SEEP Vol.12 No.1 Spring 1992

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.12 No.1 Spring 1992

1/54

volume twelve, no. 1

spring 992

S P ISSN 1047-0018) is a publication of the Institute for Contemporary Eastern European Drama and Theatre under the auspicesof the Center for Advanced Study in Theatre Arts CASTA), GraduateCenter, ity University of New York. The Institute Office Is Room1206A, City University Graduate Center, 33 West 42nd Street, NewYork, NY 10036. All subscription requests and submissions shouldbe addressed to the Editors of SEEP: Daniel Gerould and Alma LawCASTA, Theatre Program, City University Graduate Center, 33 West42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.


2/54

EDITORSDaniel GerouldAlma LawASSISTANT EDITOREdward DeeASSOCIATE EDITORPatrick HennedyADVISORY BOARDEdwin Wilson ChairmanMarvin Car1son

eo HechtMartha W Coigney

CASTA Publications are supported by generous grants from theLucille Lortel hair in Theatre and the Sidney E ohn hair inTheatre Studies in the Ph .D Program in Theatre at the City Universityof New York.

Copyright 1990 CASTAS P has a very liberal reprinting policy. Journals and newsletterswhich desire to reproduce articles reviews and other materialswh ich have appeared in S P may do so as long as the followingprovisions are met:a. Permission to reprint must be requested from S P in writingbefore the fact.b. Credit to S P must e given in the reprint.c. Two copies of the publication in which the reprinted material hasappeared must be furnished to the Editor of S P immediately uponpublication.


3/54

T BLE OF CONTENTS

Ed itorial Pol icy ................. ....................................... .............................. 4From the Editors................................................. ....................... ............ 5Events ....................................................................................................6

Largo Desloato by Vaclav HavelDivadlo na zabradl(, Prague, September 1990Directed by Jan GrossmanMichael L Qu inn .................................. ................ ............... ................... 8Whose Side Are You On, Master Bulgakov?Agnieszka Pertinska ............................................................................ 13Mrozek at the Playwrights's Center, MinneapolisAnthony Bukoskl ....... ...................... ......... ................ ................. ...... .... 18Recreating a Tradition: Moscow's Sibilyov StudioJohn Freedman ................................................................................... 20Today Is yBirthday:Tadusz Kantor's Living ArchiveAgnieszka Pertinska .......................... .. .......................................... ...... 30

REVIEWSHungarian President's Iron BarsIn New York CityPatrick Henneely .................................................................... 35Aieksandr Gelman'sA Man With Connectionsat the No Curtain Theatre, Washington, D.C.Vera Borkovec .................................. ............. ....... ................. 37Stanlslavsklln the Sticks

Michael Yurieff .............................. ............... ........................ 39Understanding the language of the Theatre:

N e k r o ~ l u s s he NoseJohn Freedman................................... .... ........................ .......41

3


4/54

Edinburgh Festival Report, 1991:The National Theatre of Martin, CzechoslovakiaBaal by Bertolt BrechtThe Dispute by Pierre MarlvauxJames F. Schlatter ...... ................ .................... ............. 47

Contributors ............................. ............. .......... ......... ............. 55Playscripts In Translation Series .... ........................................ ......... 56Subscription Policy ........ ............................ ....... ............................ 58

EDITORI L POUCYManuacripts In the following categorl4ts are solicited: articles of no more

than 2,500 words, performance and film reviews, and bibliographies. Please bear Inmind th t all of submissions must concern themselves either with contemporarymaterials on Soviet and East European theatre, dr m nd film, or with newapproaches to older materials in recently published works, or new performances ofolder plays. In other words, we welcome submissions reviewing innovative performances of Gogol but we cannot use original articles discussing Gogol as a playwright.

Although we welcome translations of articles and reviews from foreignpublications, we do require copyright release statements.

We will also gladly publish announcements of special events and anythingelse which may e of interest to our discipline. All submissions are refereed.

All submissions must be typed double-spaced nd carefully proofread.The Chicago Manual of Style should be followed. Transliterations should follow theLibrary of Congress system. Submissions will be evaluated, and authors will benotified after approximately four weeks.


5/54

FROM THE EDITORS

With this Issue we mark the beginning of our twelfth year ofpublication. In recognition of the dissolution of the Soviet Union inDecember 1991 this issue also carries a new name: Slavic nd EastEuropean Performance We readily acknowledge that this is by nomeans an Ideal solution to renaming the journal. While the Balticrepublics can be regarded as part of East European theatre, the newname still leaves out the ranscaucaslan republics Georgia,Armenia, and Azerbizhan) as well as the many other non-Russianrepublics and autonomous regions. But we justify our decision onthe grounds that it preserves our logo as well as our desire to stick toa relatively short title. In time, as the former Soviet Union sorts itselfout, we are prepared to again change the name to one that betterreflects the ethnic make-up of the geographical region we cover.

1992 is going to be a watershed year for the theatres of thecountries served by our journal. Subsidies for the arts are being cuteverywhere, and many theatres and directors are already scramblingto find other sources of support. With the help of our readers wehope we will be able during this year to report on these changes andwhat their consequences are for the survival of high-quality theatre inthe countries of East Europe and the former Soviet Union

Daniel Gerould and Alma Law


6/54

V NTS

UPCOMING EVENTSThe Jean Cocteau Theatre wUI be presenting Vaclav Havel's

Vanek plays in repertory from May 7 to May 28. The three plays,Audience Unveiling and The Protest will be directed by Dave Flshelson. This production will be reviewed In the next Issue of SEEPNOTES OF PAST PRODUCTIONS

The Yara Arts Group presented Explosions a meditation onthe nuclear accident at Chernobyl based on Georg Kaiser's 1919expressionist masterpiece Gas I. The production, which ran fromJanuary 3 to 19, was performed at La Mama E.T.C.In New York. ItwHI be reviewed in the next issue o SEEP

Also in January, the WPA Theatre of New York presentedJeffrey Essman's new play, Bella elle of Byelorussia a comedywith music by Michael John Chiusa about an Idealistic young Communist in the first days of glasnost. The production was directed byChristopher Ashley.FILM

The first three series of a multi part film biography aboutAleksandr Sukhovo-Kobylin premiered on Soviet television at the endof September. Entitled The Case ofSukhovo-Kobylin it was directedby Leonid Pchyolkin and written by Valentin Mikhailov and IgorShevtsov. it is based on the biography by Stanislaw Rassadin,Genius and Evil or the Case of Sukhovao-Kobylin . In the lead rolesare Yuri Belyaev, lnnokenty Smoktunovsky, Aleksandr Kalyagin, andElena Yakovleva.

JiKMenzel's comedy, The End ofOld Times enjoyed a briefcommercial run in New York during February. The film, adaptedfrom the Vladislav Vancua's novel by the director and Jiri Blazek,stars Josef Abrham and Marian Stoklasa.CONFERENCES, LECTURES AND EXHIBITIONS

The Centre Georges Pompidou In Paris presented an exposition entitled Presences de Tadeusz Kantor last October. Kantor'sdesigns for Today is y Birthday were exhibited, and a series of films

Slavic and East European Performance Vol. 12 No. 1


7/54

and videos was shown, Including videos of Kantor s productionsWielopole Wielopole I Shall Never Return. The ead Class. andToday Is MyBirthday.The 16th Congress of the Union Internatlonale de IaMarionette Is currently scheduled to be held In Cankarjev Dom,Ljublljana, Yugoslavia, from June 14 to 19 1992. The sessions willbe combined with a festival of productions from around the world.

For more Information contact Edi Majaron, General Secretary,Cankarjev Dom, Cultural and Congress Center, 6100 Ljubljaja,Kidrlcev Park 1 Yugoslavia. Tel: 061 210 956. Fax: 061 217 431.

NEWSDr. Dragan Klaic co-editor of the now-suspendedEuromaske magazine, has left Yugoslavia and Is now director of theNetherlands Theatre Institute, the Information and documentationcenter on Dutch professional theatre. Dr. Klalc was a professor oftheatre history and drama at the University of the Arts In Belgrade,the drama critic for many Yugoslav newspapers. and Is a member ofthe board of the BITEF International Theatre Festival.

NOTEWhile the amount of news coming out of the former Sovietbloc has been rapidly increasing, the number of productions of East-ern European theatre works in the United States seems to be just asrapidly decreasing. We believe that we are unaware of many inter-esting and important productions that must be occurring. If you areinvolved with, or are aware of the production of any play by an EastEuropean or former Soviet playwright, or the visit of any companyfrom the East to the United States, please send the information to:Slavic and East European Performance, CASTA Room 1206A CUNYGraduate Center. 33 West 42 Street, New York, NY 10036. We willinclude this information in upcoming Events columns as we try tokeep our readers informed of the range of performances available.

prepared by Edward Dee


8/54

Largo Desolato, by Vaclav HavelDivadlo n z bradlf , Prague, 1990

Directed by Jan Grossman

Slavic and East European Performance Vol. 12, No. 1


9/54

,L RGO E ~ TO Y VACLAV HAVELDIVADLO NA ZABRADLI PRAGUE SEPTEMBER 1890

DIRECTED BY JAN GROSSMANMichael L Quinn

This production of Havel's dissident drama provides theclearest indication available of the Czech theater's response to thepolitical changes of 1989. In Prague the staging is widely held to bethe best production of a play by Havel during a two-year period Inwhich almost all of his major works have been performed, Includingthe more obscure ones, such as he Life Before Us (or Millers andhe Mountain Hotel. Havel's dominance in the repertory Is only themost obvious symptom of a condition n which new plays are muchless Important than the production of drawers full of suppressed

older plays, many of which now help to legitimate the new politicalsituation. Largo Desolato, as an Intensely personal play by Havel,provides Divadlo na za'bradlf with an opportunity to respond to theextreme lionization of the new president, combining politics with artistic excellence In a lucid adaptation of the old satirical style ofPrague Spring theatre.

