András Bálint is admirably self-critical in the 27th April issue of ÉS, in his The song of 43ers, which is a transcript of his speech delivered on 19th April in the Merlin Theatre. The end of the golden age of the 43ers: “loser atmosphere”. Admirable honesty, the director of the Radnóti Theatre has become first among the last with this swansong. A late realisation is better than keeping silent until death. The very essence of his statement, for me, is found in his sentence “we seriously messed up something”. In other words, that the grand old men of the theatre failed to face up to the paradigm shift brought about by the democratic change. Man himself changes slowly, but his living conditions, and the written and unwritten rules that surround him, change at great pace (but I would hardly call that development). It is a sad fact that part of the intelligentsia (if that word still has a concrete meaning), including the masters of theatre did not acknowledge (or failed to acknowledge – that is a question) all this, and failed to react to the social processes of the past seventeen or eighteen years, and, at most, scratched away at the spectacular surface. In the meantime the aesthetics of back-scratching continued on the stage, the mateyness at the mayor's office, the national problem solving mechanism of going to see the minister, authoritarian management of institutions, law of the wolf, rule of the fist, yum-yum. Running a theatre, writing pieces and having them written can all be done badly, one can put them on alongside the classics, teach students, deliver speeches, set up awards, hand them out and receive them, celebrate, recite poetry at celebrations while hermetically closing one's spirit to the most fundamental questions and problems. One can do so while pretending to be sagely silent, while being ignorant, or simply being in tune with our national heritage (see Pató Pál & Co.). The fact remains fact: we are in trouble. “We 43ers did our jobs, and tried to keep the profession together under entirely different social conditions.” If this sentence makes sense at all (not to me), the thing is that all this is too little, far too little to stay alive, let alone prosper in an ultra-liberal, fragmented age, where everything is based on competition, not only material competition, but also competition for the moral support we expect from the audience. We have no answers – nay – we have hardly any questions. Chaos of notions in the head, professional under-preparation, inability of cooperation, coupled with an unshakable belief in their indispensable-ness, a flaunting of powers, a desperate clutching at formerly useful connections (going splits). “Our public respect has dwindled to such an extent, that we seek out the seemingly credible, recognisable politicians, who are quite flexible, diligent and sufficiently cunning, because they succeed in dividing us...” How long can we avoid the unpleasant task of facing our own irresponsibility, incompetence, ultimately, stupidity by blaming it all on politics?

Whether we like it, or not, we must go back to school and begin amassing the necessary skills all over again, as we never had the chance to learn some subjects: project-oriented approach, management, mobility, cooperation, direct state funding versus municipal system, public relations, sponsorship (financing), etc.

There is nothing to be ashamed of, the doctors, the teachers, but even the shop assistants are in the same position. We must not obsessively hide the dirty washing, because we all have shit stains.

We can hardly expect the generation of the golden age to enter post-graduate studies in the autumn of their lives, thereby acknowledging their unsuitability to face the challenges of the age. They did what they could, and it was more than enough: courageous, unparalleled, legendary. It is an elementary duty of all their students to acknowledge as much, but the lap of honour done this unforgettable chapter must be closed.

If we want to be working in the theatre in twenty years' time, we must pull up our socks, and start to think, and plan for the future at last. We of the 1970s and those who feel like it. We must understand at last that it is OUR lives that are at stake!

We must grow up!

We must step forth from under the protective wings of the fathers, and if they do not let us, we must get rid of them, before they take away all our keenness and courage with their occasional aggressive posturing. Who would benefit, if we failed to take over the mantle? I suspect, at most, the state privatisation company. If the generation of the 1970s cannot find the solution, or at least come forward with specific proposals, they have only themselves to blame. After András Bálint's words we can no longer repeat forever: WE would do it, but THEY don't let us.

As a first step we must ask ourselves the question, with the same honesty with which András Bálint admitted his generation's errors: what does theatre mean for us? Livelihood, position, community, a space for experimentation, self-expression, forum? The answer can be anything, as long as it is honest.

What does the company mean? Employees, colleagues, friends?

