CHAPTER TWO. Godunov's activities. - Establishment of the patriarchate in Russia. - The Shuisky and other boyars act in concert with Godunov. - Their fears regarding the accession of Dmitry Uglichsky. - Murder of Dmitry. - Godunov’s desire for the throne. - Fire in Moscow. - Invasion

These two played love perfectly, but in life they chose completely different roles for themselves. The truth about the split of the famous Moscow Art Theater

They had a lot in common: both were children of war, both graduated from the Moscow Art Theater School, were considered one of the most promising students and were not assigned to the “title” theater. Both were later invited there. Both made their debut in the same film, and then played together several times - both in films and on stage. And it was their names that 30 years ago became a symbol of the loudest Soviet theater scandal.

She played, Efremov slept

1968 At the end of spring, the film “Three Poplars on Plyushchikha” is released. We don't even know the hero's name Oleg Efremov, but we will forever remember his look with which he, a taxi driver, looks at his random passenger. There is no passion in this look, no desire to seduce, but only the great happiness of unexpectedly finding soul mate. And although these two will part in an hour and never see each other again, for half a century “Three Poplars on Plyushchikha” is confidently considered one of best films about love.

Very quickly after “Topols...” comes “Once More About Love,” where again Doronina and Efremov. He loves her, she loves another... The audience is sure that they have an affair in life. Some mutual acquaintances of the actors are now saying: there was clearly something there; Efremov himself has repeatedly stated that he cannot play love with an actress with whom he is not infatuated.

Doronina always assured: there was no romance, Efremov generally went to bed when she played her own scenes in “Topols...”. I absolutely believe this - in those years, Efremov was already making waves throughout the country as the creator and director of the Sovremennik Theater. He not only carried the troupe and household chores, but also played on stage and in free time filmed. And he probably didn't get enough sleep.

From the first echelon

In fact, this was not the first time the actors met on set. In 1955, both made their film debut in the film “First Echelon” about students who went to virgin lands. Efremov immediately played the main role, secretary of the Komsomol organization. It’s curious that one of Efremov’s initial lines in the film was: “If you don’t know how to drink, don’t drink!” and “We need to stir things up.” Very symbolic - in relation to the biography of Oleg Nikolaevich himself.

Doronina got the episode. She is dark, curly and very absurd - she doesn’t look like her future movie heroines, blond, gentle and sacrificial.

By the mid-60s, Doronina became famous on the stage of the Bolshoi drama theater in Leningrad. adored her main director Georgy Tovstonogov and the troupe didn’t like it. Tatyana Vasilyevna was distinguished by her character from her youth, and she herself claims that when a person has character, they immediately attach the epithet “bad” to him.

But in 1966, Tatyana Vasilievna moved from St. Petersburg to Moscow, marrying a playwright Edward Radzinsky, and entered the Moscow Art Theater, which then bore the name of the proletarian writer Gorky. Later she called this one of the main mistakes of her life - parting with the BDT and the fact that she “put her personal life almost on a par with the theater.”

Efremov came to the Art Theater in 1970, invited there by the “old people” to pull the theater out of the crisis. He immediately stages the play “Dulcinea Toboso,” where he plays himself and gives Doronina the title role. But the premiere takes place without fanfare. Proud, bright, accustomed to being the first and only, and most importantly, wanting to find “her” director again, Doronina goes to the Theater. Mayakovsky for 11 years. During this period, Doronina and Efremov met on the set of the eight-episode “Olga Sergeevna.”

Doronina's life in Mayakovka began brilliantly. All of Moscow was crowded to see the performances of “Man of La Mancha”, where she plays again Dulcinea, only completely different; “The Seagull”, “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”, “Long Live the Queen, Vivat!” - in this performance she simultaneously embodied Elizabeth And Mary Stuart, and did it, as critics put it, like “two queens,” that is, with double brilliance and success. But then a young woman comes to the theater Natalia Gundareva, just as temperamental, just as stately, and is introduced into the second cast of “Bankrupt”. And Doronina left the theater and returned to the Moscow Art Theater in 1983.

200 “poplars” on Tverskoy

They say that Doronina helped Efremov not only as an outstanding actress. At that time, the post of Minister of Culture was Petr Demichev, seems to be in love with Tatyana Vasilievna. She supposedly solved all issues with “one stroke of her eyelashes.” And there were certainly more than enough problems at the Moscow Art Theater. Rare successes alternated with ordinary performances. If by the time Efremov arrived, the “overly cumbersome” troupe numbered one and a half hundred people, then by the mid-80s it had swollen to almost two hundred. Those who still saw it were having difficulty getting along in the theater. Stanislavsky, and “contemporaries” invited by Efremov.

Irina Miroshnichenko she said that the luminaries received ministerial salaries and played several performances a month, while young people, who had modest salaries, performed the repertoire on two stages at once - the main one (then on Tverskoy Boulevard) and in the branch on the street. Moskvina (since 1993 - Petrovsky lane).

Efremov constantly tried to reform the theater, remembering the experience of Sovremennik, where the main troupe was strictly limited in size. He introduced the main, auxiliary, and variable compositions, but, apart from squabbles, this did not end in anything. And so, with the arrival Gorbachev, who became very friendly with Efremov and, apparently inspired by the word “perestroika,” Efremov is up to something out of the ordinary. Rumors are flying around Moscow: there is a split in the Moscow Art Theater, in this courtly, favored theater.

Over the course of 30 years (and the theater was divided in 1987), many participants in the events had their own, very different versions of what happened. Some believe that Efremov wanted to experimentally transfer part of the troupe to self-supporting (you play more, you earn more), and leave part on normal Soviet conditions.

At the same time, the “self-supporting” ones would no longer play on Tverskoy, but within the original walls of the Moscow Art Theater in Kamergersky, where reconstruction was then being completed. The rest were supposed to go to Moskvina Street, and they seemed to want to transfer the building itself on Tverskoy to the Peoples' Friendship Theater (the prototype of the current Theater of Nations). At the same time, Efremov would remain the main director of both the main and “branch” theaters.

But if everything looked so progressive, then why were there endless party and trade union meetings at night, why are they still talking about how they “bribed” votes and what they promised. After all, then the famous “Ivan Brovkin” died suddenly - Leonid Kharitonov, tried to commit suicide famous actress theater and cinema Elena Koroleva.

It looked more like Efremov was taking the “cream” for himself, and leaving the rest to the mercy of fate. Doronina believes that Efremov was pushed to take this step by those who surrounded him, and it looked, according to her, simply indecent. The victims were supposed to be mostly middle-aged and elderly actors, inconspicuous “workhorses.”

Only “Tenderness” remains

How they decided who would go with whom is still unclear. Either a playwright Gelman at one of the meetings he “divided” the Moscow Art Theater, tearing the list of the troupe in half, or Tabakov, again at one of the endless meetings, tired of what was happening, he came out and said: “Whoever is with Efremov, follow me,” or these words were spoken by the chief manager himself.

Doronina, of course, was on Efremov’s list. But it was precisely her who turned to the actors who were not in a position to switch to the tempting horror show. Why specifically to Doronina is also not completely clear. But by that time, the actress had accumulated many complaints against Efremov. There were practically no roles in her repertoire. In addition, Doronina could not forgive Efremov for her periodic binges, when the life of the theater seemed to stop.

Now you can only see documentary footage of one of the meetings during the split, where Tatyana Vasilievna sharply criticizes Efremov from the podium, and he, holding his head, looks at the presidium table. Then journalists were not allowed to record speeches, but even so much is clear without words.

It ended with two Moscow Art Theaters being formed in Moscow. They were immediately dubbed “male” and “female”. Efremov moved to his native Kamergersky, Doronina still retained the building on Tverskoy, and the idea of ​​the People's Friendship Theater temporarily faded.

Tatyana Vasilyevna, on principle, left the name of Gorky behind her theater and still strives to maintain the “unfashionable” traditions of theatrical art.

The actress, who turns 85 next year, has constantly had to overcome difficulties. She herself believes that her theater was almost immediately declared a boycott. Critics still don’t really like to go there, and in the first years even directors were afraid to come. One of those who violated the unspoken “prohibition” was Roman Viktyuk.

As she says, she was forced to stage many of Doronin’s performances on her own. She still goes on stage. One of her signature roles is Vassa Zheleznova in the play by the same Gorky.

Long years Doronina and Efremov did not communicate. They say that victors are generous, but in this story no one won. Despite returning to the sacred Kamergersky and naming the theater after A.P. Chekhov, Efremov achieved almost no radical changes. In the hearts of even his favorite actors, the story of the split did not heal. Previously, friends and like-minded people of Efremov, many leading actors left the theater, not without the efforts of Oleg Nikolaevich.

After the split, fate gave Efremov another 13 years; he died in the spring of 2000. They say that Oleg Nikolaevich attended one of the “enemy’s” performances, came out and said: “The guys are playing great, but it’s unclear why.”

Doronina was not seen at Efremov’s funeral, but this does not mean anything. Years later, Tatyana Vasilievna speaks of him as a real man of the theater, worthy of the fondest memory.

And the viewer has been continuously watching for 50 years as she sings to him about tenderness...

