The three sisters on stage are very different, but all equally magnificent. Olga by Larisa Kuznetsova is nervous and lively, Masha by Yulia Vysotskaya is seductive and languid, and Irina played by Galina Bob is charming. Konchalovsky makes us fall in love with all three as a small island of nostalgia in a rapidly changing Russia. At the end of the performance it seems that almost nothing has changed, but in fact the changes are very significant.
<...>
Sometimes the subtitles do not keep up with the action on stage, but this gives the connoisseur the opportunity to enjoy the music of the original language.
The performance of Natalia Vdovina, who plays the greedy unfaithful daughter-in-law of the Prozorovs, should be recognized as outstanding. She can give a head start in vulgarity to any oligarch's wife, with each scene she gains more and more power and control over the estate, keeping her husband in line, while misfortunes gradually destroy the noble sisters.
It is also impossible not to mention Alexander Domogarov in the role of Vershinin, the object of the Machine of Passion. With an aristocratic tone and effeminate manners, he embodied the philosophizing fool impeccably.
The Wall Street Journal
In both productions, Yulia Vysotskaya quietly shocks the viewer as the girlishly in love but ultimately tormented Sonya, and as Masha with her noticeably unstable temperament.
whatsonstage.com
Epilogue. It shocks you to the point of shock. A backhand blow, in the gut, as Konchalovsky himself once put it about his impressions of the films “The Cranes Are Flying” and “Ashes and Diamonds.”
The epilogue is a murderously merciless response to Olga’s timid hope and desire: “If only I knew...” So know! And be horrified!
But this is also a response to the viewer! We receive in response to our blind historical “experiments” either hellfire in the finale of “Sibirada”, or rat aggression in “The Nutcracker”, or a crypt for “white” Russia in “Sisters”. The director persistently, again and again, returns us to the seed from which the historical and cultural catastrophe of the nation sprouted: “Know! Be horrified at yourself!”
Victor Filimonov
Konchalovsky is not only a legendary film director, but, judging by his productions currently running in London, he is also an excellent theater director. Productions of “Uncle Vanya” and “Three Sisters” by Chekhov are masterful and deep readings of masterpieces...
The three sisters are Olga, who, played by Larisa Kuznetsova, looks almost like Giulietta Masina in Fellini’s “The Road”; brilliant and beautiful Yulia Vysotskaya in the role of Masha, full of erotic tension; and the emotional Galina Bob as young Irina, who makes a convincing journey from idealistic romanticism to an almost Jane-Austinian acceptance of the need to get married.
This production manages to be both simple and profound; Each member of the troupe is imbued with an almost tangible sense of their own character.
And in their ordinariness, by the end of the play, the characters rise to the level of tragedy, tragic awareness and the level of quasi-mystical understanding of the human destiny.
If this good example The extent to which this troupe is devoted to the text that it undertakes to play, and how detailed it interprets it, is enough to make me, like three sisters, passionately want to go to Moscow - if only to see more productions of the Moscow Academic Theater state theater Mossovet.
“The funny old maid Olga funny carries her cross for the whole family. And it is she who, in the finale, pushing aside the sliding doors, will shout into the collapsing darkness: “If only I had known!” This is how they shout in front of the pit, just before disaster...
Here loving woman— Masha, artist Yulia Vysotskaya. She is interesting, but without pretentiousness, speaks simply and even in a rustic manner. Behind the restrained simplicity of the game there is a great feeling that will never find a way out. Maybe that's why she's coughing? However, this allusion to Chekhov’s diagnosis seemed like a bit of a stretch...
Whether Andron Konchalovsky wanted it or not, his performance turned out like a movie. Life, devoid of stage performances, life as it is. And when it was or wasn’t - what difference does it make..."
“..it looks good only because all the artists are playing to rupture the aorta. As if it were theirs last role. The role on which life in the profession depends.”
“And “according to Konchalovsky”, everything in this performance is like in life - eternal discrepancies, dislike, misfortune...”
Moscow, “Your Leisure” magazine, Natalya Vitvitskaya, 12/06/2012
“The performance is not boring (for me this is the main thing!). Andrey Sergeevich came up with a lot of things, including the mannered grappling Vershinin-Domogarov. I have never seen such Vershinins anywhere before. And the director also came up with the idea of showing a video of an interview with the actors between changes of scenery: Konchalovsky asks what Chekhov means to them and what shortcomings their characters have. The actors answer - some are serious, while others are openly joking. The audience is having fun... The costumes were designed by Rustam Khamdamov, the director did the scenography himself.”
Moscow, Afisha.ru, Vlad Vasyukhin
“On his birthday, Andron Konchalovsky gave himself a gift: that evening he went not to a restaurant, but to the theater, to his own premiere, “Three Sisters.” He went on stage and announced to the audience: “You are my gift...”
Moscow, newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets", Marina Raikina, 10/30/2012
“..As a fan of the classics and a famous artist, he is drawn to the abstract-traditional Chekhov, but as a sarcastic and unkind pragmatist, he is looking for where to insert a pin into the classics...”
Moscow, Kommersant newspaper, Roman Dolzhansky, 10/29/2012
“What's going on in the house? Life happens: name days are celebrated, declarations of love are made, men give up or suffer without explanation.
Konchalovsky, who himself grew up in a House with a capital “H” (his grandfather is the artist Konchalovsky, his mother is an amazing writer, his father is you know who), in a House with traditions. And therefore the concept of “Home” is very important for him: as a basis, as his own land. But he does not build a monument to him, as Lev Dodin did in his “Three Sisters,” but left him alive. Hence a certain untidyness, a certain vanity and confusion. At the same time they talk, argue, laugh or sing behind the scenes, that is, behind the scenes.”
