre, was that of “Tannhäuser” staged by Timofey Kulyabin. The story that makes the plot of Richard Wagner’s opera was transported to the contemporary world: the titular character is a film director who is making a movie about the unknown, the sinful life of Jesus Christ. The charge against Timofey Kulyabin and Boris Mezdrich, the head of the Novosibirsk State Opera and Ballet Theatre, was that of defiling religious symbols intentionally and publicly. The criminal case was initiated upon the complaint filed by Tikhon, Metropolitan of Novosibirsk and Berdsk in January of 2015. Metropolitan Tikhon found that treatment of the opera’s plot offensive to the feelings of the believers. But on 10 March, Justice of the Peace of the Central district of the city of Novosibirsk discontinued the proceedings against Mezdrich and Kuliabin, due to insufficient evidence. The Public Prosecutor’s office appealed against that ruling, but later recalled their appeal. On 29 March, Mezdrich was fired by Vladimir Medinsky, the Minister of Culture. To fill Mezdrich’s office Vladimir Kekhman was appointed, who extirpated the opera from the repertoire. On 13 April, the Investigation Department of the Siberian Federal District of the Investigative Committee of Russia declined to initiate criminal proceedings against Mezdrich and Kulyabin. The resolution was based on the results of the preliminary examination.

It was to be followed by:

10 events in the theatre life of Russia in 2015-2017

2015 – The “Glavplakat” association placed a banner right across the Ministry of Culture premises that read “Do we need this kind of culture” and showed photos of several directors: of Kirill Serebrennikov, Konstantin Bogomolov, Timofey Kulyabin, as well as one of Marat Guelman, gallery owner. The site of the Association imparted upon its readers the following:

“The banner honors these Russian directors:

Timofey Kulyabin, who crucified Christ between the legs of a naked woman in his version of ‘Tannhäuser’;

Konstantin Bogomolov, who presented the crucifix as a naked woman in his version of the play ‘The Ideal Husband’;

Kirill Serebrennikov, who desecrated icons in his stage version of the fairy-tale ‘The Golden Cockerel’, as well as the gallery owner Marat Guelman, who gathered all the objects that offended believers in one place, making the exhibition ‘Russia 2’.”

“In all epochs culture and art have marked the highest point of the societal evolution. All the newest, most progressive and valuable ideas have always reflected in works of art. And now, in present-day Russia they are trying to persuade us that the best our society can achieve is spitting into another person’s soul, mocking things valuable or even sacred to multitudes.

“We refuse to believe that it is indeed so. It seems to us that these people, who have wantonly privatized the title ‘contemporary and progressive artist’ are just ordinary deceivers. That’s neither culture nor art, that’s some freak-show, exploiting shocking tricks. Stop buying fakes.”

 

“What I’d like to say: they could have made a better likeness of me”, commented Konstantin Bogomolov on his FB page. “Will you kindly contact me the next time? I will be only too happy to sit for the portrait. But do find some decent designers, the kind who know how to use their hands. But all in all, it is, well, OK. Right next door to the school I went to when I was a kid. So that my teachers may have a really good look at it, enjoy it, and feel gratified. They have brought me up well, to turn out to be the right kind of guy!”

 

2015 – Exhibition “The Lower Depths” at the “Flacon design factory”. The “Art Without Borders” Foundation exhibited photos from theatre productions which, in their opinion, have breached some ethical or aesthetic norms. “Not all people like to see bawdy things acted out in the theatre, or hear bad language there, and these people also have their right to express their viewpoint, especially since much of it was produced with government money”, it said on the site of the Foundation. Under each photo there were some figures (from an unknown source) that informed visitors how much money from some governmental budget had gone into producing this or that show. The exhibition that opened on 14May (officially it was a private event unavailable for the general public) was shut down the very next day, and the creative director of the gallery offered his apologies to all who might have been offended by the event. This event was the cause for harsh criticism with several shows of the Bolshoy theatre, the A.P. Chekhov Moscow Art Theatre, the “Gogol-centre” theatre, “Electrotheatre”, the Novosibirsk Opera and Ballet Theatre, the Yekaterinburg Theatre for Young Spectators, and also brought about some indignation on social media amongst theatregoers. It furthermore triggered debates on censorship in arts and culture, and on the freedom of speech and artistic self-expression. The most striking statement in this context came from Kirill Serebrennikov:

 

“The continuing persecution of the contemporary Russian theatre effected through Degenerate Art (EntarteteKunst) sort of exhibitions, and abusive shit-throwing assaults in the media-turned-propagandists is a thing that, conventionally, you better say nothing about and write nothing about, so as not to give this ugliness any additional resonance. Conventionally you’d better ignore them. Yet our squeamish recoiling from these scumbags, our, to be more precise, disgusted silence, allowed them to feel like they are running the world. These stupid clowns mean to destroy that which is so important to such great quantities of clever and talented people — our audiences, that is. They continue to grab more and more government money for themselves, while the government is cutting down all cultural spending, sequestering the entire budget. […] This policy, carried out by a group of aggressive culture-managing officials, aims at completely destroying the new winning and powerful trend in contemporary theatre. For fifteen years the shows of this theatre were sold-out events, it has molded a new generation of artists, and has earned Russia quite a reputation in the world. It developed to maturity thanks to powerful government support. Now people who have come to run culture declare war upon this successful and talented theatre. Crushing criticism in the ranting propagandistic programmes on TV, made-to-order articles in the domesticated media, pressing through fiscal agencies, searches, exhibitions meant to expose and shame, agitative posters—all the methods are seen as fit to be used…”

 

And here is the answer of Vladimir Medinsky, the Minister of Culture:

“It was precisely the civil society that became indignant at that production of ‘Tannhäuser’ by the Novosibirsk Academic (!) theatre. Our Ministry didn’t blunder when we sacked a theatre director who didn’t bother to enter into dialogue with representatives of the society. We blundered because we took too long with this sacking. Honestly, a production like this should have been rejected by the head of the theatre when it was just a concept.

