Gábor Koltay’s work is a hard nut to crack for the viewer. In more than two hours length the film confronts the cinemagoer with one of the most important events of our Hungarian history that determine the way of thinking up to this very day, namely the peace treaty at the end of the First World War and its manifold effects and consequences. On the one hand historiographers describe and evaluate the events of the last century from this point of view, on the other hand, we are exposed to literary works (mainly poems) in order to grasp sensually what the experts have described earlier. According to the filmmakers, the Trianon-issue is not only of crucial significance for us, but also an unanalyzed trauma of our past, that has been deliberately kept in silence. The standard the film has set up for itself roots in the following: to explain and throw light on what was long relapsed into silence. Having accepted this requirement (the film’s own demand), our task is to keep an eye on the look at the enumerated fact of history and their interpretation, which is to say, forms the basic concept of the film. Let’s carry out the same chronological treatment that the film does, and go through the first presented historical period the era of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

The film reveals little about the historical period that ranges till 1918. More important however is interpretation of this era, since its right judgement might make intelligible the bygones of 1920. Middle class transformation in Hungary had been blowing over between 1867 and 1918. The film discusses but one problematic aspect of economic and social modernization – namely the break-up of traditional, feudal social groups –, even though this was the most important issues of the age. Both István Nemeskürty, a well known Hungarian literary historian, and the historian Ernő Raffai point to the „disjointed national conscience” as the most urgent predicament of the period. They discuss the responsibility of liberalism, Freemasonry, social democracy, middle-class radicalism and Mihály Károlyi’ party, all of which are responsible for the disintegration of the national conscience. As a matter of fact historical change and modernization should take the blame. The destructive factors mentioned above were themselves products of this process. The reversal of order regarding the causes and effects leads to rather strange consequences, when the interviewees start to discuss the break-up of the Monarchy. According to István Nemeskürty, there was no Hungarian revolution in 1918 at all. Revolution is replaced by the myth of world-conspiracy. His basic concept is that events of history are not formed by the economic, social, political institutions – revealed by historians –, but a by a secret conspiracy. In its modern form this myth came into being during the Reformation. The Jesuit orders, which played an important role in Counter-Reformation, were accused or incriminated of having set up a secret world-government that produced the great changes of modern history behind the curtains. Later Freemasonry and Jewishness were attributed to have had such mission. Myth, as weapon of political propaganda, was most effectively applied by the Nazis. We first encounter this myth in the film, when Nemeskürty is talking about the welcoming of the Hungarian army in October 1918. With his words he suggests, that the returning soldiers were not solemnized or celebrated by the crowds, on the contrary, they were kicked, spit at, disarmed and stripped of their insignia of rank. A contemporary illustration shows two happy soldiers. One of them is probably removing the other’s bonett-blazon. This publicly known image that was taken in the early days of the so called Aster Revolution here gets an unusual annotation, according to which it was a well organized underground movement that set out to cause disarray in the Army, so that unlike the Bohemian and other fighters, the Hungarian soldiers would not be able to defend the borders of his country. We may raise several questions in reference to the above mentioned scene and its interpretation. First of all, why should have anyone wanted to celebrate the home-coming soldiers who were shabby and down at heel, hopeless and forlorn? It is usually the victorious home-comers who are celebrated publicly. Secondly, against whom should those minorities who were just about to reorganize themselves into new national states have defended the frontiers? No one threatened to attack them, since the war had been finished and they were on the side of the victorious. As regards for the Hungarian soldiers, they gave evidence of their patriotic bravery in the next months. The film does not speak about this, although it is a trivial fact that the Commune was able to reorganize the Hungarian Army and could even if, only temporarily, hold the invaders back. People didn’t join the Red Army in large numbers, because they supported the communist dictatorship, but because it seemed to be the only force in the country that could protect the borders.

As for the blame of having given up sovereignty, both the Károlyi group and the Commune should have their share profusely. Károlyi was regularly not up to the situation. He made several inappropriate decisions and was an unsuccessful politician. His political vein and talent could be made questionable on numerous occasions. Anyhow, Béla Kun didn’t write memorandum for Clemenceau, he answered to the French politician’s memorandum calling out for territory. This cannot be put down to his having had a defeatist personality of some sort, it is rooted in the particular political context. His unexpected decision of giving up territories could be argued for (especially in the given political situation) and these arguments might be taken seriously.