Grossman s production is very much a treatment of theplay, though It s carefully conceived to take advantage of several ofthe work s strengths. At the beginning of the performance,Grossman enacts the process of departing from Havel's originalstage directions by playing a tape of Havel's voice reading thosestage directions over the public address system. In the first twoshort, identical scenes, the actor and the mise-en-scene co-operatewith the voice-over; curtains rise on cue, music plays, and simpleactions are executed according to Havel's plan. The third timethrough, the stage and the actor stop following the directions: soundcues fail, the actor falls behind, and the ridiculous red baroquecurtain, which has sailed up and down to good comic effect eachtime it was called, exposes the batten it s been strapped to andstops. This overcoming of the authorial text seems even moreimportant In the context of a long memo by Havel not to be sharedwith the public, in which h attempted to contextualize the play andadvise Its producers during the period when he could not travelabroad to work with the productions himself. Clearly Havel wasavailable for this production, but the documentary quality of hisauthorial voice was not particularly needed by the theater. A carefulreading of the note, the first part of which has been appended to theCzech edition of the play, shows that Grossman's treatment is verymuch n accord with Havel's wish that directors try to preserve theplay s many-sidedness when possible and not be tempted

9


10/54

unnecessarily to force It Into some kind of one-dimensional andsimplifying explanation.Grossman s work with company designers, lvo tfdek andIrena G r e i f o v ~ . deserves special praise. The proscenium stage atDivadlo na z ~ b r a d l ( i s not only tiny (about 12 x12 ), it also has akeyhole arch that s about 8 feet deep. Havel s play, so full ofpeephole business and fear of surveillance, has been placed in formal alignment with a space In which the audience plays eavesdropper. The stage is so small that the hero is not just Isolated, he senclosed, even trapped.Perhaps inspired by the Meyerhold production of TheInspector General though more likely In an adaptation of Havel stime-slip effects in he Increased Difficulty o Concentration :lM:iekconstructs a concave set made entirely of doors. Entrances andexits from the outside are always through the center door, but oncecharacters are Inside the apartment, they might exit or re-enterthrough any one of six other doors; off stage locations aredeliberately not assigned, so that the main character and theaudience never know where the kitchen Is or the bedroom. In onescene Lucy calls Leopold from three different doors, all while taking ashower. The effect is very disorienting, especially because the singleroom on stage, supposedly a living room with furniture and bookcases, has only a few pillows, two mis-matched dining chairs, andstacks of books scattered everywhere. The books support a lamp ora water glass, and when things get crowded people sit on them, orpick one up to read. The second visit of the workers when theydeliver an incredible amount of bundled paper becomes an occasionfor a general, comic re-arrangement of the Increasingly clutteredstage. The light Is brightest over the ominous center door, and theplacement of a chandelier In the center of the beam casts a largespider-like shadow over the entrance. Grelfova s costumes also reinforce the disorientation of the hero. Leopold never gets dressed;except for the time he answers the door In his towel, he goes throughthe play shuffling about bearishly In a plush white robe and socks, apair of half-glasses suspended on a chain around his neck. In a context In which everyone else Is dressed conventionally, he stands outeven more.The interpretation of the central role becomes, in thisscenario, the crucial factor In the play s meaning. JirrBartooka maye the most magnetic actor in Prague; certainly he Is in his prime, amatinee idol in his mid-forties at the height of his expressive powers.This strength plays against and accentuates the weakness and diffidence of Leopold s character. B a r t o ~ k a s Leopold, could he beawakened from his slumbers, would provide the powerful philosophical arguments and capable leadership that the mill-workers, lovers

10 Slavic and East European Performance Vol. 12, 1


11/54

and fellow-dissidents In the play expect from him. He has the outward calm of a panther, able to fix the audience with a level gaze, tosee through a conversation to Its motives, and to take what he wantsin any normal situation. Because his situation Is extraordinary, heinstead spends whole scenes In a literal sweat. And when the doorbuzzer sounds, he and the slight, nervous Vladim(r Dlouhy (as Olda)fling themselves against the back wall on either side of the door inrepeated tableaux of farcical panic. They open the doors from thispose, hiding behind them while a stranger enters the room, thenslamming the doors behind him to throw the visitor off balance.Bartoska's contradictory performance makes it possible to acceptsome of the less credible aspects of the character, such as his abilityto spin out philosophical language easily as part of a flirtation, or histendency to seek relief from his fears In medication, rather than intherapeutic conversation. s Havel's memo argues, Leopold is akind of hero and at the same time a coward; he is always honest, andat the same time he always cheats just a little; He struggles topreserve his identity and at the same time he loses it hopelessly.The hero's singularity becomes, in the existential performance styleof Grossman's leading actor, the largest part of his problem.Not that the choices offered to Leopold are very convincingalternatives to paralysis. When Ondfej Pavelka's Olbram, the fellowdissident called Bertram in Stoppard's translation, delivers his call toaction, he occasionally stops to take a pill; when Leopold's back isturned, he even pulls a crib sheet out of his pocket to make sure he'scovering all the salient points In his political speech to his friend.Such gestures inauthenticate the dialogue throughout the play andthrow the discourse of the characters into the context of satiricalquotation (supporting the quotation of Havel in the earliestmoments). Grossman, who produced the original stagings ofHavel's he Memorandum and he Garden Party remains extremelysensitive to Havel's use of imitated speech.In argo Deso/ato, Grossman presents a similar inauthenticity through his staging of the secondary characters; they are doubled into indifference. Suzana (Leopold's wife or former lover?) andLucy (the current mistress), are acutely aware of their similarities. Inone scene they exchange jackets, and in a moment of hesitation theydemonstrate their mutual awareness that they have also exchangedlovers. In another scene Suzana appears in a dark wig, which withthe thick glasses that both actresses wear makes them almost indistinguishable. When the dark, pretty, bespectacled Tereza Brodskaappears as Marketa later on, she looks like a younger version ofboth: self-consciously girlish in the style of Ibsen s Miss HildaWangel. s in many of Havel's plays, the hero in Largo Desolato hastrouble differentiating between women. Here, Grossman uses that asa strategy to reveal Leopold s advanced state of disorientation.


12/54

Grossman does not cast the same actors as mill workers and aspolicemen, as some directors have done, but rather emphasizes theirparadoxical difference by having each set of characters do the samethings. Many of the repetitive passages are also played at breakneckspeed, so that in moments like the scene In which the first workerdrinks successive shots of rum, the effect is terrifically comic. Thedrinks can't even be counted, though each bit tops the last. Even thesexual liaisons repeat themselves, so that the mechanism commentsnot only upon Leopold's banality, but upon the attentiveness of thelistening police, who know how to interrupt at precisely the most frustrating moments.This play also features a scene of delirious Imagination, akind of expressionist moment in which Leopold s experiencescoalesce Into a nightmare of persecution. Many directors (myselfincluded) have tended to over-produce these moments. Grossman,knowing that Havel is capable of sustaining such an Ulusive formaldramaturgy through whole plays, and aware of his own dlrectoralchoice to pitch the whole performance at a formally self-consciouslevel, chooses instead to underplay the delirium . It happens mostlyin the dark. As the group of secondary figures enters through theseveral doors while the lights slowly fade they quote in unison linesfrom the play that imply the hero's inadequacy (Stoppard's translation here is far from the original). When a pin-spot of light comes upon Leopold's face, he shouts "Enough " and they quietly disperse.The "grave silence that Havel calls for here achieves the chillingeffect that the note deserves.Havel 's most recent plays, ReDevelopment and Tomorrowe Get t Going contain moments of direct appeal, phatic efforts tocontact and motivate the audience. In the final moment of scene sixin Grossman's Largo Desolate, when Leopold begs the police for atrial, not a continuance, and Marketa interrupts his near surrender,Bartoska turns to the audience for a moment of straightforward

appeal. He never steps out of the play, yet the turn exemplifiesHavel's direction in the production memo that, "Anything which mightallow the playgoer to hope that the play does not refer to each personally would go directly counter to its meaning." For the very last,short scene, Identical to the first two, Havel's voice returns to the production; the red curtain floats up, the distorted music tape (not Wagner or Beethoven, but broken Mozart) plays again, and Bartoskareturns to the peephole. This last time the effect is not funny. Howwill this character f ind a new way to behave? Will he be able toforget the years of persecution? Will he find the courage to join thelarger wor1d? As a r t o ~ k a turns to the audience, to begin the curtaincall, Havel's voice leads the way.