Moscow, newspaper "Moskovsky Komsomolets", Marina Raikina, 10/30/2012
"The theater viewer, who has seen all kinds of "sisters", is given
a story whose characters, like puzzles, fit together into a single whole. It’s very rare, by the way: usually directors promote this or that line, emphasize this or that character, and place their own (not always justified) accents.”
“Konchalovsky, falling into the “heresy” of the moment, manages to follow the intonation of Anton Pavlovich. Chekhov continues to live and sound in the play even during pauses. Working on the scenography of the transition from one scene to another, the director elegantly synthesized the possibilities modern theater and cinema.
It transfers the audience's attention from the stage to a huge screen, on which the actors, already without costumes and makeup, answer a voice-over question about what Chekhov means to each of them.
Moscow, newspaper "Moskovskaya Pravda", 12/16/2012
“Konchalovsky’s performances are ironic and tender at the same time, and devoid of pathos.”
St. Petersburg, bileter.ru
“As in Uncle Vanya, Konchalovsky in the new performance deliberately breaks up each picture by returning the viewer to a modern, non-theatrical “reality”, which, according to his plan, should give the viewer the opportunity to again plunge into Chekhov’s world upon the resumption of action.
Andrei Konchalovsky perceives the play “Three Sisters” as a polyphonic symphony with several main themes, as well as leitmotifs, and assigns himself the place of conductor, interpreter of the great work. The performance features a brilliant “orchestra” of performing actors: Alexander Domogarov, Yulia Vysotskaya, Pavel Derevyanko, Natalia Vdovina, Irina Kartasheva, Alexander Bobrovsky, Larisa Kuznetsova, Galina Bob, Vitaly Kishchenko, Anatoly Grishin, Vladas Bagdonas. By creating a complex stage polyphony, they force the audience to take a fresh look at long-familiar characters and experience their tragedies with them in a new way.”
St. Petersburg, Kassir.ru
Andrei Sergeevich Konchalovsky is wonderful! Without unnecessary pathos, I will note that it seems that he brought to life the quote from his beloved Chekhov: “Everything in a person should be beautiful: his face, his clothes, his soul, and his thoughts.”
Riga, LifeNews, Andrey Shavrey
The eroticism of Konchalovsky's performance is, in fact, anti-eroticism. Because in the conditions in which the action of the play unfolds (year of writing - 1900) and which the director emphasizes in the prologue and epilogue, no impregnation of these women by these men is possible. As I already said, they life cycle exhausted. It is not for nothing that the director reminded Domogarov, who was surprised by the proposed interpretation of his role (Vershinin), that the hour was not far when all of them (officers of the future White Army) would be shot. They have no family, home future. They cannot become fathers. They and the women fussing childishly around them are doomed to infertility...
Victor Filimonov
“...I looked at the Chekhov trinity, in Konchalovsky’s interpretation, as a certain being united in its existence.
This creature is a Woman in three age forms. In this interpretation of the image, I think, there is a lot from the intention of Chekhov himself. In the play, three age-related hypostases are presented not in the abstraction of a symbol, but as three very specific, three-dimensional figures in specific socio-historical, cultural and psychological conditions, experienced by the playwright - with a special power of concentration of feelings towards the end of his own life..."
Victor Filimonov
“The slight bewilderment of the audience, expecting to see something familiar and “classical,” turns into obvious misunderstanding when Vershinin (Alexander Domogarov) appears on stage. Yes, habit is second nature, so even I expected to see the appearance of a Hero and a Real Man, and what can we say about Domogarov’s many fans! But... A man in military uniform, with a funny, almost cartoonish cavalry mustache, slicked hair and a monocle, came onto the stage. Hero, you can’t say anything!..”
“I didn’t know that Vershinin could be a comic character, just as I didn’t know that Alexander Domogarov was also talented as a comic actor. For these discoveries, my personal thanks to the director.”
Chekhov created his own theater, with his own dramatic language, which was not immediately understood by the writer’s contemporaries. To many, his plays seemed clumsily made, not stage-like, drawn out, with chaotic dialogues, lack of action, vagueness of the author’s intention, etc. M. Gorky, for example, wrote not without benevolent irony about “The Cherry Orchard”: “Of course it’s beautiful, and - of course - from the stage it will waft green melancholy onto the audience. I don’t know what the melancholy is about.” Chekhov created a “theater of moods,” hints, halftones, with its famous “undercurrent” (V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko), anticipating in many ways the theatrical quest of the twentieth century.
Chekhov's plays can be better understood by turning to their poetics, that is, to the author's method of depicting life in dramatic work. Without this, the works will seem monotonous, overloaded with many “extra” details (superfluous from the point of view of traditional pre-Chekhov theatrical aesthetics).
Features of the chronotope. Chekhov expanded the chronotope (time and space) of classical Russian literature of the 19th century century, which can be called patriarchal: in the center of the works Russian classics there was, first of all, a noble estate, Russia was noble and peasant, and he introduced the urban man with his urban worldview into literature. Chekhov's chronotope- this is a chronotope big city. And this does not mean geography, not social status, but the sensations and psychology of an “urban” person. Even M. M. Bakhtin noted that “a provincial town with its musty way of life is an extremely common place for novel events to take place in the 19th century.” In such a chronotope - closed and homogeneous - meetings, recognitions, dialogues, understandings and misunderstandings, partings of the characters inhabiting it take place. “In the world of Russian classics of the “pre-Chekhov” period, in principle, “everyone knows everyone,” everyone can enter into dialogue with each other. The epic, “village” image of the world in Chekhov’s work is replaced by the chronotope of the “big city,” because openness and heterogeneity, the discrepancy between the geographical space and the psychological field of communication are signs of an urban society.” Chekhov's characters are familiar strangers, they live nearby, together, but they live “in parallel”, each is closed in his own world. This chronotope and a new sense of man determined the poetics of Chekhov's drama, the features of conflicts, the nature of dialogues and monologues, and the behavior of characters.
