Written by you: Mineblindness

Written by: Bernadett-Katalin Szőlősi, Hungarian-English specialization, 2nd year, Partium Christian University

 

Csaba Székely’s unique humour and perspective are the trigger point for writing his plays. The first time I met his work was when I read Mária országa (Mária’s Country). Even then, I was captivated by his slightly coarse, slightly sarcastic, but always clever remarks. He has a remarkable talent for stretching and intensifying the comic tension of a situation to the limit, only to release it with an expertly timed punchline, causing the gunpowder-charged atmosphere (in a good way) to explode in laughter. But he is also extremely good at showing in a humorous way the painful truth and the bitter criticism about society.

Mineblindness is the second part of a trilogy. Similarly to the first one, Mine Flower is a great play. I saw both plays staged by the Szigligeti Theatre, and I find them both amazing. The same humour, same atmosphere, similar characters – but different life stories. I would highlight two main differences. Firstly, the Mine Flower shows one’s inner world (with all of its struggles) within a community, while Mineblindness rather shows the inner world of the community itself, as for the relationships between the people belonging to that community.

In addition, Mineblindness reflects on the differences between the two nations through language and culture. As a humanities student, I found this particularly interesting. What stood out most were the literal translations. I found it fascinating how unexpected and often humorous scenarios can be created when a person wants to make himself/herself understood in a language and culture which even he/she only know to a certain extent. An example of this would be one character’s name. Szécsi Izsák’s name sounds „sexy” when pronounced by the Romanian police officer because that’s how the Hungarian sounds (phonemes) (sz-é-c-s-i) are received and pronounced by someone who has been brought up in Romanian culture and language. This is one source of humour in this play, but there are quite a few others that lead to serious conflicts. That is how it’s revealed that probably the roots of some misunderstandings between the two nations are just differences of language and culture. In this case, no one is in the wrong only that they have been socialized differently, they have been brought up differently, and they have their perspective on the same thing as we have our own. That brings into consideration the concept of linguistic worldview and how our native language affects our perspective, and what kind of relationship exists between language and culture. I could write a whole essay about this topic. A typical example of cultural differences is the scene of Szécsi Izsák and the Romanian police officers’ „duel”. They throw in each other’s faces things which hadn’t even happened to them personally, but to their ancestors, so they feel these as their resentments. (The concept of transgenerational/historical trauma could be discussed separately.) Going back to the concept of language, great examples would be the words „oláh” and „bozgor” as for their vicious use. (The first one is used for the Romanian people and the second one for the Hungarians.) The meaning of these two words includes such a significant cultural depth that it could be discussed through long pages.

However, the performance includes many comic scenes based on the Romanian-Hungarian difference – as an example: Feri Sánta eats Rom chocolate and takes Sadu pâté. Another example is when the police officers claim that his son’s name is Álmos (but later we find out that his name is Decebal).

Feri Sánta’s last sentences (about the fact that Bartók had been collecting Hungarian and Romanian folk music and folkdances as well) are practically some conclusive thoughts on the topic: Where does this huge Romanian-Hungarian hatred come from? What is the meaning of it? Is it even real? The whole performance is a bitter commentary on senseless hatred.