We can sit on the two sides of the elevated, rectangular stage in the black studio-box of the Bárka Theatre. From north and south, the viewers are opposite to one another, from west and east the rare set- and properties-like forest of bamboo sticks border the place, which are fixed into the edges of the stage. Obviously it can happen easily that we are sitting on the east side and the bamboos arch on the north – normal compasses do not work inside the theatre, the place of the place is an organic one, which is in motion, which can be perfectly seen from both sides. East and west do not mean points of reference, however it is true that both the bamboos and the uniformed beautiful black dresses, which can be anything (Judit Gombár’s works) referring to the eastern culture with their mood, but they do not have much meaning from the point of view of the playing method or story. They are only beautiful frames and it is not a problem at all. Anyway, if something can be really interesting and exciting in the Maladype Theatre - like theatrical world, these are not the sets or costumes, but what do the play and presence mean for them and us, how can we use the power of „here and there”, it is a kind of dramaturgy of freedom and concentration formed by unpredictability from the side of the viewers and the performers.

The importance of the (board)game of Leonce and Lena is the exciting probe of the eight actors’ readiness and the tension of the variability of the scenes – as Zoltán Balázs, the leader and director of the troupe, similarly to a master of ceremonies and host tells to the viewers at the beginning of the performance, he does it always a little bit differently (it is the factor of unpredictability anyway). The story by Büchner is given with its humour, irony, the tale-like plot is compulsory, but with its re-drawn components; with the prince, who is getting bored spectacularly, enjoyably, in a selfish way, with the escaping princess, and with the ending, which has fake-philosophical lesson. The five main characters of the play are given and many side characters and the exact number of scenes are given. And of course eight excellent actors are given too (Éva Bakos, Kamilla Fátyol, Katalin Simkó, Ákos Orosz, Zoltán Papp, Ádám Tompa, Hermina Fátyol, Zsolt Páll) and a very stick workshop-like working process, which on the one hand has not finished yet, it will not in an ideal situation, on the other hand their results can be seen. The group of Maladype Theatre has done at least four – in some cases eight – different versions to each scenes during the rehearsal period. It can happen with other troupes of course. But in this case, Zoltán Balázs keeps all useable variations and formed (made) them perfect. It means that there are almost one hundred scenes, which are all there equally, with the same possibility in the “pocket of the evening”, one by one. There four different opening scenes on standby, then another four of the second scene, then four of the third dialogue, and they are waiting for the decision of which one of them will be played that evening. This performance is similar to an “onion: there are only layers and layers”! In every scenes – above-under, during, next to, around – there are three another possible versions. The characters are also layered like onions, as in every momentary Lena there are the other Lenas with different characters, ages, bodies, moods, four variations of the nanny, some Rosettas and of course, many Pipi and Popo followers and citizens. With one actor, more different kinds of Leonce-versions are standing on the stage. There is a line of Lenas. Uncountable (so many) possibilities of Leonces and Lenas. And of course many Lenas and Leonces too.

The story of Leonce and Lena is performed every night with the help of some kind of puzzle-like dramaturgy, from fragments of situations, consistently. The order of the scenes is obviously fixed, but there is not one main character, one – used during all scenes – method of play or mood. One scene can be played even four times, with four different versions. The idea is extraordinary good and exciting, the solution of it is not easy of course. According to the original idea, Balázs would “make each scenes applied” by his actors from scenes to scenes for each roles, with a special play of concentration – this system of appliance would create the arc of the performance, the dynamic of the choice of the scenes. But later he uses the experiences of the dress rehearsal and premiere and leaves this game behind for a while, and uses the viewers’ activity for it instead. The viewers can ask for scenes, they can sign if they want to see a situation again, the different version of it, if there are not any wishes, the director orders the happenings and chooses the characters of the next dialogue. Of course, it brings the risk of the shift of stresses in itself: if the audience is passive viewer only, the director’s aim can work all along. From scenes to scenes. It makes the performance closed and the spontaneity and social experience of it get weakened. If it works, and the interested viewers’ point of view construct the arc of the play, set the rhythm of it, an endlessly free stage is formed, where the acceptors can (also) lead, where the childish interest sets the rules and the experience of “what can be” and “it can be somehow different too” (?) remain there. “In everyday life it is fiction, in theatre it is an experiment...” The Maladype Theatre accepts all risks of this incredibly inspiring experimentation with surprising bravery.