“In May 2015, the ‘Art Without Borders’ foundation held an exhibition in Moscow, entitled ‘The Lower Depths’, which was devoted to theatre productions of the past few years that have caused much controversy. Each of the ‘exhibits’ was thoughtfully provided with a label, which said how much money this very theatre had received from some governmental budget. I personally understand this kind of civil activity as an attempt to force the state to do its duty in the field of cultural policy. We can’t and won’t continue to ignore, in the totalitarian sort of way, opinions of the majority of our citizens. When you fall ill and go to the local clinic for help, you wouldn’t like to be surprised by some ‘non-traditional’ treatment, would you? Do you indeed want some miraculous new drug to be tested on you, an experimental kind of drug? Somehow I don’t think so. The system of the public healthcare of any country in the world is based on the standardization of the methods of treatment, those that have been tested and probed many times, and are guaranteed by the state and by science. In exceptional cases the need to use some non-standard methods might arise, as a last resort—but you would be repeatedly warned about it being experimental, and you would be offered to make your choice consciously, aware of the possible consequences. As for the fans of the alternative, the non-traditional medicines take care of that, which are not subsidized by the State. Same goes for the arts. The only difference is that a non-traditional artist experiments not on the body of a single patient, but on the souls of many thousands.”

 

2015 – several Moscow theatres (A.P. Chekhov Moscow Art Theatre, Vs. Meierhold Centre, Gogol-Centre, Satiricon theatre) received requests for information from the Public Prosecutor’s office in connection with the appeal that had been made by the “Arts Without Borders”, an independent foundation for developing culture. It was decided to examine the plays making repertoire of some theatres for the obscene language usage on stage, for propagandizing amoral ways, and for containing elements of pornography. According to the Novaya gazeta (The New Gazette), the letter addressed to Victor Ryzhakov, the artistic director of the V.S. Meierhold Arts centre, contained a request to inform the Public Prosecutor’s office whether the repertoire of the theatre includes such plays as “The Threepenny Opera” (A.P. Chekhov Moscow Art Theatre), “Anthony & Cleopatra. A version.” (Sovremennik theatre), “The Golden Cockerel” (Bolshoy theatre), “About Zero” (A.P. Chekhov Moscow Art Theatre), “The Naked Girl Pioneer” (Sovremennik theatre), “Modelling Clay” (The Centre for Dramatic Art and Directing), “Spring Awakening” (Gogol-centre), “All Shades of Blue” (Satiricon theatre), “Salome” (Roman Viktiuk’s theatre), ”Things Are Great” (Practice theatre), “The Ideal Husband. A comedy” (A.P. Chekhov Moscow Art Theatre).Besides, the office seemed interested in learning certain particulars about the directors of the above-mentioned shows, as well as in getting a rough idea of the contents of these works of art. They also wanted to know whether there were any underage actors who participated in the shows, and “whether the contents of the production have passed any preliminary reviewing (by critics, or by art theorists) at some executive agency before they were staged to be shown to the general public.”

Most of the above-mentioned productions were directed by Kirill Serebrennikov,; none of them are in the repertoire of the Vs. Meierhold Centre, which the Public Prosecuter’s office was informed about by the theatre.

“Additionally I request that we are provided with the scripts of the shows from the above-mentioned list that are in the repertoire of the Vs. Meierhold Centre, as well as video recordings of the performances on any tangible medium (or inform us if it is possible to send the video-recordings by e-mail)”, said the request that was signed by the Public Prosecutor of the Tverskoy district of the city of Moscow, V.V. Mozhaev”.

2016 – in the city of Omsk the performance of the rock-opera “Jesus Christ Superstar” by a touring St. Petersburg theatre was cancelled due to the protests of the representatives of a social movement “Family, Love, Motherland”. “The very plot of the rock-opera ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’ is a continuous blasphemy and treading upon the sacral; it makes mockery of faith and abuses the hallow images, which is profanity pure and simple, the very title of the show is desecrating the sacred. Interpreting holy texts loosely, introducing into the plot debauchery that is incompatible with the Christian ideals cannot but bring forth the feeling of repulsion and protest in any believer, of whatever confession,” it says on the movement’s website.

2016 – In the city of St. Petersburg the performance of the play “All shades of blue” produced by Konstantin Raikin was interrupted twice because of the false alarms triggered by anonymous phone calls. Activists of the Narodny Sobor (People’s Congregation)movement took their stand in front of the theatre entrance, and offered leaflets to the public about the harmfulness of homosexuality. Vitaly Milonov, deputy of the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg, filed a complaint in the Public Prosecutor’s office, demanding the show to be examined for the infringements of the law that prohibits propaganda of homosexuality among underage persons. According to Milonov, the show “is damaging moral health”.

The show is a production based on a play of the same title that won an award at the “Liubimovka” Young Russian Playwrights’ festival in 2014. The play was written by Vladimir Zaitzev; it is about a schoolboy who confesses to his parents that his sexual preferences are not traditional. The parents opt for having their son “treated” in a psychiatric clinic.

“When I was making this show, I kept thinking about Mandelstam, Brodsky, Malevich. Generally about people who differ from the identity of all the others. They couldn’t feel differently from the way they felt, and couldn’t lie about their true feelings. The world generally, but Russia with particular cruelty, is relentlessly intolerable of everyone who is different”, said Konstantin Raikin in an interview.

“When they suggest we produce a show devoted to, quote / unquote two-three mishap chromosomes’ whose image provokes nothing but repulsion in the people, and it is being represented at the expense of those very people, mind you. Nobody owes anything to artists—it is you who owe to society. If you disagree, don’t take a job at a state owned establishment. Why do you, while holding a job at a state owned establishment, consider it fair to insult society, while living on government money, and you dare teach others how they ought to live”, said Vladimir Aristarchov, Deputy Minister of Culture.

At the Union of Theatre Workers of RF convention Konstantin Raikin, People’s Artist of Russia, the head of Moscow theatre “Satiricon” made a very emotional speech, which stirred society and brought about a general discussion on the issue of the unacceptability of censorship.

“Now these little groups of allegedly insulted people, who shut shows down, who behave insolently, whom the authorities tolerate with some very strange reserve, keeping their distance. It seems to me that these are some ugly attacks on the freedom of expression, on the outlawing of censorship. And banning censorship is the greatest event that has had a century-long impact on the artistic and spiritual life of our country”, said Konstantin Raikin. Many significant figures in the sphere of arts and culture sided with the famous actor: director Andrey Zviagintzev, the head of the Theatre of Nations Andrey Mironov, director of the State Hermitage Museum Mikhail Piotrovsky, etc.

“As to the show about ‘Fifty shades’ (‘All Shades of Blue’ – author’s note). The Ministry of culture never introduced any sanctions against this show whatsoever. The experts from the department concerned viewed the show, said they found nothing infringing the law in it, so all questions were removed from the agenda. I was flabbergasted by Konstantin Arcadievich Raikin’s speech because he is the last person to complain about censorship, it’s absurd. As far as I remember, nobody has ever forbidden Satirikon theatre and Raikin personally anything, nobody has ever given them instructions, or advice. There must be some other reason behind it”, said Vladimir Medinsky, Minister of Culture, in an interview with “TV tzentr”.

