Budapest. Both, the Hungarian Újszínház (New Theatre) and the Nemzeti Színház (National Theatre) are led by two right wing and, in case of  Attila Vidnyánszky, highly influantial figures: “Far-right extremist Dörner remains director of the Budapest New Theatre,” says the translated title of an article of the Neue Musikzeitung,  reported in 2016 on the occasion of György Dörner’s reappointment by the Budapest city assembly for another five-year term. Dörner had already been appointed director of the Újszínház (New Theatre) in 2011 for the first time. At the time, the decision was widely seen as politically controversial. According to media reports at the time, his appointment was in line with the agenda of then-Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

In his application, Dörner spoke out against what he described as a “degenerate, pathological liberal hegemony” in the theatre scene.

Despite eleven other applicants, the Fidesz-dominated city council selected him. Observers interpreted the appointment as a cultural policy signal from the government at the time. Dörner’s ideological positioning is also illustrated by his close connection to the now-deceased writer and politician István Csurka, who was repeatedly criticised for antisemitic statements. Dörner is considered a political ally of Csurka and initially planned even to involve him as an artistic advisor after his appointment. He remains at the helm of the New Theatre. In 2022, the Fidesz-affiliated platform DUOL reported the extension of his contract until 2027.

Criticism of cultural policy developments under the Orbán government was also voiced by former National Theatre director Róbert Alföldi. Following the change of government in 2010, he accused his successor Attila Vidnyánszky of using his position to ideologically shape and dominate the theatre sector. Alföldi criticised in particular Vidnyánszky’s extensive powers within the Hungarian cultural landscape. In his view, funding decisions and institutional influence under his leadership reflected a clear political and ideological orientation. He also argued that conservative and partly homophobic positions had become further entrenched in cultural discourse.

Vidnyánszky is also considered controversial due to the number of cultural positions he holds and his role in the restructuring of the University of Theatre and Film Arts in Budapest (SZFE). He is accused of having played a key role in the rightwing political transformation of the historically prestigious institution.

Rethinking the National Theatre

The ideological foundations of the current theatre system are also examined by theatre scholar Noémi Herczog. In her essay Performing illiberalism in Hungary: the ambiguities of an illiberal theatre portrayed by Attila Vidnyánszky’s National Theatre in Budapest on the search for an “illiberal theatre aesthetics,” she analyses Attila Vidnyánszky as one of the most influential figures in Hungarian theatre life. Herczog argues that while Vidnyánszky is closely aligned with Orbán’s political system, his artistic practice reveals internal ideological contradictions. His work combines internationalisation, nationalism, avant-garde elements, and political adaptation.

Among Herczog’s central criticisms are the concentration of cultural power through funding structures and institutional influence in Vidnyánszky’s hands, as well as the privileged position of the National Theatre. It presents itself as a “theatre of the nation,” yet does not represent the diversity of Hungarian theatre culture. Instead, it promotes a conception of theatre that places national identity at its centre while marginalising other perspectives. Herczog ultimately describes the contradictions in Vidnyánszky’s position as a possible key to his success, writing that “gaining international reputation on the one hand, pleasing the pseudo-ideology of illiberal Hungary on the other” works for his reputation.

Zoltán Imres “Re-evaluations of National Theatres in Europe in the 21st Century”

I meet Zoltán Imre in his office at Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE) in Budapest. The theatre historian is an known expert on national theatres and European theatre history. In his essay “Re-evaluations of National Theatres in Europe in the 21st Century,” he examines the redefinition of the national theatre in the 21st century. Imre outlines two central positions: on the one hand, the view that the term “national theatre” has become a largely empty label, as its original function has lost relevance in times of globalisation and European integration. On the other hand, he refers to theatre scholar Janelle Reinelt, who argues that national theatres can still play an important role, provided they are rethought.

In 2007, Imre  and theatre director, László Hudi developed the concept “Nemzeti Színház – mindenkinek!” (“National Theatre for Everyone!”). The concept is based on the so called Scottish model as a production company with a pluralistic approach:

“We believed that a national institution should strive to create opportunities for as many activities as possible to take place and reach as many citizens as possible in the capital and the countryside as well. In our National Theatre, we wanted to create a framework that is open to a wide range of artists and audiences on different professional and amateur levels for adults and children alike.”