12 Slavic and East European Performance Vol. 12, 1


13/54

WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON, MASTER BULGAKOV?Agnleszka Perlinska

Just three months before the breakup of the Soviet Union,the long repressed novelist and playwright MlkhaA Bulgakov unitedthe Russian and Ukranian Republics In a celebration of his 1OOthbirthday. The festivities took place In Kiev, the city of Bulgakov'sbirth, and were sponsored by both the Russian and Ukrainian Unionsof Theatre Workers. It was the first Instance of such cooperationbetween these unions.From May 15th to 23rd, the Theatre Festival and ScholarlyConference devoted to Bulgakov transformed the Ukrainian capitalInto a scene of high emotions. Vibrant Intellectual and artisticexchanges conducted In a spirit of cooperation at times gave way tobiting controversies. Let's not drag Bulgakov to the barricades,warned Anatoly Smelyansky, the Chairman of the OrganizationalCommittee, In his opening lecture. He later commented In a June 19,1991 Russkaya mysl Interview that Bulgakov had become part ofcontemporary Soviet mythology In recent years, and that his worksand life had acquired super-literary meaning. Smelyansky addedthat after years of suppression Bulgakov turned Into today's fashionand became a living participant in our struggle.The May 1991 conference In Kiev, the fifth of Its kind, followed a series of Bulgakov Readings, which have taken place InLeningrad biannually since 1984. The Kiev tribute, however, broughtinto sharp focus how vibrant and how difficult the period of transitionin the Soviet Union's cultural and political life had become. Thefestivities were bigger than before, attacting a record number ofSoviet and International scholars. Full birthday honors granted toBulgakov by the authorities created a special atmosphere of joy anddisbelief. And the Kiev location added charm whUe stirring up deeplyburied emotions concerning Bulgakov's relationship to Ukrainian literature and culture. In recent years a critical attitude toward Bulgakov in his homeland, as the Ukrainians put It, began to surface Inm ny ways. An extreme example of the ch rged atmosphereoccurred three days after the opening of the Bulgakov house whensomeone splashed the memorial plaque with red paint. In spite ofsuch occurrences, the birthday celebrations marked the gloriouscomeback of a persecuted writer. Posters and signs all over the citypublicized the conference and the festival. Events received fullmedia coverage In the Ukrainian press, radio, and television.Spread1ng out over the banks of the Dnlepr River, th ancientcity added a unique flavor to the celebration. The blooming chestnuttrees flooded Kiev, turning the beautiful cobblestone streets with theirBaroque town houses and onion-domed churches Into a fairy-tale

13


14/54

land. Vadim Skuratovsky, one of the conference participants,remarked on the formative influence this city has had on Bulgakov:You can find everything in Baroque: from the conservative to theavant-garde. By living and writing in Kiev the writer entered into thisworld of the Baroque. Bulgakov, a man of the seventeenth century,decided to unite everything; there is a strange synthesis in his work,the scholar added.The conference and the Festival shared this strangesynthesis, uniting the solemn and the joyous, the humorous and thesupernatural. fter all, miracles are known to be Bulgakov'strademark. Starting on May 15 the actual day of Bulgakov's birth aspecial mass ponikhida) was celebrated In the Krestovozdvizhenskaya Church, where the writer was once baptized. The event wouldhave been considered a miracle not too long ago. The tiny church,situated on a hill overlooking the city, was bursting with reporters, TVcrews, international guests, local scholars, Bulgakov's relatives, andlittle old Ukrainian ladles. In his sermon, the priest talked not only ofBulgakov's deep religious beliefs, but also about his novel heMaster nd Margarita. Of course it may have been pure coincidencethat as the novel was mentioned, a hunched old woman dressed inblack walked out of the church with a net bag carrying a bottle visiblymarked maslo (cooking oil) . I wanted to ask her if her name wasAnnushka, but she disappeared into the crowd.

Another unexplained phenomenon occurred right after thechurch ceremony at the opening of Bulgakov's house. Located onone of old Kiev's most beautiful streets, the Andreevsky spusk, Bulgakov's house, newly renovated and decorated with flowers andwreaths, stood out in the sea of people that had gathered for theoccasion. As the solemn speeches concluded and the guests wereinvited to enter the house, thunder suddenly split the clear sky.Everybody looked up, cheered and applauded, taking it as a signfrom the Master.Not incidentally, the number thirteen has become a leitmotiffor Bulgakov. The writer lived on the Andreevsky spusk in housenumber thirteen for exactly thirteen years from 1906 until 1919. Withdiligence, the guides pointed out to the visitors the original first andthirteenth steps of the staircase leading to Bulgakov's apartment.Yet the tour of the house, still inhabited by tenants only a yea r and ahalf ago, seemed magical all by itself. In the unfurnished rooms, thememories of Bulgakov's family and also his literary heros seemed tolinger on. Since the Turbin family in Bulgakov's first novel he WhiteGuard was largely based on the author's recollection of his Kievianhome, the guides recalled with great zealousness and conviction thedaily routines of the Turbins and of the Bulgakovs all at the sametime. Tatiana Rogozovskaya, a museum worker, said jokingly thatthe museum wants to condense the living space, and in typically

4 Slavic and East European Performance Vol. 12, No 1


15/54

Soviet fashion, tum one apartment into a home for Bulgakov, his rela-tives, his characters, and all the lovers of his work. our task is notonly to make this house into a museum, but to retain the warmth andhospitality that it enjoyed when the Bulgakovs lived in it. shestressed. The museum reaches out to Bulgakov relatives all over theworld. One of them, Prof. Irina Zemskaya, Bulgakov's niece andgodchild, was asked to become the godmother of the museum.The May 15th birthday celebration was concluded in theFranko Theatre, where the representatives of the two theatre unionsinaugurated the Festival in a bilingual ceremony. The Ukrainiansexpressed pride In the fact that their city was Bulgakov's cradle andinspiration. Smelyansky, on behalf of all the guests, thanked theUkrainian hosts for their hospitality and defined the Bulgakovcelebrations as an Important cultural undertaking In today's frlghfullife. Laure Troubetzkoy spoke for the international scholars, whountil recently had to study Bulgakov's works from afar. Only in theirimagination, as she put it, could they wander through the placesdescribed in Bulgakov's books. Kiev Is more beautiful than wecould ever Imagine, Troubetzkoy concluded, adding that now wewill leave to continue our work with even more love and interest, andtogether with our Russian colleagues we will spread Bulgakov'sworks around the world. A production of he Master nd Margaritain Ukrainian followed, officially opening the Theatre Festival.The productions presented from May 15 to 22 offered anextensive review of Buigakov's repertoire, and opened up a freeforum for discussion after each show. On May 16, the theatreSvobodnoe prostranstvo from Orlov gave a performance of Adamnd Eve n May 17 The Bolshoi Dramatic Theatre of Kazan pre-sented a Russian language production of he Master nd MargaritaOn May 18 the Ostrovsky Theatre from Kirov performed Moliere OnMay 19, The Saratov Dramatic Theatre presented an adaptation ofhe White Guard On May 20 the Kiev Operetta performed Zoya'sApartment and on May 21 the Kiev Theatre Institute presented heDays of the Turbins The Festival closed on May 22 with A Cabal ofHypocrites brought by the Moscow Art Theatre.

The Festival was an undisputed success in spite of theuneven artistic level of the presented pieces and the unusual lengthof the performances. Averaging over three hours every night, theshows proved to be far too long. Yet with a new performance eachevening, the Festival provided an unparalleled opportunity toimmerse oneself In Bulgakov's theatrical world. In addition, on May16th an exhibition devoted to Bulgakov and Theatre opened onAndreevsky spusk 3, displaying for the first time art work related toBulgakov's theatrical output: models of sets, sketches of costumes,props for the shows, and paintings of dramatic scenes.

15


16/54

MROZEK AT THE PLAYWRIGHTS' CENTER, MINNEAPOUSAnthony Bukoskl

Founded in 1971 , the Playwrights' Center, through Its variousresources, supports the development and public appreciation ofplaywrights and playwriting. The Center's core activities occur In abuilding that was once a church, then a college's band room andoffices. First, unrehearsed readings are held here as are seminarsand shoptalks with nationally-and internationally known playwrights.srawomir Mrozek s five-week residency was the Center's firstextended international program, according to Its newsletter.Events during the residency, which began October 1, 1991and ended November 8 Included and October 4 discussion of hiswork and a reception at the Center, an October 6 staged reading ofigr s at the Augsburg College Foss Center Theatre, an ctober8staged reading of The Ambassador at the Jungle Theatre, and anOctober 1o Conversation with Sfawomir Mroiek at the Center. Inthe next weeks, the playwright would speak at local colleges and,with a Playwrights' Center cast, prepare for a November 4 stagedreading ofA Summer s Day at the Cricket Theatre.

