Michael Shvydkoj: When - nibud and about operating politicians
plays will be written To day of death of Michael Shatrova Sjuzanna Ryodel, the German translator and the publisher of its plays, has reminded me that shortly before the leaving from life, in the beginning 2000 - h, Oleg Efremov supervising the Moscow Art theatre, has met with Tent, Michael Roschin and Alexander Gelman and has asked each of them to write the play for MKhAT. Efremov has addressed to a circle of the authors which defined socially - a political line of Art theatre in 70 - 80 - e years of the past, twentieth century, with hope that they will help its theatre to catch music new, twenty first, a century. Probably, it was agonal politeness of the great figure of Russian culture, whose theatrical searches always began the certificate of civil struggle for the right to live on conscience during unscrupulous time. And can be, he still hoped that these theatrical writers two of which were its co-authors still in “ the Contemporary “ developed during a time of Antistalin, Khruschev`s thaw 50 - 60 years, will help it to find semantic reference points in a Post-Soviet epoch. To the artist of furious public temperament to Efremovu it was close in space of the new naturalistic and surrealistic drama, only pretending to be a post - a post - vampilovskoj and a post - modernist. It did not find in it neither poetic depth, nor political scale and consequently after disintegration of Soviet Union put basically the Russian classics which helped it to understand both itself, and in world around. He felt that its theatre loses the major for art hudozhestvennikov public mission which to Efremovu was extraordinary expensive in creativity. But he understood as also that life in the country has changed considerably, and art painfully tries to find in it the new place. As well as he.
Efremov always seriously concerned theatre as to public institute, it by the nature was the public figure, and therefore and “ the Contemporary “ and MKhAT were for it the major tools of influence on political and moral life of Soviet Union, and then and Russia. As well as it is necessary to the present great artist, it considered art not as end in itself, but as the major way of dialogue with the world. Including with the people and the power. And at all new freedom he was tormented by that the theatre has ceased to carry out this major, most necessary mission. He knew that transformations to Russia always demand the educated tops. But the silent people to it too were not to liking. He trusted, as Thomas Eliot, in " spoke; privileges of a word of noble family “ in ability of art to resist to brutality of the world.
When - that has strongly got to me from a number of colleagues respected by me that I have dared to write that the performances of Efremova passed by the Soviet censorship, Ljubimova, Tovstonogova and Efros, as well as the prose of Aitmatov, Bitova, Trifonova or Vasilja Bykova, for development of domestic public life were not less, and can be and are more important, than leaving in itself - or “ tamizdate “ books of Solzhenitsyna, Maksimova or Saharova (both the first, and the second can continue lists). At least because access to these products resolved by the power had considerably bolshee quantity of the Soviet people. Yes, I too like to remember thought of Mandelshtama that there is nothing more disgusting, than the legal literature, no less than Albert Camus well-known words that the free press happens good and bad, and not free - always bad.
Only life is always more difficult than our ideal representations about it.
it is difficult to the People who were born twenty and even twenty five years ago, probably, to understand that meant “ leniniana “ Michael Shatrova for development of the Soviet society in 60 - 80 - e years of last century. But of us, that who comes from the disappeared empire, it is not necessary to explain to much that discussion between Leninism and stalinizmom, developed on a theatrical stage, was on the substance of the unique public form of reflexion of inner-party and public struggle which has begun in Soviet Union after Stalin`s death. Tents and Efremov, as well as many “ men of the sixties “ then all - taki believed that the true sense of revolution consisted in creation “ a socialism with a human face “ which has been perverted subsequently Stalin palachestvom. In struggle against totalitarian system which they conducted within the limits of this system, they protected themselves mifologizirovannym in the image Lenin, without doubting that game costs svech. One they knew, that it this game cost. But in it there was a present political, civil passion which gave rise to special art quality. They went on compromises for the sake of that to them seemed to the main things. In podtsenzurnyh conditions they struggled for the right of the Soviet person to live on - chelovecheski, adequately, on conscience. Not on lie.
the Historical dramatic art gave special scale of the discussion about destiny of the person in the XX-th century. About its past and the future. And though the Soviet theatre since twenty years` anniversary of October revolution, since 1937, mastered a Lenin theme, - Tents and Efremov have given it essentially new quality: and in “ Bolsheviks “ which have been put still in “ the Contemporary “ and in “ Further, further, further... “ on MKhAT scene. Historical characters became participants of modern political fights. Even more obvious it became in Mark Zaharova`s performances, Shatrova put under plays already during reorganisation time. In “ to conscience Dictatorship “ spectators became direct participants of performance, discussing together with characters from a series “ life of ardent revolutionaries “ everything, still recently forbidden, themes of life of the country. And during these instants it seemed that the political history has ethical sense. That the purpose never justifies means and with injust means is compromised once and for all. That the policy who is indissoluble with morals is possible. Also that conscience really should dictate any step of each statesman. In this starry-eyed idealism almost magic force which defines everyone on - to the present a great utopia has been put. But, as one of heroines Chekhovian " spoke; Three sisters “ “ life " is rough;.
the Policy has been forced out from a scene by direct transmissions from sessions of the Supreme body of the USSR, and then and republics separating from the imperial whole Supreme bodies, heat of newspaper and journal publicism, a sharpness a body - and radio programs. But all - taki the scene possesses special magic. When in the beginning of 1991 in Moscow tjuze we have arranged presentation of the London performance “ the Kremlin gold “ in which Houard Brenton and Tarik Ali have told about M.S.Gorbachev and B.N.Yeltsin`s conflict, having used receptions balladnoj operas, is has caused almost shock. And business was not in a political sharpness of the play - in newspapers and on television said much more bitingly - and in the fact of that modern political leaders before our eyes in a magic mirror of a scene turned to heroes of a historical drama. Such dramatic art does not get today, but it at all does not mean that it will not appear tomorrow.
it is not necessary to forget About it to operating politicians, after all when - nibud and about them plays will be written.