On 2 December, at the joint meeting of the Counsel for Culture and Arts under the auspices of the President of the RF, Vladimir Putin said: “On the one hand, all offensive escapades, attempts to wreck a show, an exhibition, are absolutely unacceptable, and ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And we will do exactly that. On the other hand, within the creative milieu, I’d like to particularly emphasize this aspect of the problem, within and inside that creative milieu the borderline between cynical and offensive show-offs and creative actions ought to be defined.” The president also suggested that the cultural workers should work out some criteria for works of art that would make it clear whether they break the law or insult anybody’s feelings. “It isn’t an easy task, but it would be great if not we, but you yourselves managed to accomplish that. To tell the truth, it would be easier for me to hold back the officials who tend to go too far”, remarked Vladimir Putin.

On 14 December, 2016, the “Public Opinion” foundation published the results of their survey titled “Is it acceptable to ban works of art?”, which were: 47% (9% less then the previous year) believe that banning works of art is unacceptable, and 46% believe that such a practice is acceptable.

 

2016 – Igor Gladnev, the Minister of Culture of the Perm region, arbitrarily fired Boris Milgram who headed “Theatre-Theatre” in the capacity of artistic director. The official insisted that “the guidelines that have been declared by the head of the theatre are inconsistent with the function meant for the theatre he heads, are inconsistent with the tasks set before the state establishments in the concept of the state cultural policy approved by the president of Russia.” Boris Milgram, the winner of the “Golden Masque” award, who had never been shy of theatrical experiments and “new forms”, explained his dismissal from office by personal dislike that the Perm region Minister of culture had nursed against him. The actors of Theatre-Theatre stood up in protests against the dismissal of their artistic director, as did the theatre circles of Russia. As a result, Igor Gladnev was suspended from his office, and Boris Milgram was restored in his, that of the artistic director of the Theatre-Theatre. Yet very soon a new outrage blazed up, this time about the show “The Blue Room” (based on the play of the same title by David Hare): some activists filed an offensive-to-the-feelings-of-the-believers complaint, but the Public Prosecutor’s office didn’t find any evidence.

2016 – A group of deputies of the State Duma brought in a draft proposing to make defiling works of art or letters in public administratively liable, as well as impeding the screening of a film or performance of a show. To illustrate their purpose, the authors of the draft reminded of the following incidents: at the exhibition of the works by photographer Jock Sturges, which were presented in the Lumière Brothers Photography centre, one of the visitors splashed an exhibited photo with urine; at the exhibition “Sculptures we don’t see” in the Manege, activists of the Orthodox believers’ movement “God’s Will” started to smash sculptures made in the years 1960-70, insisting the objects offended the feelings of the believers); with the play “The Ideal Husband” that ran at the A.P. Chekhov Moscow Art Theatre, the activists who described themselves as Orthodox believers climbed onto the stage during the performance, with the intention to wreck the show; later they left a pig’s head on the door-step of the theatre* and orders to shut down the show). “In the years 2014-2016, several dozens of performances were wrecked, in many different cities of Russia”, the deputies remarked in the note that accompanied the draft.”

*”I would like to say a few words to certain so very pushy persons: don’t you bother about bringing any more pigs’ heads to the theatre doorstep, but store them in the refrigerator instead, which is where food ought to go. It seems that these days we are confronted with characters that pop up from nowhere, wanting to tell artists what they are to do, and at times in an unacceptably aggressive form, too. I am a man who has seen a thing or two in my life, so I didn’t shut down that show. Several years passed, and the show is running beautifully, and the public keeps coming to see it”, said Oleg Tabakov, People’s Artist of the USSR, the artistic director of the A.P. Chekhov Moscow Art Theatre.

2017 – The Council of the Orthodox patriotic communities made a list of film and theatre directors whom they labeled “russophobic”.

“It is high time that responsible officials, whose office is to govern, and whose job concerns cultural issues, stopped being hypnotized by a tiny bunch of self-proclaimed geniuses who aggressively insist they are licensed to enjoy boundless freedom. Freedom implies responsibility, and cannot be stretched to include ‘creators’ who intentionally mock things that are dearest to the majority of the people, who spit right into the soul of the people. That’s the core difference between them and the true artists, whose creativity is nourished by faith and bonds tying them to their own national cultural tradition. We must resist the false stereotype, so aggressively inculcated by this lobby, that implies that there cannot be any bans in art, that artistic practices are outside the authority of law and morals. Because culture is based on norms, and norms cannot exist without bans.”

2017 – The Public Prosecutor’s office initiated an investigation concerning productions of the Taganka Theatre upon receiving a complaint about the play “Sweeney Todd: the demon barber of Fleet-street”, which had been filed by a certain Romanov Kniaz Monomakh. The complaint contained several excerpts from articles published by news agencies, a statement to the effect that the show propagandizes violence, and a legislative initiative that was worded in the following way: “I propose the people’s budget is spared and the Ministry of Culture is dismissed, in accordance with the 205 Article of the RF Criminal Code (terrorism)…”

2017 – The RF State Duma passed the decision to form a Council for Culture, Religion, and Interethnic Relations. Supposedly the council will concern itself with having young people be brought up in a patriotic spirit, as well as push for activities that prevent extremism from spreading in the sphere of culture.

Strong itch to act the whistle-blower, lust for profit, natural meanness or weakness of character, susceptibility to manipulative techniques, or, possibly, sincere, even if misplaced, belief in the rightfulness of the cause—whatever the motives behind the citizens’ speaking out against one show or another, and demand it were closed (quite often the activists have never even seen the event they want to have destroyed), they seem to be the die-hard ones. And I would add one more cause of the spectators’ indignation and noxious response to this or that show—namely, longing for the paradise lost. The concept of an earthly “paradise lost” is common to many religions, epics, myths of different peoples and different epochs. The famous Sumero-Akkadian epic poem tells us about Dilmun, a country inhabited by gods, where there is no death, and no illness. All living creatures there live in concord with each other. “In Dilmun the crow doesn’t croak. The Ittidu bird doesn’t screech. The lion doesn’t kill, the wolf won’t snatch the lamb.” Now compare Dilmun with the theatrical community of your own country, and you will make out the difference to be day and night.