The risk can be for example, that the invention, the idea – the base structure itself – ruins, breaks the game, the arc of the stage itself. It is not the arc of the story, but of the presence. The “changing” between the scenes – the dislocating act of the changing of scenes, the applause that follows the well-made situations – anyway divides necessarily the performance into fragments of situations, scenes long parts. A deep breath, game, play, applause, deep breath, game, play, applause. These are countable but in time uncountable flows and drifts in the story – but is there any kind of unity? There is and its alchemy on stage can be interesting. According to their atmosphere and set of properties, the scenes can be different in many ways: they are different too. But with the changing of slight differences and strong contrasts the performance can create its own clear form language, and the game with the sounds is an elemental part of it, as well as the simple usage of the body shapes, the structures of movements. The base experience is the natural minimalism of properties: there is not anything else “by hand”, just the numerous bamboo sticks with different length and the magical possibility of “changing into anything” in them. The bamboo can be an element of the formation of the area: a plank over the water, a roof, a raising structure and throne. And anything else too: horse, a blade of grass, sword, penis, microphone, binocular...The raising, and the choreography, which needs great physical work, sometimes acrobatic exercises and the balancing games improves into language of movement, they do not illustrate but follow (strengthen, emphasize, interpret, over tone) the situations. The musicality is also a defining dimension: Kornél Mogyoró’s presence on the stage, the live following by rhythm, these can be the harmonic result of the experiments with acoustic solutions (cries and whispers, games of articulations, singing parts, making of sounds and noises, special recitatives) can create a strong and unified atmosphere, which is strong even in voice. These basics of the form give the frame, which is filled with individual content and characteristics by the performers’ personalities of the actually Leonces and then Lenas: with a dialect, Hebrew words, melody, erotic or other kinds of jokes of the under part – means by word – of humans from the Popo world, with fine shades and vibration, sarcastic humour or even with silent tragedy.

My strong belief that the is not the best Leonce or the perfect Lena – anyway, there is not any time and possibility to identify with one figure character, so something extraordinary happens: we identify with as many people are many there are in the troupe. In this case it is very important, as in this performance a partly renewed, synchronized troupe can be examined well, who take attention to one another with fine sensors. A Maladype, which has been changed partly but it has remained self-identical and promising. This kind of viewpoint is exciting not only for the troupe but for the performance too, anyway instead of Lena’s figure, the act of becoming Lena – or even the movement from one scene to another, the changing from Leonce to Valerio, the formation from one characterised Lena to the other one - holds our attention first of all, the properties of metamorphosis, its forms, dangers, methods. It is important, that these figures are ready, independent by scenes. They have been worked out and thought over, they are nuanced. In case of the different versions of scenes the mood of the picture puzzle, which was reborn from mosaics in the evenings, is important, and there is no place for improvisation that can mix up everything. It slightly makes me remember the inspiring and trying atmosphere for both the viewers and the actors, of the Hamlet by Tim Caroll in Bárka Theatre – the comparison is obvious. In connection with the experience of “here and now”, as well as the ending scene that involves viewers too, where from the innocent viewers the actors lead a man and woman bare-feet onto the stage. Occasional Leonce and Lena can be anybody. With their bare-feet stage fright, exclusive embarrassment of the evening, in a confusion, which cannot be repeated. In case of the performances of Hamlet these kind of calm atrocities on stage happened sometimes. But in case of Caroll’s direction the improvised tightrope act had a very different kind of risk. The actors, who direct themselves and those great amounts of different things, resulted in uncontrolled hairpin bends on stage. That was dangerous and exciting. Leonce and Lena is more stylized, clearer, more manageable: it is ready polished, wonderfully working or even less punctual, but anyway well-choreographed, ordered scenes follow one another. It is a theatrical chain made of pearls of scenes with interesting shapes. The pearls of scenes are the same evening by evening, but the result – re-laced again and again – lights always a little bit differently. In case of the shown version the repeatable unrepeatability of the actual combination is interesting, and the really special, but very theatrical attention in the auditorium.

“Well, can you see Lena, our pockets are full, there are full of with puppets and any kind of toys? What shall we do with them? (...) Shall we build theatre?” We could not hear this sentence by Leonce finally, we dissolve in the public ending scene, however the neither-Leonces nor-Lenas in the auditorium have said yes for it all along the performance, the question is not a question any more. The pockets of Leonces and Lenas of the Maladype Theatre are full of with toys: with talent, ideas and drive, and they use them for very good things. They build theatre. A theatre. A real one. An always-changing one. An honest one. An experimental one. A brilliant one.

Dóra Juhász, Criticai Lapok, 2008

(translated by: Veronika Fülöp)