Битеф

Photo / Foto: Mátyás Erdély

KostiaTreplev, the rebellious young writer claims "new forms" in the first act of Chekhov's Seagull- and in the fourth act he concludes:"no matter whether new forms or 01d..." The company of Krétakôr made about the same way In more than three months of work with the play. During this time, we felt that we got closer and closer to the secrets of this astonishingly intricate play and we absorbed ever more its complex world and figures. We wished to show it as a story of today about today's people, so we changed or eliminated elements that linked it too closely to Chekhov's age. At the end, we came to a form that is reduced to minimum, with nothing but a few actors: people who live, love, play roles, lie to themselves and let others lie to them, who strive for happiness, love, success - and nothing but inevitable failure awaits them. A century ago, the Seagull - by Chekhov and by Stanislavsky - started a theatre revolution that still determines our concept of theatre playing. The theatre of Chekhov - as we got convinced during the work - is still alive and valid, and it is as hard to revolt against it as to find veritably "new forms". Seagull won the prize of the Best Production at the National Theatre Festival (POSZT) in 2004, as well as the Audience's Award, Tilo Werner was voted Best Supporting Actor, József Gyabronka was awarded Best Performer by the Actors'Jury, Annamária Láng Most Promising Young Actress, as well as Best Actress of the Season by the City of Budapest. THE SEAGULL OF THE KRÉTAKÔR THEATRE When we started to work with the Seagull by Chekhov, after the first waves of enthusiasm and happinesseverybody knew on the forehand, still it was an adventure to experience what a perfect play it is - a bunch of questions and doubts have been raised. The analysing rehearsals lasted for a month, while, in lack of place, we discussed the drama in the flat of the director. We had extreme arguments about the meaning of certain sentences or scenes; about the features and intentions of the characters; about what Anton Pavlovitch might have thought here and there; and what messages does the play transmit for us. It was a question of main importance to reveal what are those elements of the play that now, a hundred years later, have the same meaning for us than it had for the contemporaries of Chekhov. The performance was prepared in three stages: the main feature of the KrétakorTheatre working method, a ten days retirement succeeded the analysing rehearsals. This time we withdrew to a wooden house in the forests of the Transylvanian Harghita Mountains. While living together and experiencing an intensive work, we tried to seize the essence of the scenes and characters by means of improvisation. The collective immersing in the play sketched unambiguously our direction: as time has passed, the formal solutions got more and more clear, we have turned to less means and started to rely barely onto the text of Chekhov. Then in the cupola room of the Fészek Club - the choice of the scene resulted partly of a constraint, but proved to be fruitful after all - we started the theatre rehearsals, based on the already final text variant and the director's concept. Our aim was to present the Seagull as a contemporary story of contemporary people. Therefore we tried to make a selection and substitute those elements that were on one hand connected very strongly to Chekhov's time, or which, on the other hand, contradicted the situations and persons of our performance. We had the sensation of getting gradually closer to the core of the play in each phase. We found answers to many of the questions, while other problems remained unsolved in order to make the spectator think. It is difficult to summarise the discussions we had during the rehearsal process; still, I would like to mention some of the issues we argued the most about while preparing the performance, and which hopefully the onlookers will also consider. One of the central themes of the Seagull\s the problem of being or not being talented and the question of artistic success and failure. Ail the analysers of Chekhov give a different interpretation ofTreplev's talent, it is always a matter to treat how gifted Treplev and Nina are - maybe he could have been a great writer if he survived. His rebellion against art clichés and routines is undoubtedly justified, but what is the basis this uproar is standing on? WasTreplev really an unfulfilled art innovator or has his rebellion grown out merely from the disillusion caused by the mother's bitterness and the jealousy against Trigorin? Is there really "something special" in his play failing in act I, as Doctor Dorn has stated it, oris Arkadina right when calling this a "gibberish"? Treplev demands "new forms"; but are there now, at the beginning of the 21st century, any new forms in theatrical art that have not been already seen somewhere before? It was obvious what