In the Playwrights' Center this night, October 10 , five actorsread a shortened version of The Ambassador, followed by a discussion with Mrozek. Whereas the reading two nights before onOctober 8 had been done with full staging-blocking; sound effects;props, and costumes; the ambassador, for example, wearing a pinstriped suit with boutonniere, the refugee, a mechanic's jumpsuit-this night's reading was done without costumes, and only when theambassador, played by Allen Hamilton, tried to telephone out didgarbled sounds come from the single prop, a recorded tape. Theplay had also been shortened to one hour. Along with lines andscenes, the entire part of the ambassador's wife had been cut, theactress who played her on October 8 now reading stage directions.This gender discrimination earned the play's editors a good-naturedribbing later. Mroiek himself, however, appeared pleased with thecuts, calling what he had seen not a reading but a performance.With the playwright sitting motionless In the rear of the hall, aplaywright who twenty-eight years before had left his Polishhomeland, returning last year for his sixtieth birthday, the play main-tained much of its dramatic power, even In shortened form: shownon stage were citizens of the state freeing themselves politically andintellectually, though at great risk to themselves. One of the antagonists, the deputy, his arguments proven fruitless, withdraws to awaitthe ambassador's end. The refugee, too, quietly awaits his won fateafter an ear11er desperate appeal for asylum. All the while the secretary, Othello, officiously performs the ambassador's wishes. The

18 Slavic and East European Performance Vol. 12, No. 1


17/54

gradual withdrawal of communication, the non-communication,which is due at least partly to lines and scenes being cut for thisreading, increases the ambassador's and our own anxiety as thewheels of state grind toward him--and us.fter the performance, University of Minnesota Englishprofessor, Archie Leyasmeyer, and Playwrights' Center artistic director, Jeffrey Hatcher, joined Mrozek on stage. Following their comments on the play and on stawomir Mroiek's place in contemporarytheatre, the author answered questions from the audience ofseventy-five, reflecting on how he had been an established shortstory writer before writing for the theatre. "Sorry to disappoint you,he responded to a questioner who asked whether Mrozek's eartyschooling or home Influences had directed his course toward thetheatre. i always had a strong visual sense, he said, adding thismade writing plays seem natural to him."Did he have events in Poland during the last two decades inmind when he wrote he Ambassador'? one listener asked. Mrozekanswered that he had in mind some place larger, for example, theSoviet Union.In the United States, which had not known war within itsboundaries in recent years, "the soul" can develop differently, he toldanother questioner. "Not so in Mexico or Poland.

Finally, asked whether he, Mrozek, would likely find himselfin another revolution, he answered, "No more. One revolution isenough. Count me out " With that the playwright joined the reception in the old hall with its church pews and fold-up chairs.So ended the Center's "A Conversation with S(awomirMrozek" and reading of he Ambassador on October 10. "Perhaps inthe months ahead," Playwrights' Center board member Milda Hedblom writes in the newsletter, "some Important reflections on themeaning of human freedom will grow from our encounter with Mr.

Mrozek and his encounter with us

19


18/54

2

Fatherlessness The Sibilyov Studio MoscowDirected y Viktor Sibilyov



19/54

RECREATING TRADITION: MOSCOW S SIBILYOV STUDIOJohn Freedman

The butterflies that have received the most attention in Mos-cow recently are those of Vladimir Nabakov and Roman Viktyuk (inhis staging of M. Butterfly . They are not, however, the only onesdeserving of note. There is also a play called he Butterfly thatserves as an excellent introduction to a new studio named for itsfounder, Victor Sibilyov.You won t find the studio in any of Moscow's theatricalguides. You won't find its phone number because it doesn't have aphone, and you can't buy a ticket because the fifteen or so chairs setup for the audience are free. But if you can find your way to thesecond floor of the House of Young Pioneers at 4 Aleksandr NevskyStreet, a few block from the Byelorussia train station, and its on anevening when the studio Is performing for an Invited audience, youwill have a chance to see some unique theatre.Everything about the studio excepting the quality of its workseems to e incidental. Its location came about because one of theactors, who works at the House of Young Pioneers w ith children,talked the administration into making available two rooms. The smal-ler room functions as the stage and auditorium, while the largerneighboring room serves as a backstage area, storage house, anddressing room. The costumes consist of what the actors have intheir closets at home, and the props are whatever they've been ableto scrape up. The sound system is a cassette recorder sitting in acorner of the room where the group performs. It is turned on and offby Sibilyov himself, who sits next to it running performances. Healso flicks light switches and announces intermissions.The studio s very formation would appear to have beenalmost incidental. Sibilyov graduated from GITIS as an actor in 1980and began acting under Anatoly Vasiliev. In time, he enteredVasiliev's directing course at GITIS, which he completed in 1989. Atabout this time, a group of actors attending Vasiliev's lessons askedSibilyov to work with them. As he recalls, he wasn't especially keenon the idea but in the end agreed. Their first meeting took placeJanuary 25, 1990. Having no official support, none of theparticipants receives any pay (they all support themselves at oddjobs). The company has no money for costumes or props and nomoney to rent a more suitable location in which to work.Most of the actors are professionally trained and haveworked previously in professional theatres, while one or two areamateur enthusiasts. The glue that binds them is the desire tomove away from the stilted, academic approach that drove Russiantheatre into a dead end in the 1980 s.

2


20/54

Slavic and East European Performance Vol. No . 1


21/54

Their manner of work Is a four-part process. They meet withSibilyov who gives annotated readings of an array of texts whichthey then discuss before deciding which of them they wUI work on.The preliminary work Is done independently of Slbllyov. The actorsgather, divide the roles among themselves, work out the general concept, and begin giving the project form. Eventually, they show theirwork to Sibilyov, who makes suggestions, corrections, and changes.When a sufficient number of scenes are brought to a presentablestate, they stage performances for audiences consisting of friendsand friends of friends, usually other actors, directors or critics.As of late 1991, this process had yielded one play, The But-terfly, and two full-length performances that Slbilyov prefers to callstudies (raboty) : Chekhov's Fatherlessness (i.e., Platanov , andPrologue (scenes from Machiavelli's Mandragola and Moliere's DonJuan . The studies evolve with each performance. Eventually,Fatherlessness will be a three-day epic, while on Juan will beremoved from Prologue and staged Independently. On occasion theactors present evenings consisting of etudes they have prepared on

their own. One such evening I attended Included a potpourri ofexcerpts ranging from The supplication of Danill the Exile and Pushkin to Gumilyov.The Butterfly Is a three-part play created by Slbilyov on thebasis of several one-act plays by Oleg Antonov and incorporatespoetry written by Viktor Kirillov. Uke all the studio's work, It Is eclectic, introspective, and highly atmospheric. A four-hour phantasmagoria, It explores the world of a troubled poet (AndreiYarushevsky) whose internal battles are played out as an odd gameof wits between various characters, some of whom appear to him indreams and others who perhaps exist. Among them are an irascibleNapoleon (Oieg Geraskin), a rather befuddled devil-like character(Sergei Karienkov), the poet's image of himself (a sort of Ossian ink ts played by Valery Chekhlyaev) and the poet's wife and girlfriend(both played by Alina Vlasova). The designation of roles and actors,Incidentally, is only approximate, for here, as in all the studio's performances, the actors frequently exchange roles without notice andwithout costume changes.The stage Is draped with a kind of cheese-cloth scrim thatseparates the actors and spectators from objects implying real life :flower arrangements, a table, pictures and Icons on the wall. (In fact,all three performances Incorporate the drape thus Intensifying theirotherworldly atmosphere.) On occasion, scenes are performed Inthe narrow space between the drape and the back wall.The first act of The Butterfly ( Hallucinations ) brings togethermost of the play's warring dream characters. The poet's subconscious is roughly divided Into rational and irrational states

3


22/54

(Napoleon and the poet-figu re, respectively), while the devil-likecharacter acts as a clumsy Intermediary who can't seem to decidewhose side he is on. That he Is most likely a link to the real wortd Isbrought out by the fact that he brings on stage a functioning portableradio and tunes In several actual programs that provide theopportunity for the actors to extemporize. The second act ( Not Hal-lucinations) reunites the poet with friends and loved ones. some ofwhom may be the prototypes of his dream characters, others whoare clearly not. The act begins with the poet's bungled attempt atsuicide and concludes when he finally succeeds. The final act( Return of the Prodigal Son ) presents the cathartic aftermath of thepoet's suicide. The stage Is cleared, the lights are brought up, andthe radiant poet Is visited by all of the play's characters. The actionconsists primarily of the poet's triumphant reading of his poetry whUethe enchanting Vlasova dances a ballet of reconcUiatlon around him.In My Theatre, an unpublished article that would have beencalled a manifesto were It written In a different age, SibHyov writes,Actors are not face-makers, dissemblers or masks. They do nottransform into anyone, they do not play anyone, nor do they pretend

to be anyone. They are people. Whatever kind of people they aredetermines what kind of actors they are.Indeed, the studio's unique charm emerges In part from anunusually fine match of actors' strengths and capabilities with theroles they perform. The typewritten programs handed out at eachperformance merely list the actors taking part, without any Indicationof what role they are playing. This Is done not only because theyexchange roles, but also because the crucial distinction for Sibllyovis not who is who, but who Is what. That Is, Oleg Geranskin,whether he is performing Napoleon, Abram Abramovich inFatherlessness or moments of someone else's character, invariablybrings to his roles a dark intensity and deep-seated emotionality.Andrei Yarushevsky, who Invariably reaches Into a stHI pool of calmand smoldering understatement for his emotions, Is Geraskin's perfect antipode. Valery Chekhlyaev, small in stature, Invariablyaccentuates his rather devUish, teasing wit, whUe the towering SergeiKarlenkov does the same with his good-natured, rather lumberingmanner. Alina Vlasova Is somewhat different, since she usually playsall the major female parts, even when there are several. But she Isalways true to her otherworldly fragility that occasionally blends witha subterranean wickedness. Not every match Is a total success. Attimes, performances take on a misguided, even amateurish feel.Such moments are particularly evident because they usually occuras Islands on a background of high professionalism.

