Tango
By Slawomir Mrozek
Play no. 226
Opening show: 07/03/1967
Creative team
Hebrew Version By: Shulamith Hareven
Directed by: Alexander Bardini
Set and Costumes by : Eli Sinai
Lighting by: Michael Lieberman
Cast
Eugenia: Ada Tal
Arthur: Alexander Peleg
Eugenius: Raphael Klachkin
Eleonora: Lia Konig
Stomil: Shraga Friedman
Edek: Ilan Toren
Ala: Dalia Friedland
ith Mrozek the absurd lies in his though, but as Durenmatt has said:"what is once in the mind
cannot be erased". Mrozek's plays reveal the absurd as a dynamic factor; they do not
represent reality as absurdity, but, rather the absurd is the form in which his characters
perceive reality. The differences between the western theatre iof the absurd and that of
Mrozek are not hard to distinguish. The difficulty, somewhat paradoxically, is in tracing the
resemblance. While running the risk of over-abstraction, let us state some of the differences.
Firstly, and from this the rest follows, is that whereas the theatre of Becket or Iionesco, for all
the lack of similarity between them, represent a form of would in miniature, are essentially
microcosmic, that of Mrozek is micro-social.
Man is portrayed in absolute terms of his social class and status, more than in any other way;
this definition in terms of social station is as rigid and clear cut as that by biology in the theatre
of the absurd. In the would of Mrozek, human relationships are transformed into rigid
functions. The division of power is as incontrovertible as the laws of nature in the theatre of
the absurd which it resembles in this respect. Reality is seen in absolute terms of th mystic or
the grotesque. There are no alternatives, the possibility of their existence being dismissed as
merely relative or compromise. The absolute borders on the absurd , a philosophical trap
well-known to theology, which avoids it by demanding faith. Mrozek is no mystic. He is
reasonable, though his reason leads him to absolute concepts from which stems the absurd…
Yosofski has written that:"The roots of Mrozek's humour is in parody". It should be added that
these roots do not only shoot up to the skies, but also cut down deeply into the sub-soil. The
scalpel of parody is generally wielded to lay bare the external in order to focus attention on
underlying importance. Mrozek on the other hand, parodies not the superficiality but the
deeper meaning itself.
The development of the plot of "Tango" is dialectical. Thesis: the old order leads to revolt.
Antithesis: revolt brings in its wake absolute freedom, anarchy, lawlessness Synthesis:
Lawlessness becomes law; the new order, freedom from restraint. The offspring of anarchy is
the reign of unrestrained freedom.
In "Tango", Arthur genuinely desires to reform the world, seeking the role of law, the right
setting, a sense of vision, and rightly so, for the world of "Tango" is caricature. These is not
only wisdom in the lofty quest for order, it is almost and obligation. Mrozek portrays the
process of "absurdifcation" of the vision, through which reality evolves into myth – reason in
its absolute form. The running of the world once deified demands sacrifice, in demonstration
of its essential truth.
A totalistic world outlook is transformed into totalitarianism. The drama of vision crosses the
threshold of reality and enters the realm of the grotesque. The foundations of myth having
been laid it only remains to build it up and expand. The mechanism is operated and around
the whole structure there develops a very real power structure, which functions perfectly as
has been shown in Mrozek's earlier shorter pieces, which may be seen retrospectively as
dramatic sketches of the conclusion of "Tango".