What does the institution mean? Workplace, security, burden or opportunity?

Do we know the difference between company and institution?

Careful, trick question: over the recent period several companies thought they had the right to manage the institution, in other words, that as civil servants (or contracted staff) they could decide over the fate of a public building simply because they have worked there and earned their living there for a while (some for a long-long time, others for hardly any time). Confusion reigns supreme. He, who builds a company, builds from thoughts, not bricks. He, who manages an institution, competes not with emotions, but statistics, strategies, concepts and his chances are determined not by the cries of his mates, but the specificity of the written word. A company can be a civil organisation, where popular outrage can dictate terms, but a tax-funded state institution, with its hundreds of millions, can only operate according to the principles of public service, in keeping with the rules of public management – clearly, my starting point is the naïve assumption that these exist, and the legislators and publicly elected politicians understand these laws, and execute them rationally. In other words, we must be able to hold competitions, and participate in them. “I like Stevie, because he is so talented,” no longer suffices. Interestingly the independent scene recognised this much earlier: its prominent members (primarily due to the invaluable work of László Hudi) prepared a registration system, which incorporates all the criteria, which determines who belongs where, and thus is entitled to what kind of support. Admirable pragmatism: self-regulation!

Let us now consider the painful questions on state-sponsored repertoire theatres with a permanent company of actors!

Who will (if will is the right word) manage these public institutions of great repute?

And who has sufficient expertise for the task?

Recently, the media has made much of the proposals and measures of local councils managed by right-wing parties that affect (damn) the theatres. Personally, I am deeply bored by these polemics along the left-right axis. Not a single word is uttered on the criteria of professionalism, clearly, because the inflation, in this respect, is non-partisan. What exactly is our problem with Mátyás Usztics, Károly Eperjes, Károly Korognai or Péter Balázs? That they are professionally unsuitable properly to manage a state-funded institution? Why? What are the fundamental professional criteria that qualify one for the proper management of a public body with a HUF 500m-1,000m budget? Who knows? Those who have spent such monies over the past decades? Where is it written how to manage expertly? We all know what nobody knows.

Well, now is the time to put our profession in the proper order.

Politics can easily dismember only that which has already started on the road to putrefaction.

To me there is no guarantee that a left-wing or a liberal person knows any more about their profession, just because that which they should have irrespective of ideology resides in them in an ideologically slightly more shaded form. I wonder where the self-acclaimed progressive intelligentsia (the elite's elite) finds its moral capital from, when it strikes out towards the right. It cannot face that which is truly dispiriting: politics are dead. It is not the broadcaster's offices that should be retaken in Budapest. It is the Mayor's office that should be brought down. Only those continue to put their faith in politicians, who have nothing left apart from faith.

I have no faith, I just want to work in my profession.

The second and most important issue is the audience as a group of educated (or to be educated) people, and not a smudge fidgeting in the dark. What do we want to do with our audience? Do we even know what we talk about, when we boast: in terms of the proportion of theatregoers to the population, nowhere in Europe do they sell as many theatre tickets as in Hungary? Who are these people seated in the dark? Why do they go to the theatre, what are they waiting for, what do they need, what drives them away from their TV sets?

I am the audience.

We need cultural-sociological surveys, audience meetings, and interactive net connections properly to know whose taxes we use to plough the stage, us, the priests of Thalia.

Then there is the issue of efficiency (a disgusting word, I admit). How much is needed to operate what sort of institutions? We must screen ourselves (in a purely economic term), there can be no appeal. How much do we spend, where and why? How many people do we need to organise audiences, to oversee administration, for the individual shifts, the various warehouses, and naturally on the stage, so that we can carry out our various jobs meaningfully, with expertise, and so that everyone can give their utmost? Those lazing about could be made to face the painful fact that there are thousands queuing to take over their jobs. This, too, is typical of our age.

Let us stop avoiding the truth, and let us admit, that money talks, and more often than not the words that escape its mouth are: austerity measures, reforms, rationalisation, efficiency, decentralisation, project financing, competitions, accountability, feed-back, PR, PPP, etc.