4 Slavic and East European Performance Vol. 12 1


23/54

5


24/54

But whatever the case, the result Is something more thanmere character actors or types. Such clear-cut notions are Insufficient to describe the actors' drifts from state to state and character tocharacter the result of which is a subtle play on tones that rises justabove parody, but never reaches burlesque.This is nowhere better evident than in Fatherlessness one ofthe finest, most penetrating stagings of Chekhov one could hope tosee. The pristine setting is roughly the same as In The Butterfly: thesame cheese-cloth drapes and sofa similar flower arrangements andpictures. Six chairs Identical to those on which the audience sit areplaced in a row upstage left, while a piano is located downstage left.The performance begins with an exquisite naturalness. Characterschat casually, pause, mutter to themselves, stare about, and becomelost in thought. One is sorely tempted to say the action proceeds asin life, for, Indeed, this Is just the way people interact when gatheredon a lazy Sunday afternoon. But there is little here that is as in life.One seldom sees in Moscow theatre these days a total andimmediate Immersion into a structured, created world.Despite the superficial appearance of normalcy, everythingon the subterranean level is slightly askew. The facade of normalcyis violated by exaggerating insignificant details, such as an actorgreedily wolfing down an orange, peel and all. Moments of pathosare played with an irony that undercuts the spectator's preconceptions about Chekhov. At the performance I attended, for example,each instance of weeping on stage caused uproarious laughter in theaudience. This was achieved primarily by the careful construction ofcontext and atmosphere and was never elicited by heavy-handedcomic devices. The natural residual effect was that many of the shortfarcical scenes hit their mark with an introspective power rarelyaccessible to farce.Certainly, the actors' task is simplified by the fact that theydo not have to project to a large audience. But there is more at workhere than that. Their world is put together so painstakingly and soconvincingly-piece by piece, step by step, scene by scene-that inthe end it is the only world that exists for the duration of the performance.

This Father/essness debunks the notion that Chekhov istalky. It is, instead, a philosophical revelation or confession in

which every individual point of view is required to illuminate theothers. This is achieved, in part, by revealing elements of Chekhov'sworld usually ignored or missed altogether. For instance, the minorcharacter of the horse thief Osip Is interpreted here not as a typicalmuzhik, but as a mysterious, almost sinister relative of Dostoevsky'sSvidrigailov. Such strokes cause a major shift in the play's tonality,distancing it from melancholy and bringing it into immediate contact with the perceptive power that marks all of Chekhov's drama.

26 Slavic and East European Performance Vol. 12 No.1


25/54

7


26/54

Prologue is essentially a series of philosophical monologues,dialogues, and scenes exploring the themes of love, commitment,honesty, and betrayal. Here as in the Chekhov performance, intonat ion and textual address play a crucia l role. As Don Juan(Yarushevsky) and Sganarelle (Chekhlyaev) discuss the sublimelypleasant nature of love, one is instantly aware of an intangible riftbetween the spoken word and Its message. The actors' delivery ismarked by a vaguely ironic, velvety chant that clear1y focuses attention on the cliches with which one expects such words to be spokenand performed. However, It is not done in a way that deprives thelines of their sincerity. In Prologue, perhaps more than in the otherperformances, this tight-rope act is not always performed with thenecessary precision, but when It works It is very effective.As in Fatherlessness, the dynamics of Prologue s mlses ns ene play a crucial role in the actors mastering their tiny stagespace. Actors shift positions, exit or enter in mid-dialogue, or perform off stage, creating the Ulusion that the stage itself is larger than itis, or that it is actually moving. Frequently, the spectator has the feeling that he or she is travelling from room to room, and has justarrived in time to catch the end or beginning of a conversation.After the performance of Prologue, I chatted with ElizavetaNikishchikhina, whose performance of the title role in Vaslliev's staging of Vassa Zheleznova catapulted her into the from ranks of Sovietactresses in the 1970s. Her comments captured the value of thework at the Sibilyov Studio.It has taken on the extraordlnarUy difficult task of laying thefoundations of a bridge to a new theatre, she said. Moreover, tiwould appear to e a bridge that is attempting to reestablish a linkwith the best traditions of Russian theatre, something long lost to us.Soviet theatre is dying and that is natural. It has to die. This studiohas nothing in common with Soviet theatre whatsoever.

This is not to say, of course, that the studio s work isfounded on nostalgia. Sibilyov is clear1y uncomfortable, for instance,with the Stanislavskian heritage. Without mentioning names, hecategorically rejects all theatrical methods and the notion of transformation. There is also nothing Meyerholdian about his work,unless, perhaps, one seeks parallels to Meyerhold's work with Kommisarzhevskaya. But even there, the simUarity is less to Meyerholdthan it is to the world of the Symbolists. with whom Sibilyov feels agreat affinity. Ultimately, however, his sensibilities are rooted inanother time altogether.In Shakespeare's and Moliere's eras, Sibilyov says, therewas no psychology. That, and the author's phUosophical outlook, iswhat I am driving at. Echoing Nikishchikhina, he adds, The Russiantheatrical tradition is extraordinarily rich, but it has gotten away fromits sources. What we are doing is trying to recover theatre's original



27/54

power. The Slbilyov Studio s not a theatre and has no pretensionsto e one; It's participants have abstained from taking that leap untilthey feel th y are ready for it. Moreover, It shares nothing In common with the studio-theatre movement of the 1980s. That, however,only makes th ir work the mor Interesting for, despite occasionallapses, It s filled with the promise of a fresh approach. One thing scertain: tog th r with a handful of other theatrical enterprises, It Ishelping give th lie to the oft-heard lament that there Is nothing newor Interesting In Moscow theatre.

9


28/54

1 4Y S MYBIRTHDAY TADEUSZ KANTOR S UVING ARCHIVEAgnleszka Perlfnska

Seeing the late Tadeusz Kantor's final work, brought to the1991 New York International Festival of the Arts by Cricot 2, provedto be more than just witnessing the end of an extaordlnary chapter inthe twentieth century avant-garde theatre. Despite the very noticeable absence of the director and the haunting images of death thatpermeated his work, Today Is My irthday did not confirm death'sinevitability, but turned into a triumph of life over death.At LaMama, Kantor's famous Theater of Death magicallytransformed Itself into a thriving and vibrant manifestation of life. Yetit was a special kind of life--a life afmr death or a life bevon


29/54

watched for his reactions--something they now miss. s a result theyhave to work much harder without him.In a conversation after their final performance at La MaMa,the Janicki twins touched upon the controversy surrounding thedecision to show Kantor's last production. Despite all the difficultiesand doubts that arose in connection with performing and touringToday Is y Birthday they stressed that all the actors unanimouslyvoted for it: "The work had to be shown. Otherwise it would be onour conscience. The Janickis also added that all the scenes werealmost ready and that the rehearsal process was concluded by ZofiaW i ~ c r a w 6 w n a a choreographer who has worked with Kantor andattended all the rehearsals. According to the Janickis, "she served asthe eye from the outside, and that made the actors' work mucheasier." While recalling the debates associated with showing Kantor'slast production, Piotr Chybinski, the Polish manager of the group aswell as a member of the acting ensemble, brought up Kantor's ownwords: "Art should defend itself." Keeping in mind the Maestro'sprinciple, the ensemble, in his opinion, should not fear doing Kantora disfavor by showing the work without his final approval. As for thefuture of Cricot 2 nobody knows," Chybil'i'ski commented, "but we aredetermined to tour Kantor's work as long as possible. After all, weare a living archive "This apt metaphor extends to the production framingKantor's last work as a piece that hovers between past and present.On the one hand, it undeniably amasses and freezes the familiarimages, personages, and themes characteristic of Kantor's uniquetheatrical vision. On the other, in its dimensions, Kantor's final piecetranscends the previous works with old images acquiring new magnitude. Kantor acknowledges this turn toward the past through thecharacter of "The Poor Gir1 Who Is Not There . He compares her inhis notes to a figment of memory," and makes her reappearthroughout the play as a leitmotif: "It's always the same thing. Howsad, how very sad," she says.In this final work, characters from previous pieces come tolife like ghosts from Kantor's past. Classroom benches are againfilled. Public officials tirelessly deliver their speeches. Human emballages fill in the space. Familiar contraptions and machinery areoperated by the "Power People .. Countless processions anddances of death burst Into the room, and blend with the recurringimages of war, anarchy, and barbarism.Today Is y Birthday again protests, as Kantor put it in theprogram notes, "inhuman and horrible collectivism. The privacy of"The Poor Room of Imagination presented on stage sharply contrasts with the images of massive intrusion. "'My Poor Room,'" writes

31


30/54

Kantor, is invaded by the Organs' of war: a tank, a gun-barrel, asquad-car; 'My Poor Room' Is turned Into a battlefield In which thebattle is for the Individual. As the Janicki brothers stressed, Kantor'stheatre had always been based on humanistic Ideals and a deep concern for the human being:

A single human being, a building block of systemsand societies remains at the center of Kantor'sdramas. Therefore, It was Important for Kantor toleave proof of the individual's existence In the wortd.In the last show, The Poor Room of Imaginationsymbolizes human creativity, that Is, of an Individual's contribution to others.In The Poor Room of Imagination the confrontationbetween the Individual and totalitarian forces finds Its extremeexpression. It Is like a clash between two allen systems, to useKantor's phrase, in both a metaphorical and literal sense. Unlike hisprevious productions In which he temporarily resided onstage,Kantor has now moved in permanently with his bed, table, chair,paintings, and family photograph. I will assemble onstage, In thisroom of mine, all the objects as though I really decided to live here,he writes. A door, a stove with a pipe, and a tea kettle provide the

physical realia of this inhabitancy. Furthermore, more forcefully thanever, Kantor's destiny Is identified with his works of art-symbolizedby the easels and frames on stage. The space within the frame willbe empty; its depth will be filled by the actors and the roomproprietor's Imagination, writes Kantor In the program notes. Bymeans of imagination, art-the paintings, the stage, the production Inprogress, the theatre as a whole-becomes Indistinguishably fusedwith Kantor's life.The Poor Room of Imagination consolidates and bringsInto sharp focus the most important themes of Kantor's work: thestruggle of an individual against totalitarianism, the poor reality asthe proper subject matter of art, and the imagination as a weaponand as the highest attribute of a human being. It is In The PoorRoom of Imagination that life and art, illusion and reality, past andpresent Irrevocably merge, finding their fullest expression and theirfinal refuge. In Today is y irthday a threshold between the worldof illusion and our world of Reality Is crossed over, writes Kantor.

