8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

1/56

Sovietand:Bast-European:r m a heatreandF :ilm

VOLUME 7, NUM ER 1MAY 987

SEEDTF is a publication of the Institute forContemporary Eastern European Drama and Theatreunder the auspices of the Center for Advanced Studyin Theatre Arts, Graduate Center, City University ofNew York with support from the National Endowmentfor the Humanities and the Graduate School and theDepartment of Foreign Languages and Literatures ofGeorge Mason University. The Institute Office isRoom 801, City University Graduate Center, 33 West42nd Street, New York, NY 10036. All subscriptionrequests and submissions should be addressed to theEditor of SEEDTF: Leo Hecht, Department ofForeign Languares and Literatures, George MasonUniversity, Fairfax, V 22030. ProofreadingEditor: Prof. Rhonda Blair, Hampshire CollegeTheatre, Amherst, MA 01002.

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

2/56

George Mason UniversitySEE TF has a very liberal reprinting policy. Journals and news-letters which desire to reproduce articles reviews and other mate-rials which have appeared in SEE TF may do so as long as thefollowing provisions are met:a . Permission to reprint must be requested from SEE TF in writ-. ing bdore the fact.b . Credit to SEE TF must be given in the reprint.c Two copies of the publication in which the reprinted material

has appeared must be furnished to the Editor of SEE TF im-mediately upon publication.

2

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

3/56

T BLE OF CONTENTS

E d i t o r i a l P o l i c y 4Announcements 5B i b l i o g r a p h y ?Sov ie t s to Show We s te rn F i lms 8

Tarkovsk i i : A T r i b u t ey Leo echtN i k i t a M i k h a l k o v ' s R e v i s i o n i s tOblomov by

P e te r G. C h r i s t e n s e n . 11New D i r e c t i o n a t t he Ermolova

T he a t r e by E le na Sokol 2 5Tymo t eus z Rymc imc i

by Jan Wi lkowski 36S ov ie t -Ame r i c a n Coope ra t i on in

F i l m S tu d i e s and Produc t ion :Achievements and P r o s p e c t s :by Anna Lawton 41

J e wi s h Themes on the MoscowStage by Leo Hecht 46

3

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

4/56

EDITORIAL POUCYManuscripts in the following categories are

solicited: articles of no more than 2 500 words; bookreviews; performance reviews; and bibliographies. Itmust be kept in mind that all of the above submissions must concern themselves either withcontemporary materials on Soviet or East Europeantheatre and drama, new approaches to oldermaterials in recently published works, and newperformances of older plays. In other words, wewould welcome submissions reviewing innovativeperformances of Gogo or recently published books onGogo , for example, but we could not use originalarticles discussing Gogo as a playwright.Although we welcome translations of articlesand reviews from foreign publications, we do requirecopyright release statements.

We will also gladly publish announcements ofspecial events, new book releases, job opportunitiesand anything else which may be of interest to ourdiscipline. Of course all submissions are evaluated byblind readers on whose findings acceptance or rejection is based.

All submissions must be typed double-spacedand carefully proofread Submit two copies of eachmanuscript and attach a stamped, self-addressedenvelope. The MLA style should be followed. Transliterations should follow the Library of Congresssystem. Submissions will be evaluated, and authorswill be notified after approximately four weeks.

All submissions, inqUiries and subscriptionrequests should be directed to:Prof. Leo Hecht, EditorDept. of Foreign Languages LiteraturesGeorge Mason UniversityFairfax, VA 22030

4

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

5/56

NNOUNCEMENTSJanuary 13, 1987 marked the passing of Anatolii

Efros, the managing producer/ director of theTaganka Theatre in Moscow, of a heart attack, at theage of 61. His first major post was as the chiefartistic director of the Lenin Komsomol Theatre,from which he was fired in 1967. He was at firsttransferred to a minor Moscow theatre but soonsurfaced at the Malaia Bronnaia Theatre. In 1978 hecame to Minneapolis to produce The Marriage byNikolai Gogol at the Tyrone Guthrie Theatre. Efrosaccepted the position at the Taganka after IuriiLiubimov refused to return from an extended stay inthe west. Efros was maligned by many forattempting to fill Liubimov's shoes and therebycondoning the government's attacks on the latter. Hehad a difficult time running the Taganka because ofthe loyalty of the staff for Liubimov, the defectionof m any of the best members of the ensemble to filmc md television, and lack of support by the Moscowtheatre-going intelligentsia despite the fact thatthe Taganka is still sold out for every performance,even mediocre ones. At the t ime of this writing, nodecision has yet been published by the authorities asto a successor.

Sponsored by the Friends School in Baltimore,MD, a Russian Film Festival took place at theBaltimore Museum of Art in November, 1986. Filmsshown included Manly Upbringing (MuzhskoeVospitanie), 1983; Flying in Dreams and Life (Poletyvo sne i naiavu), 1983; Scarecrow (Chuchelo), 1983;Taught Kids Patsan_yl, 1983; In Love By His OwnChoice Vliublen po sobstvennomu z h e l a n i i u ~ 1983;and Boris Godunov, 1985.

The extremely successful run at the ArenaStage, Washington, D.C., of Dostoevskii's Crime andPunishment as directed by Iurii Liubimov andtranslated by Michael Heim, with program notes byAlma Law, was extended through March 8. A specialNEH-funded seminar entitled The Psychic Split:

5

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

6/56

Dostoevskii's Crime and Punishment was held at theKreeger. Theatre. The panel, moderated by AlmaLaw, consisted of Joseph Frank, Michael Heim andPeter Sellars.

During this past year your editor has beenfrequently asked to include sources of video cassettesof Soviet and East European films in SEEDTF. Thishas been done in previous issues. A new source, avery important one, is hereby added: Ark'sintervideo, 545 Ortega Street, San Francisco, CA94122, Tel: 415) 7 3 1 3 ~ 9 5 . They specialize in Sovietfilms. The price of one series film cassettes (i.e.normal length feature films} is $35 Their catalog,which is in Russian and WtfortWtately does notcontain the names of the directors nor years ofrelease, contains 235 entries. It will be sent to youupon request.

Negotiations for an increase in cui turalexchanges between the Soviet Union and the UnitedStates are continuing at an accellerated pace. Thisyear's schedule is still being arranged. t alreadyincludes pianist Lazar Berman's recitals at theKennedy Center in February and four differentballets to be performed by the Bolshoi ballet, also atthe Kennedy Center, in July. Also, on the samestage, in October, the Leningrad Symphony Orchestrawill perform with violinist Pavel Kogan and, again,Lazar Berman. That same month the MoscowVirtuosi, a string quartet, will also be at the KennedyCenter. The Soviet Embassy is also hoping to arrangea Washington visit by the Georgian State Dancers.

6

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

7/56

BmUOGR PHY

Jacques Aumont. Montage Eisenstein.Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.Available in cloth or paper.

Daniel J. Goulding. Liberated Cinema: The YugoslavExperience. Bloomington: Indiana UniversityPress, 1985.

Boris Schwarz. Music and Musical Life in SovietRussia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1983. Drama Contemporary: Czechoslovakia.New York: PAJ Publications, 1986. Containsthe following plays:

Jacques and His Master by MilanKundera.Protest by Vaclav Havel.Games by Ivan Klima.Fire in the Basement by Pavel Kohout.Detour by Pavel Landovsky.The Blue Angel by Milan Uhde.

Annette Michelson ed.). Kino-Eye: The Writings ofDziga Vertov. University of California Press,1987.

Michael Green ed. trans .). The Russian SymbolistTheatre: An Anthology of Plays and CriticalTexts. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1986.

Konstantin Rudnitsky. Meyerho ld the Director. AnnArbor: Ardis, 1981.

Yury Olesha. The Complete Plays. Edited andtranslated by M. Green and J. Katsell. AnnArbor: Ardis, 1983.

Ellendea Proffer (ed.). Nikolai Evreinov: A PictorialBiography. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1981.

7

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

8/56

Stanialow Wyspianski. The Wedding. Transl. byGerard T. Kapolka. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1987.Vladimir Vysotsky. In Memoriam. These are sets of

records available through Ardis. Included is aset of Vysotsky's performance as Hamlet at theTaganka and another set of some of his otherperformances at the Taganka.

International Historic Films, Inc., P.O . Box 29035,Chicago, ll 60629, issues a catalog ofvideocassettes in which they list numerouscontemporary Soviet propaganda films.

Soviets to Show Western FUmsSoviet movie fans will be able to see films by

Federico Fellini, Milos Forman and other majorwestern directors following a shake-up in the statefilm hierarchy, a leading Soviet filmmakerannounced.

Elem Klimov, head of the Soviet filmmakersunion, told reporters that Soviet authorities hadbought all of Fellini's films and would start byshowing La Dolce Vita, a 1959 tale of society life inRome. He said it was also planned to show Czechborn Forman's Academy Award-winning One FlewOver the Cuckoo's Nest and Amadeus. We aregoing to show the best films by the best directors,which was not the case previously, said Klimov, whois in Paris for the French premiere of his Farewellto Matiora.

Hitherto, Moscow authorities have favoredwestern films that were cheap to buy, inoffensive toSoviet taste or those that portrayed the West in adamaging light. Klimov said cost was still a keyfactor, and that Moscow had found Steven Spielberg'sE.T. too expensive.

Soviet cinema has undergone a revolution sinceKlimov was elected to lead the filmmakers' union in

8

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

9/56

May, with banned films being released an he role ofthe all-powerful Goskino cinema authority cut back.Klimov rejected suggestions that the new

freedom of Soviet filmmakers to work outside theGoskino monopoly would bring them into conflictwith the Kremlin. Of all the films which were lefton the shelf, non was anti-Soviet, he said. It justsuited someone to declare them anti-Soviet, eitherout of excessive caution or because they did not fitrequired stereotypes.

