The Vakhtangov school has stepped into a new century. Educational theater of the B. Shchukin Theater Institute

Marina Timasheva: In November, the Evgeni Vakhtangov Theater celebrates its 90th anniversary. On November 13, instead of anniversary celebrations, the theater gave the premiere of the play “Pier”, in which all the luminaries of the Vakhtangov Theater are involved. We have already talked about this on the daytime broadcasts of Radio Liberty, and we will return to talk about this amazing work. And now I invite you to listen to the story of actor, theater teacher and TV presenter Pavel Lyubimtsev. He is a graduate of the Shchukin school, a patriot and historian of the Vakhtangov Theater. My colleague Valentin Baryshnikov spoke with Pavel Lyubimtsev.

Pavel Lyubimtsev: The history of the Vakhtangov Theater is unusual. This is one of the very rare examples of how theater was born from drama school. It usually happens - usually the theater appears first, and then a school is born with it. And Vakhtangov began by mastering the elements of acting. This happened in 1914. First, he and young studio members, members of the so-called Student Studio, staged the play “The Larins’ Estate” based on the play by Boris Zaitsev. This performance failed, which did not discourage the young studio members or Vakhtangov at all. He came to them backstage after the performance and said: “Well, we failed. If you want, we can continue, but we will start not with a performance, but with serious study. And on October 23, 1914, Vakhtangov conducted the first lesson using the Stanislavsky system. This is the date of birth of the Vakhtangov Theater School, now Theater Institute named after Shchukin. And the theater arose later. On November 13, 1921, when the Vakhtangov Studio acquired the brand of the Art Theater, it began to be called the Third Studio of the Moscow Art Theater. And it was a discovery - then there was already something to show. There was a gala concert in which Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky took part, they played “The Miracle of St. Anthony,” a play by Maurice Maeterlinck - this is one of Vakhtangov’s directorial works, which was created after the first student, still educational, excerpts. This, it seems to me, determines the originality of the Vakhtangov Theater. That is, it began as a school, and Evgeniy Bagrationovich would like to consider his performances as performances for the school, and not vice versa. Vakhtangov lived a very short life, only 39 years old, Vakhtangov staged few performances and, nevertheless, turned out to be a bright light in the history of Russian theater of the twentieth century and gave his students a powerful charge for long years forward. The charge is not only aesthetic - they accepted his professional lessons, but also an ethical charge - for a very long time they retained this very studio spirit, collectivity, “swarm” existence. A rare fact! After the death of Vakhtangov (he died in 1922) they were left without a leader, although with a very bright performance “Princess Turandot”, which Vakhtangov did not even see as a performance, he saw a dress rehearsal at night, he was mortally ill when he released this play. But being left without a leader, they, firstly, retained their independence, and, secondly, from 1922 to 1939 they did not have a single leader, that is, they collectively managed the theater. Moreover, the theater was brilliant, extremely popular, with a special troupe, unlike anything in the then brilliant theatrical Moscow. Only in 1939 Ruben Nikolaevich Simonov became the director of the theater. They somehow carried the studio spirit through all these years.

Valentin Baryshnikov: These people, as far as I know, were not professionals; Vakhtangov worked with non-professionals, which, as far as I understand, even earned him criticism at the Moscow Art Theater. The people who produced the play ''The Miracle of St. Anthony'', then ''Turandot'', did this in 1921 and early 1922. During the devastation, in the difficult post-war times. Who are these people who decided to engage in theater?

Pavel Lyubimtsev: Everyone has their own destiny. They were young, they were students, they were representatives of the Russian intelligentsia, and Vakhtangov made these young people professionals. And, most importantly, they were very special individuals. It is extremely pleasant to name the most glorious names. Let's say, Boris Vasilyevich Shchukin, absolutely amazing character actor. He was very young when he played a priest, curé in “The Miracle of St. Anthony”, then in “The Wedding” he played Father Zhigalov, and in “Turandot” he played Tartaglia. Shchukin became a great artist and this is evident from his roles, which are recorded in films. For example, ''Lenin in October'' and ''Lenin in 1918'', films by Roma. They are, of course, so mythical, but Shchukin plays there amazingly, brilliantly from the point of view of acute characterization - he not only looks like Lenin, he creates a wonderful artistic image.

