It would be exciting to know how theater-goers conceptualize dramaturgy or dramaturges. It would be also exciting to know the theater-makers’ opinion about the same subject. According to Pavis dramaturgical analysis endeavors to shed light on how the dramaturgical text metamorphoses into a theatrical script. I believe that in Hungarian context a ‘dramaturge’ can be defined as someone reading contemporary plays in their free time and if we consider the text as a looked-after grassy runway and the director as a javelin, their main job is ‘throwing’. The reading theater is the hobby genre of dramaturges. Those who set themselves the goal of attending as many events as possible –typically in a spell during festivals- is likely to have witnessed some enjoyable play introductions, several enjoyable ones due to the actors and many moderately enjoyable ones. I am honestly pondering why dramaturges do not embark on directing one or two plays because their practice evolved through working with various directors, actors enables them to compose a scene along with the rather brief rehearsal series prior to it. This approach could focus more on the script and its interpretation than a directorial work that utilizes witty and innovative stage solutions. Péter Forgács manages to stage plays commendably and he apparently cooperated with the actors in harmony, bringing the text to the fore at some points but mainly making use of stage techniques. For instance one of the actors had his pants full (namely with the script) and it rendered the play amusing and pleasant but failed to be true to the text; which is more like a sketch, an experiment for a later enactment than the gist of a reading theater. Of course what I am longing for is not a radio play. We could witness a neat solution to this issue (obviously the director’s idea): one of the anxious father-son dialogs was highlighted by the son jumping up for paper strips one by one and the mother sitting surrounded by her treasure. I did not grasp the message of the title and some klutzy sentences jarred my ears (not grammatical faults but stylistically speaking who would say this in a real-life situation: ‘Don’t ridicule yourself’ in the middle of a plausible and at many times humorous text). But –after presumably much work- this is nothing to write home about and no one expects perfect lines, yet I try to take myself seriously.

The plot revolves around a family’s history, and is average, ultimately average (it is especially enjoyable to hear the irony about the why’s and wherefores of their idiosyncrasy). It is about love, helping each other, bonding, respect, appreciating of the glorious past, the joy of the children already being together. After a while the family life becomes more and more controversial and seems to reverse its course, what is more, the whole ends up appearing to be meaningless. The family symbol is the mother and her fate is…?