TARKOVSK U: TRIBUTEJanuary 1987 saw the loss of Andreii Tarkovskii,

probably the most talented of contemporary Sovietfilm directors. He died of lung cancer in Paris at theage of 54. His first film, the diploma film at theMoscow Film Institute in 1959, was entit led TheRoller and the Violin MOSFILM, 1960), whichstrongly influenced by Albert Lamorice's RedBalloon. It was about the friendship between a littleboy, a violinist and a worker laying asphalt.Two years later his reputation was made withthe full-length feature film Ivan's ChildhoodMOSFIT..M 1962), which won the Golden Lion at theVenice Film Festival. It concerned i tself with ayoung boy growing up in a combat area during WorldWar ll.

Certainly his best known film was the portrayalof the life and times of Russia's greatesticonographer, Andrei Rublev MOSFIT..M 1968), whichhe deliberately filmed in black and white, his favoritemedium. Nevertheless, in all versions available forpublic showing both in the USSR and abroad, sectionsof the film have been edited out. These are primarilyconcerned with an art istic statement - the fact thatan artist must remain true to his art no matter whatthe political or economic conditions of the momentappear to dictate.

9

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

10/56

His next film, Solaris MOSFIL M 197 2), was anadaptation of a novel by Polish science fiction writerStanislaw Lem. The action takes place on a spacestation and concerns itself with a whole range ofmoral problems. The major question relates toprogress and humanity and the scholar's duty to bothscience and his own conscience.

The Mirror MOSFll..M 1974), his next film, wasprimarily auto-biographical, a type of confession.Tarkovskii was the sone of the poet ArseniiTarkovskii whose family, for many generations, hadbeen residents of Moscow. The future film directoruses this film to make a poetic statement, a poemabout childhood. n this film the technique of tintingparts of a black and white film was used by him togreat advantage for the first time.

Possibly his finest film was Stalker which wasreviewed in a previous issue of SEEDTF. His firstfilm after his decision to remain in the west, filmedin Italy, was Nostalghia, also previously reviewed inSEEDTF.

His last film, made in Sweden, was TheSacrifice which he was nominated for an AcademyAward for best foreign film in 1986. Alas, it did notwin. The film quite consciously was the director'slast work in which he questioned his own existenceand his readiness to die. It will be reviewed in afuture issue of SEEDTF.

It is sad that a director of such genius was ableto produce only seven films in a 26-year career, andonly four full-length feature films in his ownhomeland. He was simply too dangerous to bepermitted to create according to his own conscienceand artistic objectives and was therefore highlyrestricted by the Soviet censors. His films wererarely shown, and primarily to private audiences.The intelligentsia prizes him very highly and flocks toshowings of his films (the Moscow State Universitymovie theatre is an excellent example), whenever thepossibility is offered. 10

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

11/56

Fortunately, his name was not erased from thepublic media after he decided not to return to theUSSR from Italy. Mentions of his films, both positiveand negative, were still published in the official filmjournals. Right now, in the spirit of glasnost, hisname has appeared more frequently. Particularlynow that he is dead and can no longer defend orexplain his artistic and philosophical views, i t is quitelikely that he will soon be completely rehabilitated.Most recently, Elem Klimov, the chairman of theSoviet Film Makers Union, announced that Sovietauthorities will negotiate to buy the rights toTarkovskii's last two films from the west.

Leo Hecht, George Mason University

Nikita Mikhalkov's Revisionist OblomovNikita Mikhalkov's 1980 adapation of Ivan

Goncharov's novel Oblomov 1859) was meant to offera corrective to the negative view of the eponymoushero which had been widespread in Soviet cui turallife, and which stretches all the way back to NikolaiDobrolyubov's essay, Chto takoe Oblomovshchina?(What is Oblomovism?) (1859). Since thenOblomovism has been considered a Russian problem.In interviews, Mikhalkov has indicated that theOblomov problem in Russia is only a problem forthose who believe in bowtd.less progress and activityat any price. Following his lead, an English-languagesurvey of Mikhalkov's film career by Karen aehne isentitled Rehabilitating the Superfluous Man. p rarticle stresses that Oblomov is not just a failure.

AI though this assessment is an accurate one, wemust remember that the term superfluous m an wasnot originally used to describe Oblomovism.Turgenev published his story, The Diary of aSuperfluous Man, in 1850, the year after theappearance of Oblomov's Dream, which was writtenabout ten years before most of the rest of thenovel. In Turgenev's story, the first-person narrator,

11

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

12/56

on his death bed, gtves himself the designationSuperfluous Man. He has been nnable to win thelove of the yonng woman he has idolized, and after anembarrassing duel with the man she really loves, hefeels that his life is a complete waste

n his essay, 2 Dobrolyubov (1836-1861), aradical critic, took the w< >rd Oblomovshchina, usedby Stolz on the last page of the novel, and tried tounderstand its essence. He saw Oblomov as theculmination of a type of protagonist in Russianl i terature represented by Pushkin's Eugene Onegin,Lermontov's Pechorin, and Turgenev's Rudin (fromthe eponymous novel of 1856). As there is someresemblance between the Superfluous Man and Rudin,the Superfluous Man can be indirectly connected withOblomovism. However, it is better to keep the twoterms clear in one's mind.

The essay by Dobrolyubov is brilliant, butcareless in its generalizations. It asserts connectionsbetween several ineffectual and apathetic literaryheroes, and i t indicates traits they hold in common.Nevertheless, Oblomov does not hold people incontempt, seek self-humiliation, and treat womencallously, as Dobrolyubov believes.

Yet in fairness to this critic, he clearly pointsout that he is discussing Oblomovism as a variety ofsocial illness rather than dissecting the character ofIlya Ilyich Oblomov. n other words, his Oblomov isalready a composite, an amalgam not only of thel i terary protagonists of the past but of theineffectual Russians he is most anxious to condemn.Clearly, Mikhalkov had a right to protect Oblomovfrom the nnfair censures levied against him byDobrolyubov, but a close reading of the novel willshow that he has really gone a bit far in hisrehabilitation of this extremely complex character.

Sauro Borelli quotes Mikhalkov on how he wentabout adapting Goncharov's novel:

2

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

13/56

I thought for a long time that if I were tosucceed in directing Oblomov, I would have todo it in an extremely l i terary way... Thatdoesn't mean that i t has to be adapted word byword. n general, I think it is necessary to retain from the literary original the spirit whichdominates i t the unique and unrepeatableworld of a great writer. t seemed to meunthinkable to make a slow film about the slowOblomov and about the strong, intelligent, andactive Stolz in a literal way, the way in which.probably everyone reads Goncharov's novel. Forme Oblomov is the clear expression of a certainnational character, and for me the mostimportant thing is to understand his force andhis weakness, to show how he becomes the loverof a woman of the type she is. What? How? Aman so little handsome, and so lazy 3(translation mine)The decision to abandon the pacing of the novel,

which varies in each of i ts four distinctive parts, canbe seen indirectly in the film's title, Neskol'ko Dneiiz Zhizni I. I. Oblomova. The title, "A Few Days inthe Life of I. I. Oblomov," indicates that Mikhalkov,in addition to his stated interest in the protagonist 'scharacter, is also concerned with the narrativetechnique of the film. This technique tends to putOblomov in a positive light, and Mikhalkov alignshimself with critics who have been sympathetic tothe figure F. D. Reeve and R. Poggioli) against theDobrolyubov-inspired faction (Gorki, D. S. Mirski, andM. Slonim).4 Because of the century-old debate onthe character of Oblomov, Mikhalkov's film version isnot simply the adaptation . of a famous novel, but animportant indicator of how contemporary artists inthe Soviet Union interpret a figure of greatimportance to Russian identity.

There are main features of the film's narrativetechnique which buttress the sympathetic view ofOblomov: 1) the authoritative voice-over, Z) the

13

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

14/56

daily and seasonal cycle which conflicts withneskol'ko dnei, 3) the slowing down rather than the

acceleration of time in Part. Two of the film, 4)flashbacks to the youth of Oblomov and Stolz, and 5)the interpolation of a crucial, thematic debatebetween Oblomov and Stolz in a bathhouse, a scenewith no basis in the novel. We shall look at thesepoint by point and then evaluate the degree to whichMikhalkov's version of Oblomov is truly revisionist.

1. The voice-over narration occurs at fifteenpoints in the film. Sometimes the quotations aretaken directly from the novel. At other times theyare the words of Mikhalkov and his co-scenaristAlexander Adabashyan. Because we are treated tobook illustrations which turn into real sets towardsthe beginning of the film, we tend to look on thevoice-over as illustrative of the novel also. However,this fidelity to the original novel is not preserved.Because the film takes off in i ts own direction, wemust conclude that the title phrase, a few days fromthe life, refers not to the life of Oblomov as itexists in the text. In other words, we are not beinggiven a selection of incidents or an abbreviation ofthe novel. Instead, the few days are taken from theessence of Oblomov's life, an essence each individualreader inevitably constructs out of the given text. Inthe film we see various incidents which could veryconceivably have happened, but which can only belacunae in the text: the midnight meal of Oblomovand Stolz, their dialogue in the bathhouse (both fromPart I of the film), Oblomov's destruction of the treewhich blocks Olga's view, the storm he sits through inthe pavilion, and the ride on the odd-looking bicycle(from Part ll)o In all cases the omniscient voice-overis the voice of authority and it does not undercut theactions of the hero.