We must bring order to this forest of notions.

What serves what purpose, how and why to employ it?

As artists, it is good if we know what we are talking about, but I don’t think we should operate these systems as well.

The training of experts and of fresh blood is the key for future success, just like in football.

The more honest colleagues admit that a good expert is rare as the white raven. Then why do we train actors only by the truckload? András Bálint said „this year over forty actors will graduate, and I exaggerate when I say that eight have secured contracts”. This means that the training works with an efficiency ratio of 20 per cent. This is not only sad, but also pointless. Let us admit ten to begin with, and let us set up new courses. We need managers, business experts, bursars, and marketing experts, tour managers, and audience and festival organisers. In the same issue of ÉS in which I read András Bálint’s speech, Lajos Bokros writes about the need for rejuvenation in Hungary’s higher education, claiming that the greatest problem was the pointlessly large number of students (a result of a system whereby universities receive funding for each student they admit), many of them reading subjects, which are completely meaningless for the labour market. Those who still can’t get it can only blame themselves. Many of the positions most fervently contested abroad, are in Hungary filled by self-trained people (apart from a few exceptions) with no professional training or qualifications. The festivals (the few that we have) are organised by dramaturges at best, and audience relations are managed by people who are grateful for the extra money, but have the creativity of a busy bee.

If it has to be funding per capita, let there be many students, but let them study what is needed, or let us teach the actors to build and take down, to do the lighting, sound engineering, costume designing, hairdressing, audience coordinating, tender writing, book keeping and tour managing too.

It is an undoubted fact: the generation of the 1970s are not queuing to take over the management of large theatres. The older generation have been pushed out of their positions, the fire in their belly has softened to embers, and our generation is reluctant to assume the responsibility that comes with the position.

Who will manage the theatres in ten years’ time? Well, whoever is deemed suitable for the job by the given political establishment of the time and place. Mátyás Usztics, even. Why shouldn’t he, if he feels like it?

If we had an iota of intellect, we would not just shoot off, but we would get moving.

We must find economists, managers (through headhunting, if need be), who are crazy enough to fancy the challenges of cultural life (this is not a joke, when there is little money, creativity is the only stimulus)! But in order to attract them, we must not treat them as the key to our own good fortune; we must not treat them like our personal agents! Let us involve our contemporaries in joint brainstorming and by contrasting their ideas with ours, reform and rejuvenate a system that once worked well, but is now on its last legs! We must discuss new modes of financing, and seek the opinion of those who understand it! (For more on the topic, read about the Káva Kulturális Műhely initiative – their main profile is training in theatre – in the fifteenth issue of Figyelő. They used their experiences in an entirely different environment in order to gain more experiences and raise further funding.) We must tone down our megalomaniacal ideas that we should direct all, spend all, and that the sun should shine out of our arses! Let us open the gates of our buildings, let us cooperate with the profession’s organisations that have been ignored for too long (Association of Independent Theatres, Association of Open-Air Theatres, Association of Drama Pedagogues, Association of Student Drama Groups), with local and national civil associations, representatives of other arts! Let us share our space and make our institutions transparent and traversable!

We must gather urgent experiences in the field of reorganisation of state-run corporations! (A good example is the article on the reorganisation of the Budapest transport company BKV in the 17th issue of Magyar Narancs.) We must admit that the management of an institution, even if it serves a cultural purpose, is primarily a management, financing, structural, organisational task, and not an artistic one, which is a rather sticky notion anyway, its definition is difficult and highly subjective, which opens it up to a vast array of abuses! The operating frameworks of an institution are not shaped by the manager of the time to his ideals, but must be defined by the owner before a competition is called for the position!

We must learn to face new challenges when it comes to financing, and we, ourselves, must define new distribution systems, even if that means bringing further trouble on our heads! We must make sure that we have the greatest possible pool of various funding opportunities at our disposal! We must learn to think in terms of projects, or we must learn to think “business”, if you like!