The myths of Ancient Greece inform us about a northern country Hyperborea, where the offspring of the Titans lived. Their civilization was highly developed: immaculately moral, advanced technology, and magnificent arts. Yet Hyperborea perished, with no trace of it left.

There is an opinion that the “paradise lost” concept being this widely spread might not only be due to cultural and historic causes, but due to psycho-physiological ones, too. Psychologists insist that all of us have, subconsciously, memories of being in our mother’s womb. After having been born into the unkind world we start to yearn for the time when we were surrounded by the warmth and care of our mother’s body.

Theatre itself, ever striving to penetrate the essential core of the human being, is very much like a human being. Theatre yearns for its paradise lost, for its golden age, for “the ideal model”. In theatre circles (and theatre goers ought to be considered part of it), talks about the outstanding figures of the times bygone frequently occur, and about some specific time and place where once upon a time the perfect theatre used to abide. That perfect theatre is often referred to as “classical theatre”. There is no agreement on what “classical theatre” is or might be. “Classical theatre” is a vague notion of the theatre from “the good old days”, and by deploying that term, it generally means looking down on any new form of contemporary theatre. Theater-goers sigh, distressed by that which has just been presented to them, and say that “art still owes a lot to the public”, and nostalgically speak about theatre’s “paradise lost”.

The weather in paradise is always pleasing (psychological environment including); nobody is hungry and everybody is friendly. There are no emotions in paradise, because life there is so very regular and peaceful. In paradise, established order reigns once and forever. There is no rivalry in paradise. It resembles utopias, many of which tend to turn into a tyranny only too often. No theatre, neither generally speaking, nor any particular one, has ever lived in conditions like that. Conditions like that are contrary to its very essence, its turbulent creative core.

Theatre is alive and always has been alive, thanks to the exchange and collision of thoughts and ideas, creative practices and concepts. Rivalry and partnership coexist within it. Any striking human identity gets enriched and enriches the cultural codes, the roots of any nation. Theatre, like the city, thrives on diversity; it takes them as they come—emotions, ideas, experiences, facts, philosophies, religions, languages—and can never get enough.

I don’t think that discussions about the beautiful bygones may be of any use for the beautiful tomorrow we have under construction. The theatre of tomorrow is a theatre that embraces both Ginkas and Wilson, both recitations and experimenting, and new forms of all kinds. The theatre of the past is a theatre with one single trend domineering. A domineering single style, or a single vision, however great the artists may be, will never bring about anything good if granted a monopoly. Things will just freeze in their tracks. The immortality of the theatre is in motion, in exploration, in things being “artistically disorganized”. Besides, as another of Chekhov’s characters put it, “there is room enough for all, for the new and old alike. Why […] push and shove?”

In spite of all the outrages and feverish sways, and the working conditions that are much too often much too far from being perfect, the theatre in Russia is alive, diverse, continuously in quest for the unknown, and often succeeds with surprising the audience with the most marvelous discoveries. And precisely for this reason it is so important to talk about anything that prevents the theatre and people in the theatre from working freely, from discovering more and more new ways of understanding the reality that surrounds us.

Theatre strives to and is capable of destroying barriers not only between the stage and the audience, but in places beyond the theatre. Theatre always has been and still is the space where civilian life abides. Theatre as an art form energetically opposes and tries to overpower war theaters. Theatre crosses borders and overcomes stereotypes. Theatre is a form of communication and mutual enrichment. As director Andrey Goncharov put it, “Theater is a man to man conversation on Man.”

Note by the author: The day after this article was finished the following statement was published on the site of the Russian Artistic Union, an organization that came to be quite recently, informing the public about the general concept of this organization, and the general directions it plans to take. In particular, in section “Theatre” it said:

“We believe that Russian theatre is in deep crisis. While going over once again through the ABC that the Soviet theatre, as well as the theatres of Western Europe had mastered long ago, most of our creative workers have ceased to concern themselves with the aim of bringing out the best in their audiences. The refusal on principal to adopt any ideology at all turned out to become a new dictatorship that demands that sin and saintliness, the base and the great are equaled. Relinquishing all moral evaluations is insistently proclaimed as the basic principle, as if to fit the spirit of the famous thesis ‘let all flowers bloom’. Having ceased to be the cathedra for preaching lofty ideas, the theatre has reserved for itself only one single function, that of the entertainer, and the seat of the civil truths is now taken by casual journalistic blabber, borrowed from the ‘Echo Moskvy’ (‘Echo of Moscow’) radio station and the TV channel “Dozhd” (Rain).

UPD

The Russian Investigative Committee said the Gogol Center theatre and the apartment of its art director, Kirill Serebrennikov, were searched on 23 May in connection with an embezzlement case. Dozens of cultural figures came to Serbrennikov’s defense, signing a statement calling him “an honest, fair, and open person.”

 

 

Published on 28 June 2017 (Article originally written in Russian)

Theatre in the UK: Politics, poetics and resistance

Theatre in the UK: Politics, poetics and resistance

On Fire

In 2015, I found myself in the Dorfman Theatre at the National Theatre for the closing of the Spill Festival of Performance, watching a transgender artist (https://heathercassils.com/) perform a dangerous act of self-immolation in Inextinguishable Fire, as part of the Spill Festival of Performance. The piece saw the artist, following extensive training with professional stuntmen, burn themselves on stage in a controlled performance inspired by Harun Farocki’s film with the same name, exploring the impossibility of representing trauma. The event was a two-part piece: the live, one-off performance in the Dorfman, and a follow-on film projected outdoors, on the side of the Southbank Centre’s Royal Festival Hall.

The burn itself lasted fourteen seconds, preceded by extensive physical preparation involving fire-resistant materials. This body is drenched in cooling gel, ready to undergo a temporary state of hypothermia and needs to avoid any breathing in for the period of the burn. The lights on the stage and in the auditorium never go down, and there’s an underpinning, uncomfortable drone sound coming from the speakers, just enough to create a sense of anticipation, but not to support any spectacle.

This feels momentous: watching a gender fluid, non-British body on a National Theatre stage, speaking of trauma, undertaking a performance that is in equal measure theatricalised and de-theatricalised. The audience is silent, and I watch in anticipation, knowing that this will not culminate, it might simply end; knowing the resonances are both poetic and formal; knowing that I am a witness, not a spectator.