In the novel the authority of the omniscientnarration is suddenly cailed into question at the closeof the action. Stolz and an author friend of hisencounter the beggar Zakhar:

14

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

15/56

'Well, you've heard the story ofthis beggar, haven't you?' Stolz said tohis friend.

'Who is this Ilya Ilyich hementioned?' asked the writer.

'Oblomov: I've often spoken to youabout him.''Yes, I remember the name, He

was your friend and school-fellow. Whatbecame of him?''He's dead. He wasted his life 'Stolz sighed and fell into thought.'And he was as intelligent as

anybody, his soul was pure and clear ascrystal-noble, affectionate, and--heperished '

'But why? What was the reason?''The reason-what reason

Oblomovitis ' said Stolz.'Oblomovitis?' the writer repea,tedin bewilderment. 'What's that?''I'll ten you in a moment: let me

collect my thoughts and memories. Andyou write it down: someone may find ituseful.'

And he told hitg what is writtenhere. (tr. Magarshack)

The closing sentence of the novel, I amrasskazal emu, chto zdes' napisano, u6 indicates thatStolz's version of the events is embedded in thenarration itself. Either Stolz told the "author" theevents of the story, or else they coincide perfectlywith the narration itself. With this suddenrevelation, we can no longer look on the narrative asthe story of Oblomov's life. Instead we must see it asthe narration of Oblomov's failure to live up to his

15

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

16/56

potential, and from it we must learn the dangers ofOblomovism (or, Oblomovitis). n contrast, thevoice-over of the film has no mission to explainanything, only recount. We learn of Oblomov's deathfrom the voice-over, but it does not have to beaccounted for. t is a natural death, not death byOblomovism. Thus the strictures on Oblomov's lifesuggested by the text are pushed aside.

z The few days approach of the titlesuggests a traditional tranche de vie of realism.Nevertheless, the film's circular pattern takes it inthe opposite direction. The l.ast scene switches thefocus to Andrei (named after Stolz), Oblomov's sonwith Agafya M atveyevna. We see the boy, who looksso much like his father, awaiting the visit of hismother on the estate of the Stolzes, who play therole of his guardians. The film's narrative is circular,for the opening scene, derived from the material inthe chapter Oblomov's Dream, showed Oblomov ata similar age, waiting expectantly to see his motheragain once she awakened from sleep.

The film, divided into two equal parts (filmed inreverse order by Mikhalkov, who made anotherfeature film between times), has an obvioussummer/winter dichotomy, which is bridged by thedesire of a boy to see his mother. Since the novelclearly opens on May 1 we know that Mikhalkov haschanged the season to establish more of a connectionbetween the summer idyll with Olga and Oblomov'schildhood. The three flashbacks, taken fromOblomov's Dream and inserted in Part One of the

film, all show a peaceful summer scene. Thesignificant conclusion of the dream, in which littleIlya is hit by a snowball and kept inside the house byhis parents, is omitted. The past, reduced to a longsummer, is a paradise which can perhaps be regainedby Oblomov's wooing of Olga. The desire for the lostparadise is already in the novel, as Mil ton Ehre hasshown in detail, but in the film it is even morevisible. As a result, Oblomov's desire for paradise in

16

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

17/56

the film is much more prominent than his desire toescape from the responsibilities he has been given.3 n Goncharov s novel, the weight of time is

oppressively felt in the way the story is divided intosections. Book One covers one day; Two, the eventsof a summer; Three, fall and winter; and Four, aboutfourteen years. As time moves on in larger andlarger increments, the weight of hum an contingencybecomes more and more of a burden. Time leavesprocrastinators such as Oblomov without sufficientmeans to arrive at individualization. Despite hisgoodness, Oblomov is clearly inadequate over thecourse of years.

Mikhalkov drastically changes the time frameso that i t is in Part Two that we can see how slowlytime goes by. Part One of the film can not belocated so clearly in time. After the appearance ofStolz in Oblomov s apartment, we have a sequence ofvisits made by the two friends which may occur overthe course of a week or a month. The midnightsnack, the dialogue in the bathhouse and the firstappearance of Olga are not temporally positioned anymore clearly, and the outdoor winter scenes at tpeend of Part One could take place over several days.

In Part Two i t is apparent that the summer idyllencompasses five days. All the clues are given to theviewer. On the first day, the Baron and Olga s auntare present while Oblomov is with Olga. Later thatday, she declares her love, and that night Oblomovwrites his letter to her, saying that she does notreally love him. The next (second) afternoon, theyquarrel, and Oblomov spends the night outside in thepavilion during the storm. The third day, he goes tothe party where Olga s friends are gathered. On theevening of the next (fourth) day, he discusses thestate of the world with Alexeyev as they watch thefireworks. On the fifth day, Stolz returns fromSwitzerland. He, Olga, and Oblomov ride in thehorse-drawn carriage and then on the bicycle beforethe narrator interrupts to tell us that Oblomov moved

17

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

18/56

back to town the next day. The intercutting of twomore reveries from Oblomov's Dream once againreinforces the idea that Oblomov's loss of Olga isanother version of the loss of his youth, which isinevitable for ever_yone. The faults which are partand parcel of Oblomovism are glossed over.

4 The inclusion of flashbacks in the film (fiveabout Oblomov and one about Stolz) suggests anOblomov who is determined by his past. In the novel,Oblomov has only one major dream, so the filmmakes the material from the past seem moreobsessive. In the novel, the 33-year-old Oblomov isjuxtaposed with himself as both a 7- and a 13-yearold, not just a 7-year-old, as in the film. The novel,by showing Oblomov as a teenager, makes i t moreobvious why he should fail at running his estate. Wehave already seen him have trouble concentrating atschooL

In the film the flashbacks are so arranged that,laid side to side, they look like they form a day aday which has an archetypal value which the adultOblomov's neskol'ko dnei do not recapitulate. Thefirst three flashbacks taken from Oblomov's Dreamdescribe Oblomov at age seven, and the lat ter two atage thirteen, but in the film they all pertain to theyounger Oblomov once they have been rearranged.First, the nanny gives Ilya a bath while the boyanxiously waits for his mother to get up. t is stilldark outside, and the nanny tells him that the sun isgoing to meet the moon. In the second flashback, themother is fast asleep, but the father kisses Ilya andtalks to some peasants. In Flashback 3, i t is midday,and all the servants are taking a nap in theirquarters. Ilya and Andrei play on the swings together(an incident which is not in the novel). After theflashback to Andrei's departure for school, we have ascene from the late afternoon. The mother is gettingready to put Ilya to bed while the father is discussinga toboganning .incident with the serfs. n thebedroom, Ilya asks his mother not to go away(another addition of the film). The final flashback

18

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

19/56

shows Ilya and his mother standing in the doorway.Ilya has awakened early, and they are going to sayprayers before morning. The request, "0 Lord makeme merciful " is one which Ilya tries to put intoeffect in his life. Mother and child are photographedin lighting which reminds the viewer of Madonna andChild paintings of the Renaissance.

The day which goes by in the flashbacks is onewhich takes place in a habitual, undisturbed pasttime. Unpleasant incidents from the childhood yearsare omitted. Absent, for example, is the incident ofthe stranger who lies in a ditch and who is not takenin by the rural community. The novel makes obviousboth the inhospitality of the people and theoverprotectiveness of Oblomov's parents. The filmgoes too far to accommodate Russian pastoral andpopulism.

The film's flashbacks turn Oblomov into adaydreamer as well as a dreamer. In Part Two of thefilm, his fourth and fifth flashbacks are induced byreveries. Before the fourth flashback, he lies downindolently in the summer grass, and for the first timewe see both mother and child united. The fifthflashback comes during the evening thunderstormafter the quarrel with Olga and abortive reconcili-ation. After this point there is no further occasion todaydream. With the loss of Olga goes the hope forthe blissful past recaptured.

The motif of the pastoral, paradisical world isused three times by Oblomov in the film where i t isnot present in the novel. First, in the bathhouse,Oblomov tells Stolz that he watches a tree and knowsthat the branches carry with them from year to yearsome memory of the leaves which bloomed and diedthe year before. In Part Two, on the first day, heconfesses to Olga that he is part of some great wholelike a leaf on a branch. The next day, Olga reads inher l t t r from him that she is a bird who has lightedby accident on the wrong branch and that she shouldmove along. n the novel, the withering lilac is the

19

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

20/56

symbol of the loss of love. In the film, Oblomov sself-identification with deciduous trees links him tothe summer, while also suggesting that he has noother cycle of action for himself outside of therhythms of nature.5 n the set piece of the film, the bathhousescene, where the tree image is introduced, Oblomovgains the upper hand in his philosophical exchangewith Stolz (lightly suggested by a few lines in Book ZChapter 4 of the novel). Mikhalkov has so slanted theconversation against Stolz that his position isbasically untenable. Stolz sides with business and thepractical upward mobility provided by a universityeducation. We have just seen him take Oblomov on astring of toadying visits to influential people in thebureaucracy. ?tolz has also brought him in tow onsome vapid social get-togethers. The Stolz of themovie connects progress with the idea of gainingmore money and more land. In the novel, there isgreater depth to Stolz. He reminds Oblomov that hehas put away his books and translations. Here it isnot simply a question of making his estate into amoney-producing venture now that the bailiff hascheated Oblomov Stolz wants Oblomov to rememberthe noble ideals of Rousseau, Schiller, Goethe, andByron. n the film, Oblomov is only a disappointedromantic. n the novel, he is also a person who hasfailed to live up to the ideals of the Romanticmovement itself. His characterization is so rich thatwe can not see him simply as typed by his class.8

The bathhouse scene does not incorporate theself-criticism that Oblomov can level at himself onoccasion. Oblomovism in the novel does not justinclude the hero s remaining a child, but his fallingfrom a higher state as well. Oblomov states:

My life began by flickering out. t maysound strange, but i t is so. From thevery first moment I became conscious ofmyself, I felt that I was alreadyflickering out. 383)

z

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

21/56

n the bathhouse, Stolz is a type of tempt9r, which isa valid idea, considering Goncharov's interest in theFaust-Methistopheles legend. Yet in the novel,Oblomov has already been tempted by a life of ease,and no specific tempter is involved.