One of the biggest scandals 1987 became the division of the legendary Moscow Art Academic Theater (MKhAT). The illustrious troupe then split into two theaters: one remained in the historical building in Kamergersky Lane (Moscow Art Theater named after A. Chekhov under the direction of Oleg Efremov), the other moved to a new building on Tverskoy Boulevard (Moscow Art Theater named after M. Gorky under the direction of Tatyana Doronina). This division was inevitable and had its origins in the events of 50 years ago, which were discussed at the very beginning of this book. Remember, then the cosmopolitan Bolsheviks tried to throw off the founder of the Moscow Art Theater, Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky, from the “ship of modernity” (the head of the theater department of the People's Commissariat of Education, a former Moscow Art Theater member himself, Vsevolod Meyerhold, called this theater “aesthetic trash”), but the Bolshevik sovereigns managed to protect the Master, although he himself During those troubled times, I did not believe in the bright future prospects of my theater. In his letter to V. Nemirovich-Danchenko from America, where Stanislavsky was on tour (autumn 1923), the Master wrote the following:

“We have to get used to the idea that the Art Theater no longer exists. It seems you understood this before me, but all these years I flattered myself with hope and saved rotten remains. During the journey, everything and everyone became clear with complete accuracy and certainty. No one has any thoughts, ideas, or big goals. And without this, an ideological cause cannot exist.”

The master was wrong. For about ten years in the USSR there was a struggle between cosmopolitans and statists, and all this time the Moscow Art Theater was indeed on the verge of collapse. However, it withstood all the blows of fate and was revived in the second half of the 30s, when the powerful group finally won power. The “Meyerholdism” was put to an end, and socialist realism was firmly established in Soviet art for a long time, the basis of which was the reliance on traditional art, understandable to millions of ordinary citizens, and not just to the aesthetic minority. From that moment on, the Moscow Art Theater was declared the main state theater, and October 27, 1938 a solemn celebration of his 40th anniversary took place. The theater received the Order of Lenin (in 1937. – F.R.) second award - Order of the Red Banner of Labor. In addition, many artists and theater workers were generously awarded orders and titles.

Meanwhile, the Moscow Art Theater was moving towards its future collapse together with the country. After Stalin's death in 1953 the number of cosmopolitans grew in the highest Soviet elite and, under their active influence, the gradual Westernization of Soviet society began. Under the guise of progressive trends, regressive innovations began to penetrate into Soviet art, which latently destroyed the foundations of traditional Russian theater. The turning point in this process was the 70s, when, after the suppression of the counter-revolution in Czechoslovakia and the ideological crisis in the West, the Soviet leadership was faced with a dilemma: to embark on a frontal offensive against imperialism or to move towards rapprochement with it and reconciliation. As a result, the second option was chosen, which ultimately led the USSR to defeat in the Cold War.

It was at the beginning of that decade (in the summer 1970) the fate of the Moscow Art Theater was also decided - as we remember, a new director Oleg Efremov came there. He was a prominent representative of Western liberals, and his victory over the sovereign Boris Livanov, who had no less chance to take the helm of the famous theater, was natural and stemmed from the general strategy of the highest Soviet elite. When the liberal Mikhail Gorbachev came to the leadership of this elite in the mid-80s, Efremov was given the final carte blanche to destroy traditional art, the basis of which was socialist realism (the same carte blanche was then given to Elem Klimov to destroy traditional Soviet cinema) .

Thus, the collapse of the Moscow Art Theater was ordered to Efremov by the highest Soviet elite, which took a kind of revenge from the great powers for the events of 50 years ago. That is, Gorbachev and Co. were followers of the cosmopolitan Bolsheviks of the 20s, who also dreamed of defeating Russian traditionalism and entering the world elite (what is now called globalization). However, in this matter the director relied not only on the authorities, but also on his colleagues who were Western liberals like him. One of them was Anatoly Smelyansky, the current rector of the Moscow Art Theater School. He once directed the literary department at the Gorky Youth Theater, then at the adult theater. It was there that Moscow liberals noticed him and soon invited him to work in Moscow - at the Theater of the Soviet Army. From there, he soon moved to the Moscow Art Theater to Efremov and quickly became his like-minded person and faithful squire - a kind of political officer under the commander-in-chief. It was with his help that Efremov 1986 and began the process of destroying the old Moscow Art Theater. This process was not easy, like the entire Gorbachev perestroika, since the opposite side (the powers) desperately resisted the destructive processes. As the Moscow Art Theater director V. Shilovsky recalls:

“To be completely honest, Oleg Nikolaevich could well have created a new theater in a different place. But the rank, salary and position of the court theater did not allow Efremov to change geographical coordinates. Moreover, enthusiastic groans from critics were constantly heard around Oleg Nikolaevich. Each of his performances, despite failures before the audience, was considered a new bright victory of Soviet art. And Anatoly Mironovich Smelyansky greatly contributed to this.

Preparations for this had been going on, as I understood, for a long time. Various options for activities were discussed, so the theater was shaking from reorganizations. But all the reorganizations were aimed at only one thing - the physical destruction of representatives of the real Moscow Art Theater. Only those who were personally invited by Efremov and those who arranged it had a chance to survive.

At one of the meetings, Alexander Gelman (playwright - F.R.) took a piece of paper and said:

-What are you so afraid of? Moscow Art Theater section! Moscow Art Theater section! – Gelman tore the piece of paper in half. - Well, here are two Moscow Art Theaters for you...

One day Efremov called me... He was slightly drunk.

“Baby,” he turned to me, “we’re all around the bush.” Reorganization... Everyone is nervous. Let's untie this knot. Let's split up. I’ll take my artists, you take the rest...

By the white face of Anurov (director of the Moscow Art Theater. - F.R.) I realized that this was serious. The pause dragged on, and Efremov became confused:

- Well, what are you silent?

Some strange thoughts were running through my head... With difficulty I pulled myself together.

“I don’t trade my Motherland,” I said through clenched teeth. – I know that I will lose, but I will spoil your nerves a lot.

And he left the office..."

The scandalous separation began at the end of 1986. This is how the famous Moscow Art Theater actor Vladlen Davydov remembers it:

“At the height of the controversy there was a party meeting of the creative workshop. I wasn't there, but this morning November 21, 1986 S.S. Pilyavskaya called me (she wasn’t there either: she was sick, her blood pressure had risen, she was lying down) and told me about yesterday’s party meeting, and Maris Liepa’s wife told her, and Yuri Leonidov told her... The meeting was very stormy, Stepanova, Kalinovskaya, Leonidov spoke ... The voting results are as follows: 12 are “for” the division, and 30 are “against”. But they said: “That’s not all, tomorrow there will be a general meeting of the entire troupe, there will be young people there, and they are all for separation...” The result of voting at the troupe meeting: 50 “for” and 158 “against.”

Then a stormy meeting took place again, this time in the presence of the Minister of Culture of the RSFSR E. A. Zaitsev. And only when it was officially announced that instead of the branch the theater on Tverskoy Boulevard would be transferred during the division, it seemed that passions had subsided... But on what principle and who could decide the fate of the actors without talking with each of them?..”

As a result, Efremov failed to divide the Moscow Art Theater in 1986 due to strong opposition in the theater itself, as well as due to the desperate resistance of the statists in power. To wait for a pause, Efremov left his homeland for a while and went to stage plays in Bulgaria and the GDR. And when he returned, Gorbachev had already launched a new campaign - he announced glasnost, which was designed to allow Western liberals, who by that time had made their way into almost all Soviet media, to strike at the most important bonds of state ideology. And the Moscow Art Theater, like the whole of society, began to crack at all the seams. As the same V. Shilovsky writes:

“Efremov’s friends - Gelman, Smelyansky, Svobodin, Rozov - actively created public opinion. They wrote long articles in his defense, saying that Efremov was being prevented from creating the Moscow Art Theater. Not divide, as it really was, and create…»

Also in January 1987 At the next meeting of the troupe, supporters of preserving the unity of the theater won. The secretary of the theater party committee, Angelina Stepanova, then stated: “There cannot be two St. Basil’s. There should be one Moscow Art Theater."

However, just a few months later, when the liberals in power began to bend the statists in all directions, supporters of the division of the Moscow Art Theater went on the attack. It was headed by Oleg Tabakov. Let us note that for a long time he was at odds with Efremov, but during the years of perestroika their common interests converged again. IN 1983 Efremov accepted Tabakov into his theater, three years later helped him become the rector of the School-Studio named after V. Nemirovich-Danchenko, and in 1988 he won the title of People's Artist of the USSR at the top (for his help in the division of the Moscow Art Theater). It was Tabakov who said at the next meeting of the troupe:

– Whoever is for Oleg Nikolaevich, please stand up and leave. We will elect our artistic council. Stop this crap.

As a result, almost half of the troupe left Tabakov, including former active opponents of the division like Angelina Stepanova (Efremov promised her that he would take her son Alexander Fadeev into the troupe) and Mark Prudkin (Efremov promised to accept his son Vladimir into the theater as director). As V. Shilovsky recalls:

“After this, a nightmare began in the lives of all the theater people. Nerves were exposed to the limit. People were getting strokes. The management called everyone personally and gave instructions for whom to vote. At night we went home and campaigned. Actress Lena Koroleva tried to commit suicide. People also came to her from Oleg Nikolaevich and said:

- Lenochka, tell me that it’s not because of what’s happening at the Moscow Art Theater, but because of your personal experiences.

“Go away, scoundrels,” Lena answered.

Outsiders from the Union of Theater Workers voted for the division of the Moscow Art Theater. That meeting was led by Mikhail Ulyanov and Kirill Lavrov...”

The episode with the unsuccessful suicide of actress E. Koroleva was not isolated. IN May 1987 It was because of the events at the Moscow Art Theater that its actor Leonid Kharitonov (who played the role of Ivan Brovkin in the films “Soldier Ivan Brovkin” and “Ivan Brovkin on Virgin Lands”) suddenly died. At the time of his death he was 57 years old. The day after the funeral, some scumbags set fire to the wreaths on his grave. Apparently, this was the revenge of the Efremovites on the deceased because he actively advocated for the preservation of the unity of the Moscow Art Theater.