At first glance, the “urban” chronotope (with its disunity of people) is contradicted by the fact that the action of most of Chekhov’s plays takes place in landowner's estate. There are several possible explanations for this localization of the scene:
In any dramatic work (this is its generic property), the place of action is limited, and this was expressed most clearly, as we know, in the aesthetics of classicism with its rules of three unities (place, time, action). In Chekhov's estate, the estate, due to the enclosed space, limits the actual plot-event side of the play, and the action in this case goes into the psychological plane, which is the essence of the work. Localization of the scene provides more opportunities for psychological analysis;
In a large, complex and indifferent world, “people seem to be driven into their last refuges, where, it seems, they can still hide from the pressure of the surrounding world: in their own estates, houses, apartments, where you can still be yourself.” But they also fail to do this, and in the estates the heroes are divided: they are not able to overcome the parallelism of existence; a new worldview - the urban chronotope - embraced both estates and estates;
The estate as a setting allows Chekhov to include pictures of nature and landscape into the dramatic action, which was so dear to the author. The lyrical beginning, introduced by natural scenes and motifs, sets off the illogicality of the existence of the heroes of the plays.
Features of the conflict. Chekhov developed a special concept for depicting life and man - fundamentally everyday, “non-heroic”: “Let everything on stage be as complex and at the same time as simple as in life. People have lunch, they only have lunch, and at this time their happiness is formed and their lives are shattered.” Traditional pre-Chekhov drama is characterized, first of all, by an event that disrupts the traditional course of life: a clash of passions, polar forces, and in these clashes the characters’ characters were more fully revealed (for example, in “The Thunderstorm” by A. N. Ostrovsky). In Chekhov's plays there are no acute conflicts, clashes, or struggles. It seems like nothing is happening in them. The episodes are filled with ordinary, even unrelated conversations, trifles of everyday life, and insignificant details. As stated in the play “Uncle Vanya”, the world will perish not from “loud” events, “not from robbers, not from fires, but from hatred, enmity, from all these petty squabbles...”. Chekhov's works do not move from event to event (we do not have the opportunity to follow the development of the plot - due to the lack of one), but rather from mood to mood. Plays are built not on opposition, but on unity, the commonality of all characters - unity in the face of the general disorder of life. A.P. Skaftymov wrote about the peculiarities of the conflict in Chekhov’s plays: “There are no guilty ones, therefore, there are no direct opponents. There are no direct opponents, there is no and cannot be a struggle. The culprit is a combination of circumstances that seem to be outside the sphere of influence of these people. The sad situation develops beyond their will, and suffering comes by itself.”
Polyphony, multiple characters. In Chekhov's plays there is no end-to-end action and main character. But the play does not fall apart into separate episodes and does not lose its integrity. The destinies of the heroes echo and merge in a common “orchestral” sound. Therefore, they often talk about the polyphony of Chekhov's drama.
Features of the image of characters. In classical drama, the hero reveals himself in actions and actions aimed at achieving a specific goal. Therefore, delaying the action turned into an anti-artistic fact. Chekhov's characters are revealed not in the struggle to achieve goals, but in self-characteristic monologues, in experiencing the contradictions of life. The characters' characters are not sharply defined (unlike classical drama), but blurred and vague; they exclude the division into “positive” and “negative”. Chekhov leaves much to the reader’s imagination, giving only basic guidelines in the text. For example, Petya Trofimov in The Cherry Orchard represents the younger generation, a new, young Russia, and for this reason alone it seems there should be positive hero. But in the play he is both a “prophet of the future” and at the same time a “shabby gentleman”, a “klutz”.
The characters in Chekhov's dramas lack mutual understanding. This is expressed in dialogues: the characters listen, but do not hear each other. An atmosphere of deafness reigns in Chekhov's plays - psychological deafness. With mutual interest and goodwill Chekhov's characters They just can’t get through to each other (a classic example of this is the lonely, useless and forgotten old servant Firs from “The Cherry Orchard”), they are too absorbed in themselves, their own affairs, troubles and failures. But their personal disorder and ill-being are only part of the general disharmony of the world. There are no Chekhov plays happy people: all of them, to one degree or another, turn out to be losers, striving to break out of the boundaries of a boring, meaningless life. Epikhodov with his misfortunes (“twenty-two misfortunes”) in “The Cherry Orchard” is the personification of the general discord in life from which all the heroes suffer. Each of the plays (“Ivanov”, “The Seagull”, “Uncle Vanya”, “ Cherry Orchard") is perceived today as a page in a sad story about the tragedy of the Russian intelligentsia. The action of Chekhov's dramas usually takes place in noble estates middle zone Russia.
Author's position. In Chekhov's plays, the author's position is not manifested openly and clearly; it is embedded in the works and is derived from their content. Chekhov said that an artist must be objective in his work: “The more objective, the stronger the impression.” These words, spoken by the playwright in connection with the play “Ivanov,” apply to his other works: “I wanted to be original,” he wrote to his brother, “I did not bring out a single villain, not a single angel (although I was unable to refrain from making jokes), no one did not accuse, did not acquit anyone.”