The threshold, according to werminskl, Is the key tounderstanding Kantor's work. Everything that is significant meets inhis theatrical world on a border. As a result, what we see is neitherlife nor death, neither life nor art, neither reality nor illusion, neitherpast nor present. As the final performance begins, Kantor's recordedvoice announces: Here I am on stage again. I don't think I'll ever e



31/54

able to explain this habit of mine to you or to myself. To tell the truth,I'm not really on stage, but on the threshold . .In both a metaphorical and literal sense, In his final pieceKantor himself had crossed the threshold between the realm of thedead and the realm of the living. As W e f t n i r ~ s k l put It, even thoughthe whole production was about death, It also embraced the very realfact of Kantor's passing." To illustrate the extraordinary circumstances surrounding Kantor's last show, Wef'minski used the personage of rhe Gir1 Who Is Not There as an example. Her characterremained enigmatic to everyone throughout rehearsals. rhe onlything that Kantor always stressed was that the gir1 came on Saturday.And he died on Saturday, said e f t n i ~ s k i , adding:

Furthermore, a week before his death Kantor hadstaged his funeral scene. At that point the show wasdone. He only said: prepare buckets with dirt for thefinal rehearsal. We will be making grave mounds onthe scene with the crosses.Kantor never came to that last rehearsal.In the role of Kantor's self-portrait, W e f m i ~ s k i closely interacted with the director. Noting that nobody prior to Kantor hadstaged his own self-portrait in the theatre, he explained that beforeKantor's death the self-portrait was supposed to constantly playaround the director, mimic his gestures, and repeat his words. Whenasked how Kantor directed him in that role, Welminski explained thathe was given total freedom. He as well as other actors wereprompted to create rather than to recreate. Their Individual performances resulted from an endless process that took place on and offstage. The theoretical always accompanied the practical and thework on stage was no more important than the converstatlons in theintense intellectual atmosphere offstage.

The Janicki twins spoke about this sense of communitybetween Kantor and his actors when giving an account of how thelast productions had been created. They recalled that in the winter of1989 some talk had started about the new show," explaining that"each new production would literally be called the new show. Therewere no titles for a long time. The work on each production beganin a different way. Today Is y irthday started from stage design."Word got around that Kantor was building tanks. He would goaround agitated: 'I'm building beautiful things '" remembered theJanickis, "He was so excited that we would all go to take a look."Observing Kantor at work was a natural process for the actors.Kantor encouraged it, and was always very receptive to the actors'comments.


32/54

In these Initial stages of the production, as the Janickisobserved, working with Kantor was like assisting somebody in cookIng dinner from the very first moment that this person goes to thestore, buys all the ingredients, cuts them up, all the way up to thefinal stages of serving the prepared dish on a table set for dinner.The actors emphasized that Kantor's work was always based on aconcrete problem that the director was intimately familiar with:"Kantor never started from theory but from a concrete idea such as'my work room,' 'my atelier and what happens In it.'" Yet sometimesthat concrete Idea or 'message' in a new show was not clear to theactors immediately. When that happened Kantor would get angrybecause everything in the show was directed toward the realizationof that idea. He would scream during the rehearsal: "You have noIdea what is going on here " The Janickis emphasized how difficult itwas to keep up with Kantor's Imagination and the demands he put onthe actors:

He would know what we could do before we ourselves knew it. He liked to demonstrate and was agreat actor but he always worked from the actor'sown potential. He would get very angry if we couldnot do everything the way he wanted.The Janickis described the rehearsals as a train of thought, aspontaneous, intuitive process. a series of creative encounters.Dozens of scenes were created as a result of It but only a few wouldmake it into the final version of the show. As one of the Cricot 2actors put it: "Working with Kantor was a profound experience, aprocess of acquiring knowledge, and not only acting skills. It was anexperience of growing as an actor, but foremost as an artist.Their work with Kantor stopped abruptly just like the last production itself: "Suddenly everything is frozen in a final half-gesture,"

writes Kantor in his notes, unknowingly creating a metaphor for theend of his theatre. Yet, even though the creator of the "Theater ofDeath" as well as its participants were caught off guard by theunexpectedness of death, they did not succumb to its forces. Today/s y Birthday as shown around the world, Is proof of their heroicresistance. The "living archive" keeps the legacy of Kantor's workalive and brings its founder back to life with every image that he hadcreated. In the final analysis life triumphs over death, the frozenimage Is full of life. As never before, Kantor's life and destiny haveIdentified and realized themselves within his work of art.



33/54

HUNG RI N PRESIDENrS IRON B RS IN NYCatrick Hennedy

On November 9 and 10 Arpad Goncz, playwright and president of Hungary, attended the performance of his 1973 play, IronBars at the Riverside Shakespeare Company In New York City. Theevent presented a startling contrast to the conditions under whichPresident Goncz wrote the play, having just ended six years ofimprisonment for his part In the failed Hungarian revolution. Uke hisown life at the time. Goncz s play tells the story of an artist In atotalitarian country who is released from prison.

ron Bars presents a somewhat absurd version of theprisoner, Emmanuel, and his ordeals. Emmanuel's Ideals are nevermade clear enough to Identify them as admirable. The forces aroundEmmanuel that attempt to manipulate his life make him Into more ofa pawn than a hero. Emmanuel does have his good points: writinginspirational poetry for his comrades while in prison, sharing hisrations with them, and refusing to eat or cooperate with thegovernment's later attempts to use him for its own ends. But his dissent Is mainly because the president has taken credit for Emmanuel's(questionably) great poem, the country's national anthem. Granted,this did result in his imprisonment, but Emmanuel seems more angryover his resulting loss of status than because of any ideological conflict with the powers that be. Near the end of the play the one personwho understands Emmanuel, the doctor who must treat him after hehas refused to eat, has a moment of realization about her newpatient s motivations. She calls him a professional hero, andEmmanuel seems to agree. The doctor is referring to Emmanuel'sneed, after being part of the original revolutionary junta and one ofthe highest ranking officers of the government, to continue assertinghis importance.

The three acts of the play are essentially three dialoguesbetween Emmanuel and those who wish to manipulate him. The firstact takes place in the prison, where agents of the governmentattempt to persuade Emmanuel to sign a confession before hisrelease. Every angle of the Orwellian re-writing of history is exploredas Emmanuel refuses to legitimize the president's claim to writing thenational anthem. Despite Emmanuel's refusal to sign the confessionand his pleas to stay in prison where he is safe, he is forced to leave.

In the second act, Emmanuel returns home to confront hiswife and his mistress, both of whom he has not seen for ten years.Emmanuel's wife is angry at him for rebelling enough to upset theirdomestic tranquility. Emmanuel's lover is angry at him for not livingup to the grand Ideals she always thought he had. As a result, thetwo women gang up on him, backing the disoriented and passive

5


34/54

Emmanuel from one corner of the stage to the other. This confrontation emphasizes the ambiguous nature of Emmanuel's heroiccharacter.Finally, Emmanuel is taken to a mental hospital after refusingto eat for four days. While there, he meets the understanding headdoctor, who sympathizes with his plight. The main part of the thirdact is the conversation between Emmanuel and the president, whovisits the hospital In order to explain the real reason for Emanuel'srelease. He tries to persuade Emmanuel to become the president'sghost writer-poet. The president explains his Marxist-like rationalizations for putting Emmanuel in prison for the good of hisgovernment's evolution. Emmanuel, however, refuses to have anypart of it. He eventually throws a fit and drives the president away.The play ends with the doctor, who has witnessed everything, deciding to give Emmanuel what he wanted from the beginning: the confinement of a cell and the opportunity to write poems In peace.The Riverside Shakespeare Company's production of IronBars boasts prestigious directors Andre de Szekely once director ofthe Royal Theatre and director-dramaturg of the Petofi Theatre InBudapest, and Laszl6 Vamos, former art istic director of theHungarian National Theatre In Budapest and guest director at theHungarian State Opera House. Both are now working in Americantelevision. Unfortunately, the play they have directed is handicappedfrom the start by the script's lack of dramatic action. Because thethree acts of the play are in effect, three long conversations, the production attempts to compensate by emphasizing the humorous ele-ments. This is not very successful, however, as varying levels ofacting abil ity and professionalism create an uneven effect. GaryGoodrow presents a visually perfect Emmanuel as the weary victimof a long imprisonment who is now forced to face the world. Hisover-subtle acting and his rare unconvincing outbursts, however, areovershadowed by many of the less than subtle supporting players.Iron Bars in the end, provides an interesting view of a political prisoner, written by a man who was a political prisoner himself.Goncz does not settle on any kind of cliche heroic depiction, butgives us a character who is infinitely more human in his mixedmotivations. It is doubtful whether the political prisoner In Iron Barswould ever end up in the same presidential position as the play'sauthor.

