Contemporary Russian Documentary Theatre as a Manifestation of Democratic

Thinking

Introduction

This study is a part of my PhD. thesis about contemporary russian documentary and

political theatre and drama. Russian theatre of 21st century is a phenomenon, that exceeds

its region and is an inspiration for theatres all over the world. Playwrights such as Nikolay

Kolyada, Vasily Sigarev, Ivan Vyrypaev and others are known also to non-professionals

and their plays are being staged in the whole Europe and the rest of the world.

This extraordinary upswing of original theatre work has begun approximately during

the turn of the centuries, after a long period of crisis and stagnation in 80´s and 90´s. A

wide spectrum of themes, genres and esthetical approaches and numerous authors are for

a foreign observer a big challange, but most of all an inspiration. At the same time, they

are a prove that the russian culture is eager to adopt foreign impulses after the fall of the

iron curtain.

Narrowing the theme and specializing in documentary and political theatre has

several reasons. First of all, this type of theatre is one of the most dynamically developing

trend in Russia and has become a synonym for progressive theatre underground.

Repertoire of the most famous contemporary russian theatres is mostly based on this type

of drama and most of the playwrights at least marginally use these methods. The second

important reason is an attempt to compare russian and european cultural and social

background. Considering the documentary theatre is an important element of building a

democratic society, we can show its connection between post-communist Russia and, for

example England, which can be in this case called „post-thatcherist“.

I started my research with a detailed analysis of the term „documentary theatre“ and

critical reading of its definitions. I focus especially on the key aspects – the declared

authenticity and the zero autor´s contribution. I try to find a definition, that would

correspond more with the practice of this type of theatre and above all to perceive the

documentary theatre in all its cultural and social contexts. The lack of relevant literature

(also in russian) lead me to a basic research, where most of my work is based on my

personal experience. In the field of theory I apply postmodern philosophy and cultural

studies. This text is about one of the most significant phenomena of my theme, about the

verbatim method, its definitions and practical outcomes.

The Origin and Significance of Verbatim

The verbatim method was first defined by british theatre and film specialist Derek

Paget in his article Verbatim Theatre: Oral History and Documentary Techniques. In this

article he points out the main characteristics of this method:

− primar, but not the only material are recorded interviews

− this interviews should be collected by the performers

− verbatim is not a sociological research, the theatre aspects are more important

− in verbatim the ordinary people are inetersting

− there is no preceding selection of respondents, any interview can be interesting

− the interviews are being edited and form a collage

− a man´s memory is not reliable

− the role of verbatim is demythisation of history and present problems

− verbatim is interested in contorverse themes

− acting in this type of theatre is brechtian

− the effect of the author should me minimal 1

This method of writing theatre plays emerged in England and its origins in Russia

can be very percisely dated in july 1999, when there was a creative seminar in Moscow,

led by the authors from The Royal Court Theatre; namely there were Elyse Dodgson,

Stephen Daldry, James MacDonald and Ramin Gray. These playwrights introduced the

verbatim technique to the russian theatre and because of a great interest they repeated

this seminar in december 2000 in Novosibirsk. These seminars were for russian authors

so inspirational, that they gave the impuls for massive and progressive phenomenon,

which has now in Russia irreplaceble function, and not only in arts, but in society as well.

The first big approach in the field of original russian verbatin was founding of

Teatr.doc in march 2002. The founders of this theatre, Mikhail Ugarov and Elena Gremina

refer to the documentary theatre in the name of the Teatr.doc (as well as in the subtitle

„Theatre, in which nobody acts“). The suffix .doc has become a symbol of russian verbatim

and is often used for naming the plays.

The list of artists that have taken part in the works of Teatr.doc is impressively long;

not many of the contemporary progressive theatre artists have never participated in the

work here. Except the key figures, who are Mikhail Ugarov, Elena Gremina and Elena

1 PAGET, Derek: Verbatim Theatre: Oral History and Documentary Techniques. New Theatre Quarterly 1987, Nr. 3, p. 317-336.

Isaeva, we need to mention at least Alexandr Rodionov, Sergey Kaluzhanov, Maxym

Kurochkin, Ivan Vyrypaev, Durnenkov brothers or Pavel Pryazhko, from directors above all

Ruslan Malikov and Alexandr Vartanov.

Besides Teatr.doc there are other important theatres in Russia, that present

documentary performances, verbatims or that show political opposition through theatre.

Before founding of Teatr.doc, in 1998 in Moscow was founded the Center of direction and

playwriting of Alexey Kazancev and Mikhail Roshchin. This theatre was created as a place

for confronting contemporary russian and european theatre and many authors of

documentary theatre have staged here their first experminets. For the first time in Russia

was Ravenhill´s Shopping and Fucking staged here and the connection with the

progressive british theatre is supported by the common project with The Royal Court

Theatre Moscow – The Open City. Besides that, in 2000 was here the premiere of the

Sigarev´s play Plasticine, directed by Kirill Serebrennikov, which is by many theatre critics

considered the key performance of the new russian theatre. This performance

foreshadowed the new inclination to openness, hypernaturalism and brutality, which is later

put into practice of verbatim.

