Who needs the provocative behaviour towards the citizens if there are not any of them? The theatre goers have already got used to stunning beginnings for a while, those who get there by chance cannot know anyway what they want from the theatre, which they should get used to – and from what. Leonce and Lena by Maladype can be seen from the point of view of this duality for the first time. It is not good enough for theatregoers, it does not tell what it should for those who get there by chance. Anyway, we can blame Maladype for the fact that it is not consistently wonderful. Sometimes the viewers stand in for the quality of the performance, when they let them direct it in a classical way. This happens here too. At the expense of the performance.

The acceptance of the play by Büchner is high between many circles of people, which can be thanked for the fact that it is blurred enough to take the dream of greatness (and of the stupid boasting of course). During the common dream together with the viewers the tiring naivety of the youngsters can be formed again, of the others anyway, and of the freshness too which cannot be got bored, so the picture of our own young ages, which we carry inside. The play is usually seemed to be brilliant, however it is bad in a heady and lovely way. The inside organization of the play cannot to be told to be beautifully formed, and Büchner rises the distrust from time to time that behind the beautifully told idea there is only an idea, which is told beautifully. The story of the play is a symbolic travelling, which have been told thousands of times, which would like to be about growing. The play is odd too, as much as the performance and the troupe is too. Who is growing during it? The troupe would like to wake us up, while the play would dream instead.

It can be a last minute travel towards the inside parts of a country which is more truthful, towards the lower parts too unfortunately, which cannot be avoided. According to one of the interpretations of Leonce and Lena can talk about the visceral antipathy against any engagements, so against everything, which does not serve our immediate needs and we can hate this hysterical monster that suffers in the hysteria of self-love, the charm of which is disappearing with every minute. The curse of the alternative theatre that for the performance a good audience would be required. In case of the performance by Maladype as there is a lack of dramaturgical focuses those things cannot happen that should, so that the viewers are socialised and they can live through those parts of knowledge, which would be connected to prohibition. Why do we need the experience? Because different kinds of knowledge contents can be integrated only as results of experimental happenings. We can blame the Maladype troupe for one thing: the knowledge contents cannot be integrated as the projection is not safe and it is a big problem.

Two types of experience would like to be formed and both of them remained behind. As the viewers get the director’s power, they are forced to stay in control, which has two catastrophic results. One: they cannot use it for anything. Two: they are captured in a state of mind, which cannot make possible what is the importance of theatre – it does not distil or concentrate and it hurts the experience nature of it. The projection of our own ego and control system is disappointing, we have seen it many times and it is never a great experience.

Therefore, this was the biggest problem with the performance. It did not put me off. This audience? The accidental placement of scenes could not draw an individual interpretation, neither to the others as we can see it. If it is true then we can find a configurational problem. We can witness a thought-provoking scene and some brilliant moments. Maybe alternative theatres should use the techniques of different types of filters for viewers.

Into the accidental order of scenes of the performance on 6th October two obscene scenes were got, meanwhile both of them were strong scenes, the idea itself, that they would like to effect with the violation of norms – it seemed to be really boring. What can the view of the perfect and voluntary vulnerability mean besides itself? For those who go to theatre these are just clichés, for those who just come here sometimes, it is not good if they confuse it with the theatre. Can the two obscene scenes bring more than the attitude that some people cannot rest until they have the edge of their mouth dirty with shit, as Hofi said it in a little bit different situation. I do not know.

Let me tell the magical part of it: first of all, in spite of all these it was a perfect performance with excellent actors. The more experienced lady of the trope, Éva Bakos was the only one in whom I could see the moving youth. The others were just young. There is something extraordinary wonderful in the fact, that the artist, who got a little bit of attention and appreciation once has become a real master, and she is similar to a fruit tree, the branches of which lean until the ground because of their sweet weight. Éva Bakos has become this natural set table with that only wish that we could grab those things, which she can offer. She played Rosetta the smart lover, with whom Leonce got bored. Leonce can kill love with merciless methods. Rosetta goes around her own axle, Leonce goes around in front of her and puts seeming heavy (bamboo)sticks on his former lover’s body. More and more sticks are put on Rosetta’s shoulder, arms, breast, who can go around with more and more effort, and cannot move her crazy face of pain and love away from her lover, who works on mercilessly. These are wonderful moments of dying love: the eternal Eva is begging, but she does not ask for anything, as the joy is enough that her lover kills her. It could create an extremely strong dramatic atmosphere in the performance, which beginning, as it was forced, became a little bit weak, and during the introduction of the story and the characters of it even the captatio benevolentiae (the winning of goodwill) could work properly.

The whole play, because of this situation, was made of dramatic breaks and pitfalls, and of some very strong scenes: the Swedish king’s methods to form his successors, King Peter twice, Leonce and Rosetta, Leonce and Virgilio’s high qualified and masculine negotiation about the beauties of life. Lena and her nanny are the main characters of one of the scenes, who are really fresh and kind, as the original situation is: “the wide” but really shy girls leave into the great world to eat from life with big spoons, but they are afraid even from their own shadows, so they cannot live a big life. The very strange and differently talented scenes were ended with a forced marriage. It is an awkward ending. Two young, strange people, who are chosen randomly from the viewers are guided towards each other between two bamboo sticks and followed by the actors’ encouraging teasing, they have to arrive to each other. It is hellish.

The most important projection of any kind of citizens’ social function that we can laugh at them. During this evening, there were not any viewers who would deserve to get involved or even to be laughed at. The artistic diversity may let actors choose not only from sequences of scenes but also even from conceptions. Maybe it is better to sacrifice infinity for a conception, which gives borders. Nevertheless, courage is needed for a person to dare to be able to remain closed. Freedom is not the place of existence, but only the freedom of decision, with which we can choose between the situations of existence: we can choose the flexibility of walls, the horizon, the matrix, we can even choose the padded cell, we can anything, but we choose a border. For me it is more and more obvious that the experimental theatre would die mostly on badly interpreted fields of freedom. In the restaurant, which is titled to pork hocks, not only pork hocks are served, but I also know that they would try to form a surrounding nice for the meat eaters’ taste buds. The alternative theatres have this kind of structure, they somehow knock out both the crying and laughing, so neither vegan nor meat, as the viewers in s servile was have got used to the beans and cabbage and there is nothing to project – which makes it pathetic. Even the less sensitive ones’ backs are made flesh creep by the vision of viewers who are too eager to laugh and bow. We should go to alternative theatre with those, who can appear there with that kind of heart and head in which something is happening.

In case of the performance of the Maladype, Encounters’ Theatre the weak points were the viewers for sure, who were responsible for the meaning of it.

Maybe the troupe has to make the decision how they would like to form experiences. Two types of initiatives of experience are remained in formation. It was not clear if the troupe would like to wake up the viewers with this performance, or to let them sink into their own subconscious, and show in operation our own likable hedonist selves? To show our system of pictures of concepts, de facto what do we think about the world and about themselves on the world, and what kind of system of picture it is. I think that this decision can be made only by the troupe.

According to the behaviour of the audience on 6th October 2008, on Monday, there is nothing in their subconscious. There is no use to play in front of a totally emptied Winchester. Even Leance and Lena.

Alice Árvay, z’art.kor.hu, 2008

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)