The film keeps suggesting that the tragedy of Trianon melted the people of the country into unity. That’s not absolutely true. It’s undoubtedly true, that everybody, including communists and the extreme Right, each Hungarian citizen found the decision (that dismembered the country) unjust, yet, this simple fact could not create unity among the uncompromisingly contrasted political parties and public opinion.

Nemeskürty’s theses and Raffay’s style complement each other well. The historian with his laconic fact-findings and often opposite interpretations often dichotomizes, or even short-circuits the literary historian’s not always thoroughly examined arguments that are nevertheless always emotionally accented and lofty. Let me give an example of this. I am thinking about the scene where he refuses to admit that the two revolutions had serious effect upon the Trianon peace-treaty. He does so too, when arguing that had we taken a stand against the dictated peace like Kemál pasha, the victorious allies would have replied with the occupation. In this case Hungary’s statehood would have come to an end for at least a certain period of time. Nevertheless, there’s not too much evidence that the two characters were having a real dialogue in front of the camera. Traces of interaction between the two men are more likely to have only been created during the editing.

The second big section of the film is supposed to present The Horthy era’s comparative relation to Trianon. Literary extracts play a more emphatic role and are of a greater importance. Beside the relevant writings by Károly Kós and Dezső Szabó, irredentist poems of Attila József and Gyula Juhász, the famous poem entitled Magyar Hiszekegy written by Szeréna Sziklai and performed by Zita Szeleczky are also recited. The viewer is also exposed to fragments from Katalin Karády’s hit tone entitled Valahol Oroszoszágban (Somewhere in Russia) and the song entitled Igazságot Magyarországnak (Truth to Hungary). Anyway, the wide-spectrum representation of Trianon’s literary reception does credit to the film. There might be many who have never heard these texts, although familiar with their existence. All of the literary illustrations are characterized by the same intonation and attitude towards life, irrespective of its date of origin. A good example of this is the poem written by Szentmihályi Szabó Péter: Térdre magyar (Down, on your knees, Hungarian). It must have been written on the turn of the century, although it evokes Horty’s manifesto that subjects Budapest to the ordeal of the bier. This proclamation was, otherwise, also delivered in the film, and as a poem it reminds us the Halotti beszéd (Funeral oration), written by Sándor Márai during his emigration, both in atmosphere and way of editing. I dare premise the existence of a sort of „Trianon convention” in the literary reception. It is definitely not my competence to draw aesthetic conclusions from the invariable elements. The stiffened contents, however, might allude to the permanence of an obsolescent and unresolved past. They are also likely to indicate the already meaningless content of the ritualized historical trauma.