V. Davydov recalls:

“The division was mechanical and extremely cruel. It was simply the destruction (not the reduction!) of half the troupe. In this case, the secretary of the party committee A.I. Stepanova and the “old Bolshevik underground worker” M.I. Prudkin actively or passively participated.

I don’t want to remember, much less write in detail about this immoral action. No, both theaters remained, performances were on, actors played, but nothing remained of the Art Theater, and in the historical building, after 10 years of reconstruction, even the entire backstage atmosphere was destroyed...

Such legendary performances by K. S. Stanislavsky and Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, like “The Blue Bird”, “At the Depths”, “Dead Souls”, “Three Sisters”, had to be preserved on the historical stage of the Moscow Art Theater in Kamergersky Lane. But Efremov decided to get rid of them...

What did this division give? Don't know. Efremov’s best performances were created by him before the division, and a large troupe did not interfere with this. And after the separation, apart from the annual tours, nothing interesting happened, and even how the 100th anniversary of the Moscow Art Theater was celebrated (in 1998. - F.R.), caused bewilderment - there was mass drunkenness on the historical stage...”

Let us note that that collective drinking session was a natural result of the reign of O. Efremov and Co. at the Moscow Art Theater. This was a statement of the triumph of anti-art over real art, the victory of cosmopolitan Westerners over the Russian sovereigns. This victory continues to this day, and only God knows whether revenge will ever be taken.

The all-Union fame of composer Yuri Antonov began in the early 70s, when he played in the VIA “Good Fellows” and wrote a number of undisputed hits that were performed by different groups: “O good fellows» ( 1970 , “Good fellows”), “You are no more beautiful” ( 1971 , “Singing Guitars”), “Why” ( 1974 , “Jolly Guys”), etc.

Meanwhile in 1979 Yuri Antonov's fame as a singer began. He then released two EPs with the group “Araks” at the Melodiya recording company, on which he sang his own songs, which instantly became all-Union hits: “Anastasia”, “Golden Staircase”, “Don’t Forget” (“A Dream Comes True”), etc. From that moment on, Antonov became the leader of the Soviet “disco wave” and remained in this field for almost a decade, considered one of the highest paid. Soviet composers and singers. His concert rate was 30 rubles, but the administrators paid him another 400 rubles unofficially - precisely as a “cashier”. Plus, 15 thousand rubles were transferred monthly to his account at VAAP (with taxes - 12-13 thousand). Where does this money come from? For example, Melodiya released an EP with his songs with a circulation of several million copies, and the entire circulation was instantly sold out.

Yu. Antonov recalls: “I took a thousand rubles a month for expenses. Where more? Going to a restaurant with a girl then cost thirty rubles, including cognac and sturgeon. Well, buy yourself jeans, well, an expensive suit, well, one more, well, four, five. But you won’t wear them out in a month. So I left the rest of the money in Sberbank..."

IN 1985 Antonov finally stopped being restricted from traveling abroad and got the opportunity to go to Finland, where he was offered to record a record at a large recording company. They say that Antonov then turned around and brought his wife two suitcases of the most fashionable clothes (Antonov was married three times: two of his wives were Russian, the third was from Yugoslavia).

Antonov's popularity among listeners in those years grew by leaps and bounds. His new records were released (in 1985 the giant disc “Believe in a Dream” was released, television played his songs, many pop stages major cities The Union was considered lucky to have him perform at them. And here in March 1987 suddenly a scandal broke out.

Newspaper " Soviet Russia» from March 14, 1987, article by correspondent N. Senchev “Spoiled the song”:

“The tour in Kuibyshev was interrupted popular singer and composer Yuri Antonov. What happened at the Kuibyshev Sports Palace, where the artist performed?

Already in the first concerts, Yu. Antonov began to establish a kind of contact with the audience, every now and then addressing sarcastic remarks to the orchestra and “democratically” flirting with the gallery. His appeals to older viewers were offensive.

All this could be understood as not entirely successful jokes if the artist did not escalate them from performance to performance, clearly demonstrating a disdainful, arrogant attitude towards the audience.

Well, what about the concert itself? Antonov's repertoire was frankly poor. And only once, when the song “Bullfinches” sounded from the stage, the audience saw that in front of them was the former Antonov - a singer of a soft soul, lyrical, trusting. But it was a moment that, unfortunately, the artist himself did not feel and did not pick up.

This is the finale of the tour. In a quiet burst of liquid applause, Yu. Antonov heard an irritated phrase thrown by someone: “This is hack work!” He demanded that the spectator leave the hall immediately. And then he left the stage and never appeared again.

By the way, the people in the stalls were mostly workers from Kuibyshev enterprises and residents of suburban areas who had bought tickets based on collective requests. Their hopes, like those of other spectators, to see a pop song festival were not fulfilled.”

Newspaper " Soviet culture» from March 19, article by correspondent A. Prazdnikov “What the audience was offended by”:

“First, an alarming signal came from Tolyatti - in the five-thousand-seat hall of the Volgar Sports Palace, where Yuri Antonov’s performances took place, the singer allowed himself inappropriate, rude statements to the audience. Tolyatti residents, who were so eagerly awaiting the popular artist's tour, were offended.

Following this signal, another signal came from Kuibyshev - Yuri Antonov disrupted the concert at the local Sports Palace.

...The huge hall was overcrowded. The audience warmly received the artist and gave him flowers. Suddenly, someone loudly screamed.

Since this all started. The artist found the shout offensive; he interrupted the song mid-sentence and demanded that the author of the line apologize and go backstage. The musicians also followed him. Then they returned to the stage, performed several instrumental pieces, and then the performance ended. Antonov did not deign to sing anymore. The concert, scheduled for an hour and a half, lasted about an hour. The indignant public was indignant, and local cultural authorities decided to prematurely interrupt Antonov’s tour. In Kuibyshev, with its fairly active concert life, they don’t remember a case like this. But since this has happened, we need to understand the reasons for the unworthy behavior of both sides...

I don’t know what an artist should do in such a situation in which Yuri Antonov found himself. Or rather, I believe that different actors would behave differently. One would pretend that nothing had happened, gather his will and bring the performance to the end, perhaps even stronger than he started. Anyone else would have laughed it off. Third... You never know what the response could be. And only disrespectful actions towards a huge audience should never be carried out by art ministers. After all, by balking, Antonov insulted and punished not only the tactless spectator who shouted out rudeness, but also those others who filled the five-thousand-person hall and respectfully greeted the artist...

Everything suggests that Antonov’s “own goal” was long overdue. He clearly cannot stand the test of fame. This is not the first time that his prime ministerial habits have been noticed. When he goes on tour, he requires increased attention: a personally assigned car of a popular model, more luxurious hotel apartments. But what’s even worse is that he makes tactless statements from the stage to the audience.

For some reason, Antonov is especially irritated by the age of the audience. Concerts with his participation attract many people who are already over 30 and even over 40. I would be glad that mature people also like your art. But, apparently, Antonov is consumed by longing for the young, overexcited and enthusiastic crowd of fans. And therefore he considers it normal to loudly, through a microphone, inquire from the audience: where are the young people, are they among those present, and why are there so many people who “bring tickets to their offices”...

In the editorial mail there are often letters telling about the unworthy behavior of Yu. Antonov. Readers from Nikopol sent an issue of Nikopolskaya Pravda, which talked about how the artist forbade the newspaper’s photojournalist to take his photographs, citing the fact that the portraits would be “launched” for sale among the population. The newspaper “Soviet Youth” wrote about the more than strange speech of Yu. Antonov in Riga ( October 11, 1986.). A reader from the Moscow region, G. Pankov, cites in his letter the remarks with which the artist peppered his performances during the concert at the Sports Palace in Luzhniki and in the Central Concert Hall. “The situation when Yuri Antonov allowed himself to spit on stage is completely incomprehensible,” writes A. Zubkova, a reader from Kuibyshev.

This is not the first time Antonov has capriciously disrupted concerts. Here, in Kuibyshev, they have not yet forgotten how in 1983, also in March pre-holiday days, it was his fault that the already announced concert did not take place...”

The only print media that stood up for the artist in those days was the newspaper TVNZ" Correspondent A. Roslyakov wrote in the article “And the viewer was punished”: “The singer made a mistake. After a loud shout, he left the audience and was unable to return to the stage; he did not finish singing exactly 18 minutes of his hour and a half program... The orchestra behaved decorously, and did not want to react to his performance. And those who really needed him, Yuri Antonov, who stood in line for tickets, sat far away.

And the singer allowed himself to reproach half-jokingly that it is not easy to perform when in the first rows are those whose tickets for the concert are brought directly to the office. And the punishment was not long in coming - at the next concert, loudly heard from the stalls:

- Hack worker!

Antonov asks to remove the loudmouths from the hall, but no one responds to this. And then he leaves on his own.

His tour was cut short and he was asked to clean out the hotel.

But Antonov did not immediately give up. March 7, the day after the incident, he came with the ensemble to the Sports Palace, on which there was already an announcement about the cancellation of concerts “due to the unworthy behavior of Yu. Antonov.” We have an agreement, the singer said, no one has terminated it, the audience is waiting for us, we will perform. But reliable barriers were already waiting for the spectators with orders not to let anyone in. Antonov and the ensemble still managed to break into the hall. We changed our clothes and went on stage. The administrator of the ensemble announced on the street through a megaphone: the concert would take place. But someone, just to be on the safe side, turned off the electricity in the palace. Thanks to the concerted efforts of security guards, the concert was disrupted. Antonov flew away, the ensemble remained to guard the equipment...

Seamstress Galina Baranova, who was at the ill-fated concert, says:

“I felt how difficult it was for him to sing.” All the first rows - no reaction. But then we managed to somehow revive the hall. He performed great. And suddenly - this scream. He left, I felt so sorry for him, I ran backstage. He is there alone, no one approached him. Either he leaves the room or comes in, I can see that he is worried. I almost burst into tears myself. I say: excuse them, please! But it seems to me that if he had come out after that, since the screamers had not been besieged, he would have somehow ruined himself. And most of all, it’s a shame that the pleasure of thousands of people was taken away..."