36 Slavic and ast European Performance Vol. 12, No 1


35/54

ALEKSANDR GELMAN S WITH ONNE TIONSAT THE NO CURTAIN THEATREWASHINGTON D.C.

Vera BorkovecAleksandr Gelman's play Man with Connections openedOctober 4 and 5 1991 at the No Curtain Theatre, In performancesgiven at the Church Street Theatre in Washington, D.C. It wasdirected by the founder of No Curtain, actor-director Jlrl Fisher withsets designed by Carl F. Gudenlus. Jlr l Fisher has dedicated histheatre to the staging of East European and Russian plays. Man

with Connections ran from October 4 through October 26.This is the first time a play by the Soviet playwright AleksandrGelman has been staged In Washington, although this play won firstprize at the 1988 Edinburgh Festival and Gelman had achieved somepolitical fame as an adviser to Gorbachev and supporter of BorisYeltsin during the August coup. It is a fact that Gelman's dramaticworks do not play well to American audiences. Although he hasbeen called the poet of perestroika and his plays have been largelycritical of the Soviet system, they are too Soviet, in that they dealwith problems of the Soviet workplace, with Soviet management orwhat might better be called mismanagement, and they are tooinvolved with the details and machinations of the Soviet system to beappealing In a dramatic sense to our audiences.It Is my view that Man with Connections Is the best of Aleksandr Gelman's plays and the one most likely to appeal to Westernaudiences because of its universal themes. It is this that motivatedJiri Fisher to direct the play. He saw its broader context and theuniversality of Its tragic elements. It is a play about guilt, about lostIdeals, about lost values and lost limbs, about hope and despair.At the outset we meet Andrei and Natasha, a couple who areon the verge of destroying their marriage of twenty years. We livethrough those twenty years with them--and hope that the remainscan be salvaged. These are basically decent people who managedto get ahead by making compromises--sometimes outrageouscompromises--that have ultimately turned their lives into tragedy. Yetthere seems to be no way back. As the battle of the sexes unfolds,with each accusing the other, we, the spectators, come to realizethat each have been in some way guilty for the accident that hasmaimed their only son. ut when we hope for redemption andAndrei tries to convince us that it is possible, Natasha brings us backto earth by pointing out the naive impossibility of this dream. Theyboth have become too callous and too comfortable in their lives, anda return to the days of their innocent youth no longer seems possible. At the end of the play Natasha calls a taxi and leaves her hus-

7


36/54

band. The phone rings and the invalid son talks to his father. Yes,Mother and I will be at the hospital tomorrow to bring you home,Andrei assures him. It is up to us to decide whether we believe thatNatasha will come back--as she always has before--to help Andreibring their crippled son home.Dick Stilwell truly outdid himself in the role of Andrei, the typical Soviet career man, who hates the Party but loves all that it has tooffer him. He loves his job, its responsibilities and its obligations, butat the same time he yearns for the simple life he knew as a youngman when he was obligated to no one and could enjoy his leisureand his family life. He has become a workaholic and a toady who willdo anything to get ahead, even share his wife with a man who canhelp him along in his career. Natasha, who has probably been thecareer-instigator all along and forced Andrei to join the Party, cannotforgive him for the f ct that he would sacrifice her honor for his ownadvancement. For Natasha this is the last straw, although she isquite aware of her own guilt. Both of the actresses who playedNatasha, M.J. Karmi and Laurie Mufson, endowed the character withanger and ambition, guilt and remorse. And each, in her own way,succeeded in making the character plausible.

Man with onnections is interesting to mericanaudiences precisely because it is not concerned only with problemsof Soviet life. The questions Gelman raises about responsibility,morality, cherished and lost hopes, ambition and humility areuniversal. They go beyond being something related only to a placethat is now referred to as the former Soviet Union. Many of Gelman'splays will not find much understanding outside of his native land, butthis is one that strikes a dose chord in many hearts and is likely to beone of his most accessible plays. Jiri Fisher is to be congratulatedfor his ability to make this play live on the Washington stage.

8 Slavic and East European Performance Vol. 12, No. 1


37/54

ST NISL VSKIIN TH STICKSMichael Yurieff

The U-32 High School in Montpelier, Vermont, which oncehoused The Atlantic Theater Company, hosted The First RussianVolkov Theatre in their p r o d u t ~ o n of Vassily Shukshin's I Believe.While in Vermont for two weeks this past September as part of TheOpen Stage's Sister City Theatre Festival, the five actors from Yaroslavl also performed at St. Michael's College and the Old Town Hallin Shelburne.

In Introducing their performance, actor-Interpreter MikhailZhedunov passionately spoke of how they came to show .. he Russian soul or character, not the Russian school of acting, to theirVermont audiences . The point of our show, he added, Is tounderstand each other better. He then proceeded to Introduce theactors : Vladimir Shebankov a protege of the famed Soviet actor,director teacher Oleg Yefremov; the husband and wife team ofNatasha and Valery Sergeyev, both twenty-year veterans of theVolkov; and last but not least, the oldest of the group and its d irector,People's Artist of the Soviet Union, Sergei Tikhonov, who was Introduced as a World War II veteran. Zhedunov clarified this last bit ofinformation for the audience by emphatically stating it means hefought against fascism. All of the actors had also worked together Inthe U.S.-U.S.S.R. production of Banya Bathhouse), and all but Tikhonov had ties to the Yaroslavl Theatre Institute.The performance began in English with a few apologies forthe actors' language skills. While the actors changed for the firstscene, the tape-recorded chirping of birds filled the auditorium.Reminiscent of Georgii Tovstonogov's Uncle anya at the McCarterTheatre in Princeton in 1987, where the tape-recorded buzzing offlies created the ambience of rural Russia, the Volkov's sound effectshelped bring the Moscow Art Theatre tradition to life.

The text of the adaptation only reinforced the realistictrademark of the MXAT style with lines like: We should do our bestnot to forget our soul . . I'm drawn to the cemetery, I ponder here .and My soul aches . . The production consisted of five short playsadapted by Mikhail Vorfolomeyev from stories by Vassily Shukshin,one of the Soviet Union's derevenshchiki or country prose writers.The country settings of the stories made a logical tie-in forVermonters, but all the Russian soul searching without English translation tested the audience's stamina. The stories, accompanied onlyby a brief English synopsis in the program, dealt with such subjectsas an eccentric who wants to save mankind by destroying microbeseverywhere; a veterinarian on a collective farm defending his right to

9


38/54

celebrate heart transplants; and the local collective farm administra-t ion coming to execute an unemployed man for alcoholismThe actors playing a variety of roles did their best to conveyas much as they did through their emotional performances alongwith an occasional word or two in English. A random sampling of theaudience showed that they achieved their objectives. Actors and

udience like met in a world of re listic cting sh ring asentimentality and sympathy for the characters and their Individualtragedies.

4 Slavic nd East European Performance Vol. 12 No 1


39/54

UNDERST NDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE THEATREN E K R O ~ I U S S TH NOS

John FreedmanThe appearance of the latest production by Eimuntas Nek

r o ~ i u s In Moscow, performed by the State Theatre of Lithuania In collaboration with the Moscow theatre Friendship of Nationalities, wastimely, indeed. Opening on September 21 , 1991 , exactly a monthafter the unraveling of the coup, and a few weeks after Uthuanlaregained independence, it created one of Moscow's biggest theatrical sensations since the advent of perestroika. The opening nightaudience for he Nose based on the story by Nikolai Gogol, was agenuine who's who of Moscow society while the crowds hoping tofind a stray ticket outside the dowdy Pushkin Theatre reminded oneof the Taganka or Lenkom in the old days.