On the other hand, the distinctive features referring to the film’s unbalanced concept become obvious in the segment which gives an illustration of the Horthy era’s Trianon concept. Gábor Koltay elucidated, in one of his interviews aired on radio, that he was led by his own subjective preferences while doing the casting. No doubt, as a filmmaker he was entitled to do so, but this way, the ’let us make a clean breast of it’ principle might not work especially well. The fact, that every normal human being thinks the peace treaty was unjust, does not at all draw to the conclusion, that we all should form the same opinion about all related events that have occurred in the last eighty years in this country with reference to the Trianon tragedy. István Nemeskürty, for instance, is clearly on a different opinion than Ferenc Fejtő concerning the Horthy era which first took its legitimacy through its anti-Trianon rhetoric in the first place and through proper political interventions later. However, they show up in quite different rate with their view in both quantitative and qualitative terms. The national tragedy gets fully represented, but the inconsistencies and deficiencies of the politics quoting this tragedy remain unexploited. The overall picture is very unbalanced, and this unevenness can’t be altered by having Ferenc Glatz appear on screen, who seems to be cast for a somehow counterbalancing role. I must lay emphasis on the innocence of these characters. Only the declared subjectivity of editing is responsible for this inequality. We can listen to Ferenc Fejtő’s few sentences are either hard to interpret or redundant, while the performance of Nemeskürty determines the message of the whole film. This wouldn’t be a problem for itself, if we didn’t know about their completely different views regarding the discussed issues. To sum it up in short, I find wanting the lining up and eventual conflicting of the different conceptualizations of the events. Whenever contradictions break surface, they are left to obscurity. The citation of József Antall’s statement at the time of Yugoslavian war could be an appropriate example for it. Antall had set forth on a Cabinet meeting, that the revision of Trianon must not be made an issue. He said that anyone raising the topic had better vacate his or her seat. László Tőkés says, right in the very next sequence, that the issue of the peace treaty ought to have been brought up. The two conflicting ideas or suggestions are edited side by side with no comments at all. This fact, as well as the lack of signifying of their local value could easily cause unnecessary misunderstanding. It is also regrettable, that István Csurka’s declarations calling for a global conspiracy-theory is left uncommented, which declarations reveal the degree to which the Trianon problems survive in the present. Csurka makes clear in his explanation that, above all, globalism, and its servant the European Union is responsible for our vanished national conscience. Globalism, left vaguely unnamed, with its absent actors, yet somehow gets presented as something that brings up its own élite, and is unwilling to help the „poor and wretched Hungarians”. Moreover, „it grants special rights to the population originated from low civilizations”, in makes it easier to overcome the Hungarian nation through the label and concept of otherness. The authors of the film should have warned the viewer that the world’s main goal, perhaps, is not to ruin and liquidate our nation, and this over-simplified way of looking at things won’t, perhaps, help us find our way in global matters. Likewise, Miklós Duray’s words give evidence to the survival of a similar conspiracy-theory, according to which the main battle-line extends between informers and non- informer in recent political fights. When the organization of the Helsinki Watch supported the civil rights opposition before the democratic transformation, and intervened against the agent-law afterwards, it was not selling out its principles or acting as a weathercock according to a secret screenplay. It actually remained consequent to the principles of liberalism (otherwise seen by no means as a taboo theme) in both cases. Furthermore, stresses and emphases are absent in the film.

The simplifying and mishandled way of seeing things mentioned above is mixed undistinguished, for example, with Ferenc Glatz’s witty and authentic statements about livelihood-politicians and sustenance-intellectuals of our day. We could set out for a different view of the world relying on the model offered by Glatz, but we actually cannot, because a commentary on the difference of statements and a coherent analyses of these differences is missing again. A rational dialogue and the development of contradicting views would be of great help, but unfortunately both are missing from the film.

The documentary film entitled Leszármazottak (Descendants), made by Ágota Varga raises other, more serious types of problems. It has practically a single protagonist, the eighty-five years old Zsigmond Endre, son of László Endre, who was executed as a war criminal. Whereas Koltay’s work undoubtedly lets its aims known, having watched Varga’s film we can only try to guess. The author, most likely, was engaged in family affairs, how the different generations related to each other, and consequently, how they deal with the past. Being a documentary and as far as it talks about this past, László Endre’s historical role should have been made clear. It would have given tension to the film, moreover the face of the remembering protagonist we are exposed to for 90 minutes could become interpretable, his words and gestures would be filled up with contents. It would also be a way of understanding the Endre grandchildren’s dismissal toward father and grandfather, when they make their voices heard in a telephone interviewed at the end of the film.

The viewer of Zsigmond Endre’s long monologue learns next to nothing about László Endre’s deeds, although he is gifted with an excellent memory and has plenty of family history records at disposal. It is unacceptable, yet sensible if the son needs to keep his father’s past murky. The filmmaker’s method however is not, more the same as she fails to say anything about who László Endre was.