Instead of a single central institution in Budapest, they propose a mobile network that includes different regions and social groups. The national theatre is thus understood as a space of diversity and exchange.

“We did not intend to create another elite centre in the capital of Hungary. We thought that if there is something that we can call elite, let us not gather it into a single centre, let us not try to tear it out of its natural environment, but let us seek it out and help it to have an effect where it is created and present. We wanted these creators to have opportunities, to have their work supported, to have a focus, but primarily in the places where they are creating.”

For them, a national theatre is only truly “national” when it makes social diversity visible and creates spaces for discussion and participation.

About Funding, Loyalty, and Control in Hungarian Theatre

In the interview, I ask Zoltán Imre about his perception of the current Hungarian theatre landscape, with a particular focus on the independent scene.

Drawing on more than 25 years of experience in the theatre sector, he describes the National Theatre as  “seemingly  more open, though Vidnyánszky and foreign guest-directors influenced mainly the intuition”, while the New Theatre  stages works only by Hungarian authors, including even those containing openly right-wing or antisemitic narratives. The independent scene, by contrast, is structurally disadvantaged and has been chronically underfunded for many years.

Speaking about the Hungarian theatre system, Imre distinguishes between so-called “stone theatres”, meaning state- or municipally or jointly funded repertory theatres with permanent ensembles, and the independent sector, funded basically by the National Cultural Fund (NKA) through yearly application. The National and the New Theatre belong to the “stone theatres”, and despite of their huge economic support, their influence  on actual audiences remains limited:

“People simply do not bother to go there. Not even right wings, not even Fidesz-supporters.”

He describes a situation of weak audience engagement in which even subsidised, therefore cheap tickets attract little demand, and sometimes school classes  being instructed to attend performances. More central, however, is not the question of audiences but of political control. According to Imre, the allocation of leadership positions was determined most of all by political loyalty in the past 16 year: “the most important thing in the selection was political loyalty.” As a result, especially regional theatres are shaped by politically aligned directors.

At the same time, ideological positioning is not always directly visible in repertoire choices:  “you can’t detect directly.” While some productions contain national-conservative or ideologically charged elements, overall repertoires tend to be heterogeneous, including classical works, international, mainly European plays, collaborations, and some contemporary pieces. According to Imre, political orientation is more evident at the level of management than within acting ensembles.

The independent scene, however, is weakened by structural underfunding. This development also has political implications: “the government do not censor them, but silence them by not financing them.” Funding is distributed through the National Cultural Fund (NKA), whose resources for independent companies have significantly decreased in recent years. As a result, many influential independent companies (Krétakör lead by Árpád Schilling, Szputnyik lead by Viktor Bodó, Tünet Együttes lead by Réka Szabó for instance) finished their activities and some of their members and leaders even left Hungary.

Imre also refers to reforms after 2010. A theatre law introduced in 2008 had established six categories and included a binding provision stipulating that at least 10% of state theatre funding should go to the independent sector. After 2010, this system was replaced by a model in which support for the independent sector became discretionary rather than guaranteed.

In retrospect, Imre describes the period before 2010 as a kind of “Golden Age” of the independent scene, despite already existing financial constraints: “from now, that seems as the golden age from the 1990 until 2010.” Regarding the role of the National Theatre, he highlights a major shift under Attila Vidnyánszky. His appointment in 2013 marked a structural break: “first he immediately closed down the repertoire of the previous directorship, and then started to build a sort of right-wing, nationalist repertoire.”

Political tendencies, according to Imre, become visible for instance in the staging of social issues, including discussions around gender issues or the promotion of a conservative family model. Some productions explicitly reflect such narratives, sometimes also through interventions by artistic leadership. At the same time, Imre cautions against generalizing the political stance of theatre personnel. Actors are bound by annual contracts: “if the director doesn’t want to renew your contract, you are jobless.”

When asked about future perspectives, Imre emphasizes the need for the renewal of the cultural dialogue among the different sectors of the theatre world and even for a more urgent need to re-think the entire Hungarian theatre system. After reform debates in the 1990s and early 2000s, a crucial period of systemic discussion was interrupted. Today, he argues, there is again an opportunity to reopen these fundamental questions about the financing and organization of the Hungarian theatres.