Mikhalkov makes the mistake of associatingtime with material progress in the film, and he failsto suggest the course in life over which a man canmaximize his talents. In the film, Stolz's simplephilosophy of living life to the fullest each day is notobjectionable per se, but in practice i t amounts to awork ethic at best and a creed of social advancementat worst. Oblomov, whose lethargy is the flip side ofhis goodness, can see the error of his friend's ways,but he never summons himself to the exercise of hisbrain, the pursuit of art, or dedication to socialservice The film never makes clear what Oblomov's(and Everyman's) alternatives really are.

It would be of particular interest to see howMikhalkov's film was received by the official Sovietpress and to examine audiences' reactions to it. Thedirector certainly deserves credit for indicating thatthe materialism inherent in progress for the sake ofprogress can destroy Russia. At the same time, heexpresses a rather nostalgic look at Russian rurallife, which has been presented in very negative termsby Klimov in Rasputin, for example. Industrialismhas indeed been a great menace to Russian life, but itis best not to overglamorize country life.

On the other hand, N eskol'ko Dnei may notstrike some people as being particularly critical ofcontemporary life in the Soviet Union. t is obviousthat Soviet military outlays and bureaucracy haveprevented her citizens from keeping up with theWestern countries in goods, services, and housing. InMikhalkov's film, progress comes from the West. Itis brought back by the tempter Stolz. It is possible toread into the film a certain acceptance of the statusquo in which the living standard is patently below

2 1

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

22/56

what it should be in a country full of such greatnatural resources.The critique and acceptance of Soviet life

which can be extrapolated from Neskol'ko Dnei givescredence to those critics who decry the division ofSoviet art into dissident and non-dissident. Thisdouble face can often be seen in films which are setin either the past or the future. Tarkovski's AndreiRublev and Stalker come readily to mind. None ofTarkovski's films, however, has had to treat therelationship of the Russian nineteenth century (andall its great achievements in the arts) to thepresent. Karen Jaehne has given some expression tothis issue by interpreting the function of thesuperfluous man in today's world. She writes:

From one point of view, the superfluousman can be seen as taking a position ofpassive resistance to a society hedisapproves of; from another viewpoint,his existence is parasitic,counterproductive, and deserving ofwholesale condemnation. It is toMikhalkov's credit that he has managedto make his superfluous herosympathetic, attractive, and thus, in his

~ i s t l s s and 9 somnolent condition,mtereshngSuch a formulation overemphasizes the relationshipof the individual to society and fails to deal with theindividual's duty to himself. It also asks for a higherdegree of formulation of the idea of passiveresistance. Mikhalkov's Oblomov is admirable to thedegree that his passiveness is chosen, and the onescene in which we feel that it truly comes fromvolition is in the bathhouse. In Part of the film,Mikhalkov does a good job of making it ambiguous asto whether Oblomov's flight from Olga's love iswisdom, timidity, or perhaps both, and here hecaptures the complexity of Goncharov's characteri-

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

23/56

zation, which he so unfortunately misses elsewhereMikhalkov, however, despite his simplifications,

does know his Goncharov. He feels a responsibility toinclude Goncharov's Russian Orthodox faith in hisadaptation. n the final scene, as l i t t le Andrei Ilyichwaits the arrival of his mother, we hear non-diageticchurch music by Rachmaninoff. Until this point,except for the scene with the morning prayers, thefilm has been secular, and the novel itself is notexplicitly religious. Nevertheless, it is welldocumented that Goncharov was a devout ChristianAs Yvette Louria and Morton I. Seiden point out:

n his essay Christ in the DesertG oncharov argues that i t is only underthe influence of such a strong stimulusas Christian faith that the phantasy ofthe artist could produce the SistineMadonna and other marvels of ar t o fcourse with the gift of genius-and evena great talent, without such a powerfulstimulus as faith, having drawn wellcertain details of the picture would nothave painted them as true to life a sthey appear in the Gospels to a piousspectator. And he solemnly adds,Almost all geniuses in art belong to

Christianity ; for the contemporaryrealists can do nothing but followhistorical truth and illuminate it onlywith their artistic phantasy. They go itwithout the admixture of faith

Perhaps Mikhalkov knew of this passage, for theRenaissance Madonna and Child were recalled inOblomov's final flashback.

Cognizance of Goncharov's religious convictionsdoes not force us to conclude that Oblomov is areligious hero as Louria and Seiden make him out tobe. They do not feel that he is slothful. Instead, heradiates love, and either does not see man's evil

23

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

24/56

nature, or else forgives i t They are at the oppositeend of the critical spectrum from Dobrolyubov'sindictment of Goncharov as a parasite and failure.Surely, Gyycharov's Oblomov has both his good andbad sides.

Turning from the novel back to the film,Mikhalkov does not include important scenes whichLouria and Seiden use to support their case. Absentare Olga's sense of spiritual awakening brought on byOblomov, Zakhar's devotion to his master afterdeath, and Oblomov's summoning Agafya Matveyevnafrom her years of torpor. It is conceivable that ifMikhalkov had wanted to make. N eskol'ko Dnei morereligious in its orientation, he would have hadcensorship problems. Even revisionism has its limits.

otes1Karen aehne, Rehabilitating the Superfluous

Man: The Films in the Life of Nikita Mikhalkov,Film Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 1 (1981), 14-21 . Inaddition, Donna T. Seifer, at work on a long, thoroughstudy of Mikhalkov, presented a paper on his filmWithout Witnesses at the 1985 Chicago meeting ofAATSEEL (American Association of Teachers ofSlavic and East European Languages).2Nikolai Alesandrovich Dobrolyubov, SelectedPhilosophical Essays (Moscow: Foreign LanguagesPublication House, 1956 , pp. 174-217.

3sauro Borelli, Nikita Mikhalkov (Florence: LaNuova Italia, 1982).4For a summary of criticism of the novel, seeYvette Louria and Morton I. Seiden, Ivan

Goncharov's Oblomov: The Anti-Faust as ChristianHero, Canadian Slavic Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring1969), pp. 39-68. See p. 41.

5Ivan Goncharov, Oblomov, trans. DavidMagarshack (London: Penguin, 1983). Thetranslation first appeared in 1954. All pagereferences are to this edition.

24

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

25/56

61van Goncharov, Oblomov (Leningrad:Izdatel stvo Detskaya Literatura, 1967), p. 550.7Mil ton Ehre, Oblomov and His Creator: TheLife and Art of Ivan Goncharov (Princeton, NJ:Princeton Univ. Press, 1973), pp. 154-232.

8vsevolod Setchkarev, Ivan Goncharov: HisLife and His Work (Wurzburg: Jal-Verlag, 1974), p.140.

9J aehne, p. 20.10Louria and Seiden, p. 43.

See Alexandra Lyngstad and Sverre Lyngstad,Ivan Goncharov (New York: Twayne, 1971), pp. 115-48, for a good existential analysis of Oblomov sfailings.

. Peter G. Christensen, SUNY - Binghamton

New Direction t the Ermolova Theatren Moscow this summer (June 1986), saw thefirst two productions staged at the Ermolova Theatre

by its new chief director Valerii Fokin, who recentlymoved there after almost fifteen years as a directorat the Sovremennik Theatre. These were AleksandrBuravskii s Speak (Govori) and Vladlen Dozortsev sThe Last Visitor (Poslednii posetitel ). Buravskii splay Speak was staged by Fokin as tr ibute to the 27thCongress of the Communist Party ar.d opened a fewweeks before that event. In its premiere at theGorky Theatre BDT) in Leningrad, Dozortsev s playserved a similar function. Both these productionswere inspired by Gorbachev s recent call for glasnost(openness) in Soviet society. Speak is entirelyideological, while The Last Visitor is somewhat moreuniversal. That they are also very successful astheatre is high prase for the directorial talents ofFokin, now recognized as one of the most creativeprofessional directors in the Soviet Union today.

25

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

26/56

For his play Speak Buravskii has taken themesand events from the life and work of prose writer andplaywright Valentin Ovechkin (1904-1968). Thechoice of Ovechkin is a significant one, since he isremembered for the seminal role he played in thedevelopment of Soviet literature in the 19 50sbeginning on the eve of Stalin's death. Even in the1930s Ovechkin was a critical realist, not a socialistrealist. His best-known and most influential work isa series of five sketches (ocherki) entitled DistrictWeekdays (Raionnye budni) (1952-56), which DemingBrown has termed the first important work ofcritical realism in postwar village literature. Manyof the events of Speak come from the first of thosesketches, from which the series takes its title. Inthem, Ovechkin, an active Party member, openlycriticised problems in agriculture, directlyattributing them to government and Partyshortcomings. He daringly broached issues ofconflict between individual and state/Partyinterests . During the all too brief cultural thawimmediately following Stalin's death, Ovechkin'sviews were even officially sanctioned. Yet after theouster of Khrushchev, bureaucratic intransigenceagain became the norm, leaving the writer's call forchange largely unfulfilled.