In a close cooperation with Teatr.doc was in 2005 founded theatre Praktika by

Eduard Boyakov. The art director of this theatre wanted to make a bigger space for staging

contemporary russian and foreign plays. He tries to seek current topics, contemporary

language and progressive theatre esthetics. He demonstrated his interest in contemporary

theatre by founding the well known festival Golden Mask, but also the festival New Drama.

Therefore, he is above all considered a theatre manager and supporter of the non-official

progressive culture.

The most recently founded Moscow theatre is Politeatr, founded in march 2012 by

Eduard Boyakov as a common project of Praktika and Polytechnical Museum, where this

theatre has its own space. The name does not refer only to the building of the museum,

but also to politics, which it very critically reflects. Part of the repertoire is from Praktika,

own performances are still coming into existence. The auditorium of this museum has a

long history and it is not a coinsidence that Eduard Boyakov picked it as a place for his

new theatre. Since 1907, there were lectures here, discussions, or literary evenings.

Above all, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Alexandr Blok or Bulat Okudjava performed here. Eduard

Boyakov continues in this tradition and he tries to make the auditorium a space for meeting

Moscow intellectuals again.

One of the most significant experimental documentary theatres is Theatre of Joseph

Beuys, which has officially ended earlier this year, but continues to perform some of the

performances in the Sakharov Centre. This theatre is named after a significant performer,

who became well known for encouriging public discussions through his performances. The

founders of this theatre, Georg Genoux and Mikhail Kaluzhsky, consider the discussion a

key aspect of their performances as well. The disussions take place after some of the

performances or even during them and they include both performers and spectators. They

really fulfill the idea of interactive theatre, or of the theatre as a public forum.

The founders refer in their declaration 2 to the fact, that Joseph Beuys denied the

borders between arts and reality. The artists in this theatre also try to perceive their lives

as a part of their work and their work as a part of their lives. Documentary and political

dramaturgy is the evidence of this attempt. The performances are staged between the

shelves with archive documents, in very small rooms without trying to adapt them for

theatre. The presence of archive documents has its role and stresses the function of this

theatre.

Although the documentary theatre in Russia is mostly based in Moscow, there are

theatres that work with these techniques outside the capital city as well. Above all, there is

the Experimental Scene of Baltic House in St. Petersburg, theatre Lozha in Kemerovo,

Siberia or theatre Babi in Chelyabinsk in Siberia as well. Among documentary

performances in Baltic House the most significant is Antibody, partly based on the verbatim

technique. The play by Andrey Sovlachkov directed by Mikhail Patlasov is composed from

the testimonies of police officers and persons included in the tragical incident – the murder

of a young man by neo-nazi extremists in St. Petersburg. Except the mother and the

girlfriend of the man, also the murdurer and his mother testify.

The Theoretical Issue

In the Introduction, I already mentioned the theoretical problems of the documentary

theatre, especially in two aspects – the connection of the performance with the reality and

the connection of the author with the performance. There are many reasons that support

the statement, that documentary theatre will always be just an illusion of reality. There is a

contribution of the author to it (the way of interviewing the person, which determines the

answers, the choice of the theme and material, his work with the material etc.), but

objectivity is not possible also because of the limitations of human memory. People tend to

distort their experiences, especially traumatic ones. The suppression of memories lead to

contradictions between reality and memory.

2 [online] Available at: �http://beuystheater.ru/pre/about� Quoted december 2012.

With the issue of limitations of memory deals the philosopher Gilles Deleuze: „The

substance of past can never be fully transfered into present. The present is the

consequence of the past.“ 3 It means, that memory is not based in time and space, neither

in cause and consequence. Through memory the recollections become reality now. For

psychoanalysis and verbatim the important thing is, that memory in this interpretation

constitutes the currents social habitus of a man and the residues of traumas are present in

his psychological profile (as anxieties and hysteria). 4

The man therefore cannot complexly express his experience, but is constituted by

this experience. I consider this a key aspect in understanding the substance of verbatim

theatre. Russian theatre theorist Natalya Yakubova compares verbatim and contemporary

ethnography, that abandones describing different ethnic groups and rather tries to make

authentic records through interviews and pictures. 5 This way, information is not being

mediated via third person, his experience and language. When trying to describe a social

group, that is strange for us, we will always form our statements according to our

experience and social context, with our view and turn of phrase. But verbatim lets the

people talk themselves – their testimony can be distorted, but their language is always

authentic. And in their language we can find imprints of their experience. Natalya

Yakubova considers verbatim not a documentation of reality, but a documantation of turns

of phrases. 6 The language analysis can lead us to the substance of testimonies and to

the true objectivity, which is not based on explicit meanings (the subject is not able to

express his experience), but on the sub-conscious meanings (the subject is constituted by

his experience).