Or, say, Ruben Nikolaevich Simonov, an individuality unlike anyone else: a strange combination of sharp-characteristic external data and romantic, spiritualized talent. Ruben Simonov was a man of very bright Caucasian appearance, he was Armenian by nationality and, as Alla Aleksandrovna Kazanskaya, a wonderful artist and teacher at the Shchukin School, joked, “in our time, young Ruben Nikolaevich Simonov would not be accepted into any theater institute.” He was dark-skinned, dark-eyed, black-haired, he was small in stature, he had a strange voice, a peculiar diction, and at the same time he played not only character roles, but romantic roles - he played Don Quixote, Cyrano de Bergerac and was sparkling, unusually talented . There are no such individuals as Ruben Simonov. Or, say, Cecilia Lvovna Mansurova - completely unique, irregular, with an unforgettable voice, red-haired, fragile, strange. One could even say that all the best Vakhtangov actresses tried to imitate Mansurova in some way. And the originality of the voices of Vakhtangov’s actresses comes from Cecilia Lvovna. And her voice can be heard, performances with her participation have been recorded, including “Filumena Marturana,” where she played with Ruben Nikolaevich Simonov.

Tragic actress Anna Alekseevna Orochko, who played few roles, but apparently amazed with her dramatic temperament. God-given comedian Anatoly Iosifovich Goryunov. Such a wise character artist Joseph Moiseevich Tolchanov. A beauty, the unforgettable Marya Davydovna Sinelnikova, just a black rose - I had the opportunity to work with her a little at the Shchukin School, she was a beauty until her old age. In a word, the troupe was somehow unique, consisting of amazing individuals. Yuri Aleksandrovich Zavadsky left and returned, who also does not need much introduction cultured people, because Zavadsky later became an outstanding Soviet director, retained his unearthly beauty. The lines of Marina Tsvetaeva are dedicated to Zavadsky:

You are as forgetful as you are unforgettable.
- Oh, you look like your smile! –
Should I say more? - Golden morning is more beautiful!
Should I say more? - Alone in the entire universe!
Love itself, a young prisoner of war,
Sculpted bowl by Cellini's hand.

Friend, allow me to speak in an old way
To say the most tender love in the world.
I love you.- The wind howls in the fireplace.
Leaning on his elbows - staring into the heat of the fireplace -
I love you. My love is innocent.
I speak like little children.

Friend! All will pass! Temples are clenched in the palms,
Life will unclench! - Young prisoner of war,
Love will let you go, but - inspired -
My winged voice prophesies to everyone -
About what once lived on earth
You are as forgetful as you are unforgettable!

Wow! This is how Tsvetaeva writes about Zavadsky. That is, it was an extraordinary troupe. And they were all raised by Yevgeny Bagrationovich. Well, I still found some of his direct students. For example, Vera Konstantinovna Lvova taught at the Shchukin School. She was a modest actress, but she was a passionately devoted person to the theater and a wonderful teacher, and she perfectly mastered the elements of skill and taught. Alexandra Isaakovna Remizova became an excellent director, she is the youngest of Vakhtangov’s students. Tolchanov came to our courses and gave lectures. In the late 70s they were still alive.
Boris Zakhava. What a figure! A powerful teacher, an amazing theater figure, the creator of the Shchukin School, director of “Egor Bulychev,” an unforgettable performance with Shchukin and Mansurova in the leading roles. Today we can see him in the film “War and Peace” by Sergei Bondarchuk, where he plays Kutuzov, and we can fully judge the scale of his personality and what a serious artist he was, a keeper of the hearth. He was the creator of the theory of the Vakhtangov school - having taken all the lessons from Vakhtangov, he then formulated them coherently, created, in my opinion, a wonderful method of educating young actors, which is still alive. The system he proposed was very simple and surprisingly practical, very deep, very natural, he had incredible patience. I can talk about the old Vakhtangovites for a very long time; this is an extremely dear topic for me.

Valentin Baryshnikov: The main success of the Vakhtangov Theater, the loudest, is the play “Princess Turandot” based on the play by Carlo Gozzi. It has always been difficult for me to understand how in that Moscow, at that time, such a play unexpectedly found success?