However, the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda turned out to be a voice crying in the desert. AND April 16 in “Soviet Culture” an official response from the director of the Moscow Concert K. Bulgakov to the article “What the audience was offended by” appeared. It reported: “For unethical behavior at a concert in the Sports Palace of the city of Kuibyshev March 6, 1987 Comrade Antonov Yu.M. He was severely reprimanded and suspended from participating in foreign trips for a period of six months.”

And what about Antonov himself? This is how he explained what happened in an interview with the Golos newspaper: “The incident in Kuibyshev is simply unique. And at the same time typical. At one of the concerts the audience did not like my performance. But this was not an ordinary spectator, but the party and bureaucratic elite. What most upset me then was the behavior of some journalists. The staff correspondent of “Soviet Culture” for the Volga region Prazdnikov, having learned about the directive of the first secretary of the regional committee of the CPSU Muravyov, wrote a devastating article about me. By the way, he wasn’t even at the concert, like Muravyov, to whom my performance was presented accordingly. “Soviet Russia” also took advantage of the opportunity and made up nonsense about me. After that, I was forbidden to appear on Central Television, my songs stopped being played on the radio. There was a tour in Finland coming up, but I was not allowed to leave the country. The company that invited me suffered big losses, because it reserved the halls for performances, and, naturally, it had to pay a penalty. They didn’t explain why I wasn’t allowed to leave. Here Mosconcert was especially overzealous - the organization is disgusting. She had a grudge against me for a long time, and now an opportunity presented itself to settle the score. Mosconcert is accustomed to artists paying large bribes for the provision of equipment. I didn’t give them anything..."

The massive attack on Antonov from the pages of the central press ended only after the singer himself took decisive action. Together with the poet Oleg Vilenkin, they wrote a letter addressed to Mikhail Gorbachev and took it to Old Square - to the CPSU Central Committee. It got to the main ideologist Alexander Yakovlev, and he ordered the newspaper editors: “Stop mocking the person!” The bullying stopped. And four years after that, Yuri Antonov was finally admitted to the Union of Composers of the USSR.

One of the biggest scandals in creative biography Alla Pugacheva happened in late summer 1987 in Leningrad. The singer arrived there from Moscow as part of a tour (in the capital she performed at the Central Park of Culture and Culture) and was going to stay in the city on the Neva for several days. As a result, she remembered these days for the rest of her life.

Concerts in Leningrad were about to begin 25-th of August. A couple of days before departure, such an incident occurred. Oleg Nepomnyashchiy went to Pugacheva’s house - a house on Gorky Street. The singer was watching TV, and in the corridor, in a cloth newspaper box, lay a press that had not yet been touched by anyone. The guest mechanically looked through them and, not finding anything interesting, put them back in their place. Hearing this noise, Pugacheva asked: “Well, nothing again?” “Nothing,” Nepomniachtchi confirmed. “It’s clear, everyone needs a scandal,” Pugacheva uttered a phrase that would turn out to be prophetic.

Then he and the guest discussed the upcoming tour in St. Petersburg. Nepomniachtchi said that he had ordered her favorite number for the singer at Pribaltiyskaya, but immediately offered to play it safe and order another number at Astoria. Pugacheva agreed with this option. That's where they parted.

Late at night August 23 When Nepomniachtchi was already in Leningrad, a telephone rang in his room. One of Pugacheva’s fans called and said last news from the life of her idol: they say that she left Moscow in a red Zhiguli, accompanied by two unknown men. And her then-boyfriend Vladimir Kuzmin went to St. Petersburg by train in splendid isolation. Nepomniachtchi took this information into account and in the morning went in search of Pugacheva. Or rather, it was difficult to call it a search, since Nepomniachtchi guessed where the singer could be - with his friend Valdemar, the owner of the Troika variety show restaurant. And so it was.

Nepomniachtchi found Pugacheva in a bad mood. Trying to somehow distract her from her dark thoughts, the director suggested that she immediately go to Astoria.

– Which Astoria? – the singer perked up. – We’re going to Pribaltiyskaya. I already told everyone that I would stay there. They will call me.

Pugacheva had a favorite room at Pribaltiyskaya - 10,000, located on the eleventh floor. There were only two such rooms in the hotel: comfortable, two-level, with additional rooms for security and staff. Next, let’s listen to the story of O. Nepomniachtchi himself:

“We safely reached the Pribaltiyskaya and entered the lobby, which was full of schoolchildren, who, at the sight of Pugacheva, began to point their fingers at her and make all sorts of noises. Childish spontaneity is good only when it is balanced by good manners; in all other cases it can enrage even a jerboa. Approaching the counter, behind which a slow girl-administrator was hovering, I immediately asked for a room key and added that I would arrange everything later.

- Yes, please, your number is twelve three zeros.

- Nothing of the kind, our number is ten three zero. This is exactly what I ordered. “A chill of foreboding ran down my spine.

- Here is your application. Nina Ivanovna indicated the number on it: 12,000. And not 10,000, which is already taken.

- This cannot be. I ordered ten three zero.

The girl began to get irritated, a dense crowd of people had already formed around us, and this got on everyone’s nerves - me, her, and Alla.

– I tell you in Russian: ten three zero is occupied, a foreigner lives there. (In fact, the room was occupied by a USSR citizen, Dzhendayan, who later admits that he would be happy to give up his room to Pugacheva, whom he respects very much. – F.R.)

Alla entered the conversation, calmly, without raising her voice.

– I ask you to give us exactly this number - they should call me there. Maybe a foreigner will agree to exchange with me?

The girl looked at us sadly and, turning her back to us, screamed in a drawn-out manner:

– Ning Bath!

A woman appeared in the lobby with a traditional patched challah on her head and an innate disgusted expression on her face. Naturally, I had encountered Nina Ivanovna Baykova before. We didn’t feel any particular tenderness for each other, but it didn’t even come to the point of a scandal.

- Well, is this Pugacheva going broke again?

Alla’s eyes became bright, bright, she turned pale, I was even scared - I had never seen her in such rage.

- So. I don't care about your foreigners, I demand my number! Can this country do anything for me? What I ask!

Baykova looked at her with poorly concealed pleasure: scandal was her native element, here she felt like a fish in water.

“We won’t move anyone because of the whim of some singer.” You will live in the room you were allocated.

Alla seemed to not believe her ears.

- What? Repeat what you said?

- What did I hear? The state pays me for you, when you pay yourself, then download your license.

This was already immeasurable rudeness, and Alla lost control of herself.

- Yes, you are nobody, and there is no way to call you! If I myself paid and gave you bribes, you would talk differently.

Baykova immediately retorted:

- Don’t talk to me like that, otherwise I’ll quickly find justice for you.

Alla found the strength not to scream and said in an icy voice:

“I didn’t mean to talk to you at all.” Get out of here.

The dense ring of people around us was clearly divided into two hostile camps, and in some places discussions began to flare up about which of the two disputants was right. Baykova turned around offended and retreated to her office.

We also went up to the room, and as soon as the door slammed behind us, Alla suddenly changed her face and, rubbing her hands, looked at me triumphantly. I would have been glad that it was all over, but I was in a bad mood: I really don’t like being made a fool and being extreme - and here I was threatened with both of these roles. I couldn’t understand why Pugacheva’s rage suddenly disappeared, but as an administrator who had seen a lot, if not everything, along the way, I had a presentiment that the story would not end there. And how he looked into the water.

At about six or seven in the evening there was a knock on our room and a police major came in, introduced himself as an employee of the sixty-fourth department, smiled sweetly - black slicked hair, shining boots with black polish.

– We received a signal about the incident. We need to figure it out. I have already interviewed all the witnesses. It will be better if you give your testimony yourself, in writing.

Alla listened to him quite friendly and, without going into questioning, outlined her version of what happened on paper, I did the same. The major took his leave, assuring us that they would not disturb us again...”

The poet Ilya Reznik also witnessed these same events and chose... not to support Pugacheva. For which she was very offended by him. According to the poet: “Alla sat down on the stone floor in her room and said: “That’s it, I protest!” Ilyushka, sit next to me.” I said that I won’t sit down, I don’t need this prostatitis. I knew that she was wrong and provoked everything with her character..."

Based on the words of O. Nepomniachtchi, it turns out that Pugacheva almost deliberately provoked the incident in order to once again remind the public of herself. If this is true, then the singer clearly did not calculate her capabilities: the scandal will cost her too much blood. I think if Pugachev had known about the consequences of this incident, she would have thought a hundred times whether she should have started this ridiculous quarrel at all.

Meanwhile, Pugacheva still knows nothing about what is coming. 25 Aug She performed at the Lenin Sports and Concert Complex in a concert together with Udo Lindenberg. Immediately after the performance, in the company of friends, she went to the already familiar Troika. In the midst of dinner, the owner of the establishment, Waldemar, was called to the phone. After listening to someone on the other end of the line, he hung up and turned to Pugacheva with a very concerned look.

“Alla, bad things are afoot here,” he said after a short pause.

- What kind of things are these? – Pugacheva asked playfully.

– I just got a call from Vecherny Leningrad and was informed that proofs of an article about you have already been typed.

- Well, great! – Pugacheva laughed.

– No, the article is not about the concert, but about the scandal that happened in the hotel. Devastating article.

The noise at the table instantly died down, everyone turned to Pugacheva. She paused for a moment and then said:

- Devastating, you say? So that's great. It's been a while since I've had any scandals. Let them print.

