Why Konstantin" was shot; the Seagull “ in Moscow
the Riga theatre of Russian drama has shown Petera Stein to tour in Moscow on a scene of Theatre of a name of Vahtangova “ the Seagull “ directed by the well-known German director Petera Stein. Tells the NOVEL - DOLZHANSKY.
Display “ Seagulls “ the plot which has begun almost exactly fifteen years ago, in January, 1989 when the Moscow theatrical establishment was stunned from tour " literally has come to the end; Three sisters “ the Berlin theatre “ SHaubjune “ directed by Petera Stein. A thunder among the grey sky was then on scene MHATa German Chekhov - ansamblevyj, thin, difficult, volume, put widely and richly, but without platitudes and aspirations. Hungry Moscow has appointed then mister Stein Chekhov and Stanislavsky`s deputy on the earth. When a year or two from now it has brought German “ the Cherry garden “ him still idolised. In 90 - e the director has had time to amaze spectators Russian “ Oresteej “ and to disappoint with Russian “ Hamlet “. And if Italian “ Uncle Vanju “ in the middle of 90 - h theatrical Moscow met with hope of revelation, on “ the Seagull “ went almost as at parting with a legend. So go on a rendezvous where the point in long, mutually enriched, substantial, but the sputtered out novel will be put.
the director has kept itself from unpleasant minute, to Moscow has not arrived, having referred to absorption in new work. It and is correct: Peter Stein - the large, operating professional, instead of the sentimental pensioner. It and always approached to Chekhov very responsibly, without pathos, patiently and thoughtfully. In Riga “ to the Seagull “ this careful, personal work of the director on the text is visible. Mister Stein does not tease the great Russian playwright and does not fall before it on knees, it investigates it. It is possible not to doubt that each remark it twirled in a head and edak that each stage setting - a fruit of long studying of Chekhovian characters and situations. In “ to the Seagull “ Stein for certain is not present anything casual, play analysis is made strictly “ on school “ to each sight and each intonation there is a director`s explanation. The director in all leans against the text and on facts of life in offered circumstances. You will not carp. And that is not present in performance of revelations from which intercepts breath so cannot show similar claims professionals.
to the spectators who are not knowing the text “ Seagulls “ by heart, to see this performance it is easier and more interesting, than to critics. The last will - bondage are engaged only in that fresh trifles register, verifying them with one thousand and one “ the Seagull “ vidennoj before. It was, it was, it was... postojte - ka, and here Arkadina, having been frightened of Sorin`s faint, develops in a wardrobe trunk with the suits literally. Funny. Here Trigorin, a victim arkadinskoj jealousy, throws the well-known notebook to feet of the mistress. Hm, an interesting detail, it would be necessary to bring in a notebook of the critic. Treplev sits down to mum on knees, at once it is clear that it, in effect, still the big child. It will be remembered. Here one more place which was difficult for foreseeing: the attempt of suicide hidden by Chekhov between the second and third certificates, Treplev makes directly on a scene, in the face of spectators. Perhaps, this the sharpest and most disputable of the innovations offered by Stein.
one more - the huge screen in the heart of scenes (artist Ferdinand Vogerbauer). It that costs on the centre it is displaced to the right and to the left, showing nature pictures: magical lake in the first action, a landscape in the second, heavy storm clouds in the last. In effect, the decision, natural for expert Chekhov: Researchers of the writer have made many pages about influence of environment on Chekhovian heroes. Intrusion of plasma technics, however, has not affected a compounding of actor`s game, any new convention in performance has not brought. That traditions mean for it more than any innovations, Peter Stein, by the way, has proved too by means of the screen: in the beginning of the third certificate on it there was a huge photo from Chekhovian performance of old Art theatre.
having remembered about old MHATe, just right to sigh about actor`s ensemble. (Surprise from “ Three sisters “ and “ the Cherry garden “ than Stein that was stronger that there at all there were no roles through passage: show me a photo of those performances - I argue that all heroes I recognise by sight.) Style of direction “ Seagulls “ is not a performance problem, but there is that so far as as rough there is an embodiment. It is not necessary to explain that the traditional theatre should be presently destiny of the big actors. The Riga Russian drama - theatre well-known, with rich actor`s and director`s traditions. But even in this troupe mister Stein not “ has dissolved “ the play, it was necessary to invite the Moscow Varangians.
one of three invitations has been made for nothing. I can not believe that in Riga there was no actor whom Trigorina as colourlessly as it was made by Anatoly Lobotsky of our Theatre of a name of Mayakovsky would manage to play. Elena Starodub from theatre “ the Modernist style “ in “ to the Seagull “ just it is allocated to the best: petty and playful Arkadina confidently feels the taken place mistress of life. From the Riga actors it is more convincing than others look Yana Sekste in Masha and Leonid Lents`s role - Dorn. It those persons who for me personally at least will add gallery of physical embodiments of heroes of the play “ the Seagull “ instead of will be dissolved in it without a visible trace.
also there is only one actor`s person who will force out almost all “ gallery “ and for a long time now becomes the person of the character. He/she is the actor of the Moscow theatre of a name of Gogol Ivan Shibanov in a role of Trepleva. Stein has found In it of ideally sensitive partner for an embodiment of an essence of the direction. The actor and the director remain as though objective, without being fond concrete formulated “ the decision “ the hero. Whole it is weaved from natural, continuous particulars, from the thought over and checked up details which are giving rise to sensation of reliability and dramatic nature of character. Mister Shibanov very strongly spends the last scene - an explanation with Nina. He bravely and terribly plays the person on whom it is visible that it now over itself(himself) will make something. Not torments of lack of talent ruin it. Creativity for it is much cheaper than love. Having understood that it is unloved, Treplev is slowly compressed on a chair, hiding the face and extending downwards hands. It is sucked in precisely by a non-existence. And then it is necessary to tear only manuscripts and to fall down them under a table in one heap with already unnecessary books. The literature does not save from life.