The role of subtext. In Chekhov's plays the role of intrigue and action is weakened. Plot tension has been replaced by psychological and emotional tension, expressed in “random” remarks, broken dialogues, pauses (the famous Chekhov pauses, during which the characters seem to listen to something more important than what they are experiencing in at the moment). All this creates a psychological subtext, which is the most important integral part performance.
The language of Chekhov's plays is symbolic, poetic, melodic, and polysemantic. This is necessary to create a general mood, a general sense of subtext: in Chekhov’s plays, cues and words, in addition to direct meanings, are enriched with additional contextual meanings and meanings (the call of the three sisters in the play “Three Sisters” “To Moscow! To Moscow!” is a desire to escape beyond the outlined circle of life). These plays are designed for a sophisticated, prepared viewer. “The public and actors need an intelligent theater,” Chekhov believed, and such a theater was created by him. Innovative theatrical language of A.P. Chekhov is a more subtle tool for understanding, depicting a person, the world of his feelings, the subtlest, elusive movements of the human soul.
This year the program theater festival“Baltic House” included two Chekhov performances - “Three Sisters” by the State Maly Theater from Vilnius and “Uncle Vanya” from Antwerp. However, the second, directed by Luc Perceval, is indirectly related to Chekhov. Last year, the same Perceval showed his version of Othello in St. Petersburg. The actors used mostly obscene language, but if you turn off your headphones and just watch, then Shakespeare’s tragedy was still being played out on stage. This time the headphones were replaced with a ticker, which is difficult to switch off from. And the text turned out to be shoveled in the same way.
Luc Percival explains: “For me, Chekhov is immortal because when you read him, it seems every time that you are familiar with all his heroes. What is it - your neighbor, cousin, brother, father, sister and so on. This is what makes Chekhov universal. For me he is a theatrical Saint. And it is a great honor for me to present his play in Russia. But we ourselves live in a very small country - Belgium, even in one part of it - in Flanders. And Flanders is like Berlin, that is, a very small country. And when we decided to play Chekhov, we discovered that the translations of his plays dated back to the mid-20th century, around the 1950s. Moreover, most of these translations were made not by Flemish, but by Dutch authors. It's a different language. And it turned out that an ordinary modern Flemish, whether he is a city or a rural resident, will not express himself in such language. And we didn’t want to pronounce a text that we ourselves and our viewers thought was false. Then I asked the actors to adapt the text to the language of the area in which each of them grew up. So we're playing a very Flemish Chekhov. However, a pleasant surprise for me was that this typically Flemish microcosm has been touring the world for four years now and is universally accepted by everyone. For this we thank the wonderful and great talent of the author, whose name is Anton Pavlovich Chekhov.”
It is unlikely that Anton Pavlovich, if he had such an opportunity, would have expressed reciprocal gratitude to the director. I doubt I would have appreciated the obscene language spewed out by Astrov and Voinitsky. Here we need to make a reservation: there is no swearing in the Flemish language, but our translators did their best. Where it was possible to get by with the word “ass”, they, of course, used another, more rude one; where they could say “goat”, they used more radical expressions. I mean, part Chekhov's play was rewritten in this way, and part of it simply flew out of the performance. The text is played without any subtext, just straight forward. What is complex, strange, ambiguous in Chekhov’s works is weighty, rough and visible here - but not like a water supply, but like a sewer. It is perceived as a primitive comic book or an adaptation of a classic for difficult-to-educate teenagers. Moreover, after SUCH adaptation, their chances of correction will be less than before. All this is reminiscent of “Old Songs about the Main Thing”: people who themselves are not able to squeeze out any decent lyrics take someone else’s and remake them. It also looks like an old-time pastime for young people: you take a song and add obscene or meaningless words to it. For example, like this: “You and I - tra-ta-ta - contrary to our hearts, you and I - tra-ta-ta - at the same river.” I will quote an article by my colleague Alexander Sokoloyansky. It is not about “Uncle Vanya”, but about the premiere of the Sovremennik Theater - called “Antony and Cleopatra”, directed by Kirill Serebrennikov. He immediately grasps all the latest trends and transfers them into his performances immediately. He also translated Shakespeare into the language of his native cudgels. I quote: “It is quite difficult to understand the goals with which the director and his co-author rewrote Shakespeare... Please understand correctly, I have no doubt about the theater’s right to adapt classical works the way he needs. For the first acquaintance with a foreign culture, this is a necessary stage, and today for most people on both sides of the ramp, any classical culture that values the word is foreign. Making the classics readable is a depressingly pressing cultural task: I am not sure, however, that Serebrennikov and Bogaev set this goal for themselves, stuffing the text with homemade inserts in a low genre. I believe that the director was simply going for effect. After all, the public should be inspired if Cleopatra, to please Caesar, begins to curse Antony: a creature, a bastard, a stinking old man...” God forbid I confuse Luke Percival with Serebrennikov, but here they are purely rivals. Now let's return to "Uncle Vanya". And let’s imagine that there is no ticker, we don’t understand the text. And what will we see? The huge stage of the Baltic House is narrowed by curtains, the color and pattern reminiscent of the wallpaper of an ancient house. The boards are laid out on the floor in waves, so one leg of the actors stands a little higher, the other a little lower. This creates a feeling of unsteady balance and makes movements awkward and funny. However, they will begin to move about 10 minutes after the start of the performance. Until then, everyone will sit silently in their own chair. You can look at them and try to guess who is who. This old lady, constantly muttering something, with her feet shoulder-width apart with her toes pointing inward, is the nanny. This cute fat guy is Waffle. Lady in heels in a tight dress - Elena Andreevna. A huge, rude, gray-haired man - Voinitsky. This completely drunk gentleman, having difficulty holding himself in his chair, is Doctor Astrov. And the young lady, reminiscent of Alisa Freindlich in the first part of the film “ Office romance" - Sonya. People sitting in front of you for a tiresomely long time are, to put it mildly, ugly. But the soundtrack includes arias from classical operas. For contrast, apparently. A terribly primitive, formulaic technique.