In those days, perestroika was in full swing in the country, one of the main weapons of which was glasnost. The media competed with each other to publish cutting-edge materials on the most different topics, various kinds of feuilletons and articles of an exposing nature were of great honor. If the opportunity arose, almost everyone was involved, regardless of ranks and titles. Alla Pugacheva also fell under this “distribution”.

The main instigator of the next anti-Pugachev campaign was the newspaper “Soviet Russia”. When the news about what had happened reached Moscow and TASS received the task of cutting the number one star to pieces, it was this newspaper that was the first of the all-Union publications (Evening Leningrad was read only in St. Petersburg) to agree to do this. 25-th of August there was a replica of one of the culprits of the incident - Nina Baykova (the signature said that she works as the head of the hotel accommodation service, an excellent student at Intourist). The note had a biting title: “Zvezda” has loosened its belt.” Here is her text:

“I waited almost 24 hours at the Pribaltiyskaya Hotel for a luxury apartment ordered by Lenconcert for Alla Borisovna Pugacheva. The singer was delayed. And when she arrived, a story happened that was least expected.

Firstly, the singer, in an ultimatum, demanded that instead of number 12,000, she be given a similar number, 10,000. The explanation that other people lived in it had no effect on her.

- Evict them!..

Other very polite words addressed to her did not find a response either. She attacked the reception staff (I am not exaggerating) with obscene language.

I don’t undertake to describe everything that happened. Over many years of working at Pribaltiyskaya, neither I nor other employees have seen or heard anything like this.

Numerous guests, foreign tourists, and bus drivers were forced to listen to the loud abuse that was heard in the hall. At the same time, both our country and Leningrad “got it” from the singer, who shouted that she was suffering for “penny earnings.”

One of the tourists asked me directly:

- Will she really get away with this?

Maybe it will do. It’s our fault: we were so confused that we didn’t think to invite the police. But who could have imagined that when meeting with Pugacheva, her help would be needed?

The concerts of Pugacheva and Lindenberg lasted until August, 26th, after which the number one star returned to Moscow. The departure coincided with a telegram that came to the State Concert from Leningrad. It contained only a few lines: “Recall Pugacheva from our city. They are outraged by her hooliganism (I quote from the original. – F.R.) behavior and disgrace. We read the article in Leningradskaya Pravda. We are handing over tickets, we don’t want to go to her concert. A group of Leningraders."

August 28 one of the most influential voices has joined the chorus of indignant voices printed publications countries - “Soviet culture”. On its pages was published a note by Leningrad correspondent L. Sidorovsky, entitled “Concert” in the hotel lobby.” It briefly described the incident at Pribaltiyskaya and talked about Pugacheva’s “misbehavior” before the last concert at the SKK - she did not appear at the press conference. I quote:

"A. Pugacheva proudly walked through the crowd of journalists, without even nodding in response to greetings.

“Well, let’s talk at the press conference,” we decided, heading to a specially designated room at the sports and concert complex. However, of the two main participants in the press conference announced in the invitation card for a meeting with representatives of local and central newspapers, radio and television, only Udo Lindenberg, a popular rock singer from Germany, appeared. Slightly cold, without taking off his black cap and black glasses, puffing on a cigarette, he waited for some time for his capricious colleague at performances in Moscow and Leningrad, and then was forced to act, so to speak, alone.

Well, we were not very surprised by this demarche of A. Pugacheva, since we had already heard a lot about what happened the day before at the Pribaltiyskaya Hotel...

Well, at the concert, after the meeting with journalists was ignored, the “star” on the stage reviled those who were responsible for order in the hall, not allowing frantic fans to repair the sabbath.

Maybe this public would also like the “concert” organized by their idol in the hall of the Pribaltiyskaya?”

The whole end August Pugacheva spent time in Moscow, staying at home almost all the time. Every day she received piles of letters and telegrams, the authors of which either supported her or mercilessly scolded her. Many letters included newspaper clippings, from which it could be judged that all publications concerning the incident at Pribaltiyskaya were completely devastating. Not a single publication ever tried to defend the number one star, although this was not difficult to do: it was enough to at least give her the floor on its pages. However, in those days the game was still played with one goal.

September 2 Alla Pugacheva left the country. Fortunately, this was not an irrevocable departure from despair (although the singer had such a thought), but just another touring voyage: Pugacheva flew to Switzerland to take part in the Swiss Music Week festival. From there she went to Germany.

Pugacheva was still abroad when one of the first publications in her support appeared in the media. The article was called “Circumstellar” disease,” it was written by journalist Shota Muladzhanov, who visited Pugacheva before her departure to Germany at her apartment, and was published in the newspaper “Moskovskaya Pravda”. In it, the floor was finally given to the culprit of the scandal. Pugacheva said the following:

“This publication (about the scandal in the hotel. - F.R.) not only outraged, but also greatly surprised me. I was expecting an apology from the Pribaltiyskaya employees themselves. Firstly, I don’t agree with the accusation of foul language. This did not happen - and many of those present can bear witness to this. And then – somehow strangely the cause of the conflict was “forgotten”. Many times, when coming to Leningrad, I stayed in the same room of this hotel. I believe in omens... And this number is associated with my purely personal emotions, which, you see, are of no small importance on the eve of an important concert. When I was getting ready to leave Moscow, I received confirmation that I would stay there again. The road turned out to be difficult, the equipment was breaking down, and I was very tired from the trip. And, naturally, I was upset when, without explanation, they gave me another number instead of the usual one. She asked if it was possible to somehow solve this problem and talk to the residents. And I heard a lot of reproaches and “accusations”. Who will like this?

But look at another, more extensive publication - Alla Borisovna shows me a clipping from the newspaper “Evening Leningrad”. – Here they reproach me for not wanting to participate in the press conference, they criticize my songs...

I found out about the time of the press conference when I had already arrived to prepare for the concert. I have a habit: I start preparing two or even three hours before the performance. And just two hours before the start they decided to organize a meeting with journalists. For me this was an impossible option. Well, Udo Lindenberg and concert organizer Michel Geismier took part in the press conference. Isn't this enough?..

Finally, the lines related to the vigilantes also surprised me very much. The fact is that, as at the Moscow concerts, I suggested that the last song - about peace, friendship - be sung by the whole audience. Enthusiasts were invited to approach the stage. And then a chain of vigilantes rose up, blocking the path of the spectators who responded to the call. An old illness took its toll - “no matter what happened”...

“I know very well that some people are annoyed by my manner on stage,” with these words Alla Borisovna heads to the table where the letters lie piled high. - Here they praise me - it’s trivial. I’d better show you others where they scold me...

“Read it, read it,” says Pugacheva. “Then you will find out that I live in incredible luxury.” You can compare it with “natural”. This is what my friends made from a screen they bought at a thrift store, and this one from the headboard of an old bed. Everyone can organize such luxury for themselves.

There was absolutely nothing to argue about - everything was obvious before our eyes. But here’s what I thought: after all, misconceptions are largely dictated by the beauty of the film footage. They are used to judge a person from afar, and someone adds fuel to this fire with ordinary envy...

No, it’s not about Pugacheva’s songs or the works of other “controversial” masters. We are talking about respect for the personality of the “star,” her right to self-expression, her personal life, which is by no means intended for unceremonious advertising. How does a celebrity not deserve these rights? For the average person, they do not seem exceptional today...

“Encountered with a “star”, “Star” got loose”, “Meeting with a “star” - these are the headlines of the publications of the mentioned series. Already in themselves they suggest the emergence of some kind of “circumstellar” disease, the symptoms of which are unhealthy excitement, “washing out the bones,” falsely understood courage: how, they say, we flogged a celebrity!..

Perhaps some will be indignant when reading these lines: “Look, the defender has turned up!” Or maybe they actually need to be somehow protected from philistinism - not only Pugachev, but also other “stars” whose brilliance unnerves the mediocre? Then, probably, true talents would not disappear from the television screen and from concert posters, from exhibition catalogs and publishing plans for years, to return later in the rank of undeservedly offended. You just need to be more careful, more delicate when it comes to creative personality. And the taste... Everyone has their own taste.”

This was the first sign of a rollback - a campaign in defense of Pugacheva. This turned out to be possible only after the intervention of the main ideologist of perestroika, Alexander Yakovlev, into the situation. In his own words: “I was really angry then. I just felt humanly sorry for Pugachev. I called Leningrad and shamed people. I explained to them that I didn’t care whether she was swearing there or maybe fighting, but you can’t bully her like that. On my initiative, answers then began to appear in the newspapers.”

Meanwhile 12-th of September“Soviet Culture” made a reverse move in the Pugachev scandal. In the article “Rising... to Scandal?” M. Ignatieva wrote:

“I saw Alla Borisovna Pugacheva in a variety of programs, in different halls, I talked with her a lot - at home, behind the scenes, in hotels. It can be different, I’m not saying in relation to me, but to other people, to those around me, to colleagues, to journalists. Yes, it happens that she lacks restraint, tact, there is arrogance, and whims, and rudeness. But one concert, one performance on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater was enough to be convinced: this singer has the deepest spiritual generosity, spiritual beauty - everything that is so far hidden under the usual appearance of a freed from conventions, a cheeky woman. At that concert there was nobility in her, and rigor, and the amazing talent of a tragic actress, which Angelina Stepanova, Irina Miroshnichenko, Oleg Efremov enthusiastically spoke about when congratulating Alla Borisovna after the concert ... "

Meanwhile, almost immediately after returning from Germany, Pugacheva went on tour to Sochi. She didn’t really want to go there because of the same newspaper pandemonium, but it was a matter of honor - these concerts were announced in advance, and tickets for them were already sold out. The concerts took place in the Festival Hall to packed houses. Pugacheva continued to remain the number one star, even despite the titanic efforts of her ill-wishers to push her off the pedestal. According to Rosconcert, for the first half of the year 1987 Pugacheva brought a profit of 232 thousand rubles.