Sources: Neue Musikzeitung, hvg.hu, deutschlandfunk.de, Essay: Noémi Herczog’s  “Performing illiberalism in Hungary: the ambiguities of an illiberal theatre portrayed by Attila Vidnyánszky’s National Theatre in Budapest”, Essay: Zoltan Imre “Re-evaluations of National Theatres in Europe in the 21st century”
Photo: Zoltán Imre

After a period she herself describes as traumatic, Tóth plans to spend more time in Hungary again. In the meantime, she is once more being invited to events in places that previously ignored her  including schools. For over a decade, she says, she had been banned from the Hungarian media—like many other intellectuals. She describes the Hungarian cultural landscape as deeply divided; hate speech has long become part of everyday life. Personal attacks and public defamation, she says, were part of Orbán’s propaganda:

“I was called a traitor countless times – by people who themselves contributed nothing to Hungarian culture. I assume that this poisoning will not remain without consequences. It will take a long time for these wounds to heal.”

*English version published by Sevenstories New York (Oct 25) ; also available in Croation and Italian, with translations to French, Spanish, Greek and Tamil due in 2027.

“A month later, a witch hunt was underway”

Tóth reports targeted defamation campaigns and how she was publicly discredited by government-aligned media. After she suggested in an interview to replace a work by Mór Jókai in the school canon with a work of contemporary literature, she became the target of media campaigns that intruded deeply into her private life due to their aggressiveness. Even before the interview, one of her self-authored textbooks had already been banned by the Orbán government; only a centrally controlled standardized edition of textbooks was permitted. In the media, she was defamed as a “mediocre nobody” who “who wanted to eradicate the great national classic from schools.” Deliberately unflattering photos of Tóth were published, and she was publicly analyzed as “untalented” and “stupid.”

She also experienced defamation in her private life, including threatening emails. A teacher at her daughter’s school shared the defamatory newspaper article via the email distribution list with other parents; some stopped greeting her. The media began referring to Tóth as a “traitor,” television viewers voted on her alleged incompetence, and her appearance was mocked. In her everyday life, she was exposed to verbal attacks from strangers; she describes an incident in which she was spat at on the metro. On social media, insulting and racist comments about her children also appeared. At times, she no longer dared to leave the house.

Defamation as a Political Instrument

Her identity as a divorced woman and adoptive mother of a Roma child made her an “ideal target” for misogynistic and racist narratives. The attacks on her as a woman also functioned as a form of mass mobilisation:

“Those who enjoyed seeing a woman suffer in the digital space willingly joined in. Even strangers wrote insulting, sexually explicit messages and threatened me and my children.”

She assesses these attacks as deliberate intimidation meant to demonstrate what criticism under Viktor Orbán’s system entails. She describes the experience as an existential rupture, the consequences of which continue to this day:

“I remember everything and I forget nothing. I will never forgive the Orbán regime’s propaganda machine for what they did.”

She adds that the otherwise independent magazine HVG also contributed significantly to the events through an anonymous article, without having apologised to this day.

“I am a Hungarian writer, and my readers are in Hungary. I will now spend more time in Budapest. But the wounds will not heal, and I cannot forgive. They have hurt and humiliated me. I have done nothing other than bring a good reputation to this country. For me, what happened was an existential rupture.”

Cultural Policy under and After Orbán

When asked whether she plans to return to Hungary in the future and how she assesses the potential of a new government, Tóth responds with hopes and expectations for the period after a possible change of government.

She describes a clear imbalance between the art academies: one of them received substantial financial support under Orbán, with its members receiving high monthly stipends. The second, independent academy, by contrast, receives no state funding and does not have anything close to comparable resources—although it includes two Nobel Prize winners among its members, Péter Nádas and Péter Esterházy. She sees the future of these academies after the end of Orbán’s rule as uncertain. Due to his influence, the original structures are unlikely to be restorable; moreover, the immediate priority will be the recovery of the depleted economy as well as the rebuilding of industry and agriculture.

The education system is also in a poor state, including a shortage of teachers, whose resolution will take a considerable amount of time. On a positive note, Tóth emphasises that she considers the new Minister of Education in a Péter Magyar government to be competent and open, and that women generally hold important positions: “The immediate deputy of Péter Magyar is also a woman, which sends a strong message in this macho society.”