We learn that he was born in 1895 in Abony. His father, Zsigmond Endre founded (as chief constable and former organizer of a preventive but later aborted counter-revolution in 1918), the Kun Szövetség (Kun Coalition). He was a Member of Parliament until 1939, when he was sent to the Upper House as Pest County’s depute. He committed suicide in October, 1944. Accordingly, the young László Endre landed into the Horthy era’s power elite on family basis. He became Chief District Administrator of Gödöllő in 1920, and was on intimate terms with the Governor, but he opposed the consolidation that followed the reign of white terror. As soon as in 1921 he is to be found by the side of Prónay, prominent of the contemporary radical rightwing opposition. This move didn’t mean the end of being on friendly terms with Horthy at all. When leaving on a trip to America in 1928, Horthy asked him – according to Zsigmond Endre – for help to organize his son’s overseas study trip. Endre paid a visit to Ford who was well known not only as a car industrialist but also as author of anti-Semitic books and an anti-Semitic politician. The protagonist quotes word by word Ford speaking about the Jew peril and adds that he still agrees with Ford’s statement, since Jewishness is a bigger peril today than it was in the inter-war period. This unexpected confession of faith was left uncommented by the film-director. She just asks him to read out aloud an article from the April, 1934 issue of the periodical entitled Magyar Közigazgatás. The protagonist refuses to do so explaining his disagreement to recite picked-out quotations. The viewer is bewildered because the interviewer, who has made a film about the gypsy Holocaust too, doesn’t quote the text either. If the viewers were able to read the lines of the original article quickly, as it appears on screen in a flash, she or he could learn that in the article László Endre made a proposal for the establishment of internment camps for wandering Romano Gypsies and the sterilization of all of their imprisoned men. Neither do we learn that at a later date – in 1941 and again in 1944 –, Endre did a lot to radically solve the gypsy-issue. In turn, Zsigmond Endre who never fails to comment on contemporary aspects of the gypsy-matter and the Jew-matter is giving a lecture about how the explosion of the Gypsy population poses a great danger for our nation’s future. Once again, this statement is left uncommented by the interviewer. Endre does not speak about the fact that his father was a foundation member of the Racist Socialist Party in June, 1937. This party joined the National Will Party led by Szálasi in August of the same year, resulting in the formation of the Hungarian National Socialist Party. The interviewer does not call our attention to this, by no means secondary fact, which in itself was a crucial contribution to the unification of fascist elements in Hungary under the Arrow Cross Party. Yet, Auntie Mariska, the mother of whom was working for the Endre family, relates László Endre having been a „tough man” as a landlord. Besides, we are also informed, that when László Endre was elected sub-prefect in Pest-Pilis-Solt-Kiskun County in 1938, the celebrated gave a dinner party with 1200 invited guests in Hotel Gellért. On the other hand, no word is passed on the affair when as sub-prefect he called out for bringing the Jewish inmates of forced labor, who had „insulted Christian maidens”, under regulations.

These randomly chosen, but either unmentioned or not properly exposed details of the film are worth to be mentioned, because they could well give evidence of what hasn’t been made absolutely clear in the documentary, notably the fact that László Endre had been preparing consciously for his taken role in 1944 right from the beginning of his political career. He was appointed to be executive under-secretary of state in April, 1944 by the Minister of the Interior, Andor Jaross, because he knew Endre would not stop short of anything, if the extermination of Hungarian Jews is at stake. Zsigmond Endre does not speak about his father’s role in 1944. This time the reporter asks him why, but the protagonist’s shuffling and ambiguous answer remains uncommented again. Zsigmond Endre knows nothing at first, than he cannot remember, and still later he deems unnecessary to relate the 1944 activities of his father in details. This scene shows well the volatility of his self-confidence, but this would have required the filmmaker to confront him with his father’s crimes. This could be the film’s great moment, its peak. The stake is high; after all four-hundred-thousand Hungarian Jews were exterminated in Auschwitz. László Endre controlled and managed the ghettoisation and deportation of the Jews from the country-side from April to late June. He was doing it not modestly from behind a writing desk. He was present everywhere taking active measures round the country day and night. However, when Horthy brought the deportations to a halt in the beginning of July, Endre took a hand in the attempted coup d’état initiated by Baky.