Speak takes place in a rural setting (the Troitskdistrict) during the historically crucial years of 1952to 1954. Described as eternal , middle Russia ,Troitsk acquires a clearly symbolic dimension. Theplay contrasts the period in Soviet historyimmediately before and after Stalin's death in March1953, focusing on the relationship betweenCommunist Party bureaucrats and the people. Theplot concerns a confrontation between the firstsecretary of the district Party committee, Borzov, aStalinist-style careerist, who does whatever hissuperiors demand, and the new second secretary,Martynov, a reasonable and realistic man, a Partybureaucrat with a human face, who respects and triesto understand the collective farmers. After Stalin's

26

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

27/56

death in the middle of the play, Borzov is replaced byMartynov, who, despite his initial idealism, begins todisplay typically authoritarian, Borzov-like behaviortoward the end of the play.

Ultimately Martynov is able to break out of hisbureaucratic mold with support from two externalforces, the writer and the peasant chorus. Althoughthe writer is meant to be vechkin (he is ref erred toby Ovechkin's name and patronymic, ValentinVladimirovich, and given specific attributes from hiscareer), the role acquires greater significance thanthe mere biographical portrayal of a particularwriter. n the script and in the list of cast in theprogram, he is identified simply as Writer. Thistendency toward abstraction reinforces his symbolicfunction as the traditional conscience and spokesmanof Russian society, which has suffered from varyingdegrees of repression and censorship for centuries. Inhis first encounter with Martynov, the writer makesit clear he wants to tell everything that isnecessary. He has come to observe the agriculturalscene and is prepared to tell it as t is.

The writer's voice is further strengthenedthrough the device of a play within a play, giving hima forum to express ideas otherwise difficult to putforward. The local theatre produces one of his highlycritical plays. n an early scene, two provincialactresses are outraged by the writer's directexpression of honest criticism in his play and demandhe change the lines. True to character, he refuses.In a scene after Stalin's death, the two actresses whoearlier had challenged the writer 's direct approach toproblems are now able to accept his critical stance.They are especially pleased with the play's success,for it may give them the chance to go on tour toMoscow

An even more powerful device in the play is thechorus, composed of diverse faces from differentgenerations, all from the people (narod). It appearsfive times in the course of the production and serves

Z7

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

28/56

to articulate the growing dissatisfaction of thepreviously silent peasant population. t is alwaysaccompanied by the presence of both Martynov andthe writer, who symbolize the dominance of theParty and the intelligentsia. Through the voice ofthe chorus, Martynov's early comment to the writer;"Speak what you think" ("Govori, chto dumaesh'"),becomes the play's powerful refrain: "Speak " In itsinitial appearance in Scene 1 the voices of thechorus are quiet and tired, coming from the darkenedstage rear, a kind of deus ex machina. In eachappearance the increasingly important role of thechorus is enhanced through special lighting effects,which make the actors ever more visible as theyspeak. Gradually through the play the strength of thechorus grows crescendo-like, until i t finally comes todominate. What begins in the first scene as a gentlerivulet, the timid expression of some discontent,becomes a torrential river, a threatening flood ofirrepressible voices at the end of the final scene.The theme introduced by the writer at the beginningand first delivered pianissimo by the chorus, throughgradual repetition, becomes a deafening forte Fromstage rear the chorus moves determinedly to stagefront, chanting in ever louder voices the refrain,"Speak ", with the last refrain pronouncedunexpectedly by a child, producing an overwhelmingeffect on the audience. The child's voice reminds usof the crucial stake the younger generation has in thereform of Soviet society.

Fokin's production of Speak creativelyinterprets Buravskii's script, adding significant visualimages that enhance the ideas of the play. Bybeginning with the curtain open and leaving it thatway throughout, Fok.in helps diminish the otherwiseinevitable distance between the audience and theactors on a traditional proscenium stage. The play'stwo acts consist of a carefully balanced montage ofscenes, four on the collective farm fields and in thevillage, four in district Party headquarters, one ineach act at the theatre (the play within the play), one

2 8

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

29/56

in a town park, and another in an apartment. Whilemost of these scenes are played on the central stage,three of the shorter ones (the play within the playand the apartment), are set on the left or right sides,bringing the audience into palpably close contactwith the actors.

Fokin underscores the often ironic juxtapositionof scenes (realism versus socialist realism) by severalimportant visual devices. His production begins witha rousing Stalinist newsreel (not indicated in thescript) depicting a glorious grain harvest in typicalsocialist realist style. This is followed in starkcontrast by the first scene, which is set against atorrential rain, anything but ideal weather forharvesting grain. Reality has nothing in commonwith the way in which t is portrayed. Another ironicvisual juxtaposition found only in the production andnot in the play is the use of a statue of Stalin. Onthe set representing district Party headquarters,Stalin s bust is prominently displayed in the first halfof the play and conspicuously absent in the second,subtly reinforcing the implications of Stalin s death.De-Stalinization is never overtly mentioned. Only itsresults are indicated.

Although it can be interpreted as the pivotalpoint of the play, Stalin s death is conveyed in aminimalist manner During a scene near the end ofthe first act set in provincial Troitsk s Park ofCui ture, the typically cheerful and uplifting musicblaring over the loudspeaker is interrupted by asolemn documentary radio announcement of Stalin slast illness and death, followed briefly_ by wailingwomen s voices. momentous historical event ishere reduced to a common theatrical one-anoffstage death. Diminished by virtue of itsindirectness, that very diminishment of Stalin s deathworks as an aesthetic device. Life on stagecontinues, in some ways changed, but in otherimportant ways the same as before

9

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

30/56

n the scene following the news of Stalin's death(the final one of Act 1 , the audience is not SW prisedto find Martynov some two months later alreadyserving as first Party secretary in place of therecently deposed Borzov. Equally predictable are theattitudes of the people toward the new leadership andthe collective farm. During his first reception for hisParty subordinates, Martynov receives only congratulations on his new post, not the discussion ofproblems he had anticipated. In the next scene hediscovers similar behavior on the part of thepeasants. They work not to produce the best possibleharvest but merely to get their job done with minimaleffort, because worse is better. And so theproblems are revealed, the disparity between theParty bureaucrats and the people further exposed.The ultimate irony comes in the next-to-last scene,when the behavior of Martynov and the new secondsecretary, Rudenko, has become almost indistinguishable from that of their earlier opponentBorzov. n his preparations for the upcoming districtParty conference, Martynov dogmatically declaresthat meetings are to be held only with officialpermission. Bureaucratic habits die hard.

The monumental inert ia of the system isbrilliantly conveyed in the last scene depicting thedistrict Party conference in the Troitsk House ofCulture. As it opens, the meeting is already inprogress, with the entire local presidium minusMartynov on the podium. n a remarkable dram a tictour de force Rudenko is reading his talk in a droningmonotone to a large but obviously bored audience.He ends with the usual dull panegyric to the peopleand a quote from Maiakovskii. At the chairman'srequest for questions there is only indifferent silenceand coughing. Also in a manner familiar to theSoviet theatre audience, the next speaker, acollective farm milkmaid, stumbles through a textobviously prepared by someone else. Wheninterrupted by Martynov, who has appeared at thedoor, she admits it had been written for last year's

30

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

31/56

meeting and simply updated for this one At thispoint questions arise. Where did Martynov comefrom and why was he missing from the podium?Since he enters from the side, the audience sees himnot as a participant in the scene, someone clearly coopted by the corrupt system, but rather as a witnessto that depressing scene. Presumably havingexperienced a moment of crisis, he is able once moreto challenge the status quo and demand that thingschange. He reintroduces the crucial element ofcritical realism into an otherwise socialist realistscene. Under the positive influence of the writer andchorus, he has proven himself a dramatic characterwho undergoes change, rather than a purely staticone. Through a careful integration of what might atfirst appear to be disparate elements- the writer, theParty in the figure of Martynov, and the people'schorus-the audience is left with a sense of unity andhope for the future .

From the very first scene the writerforeshadows the changes to com.e after Stalin's deaththrough his insistance with Martynov on the need towrite honestly. His position is historically confirmed,when he announces that he has received anacceptance telegram for his latest manuscript fromTvardovskii, whom the Soviet audience recognizes asthe liberal editor-in-chief of the major Sovietliterary monthly Novyi mir. After Stalin's death, anexplicit reference to the cultural thaw is made inthe scene set in the Martynovs' apartment. visitorfrom the city, now a graduate student at MoscowUniversity, recites the bold poetry of the young poetEvtushenko. The lines of Prologue , expressing ayearning to travel abroad, sound as daring in 1986 asthey must have in 1954. (The poem actually datesfrom 1955 These instances of literary citationconvey moments when writers gave voice tosomething daring. They are reminders of the need toexpress fresh themes, as well as the need to find newforms for their expression

3

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

32/56

Those needs are well met in Fokin's strikingproduction of Buravskii's outspoken play. Through awell-balanced blend of realistic and hyperbolicmeans, it gives expression to the long-held desire forchange now officially sanctioned by Gorbachev'scurrent policy of glasnost'. At this time of politicaland cultural renewal, so reminiscent of the thawimmediately following Stalin's death, Speak boldlycalls for a reversal of traditional roles. It is not theParty who should lead the people, but the peoplethat power chorus-who must lead the Party

For his second production at the ErmolovaTheatre Fokin chose a play similar to Speak in theme(the shortcomings of Soviet society) but verydifferent in approach. Dozortsev's The Last Visitor isa tightly constructed psychological suspense drama, adiscussion play, with a very small cast (three maleleads and two smaller female roles) all staged on oneset. The two acts are made to feel continuous byhaving the beginning of Act ll repeat a few lines fromthe end of Act I. Although it takes place incontemporary Moscow, the issues it raises are by nomeans limited to the Soviet system, but can be seenalso as universal ones, associated with the powerelite in any complex, modern society.