Pavel Lyubimtsev: The success of “Princess Turandot” is precisely due to the fact that it was accurately guessed, precisely chosen in Moscow in the early 20s. 1921 is the time when the NEP began, when hopes arose that the hungry, cold, scary, bloody time was over and normal life was beginning. And in this sense, the sparkling, light, playful tale of Carlo Gozzi turned out to be just right. If we talk about the fact that in theatrically carries with itself ''Turandot'', in it Vakhtangov creates what Mikhail Chekhov later called ''the truth of the theater'' - that is, it is theatrical, and, at the same time, unusually sincere and deep. Mikhail Chekhov writes: “Stanislavsky had a wonderful truth of life in his performances, but sometimes this was to the detriment of the theater. Meyerhold had sparkling theatricality, but there was often little truth in life in his performances. Vakhtangov combined in his works both the truth of life and theatricality, and the truth of the theater arose. What did Vakhtangov say to his students when he was working on ''Princess Turandot''? He said: “You must cry with different tears and carry your tears to the ramp.” The thing is, where is ''Turandot'', where the artists do not forget for a second that they are artists, that they are playing, that they are communicating with the audience (there was no ''fourth wall''), and then they should moments of absolutely authentic living life arise - real tears, real love and real joy. This, it seems to me, is the key to a correct understanding of Gozzi’s work, because Gozzi wrote quite aesthetic plays. That is, in the 18th century, he used the techniques of the old Italian Comedy of Masks, but created his very refined, very aristocratic works so that they were not just a game of the mind, but touching and exciting. To achieve this, the artists had to combine sharp, vibrant theatricality and striking sincerity. What actually happened in ''Princess Turandot''. But if we talk about whether the traditions of Gozzi are alive today, which continue from Vakhtangov, I can name the performance of the Satyricon Theater “The Blue Monster”, where all this is present. Konstantin Raikin, he is a Vakhtangovite, and he staged a Vakhtangov play, because there is an endlessly whimsical game, but in the end you begin to worry so much about how it will all end, whether the heroes will be saved or they will die, and you cry so many happy tears in the finale that this is exactly what Vakhtangov bequeathed. And it's perfect special piece, it turned out to be Vakhtangov’s swan song. Another thing is that Evgeniy Bagrationovich cannot be reduced to ''Turandot''. He is very different. He also staged (at about the same time as Turandot) “Gadibuk” by Ansky in the Jewish studio “Gabima” - a tragic, mystical, cabalistic performance. Or Vakhtangov, who staged “Eric XIV” at the First Studio of the Moscow Art Theater with Mikhail Chekhov in the title role. Or Vakhtangov, who staged Berger’s “The Flood,” such a cruel psychological drama. Vakhtangov cannot be reduced only to “Turandot”, this is one of his incarnations. Another thing is that this performance turned out to be extremely durable, although “Turandot” was performed before the war, until 1941, because in July 1941 a bomb hit the theater building and all the scenery was destroyed. After the war, “Turandot” was no longer performed, and then, in 1963, Ruben Nikolaevich Simonov resumed “Princess Turandot,” as they say, “according to Vakhtangov’s drawing,” but it was a different performance, because the performance Vakhtangov was a poor studio, and the artists who played there were young and unknown to anyone. And in 1963, brilliant masters played who were nationally famous - Yulia Borisova, Mikhail Ulyanov, Vasily Lanovoy, Yuri Yakovlev, Nikolai Gritsenko, and many others. Lyudmila Vasilievna Maksakova was very young; perhaps she was not famous then. But this is fundamentally different.

It was a performance famous performers in a brilliant, glorious theater. In general, it must be said that the period that is consecrated in the name of Ruben Simonov - from 1939 to 1968, is a very glorious period for the Vakhtangov Theater, when it was formed large group amazing actors. Many of them are alive today and play, some are no longer there, Gritsenko is gone, Ulyanov is gone, but Borisova works, Yakovlev works, Etush works, Lanovoy works, Maksakova works, Shalevich - these are all wonderful masters who were formed by Ruben Nikolaevich Simonov, and this period, too, it seems to me, should not be hushed up.

Valentin Baryshnikov: I always imagined that the Vakhtangov Theater and its tradition were something easy, and it was always unclear to me what, for example, Stanislavsky found in Turandot, who, according to stories, went to the terminally ill Vakhtangov to congratulate him. What was this for the Moscow Art Theater with its traditions of psychological theater?