In the background beautiful music people behave ugly, and the scenes of the play resemble the performances of the Miniature Theater, but not the one in which Arkady Raikin played, but the one that average variety actors are capable of. Their Belgian colleagues create caricatured types, use one or two techniques, make comics, provoking the audience to laugh joyfully. The jokes are all below the belt. Either Serebryakov, while dancing with his wife, will put his hand on her buttocks, then Voinitsky will try to repeat his gesture, then Astrov will begin to vomit out of himself for a long time and diligently, and precisely at the moment when Sonya almost decides to confess her love for him. In this, so to speak, “Uncle Vanya” there is one excellently resolved scene - the almost silent explanation-dance of Elena Andreevna and Sonya. She testifies: you can’t deny Luke Percival’s talent. So this is even worse. It’s a shame to waste professionalism and talent on stupidity, or rather, on pure opportunism.
Once upon a time there was no theater. There was a booth. What the Belgian celebrity is now offering is also a farce, but not for ordinary people, but for jaded intellectuals who constantly whine that they are tired of Chekhov. If you're tired, don't bet, don't play, don't watch.
"Three Sisters" by Rimas Tuminas
And if you still have strength left, you are welcome to “Three Sisters” by Rimas Tuminas. He doesn’t need any special performances; his plays “Playing Schiller” and “The Government Inspector” are staged in Moscow theaters, and his productions in Lithuania adorn the poster of the Baltic House from year to year, after which they are usually shown in Moscow. “Three Sisters” opened last year at the Vilnius State Maly Theater. Imagine, no one rewrote the play, didn’t even shorten it, didn’t impose concepts and scandalous interpretations on Chekhov, so what? The audience is delighted, and so are the critics.
Moscow News columnist Nina Agisheva believes that Tuminas main topic- heartbreaking everyday life: “When the tragedy of life suddenly becomes obvious in the most innocent everyday situations. And it is not just obvious - it screams, cries, it scratches and turns the soul over. And I sat throughout the performance and solved a riddle that I solve every time and cannot solve when I watch “Three Sisters.” What prevents them from being happy? Buy a ticket and go to Moscow, Masha leave Kulygin? At a good performance, you always begin to play out these situations and begin to answer for yourself why this is impossible, for some internal, very Russian reasons. For me, this is a play about Irina. Because she actively resists the tragedy of everyday life. She is trying to theatricalize this life, she is trying to change it. For me, there is another theme here, very Chekhovian - the predetermination of events, the course of fate, fate, if you like. Which very rarely occurs in Chekhov's productions. They are always made more chamber, more lyrical. And here, in my opinion, it’s almost an ancient approach. But here Tuminas’ unique, figurative and metaphorical gift is superimposed in an unusually interesting way on a play so familiar to all of us.”
Professor of theater studies Nina Kiraly (Hungary) loves Tuminas very much: “It seems to me that he has an extraordinary sense of harmony, a sense of composition and a sense of rhythm that is necessary for every theater director, a sense of plastic design that is created by sound, gesture, his situation, his position in the general mise-en-scène. Jan Kott once said about theater, Tadeusz Kantor, that it is a theater of essence. For me, this performance seems to be a performance of Chekhov’s essence, existence and essence at the same time. The performance takes place on three levels. This is a mystery performance. Natasha is on the lower level. The sisters are on the level everyday life, and above them an inverted fence or balcony or attic - this is their lost security, turned upside down, which they once had in their childhood. It hangs above them as a reminder. The beginning, the origin of this performance is a game, a theatrical game, because everyone is playing. The military hides their feelings. They cannot show their sincere attitude. The sisters play because they, too, would not like to admit that they are left alone. And this game between them, hiding their feelings, which, at certain moments, seem to break through, and then it turns out that moment when he touches the living. I always had the feeling that there was no other way to show it.”
Nina Kiraly is supported by a professor at the St. Petersburg Academy theatrical arts Elena Gorfunkel: “Here Chekhov is himself, here Chekhov is so traditional that the thought of any rethinking of any of the images does not occur to me. And for Tuminas this is not important, but what is important is lightness and clarity, the presence of air that exists in each of his performances. And the presence of theatrical acting is the enjoyment of theatrical acting, which is characteristic not only of him, but of his characters. It is true that here is the Chekhovian theme of the emergence of the tragic from the most trifles, but this theme, also absolutely traditional, it theatrically becomes unusually expressive, thanks to the director’s imagination. Well, let's say one of the most powerful images I've ever created. lately I saw in the theater, this is Irina, who begins to spin in time with the top and then, just like the top, she falls on her side. This parallel between a toy and a person is, of course, remarkable. The desire to do nothing is also a Chekhovian theme, especially acute in The Cherry Orchard. It appears here too. Nobody wants to do anything. Therefore, they do not want to lift a finger, just as Ranevskaya did not want to lift a hand, to deprive themselves of this feeling of this endless hopelessness that they have, and serenity. And always relax, and always play. And there are quite a few moments in this performance when you feel that the director’s imagination adds to what we know about the traditional Chekhov, incredible in its amazing transparency, clarity, and rhythmic overtones. Tuminas found a constant tone of irony, mockery, mixed with an internal feeling of anxiety. And here I have only one association, a very old one. This is an association with the play “Three Sisters” by Anatoly Vasilyevich Efros. Yes, laughing like this and dying before your eyes, dancing like this, spinning like this was only possible in this amazing, one of the best of all time. Soviet history, performances. I don’t know if Tuminas has seen or read this performance. It doesn't matter. But, I must say, he made a performance that is part of this line of the best Russian Chekhov, and this, of course, is a wonderful achievement.”