It’s surprising, not only because the National Theatre has, for the past decade, under the directorship of Sir Trevor Nunn (1997-2003) and Sir Nicholas Hytner (2003-2015) created a distinct identity that favours adaptations, and a particular British-European canon that excludes the kind of performance work that the theatre world has embraced elsewhere. It’s a notably gendered space too—the National Theatre has yet to see an Artistic Director who is not a white British male—although there is promise of a shift under the tenure of Rufus Norris. In what direction, and under what circumstances, perhaps it’s too soon to tell. Cassils’s event, with its explicit interest in the architecture of the theatre, but resistant to theatricality itself, marked a moment of politicisation ahead of the era of Donald Trump and Brexit.

Cultural Policy (The Politics)

In 2016, Ed Vaizey, then Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries published the first White Paper on the government’s approach to culture in over fifty years. It foregrounds the move towards patronage and private sponsorship model for the arts, and places increased pressure on the economic sustainability of culture (in terms of profitability and re-investment). It also emphasises culture’s ability to increase soft power and to provide measurable community engagement. The outcome indicators stipulate economic growth, reduction of poverty and unemployment rates and ‘improved subjective well-being’, in the promise for culture to deliver successful communities.

It’s no surprise that theatre plays a key part in this vision; despite the West End’s relative economic success, much of the pressures come down to the subsidised theatre sector—from major to local institutions. Yet this reorientation of the cultural agenda has its roots in the Conservative Government’s austerity measures, which, in 2010, resulted in a 30% cut to the Arts Council England budget, the main funding body. This was followed by cuts across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, although these played out differently in each of the devolved administrations. Despite local governments having some autonomy over austerity measures, Westminster remains a powerful lead in overseeing the agenda for cultural policy and funding. And it is precisely this reorientation that has resulted in a notable fracturing of the theatrical ecology, from the point of view of its infrastructure, as well as its artistic factioning.

To speak of the landscape of British theatre in the UK is to speak of a series of intertwined political, social and governmental shifts, at a time of increased desire for sovereignty and a tumultuous relationship to the European Union. Britain’s theatrical landscape is shaped as much by a fluctuating community of immigrants, diasporas and locals, as by major political shifts. Whilst Britain prides itself on the economic profitability and dynamism of its creative industries, it is also structurally a pressurised, neoliberal cultural landscape. There is a powerful conservativisim within British theatre, one that is also resisted by a plural, reactive, shifting community of artists and institutions questioning identities, structural inequality and continuing to explore immaterial questions of generosity, care, community and, of course, dramatic form itself.

There is also a distinct differentiation on the part of its artistic communities between theatre and live art (as developed and championed by The Live Art Development Agency under Lois Keidan and C J Mitchell), with performance as a nomadic network of cultural intersections in between. This is particular to the UK, and has come as a direct result of the inconsistent and sometimes untransparent distribution of public money to support experimental or marginal practices. What becomes part of these categories is constantly shifting. If live art has sought to make space for marginalised debates and dissolve the boundary between art and life, between experiences of marginalisation and their representation, theatre post-Thatcher has been battling a tension between subsidized and commercial sectors, between new writing and adaptations, between British and international work.

Struggles and Poetics

The rise of Conservative government in England as a political stronghold, echoing policies that go all the way back to Margaret Thatcher, has also seen a dynamic theatrical and performance culture. Tate Modern opened its new extension in 2016, providing more space and resourcing to the archiving of theatre, performance and live art, whilst other museums, such as the Victoria & Albert, have seen successful exhibitions and programmes about theatre and performance. Organisations such as the Live Art Development Agency and Artsadmin have invested resources and efforts to create a culture inclusive around questions of gender and sexual identity, race and ability, environment and ecology, as well as questioning ideas surrounding diversity and their systemic undermining. The rise of festivals such as the London International Theatre Festival, Spill Festival of Performance, In Between Time, Buzzcut Festival and many more has provided an alternative network for international work to be circulated beyond cultural strongholds, namely major cities like London, Cardiff, Glasgow or Manchester.

Changes in major institutions, such as London’s Royal Court under Vicky Featherstone, the National Theatre under Rufus Norris, and The Globe under Emma Rice (who, following a dispute with the Shakespeare Globe Trust Board on the use of lighting and sound technology, is now leaving the venue at the end of its 17/18 season) have provided programming that attempts to engage with problems of representation, both in terms of labour and artistic output, notably gender, race and disability, although these are politically limited and embedded in complex questions surrounding theatre as a cultural establishment.

This, at the same time, has given rise to questions surrounding nationhood and sovereignty, identity and borders, at a time of global dispute. The term ‘European’, recently debased by playwright Sir David Hare as ‘infecting’ British theatre – and elevated by critic Michael Billington in his critique about the National Theatre’s season omitting ‘European classics’ evidence a misunderstanding that’s recently regained traction. This is between Europe as a continent, and the European Union itself, as well as the association of the term with radicalism that pertains to the late eighties and early nineties and the rise of Regietheater, or a classicism that excludes cultures at the heart of European Modernism, and ignores the important role postcolonial critiques play in unpacking histories of practice.

David Hare’s remarks attempt to protect the now historicised state of the nation play, giving the example of the successful Jerusalem by Jez Butterworth. At the same time, it derides the rise of devising, collective work and new writing at the heart of much British culture and its international reach—and its mainstream presence, such as The Barbican regularly commissioning collaborations between Simon McBurney’s Complicite and Berlin’s Schaubühne, following the successful controversy of the international co-production Three Kingdoms in 2012 (written by Simon Stephens, directed by Sebastian Nubling, with design by Ene-Liis Semper).

If venues such as the Young Vic, the Barbican and the Royal Court regularly programme works in collaboration with artists across Europe and beyond, there is still a battle between form and topicality, nationhood and internationalism in British theatre. In part, this comes out of a lack of questioning of what is meant by ‘nation’ in post-Empire Britain on its major stages, although some excellent work has been supported by Battersea Arts Centre with London Stories: Made by Migrants, exploring London’s diverse migrant community through the stories of its inhabitants, and Vlatka Horvat’s 15th Extraordinary Congress, which speaks of the dissolution of Yugoslavia through the stories of seven London-based artists born in its different republics. Counted amongst some of the most welcomed productions of 2016 are Oil by Ella Hickson, which speaks to the broad history of oil and its political, social and environmental damage, Annie Barker’s The Flick about a failing Massachusetts movie house and its low paid workers pushed out by the digital, as well as works by black American playwrights like Ma Rainey, Amiri Baraka and Suzan-Lori Parks. These show a wide range of topical engagements, supported by an ongoing interest in European and American revivals (including Tennese William’s Streetcare Named Desire, Federico García Lorca’s Yerma and Henrik Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler).