Pavel Lyubimtsev: Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky assessed “Turandot” impartially - he saw the freshness and youth of this performance and really appreciated the consistency that Vakhtangov showed precisely as Stanislavsky’s student. Stanislavsky should not be reduced only to everyday theater. This was everyday theater in the practice of the Art Theatre, but Stanislavsky should not be considered only an everyday realist. Well, read something about how Stanislavsky staged ''Army Heart'' in 1926. It was a highly theatrical, grotesque performance. Or 'The Marriage of Figaro'. So he, too, was looking for a way to an acute form and to real theatricality. When today they say that the Moscow Art Theater is only about “playing yourself,” this is not true. Even look at the photographs of old Moscow Art Theater artists, how they create images, how they change from role to role. Stanislavsky in different roles, if we talk about photographs (and there are many of them), it’s simple different people. So Stanislavsky needed the roots of theatricality, so he welcomed Turandot, seeing in it a worthy continuation, the development of the traditions of the Art Theater. But the Vakhtangov Theater is also not reducible to light and cheerful. Yes, of course, they played "The Straw Hat", yes, of course, they played "Mademoiselle Nitouche", yes, of course, "Turandot" always carried its originality and charm, but alongside this they also played tragic performances, and very realistic, truthful. I have already mentioned ''Egor Bulychev''. If we talk about more recent practice, for example, in my adolescence, in 1971 (I was just a boy), I watched, say, Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot” staged Alexandra Isaakovna Remizova with the unforgettable Nikolai Olimpievich Gritsenko in the role of Prince Myshkin. It was so piercing, it was so exciting, there was such tragic power in it! Borisova (Nastasya Filippovna) seemed skinless, all made up of kinks, nerves, sharp corners, and Ulyanov in the role of Rogozhin - these are also Vakhtangovites. Don’t think that the Vakhtangov Theater is necessarily only vaudeville, operetta or “Princess Turandot”. No, the Vakhtangov Theater is an endless variety. But in any genre, the Vakhtangov Theater is a holiday in its best manifestations - a holiday in tragedy, a holiday in everyday drama, a holiday in comedy, a holiday in a fairy tale. In all this there is a holiday. And one more very important circumstance. The Vakhtangov Theater, in its classical form, has always been an acting theater. Evgeniy Bagrationovich, of course, was a powerful director, a brilliant director, but, above all, he was a teacher. And his students, the best Vakhtangov directors, were all teachers: Boris Zakhava, and Ruben Simonov, and Alexandra Remizova, and Joseph Rapoport - they are all teachers. And the performances were, first of all, acting performances. It so happened that if we talk about major directors who worked at the Vakhtangov Theater, the name of Alexei Dmitrievich Popov appears, who worked at the Vakhtangov Theater until, in my opinion, 1930. But he was also an outstanding teacher, which he proved with his subsequent life both at GITIS and at the Army Theater. This, it seems to me, is very important, and this is what the Vakhtangov Theater needs today, namely, attention to the actor, the implementation of creative ideas through the actor. This in the Vakhtangov Theater, it seems to me, comes from the roots, from the Vakhtangov tradition.

Marina Timasheva: Valentin Baryshnikov spoke with Pavel Lyubimtsev about the history of the Vakhtangov Theater, which just turned 90 years old. And, I note that the current director of the theater, Rimas Tuminas, who is also an excellent teacher, composed new performance''The Marina'', in full accordance with the traditions of the Vakhtangov Theater, is a celebration of tragedy and the implementation of all ideas through the outstanding artists of this theater.

Radio Liberty

Posted on Friday, November 18, 2011: 19:49 in the category , . You can subscribe to comments on this post via the comments feed. You can

Vakhtangov school
Interview with the rector of the Shchukin Theater School Evgeny Knyazev.

- When we say Vakhtangov, some special direction appears. What's the highlight?

There are a huge number of theaters in Russia and in the world. Many of them are being created today. They live for some time and, having withered, die. And Vakhtangov created not just a theater. He created a whole direction, which is still called “Vakhtangov”. In Russia. In the West, it has not yet taken root very well, although we could switch to another wave and say that we are Stanislavsky’s system. But we say differently: “Yes, we are the Stanislavsky system, but the “Vakhtangov” direction. What it is? Critics, when they see a bright, full-fledged, full-blooded, talented performance that shines, that ignites with its energy, call it “Vakhtangov’s.” We're used to it. We are used to being proud of bright performances... And the idea of ​​the “Vakhtangov” direction is very simple - “deep form with bright content.” This bright content was instilled in us, and we continue to live with it. We really like this psychological existence in the theater. We support him. We are scolded for this, we are accused, they say: “...you are doing these Vakhtangov tricks on stage...”. But if there is no brightness in the performance, then this no longer has anything to do with us. Here is a very brief description of our direction.

