Annamaria Lang

Annamaria Lang: Following a passion for theatre. Photo Márton Ágh

With spitting passion

(Budapest) Annamaria Lang was just seventeen years old when she left her native Mateszalka, a settlent in northeastern Hungary, for the cultural capital of Budapest. She set off on a journey to pursue her passion: the theater. And when on stage, this actress pursues her craft with spitting passion. The young actress meandered into the world of leading independent theater director Arpad Schilling’s company, the Kretakor Theatre. She has since been immersed in this world: vividly living and breathing every moment on stage.

There, Lang is at ease, generously spewing emotion: be it an indifferent mother gone mad in The cold child; a primordial creature barren of not only her clothes but almost her humanity in W – Workers’ Circus; or a child tattering for love in Liliom. She is no character actress and her stage presence remains embedded in memory and minds.

Skirting the rigid system of the theater schools, Lang has become an integral component of Kretakor, a leading international proponent of contemporary theater that crosses borders with performances at numerous internationals stages and festivals. This despite an atmosphere in their native Hungary where their ‘independent’ status sometimes leaves them as a kind of ‘second hand’ citizen of the theater world.

Lang has performed in the numerous performances of Kretakor, including Liliom, Fatherland, Nexxt, the Cold Child and W – Workers Circus. We caught up with Annamaria at a Budapest coffee house, and talked shop.

ontheglobe.com: Your work with Schilling is really a full spectrum: from more traditional roles, humorous, to truly almost mad characters. And you seem to meander through these with ease…

Annamaria Lang: That is one of the things that is interesting in the work of Schilling is that he doesn’t have any one particular world or theatrical form of his own.

The process looks like this: in each production we have to solve a particular problem. The group then searches for a means of expressing the problematic. That is why the means of expression are always very different. When we want to speak of manipulation and the power of the media in our lives: we create a kind of television program to express the issue. Basically we start with the premise of a problem, and it’s the problem and our solution in solving it that determines what kind of world will exist around each piece.

In Woyzeck, for example, we are talking about the helplessness that some people suffer from in society. What is it that a person is incredibly poor and exists on the periphery of society? Why is it that some simply cannot find their way? In Hungary, this is a an important and real theme. When we were going through the creative process, homeless people suddenly appeared us. I am sure that we were sensitive about their presence at the time, but they then even came to see the show. When you go about doing this kind of performance you have to think about how these people live. After all, for us it is a matter of simply trying to convey a story. But for them it is not the same, it is everyday existence. Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousand or even hundreds of thousand of people are actually homeless. We had to confront why we tolerate this situation. Then maybe our audience will as well: can we do something about it? That is the ultimate question.

ontheglobe.com: This image of naked bodies in a barren sandy landscape with characters executing their own peculiar kinds of derogations in a very strange world. But how do works like Woyzeck come into being on a practical level?

Annamaria Lang: Woyzeck is a play by Buchner, who was a playwright who died very young and only wrote three plays, all of which are outstanding.

We went into recluse into an old abandoned military base near Komarom. There were eight of us and the director, and we worked in very rudimentary surroundings. It was an immense space that ended up being very inspiring. It was a totally abandoned setting with an almost catacomb-like system of roads and grottos. It was cold, dark and there was sand all over the place. In this setting we split up into small groups of two or three where we got our parts and were given a few hours to create something with these roles.

The goal was to associate the words with our character as opposed to merely being an exercise of memorizing words. This is how we started our research of how we were able to express ourselves: all that we had at our disposal was a persons’ naked body. We started playing with voice, making things difficult by trying to speak with sand in our mouths. We used stones and I ended up being tied up by ropes. We realized that when people are prohibited from speech, they use a far more concentrated language and develop the intense desire to say what they have to say.

ontheglobe.com: You recently performed the work « Fatherland », a review of the years since the systemic changes in Hungary. This work also toured to France, but at the same time I really don’t understand how you can transpose the work into another context. How did it get communicated there? How did people relate?

Annamaria Lang: « Fatherland » is really a specifically Hungarian story that talks about the thirteen years since the systemic changes here. In France both tours and the premiere were a great success. One of the reasons for this is the style of the piece and how it uses very simple tools. It is kind of a market, a circus, a clown-like world. In this sense, language is not the most important part. The story itself is not that complicated and uses really strong visuals.

Very often we also have discussions with the audience after the show. We talked about the problems, and got a very positive feedback. Many times we got comments that this is not only a Hungarian story but can also be looked at universally. Talking about the masses and politics or stereotypes about how politicians act. People have the same kinds of experiences of being treated like a flock of sheep elsewhere. Another example was that somebody mentioned was that it is not a specifically a Hungarian story: it is a little French or a little central European. Or a little bit about what they think of central Europe.

ontheglobe.com: But the performance had a very cynical message. When thinking of taking this piece to European or other audience, my gut reaction was: NO. It was a feeling that this is a simplified presentation talking about the ‘thick Hungarians’. As if the work lacked subtlety: its one thing to laugh at ourselves and to make use of irony, but basically my gut instinct was that I felt a real problem with the message.

Annamaria Lang: Many people get offended about the message of ‘stupid Hungarians’. At the same time for us to recognize and talk about what was also painful for us is important. Of course, nobody wants to be a stupid Hungarian. Personally, as Annamária Láng, I don’t feel like a stupid Hungarian either.