Once again the curtain is open throughout theperformance. The set is minimal, representing a verymodern office housed in an old, historic building. Atelevision with the volume turned down is on for theduration of the play. A digital clock gives the actualtime. n the opening scene an official is conductingan interview with a German delegation, aided by aninterpreter Meanwhile a male secretary is busilytyping. It quickly becomes apparent that this is theoffice of the deputy minister of health, Kazmin, whois expecting to be promoted to the rank of minister inthe very near future.

pon completion of the interview, thesecretary, Ermakov, ushers in the next scheduledvisi tors-a man around forty and a woman in her late32

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

33/56

twenties. From this point, on much in the expositionis reminiscent of modern Western drama, of Pinter,Beckett, and the theatre of the absurd. There aremoments when one is even reminded of Sartre's NoExit. arallels can also be drawn with such-acurrently popular Soviet playwright asPetrushevskaia, whose work is created for the studiotheatre. There is little action and much dialoguethat seems to go nowhere The woman is silent andretreats to a corner. The man, who avoidsidentifying himself, at first focuses on the irrelevant(he is bothered, for example, by the clock, which heclaims is fast), and then bluntly asks . the deputyminister to resign his post. The audience is asstunned as the deputy minister and his secretary.The shock and mystery .are enhanced by the fact thatthe visitor remains nameless throughout the play. Inresponse to an early question about who he is, hereplies: I am no one. An ordinary person Not aconvict. Not a party member. Simply your contemporary. He is everyman.

And so the plot unfolds. Some three years ago,at his previous job as head of a special cardiac clinic,Kazmit:t, once a highly regarded surgeon, hadapparently refused to operate on high-risk cases onthe eve of being awarded a prestigious governmentprize. One of the patients he turned down, a certainMarusin, refused to accept the diagnosis and riskedtraveling to Leningrad, where Kazmin's mentor, anolder professor, successfully performed the surgery.A young journalist, Granovich, who wrote about thissituation, was not only prevented from publishing hisarticle, but totally thwarted in his future career bybeing accused of being drunk at the time. Eventuallyit becomes clear that the visitor has come on behalfof Granovich, now indeed an alcoholic; the woman,Vera, accompanying him is the journalist's wife.Their only demand is that Kazmin come clean andadmit his mistake by resigning. They have broughtwith them a small archive of incriminatingevidence. The audience witnesses history repeating

33

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

34/56

itself. The vulnerable K azmin is again threatened ata decisive moment in his career, this time just as heis about to become a minister.While Kazmin is portrayed as somewhat vain, heis not a totally unsympathetic character. For themost part, he listens to the visitor s arguments andreacts by rationalizing his behavior, claiming he isold, tired, and not so competent as his mentor Ofcourse, the dubious morality of his having receivedthe prize (and not his mentor) escapes him. At thevery least he has been a willing accomplice tounethical behavior. So typical of high-levelbureaucrats, his youthful idealism has given way tothe self-satisfied personal aggrandizement of middleage. The real villain, however, is his secretaryErmakov, who has been with him since their t imetogether at the special cardiac clinic. Ermakov is athoroughly unscrupulous character, a sleazy type whohas been in large measure responsible for his boss ssuccess. Not only does he write all his speeches, butit was he who dealt directly with the journalist.When he feels threatened by the visitor toward the

e ~ of the play, he easily disobeys the deputyminister s orders and takes charge himself, rippingout the telephone lines and lying about the patientMarusin in order to get the visitor s archive. Thevisitor turns over the archive to the secretary tokeep him from disturbing Marusin. Once the visitorand Vera have left, Ermakov reveals to the deputyminister that Marusin had died two weeks earlier

Dozortsev s play is very bold in its depiction ofserious corruption in the upper levels of thegovernment bureaucracy. The vascilating andineffectual deputy minister, manipulated by hisruthless, conniving secretary, is confronted by aprivate individual who stands for honesty andintegrity. By vociferously challenging the concept ofthe collective good over respect for the rights of theindividual (Ermakov s position), the visitor questionsthe most fundamental principles upon which theSoviet system is based. Yet at the end of the play i t

4

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

35/56

is Ermakov who triumphs with Kazmin still at hisside. At a moment when Kazmin might have taken apositive initiative, he reveals instead his moralweakness.

Although the conclusion is a bleak one, leavingthe audience with no sense of optimism, it does notexclude the possibility of positive action. Whiledepicting powerful evil within the system, throughthe portrayal of a confrontation with good, the playindirectly fulfills Gorbachev's current mandate. fSpeak is addressed to the people, The Last Visitorurges the need for reform at the highestgovernmental level. The exposure of such upper-echelon bureaucratic corruption is in effectdemanding change from within.

n his first two productions at the ErmolovaTheatre, Valerii Fokin has clearly demonstrated hisacknowledged position toward the role of thetheatre In an interview this summer in Moscow heput it directly: serious dram a tic theatre is nottheatre that entertains or amuses, but one that aboveall tries to address society's most serious anddifficult problems. Through the very differentapproaches of Speak and The Last Visitor, Fokindramatically exhorts his audience not only to look atthe serious shortcomings of Soviet society, but alsoto speak out and demand intellectual and politicalhonesty. One might explain Fokin's directorialposition as a response to the new call for

openness . In fact i t may be more accurate to viewit as coincidental to 'Gorbachev's policy, for Fokin'searlier work at the Sovremennik Theatre alreadyrevealed his interest in provocative subjects. Hisvery first production there in 1971, MikhailRoshchin's Valentin and Valentina, revealed hisinnovative portrayal of the problems of contemporaryyouth. His 197 8 production of Enn Vetemaa'sMonument dealt daringly with , the issues of artisticfreedom and lack thereof in Soviet society. And nowhis third and most recent production at the ErmolovaTheatre (the premiere was in November 1986),

5

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

36/56

Edvard Radzinskii's Sporting Scenes, 1981, is provingextremely controversial in its frank and uninhibitedportrayal of the corrupt and degenerate lives of theSoviet elite. With Fokin as i ts new chief director,the Ermolova Theatre is bound to become one of thebest and most exciting professional theatres in theSoviet capital.

Elena Sokol, Oberlin College

The following was taken from a brochure sent by thePolish Authors' Agency. I t is reproduced herewithout commentary.Jan WilkowskiTymoteusz Rymcimci

JAN Wll..KOWSKI (19Zl), an actor, director,writer and educator centres all his activities onpuppet shows. In 1950-1970, while director of the

Lalka theatre in Warsaw, he wrote plays for thetheatre and many of them have become standardclassics in Polish and European puppet repertoires.As a playwright he started with Podroz DziadkaMroza (Journey of Santa Claus - 195Z) andBalwankowa bajka (Snowman's t o r y 1953) which

were similar in type to children's fairy-tales. Soon,together with Leon Moszczynski, he wrote Guignol wtarapatach Guignol in Trouble - 1956), a play forolder children on contemporary political and socialproblems. It is a modem version of adventures ofGuignol -- the first puppet from Laurent Mourguet'stheatre in Lyon, a popular puppet character of theXIX century. According to the tradition the play isof a commedia dell'arte type with lively action, fullof songs and couplets. Apart from traditionalGuignolian characters C anezou, Guignol,

Madelon there are characters from thecontemporary world: Jean - the owner of a smallpuppet theatre - and the Policeman. Jean andGuignol go through the world and present puppet

36

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

37/56

shows. Jean acts as characters from the play, actoron stage, audience, he relates t he events and talkswith the audience. He makes theatre within theatrepresenting story about conflicts between an ordinaryman and those who have money and power. Theaction is commented upon by songs which treat aboutexistential uneasiness of man Guignol in Troublewas created - to use the author's words - becausethere is need to tell important things to children .Also - we may add - the play teaches them moderntheatre language.

Wilkowski's best plays were: 0 ZwyrtaleMuzykancie, czyli jak goral dostal sie do nieba(Zeyrtala the Musician or the Highlander in Heaven--1957), Kolednicy na ulicy (Street Waits - 1962.) andMy i nasze k.rasnoludki (We and Our Dwarfs -1966).

Street Waits is a modern version of WarsawChristmas performances of the XIX century arrangedin the suburban streets of the town, where theChristmas plot is combined with contemporaryevents.

We and Our Dwarfs resulted from thepuppeteer's experience and presents what goes onbehind the scenes.

Zwyrtala the Musician is based partly onhighlander stories by Kazimierz Przerwa Tetmajerand on highland robbers poetry. t is a story aboutJanosik, a folk hero, about human wrong andrevolutionary passion existing in folk legendsZwyrtala, an old mountaineer, dies and St. Peter letshim into Heaven. He comes during the choirrehearsal conducted by St. Cecilia. Zwyrtala is eagerto join in music and he plays his violin louder andlouder. The angels accompany him and Zwyrtalastarts to play the highland robbers' folk dance. Theaction moves from Heaven to earth to present thestory about Janosik in a theatre within theatreway. The scenes show history of exploitation andrebellion of highlanders who were led against their

7

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

38/56

exploiters by Janosik, Janosik's victory, love anddeath of the bet-=-ayed hero. Heaven is full ofbeautiful legend and songs but earthly problemscannot interfere with divine order so Zwyrtala has togo back to earth, with its happiness andunhappiness. Ha leave Heaven and goes back to theTatra mountains which are more beautiful thanHeaven. He says: My Heaven is where my heart is .