- When did the Theater School appear? Shchukin?

Usually a school appears on the basis of an existing theater. Some time passes, and he needs some kind of recharge. And then a school is created. In our case, it turned out exactly the opposite: on October 23, 1914, a theater school appeared, and only 7 years later, in 1921, a theater was born from the school. In 2014, the theater school will turn 100 years old, and the theater will only be 93.

- How do you find talent?

We find talents all over Russia. The competition for admission to our institute for all the years, as long as I have been aware of myself, is approximately 3,000 people per place. Since April, our teachers have been listening to 150 - 200 people twice a week. We allow everyone who wants to get into theater to come... About 40 people reach the last competition, of which 25 remain who will study at the institute. There is only one criterion - we select truly gifted people. We sometimes have students who, under no circumstances, would ever be accepted into a course by any theater university. They cannot be called brilliant handsome men and beauties, but they are talented. And only we can afford to do such things - to enroll people on the basis of their inherent talent, and not on their participation in a beauty contest.
But if you only saw those whom we chose from these many thousands of applicants... The very best... But they also move poorly, speak poorly, cannot sing - nothing. These are the best!.. And then everyday work begins for them from 9 am to 11 pm, every day, for 3 years. Only by the third year do they become able to do little, little shows, as they say, for dads and moms. And only in the fourth year do graduation performances appear, for which we open the doors to the audience. It is almost impossible to get to the performances of our theater school in Moscow. They all sell out. From September until the end of May, students perform plays almost every evening and learn to be in the repertoire. Here it is - another advantage of the Russian repertory theater, when today they play a comedy, tomorrow - a drama, the day after tomorrow they sing and dance or read classics. Great school!

- Where can you meet your graduates after graduation?

The Vakhtangov Theater has the right of “first night”. Until a graduate appears at the Vakhtangov Theater, he cannot go to any other theater. Of course, there are exceptions, as, for example, happened with Natalya Gundareva, who was offered to stay in the theater, but she said: “What am I going to play for you? At the Mayakovsky Theater they offered me the role of Lipochka from Ostrovsky,” and did not go to the Vakhtangov Theater. In general, for a large percentage of graduates of the Shchukin School, getting into the Vakhtangov Theater is a great honor. But here another story begins. Actors' salaries are very low, and if offers arise that are interesting from a commercial point of view, for example, to star in some television series, then the young talent is not always able to resist...

- What is the reason for the short-term “tours” of the Shchukin Theater School in Geneva?

We came here at the invitation of the University Center in Geneva, which is headed by T.I. Gasanov. This is our first experience, but we agreed that every year at the end of March - beginning of April we will come to Geneva with the graduating class to show the performance and new works.

At the end of the performance “We Dance and Sing,” you announced from the stage that a drama school was enrolling at the University Center in Geneva. Did we hear right?

No, you heard right. Indeed, together with T. I. Gasanov, we are thinking through the concept of creating a department of a theater institute on the basis of the University Center in Geneva. We don’t yet know exactly what structure it will have, we are thinking about it. But the fact that there will be such a faculty is a fact.

- Switzerland and Geneva, in particular, are not recognized centers of theatrical art, like, for example, London or Paris. Why did you choose Geneva?

I was in Geneva about 15 years ago. For 10 days at the Bolshoi Theater, with translation for the Swiss public, we played the play “Guilty Without Guilt” by Ostrovsky, directed by Fomenko. We had a packed house every day. There were, of course, many Russian spectators, but the main audience consisted of the Swiss. We were received very warmly. To say that people in Switzerland do not like theater is wrong. But there is no famous theater school built on recognized traditions here. Therefore, we will try to fill the existing gap.

- Who will study at the theater department in Geneva?

