Magyar Hírek, 1984 (37. évfolyam, 2-26. szám)
1984-11-10 / 23. szám
The centenary of Béla Balázs ABOUT THIS ISSUE This time I shall not start by writing about articles in the Hungarian section, but about a subject that is part of the Hungarian Scene itself: the English language broadcasts of Radio Hungary, a programme schedule of which for the period between 4 and 31 December is published in this issue. We as you may have noticed, quite often publish articles on Hungarian history, in this way also contributing to maintaining and strengthening the ties between second or third generation Hungarians and the country of their forebears. The English language broadcasts of Radio Hungary are very efficient means to the same end. The first of the four programmes is going to evoke the period following the 1848/49 War of Independence, or Hungarian Revolution, as it is more usually known in the English speaking world. The Hungarians were defeated—but their will was not broken. The hero of the War of Independence, Lajos Kossuth, lived in exile and tried to rally support for the Hungarian cause. The poet János Arany wrote some of his most memorable verse during the worst time of repression. The programme on Imre Madách and his The Tragedy of Man is about one of the most important philosophical plays anywhere. Going on in chronological order the programme on the 1867 Compromise, or Ausgleich as it is commonly known comes next. It created the Austro—Hungarian Monarchy and Ferenc Deák, one of its fathers, is at its centre. Endre Bajcsy- Zsilinszky, however, the subject of the following programme, knew no compromise in his fight against fascism. He paid for his stand with his life. He will forever be an example for posterity to follow. * The Hungarian section of the previous issue contained an article by Miklós Gerencsér on the Western Hungarian city of Győr. The report presents a picture of all the great changes that occurred at Győr over the past forty years. Now 130,000 people live in Győr, a mere 50,000 forty years ago—a considerable part of them in modern housing estates complete with district heating. Local culture has made great progress: a new theatre was built, the Győr Ballet of international fame and a new literary journal, Műhely (Workshop), as well as a museum were founded. Győr however, continues as an industrial city. Some 56,000 men and women are employed by factories, more than the whole population was forty years ago. * Hungarian readers were able to enjoy a culinary article in the Hungarian section our previous issue. It was about what I am tempted to call the Sipos seafood restaurant in Óbuda, though of course what they serve is fresh water fish, which goes into halászlé for instance, the Hungarian fish soup, or rather stew. All the fishes of the lakes and rivers of Hungary are on the menu, grilled, fried in batter, spiced with paprika. Sipos have moved into a beautifully restored old building, charged with atmosphere. This is a beautiful example of rebirth while maintaining continuity, a fitting part of the “island of historical monuments” at Óbuda that go on within the high-rise (unfortunately not really inspired) blocks of the new housing estate. Let me also mention another article in the Hungarian section about the work of a young fashion designer. Seing the creations of Katalin Bartók, bearing the mark of her personality, yet adjusting to international fashion will surely confirm those of the fair sex in their opinion that—besides all of the other opportunities a visit to Hungary offers, it is well worth doing a bit of shopping. ZOLTÁN halász Iván Hevesy, an arts student—later a respected film and art critic—read a seminar paper in 1913 at the Péter Pázmány University, Budapest, entitled The film drama. Béla Balázs (1884—1949) who regularly contributed to Nyugat, the leading journal of the time, was also in the audience that crowded the small room. He was also a contributor to the anthology Holnap (Tomorrow), in which modern Hungarian poetry presented itself, for the first time, in a united and organized way. His death aesthetics, a witty and original summary of the artistic thinking of the turn of the century, created a storm among young intellectuals, since it described art as a way of life, a state of consciousness possible even without work. Those who were interested in experimental modern art respected him mainly as the author of the libretto of Bartók’s opera, Prince Bluebeard. The critics noticed that a new sound and manner of seeing appeared in his poetry just then: Balázs tried to break out of his hermeticism with the help of the means offered by folkpoetry. Someone who was present, when Hevesy read his paper recalls that Balázs was the first to contribute to the discussion and the seminar turned into a dialogue of the two men. It was the first time that Balázs expounded the theories of his future Der sichtbare Mensch oder die Kultur des Films. (Wien—Leipzig, 1924.)—which received final form in his book Filmkultúra published in 1948, in Hungarian. The very beginning of this pioneering work, which is indispensable even today, is already gripping: “The film, as we know, is the only art of which we know the birthday of. The origins of all of the others are submerged in the darkness of primitive, prehistoric times ... But fifty years ago... a completely new art was born. Did the academies set up their observation stations? Did they monitor, recording hour by hour how the embryo developed, and disclosed the laws of its life in course of its development? The learned academicians failed to do so. Even though one of the rarest events of cultural history: that of the birth of a new form was observable with the naked eye for the first time.” Balázs believed it was important to highlight why the clarification of the theory of film was important to him: “Everybody knows and acknowledges that the cinema has a greater effect on the masses, than any other art. . . Don’t we have to know its laws and possibilities in order to be able to control and guide the strongest mass-effect of any time in the history of culture? ... there is no one today to deny that the film is the folk-art of our century. Unfortunately not in that original sense that is is the product of the spirit of the people, but the other way round, that the spirit of the people (particularly of the urban masses) is the product of this art, that grew into a giant industry. The mental health of the nations depends on the standards of cinematic culture they can be educated in.” Due to his aesthetic training, his passion for the new art and sense of responsibility as a writer, the law’s he deduced from the halfcentury history of film stand their ground even today. It is not difficult to recognize the influence of the introduction to Marx’s Critique of political economy in his conceptual starting point. Marx there expounds that works of art create a public conversant with the art, able to enjoy art, that is they do not only give an object to the subject, but also a subject to the object. Demonstrating that this is an art that differs from any other that has existed so far, he considers two facts particularly important. The film is a collective work, the product of at least three people: the writer of the script, the director, and the cameraman. The film is a technical product, which is perhaps the most substantial reason of its difference. Whether one reads it in manuscript or print does not change the work of the writer. Hamlet remains the work of Shakespeare whether it is performed on the revolving stage, or in front of a black circular curtain. But the cinematic effect of the film depends fundamentally on the technique used, the development of the cinema cannot be separated from the progress of its techniques, technical imagination is an indivisible part of making films. One of his significant findings is that the cinema is primarily an analysis, that is dissection, analysis piece by piece, and secondarily a synthesis: summing up, compressing, naturally at a higher level. The cinematic effect is ensured by the circumstance that it analyses using sound and picture, and the aim of the synthesis is to express w’hat is not simply pictorial by way of a connection established between the pictures. The role of the creative trio that produces films is not identical. The director and the camera-man visualize what the writer had in mind on the one hand, and on the other hand they imagine what modern film technique makes possible. Changing aspects without changing place, living through processes in time with unbroken continuity, it can make things at different places seem to be at the same place, events that took place at different times are made visible simultaneously, or else wild jumps are made in time or space. It can weld real things with unreal ones, or make the unreal seem realistic, since the miracle is not imagined, it is seen. Perhaps the most important message of Balázs’s aesthetics for the present concerns the possibilities that the film creates for man. It is able to bring humanity face to face with itself, to recall the non-recurrent at will, to objectively preserve reality, to create community experiences by eliminating the modulations of the individual imagination. It lifts us above, and beyond, our individual capabilities; and the list could be continued, we would always get to the point to which Balázs wanted to lead us: he, who uses a camera in his hand assumes more responsibility, than any other artist. And this is also the summary of his life-work. CSABA SÍK Béla Balázs giving a lecture 28