There remains however, a disparity between agendas for cultural involvement and representation, the language of inclusivity and the infrastructures both cultural and institutional that create such complex problems across the board. In January of this year, Live Art UK launched Diverse Actions, a multi-project initiative that aims to support culturally diverse ‘ambition, excellence and talent’, focused on leadership and new work, with an agenda for embedding more sustainable practices.

Performance (or?)

If the mid 2000s saw a rise of artist-led, independently run spaces, such as performance space, run by Bean and Benjamin Sebastian, and The Yard Theatre, and the development of local projects by major institutions, such as the Royal Court’s work in Peckham, South London and LIFT’s work in Tottenham, North London, following the Olympics in 2012, there is a general sense that DIY models are short lived, but infrastructurally necessary to the development of an experimental scene in London and beyond. Whilst the division between regional performance, and that in major cities remains a problem, particularly in light of the concentration of artists and institutions in places like London, there is an increasingly neoliberal culture that is pushing institutions to rely on philanthropy, and artists to navigate complex systems of fundraising and patronage in order to ensure sustainable cultural activity.

In part, certain institutions like the Tate Modern have attempted to provide spaces of debate on these questions, whilst also harnessing their resources to familiarise a visual art and heritage audience with performance work, particularly with artists like Anne Theresa De Keersmaeker, Suzanne Lacy or Marina Abramovic. On the other hand, Live Art Development Agency has been instrumental in introducing a certain level of ethical debate, drawing a link between the political shift of cultural policy and funding and the development of certain artforms, supporting the work of collectives like Platform, who were behind the protests on Tate’s BP sponsorship which has now ended, as well as engaging in publishing activities, and artist-support networks.

So whilst institutional, there is an apparent porosity between theatre and performance, between historical lineages that emerge from visual art and those at the heart of European modernism, this landscape looks altogether different according to which vantage point you take. It’s a shifting paradigm, one that at times might suggest a spectrum rather than a binary, but under the current guises, there remains much tension to work through.

 

 

Published on 19 May 2017

Where do parallel lines meet?

Where do parallel lines meet?

If you want to understand what’s going on in the Hungarian theatres, you have to be aware of the fact that Hungarian culture is politicized to the utmost extent. The party of Viktor Orbán, Fidesz, first won an absolute majority in Parliament in 2010. Since then system of democratic institutions and the financing of culture has become totally different. Simultaneously, the walls between left and right-wingers have become higher and higher.

“Távoli dal”, Vígzsínházs, directed by Mark Eitzel © Daniel Damolky

Left-wingers (creators):
are usually liberal, too
are urban and cosmopolitan
were too subsidized by the political system before 2010, today their subsidies decrease or stagnate
focus on the Western world
would not limit methods of creations
are provocative
think theatre raises problems, enhances critical thinking and triggers debates.

Right-wingers (creators):
are rather conservative
are mainly from the countryside, strongly believes in national values
too subsidized by the present political system
focus on the East
would limit the methods of creation
think provocation is self-important
think theatre should represent values, give answers, enhance a common standpoint.

These are of course stereotypes, some of them being attached to one side by the other side. It is also a characteristic of the cruelty of this divisiveness that related to something even those count as left- or right-wing who would never label themselves so (though might consider themselves as sitting in the opposition). If we want to understand how this condition affects the circumstances of Hungarian theatre, we have to clarify some basic concepts.

Funding of Theaters

Currently, the majority of theaters in Hungary are being sustained through municipal support, which means that performing arts in Hungary largely depend on state subsidies. Examples of patronage exist, but given the small size of the country, the system is rudimentary; sponsors prefer to invest in more “spectacular” projects. Besides financial aid, theater revenues result from seat sales and the so-called TAO [Corporate Income Taxes] which means that national business establishments may offer part of their corporate taxes to theaters, which may receive 80% of their annual seat sales through this method. (This system is rather recent and according to its opponents, it benefits the larger, stronger, high-seat-capacity theaters in addition to facilitating a huge number of abusive practices.) Based on the financing of the different institutions, theatres can be divided into the following groups:

Stone Theaters: Repertory theaters disposing permanent troupes and playgrounds. Partly
subsidized by the municipality, partly subsidized by the state, there are countless such theaters in Budapest, amongst which the most significant are the Katona József Theater, the Örkény István Theater, the Radnóti Miklós Theater and the National Theater (this is a subjective list). In addition, there are stone theaters outside of Budapest, primarily in regional municipalities, specifically in larger cities. There is a significant difference, inasmuch as the theaters in Budapest may easily establish their own identities, whereas this task is more difficult for regional theaters, since it is the same establishment providing operas, musicals, children’s plays, studio theater performances, etc.

Private Theaters: they exist sporadically, generally playing tabloid-type presentations. The most significant among them is the Orlai Produkciós Iroda [Orlai Production Office] and the
Átrium Film-Színház [Atrium Film-Theater]—these also participate occasionally in setting up independent theater performances, or at least act as host establishments.

Independent Theaters: formerly referred to as amateur theaters, later alternative theater troupes that have no sponsors, functioning on project funding from tenders and competitions and usually having no permanent playgrounds. The bulk of dance troupes and numerous children’s theater-and-theater education companies belong in this group. The accomplishments of independent troupes are recognized worldwide, but in Hungary these troupes are forced to work under increasingly harsher conditions. Thus, as a matter of course, part of their presentations automatically takes place in international co-productions. The troupes struggle in different ways with this situation: Viktor Bodó’s company, the Szputnyik, chose to close down due to uncertainty and unpredictability. Béla Pintér’s company resigned from the two annual presentations and raised ticket prices (luckily, they can afford it, having a huge fan base, tickets are sold out for months, within hours of their announced performances on the Internet). Kornél Mundruczó’s company, the Proton, always present their show abroad, the same is true for the productions of Árpád Schilling’s company. (Incidentally, he has completely disconnected his artistic activities from Krétakör, [Chalk Circle] now primarily engaging in projects of social dialogues and responsibility-taking.)

Host Theaters: these present guest performances and productions of troupes without a permanent playground. Their important role is to pave the way for startup troupes. In this regard, the Jurányi Inkubátor Ház [Juranyi Incubator House] is a unique phenomenon, operating out of an old schoolhouse building, which offers a rehearsal room and other infrastructure to “lodger” troupes, serving as well as a host platform for community groups. The Szkéné [Theater of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics] works largely with permanent troupes, the MU Theater concentrates mainly on dance, startup troupes and lately on community presentations. The most significant host theater is Trafó, the only place where foreign guest performances can be seen continuously during the year.