Guignol in Trouble and Zwyrtala theMusician brought Han Wilkowski internationalfame. In 1958 at the International Puppet Festival inBucharest Guignol got the gold medal and GrandPrix, and Zwyrtala the Musician brought Wilkowskithe diploma of the Puppeteer of the Year from theCritics' Club during the Theatre of Nations in Paris in1959. World critics called Zwyrtala the best playof all times.

Another trend in Wilkowski's playwritingpresents plays based on children's f i r y ~ t l e s but withnew, unconventional contents. Here we should01 en tion five short plays for the yotmgest childrenabout the adventures of Tymoteusz the teddy bear:Tymoteusz Rymcimci (1960), Tymoteusz ilobuziaki (Tymoteusz and Mischevious Bears -1961), Jesienna przygoda m151a Tymoteusza(Autumn Adventure of Tymoteusz 1960),Tymoteusz wsrod ptakow , (Tymoteusz and Birds -1961), Tymoteusz majsterklepka , (Tymoteusz of All

Trades - 1961). This small theatre series isextremely popular and is often shown in children'srepertoire . The plays were performed several timesin all the republics of the Soviet Union,Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic,Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, even Japan.

The first play in the series TymoteuszRymcimci introduces our hero and his Father-bearwho will often appear in the next adventures.Tymoteusz feels lonely and bored so his fathersuggests they should make scrambled eggs together.But the recipe says they need five eggs and they only

38

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

39/56

have four so Tymoteusz goes to Mrs. Hen's shop toget an egg. On the way he forgets how many eggs heshould buy. He also finds nobody's Doggie. They goto the shop together, Tymoteusz buys an egg and theygo back home with Doggie in a basket. The situationis difficult because Father cannot stand dogs.Tymoteusz tells his Father about a surprise in thebasket. When Father looks into the basket frightenedDoggie runs away, four eggs are broken, a chickenappears from the fifth egg and angry Father throwsDoggie out Tymoteusz furtively lets Doggie in andhides him under covers. At night, when everybody isasleep, comes Fox the Thief. Doggie is alert but Foxmanages to escape. Doggie also disappears andTymoteusz is very worried. Suddenly Doggie comesback and brings everything that Fox has stolen.Tymoteusz, Father and Doggie stay together forever.

In Tymoteusz and Mischievious BearsTym oteusz, Father and Doggie go for a trip to thewoods where they meet other young bears.Tymoteusz wants to make friends with them but theyscorn and frighten him when they pretend to be wilddogs. Tymoteusz must play alone but his nice toysat tract other bears. This time Tymoteusz does notwant to speak to them. The conflict is growing andduring a big row Tymoteusz falls into a river.Everybody joins in rescuing him, bears get the toys,Tymoteusz gets medals and they all part as friends.

Autumn Adventure of Tymoteusz takes placein the woods where our hero looks for mushrooms. Asit turns out he sits on a mushroom that starts growingand Tymoteusz falls to the ground. He cannot pickthe mushroom but he spots Fox dressed as a hunter.Fox runs away when he sees Tymoteusz, shots areheard, wounded l i t t le Hare appears and Tymoteuszhides him in a basket under toadstools. On the wayhome he loses the Hare but finds him with the help ofFather and they scare away Fox who was going toshoot them down.

9

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

40/56

The action of Tymoteusz of All Trades takesplace in a garage. Mrs. Storyteller thinks that Fox isthe owner of it and asks him to repair her car Fox,greedy for tinkling coins, starts working on a car withTymoteusz. The car gets completely broken downand angry Fox tells four small bears to get into theengine and move the car Mrs. Storyteller nearlypays the money but the bears smash the car. Foxescapes and Father comes back. He makesTymoteusz and his friends repair the car. A songends one more story about Tymoteusz.

Wilkowski's hero is a teddy bear, the first child'stoy and, at the same time, traditional fairy-talecharacter. Here it is treated very specifically, onthe basis of child's psychology with the respect forthe rich inner world of children's feelings, theirimagination and creative abilities. The stories arevery dynamic, full of unusual adventures that happento our hero when he meets the world for the firsttime. The situations always end with a moral but itis far from boring didacticism, moralizing oradmonishing. Tymoteusz's world is not controlled bygrown-ups and their experience. It is the world ofspontaneous feelings of a child, full of movingsimplicity, peotic imagination and humour. All theplays about Tymoteusz are written with an absolutesense of theatre and dramatic composition. They area great success in puppet-shows.

Wilkowski's output also includes a few playswhere puppets and people act together (e.g., Ula zlb , Ula from the 1st Form), a one-act play for adultsabout a folk sculptor whose sculptures revolt,Spowiedz w drewnis Wooden Confession), acontemporary fairy-tale (written together with

Elzbieta Burakowska), Cybemetyczny pies(Cybernetic Dog) and a stage adaptation of a wellknown children's story by Kornel Makuszynski,

Szewc Kopytko i kaczor Kwak (Kopytko theShoemaker and Kwak the Duck).

40

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

41/56

Still another part of Wilkowski's work aretelevision plays for children with such series as:Teatrzyk w koszu (Theatre in a Basket 1960-

1964), Ula swiat (Ula and the World - fifty shortplays written in 1964-1968) and Przygoda skrzataD ziecielinka (Adventures of Imp D ziecielinek -1970-1971 .

Smiling playwritingchildren agree.

say the critics and

Soviet-American Cooperation n FUm Studies andProduction: Achievements and ProspectsIn the general atmosphere of cultural renewalthat has been spreading over the USSR for a l i t t le

more than one year, perhaps no other field hasresponded to the Party directives with moreenthusiasm and concrete actions than the cinemaindustry. A few key events illustrate this trend.

A major bureaucratic shakeup started in Maylast year, at the V Congress of the FilmmakersUnion. On that occasion three fourths of the Union'sbureaucratic apparatus was replaced with youngermembers actually involved in film production andcriticism. For the first time nominations to officialposts were not prearranged, and this allowed the upto-then controversial film director Elem Klimov tobe elected First Secretary of the Union. Six monthslater, in December, it was the turn of Goskino (theState Committee for Cinematography) to have itshead replaced. The new director, AlexanderKamshalov, is a typical exponent of the new breed ofParty functionaries who emerged with Gorbachev.He comes from the Party ranks, and one can expecthim to provide Goskino with energetic leadership,informed decisions, and a policy which favors artisticexpression.

A sure sign of a change of policy toward filmproduction and distribution was the release of filmsthat had been shelved for years. Such was the case41

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

42/56

with Klimov's Rasputin, German's Test on the Roadsand his more recent My Friend Ivan Lapshin, andAbuladze's Repentance. This last film has beenshown only to selected audiences so far, but it isexpected to be put on the regular circuit in the nearfuture. Its release is an eloquent example of theleadership's commitment to openness in the culturalsphere. The new Secretary of the Filmmakers Unionhas appointed a commission to review all the filmsthat have been shelved over the years, in order tobring out valuable works which suffered because ofobtuse censorship.

Problems that have hindered film production fordecades are now openly discussed in the officialpress. There is a call for autonomy of decision withinthe studios in financial as well as artistic matters,and frank criticism of the bureaucratic apparatusthat used to stifle creativity. But not all the blameis placed on the administrative side. Directors,screenwriters, and critics are blamed as well for thegreyishness that colored most of the national filmproduction. They are blamed for being too timid, too

complacent, too obsequious to conventions, and areencouraged to nurture their talent and individualinspiration giving them full expression. In the finalanalysis, it 's not just the film industry that is placedunder discussion, but the individual as a responsiblemember of society. The issue has become a moralone.

This intellectual and administrative turmoil hasfavored the emergence of young talent. We shouldkeep in view upcoming films, such as The Voice ofOne Man by director Alexander Sakurov, thefantastic tales of director Ovcharov (Nebylitsa andN eskladukha, the titles are practicallyuntranslatable}, The Letters of a Dead Man byKonstantin Lopushanksky, and The Flight of theSparrows by Timur Babluani.

Western critics of the current events will arguethat this new trend actually reflects new Party

4

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

43/56

directives of bureaucratic shakeup, economicreforms, and social uplift, and therefore that thepolicy toward the arts will be implemented only aslong as it serves the government s plans. This mayvery well be true. However, the fact thatliberalization comes from above does not alter thepositive, although still modest, results. Furthermore,certain changes in the socio-political and culturalspheres entail an irreversible process. Even if thepolicy is .reversed, what has been gained will remainin the consciousness of the nation. Therefore, thereare reasons to look with optimism at the fermentthat is reshaping and revitalizing the Soviet cinemaindustry.

One aspect of the new trend that involves usmore directly is a desire for cooperation with theU.S., both in cinema studies and production. As aresult, a n u m e ~ of initiatives have been taken, andpromising developments await us in the future. Lastfall the Kennan Institute of the Wilson Centersponsored an international Conference on SovietCinema, which hosted specialists from WesternEurope and the Soviet Union, in addition to Americanscholars. This was the first major symposium held inthe U.S. which was dedicated exclusively to Sovietcinema. The participation of a Soviet delegation,headed by Vladimir Braskakov, the Director of theState Institute of Film Art VNIIK), and includingAlex Adamovich, a major novelist and screenwriter,gave this conference an unusual breadth of scope.Usually, at our academic meetings we do not hear theSoviet side, and are deprived of the possibility of adirect exchange. This conference not only provided aforum for discussion of scholarly topics, but hosted around table on exchanges and cooperation which hasalready produced concrete results. Following thosepreliminary talks, a Soviet-American jointCommission on Cinema Studies is being establishednnder the auspices of the American Council ofLearned Societies and IREX on the American side,and Goskino and the Filmmakers Union on the Soviet

43

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

44/56

side. The two sides will possibly get together asearly as this spring to discuss joint projects, such assymposia, festivals, teleconferences, exchanges ofspecialists, films, and printed materials. Filmproduction and distribution will not be included in theworks of the Commission at this stage, but they willbe considered for future developments. TheAmerican Commission invites suggestions from thefield as to which specific projects are desirable andwhich institutions are willing to implement them,with the administrative assistance of REX.