Yes, anyone who wants. In addition to Russian people, who traditionally form the basis of the student population of the Theater Institute. Shchukin, I hope that both the Swiss and Genevans, and perhaps residents of other countries, will have a desire to enroll in our faculty. For now, we are focusing on the Russian audience and will soon announce a competition in Moscow. Let's see what the reaction will be. I do not exclude that there will be people who want to study in Geneva. By the way, people from all over the world come to study with us in Moscow: from America, France, Israel, Korea, Bulgaria... But since we are a Russian school, we can only accept 5-6 foreigners for the course. Therefore, if a branch of our theater school appears in Geneva and this becomes known, then foreign students will have more opportunities to learn theater skills from Russian teachers.

THEATER INSTITUTE NAMED AFTER BORIS SHCHUKIN

AT THE STATE ACADEMIC THEATER NAMED AFTER EVG. Vakhtangov

E.B. VAKHTANGOV AND HIS DIRECTION IN THE THEATER.

Test on the history of Russian theater

4th year students

Correspondence director's department

Monogarova Elena

I'll start by quoting Veniamin Smekhov - although not a theater theorist, but famous actor and a graduate of the Shchukin School. Reading on my poetry evening poems by Igor Severyanin, he said that if you open this poet with the “Stanislavsky” key, it will turn out boring. The “Vakhtangov” key transforms - when “it is warmed from the inside, and at the same time some external ... pepper is added; what housewives do to make a dish sparkle..." Let these words be said with humor in order to more easily explain to a less-prepared viewer the difference between theater schools, but, in my opinion, there is salt in them. What is the first thing that comes to mind for a person - a simple viewer - when we pronounce the name of Stanislavsky? "I do not believe!" and “the truth of life.” And Vakhtangov? I think it’s “improvisation”, an extravaganza of “Princess Turandot”.

There is the concept of “MKhAT”, when on stage everything is simple and everything is complex, as in life, when, as Chekhov brilliantly formulated, “people have lunch, just have lunch, and at this time their happiness is formed and their lives are broken.” What about Vakhtangovskoe? This is a celebration of the theater: the actors play and do not hide their games. Of course, the Vakhtangovian has always existed in the theater, either openly or secretly, but with the advent of Vakhtangov, this “theatricality,” when not only real life is presented on stage, but also that which is “imagined” by the artist’s imagination, acquired a name.

Of course, Vakhtangov himself would never have opposed himself to his teacher Stanislavsky, and in the opinion of the teacher himself, Vakhtangov was his best student. Vakhtangov was highly valued by the masters of the world theater: Gordon Craig, Andre Antoine, B. Brecht. Peter Brook wrote in “Empty Space” that Vakhtangov, like no one else, was able to penetrate the popular element of the theater. And he began his independent journey in the Third Studio of the Moscow Art Theater, where he was invited by the director.

Coming to the students, Evgeniy Bogrationovich began by declaring that wherever he found himself, no matter who he worked with, he set himself one task: to propagate the “system” of K. S. Stanislavsky.

This is my mission, the task of my life.

The students were delighted with the words of the teacher, and with his charming appearance, and with his extraordinary ability, which immediately struck them, to penetrate into their feelings and thoughts and speak with young men and women in a language absolutely understandable to them, always intimately exciting.

On September 13, 1920, this youth association will receive the status of the Third Studio of the Moscow Art Theater; in 1926, the theater named after. Vakhtangov. In the meantime, the newly minted studio members do not even have a permanent premises. Classes take place in student rooms. During the day, studio members continue to attend lectures; many also serve; they can only gather for art classes in the evenings or at night. Vakhtangov in the afternoon - in the First Studio, then - at Khalyutina's school, later - a lesson with students. When all the possibilities of “home comfort” were exhausted, they began to go to restaurants. Then the “studio” was no longer allowed here either. Then the studio people beg to spend the night in the cinema lobby after the screenings.

Recalling these days, one of the studio members, B.V. Zakhava, says: “He who went through this school of Vakhtangov and did not become an actor will not regret the wasted time as if it was lost fruitlessly: “He will forever retain the memory of the clock conducted in Vakhtangov’s lessons, as those that raised him for life, deepened his understanding of the human heart, taught him a happy and delicate touch to the human soul, revealed to him the subtlest levers of human actions...”

The premiere of “The Lanin Manor” by Boris Zaitsev took place on March 26, 1914. It was complete failure. The inexperienced actors played with delight, they were touched by their own experiences, but nothing reached the viewer except the complete helplessness of the performers.

