One Book, Two Stage Worlds- The Master and Margarita

It is rare for two theatres to stage productions based on the same book at the same time. For theatre lovers, this is an interesting experiment, as it offers an opportunity for comparison. We can observe the stage work, dramaturgy, lighting, set design, acting, and all the many elements through which a theatre transforms a literary work into an independent world.

The comparison becomes particularly interesting when the work being brought to the stage is a cult novel such as Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita.

Bulgakov wrote during the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union. He originally trained as a doctor, but only practised medicine for a relatively short time before turning to literature. He could hardly have imagined that The Master and Margarita, a novel that took more than a decade to take shape, would eventually become one of the most distinctive and widely interpreted works of world literature. The novel was first published after Bulgakov’s death, in 1966–67, and even then in a censored form.

The book is not an easy read. Several worlds compete for the reader’s attention: Moscow, Jerusalem, the world of the biblical stories, and the peculiar universe of the fantastic. Satire, philosophy, the grotesque, fantasy and the absurd constantly intermingle. Bulgakov creates a vivid picture of the society of his own time while at the same time raising questions that reach far beyond that particular historical period.

The novel deals with power and vulnerability, fear and conformity, faith and doubt, freedom and personal responsibility. Its characters therefore become much more than simple figures in a story.

Woland is at once Satan and a kind of higher justice. The Master becomes a symbol of the artist confronted by power, while his own novel retells the story of Pilate and Yeshua. Pilate is a tragic figure caught between recognition and cowardice: he sees what would be right, yet is unable to overcome his own limitations. Margarita, meanwhile, is both fragile and strong, desirable and mysterious, a figure of love and self-sacrifice.

Bringing all this to the stage is a considerable challenge. The novel does not follow a single chronological line; its different worlds and stories intertwine, while in many scenes imagination itself becomes part of the narrative. What can freely change location, atmosphere and perspective in the reader’s mind must be given a concrete form by the theatre.

And this is where the comparison between the two productions becomes particularly interesting.

The work is permeated by questions of power, fear, conformity and freedom. Yet Bulgakov did not write a political pamphlet. He did not simply state what he thought about the world. Instead, he created a colourful, grotesque and fantastical world in which the reader is invited to think for themselves.

This raises a question: can an artist engage with politics?

In my view, of course an artist can reveal through their work what they think about the world. But the purpose of art does not necessarily have to be to lead the audience in one particular direction. It is far more interesting when an artist creates a world in which the audience can think for themselves — perhaps even reconsider, refine or rebalance ideas they previously held.

Perhaps this is precisely why it is so interesting to see the same work interpreted by two different theatres. We do not necessarily have to ask which one presents Bulgakov’s ideas “more correctly”, but rather what two different creative worlds make of the same material.

One book, two stage worlds.

I am curious to see what kind of horizon the two productions will open up for the audience.

I consider it a special opportunity that such a complex work is being interpreted by two different creative communities, each from its own perspective. Seeing the two productions one after the other may bring us not only closer to Bulgakov’s novel, but also closer to understanding how two different theatres think about the same story.

Bulgakov: The Master and Margarita

National Theatre, Budapest
Director: Aleksandar Popovski
Dramaturgy and music: Ernő Verebes

Katona József Theatre, Budapest
Adaptation and direction by Viktor Bodó, based on improvisations by the company

By: Viktor Szentkiralyi