Dear Mr. Jean-Pierre Thibaudat,
 

It would be hard to argue with the statement that ostracising or stigmatising a fellow human being is the basest thing we can do to them.

And one can only agree that without thorough knowledge one should not make summary judgments about anyone.

Europe’s supreme value is its culture, which is founded in discourse about knowledge of human nature. This discourse produced, among others, humanism, enlightenment, and liberal democracy.

This discourse, however, is not only about lofty ideals, or extending as widely as possible access to tolerance and prosperity. Hypocrisy too is a product of European culture: the attitude of packaging base intentions in lofty ideals.

Viktor Orbán warned international diplomats immediately before coming to power to attend not to what he would say but what he’d do. A rare moment in political history: a prime minister in the process of coming to power warning his partners in advance that he’d lie in the coming period.

Rare, if not unique, since four years earlier another Hungarian Prime Minister, Ferenc Gyurcsány, did the same – though he made the profession not in front of diplomats but fellow party members.

It’s hard to believe Hungarians because those who represent them around the world rarely speak the truth. Hungary is in trouble, and only someone who believes the lie instead of the facts doesn’t know it.

You claimed – citing Attila Vidnyánszky – that before 2010 public support for theatrical institutions was allocated 70–30 percent in favour of Budapest’s theatres. By contrast the reality is as follows: in 2009, that is a year before the change of government, Budapest theatres received in total the equivalent of 15 million euros in subsidies, while rural theatres received 22.5 million euros. The actual ratio is thus 40–60 in favour of rural theatres. If Attila Vidnyánszky informed you of the falsehood, Attila Vidnyánszky lied.

When the new law was drafted, what was most important for Attila Vidnyánszky was not protecting the position of rural theatres but rendering the existence of independent theatres impossible. The law codified in 2008 fixed subsidies allocated to independent theatres in relation to the total amount of financial support given to local government-run theatres. Legislators set this rate at at least 10%. This guarantee was the result of a twenty-year struggle by independent companies. This was the guarantee of emancipation, a sign that the Third Republic extended to the performing arts its recognition of the equality of civil organisations and state institutions. The minimum 10% was the key to innovation, which could have opened the door to the revitalisation of Hungarian theatre. Even in the first year of the law this provision was not complied with. Nevertheless Attila Vidnyánszky was disturbed by the ‘at least’ clause, which he thought might even make it possible for the total support of local governments to go to independent companies and creators. He could have suggested that the small phrase be removed from the law, but instead he has extirpated the guarantee itself. There was no negotiation, just the message itself: no more guarantee. No more equal rights and equal opportunities. Death of the avant-garde.

Under the new law there are three categories of performing arts institutions: national theatres, key theatres, and others. By 2013, the leading lights of Hungarian performance art (Béla Pintér and his company, Viktor Bodó and his company, Kornél Mundruczó and his company, Pál Frenák and his company, and more than a dozen other internationally-recognised artists and their colleagues) were deemed by the law to be ‘others’ without classification. Those who represent the new Hungarian theatre are now forced to seek help from international organisations, so drastically has their state support shrunk.

The Performing Arts Law abolished by Attila Vidnyánszky was the fruit of long years of labour, and deliberations involving the entire Hungarian theatrical profession. It was not without flaw, but it came into being democratically. Vidnyánszky’s law was completed in half a year and without any real discussion.

How could this have happened? Vidnyánszky possesses political support unprecedented in the cultural sphere. Resistance was in vain; Viktor Orbán’s protégé was unstoppable. A significant part of the Hungarian theatrical profession simply conceded, and remains silent to this day.

Immediately after the law was adopted the state decorated Attila Vidnyánszky with the highest artistic award, the Kossuth Prize.

Although, as chair of the Hungarian Theatrical Society, he ought to have protected the profession’s interests against state intervention, he accepted a request by the minister in charge of the field to become chief adviser and determine issues in Hungarian theatre.

He decides on questions of public funding, and moreover decides on the composition of judging committees for institutional and other applications. Previously there was no chief advisory body: this institution was created by the new law, that is, Attila Vidnyánszky himself. He is therefore simultaneously a union leader and state official, who also announced his claim to the National Theatre, which naturally he secured. One of the openly right-wing members of the jury called the bidding process ‘a democratic puppet show’ in a television broadcast.

In addition, Attila Vidnyánszky was given the opportunity to become head of the University of Kaposvár’s theatrical department without a doctoral degree. This opportunity was provided for by a law, engineered specifically for his situation, commonly referred to as the lex-Vidnyánszky.

Moreover he is also a member of the theatrical arts body of the Hungarian Academy of Arts, which is evidently well-known to you. By comparison: József Nagy, upon being informed about the fascist manifestations of the Academy’s head, cancelled his membership.

Nor can we turn a blind eye to the fact that in the course of 2011/2012 – when Hungarian filmmaking had practically ground to a halt, and masses of venerable artists, or be it filmmakers preparing to embark upon their career, received no state subsidy – Attila Vidnyánszky was able to shoot a film with an exceptional state subsidy of 340,000 euros, which to this day has never been shown, and of which nothing is known except that they spent the money to the last penny.

Dear Jean-Pierre Thibaudat! You are an exceptionally important critic in France, so it matters what you speak and how. In connection with the assessment of Attila Vidnyánszky one point is hard to dispute: he is a talented theatre director. Every other statement, however, testifies to the fact that you have been misled.

Best regards,
Árpád Schilling