But when we see, for instance, that in Paris on a daily basis the French go onto the streets to protest, we realize a certain apathy in Hungary. In France they would have protests against the war in Iraq, or other reasons like wages, pensions or insurance. They protest in big crowds about these things that are important to their lives. In the meantime, in Hungary we read that the anti-war protests including some 34 people, of which twenty paraded with placards that read « Down with Medgyessy ». At that point, can’t we conclude that this is really close to stupidity. Are we really that different? Is it that much better to stay at home and to despise the system? So when I read this, and taking that even I don’t go into the streets: I can only conclude that, yes, we are really that stupid. It hurts, and is unfortunate, but we just have to think about it because it is not like this everywhere.

At the same time in « Fatherland » everything is stretched to its limit. That is the style of the performance: a kind of a clown-like reflection of the world. If somebody is stupid, then they are really stupid.

ontheglobe.com: But isn’t it really so simplified, that to describe a situation in a way that is such a molded reflection of reality: can’t you just say that it is a lie?

Annamaria Lang: Many did say things like that and there were times when I also felt that way. But at the same time it was a very successful show. It caused a lot of controversy, and it is a very good thing that company took the responsibility to talk about the changes of the past years. Especially in such a concrete, direct- if simplified- way. But at least we are talking about it. If you don’t get offended at the first moment with the representations of the ‘stupid’ Hungarians, which is not even totally a reflection because we are talking about stereotypes and exaggerations- then you really can take it as entertainment.

ontheglobe.com: This ‘official route’ – your pedigree – or basically where you went to school in theater seems prevalent and almost a necessity in theater circles in Hungary. It also seems, meanwhile, less important for Krétakör. I mean Schilling doesn’t emphasize what ‘school’ you came from before putting you on stage. Is this so?

Annamaria Lang: Yes, for Schilling is not important at all. For him there is no such a thing as a person being a really good actor only if they have gone through the system. They never even accepted me into theater school, I am basically self-taught. Having gone to theater school is not at all a prerequisite to get into the group and is really is of little consequence.

ontheglobe.com: But isn’t there a kind of snobbism about this in Hungary. The structure, the theater school, the institution still seems to act as a kind of a passport to work in the profession. A similar situation exists in dance. How does this context affect you and the cultural circles that you gravitate around?

Annamaria Lang: Our company is really very small and we are close so for us it is not even a question. Generally though, yes you can feel what you are talking about. I should emphasize that it exists less and less, but yes it does exist. The larger theaters do put an emphasis on what roles they give depending on your ‘pedigree’, and this depends on what kind of paper you have or what school you graduated from.

In general, though, these people don’t even know about us and don’t even come to our performances. They look to us as if we were a kind of amateur company. Yet we tour internationally more than most theaters in Hungary.

ontheglobe.com: And yet at one of the most progressive new theater festivals they have a file of Arpad Schilling in their country files, under « H » for Hungary. Nothing else. Yet at the same time Krétakör is a kind of ‘independent’ theater. Where is the line in the sand drawn? How is the theater Krétakör really defined in these terms? What does it mean, being ‘independent’?

Annamaria Lang: In the past decades the cultural politics in Hungary resulted in theaters that were centralized, under an influential ‘directorate’. The people in charge were intent on clearly seeing road-map of what theaters existed, and which companies were associated with each ‘brick building’. It was simple arithmetic.

There was really no exchange between the theaters and it became almost impossible for a group to come into existence outside of these structures. There was no tradition of simply finding talent and then supporting it: the structures were pretty rigid in this sense.

In the past few years Krétakör has become the contemporary theater company that tours the most, presenting its work internationally. In one sense, we are applauded for this: but on the other hand, we are still treated as a kind of outsider.

ontheglobe.com: At the same time I don’t completely understand the idea of Krétakör priding itself in being ‘independent’, and outside of the ‘brick-building structure’, and at the same time yesterday complaining that you don’t have a theater, and don’t get enough funding… Krétakör actually gets a great deal of funding, relatively. So how is it that he who prides himself on not having a theater, now complains about not having one!

Annamaria Lang: No, basically Schilling didn’t want to go and direct in a theater where for instance, the actors and structure are a given. He wanted to create his own company with its own philosophy and way of working. So basically, he- or we as a group- just didn’t want to come to be under the auspices of an existing theater and structure. We just wanted to work together. Whether we are talking about a specific space or not is irrelevant, it’s just that the concept of what we were working on had little to do with the theater structures that exist. In fact, there is no question of us not wanting a theater- in fact, that is the most important thing for us at this point.

ontheglobe.com: In the three pieces that I have seen you perform in, there is this incredible ease in changing the mood and emotions of your character. At one point you are childlike, at another, dead serious. All at the same time as a member of the audience, I feel as if it is not an actress that is in front of us- but you.

Annamaria Lang: That is very flattering, because they say the greatest result of an actor is if you can’t tell that the person is acting. I cannot say how this happens, because this is the work that I do.

ontheglobe.com: For example, in The Cold Child by Marius von Mayenburg, you have this incredible story of perturbed relations. Everybody goes crazy in the end.

Annamaria Lang: Everybody looks for happiness, and in the meantime they don’t find it, and they go crazy because they can’t stand it. It is a kind of emotionally apocalyptical work.

ontheglobe.com: In Lilliom too it seems like the characters find impossible relationships.

Annamaria Lang: Any good play deals with these kinds of moments of emotional crisis. For instance, we are working on a work by Anton Chekov, The Seagull. After reading it over, we all just realized that there are ten characters and all are deadly unhappy, yet none want to be. Everybody is looking for somebody else to receive something from, to rely on… but it just doesn’t work. But every really good play deals with this in some way or another.