Verbatim is therefore a manifestation of fascination with language, but also with

social memory. The turn of human sciences towards the study of memory dates the czech

sociologist Jiří Šubrt in the late 70´s. and he considers it a result of several factors –

transforming changes in Eastern and Central Europe, european integration, seeking

identity, electronic media and others. 7 Social memory under the influence of these

changes has started to be considered as a dynamic structure, that is not definite. Past is

being interpreted according to current experience and is a tool for social and political self-

identification of a man. The past is not constant. History and memory are according to

3 PARR, Adrian. Deleuze and Memorial Culture. Desire, Singular Memory and the Politics of Trauma. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press Ltd., 2008. 4 PARR, Adrian. Deleuze and Memorial Culture. Desire, Singular Memory and the Politics of Trauma. Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press Ltd., 2008. 5 JAKUBOVA, Natalija: Verbatim: Doslovno i dotekstuaľno. Teatr 2006, Nr. 4, ISSN 0131, p. 38-43. 6 JAKUBOVA, Natalija: Verbatim: Doslovno i dotekstuaľno. Teatr 2006, Nr. 4, ISSN 0131, p. 38-43. 7 ŠUBRT, Jiří: Antinomie sociální paměti. Sociológia 2011, Nr. 2. ISSN 0049-1225, p. 133.

Šubrt a tool for accepting the status quo.

It is not a coinsidence that in Russia is verbatim a very widespread technique in the

last decades. Verbatim as a documentary technique serves as a method for revealing the

mechanism of power and politisation of memory. 8 It serves as an active tool of

democratic society, as a way of collective identification of political opposition, as a space

for public discussion.

Document as such becomes an opposition to ideology and media, therefore to

official sources of information, that are often manipulated and untrue. The relationship

between official and non-official culture has been already described by Mikhail Bakhtin, on

the example of carneval culture of middle ages and rennesaince. Nevertheless, we can

find analogies with contemporary Russia – the „non-official“ culture is boundless,

democratic (it doesn´t make differences between people according to their social status),

focused on the lower strata, grotesque, vulgar, physical and explicit.

It is the „small history“, that is being presented in verbatim, there are stories of

ordinary people, their reflections of society, their individual experience. The mistrust to the

„big history“ is based in the mistrust to media and society, but it is also a consequence of

the decomposition of big narratives. 9 Literature doesn´t seek objective stories and

regularity anymore; on the contrare, it focuses on anomalies, through which it fights

against authomatization of thinking. This can be said also about history and verbatim. They

seek complexity, not one-sidedness, which is supposed to lead to destroying tabus in

history.

Conclusion

I formed this part of my PhD. thesis according to the theme of democratization of

russian society, which I consider a key aspect in interpretaion of verbatim. But it is not a

democratization only in political meaning, but above all in social. Verbatim is a

consequence of changing paradigma, changing thinking and ways od perceiving reality. It

is the unsettling russian social and political situation, that inspires dynamic development of

verbatim, its reception and extraordinary esthetic qualities. For Russia, it is an important

element in building a democratic society and in building a bridge between former eastern

8 PODMAKOVÁ, Dagmar: Dva svety dokumentárneho divadla. Slovenské divadlo : revue dramatických umení 2011,

Nr. 2, p. 130-144. ISSN 0037-699X. 9 Above all, about collapse of the grand narrative writes French postmodern philosopher Jean-Fran�ois Lyotard in

his book The postmodern Condition.

and western bloc (after all, verbatim was brought to Russia by British playwrights).

Verbatim is a symbol of the need of destroying myths and stereotypes, to disrupt the

informational vacuum and to see the reality complexly. It is a consequence of existencial

anxiety of russian people, their lost ways and collective identities. The substance of

verbatim is opposition and revolution, its cause and consequence is democracy. Verbatim

opens for russian audience new horizons and questions, provokes a dialgoue and appeals

for a change.

Abstract: This study is a part of my PhD. thesis about contemporary russian documentary

theatre and it focuses on one of the documentary techniques, verbatim. I try to describe

this method briefly, but consistently, applying the aspect od democratization of russian

society. Except introducing the reader to key theatre groups that work with this technique I

try to show how does verbatim correspond with postmodern philosophical and cultural

concepts, and therefore with the concept of liberal democracy.

Keywords: verbatim, democratization, contemporary russian theatre, documentary theatre,

authenticity, author´s contribution, social memory.

Literature

JAKUBOVA, Natalija: Verbatim: Doslovno i dotekstuaľno. Teatr 2006, Nr. 4, ISSN 0131, p.

38-43.

LIPOVECKIJ, Mark; BOJMERS, Birgit: Performansy nasilija. Moskva: Novoje literaturnoje

obozrenije, 2012. 375 s. ISBN 978-5-86793-943-4.

PAGET, Derek: Verbatim Theatre: Oral History and Documentary Techniques. New

Theatre Quarterly 1987, Nr. 3, p. 317-336.

PARR, Adrian. Deleuze and Memorial Culture. Desire, Singular Memory and the Politics of

Trauma. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd., 2008. ISBN 978-0-7486-2754-7. 199

s.

PODMAKOVÁ, Dagmar: Dva svety dokumentárneho divadla. Slovenské divadlo : revue

dramatických umení 2011, Nr. 2, p. 130-144. ISSN 0037-699X.

ŠUBRT, Jiří: Antinomie sociální paměti. Sociológia 2011, Nr. 2. ISSN 0049-1225, p. 133.