The Kennan Institute conference has created anawareness of the fact that cinema is neglected areain the field of Soviet studies in this country. Andyet, cinema's importance both as an art form and anindex of cultural, political, and economic trends isundeniable By allowing more room to visual mediasuch as cinema and television in their area studiescurricula, American universities would engenderwider and deeper understanding of the Soviet Union.The same is true, parenthetically, for academic thinktanks and government agencies. George WashingtonUniversity's School of Public and InternationalAffairs is taking decisive steps in this direction. TheSchool is now seeking funds to expand its Sovietstudies programs in the visual media with view tothe establishment of Center for Studies in SovietCinema and Television. Eventually, the Center willpromote research, teaching, exchanges, disseminationof information, and outreach activities such assymposia, festivals, and teleconferences. Asrelations with the Soviet cinema industry becomemore official and structured due to the work of theACLS/Goskino Commission on Cinema Studies, theGWU Center may serve as clearinghouse and majorheadquarters for projects generated in the field atlarge.

In the course of the last year, Goskino and theFilmmakers Union have been literally flooded withproposals from American private and publicenterprises. This upsurge of interest has created

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

45/56

some confusion in bureaucracy rmaccustomed toindividual, rmcoordinated initiatives. Consequently,only few projects have been approved and carriedout. Among them, besides the already mentionedConference on Soviet Cinema, was the film festivalA Salute to the Soviet Republics, organized by theInternational Film Exchange, Inc., and sponsored bythe Museum of Modern Art in New York and theSmithsonian Resident Associates in Washington,D.C. On that occasion, Elem Klimov came to theUnited States on his first visit, together with anotherfilm director, Albert Mkrtchian. Their presencestirred an unprecedented wave of interest in theAmerican press, as well as among the scholarlycommunity and the film industry. Several jointprojects were discussed. Among them is anEntertainment Summit which is supposed to takeplace in Los Angeles in the spring, and will bringtogether movie directors, producers, and actors toget better acquainted with each other's culture andexchange ideas and experiences. Also in the fall,another Soviet film director, Savva Kulish, came tothe U.S. to present his film Fouettee at the ChicagoFilm Festival, and to find an American coproducerfor his last film The Last Ship. On the Soviet side,the script has been approved by Goskino and themoney already allocated for coproduction. Kulishspent few days in Washington, and gave veryinformative and open talk at the Kennan Institute.

This is by no means an exhaustive picture of thestate of affairs in the field, especially whereproduction is concerned. For example, ArmandHammer Productions that has produced films in theSoviet Union in the past is now planning to makedocumentary on Chernobyl.

So, it seems warm wind is blowing from theEast. One should be aware, as skeptical observerscorrectly warn us, that the fan is still firmly in thehands of the Party and can be switched off as easily

45

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

46/56

as t was switched on. On the other hand, while it 'sspring why not take advantage of the thaw?Anna Lawton, Purdue University

Jewish Themes on the Moscow StageThe att i tude of the Soviets towards the Jews at

the present t ime continues to be multi-faceted andambiguous. Attacks against Zionism and the State ofIsrael have accelerated, and are easily recognized asbut thinly-veiled attacks against Jews in general,particularly those in the Soviet Union. By the sametoken, Gorbachev has repeatedly stated that antiSemitism is anti-Soviet behavior and will beprosecuted in accordance with the Constitution.

During the first full year of the Gorbachevregime the number of Jewish emigres was cut tomere trickle the lowest number in the past twodecades; however, recent reports indicate thatapproximately 1,000 Jews were allowed to emigratein January and February, and that this liberalizationwould continue for the foreseeable future. On theother hand, Jews who demonstrate for exit visas arefrequently physically assaulted by KGB goonsquads. Nevertheless, although i t is true thatreligious observance is at least as restricted as duringthe past twenty years, number of Jewish dissidentswho had fought for religious tolerance and had beenimprisoned for this have now been released.

Although Gorbachev has promised equalopportunity for all, i t is still virtually impossible forJew to enter Moscow State University except with

tremendous bribe. This is justified with thestatement that , since Judaism, according to Sovietlaw, is not religion but nationality, there has tobe some balance to allow for number of admissionsfor each nationality. And, since the Jews constitutesuch tiny percentage of the population, t cannot beexpected that large number of seats at the major

46

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

47/56

university would be relegated to them to thedetriment of other, larger nationalities a Sovietversion of the quota system which, incidentally,affects not only Jews, but also other undesirableSoviet nationalities. But the Jews have their ownautonomous region, Birobidzhan, where they can liveas they like where the use of the Yiddish language isencouraged, and where the publication of a Yiddish-language journal (Sovietish Heimland) is supported bythe State.

The present official Soviet atti tude concerningthe stage is just as ambivalent and unpredictable.Most principal playwrights and directors, many ofwhom are Jewish, are still waiting for clear policydeclarations covering the performing arts to bepronounced by the Gorbachev regime. On the onehand, there are constant reminders that SocialistRealism , the insistence that all art must have anational, ideological and Party content, is still thedoctrine for all the arts. At the same time, some ofthe more courageous directors have been stagingplays that most definitely do not fall within thatmold and have gotten away with it. Two of them,Speak out... and The Last Visitor (discussed inanother article in this issue); appear to be in thiscategory, but are principally propagandistic but,nevertheless, commendable examples of Gorbachev'sglasnost campaign.

This brings us to our main topic and to threeexamples of the new Soviet approach to Jewishthemes on the Moscow stage

On several previous occasions, the JewishMusical Cameo Theater (JMCT), the principalmusical group in Birobidzhan, has come to Moscow toperform before a predominantly Jewish audience.The 1986 summer/ fall season was no exception. Whatwas definitely different was that the postersadvertising the events were pasted on billboards inseveral conspicuous places right in the center ofMoscow. Also, tickets, which previously could be

47

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

48/56

obtained only at the box office, were easily availableat numerous theatre kiosks throughout the city. naddition, quite a number of non-Jews were inattendance at these performances which alas, wereof mediocre quality at best. There were evenings oftraditional Jewish folk music, and also a galaperformance of an operetta called Anatevka whichwas primarily based on the Broadway musical Fiddleron the Roof. Its success was primarily due to thefact that for the first time, Soviet CentralTelevision, earlier this year, aired this performanceduring prime time under the title Tevye theMilkman. It was estimated that approximately 100million Soviets watched it There seems to be a planafoot to use the JMCT as proof to the outside worldthat the Jews do enjoy full rights in the USSR. Oneexample of this is a four-page spread on the JMCT,with photographs, in the Septemher, 1986 issue of theofficial Soviet publication Soviet Life.

The next example, the performance of FiveStories by Isaak Babel (Piat rasskazov I. Babelia) wasquite different. It is one of the major plays of the1986/87 season being performed on the main stage ofthe Taganka Theater. t must be remembered thatthe Taganka has been traditionally known as one ofthe most interestingly innovative houses in Moscow,particularly under the strong leadership of IuriiLiubimov. Liubimov is now an expatriate but hisname and reputation still make tickets to theTaganka among the most difficult to obtain. It istherefore not at all unusual that tickets to the play inquestion are a rare find. Isaak Babel, one of thefinest prose writers of the early Soviet period whowas later eliminated by Stalin, was partiallyresurrected after Stalin s death. He has traditionallybeen considered the outstanding representative of theOdessa school of Jewish writers. AI though theSoviets admit to his existence, t is truly impossibleto buy his w r ~ which are printed in only very smalleditions t was therefore a rare treat to attend aperformance in which theatrical versions of four of

48

8/12/2019 SEEP Vol.7 No.1 May 1987

49/56

his short stories were presented. The audience waspredominantly non-Jewish, but thoroughly enjoyedthe play, the small group of musicians who playedtraditional Jewish music in a lively rhythm, and eventhe constant references to our people in thescript. The play was not particularly good. Therewas virtually no improvisation since all the lines weretaken directly from Babel's stories. Also, the fourstories chosen were politically the most harmless( Konkin, Evening, The Story of My Dovecot, andAwakening. ). Nevertheless, the official

resurrection of Babel and his Jewish themes was afirst and was therefore considered a precedent by

the audience. The director is Efim Kucher, a yoWtgman who didn't even rate having his name mentionedin the printed program.

Our third and final example is by far the mostsignificant. t is the repertory performance of No. 40Sholem Aleikhem Street (Ulitsa Sholom Aleikhema,dom 40, which is to run the entire season of1986/87. t w s written y Arkadii Stavi tskii, one ofthe better Jewish playwrights. The performance is atone of the major Moscow houses, the StanislavskyTheater, located directly on Gorkii Street. Theoverall responsibility for production is that of theprincipal director A.G. Tovstonogov who himself haswon a number of major awards, and who is also theson of G. Tovstonogov, certainly the most respecteddirector in the Soviet Union today. He was ablyassisted by a yoWtger director A Rafikov.Although the Stanislavsky Theater is a comparativelylarge house, there were literally thousands of peopleon the street begging for tickets. t seemed as if themajor portion of the Jewish population of Moscoww s there. The theme of the play was a fascinatingone, since it was totally unexpected andWlprecedented. As soon s the premise becameclear, there were