It is important to know what the above concepts mean because, as we will see, divisiveness is not only a political, but a structural question as well.

Two Theatrical Organizations and Two Performing Arts Acts

There are two organisations for authors and young writers—or even history teachers—one is left-wing, the other is right-wing. In some cases, the right-wing organizations came into existence as opposing organisms. This is what happened in the case of the Magyar Színházi Társaság (MszT) and the Magyar Teátrumi Társaság (MTT – both names mean Hungarian Theatre Association with the only difference that ‘színházi’ is the Hungarians version of the word theatre, and ‘teátrumi’ is a less used, Latin version). The MSzT was established in 1997, its purpose was to represent the interests of the Hungarian theater profession and its main ambition was the legislation of the work in performing arts. Parliament finally adopted this law in 2008. In essence, it was the dissatisfaction with this law that gave rise to the MTT, which primarily included regional theaters as members, with Attila Vidnyánszky becoming its leader, who is currently the most influential person in the Hungarian theater world, with numerous positions: director of the National Theater, president of the MTT, and the director of the Kaposvári Egyetem Színházi Intézet [Kaposvár University Theater Institution]. The purpose of the MTT was the enforcement of the interests of regional theaters which,—according to them—have not sufficiently prevailed within the MSzT. They stressed the fact that the law should have included the esthetical and qualitative aspects. This point of view, according to their critics, has not succeeded in the case of theaters clustering in the MTT, as those at the helm were political appointees, presenting mainly tabloid-type plays or shows for entertainment.
In 2011, the 2008 law was finally modified (currently this version is in force), and the MTT has reached another important modification. The 2008 law guaranteed that the independent associations would receive 10% of the subsidies destined for theaters. The modification terminated this guarantee: now the law only states that the Nemzeti Erőforrás Minisztérium [Ministry of National Resources] may grant an aggregate, unspecified support to independents theaters. The Független Előadó-művészeti Szervezet [Independent Performing Arts Association] (then still Független Színházak Szövetsége [Independent Theaters Association]) protested, understandably, against the modification, since, as of this year, the allocation for their support has been considerably reduced.

Festivals

It is due to this bipolarity, i.e., the existence of two theatrical associations, that a rather absurd and a seemingly insolvable situation has surfaced, namely that when the Hungarian theater scene is expressly aspiring to bury the rifts and reach a balanced decision, they summon individuals from “both sides”. The best example for this is the POSzT- Pécsi Országos Színházi Találkozó, [Pécs National Theater Festival], one of the most important festivals, for which a selector nominated by the MSzT and the MTT has been choosing the productions for years, and where the seven-member jury is also carefully chosen to represent people from both sides.
From the outset, a certain kind of indecision is encoded in this situation, since the two associations to this day could never reach a definite agreement regarding the POSzT’s fundamental mission. According to certain opinions, the best productions should be participating in POSzT, while according to others, the nature of the festival is a more important viewpoint, namely, that the greatest possible number of theaters be in attendance. Thus, many hold the inherent situation of the festival as hopeless, and they have been neglecting it for years. The owners (The city of Pécs and the two theater associations) posted a contest for the management of POSzT. Thus, the winner set up a professional advisory board, intended for the reinvention of POSzT, which is currently under way.
For a long time, there was no international festival in Hungary that would also be considered significant in Europe. This is the gap that the MITEM [Madách International Theater Festival] is currently trying to fill, with the festival organized by the National Theater under the direction of Attila Vidnyánszky, for which, for that matter, there is plenty of state support, since Vidnyánszky is favored by the authorities (especially when compared to the former director, Róbert Alföldi, who, even before the Orbán regime, has managed the National Theater with much less funding). According to festival critics, the concept of the selection is not apparent in the program, leaning primarily toward Eastern Europe and Asia, concentrating on major national theaters. In 2017, for example, performances by Silviu Purcărete, Krystian Lupa, Eimuntas Nekrošius and Alvis Hermanis will be coming to the MITEM.
The Magyar Színházak Kisvárdai Fesztiválja [Kisvárda Festival of Hungarian Theaters] is mandated to present Hungarian theaters beyond the border. That is to say, that there is a considerable Hungarian minority living in Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania and Serbia, whose theater professionals had hitherto no chance to meet each other, or those of their homeland. That is why a festival came into existence in a small Eastern Hungarian town, which does not even have its own theater. At the time, this seemed to be a practical solution due to the geographical situation; today, however, the lack of infrastructure makes the organizing quite difficult. Nevertheless, the town is fond of the festival, while their demand for “audience friendly” performances is clearly expressed.
Besides these, a number of smaller festivals are provided with full or partial theatrical profiles and given topics or artistic genres. International audiences take part in limited number in these festivals, an exception is the rhapsodically held Kortárs Dráma Fesztivál [Contemporary Drama Festival] due to financial reasons, and, of course, the showcase-type DunaPart [Duna Banks] festival, specifically organized for foreigners, set up every two years (next in November 2017). These last two festivals are often accused of being biased and of ignoring the achievements of countryside theatres by the right.

Theater Esthetics

There is indeed a striking difference between the regional and the Budapest theaters, especially as regards the characteristically conservative esthetics in the countryside, especially since people appointed by Fidesz [Hungarian Civic Party, i.e. Viktor Orbán’s party] landed in the directors’ chairs. This, of course, is a tendency at best, and does not mean that there are no exciting, good quality performances in the countryside – more and more of what the left-wing press considers to be right-wing theaters and politically appointed managing directors are inviting progressive directors to their associations. Neither does it mean that the fresh, contemporary productions are exclusively in the non-right-wing theaters of Budapest.
However, the observations about esthetics expressed by the directors of the MTT nevertheless show some common traits. The expression “theater of hope”, by now a household phrase, may be linked to these esthetics, according to which theaters must transmit positive messages to the spectators, giving answers to issues raised by the plays in question. According to them, the theater is a tool for the cultivation of the Hungarian language, and there are certain stylistic and dramaturgical solutions that distort the author’s intention. The arts and the theater formerly supported by the cultural/educational policies (prior to the current Orbán regime) shift excessively to the West, copying the German theater, where provocation is the strongest element.
According to the esthetics of the opposition, the most important mission of the theater is the posing of questions, the purpose being collective thinking. A work of art, a production, can only be important if they also have relevance in the present. In an ideal case, theater should educate the spectators for open and inclusive social responsibility, and should basically be political, since in given cases it deals with social issues.
How much emphasis it receives, how these esthetics are carried out and how well they are able to actually address the audience, that is another matter. The opinions of different generations in all likelihood disagree in this respect. We could say, in a somewhat polarizing fashion, that in stone theaters, above all, psychological realism and theater direction still predominate, while the characteristics of the majority of independent theaters are risk-taking experiments, among which several genres, slants and trends may be found. These specifically include documentary-based, physical, community-and-participatory type improvisational and devised theater. We may also state that in stone theaters, in certain constellations (in cooperation with guest directors and associations), where sometimes excursions to unfamiliar territories are made, the “results” of independent theaters certainly are, in many respects, an inspiration to stone theaters as well. Meanwhile, theater-makers of the youngest generation who would like to distance themselves from these battles and from the point of view determining whether people belong to “them” or to “us” are coming forward. They reference all this in their productions and often ostensibly dissociate themselves from politics.