Current page: 64 (book has 68 pages in total)

Font:

100% +

The star's daughter in the bullpen
(Kristina Orbakaite)

IN November 1985 The heroine of the scandalous story was the 14-year-old daughter of Alla Pugacheva, Kristina Orbakaite: she ended up in the pre-trial detention cell. This happened at the Cosmos Hotel, where Christina and her friend Marina (she lived with her while her mother was on tour in Baku and her grandmother was in the hospital) came to have fun in the Solaris night bar there. Since some time ago Christina and her mother were filming a television program there, she had no idea that this trip could end in tears. And that’s exactly what happened. Here's how the person responsible for the incident remembers it:

“There was a fairly strict access system there, but since I had recently filmed there, I thought there would be no problems. But no one recognized me, and in general they suspected us that we, such bright young girls, were looking for some adventures in the hotel beyond our years. In short, we were tied up and put in a hotel bullpen. We didn’t have passports, my relatives were all absent, the Marinkins had gone out of town, there was no one to confirm our identities, and so we stayed in the police station all night. A mutual friend of our parents, who worked as a doctor at the hotel, rescued us. She vouched for us..."

1986

How the director was hounded
(Anatoly Efros)

After the summer 1984 Soviet authorities deprived the former head of the Taganka Theater Yuri Lyubimov of Soviet citizenship, and Anatoly Efros agreed to become the head of the theater. This literally caused a wave of rage on the part of the liberal Soviet public, including most of the troupe itself. However, Efros’s ill-wishers were afraid to splash out this rage, preferring to take revenge on the “renegade” on the sly: they cut the director’s sheepskin coat with a razor in the theater cloakroom, punctured the tires of his car in the theater parking lot, and even propped up front door his apartment... staked so that he could not leave the house and arrive on time for the rehearsal. In short, they abused the person as best they could. But he endured everything stoically, continuing to believe that this “cloudness of mind” among his ill-wishers would pass sooner or later. Alas…

At first 1986 The nerves of the three Taganka actors gave way, who were tired of hiding their dislike for Efros and announced their departure to another team - Sovremennik. These actors were: Leonid Filatov, Veniamin Smekhov and Vitaly Shapovalov. The trio belonged to the very core of Taganka, which continued the fuss around the name of Lyubimov, sincerely believing that by doing so they were doing a holy cause - fighting with the bureaucratic brethren for their Teacher. They continued to be in the dark about the fact that the Teacher had long ago renounced them and had no particular desire to return to their homeland. However, even if they knew about this, it, apparently, would have had little effect on them: after all, they considered themselves revolutionaries, fighters against the system. To remain under the leadership of Efros meant for them to become conformists, traitors to the goals and ideas that they had been preaching for so many years as actors in Lyubimov’s Taganka.

Efros himself responded to the departure of the three actors on the pages of Literary Gazette. He stated the following: “Three actors left the theater. I think they were afraid of the painstaking, everyday work. Although, of course, the words they say are completely different. It's one thing to talk about theater, it's another to rehearse every day. Unfortunately, not everyone is capable of this..."

It is worth noting that the authorities tried in every possible way to prevent the actors from leaving Taganka and even issued a special order on this matter, prohibiting directors capital theaters take the Tagankovites to your place. However, Galina Volchek ignored this order. She did not suffer any punishment for this. So are the rebel actors.

Meanwhile, having moved to Sovremennik, the three Tagankovites continued to be with all their thoughts at the Taganka Theater, where they still had many friends, and Leonid Filatov also had a wife, Nina Shatskaya. Thanks to the latter, they could keep abreast of all the affairs and events in their native theater. And they frankly didn’t like these things. I didn’t like that Efros had firmly established himself within the walls of Taganka; he didn’t like that his new performances were enthusiastically greeted by critics and that spectators attended them. In addition, Lyubimov’s performances are also staged on the Taganka stage, and at the beginning 1986 Efros announced the imminent restoration of two more: “The Master and Margarita” and “House on the Embankment”. Those who left the theater were literally consumed by resentment: they left, but their performances will go on, increasing the glory of the now Efros theater.

Meanwhile, the pressure on Efros continued unabated. At the end April 1986 Three former Tagankovites also wove their voices into this process. At the anniversary evening dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Sovremennik Theater, they performed verses where they spoke about Efros in a very unflattering way. So, Filatov read a poem own composition, where there were the following lines: “Our children are wise, they cannot be kept from asking why everything happened not this way, but exactly this way, why such a question mark will forever burn next to the name of, say, Efros.” Thus, the coupletists wanted to show their comrades from Taganka that they are in solidarity with them, they remember them, they are with them in their difficult and difficult struggle... with whom: the Soviet regime? officials? Efros?

By the way, Smekhov himself writes in his memoirs that many Sovremennik actors laughed at them: they say, “guys, life is wide, stop buzzing about the same thing, you’ll go crazy, you already look like crazy.” That anniversary evening really confirmed that they had “gone crazy”: they ruined the holiday for the troupe that warmed them up. After all, they performed these verses without any warning, at their own peril and risk. As a result, several people (playwright Viktor Rozov, critic Evgeny Surkov and several other people) defiantly stood up from their seats and left the hall. A little later, V. Smekhov will describe his action this way:

“Now many have forgotten what it meant in March - April 1986 to tell the truth about Efros, to admit sarcasm and bitterness towards the political experiment of the city party committee... We were attracted by respect for the civil past of Sovremennik and the impossibility of hiding and lying. Our speech is very short. In poems and songs - gratitude to the house on Chistye Prudy, witticisms on the topic of the repertoire and the fresh premiere of “Twin” (with our participation). Nearby there are words about Taganka, about the fire from which we came to this stage. Humor has been greatly suppressed by grief, resentment, caustic maximalism - towards the enemies of our Tagankov homeland... Let the one who knows how to forgive the destroyers of the native hearth throw the first stone. The deplorability of the ending - both in the genre of lament itself, with which we unwittingly disturbed the general major of the evening, but also in the consequences... The authorities did not want to know about the heartfelt background that explains the excess both in the songs and in the bitterly pathetic poems. The management was not interested in the traditions of home theater skits, where parody, pathos, laughter, tears, hyperbole and satire always coexist. Actions of intimidation followed - reprimands, calls to the carpet, cancellation of titles, benefits, orders... A hasty and unique document about Filatov, Shapovalov and me hung on the wall of orders. The rage of the high-ranking bureaucrat at the insolence of the lower-ranking pygmies, translated into the language of punishment, sounded something like this: “For humor and attacks on an official, on a unit of the city nomenklatura - all sisters will receive earrings! The theater will be insected! Let's hang up the question about the chief manager! Kill the director! Scare the troupe! And these (it’s a pity, our time has flown by)... These “comedians” should not be allowed to play roles in the future!..”

As we see, in these words there is not an ounce of remorse for what he did. And in fact, it’s unprecedented - poems on a skit! But their authors probably knew that the hero of these poems was an unhealthy person, who just a year ago was in the hospital with a heart attack. That just six months ago he buried his mother and the same fate hung over his father, a heart patient who literally never leaves the hospital. That this kind of scandal could either Once again send the director to a hospital bed, or straight to the grave (which, by the way, will happen soon). However, for them he is a “destroyer of the homeland,” “a henchman of the city party committee.” By the way, about the last one.

Smekhov is disingenuous when he says that they risked a lot by performing the verses, since they could incur the strong wrath of party officials. The times outside were no longer the same as under Andropov and Chernenko - the “democrat” Gorbachev was in power. Six months earlier, he removed Taganka’s long-time ill-wisher, Viktor Grishin, from his post as leader of the MGK (Boris Yeltsin took his place), and in February 1986 and completely removed him from the Politburo and sent him into retirement. So, if the coupletists risked anything, it was the smallest - some kind of “severe warning” reprimand.

In general, it was then that it became fashionable to attack the former “masters of life.” In the creative community, the impetus for this was given by the V Congress of Cinematographers of the USSR ( May 13–15, 1986), where the film fraternity carried out a bloodless “coup”: they overthrew from the pedestal a whole cohort of masters in the person of Lev Kulidzhanov, Sergei Bondarchuk, Yuri Ozerov, Vladimir Naumov, Evgeniy Matveev and other luminaries of Soviet cinema. This coup was entirely directed from the Kremlin (the operation was personally led by the main ideologist of the party, Alexander Yakovlev) and was aimed at bringing to power in the UK a new generation of leaders who were supposed to put such an important means of propaganda as cinema at the service of perestroika. The question arises: why couldn’t the masters cope with this? Many did not understand this then, but now everything has fallen into place: with the masters, it would be much more difficult to destroy the state. And with the young revolutionaries, whose hands were itching to rule the entire Soviet cinema, this was not even difficult to do.

By the will of fate, Anatoly Efros also ended up among those undesirable for the new “masters of life.” Which was understandable, since Efros had been perceived as a traitor among the theater “Gorbachevites” for two years: for coming to Taganka on instructions from the city party committee. Therefore, they attacked him with the same frenzy as they attacked Sergei Bondarchuk or Anatoly Sofronov (there was such a Soviet writer who headed the Ogonyok magazine for many years). All these blows will ultimately affect Efros in the most tragically: V January 1987 he will pass away.