I, like my colleagues, are delighted with the work of Tuminas and his actors. Sometimes you think that theater moves in two ways. Some play with form and give the viewer aesthetic pleasure. Others explore human experiences, they are moral and emotional, but completely formless. That is, directors either mold the form, emasculating human feelings from it, or are focused on emotions, but do not care about the form. “Three Sisters” by Rimas Tuminas is a rare example of theater in which one thing does not oppose the other. The thoughts and moods of Chekhov's play are embedded in an extremely conventional, bright theatrical form. Whenever you see a good Chekhov performance, you think: how many times can one person, who has memorized the text by heart, cry over it? You know in advance that these words will now be spoken and that everything will be this way and not otherwise. But this knowledge in advance only intensifies the experience. And every time good performance brings something new to a familiar play. Lines that seemed unimportant in other productions suddenly become significant. Let's say I didn't pay before special attention that the mother of three sisters is buried in Moscow. But this is important! Olga, Irina and Masha not only do not go to Moscow, they - girls from a good family - do not visit their mother’s grave. Perhaps that is why the artist Adomas Jacovskis hung a cemetery fence above the stage, above the heads of the actors. An eternal reminder, an eternal reproach. In “Three Sisters” by Rimas Tuminas, all the characters are constantly playing something. There is a platform built on the stage, first it is covered with multi-colored carpets, then with white cloth, then - towards the end - with black. Almost all the action takes place on this elevation, which is also reflected in a huge mirror. First, Irina appears (played by Elżbieta Latėnaitė), she tries on a top hat, puts on her father’s boots, picks up a whip and transforms into a horsewoman. A little later, she will imitate a theatrical prompter, suggesting cues to her partners, and will present a wonderful plastic sketch to the audience, translating all the words of her partners into sign language. Andrey comes out - with a plump tummy, in a velvet jacket and, it seems, an adult man will now stand on a stool like a toddler and delight the guests with his art. Then he will bring a toy cut out of wood: a bear and a man. In his hands the hammer blows are slow, quiet, but in Vershinin’s hands the man with the bear is knocking out drum roll. Demonstratively, her husband, Kulygin, will tell the public about his love for Masha. And very theatrically Natasha will marry Andrei. Chekhov does not foresee such a scene; he has Andrei propose to Natasha, and again we meet them when they are married and have children. But in the play, immediately after the love explanation, everything characters line up on the podium, bells ring, Natasha in white wedding dress, a minute later she turns to the audience - and she already has a big belly, and after another minute - there is no belly, but the nanny is running somewhere with the child in her arms.
All characters theatricalize their lives. Doctor Chebutykin organizes war game. In the club where he and Andrei play cards, he gathers a funny regiment of young military men, puts tricorn pillows on their heads and arranges a fun battle. At the same time, he covers his eye with a black bandage and all together looks as if Kutuzov was commanding the French. In a minute, the pillows will turn into snowdrifts, and then they will fashion a snowman out of them, light candles on his head and drag him somewhere on a sled. As you remember, according to Chekhov, a fire breaks out in the city. From Tuminas's performance it is clear who started the fire. We started playing in the literal and figurative meaning of the word. And even now, when it is necessary to collect things for fire victims, the heroes prefer to rehearse a charity concert. They sing Masne’s “Elegy” and for a long time do not notice Fedotik running around shouting “Everything is burned out for me.” Fedotik, who looks like Denis Davydov, with the appropriate hairstyle and sideburns, is still trying to complete the role of a hussar, joker and merry fellow, but faints. The game is over. Life defeated the theater in a well-known way.
The theme of “Three Sisters,” once defined by Nemirovich-Danchenko, as “longing for better life” sounds in this performance, but here the dream grows to such proportions that it obscures and replaces reality. People don’t seem to live, but only wait real life, which does not exist and will not exist. They try to win, to color everything gray and bland, but nothing works. As Chebutykin says: “We do not exist, it only seems to us that we exist.” It is he who finishes a cup of coffee, which Tuzenbach, who was killed in a duel, will no longer need.