The goal of this putsch was or would have been the arrest of the Governor and the initiation of deporting the Jews from Budapest. Otherwise, the story of this attempted putsch is recalled by Zsigmond Endre in the film. Naturally he calls it an alleged attempt of coup d’état, but what is more important is that he interrogates the interviewer whether she has heard anything about this events. The answer is but confused silence. It’s the second „big moment” of the film. The attentive audience sees evidence of the incompetence of the interviewer’s historical knowledge. This also becomes clear for the protagonist. Thus he can feel himself affirmed in his position of playing down facts. At first he carefully attributes the idea of refusing those Jews who make a request for exemption to his step-mother, that is, the second wife of his father. Later he self-confidently says that he still agrees with his father’s unaccomplished plan to start deportations with the Budapest Jews. It is historical fact that over this question Endre got in controversy with Eichmann, otherwise his personal friend. Eichmann was going to deport the Jews from the eastern regions of the country first. After the suspension of deportation, Endre couldn’t help mentioning repeatedly that they had better listened to him. This „personal turn” of the story is also missing from the film, which nevertheless it could invert the situation between interrogator and questionee, which can be described as an intention to blur facts and its approval on the other side. The audience could both understand Endre’s personality and interpret the real nature of his son’s intentions. Obviously, the questionee’s explanations of the actual state of these issues are left without reply. The true story of Endre’s dismissal is left obscured as well. He was given the sack by the Lakatos-Cabinet on Horthy’s demand among other things, who was the indignant would-be target of the attempted putsch. By way of compensation, the protagonist suggests that his father stepped down from power on his own free will. The questioner might avoid the events of the Arrow Cross Party because she may think (on the suggestion of the questionee perhaps, who starts to speak about his father’s evasion and later destiny) that Endre did not have any role in it. As a matter of fact Szálasi appointed him civilian-executive government-commissary of the military operational area. Endre showed his real face again performing the duties with his customary agility. For instance, he commanded an Arrow Cross raid personally on 10th December.

In this part of the film we learn a lot, earlier unknown details concerning the Endre family’s attempted getaway, László Endre’s arrest and the conditions of his captivity. These are the most thriving scenes of the film. We are offered original newsreel footage of the war criminals’ trials, but these have a very limited force to function as a real counterpoint in the film, because of their era-bound atmosphere. The film does not end with the story of László Endre’s execution, though the questionee visibly considers his performance accomplished. He closes the book, his collection of records in a speechless agitation. Having recalled the death of his father his soul-stirring gesture might be interpreted as intent of concluding. Yet, the director makes another unsuccessful attempt to bring him up face to face him with the past. Images of heaps of corpses in a crematory are supposed to introduce her endeavor. These images counterpoint the attitude of the questionee who brings to perfection his own created image by refusing to admit the existence of Auschwitz. He denies the exterminations and accuses the survivors with one-sidedness, falsification of history, indirectly calling them liars. We are exposed to the customary arguments of Auschwitz having been only a labour camp and not an extermination camp because Germany couldn’t be interested in destroying the profitable manpower, and so on. The inserted images striving after the neutralization of the „Auschwitz-Lüge” statements scarcely achieve what they were intended to. Let’s face it; this film is not just about anyone denying Auschwitz, but portrays a person whose father is individually and very factually responsible for the death of hundreds of thousand people, whose memory the son was continuously referring to.

Both the questioner and the questionee have left their viewers in uncertainty concerning the concrete and personal connections implied in the story. The director does not verbalize in a straight, definite manner what the protagonist strives to blur. A documentary is supposed to tackle the mission of revealing the facts even if it is meant to concentrate on the relationship between descendants and ancestors, especially in the case if the ancestor is one of the most evil-minded characters of 20th century Hungarian history. This way, the viewer can probably guess but cannot know for sure that the protagonist is lying from beginning to end. I don’t know why the film-maker refused to undertake the disclosure of facts and to bring the questionee face to face with his father’s past. As a long-standing historian and practicing history teacher on both the secondary and academic level, I precisely know that a significant part of contemporary audience has never before heard of László Endre. A long series of documentaries (for example Shoah by Claude Lanzmann or Two or three things I know about him by Malte Ludin or many others) have confirmed that the characters’ confrontation with reality does not turn the film into something didactic. It is rather a potential source of tension that enables the viewer to identify with the past and result in cathartic works of art. Well, Ágota Varga’s film reaches none of these heights. Having masked the facts the inquisitive viewer can only guess that s/he is being exposed to the concealment of truth. Moreover s/he will see that the son of a mass murderer can publicly deny the existence of Auschwitz in today’s Hungary. Neither the real impact of his lies, nor the lack of his personal authenticity is made clear by the film. For these reasons, it is highly problematic, that the jury of the documentary film section at the Hungarian Film Week in 2005 acknowledged the Descendants with the award for ’Best Direction’.

(Translated by Gábor Kis)