Scandalous "ring"
("Musical Ring")

IN May 1986 Another loud scandal broke out around the name of Alla Pugacheva. Its epicenter was the “cradle of the revolution,” the city of Leningrad. 12 May On local TV, the program “Musical Ring” was shown with the participation of the group “Bravo” (this program will be broadcast on CT later). The recording of this program took place at the beginning Martha, but could not go on air in any way - censorship required significant edits. However, as shown by the course further developments, even with these edits, the ill-wishers of the number one star found something to complain about. Result: May 17 in Leningradskaya Pravda a letter from a group of comrades appeared (the authors of the letter were: A. Nesterova, D. Sergeeva, M. Vodopyanov, etc.) entitled “That’s “Bravo”!” It reported:

“The other day in the music program “Ring” it was shown new rock band"Bravo". She was represented by People's Artist of the RSFSR Alla Pugacheva.

I must say that we were surprised and outraged by some kind of cheeky, even vulgar manner in which the actress behaved on the screen. It was embarrassing for her and for the other performers. Strictly speaking, all this is offensive to TV viewers...

Leningrad has always been a city of high culture, with an audience brought up on the best traditions of Russian and Soviet art... We must preserve and continue the traditions of our wonderful city, and cultivate a sense of beauty among young people. And such behavior on the screen seems unacceptable to us, indicating the obvious undemandingness of the popular artist to her work. Television, apparently, followed her lead, showing neither discernment nor taste.”

The very next day after the publication of this letter to the editor of the newspaper, on LenTV, in city ​​government culture and even a stream of letters poured into the Leningrad Regional Committee of the CPSU. Or rather, two streams. Some letters expressed support for Alla Pugacheva’s detractors, while others contained their obstruction. Some letters had up to a hundred (!) signatures: people wrote in entire groups, entire hallways. I will quote one of these letters, which was sent to Leningradskaya Pravda (the author is a candidate philological sciences Y. Vasilkov):

“Unlike the authors of the note “That’s how Bravo!” it seemed to our family that the performance of People’s Artist of the RSFSR Alla Borisovna Pugacheva at “ Musical ring“ was quite consistent with the stage image created by the actress over the course of a number of years, and to condemn her for “swagger” and “vulgarity” means to condemn her entire work as a whole. And this would be meaningless in view of her indisputable recognition. Those who wrote to the newspaper, unfortunately, did not indicate either their occupation or age. I have almost no doubt that all of these are middle-aged people from a specific social environment, who have long lost understanding of the cultural needs of young people (I myself flatter myself that, thanks to communication with my own children, I retain this understanding to some extent). I don’t understand one thing: what a habit of public denunciations! If you don't like the TV show, if you like aesthetic education are not prepared to perceive it, does this mean that we should immediately write to the newspaper? If something in a program seems “offensive” to you, is it worth watching it to the end, noting all the “vulgarities”? After all, there is a simple way out in this case: without injuring yourself, switch the TV to another program where they are showing a concert classical music or an exciting detective story. Personally, when a program seems boring or fake to me, I always do so, without at all thinking of imposing my, perhaps, subjective opinion on television professionals responsible for the artistic and ideological quality of their work...”

If this story had happened two or three years ago, the reaction of the authorities could have been the most severe: Pugacheva could have been banned from appearing on LenTV, and they would have been careful not to show her on Central Television. However, times were already somewhat different then. For a year now, Mikhail Gorbachev has been in power and announced perestroika in the country. Therefore, the scandal was limited only to Leningrad, without gaining all-Union proportions. Although the slander from the city on the Neva still came to Rosconcert, where Pugacheva worked. Muscovites' response signed general director“Rosconcert” was later published in the same “Leningradskaya Pravda”:

Rosconcert cannot but agree with the opinion of the authors of the letter that any performance on television must meet modern requirements for performers and the quality of the material selected for broadcast. From this point of view, certain claims may be made against A. B. Pugacheva’s participation in the “Ring” program.

A serious conversation took place on this issue with all the leading artists of Rosconcert. Their television appearances will henceforth be strictly controlled by management and artistic council"Rosconcert".

1987

Killing a Legend
(MKhAT)

One of the biggest scandals 1987 became the division of the legendary Moscow Art Academic Theater (MKhAT). The illustrious troupe then split into two theaters: one remained in the historical building in Kamergersky Lane (Moscow Art Theater named after A. Chekhov under the direction of Oleg Efremov), the other moved to a new building on Tverskoy Boulevard (Moscow Art Theater named after M. Gorky under the direction of Tatyana Doronina). This division was inevitable and had its origins in the events of 50 years ago, which were discussed at the very beginning of this book. Remember, then the cosmopolitan Bolsheviks tried to throw off the founder of the Moscow Art Theater, Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky, from the “ship of modernity” (the head of the theater department of the People's Commissariat of Education, a former Moscow Art Theater member himself, Vsevolod Meyerhold, called this theater “aesthetic trash”), but the Bolshevik sovereigns managed to protect the Master, although he himself During those troubled times, I did not believe in the bright future prospects of my theater. In his letter to V. Nemirovich-Danchenko from America, where Stanislavsky was on tour (autumn 1923), the Master wrote the following:

“We have to get used to the idea that the Art Theater no longer exists. It seems you understood this before me, but all these years I flattered myself with hope and saved rotten remains. During the journey, everything and everyone became clear with complete accuracy and certainty. No one has any thoughts, ideas, or big goals. And without this, an ideological cause cannot exist.”

The master was wrong. For about ten years in the USSR there was a struggle between cosmopolitans and statists, and all this time the Moscow Art Theater was indeed on the verge of collapse. However, it withstood all the blows of fate and was revived in the second half of the 30s, when the powerful group finally won power. The “Meyerholdism” was put to an end, and socialist realism was firmly established in Soviet art for a long time, the basis of which was the reliance on traditional art, understandable to millions of ordinary citizens, and not just to the aesthetic minority. From that moment on, the Moscow Art Theater was declared the main state theater, and October 27, 1938 a solemn celebration of his 40th anniversary took place. The theater received the Order of Lenin (in 1937. – F.R.) second award - Order of the Red Banner of Labor. In addition, many artists and theater workers were generously awarded orders and titles.

Meanwhile, the Moscow Art Theater was moving towards its future collapse together with the country. After Stalin's death in 1953 the number of cosmopolitans grew in the highest Soviet elite and, under their active influence, the gradual Westernization of Soviet society began. Under the guise of progressive trends, regressive innovations began to penetrate into Soviet art, which latently destroyed the foundations of traditional Russian theater. The turning point in this process was the 70s, when, after the suppression of the counter-revolution in Czechoslovakia and the ideological crisis in the West, the Soviet leadership was faced with a dilemma: to embark on a frontal offensive against imperialism or to move towards rapprochement with it and reconciliation. As a result, the second option was chosen, which ultimately led the USSR to defeat in the Cold War.

It was at the beginning of that decade (in the summer 1970) the fate of the Moscow Art Theater was also decided - as we remember, a new director Oleg Efremov came there. He was a prominent representative of Western liberals, and his victory over the sovereign Boris Livanov, who had no less chance to take the helm of the famous theater, was natural and stemmed from the general strategy of the highest Soviet elite. When the liberal Mikhail Gorbachev came to the leadership of this elite in the mid-80s, Efremov was given the final carte blanche to destroy traditional art, the basis of which was socialist realism (the same carte blanche was then given to Elem Klimov to destroy traditional Soviet cinema) .

Thus, the collapse of the Moscow Art Theater was ordered to Efremov by the highest Soviet elite, which took a kind of revenge from the great powers for the events of 50 years ago. That is, Gorbachev and Co. were followers of the cosmopolitan Bolsheviks of the 20s, who also dreamed of defeating Russian traditionalism and entering the world elite (what is now called globalization). However, in this matter the director relied not only on the authorities, but also on his colleagues who were Western liberals like him. One of them was Anatoly Smelyansky, the current rector of the Moscow Art Theater School. He once directed the literary department at the Gorky Youth Theater, then at the adult theater. It was there that Moscow liberals noticed him and soon invited him to work in Moscow - at the Theater of the Soviet Army. From there, he soon moved to the Moscow Art Theater to Efremov and quickly became his like-minded person and faithful squire - a kind of political officer under the commander-in-chief. It was with his help that Efremov 1986 and began the process of destroying the old Moscow Art Theater. This process was not easy, like the entire Gorbachev perestroika, since the opposite side (the powers) desperately resisted the destructive processes. As the Moscow Art Theater director V. Shilovsky recalls:

“To be completely honest, Oleg Nikolaevich could well have created a new theater in a different place. But the rank, salary and position of the court theater did not allow Efremov to change geographical coordinates. Moreover, enthusiastic groans from critics were constantly heard around Oleg Nikolaevich. Each of his performances, despite failures before the audience, was considered a new bright victory of Soviet art. And Anatoly Mironovich Smelyansky greatly contributed to this.

Preparations for this had been going on, as I understood, for a long time. Various options for activities were discussed, so the theater was shaking from reorganizations. But all the reorganizations were aimed at only one thing - the physical destruction of representatives of the real Moscow Art Theater. Only those who were personally invited by Efremov and those who arranged it had a chance to survive.

At one of the meetings, Alexander Gelman (playwright - F.R.) took a piece of paper and said:

-What are you so afraid of? Moscow Art Theater section! Moscow Art Theater section! – Gelman tore the piece of paper in half. - Well, here are two Moscow Art Theaters for you...

One day Efremov called me... He was slightly drunk.

“Baby,” he turned to me, “we’re all around the bush.” Reorganization... Everyone is nervous. Let's untie this knot. Let's split up. I’ll take my artists, you take the rest...

By the white face of Anurov (director of the Moscow Art Theater. - F.R.) I realized that this was serious. The pause dragged on, and Efremov became confused:

- Well, what are you silent?

Some strange thoughts were running through my head... With difficulty I pulled myself together.

“I don’t trade my Motherland,” I said through clenched teeth. – I know that I will lose, but I will spoil your nerves a lot.

And he left the office..."