Election of Directors

The present government avows itself to the aesthetics of the right side, and has done a lot for the spreading of it by putting “its own people” in the positions of theatre directors.
In Hungarian theaters, the funder invites tenders for the position of theater director every five years. The applications are judged by a committee (whose members belong to the profession, to the given theatre as well as to the funder), who will read the applications and audition the candidates.
The publication of tenders is not compulsory, but the majority of applicants avail themselves of the opportunity (or the “pirated” copies of a given tender are often diffused). The committee proposes a motion to the funder of who would be considered qualified for the post of director, although the funder is not obliged to take the committee’s opinion in consideration. Thus, it often happens that the powers to be know in advance whom they would want to have as a director of their theater, but nevertheless get to act out the entire charade.
It happened, for instance, in György Dörner’s case, who, in 2011, was nominated to be at the helm of Újszínház [New Theater] by István Tarlós, the mayor of Budapest, despite the objections of the committee and a protesting crowd. György Dörner had applied together with István Csurka, a former president of an extreme right-wing party; he and the artists he likes working with have made several anti-Semitic, homophobic statements. Incidentally, György Dörner was re-elected in 2016, notwithstanding his moderate success even in right-wing circles.
The newest case is related to Tamás Jordán, the founder (!) and current director of Weöres Sándor Theatre in Szombathely. His theatre is very popular and successful, but when Jordán’s mandate ended, the municipality did not choose him as director again despite the fact that he was the only aspirant and that there were demonstrations in his favour. His contract was only extended by a month, and instead the municipality will soon tender his position.. The municipality seems to wait for the “right” aspirant, anyone but Jordán is acceptable for them. Jordán is probably “punished” because he invited directors, namely Róbert Alföldi and János Mohácsi who are considered to be enemies by Attila Vidnyánszky. In the past few years, it even happened a few times that a director was replaced before the end of his mandate. According to recent regulations, the funder is not obliged to publicly justify the removal of the leader, so the reasons for the premature change of directors never came to light.
Thus, to a large extent, theaters depend on the authorities and funders who in the past decade have but rarely been mindful of professional opinions. Barely known people in the wider profession with little experience were being appointed to the helm of well established theaters with a great past.

The Critics

The Hungarian critical discourse is dominated by non-right wing voices. However, Tthere is less and less room in Hungary for professional critics, and nowadays one can no longer make a living from writing reviews or editing. Thus, writing reviews is becoming a hobby; most of the critics have a primary job in some type of earning trade and do their writing on the side. Fees received for articles (40-50 euros) have been stagnant for at least ten years, and some theater segments save precisely on complimentary tickets or tickets sold to professional establishments. According to one part of the critics, the fees received for their articles barely cover the amounts spent on theater tickets. Another problem is that not too many critics can afford to attend small town/countryside performances, as most of them live in Budapest. Employers can no longer afford to pay travel expenses and accommodations, not to mention how time-consuming it is for critics, beside their work, to travel back and forth in order to attend a performance. Hence, criticism is often accused of being centered in Budapest. What is also strange, that some primary jobs held by some critics are linked to theaters, associations or lodgings, which, for the time being, produces uncertain situations. There are also many “career-changer” critics, who decided to abandon the strenuous, amphibious way of life.
The critics have an organization to safeguard their interests, the Színházi Kritikusok Céhe [Hungarian Theatre Critics’ Association] (where the members themselves vote to decide who can be a member). In recent years, the prestige of the organization has grown somewhat, thanks to the Színikritikusok Díja [Theater Critics’ Award]. These awards are given out every season in fifteen categories, based on the voting by the association’s members, in connection of which it has been more and more emphasized that they are judged by an independent corporate body—which is interesting, especially in light of state awards and the often cautious, balancing POSzT-awards. However, the above mentioned crisis in the critic’s profession is also reflected in the awards: according to the rules, only those critics may vote who have seen at least ninety Hungarian-language performances in a given season, which less and less young critics can afford to do (working at other jobs, hence, very busy), so there are more and more older people among the voting members. As a consequence—or at least according to the critics of the critics’ award—the views about the awards are somewhat conservative and rather predictable.
Without the critics’ award, theater critics do not have much prestige; rarely do theater critics decide the fate of a performance.
There are a few (non-professional) theater blogs with comparatively wider readership and numerous critique and cultural portals with a strong theatrical review column (e.g. Revizoronline.com). There are three trade magazines: Színház [Theater], Ellenfény [Backlight] and Criticai Lapok [Critique Pages] (which, for a small country, is no small feat), although even the most popular, the Theater, only prints 1,500 copies, of which a vast number is unsold.
The bulk of the revenue from theater magazines is state sponsored, with considerably smaller proceeds from sold copies and advertisements. Thus, when in 2016, due to the reorganization of the NKA [National Cultural Fund] and the funding system, state subsidizing suddenly decreased substantially, the magazines found themselves in big trouble and could not publish for months. (What will happen in 2017, to this date, is impossible to know). The MTT also has a magazine called Magyar Teátrum [Hungarian Teatrum], but its professionalism is questioned since it is partially subsidized by theaters, and the chief editor was, until recently, the director of a countryside theater. Theatre makers within the MTT often express their dissatisfaction with the Hungarian critics, who are, in their opinion, biased, while they also voice their desire for the need to train a new generation of critics. The success of this effort is yet to be seen.
As a whole, this dialogue between the critics, the creators and the spectators, cannot be considered too lively, nevertheless, more and more attempts are happening toward the animation of this dialogue.

 

Published on 2 May 2017 (Article originally written in Hungarian)