Responses broke down predictably. The full houseapplauded enthusiastically while critics and people in the knowwhispered quietly that the production was nothing new. If Nekr o ~ i u s had done this five years ago, it would really have been something, one well-connected person told me, but now .. e k r o ~ l u shimself seemed to anticipate such a reaction in a interview printed ina booklet sold with the program where he called the notion of creating art for the elite a nice cliche, but otherwise, nonsense.Perhaps I was fortunate never to have seen a e k r o ~ i u s production before, but I couldn't help feel that with the removal of oneset of political obstacles to art the dual response was merely a caseof politics once again taking precedence over art.Certainly, e k r o ~ i u s himself did not shy away from politicalallusions. Instead of losing his nose, his Kovalyov (VIadas Bagdonas) attempts to relieve himself of a troublesome attraction to theopposite sex by voluntarily submitting to castration (whimsicallyachieved by the vicious swing of an axe, followed by the appearanceof a dangling pink ribbon to indicate flowing blood). However,shortly after the madcap doctor (played with engaged deviltry byPovilas Budris) tosses Kovalyov's member In a trash can, the stillbloody nose emerges in a pink shirt and something resembling apink yarmulke to pursue its own life in a new-found state of freedom. This presents plenty of opportunities for e k r o ~ i u s to echothe dismemberment of the Soviet Union, as well as the devastatingproblems that is has engendered.

n one of several touches, the nose attempts to marry abeautiful maiden, eliciting the jealous wrath of Kovalyov who entersin a fascist goose-step and tries to steal the bride. A comic scuffleensues, the result being that both of them become her groom. Insuch ways, N e k r o ~ i u s teases his audience with the irresolvable

41


40/54

G 0s::iiGs::c:5>Q)

42 Slavic and East European Performance Vol. 12 No . 1


41/54

dependence. Kovalyov's subsequent efforts to coerce the nose toreturn to its proper place are in vain. Standing erect with a new-foundsense of potency, and echoing Kovalyov's fascist tendencies, thenose eventually goes on a rampage and has everyone locked up intrash-bin prisons.These scenes are far from being programmatic allegories.On one level they may hint at familiar historical and political events,but they neither attempt to represent or resolve them. The confus-ing element, that is, the artistic image that ultimately leads awayfrom politics into the realm of art or philosophy, s the figure of thebeautiful maiden who appears in several of the play's scenes, perhaps representing a concept similar to truth, beauty, or justice.Naturally, the Intent Is not to illustrate the complex relationshipbetween Russia and Lithuania, but to grapple with those inherentlyIrreconcilable problems of which the Russia Lithuania orKovalyov Nose pairings are merely metaphors.Performed by Kostas Smoriginas with a marvelous sense ofnaive humor owing much to Harpo Marx, the nose triumphantlyprances about the stage, humming, squeaking, whistling, and spitting water skyward in mock ejaculations (which, thanks to theexcellent lighting and a solid black backdrop, form beautiful cascades that gracefully hang in the air). There is never a hint of naturalism in the sexual theme, always performed n the lightest of farcical tones. And if Harpo served as a starting point for Smoriginas'snose, the overall atmosphere of a Marx Brothers' film provides thebasis for one rowdy cafe scene replete with fast-paced chases, upendings and reversals.Ultimately, The Nose is a fantasy that derives only itsbroadest outline from Gogol's story. Nekrosius has also Includedthemes faintly reminiscent of other Petersburg stories, excerpts fromSelected Passages from Correspondence with Friends and quotesfrom works about Gogol by Merezhkovsky and Rozanov. Thisprovides the basis for one of the play's sub-plots: the role of the artistn society.The play begins as Gogol (Remlglus Vllkaitis) standsproudly, a statue high on a pedestal in the midst of a wide semi-circleof trash-bins (which, as we see later, are Inhabited by socialites,somewhat as in Beckett's End Game). A washer-woman bustlesaround him, cleaning him up to keep him presentable. When sheclimbs on a ladder to toss a bucket of water over his head, he pullsout an umbrella just in the nick of time to avoid being drenched.Subsequently, he is hounded continually by an elongated barber(Gediminas Girdvainis) who may represent a censor or, perhaps,good taste. His intent is to make Gogol remain a cold statue on a

4


42/54

C 0cCcc:;

44 Slavic nd East European Performance Vol. 12, No. 1


43/54

pedestal. He forces Gogol to lug his pedestal-turned-trunk about onhis back and repeatedly clips off the quills that grow on his hands(thereby, both clipping his wings of freedom and destroying hisability to write).rom time to time, Gogol breaks away from his tormentor,seeking release in mad, confessional ravings that Invariably offendthe barber's--and, occasionally, the audlence's--sense of propriety.(During Intermission, one talented Moscow set designer told me withdissatisfaction that e k r o ~ i u s had no right to make Gogol talk atsuch length about Russia resembling a bog.) In the finale, the writeris captured In a enormous straight-jacket with flowing arms, thusreviving for an instant the motif of Gogol as a bird seeking freedom inflight. Soon enough, however, the arms are wrapped tightly around

him and he is returned, mute, to his pedestal.With the exception of Gogol 's philosophical ravings, language plays an insignificant role in this vividly visual productionwhere the set designed by Nadezhda Gultyaeva and the mises enscene carry the burden of explication, so that the simultaneoustranslation was nearly superfluous. Nekosius has clearly found aunique and expressive theatrical language that is readily accessibleto all. Whether or not one s prepared to hear or understand what hehas to say is a different matter.

Whatever the case, I found nothing in he ose that couldcast doubt on the sincerity of Nekrosius's statements made on opening night and later carried on Soviet television. He said that he wasequally as proud to be the first cultural ambassador of a freeLithuania in Moscow as he was to have the opportunity to interpretone of the greatest writers of Russian literature. It is a heritage, hesaid, for which I have an abiding love and affinity.

5


44/54

6

''c:: JEiii0 >~

o; fl0; fa> .a- 8l0 -zQl '' :J0 cZ:5Ql 0c1- ~ ;j

Qlc1-c:;~Ql;jii5



45/54

EDINBURGH FESTIVAL REPORT, 1991:THE NATIONAL THEATRE OF MARTIN, CZECHOSLOVAKIABAAL BY BERTOLT BRECHTTHE DISPUTE BY PIERRE MARIVAUX

James F. SchlatterThe arrival of the National Theatre of Martin at the 1991 Edinburgh International Festival gave audiences here their first chance toassess the current state of professional repertory theatre In Czechoslovakia as It emerges from more than twenty years of state-enforcedrepression and stabilization. The company performed two productions from Its repertoire which seem, on the surface, to be widely dis

parate in language, mood and theatrical style. The Dispute byeighteenth-century French playwright Pierre Marivaux, opened in thecity of Martin in the spring of 1988. The play is a teasing erotic fablewhich purports to answer the question whether men or women aremore prone to temptation and betrayal In love. Its Infusing spirit Isplayful, cerebral, and supremely civilized. Bertolt Brecht's ear1y antiexpressionistic play, Baa/ which the company first performed inspring 1989, Is a vulgar anthem of anarchic outrage. It spits in theeye of bourgeois society and then staggers toward Its meaninglessend in the middle of nowhere. Baal takes love and strips it of everything but appetite; The Dispute takes love and drains it of everythingbut mind.

But despite coming from radically different worlds bothplays, as performed by the youthful and energetic Martin company,lead their audiences into the same dark hollows of nature. Bothplays examine the dangerous consequences of such total withdrawalfrom society and explore the dark side of human nature suddenlyfreed of every social convention, moral inhibition, and emotional tie.In both productions, directed by Roman Polak with great intelligenceand theatrical boldness, nature is revealed to be not a green wombof earth but a black hole of consciousness.The company performed at the St. Bride's Centre, an Edinburgh community center housed in an old Presbyterian church. Theperformance space served both productions extremely well. Thestage is a large bare platform set on low scaffolding inside the formerchurch sanctuary. The surrounding Gothic nave towers high overthe stage and disappears in the darkness above. The audience sitson tiered risers that climb toward the back of the vaulted auditorium,giving one the sense of looking down on the stage at one end of anenormous sculpted catacomb. Both productions capitalized on thecold, shrouding darkness to evoke a world empty of meaning andvoid of human contact.Both productions were staged with minimal sets created by

7


46/54


47/54

The Dispute y Pierre MarivauxThe National Theatre of Martin Czechoslovakia. Directed y Roman Polak


48/54

The four young actors who play the savage innocents, MilanBahul (who also plays Ekhart In Baa{ , Frantisek Vyrostko, LubomiraHlavacova-Krkroskova, and Daniela Kuffelova, were all wonderfullyadept at convincing the audience of their coltish exuberance andadmirably unself-conscious In their willingness to tum their bodiesinto erotic playthings. Dressed in nothing more than white cottonhospital gowns, they romped and chased each other about thestage, got doused in the pond, had water fights, and explored a newworld of wonder in the soft contours and curious protuberances ofthe human body.The play has been radically trimmed by Polak and hisdramaturg, Martin Porubjak, and much of its shimmering languageand sentimental conceits have been translated into an actor-generated stage life that mixes erotic touching, acrobatic stunts,carefully choreographed slapstick, and free-for-all horse-play. Forthe original production the play was retitled Contacts nd Connec-tions, and both activities were in ample evidence on the St. Bride'sstage. The four performers succeeded effortlessly In Integratingphysical discipline and dexterity with a seemingly reckless abandon.The wide-open St Bride's stage became a kind of enormous playpenas the actors rolled around on and bounced off the padded floor andeach other like new-born animal cubs.Polak and Porubjak have also excised the aristocratic framing characters of the Prince and Hermione, who undertake the experiment in the original play, and have elevated their servants, Mesrouand Carisa, to the position of sole overseers of this controlled test.The servants became anonymous keepers who wore black masksand long black gloves in addition to their eighteenth-century garb.(Marivaux had intended the servants to be played by black actors sothat the young lovers would be convinced that no one like themselves existed in the wor1d .) Neither the ultimate purpose behind theexperiment nor the identity of its originators was ever revealed, andeven the period costumes seemed to serve less to locate the play ina specific historical moment than to caricature any supposedlyenlightened society that feels fully justified In carrying out suchbehavior manipulation and mind control.Quite understandably, having origin

Documents

SEEP Vol.12 No.1 Spring 1992