The Moscow premiere of the project “ the Garden “
On “ to the Scene under a roof “ Moscow Council Theatre two-day display of performance " has taken place; the Cherry garden “ A. P.Chekhov`s comedies in interpretation of Masterful individual direction. Statement - Boris Juhananov. Scenography - Yury Harikov.
the Project “ the Garden “ is present at the Moscow art life about five years, being periodically materialised in the form of performances, the exhibitions, open rehearsals and the working runs arranged for widely understood circle “ the “. Anyhow, spectators “ the Garden “ the good few of potential audience has had time to visit - other half is not less informed on it thanks to a rumour and the press. Already it is impossible to separate a myth about neunichtozhimom a Garden, grown up by authors from the text of the Chekhovian play, from a myth about the project “ the Garden “. Many have guessed for a long time, what exactly such way of realisation and is original life of the project. To it at all does not stir that the ideal of expensive and prestigious performance - the subscription in which chetyrehaktnaja the mystery about a cherry garden becomes only a part whole, continues to exist: the unrealizability it supports vivacity and experimental character of all intermediate variants.
for five last years the art environment adapted to “ to the Garden “ more successfully, than theatrical. But to accuse last too it is ridiculous: how many call in question stability of representations about kinds of arts, how many say a word “ the project “ instead of a word “ performance “ The situation of a theatrical premiere - and especially long-awaited Moscow - instantly deprives logic before - and a post - validity stories. The Moscow premiere was limited “ Anton Pavlovicha Chekhov`s comedy “ also it was represented two days, instead of seven. Ballet did not participate in performance, there were no television cameras and video screens, in a colour smoke laser projections did not shiver, the sound was not kvadrofonicheskim. voploshchennosti Yury Harikova`s all scenographic plans we could guess degree only though the magnificent and masterly executed suits (time and again already exhibited at exhibitions and the photoarts sung by masters) created the remote representation about perfection of the conceived. However we will risk to assert that performance nevertheless is not deprived completeness of the statement for its essence on 99 % reveals from scenic existence of those whom it is usually accepted to name actors.
in this point the fatal divergence of the project with modern culture begins. Ability of the qualified consumer of arts to judge art structure whole by an expressive fragment remains in performance not claimed. The way of existence of the text in system of the retellings, constituted in culture of last years as one of the main things ceases to work. Probably, five years ago it still was not so, but for expired years participants have made nothing to rectify situation. Besides performance is not equal anywhere to itself. In spite of the fact that the sense of action is defined by in detail worked internal outline, no strong protection from dezorientirujushchih the spectator of surprises exists.
to perceive game of pupils of Masterful individual direction hardly even if internal energy of performance behave highly. And it occurs no means always - so, the first certificate lasting more of two hours, has passed hard, rvano and is painful. And in other parts of the performance which has managed better, a lot of time has been taken away incessant, to empty repeating attempts to find required sense and action breath. Meanwhile Boris Juhananova`s direction as if tests actor`s ensemble up to the end: while the majority of skilled masters aspires to secure itself against a possible mismatch of actor`s game by accuracy of stage settings and proverennostju rhythms, Juhananov essentially does not resort to the professional insurance, trusting only to logic of analysis of the text, and it is even more - to what this logic responds in the actor.
director`s analysis of the play subjects the spectator, especially in case of the safe succession of events, to certain test - and first of all that spectator, to whom the Chekhovian text of roads the intonation. Epihodov, for example, submits a remark: “ whether I Go, I have a rest, whether I eat, about that people knowing can argue only... “ The accent in this tirade becomes not on a word “ knowing “ and on a word “ people “. The remark gets the strange, deformed melody. Meanwhile Epihodov speaks correctly: people, that is creatures of other breed, rather than " can argue; garden beings “ - as that he, Ranevskaya, Firs, Lopahin or other inhabitants neunichtozhimogo a mythological Garden.
the similar analysis has not laid aside any detail of the text “ the Cherry garden “ though, of course, in an action fabric analysis subtleties are realised not all. Naturally there is a question - why performance is played by the students trained to direction, instead of professional actors? Probably, because then “ the Garden “ would have absolutely other individual history which could not generate under roofs of Moscow neunichtozhimuju the Zone of happiness both its so unknown and fascinating archive. Or the project would not have at all any history. But we write about the prime minister of performance, instead of about the project, and from this point of view a main point - how much broadcast separate, presented to these two evenings on “ to the Scene under a roof “ a part, essence of the project as a whole?
a question especially sharp because this time chastely it was not offered to the spectator neither lectures, nor seminars with a concept statement, even an opening address. There was only a performance “ the Cherry garden “ which at all was not called as a mystery. And when in it, after long movement gropingly under the text there were art particles, it has been connected with how recouped in scenes “ the Cherry garden “ a myth about the garden existence, appeared more really many other myths. More really because actors, and the any passers-by who have added to a myth each destiny have embodied it not. They played performance about themselves and how for five years of life the project " became their unique destiny; the Garden “. On scenes have passed also its happiest moments (again - taki parts), and the most cruel (what usually find a way out in a hysterics behind side scenes). “ Now I will leave performance and life will gobble up me “ - Petja Trofimov has told, without wishing to finish performance. In reply to its remark the cheerful reprise has been played. Similar receptions, appear, sometimes turned to the dangerous game which almost was not really threatening to the project. But in it just rules of the project " also affect; the Garden “ and each future master of individual direction owns them excellent.
other question - whether is enough of it to prefer to its actor owning actor`s skill? We cannot answer this question unequivocally. But it is possible, the answer will find the long future of the project “ the Garden “ and those spectators who remain its adherents.
AUGUST - ROSENBERG