What is it Chekhov dramas? What dreams do the three sisters have? Are these ladies raving about Moscow?.. From the poetic heritage of the greatest hymnist of all times and peoples . Three sisters live: Bibka, Tsipka and Ivetka. Very different. The eldest, Bibka, although smart, as we are told, is, as expected according to psychologists’ statistics, somewhat naive, complacent, trusting and optimistic. The middle one - Tsipka, always second - is jealous and critical of the eldest, a bully at the throat, although, in other respects, she differs little from her in character. The youngest, in childhood, was noticed in hooligan antics: she would fight with someone, or threaten others. But what united them were dreams of a large distant city in the kingdom of Uncle Vanya: “To Moscow, to Moscow!” - this is the eternal refrain of the sisters. Although, Uncle Vanya didn’t like his sisters, it was the way it had been in their family for centuries, he was raised like this from an early age. But he observed politeness - he didn’t spread any nasty things about the sisters personally, but greeted them in a friendly manner and gave farewell words. Although his heart always lay with boys, hero boys, usually named Mahmudka. And so, it somehow happened that those boy-heroes, Makhmud-Gazavat, very inquisitive, learned to extract high-energy products from chemical fertilizers and, out of the goodness of their hearts, decided to supply the Tsipka lands with them. Very convenient - chemical fertilizers were delivered to the plantations in a few seconds and self-sprayed there using the dispersed explosion method. Good method, progressive! It has already been taken into account by the Committee on Nobel Prizes in the area agriculture , asking only the inventors to work on increasing the delivery range of fertilizers and better spraying before awarding the prize. And in Tsipka’s possessions, an impatient, stiff-necked people lived and thrived. And he didn’t like the fact that chemical fertilizers were delivered without an agreed schedule - some fields were under-fertilized, while others, on the contrary, were over-fertilized. And, besides, safety precautions require some preparation of fields for the self-spraying process. And the Makhmudkas are making this delivery anywhere and anyhow... In short, over time, the Zhestovy residents began to openly express dissatisfaction with the delivery of fertilizers. But the heroic boys don’t give a damn about that - they fertilize themselves, and fertilize them! And Tsipka, it must be said, was then included in all the Big Houses of Europe, America and even some in Asia. And she turned to Uncle Sam, Uncle Vanya and other Big Uncles, even to the Pharaoh himself, with a request to help calm down the energy of the heroes. But the uncles answered evasively: “If the lands are yours, then sort it out yourself! Otherwise, the boys tell us, the lands are theirs, and therefore they do whatever they want there! Sovereigns!” Uncle Vanya, between those conversations, tossed and tossed transports of chemical fertilizers to the Mahmud women: “I sell my fertilizers to whoever I want!” And the delivery campaign was promoted with renewed vigor. The Zhestovy people howled... Ehud gathered, which means “unity” in the Zhestovy language, Tsipka was also brought in and decided to show the heroic boys the Image of Kuzka’s Mother. Uncle Vanya, beloved by his sisters, had this kind of relative; he himself loved to show her off to his neighbors. And they demonstrated it slightly. Only the heroic boys of the Mahmud-Gazavat sent their girls and mothers against Kuzkina’s Mother. And they heroically hid behind them. And they shouted to the whole world that it was wrong for them, that they were showing Kuzka’s Mother dishonestly. Uncle Vanya heard that the Zhestovyans were showing his relative to someone without asking. But only he has a monopoly on such a show. That's what he thinks, anyway. Yes, and the other Uncles were dissatisfied with the Zhestkovyans, because from time immemorial they did not like them for their stiff necks. And they forced Ehud to stop the show, which was not authorized by the Uncles, and to move Kuzka’s Mother out of sight. And Uncle Vanya began to intensively help Mahmudka the Parsi build large agricultural machines, which they had long been jointly designing with the aim of finally solving the food and other problems of the Zhestvoy residents. And other Uncles staged a show around this with fireworks and smoke screens to cover up the production secrets of Makhmudkin’s agricultural machinery. Meanwhile, in some places the power changed, and the Zhestvoyites had a new Ehud, and Bibka and Ivetka ended up at the top, and Tsipka, due to her natural qualities, a sister, was sent into the opposition in a related way. There is such a game - “coalition-opposition”. And pilgrimages to Uncle Vanya began. The first to visit him was Ivetka, who speaks like an uncle. I met, talked, vouched and vouched. She returned very pleased: “Uncle Vanya is good, handsome!..” And the eldest became so jealous that she somehow, under the cover of darkness, almost in her nightgown, jumped into the desired Moscow. One foot is here, the other is there, and here again! What happened between her and Uncle Vanya, did they get along or what? We only know that Uncle Vanya, despite the charm and encroachments of his sisters, grinning, only intensified the shipment of chemical fertilizers to Mahmudka... Meanwhile, progressive humanity, irritated by the unauthorized display of Kuzka’s Mother, organized by the Zhestvoysky Ehud, decided to put an end to the lawlessness. They found a former hardliner who had learned to bend his neck to progress and its highest current manifestation, Mahmudism. And this former Zhestkovy member, nicknamed either Nugget or Self-Degenerate, wrote a paper for progressive humanity about the Zhestovy atrocities, about showing Kuzka’s Mother to Mahmud-Gazavat women and girls. The self-degenerate had to write in the difficult conditions of Ghazavat Hamastan, where they intermittently supply electricity in exchange for chemical fertilizers sprayed among the Zhestvoy residents. But, if the delivery of chemical fertilizers goes uninterrupted, the same cannot be said about electricity. Sister Ivetka, in her youth, I remember, even called for stopping its supply altogether. In short, the Samogeezer was sitting, working on the report, and at this time the light, go ahead! And the disk of his paw-top flew. And when they restored it, not everything. Something got lost. And there were no copies of invoices left for the long-term delivery of chemical fertilizers, no information that the Mahmudks were hiding from Kuzkina’s Mother among their women... Only about the Zhestvoyites remained. Progressive humanity was indignant at the report of the Self-Degenerate and ordered to take that Ehud that Kuzka’s Mother showed, and Tsipka along with him, and judge them, and sentence them