All these tasks will not be taken care of in our name by the politicians, because they benefit from the muddle. But if we need a transparent system (and naturally we need one, as without it all we can hope for is anger and resentment), then we must sacrifice our time and energies with the necessary rationality and self-regulation (see above: the independents). A “theatre law” is this year’s topic de rigueur in the profession. I think László Megyeri’s arguments against such a law, which he explained at a meeting of the Színházi Társaság a few months back, were convincing. He argued that we needed to initiate amendments of existing items of legislation that affected the profession as a whole, primarily to clarify the problems of employment: issues of seasonal work, the uniform standing of equivalent jobs, hiring staff forcibly kept on contracts, etc. Furthermore, the simplest form of financing should be made available: tax breaks, which could prompt companies and private persons to make investments in theatre, which would save money for the state in areas that clearly belong to the private sector. We must understand that constant references to the “film act” are a key element of István Hiller’s rhetoric. A possible “theatre act” would restore his dented reputation as minister for cultural affairs (see the Cannes fiasco). But as he, himself, has no expertise at all in this area, he cannot see the differences between the two professions. The only element of the former, which could benefit the latter, is the setting up of a public foundation. We could adopt this solution; a foundation would do as the forum that guarantees self-control by providing a basis for competitions. In order to set it up, indeed, a law must be enacted.

The other obsessive references seem to me a psychological problem, which arises from our profession’s inferiority complex, even though the money spent by the state on theatres far eclipses state funding for film productions. The structures, the operating mechanisms and profiles of the two sectors are fundamentally different, thus it would be a grave error slavishly to copy the solutions put in place for the film industry. The fact that we have done nothing for years, does not mean that now we shall do everything, even pass laws (let me have the lion too!). We shall not be strong by compensating, but by being intelligent in our actions. Let us consider the Scottish theatre, which presciently rejected a Governmental initiative to build a national theatre, and channelled the available budget towards various programmes (project financing). As a result their national image is not one of representation (flaunting), but of modern, forward-looking planning, and here we go, I am citing their example, even though I am not interested in the bloody Scots.

It is to be applauded that the professional dialogue launched in the Merlin Theatre has resulted in representatives of smaller groups voicing their opinions over matters that pertain to them, and it was not only the all-knowing fathers of the profession that were blowing hot air. The drama pedagogue speaks of the problems of education in the theatre, the director of a children’s theatre speaks of the children’s theatre, the chairman of the association of independent theatres speaks of independent theatre, the local council is represented by its politician, the festival by the festival director, theatre by the theatre director (although the financial director could come along with the artistic management).

A theatre man – I know myself – will butt in, whether he is asked or not. All I want to achieve here is to make us dare set out on the path which leads to a structure where the various branches (having set the joint goal) would operate independently, and their frameworks for operation, and the resources available, would be clearly defined, at least theoretically.

I know that there are among us self-appointed renaissance men, who claim to be experts at everything, and even when they do not claim expertise, they get involved in everything and no-one can stop them. Actors direct, because they are good actors, or simply good eggs; directors act as bursars, former refreshments assistants become artistic secretaries, etc. There is nothing unique about this: how many leaders do we know of, who have no clue as to what they are doing, but scared underlings, trained by centuries of Hungarian tradition, dare not speak up. He who has no professional expertise fears freedom, because nothing engenders nothing, and it is better to be one of the worms on the pile of shit, than to be a freelance dung beetle in the barren desert.

The basis of the operating mechanism of cooperation is communication. In other words one way or another we must talk, discuss, debate! We must avail of the opportunities presented by the internet, and reply to the questions we ask each of other! Whoever is too slow should not be surprised to miss out. And we must not be scared of those who say something: we must lend them our support, or give them a counterargument. But not in the alcoholic warmth of the refreshments counter.

Let us grab a pen, not a bludgeon!

Let us gather up what we have, and if we have nothing, let us bow our heads, but vow never to leave things in a greater mess for those who will catch up with us tomorrow.

It would be embarrassing to have to stand up before the generation of the 2000s and announce: yes, we made mistakes, but ours was a golden age.

The theatre belongs to the present.

Those who get lost in reveries of the past, and those who dream of the future are equal losers. And we want to win.

Árpád Schilling