Misogynistic narratives in political Discourse

Tóth expects that the political climate will change only very slowly. Public discourse, she says, continues to be shaped by problematic practices and narratives. As an example, she refers to the circulation of an image by the popular anti-Orbán influencer Róbert Puzsér, which he published after the victory of the Tisza Party. It shows an explicitly sexual act in which Fidesz, represented as a woman in bed, is humiliated by the Tisza Party, which is depicted as the man.

She situates this example within the political climate she criticises:

“I find this terrifying and disgusting! The subordinate position is weak and, according to a Hungarian, misogynistic way of thinking, a woman. This attitude must absolutely disappear, because otherwise we will never belong to Europe in our thinking. The influencer publicly said it was just an opinion and that the image is very funny – whoever does not like it simply does not understand humour … This must change, otherwise we will fall back exactly to where we are trying to work our way out of!”

She assesses the extent of Orbán’s long-term propaganda as a deep division within the country, as it has “caused significant psychological damage,” the repair of which will take at least a decade

Language, Visibility, and Literary Responsibility

When asked what challenges women writers are particularly confronted with today, Tóth identifies language as the main one: Hungarian women writers depend on translations in order to achieve international relevance. She also sees engagement with broader political phenomena as a priority, rather than focusing exclusively on individual experiences.

She hopes that in contemporary Hungarian literature, gender will increasingly recede into the background and that women writers will be perceived not as “women in literature” but as part of literature as a whole. However, she says, there is still a long way to go before this becomes the norm in Hungary.

“I do not want people to kiss my hand, really not, I want to be treated as an equal human being, and I do not want to be asked anymore who is taking care of my child while I am at a Hungarian book presentation!”

A central position she holds is that experiences should be told in a universally relatable way; authenticity, she argues, contributes significantly to understanding.

“For example, I have been hurt, but I do not want that to be my topic. At the same time, I cannot ignore it. I will continue my work as before. I believe that a writer must keep a distance from current power, in fact from any power. Literature must be independent and maintain critical distance from current events. In my opinion, good literature asks questions, it does not give answers. It tries to ask the most important questions: Where is the world heading? How can we preserve our personal integrity? What role does literature play in this – how can it help?”

Only in this way, she argues, can the polarisation of thought promoted by Orbán, as well as the coarsening and vulgarisation of language, be countered:

“It is a populist method to simplify reality and claim that one has understood it, but the task of thinkers is to grasp the world in all its diversity and subtlety.”

Which contemporary Hungarian women writers should international readers know?

“I would definitely recommend the works of Petra Szőcs. Mónika Mesterházi is an excellent poet and translator of English literature, as is Anna Szabó T. Réka Mán-Várhegyi and Edina Szvoren are also outstanding prose writers.”

“In general, there has been a clear hostility towards intellectuals.”

Viktor Orbán has repeatedly constructed various groups as enemies, including migrants, the EU, and also educated women. Tóth explains that this persistent construction of enemy figures has created a sense of threat, whereby criticism could be labelled as “betrayal.” As a result, despite 54 published books, she is perceived not through her work but through Orbán’s propaganda.

According to Tóth, Orbán has fostered a general hostility towards intellectuals and artists through political measures and the public devaluation of their work. Internationally known philosophers such as the late Ágnes Heller were taken to court; during the global pandemic, part of the polemical treatment of critical voices included telling artists they should “get a job.”

Tóth on the Rejection of Critical Art in Orbán’s Hungary:

“Authoritarian societies do not like real art, only kitsch – especially historical kitsch that produces a false nostalgia for the past. Populist leaders insist that art must be accessible to the general public. In reality, however, they promote nonsense and kitsch, because real art is a danger – it raises questions.”

She stresses that not only publicly defamed individuals suffered under Orbán; the dignity of those drawn into the system – including children – was also severely violated.

The role of literature when democratic norms are under pressure

“We must restore the integrity of thinking and rebuild a culture of debate. We must make the importance of argumentation and reason clear. Viktor Orbán relied on short, simplified messages that appeal to emotions. However, politics based on hatred is not sustainable in the long term. Literature must restore trust in language, because only through words and stories can we understand one another and the complex world around us.”

Sources: Krisztina Tóth, tothkrisztina.com

Pictures: tothkrisztina.com, Copyright by Krisztina Tóth