to the watchtower! And it must be said, to the credit of the conscientious London bobbies, that they almost managed to carry out this order. Politicians and lawyers barely got rid of Ehud. Now he’s sitting, not rocking the boat, in his Toughness, and he’s holding on to the chair with both hands, so he can’t tear it off. For his chair is his last refuge. “But this,” as the heroine of the Italian film said, gradually outlining to her husband the stages of cuckolding him, “is not all!” They decided to submit the report of the Self-degenerate to the High Court, the Confidants of Depravity. And Bibka lay down with her chest on the embrasure in order to prevent this. And they gathered: Mahmudka of Washington, Mahmudka of Ramallah and she. And Mahmudka of Washington began to put pressure on his namesake and on the weak woman, squeezing out his own self-interest, known to him. And he did it, it seems. Mahmudka of Ramallah promised not to make a fuss. They say that he himself was in the dust, wow! After all, he himself begged Ehud and Tsipka to show the Makhmudki of Gazavat that Kuzka’s Mother! And the computer didn’t fall then, it documented everything, all his words! “Hurray!” shouted Bibkina Klaka. “What a Victoria! Our Bibka has two Mahmudkas wrapped around her finger!” But, as they say, this song did not last long, because the Mahmudks - they are always people of their word - they themselves gave, and they themselves took back. And the report of the Self-Degenerate went to the Confidants of Depravity. And they, without thinking twice, delivered a verdict as old as the world: “The Zhestkovians are to blame for everything!” And a private definition: “Ah, specifically - Ehud and Tsipka.” And Uncle Vanya was one of the first to sign up for this. And he added powerful chemical fertilizers to the region. At the same time, luring Tsipka to the Mother See so desired by her. I wonder if the Moscow cops will be luckier than the London bobbies? She's not a minister! Jerusalem. 10/17/09
THIRD PLACE IN THE EDUCATIONAL COMPETITION "MONOLOGUE" - INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION GREAT WANDERER FOR YOUNG
I don't believe in love at first sight. When I met him during the intermission of the play “Three Sisters and Uncle Vanya,” he was going down the steps to the theater cafe. I went there too. There was a lady holding his arm, and it was she who first attracted my attention. Frail, with bright eyes and an intricate hairstyle, she was much older than her companion and looked at him with undisguised adoration. He looks at her with tenderness.
I took my coffee and sat opposite the unusual couple: “Isn’t it busy? Shall I interfere?" The lady smiled: “You’re welcome.” Her age was revealed by her well-groomed hand with thin fingers and, alas, senile “buckwheat” on back side palms. Well, everything is clear with her. Judging by the diamonds in her necklace, the lady is able to buy herself a handsome macho man as a cure for loneliness, and, well, for going out.
The guy, however, did not look like a macho man. An expensive haircut with shaved temples, a charming smile - he has it all, but he’s clearly not into bodybuilding: he’s too thin and slouches a little. He probably sits eight hours a day at a computer in some mediocre company.
While drinking my coffee, I listened to the dialogue.
He: well, how do you like this attempt on Chekhov?
She: in general, I don’t like modernization of classics, and even disrespect for Chekhov’s text, but, you must admit, it was done in a witty and funny way. Let's see what happens in the second act.
He: otherwise we can leave, take a walk around the evening city, and then I’ll take you home and if you want, I’ll stay the night with you, Mommy.
Everything turned upside down in my head. The guy’s words touched me much more than the performance, in which the hidden homosexual Uncle Vanya rushed between Vershinin and Irina. I followed the couple into the hall and now did not take my eyes off him. And I thought his stoop was cute, and his thinness was touching. If he treats his mother so reverently, does that mean he treats women in general? Or is this a version of a mama's boy who will always be under her heel? No, he lives separately from his mother, which means he is not financially dependent. My imagination pictured the Prince - not because he drives a white Volvo, but because he treats a Woman like a princess, he is noble and generous.
I no longer looked at the stage, but only thought about how to meet a guy. Will his mom like me? It is clear that this is important to him, but problems must be solved as they arise. It didn’t matter that I had been dating a fellow student for several months. His image faded sharply: he was one of those about whom my grandmother used to say: “Simplicity is worse than theft,” you simply couldn’t drag him into a theater or museum.
My brain-computer came up with a dozen ways to meet a man, but none of them were suitable: banal, stupid, vulgar. The curtain closed and the audience poured into the wardrobe. He stood at the column next to his mother, waiting for the stream of spectators to subside. Unexpectedly for myself, I approached them: “Excuse me, can I hold you for a minute?” They looked at each other and smiled at the same time: “You’re welcome!”
“We were sitting next to each other in a cafe and you know... I was just admiring you. Your son... I never had such a relationship with my mother, and for the first time I thought that it was my fault...” I fell silent, feeling like a stupid and annoying girl. “Nice to meet you!” - the lady said and extended her hand to me: “Irina Andreevna.” The guy bowed slightly: “Denis.” He didn’t extend his hand first - he was well-mannered, of course.
We went down to the empty wardrobe. “Let's go to our place for tea and cake! And we’ll discuss the performance,” suggested Irina Andreevna. I looked questioningly at Denis. He smiled silently. I couldn’t zip up my jacket with trembling fingers. Finally we emerged into the frosty air and headed towards the parking lot. I felt like Cinderella at the ball and was glad that I wore not jeans, but a new dress that showed off my slender legs.
Suddenly Irina Andreevna asked: “Denis, when does Alena return from her business trip?” “On Saturday, I already miss her, I call her five times a day,” he replied. “Alena is my son’s bride,” Irina Andreevna explained to me. The clock struck, the carriage turned into a pumpkin, and I regretted not wearing jeans: my legs instantly froze. I remembered that I still had a lot of things to do, said goodbye and quickly went to the tram stop.
We did not coincide with the Prince in time. We met too late, or maybe too early. I am sad, but “my sadness is light”: I am convinced that the Princes are not extinct on Earth and I can quite meet Him, free and ready to fall in love. You just need to wear skirts and dresses more often and manage to remain a Woman in this cruel world - kind, gentle and merciful.