The scandalous separation began at the end of 1986. This is how the famous Moscow Art Theater actor Vladlen Davydov remembers it:

“At the height of the controversy there was a party meeting of the creative workshop. I wasn't there, but this morning November 21, 1986 S.S. Pilyavskaya called me (she wasn’t there either: she was sick, her blood pressure had risen, she was lying down) and told me about yesterday’s party meeting, and Maris Liepa’s wife told her, and Yuri Leonidov told her... The meeting was very stormy, Stepanova, Kalinovskaya, Leonidov spoke ... The voting results are as follows: 12 are “for” the division, and 30 are “against”. But they said: “That’s not all, tomorrow there will be a general meeting of the entire troupe, there will be young people there, and they are all for separation...” The result of voting at the troupe meeting: 50 “for” and 158 “against.”

Then a stormy meeting took place again, this time in the presence of the Minister of Culture of the RSFSR E. A. Zaitsev. And only when it was officially announced that instead of the branch the theater on Tverskoy Boulevard would be transferred during the division, it seemed that passions had subsided... But on what principle and who could decide the fate of the actors without talking with each of them?..”

As a result, Efremov failed to divide the Moscow Art Theater in 1986 due to strong opposition in the theater itself, as well as due to the desperate resistance of the statists in power. To wait for a pause, Efremov left his homeland for a while and went to stage plays in Bulgaria and the GDR. And when he returned, Gorbachev had already launched a new campaign - he announced glasnost, which was designed to allow Western liberals, who by that time had made their way into almost all Soviet media, to strike at the most important bonds of state ideology. And the Moscow Art Theater, like the whole of society, began to crack at all the seams. As the same V. Shilovsky writes:

“Efremov’s friends - Gelman, Smelyansky, Svobodin, Rozov - actively created public opinion. They wrote long articles in his defense, saying that Efremov was being prevented from creating the Moscow Art Theater. Not divide, as it really was, and create…»

Also in January 1987 At the next meeting of the troupe, supporters of preserving the unity of the theater won. The secretary of the theater party committee, Angelina Stepanova, then stated: “There cannot be two St. Basil’s. There should be one Moscow Art Theater."

However, just a few months later, when the liberals in power began to bend the statists in all directions, supporters of the division of the Moscow Art Theater went on the attack. It was headed by Oleg Tabakov. Let us note that for a long time he was at odds with Efremov, but during the years of perestroika their common interests converged again. IN 1983 Efremov accepted Tabakov into his theater, three years later helped him become the rector of the School-Studio named after V. Nemirovich-Danchenko, and in 1988 he won the title of People's Artist of the USSR at the top (for his help in the division of the Moscow Art Theater). It was Tabakov who said at the next meeting of the troupe:

– Whoever is for Oleg Nikolaevich, please stand up and leave. We will elect our artistic council. Stop this crap.

As a result, almost half of the troupe left Tabakov, including former active opponents of the division like Angelina Stepanova (Efremov promised her that he would take her son Alexander Fadeev into the troupe) and Mark Prudkin (Efremov promised to accept his son Vladimir into the theater as director). As V. Shilovsky recalls:

“After this, a nightmare began in the lives of all the theater people. Nerves were exposed to the limit. People were getting strokes. The management called everyone personally and gave instructions for whom to vote. At night we went home and campaigned. Actress Lena Koroleva tried to commit suicide. People also came to her from Oleg Nikolaevich and said:

- Lenochka, tell me that it’s not because of what’s happening at the Moscow Art Theater, but because of your personal experiences.

“Go away, scoundrels,” Lena answered.

Outsiders from the Union of Theater Workers voted for the division of the Moscow Art Theater. That meeting was led by Mikhail Ulyanov and Kirill Lavrov...”

The episode with the unsuccessful suicide of actress E. Koroleva was not isolated. IN May 1987 It was because of the events at the Moscow Art Theater that its actor Leonid Kharitonov (who played the role of Ivan Brovkin in the films “Soldier Ivan Brovkin” and “Ivan Brovkin on Virgin Lands”) suddenly died. At the time of his death he was 57 years old. The day after the funeral, some scumbags set fire to the wreaths on his grave. Apparently, this was the revenge of the Efremovites on the deceased because he actively advocated for the preservation of the unity of the Moscow Art Theater.

V. Davydov recalls:

“The division was mechanical and extremely cruel. It was simply the destruction (not the reduction!) of half the troupe. In this case, the secretary of the party committee A.I. Stepanova and the “old Bolshevik underground worker” M.I. Prudkin actively or passively participated.

I don’t want to remember, much less write in detail about this immoral action. No, both theaters remained, performances were on, actors played, but nothing remained of the Art Theater, and in the historical building, after 10 years of reconstruction, even the entire backstage atmosphere was destroyed...

Such legendary performances by K. S. Stanislavsky and Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, like “The Blue Bird”, “At the Depths”, “Dead Souls”, “Three Sisters”, had to be preserved on the historical stage of the Moscow Art Theater in Kamergersky Lane. But Efremov decided to get rid of them...

What did this division give? Don't know. Efremov’s best performances were created by him before the division, and a large troupe did not interfere with this. And after the separation, apart from the annual tours, nothing interesting happened, and even how the 100th anniversary of the Moscow Art Theater was celebrated (in 1998. - F.R.), caused bewilderment - there was mass drunkenness on the historical stage...”

Let us note that that collective drinking session was a natural result of the reign of O. Efremov and Co. at the Moscow Art Theater. This was a statement of the triumph of anti-art over real art, the victory of cosmopolitan Westerners over the Russian sovereigns. This victory continues to this day, and only God knows whether revenge will ever be taken.

The paths of Tatyana Doronina and Oleg Efremov crossed several times in life: both graduated from the Moscow Art Theater School, and in 1955 they made their debut in the film "First Echelon". Then they often played together - both in films and on stage.

In 1967, the artists starred in the films "Three poplars on Plyushchikha" And "Once again about love", having finally established its status main couple Soviet cinema. In those years, Efremov was already making waves throughout the country not only as a talented actor, but also as the creator and director of the Sovremennik Theater. Three years later, he received an invitation to the post of chief director of the Art Theater.

“By the time Efremov arrived, there were one and a half hundred actors in the troupe, many of whom had not appeared on stage for years. The theater is exhausted from internal struggle and groups,” the historian recalled.

Efremov’s debut performance on the Moscow Art Theater stage was “Dulcinea Toboska”. He invited Doronina to play the main role. Soon after, in 1971, she began a ten-year collaboration with the director of Mayakovka. Here I was waiting for the actress real success: she played leading roles in the plays “Man of La Mancha”, “Conversations with Socrates”, “The Aristocrats” and “Viva, Queen, Viva!”, in which she played two roles at once - Mary Stuart and Elizabeth Tudor.

However, in the early 80s, the relationship between Doronina and Goncharov noticeably deteriorated when a rising star joined the troupe. After the director assigned the main role in the play “Bankrupt” to Doronina’s main rival, she considered his action a personal insult.

In 1983, the artist, at the invitation of Efremov, returned to her native Moscow Art Theater, where she played in the play “Bench” by Alexander Gelman. As he later said, who headed the Moscow Art Theater troupe in the late 80s, Doronina’s career at the Art Theater ended with this production.

“Except for the role in “The Bench,” which she hated, Tanya didn’t really play anything for Oleg. At the same time, it was useless to contact Efremov with claims. He hated it when actors begged for roles,” he noted in an interview "7 days" .

According to Novikov, even then Doronina “began to brew a rebellion against Efremov in her heart.”

The newly minted director tried in every possible way to reform the theater. Based on the experience of Sovremennik, where the main troupe was strictly limited in size, he decided to introduce a main, supporting and variable cast. In addition, according to rumors, Efremov intended to transfer part of the troupe to self-supporting (when the salary depends on the number of performances), and leave the other on normal terms.

The director announced the decision to divide the Moscow Art Theater on November 6, 1986. The general meeting of the troupe, at which the fate of the theater was decided, lasted three days with breaks only for sleep. On one of the days of the meeting, the playwright said that dividing the theater is as easy as cutting a piece of paper, which increased disagreements within the team.

Then he demanded that everyone who supported Efremov come forward - according to eyewitnesses, there were about 40 of them. A response immediately followed.

“Then our actor stood up and said: “We also need to choose someone responsible. Who will represent our interests. Maybe Tatyana Vasilievna? Shall we vote? she sat right there and was silent... And, once, a hundred people unanimously voted for her. Just like that, in one minute, everything was decided,” Novikov recalled.

Doronina agreed to lead part of the troupe, despite Efremov’s invitation to stay with him.

In 1987, the Moscow Art Theater artists wrote a collective letter against Efremov, in which they reported his alcohol abuse. During a tour in Bulgaria, the director allegedly got drunk backstage at the theater and then started a row.

“The theater is at that point, at that threshold, beyond which it will soon be impossible to play joint performances. Denunciations began to take over, the remnants of intelligence and even basic decency disappeared. Therefore, today I ask the troupe to vote for my proposal to create two stages within the Art Theater association,” says the transcript of Efremov’s speech.

In response to this, the actors, who separated together with Doronina, demanded a separate room for their theater, as a result of which they managed to defend the building on Tverskoy Boulevard.

“There are people whom I do not forgive. And I don't forgive the separation art theater. There was no split, because the troupe voted entirely against the division, but despite this, a forceful method, very rude, signed by the ministry and with the submission of Shatrov, Gelman, Smelyansky, signed by Efremov, was determined and was violence against the theater, as a result of which it was just a tragedy,” Doronina admitted in an interview in 2015.

Speaking about her relationship with, the actress emphasized that she considers him a brilliant actor and partner, but she can never forgive the split. “But why did he allow this violence and why was it necessary to split it up...” she said.