Well, we failed! - Vakhtangov said cheerfully. – Now you can and should start studying seriously.

After this, the management of the Art Theater forbade Vakhtangov from any work outside the walls of the theater and its studio. Evgeny Bogrationovich pretended to submit. All members of the Student Studio (as it is now called) signed a solemn promise: everyone gave their “word of honor” not to speak in future about what would be done in the studio, neither to acquaintances, nor friends, nor even the closest people. From now on the name of the beloved leader was kept in the strictest confidence.

In the winter of 1914/15, the Student Studio worked a lot on sketches according to Stanislavsky’s “system” and on one-act plays. We rented a small apartment in two-story house in Mansurovsky Lane. In one half, the “Mansurites” set up a dormitory, in the other they equipped a tiny stage with an auditorium for thirty-four people. “On my word of honor” not to extradite Vakhtangov was hung on the wall so that he would always be remembered. But by the end of winter the word was broken. In the spring, selected guests were shown a “performance evening” consisting of five one-act pieces: a staged story by A. Chekhov “The Huntsman” and four vaudeville acts: “A Match Between Two Fires”, “The Salt of Marriage”, “Women’s Nonsense” and “A Page of a Novel”.

When choosing vaudeville, Yevgeny Vakhtangov said that an actor should be brought up on vaudeville and tragedy because these polar dramatic arts forms equally require from the actor great purity, sincerity, great temperament, great feeling, that is, everything that constitutes the main wealth of the actor.

But it was no longer just a feeling, not just an experience that was being brought up... The students realized that if an actor in a psychological theater is responsible only for the truth of experiences and remains indifferent to the form, he will not convey the experiences to the viewer.

The vagueness of the form, the overload of the game with meaningless, random and unnecessary details, “household garbage”, the lack of an accurate, clearly drawn drawing - all these negative properties of the amorphous “Theater of Experiences” were outlawed. This was the second stage. But the search for new forms was done by touch, intuitively. The basic principle of the studio remained the belief that creativity is always “unconscious”. Vakhtangov was fascinated by pedagogical tasks in this work; he writes in his diary: “in theater schools, God knows what is given. The main mistake of schools is that they take teach, between how to educate.” The “system” precisely aims to educate:

“The education of an actor should consist in enriching his unconscious with manifold abilities: the ability to be free, to be concentrated, to be serious, to be stagey, artistic, effective, expressive, observant, quick to adapt, etc. There is no end to the number of these abilities... In essence, the actor would only have to parse and assimilate the text together with his partners and go on stage to create the character.

This is ideal. When the actor has all the necessary means - abilities. An actor must certainly be an improviser. This is talent."

For Vakhtangov, this is the starting point for the entire teaching system.

Vakhtangov patiently teaches studio members how an actor, coming to the stage with a sense of vital well-being, must overcome it and create a creative sense of well-being. He teaches that creativity is the completion of a series of tasks, and the image will appear as a result of their completion. He repeats that you can’t play with feelings, but you need to act expediently, as a result of which feelings will appear. Each task consists of action (“what should I do”), desire (“for what”) and adaptation (“how”) All this must be realized and organized in preliminary work and rehearsals, and then act on stage involuntarily, spontaneously, trusting your nature.

In the winter of 1916/17, the Student Studio prepared another student performance of dramatizations of stories by Maupassant and Chekhov. Students have already ceased to be amateurs, and therefore the studio is now called “Moscow Drama Studio of E. B. Vakhtangov.” The years of “conspiracy” are over for them.

Vakhtangov is convinced that “any true theater can only emerge through the studio. The studio is the only way to create real theater. But what is a studio? The studio is an ideologically united team. Only with such a team can one begin to create a theater. Only with such a team can a real school emerge. The studio itself is not a school or a theater. The studio is what gives birth to both school and theater. The birth of the theater in no way implies the abolition of the studio. On the contrary, the existence and development of the theater is determined by the presence of a simultaneously existing studio (that is, an ideologically cohesive team). Thus, a kind of trinity arises: school – studio – theater. The studio is at the center of this trinity. She runs both a school and a theater. She manages both.”

In September 1920, the Vakhtangov Studio was accepted into the family of the Moscow Art Theater under the name of its Third Studio. In the fall, the studio moved from Mansurovsky Lane to an empty mansion on Arbat. In just two years, Vakhtangov’s last performance will take place – “Princess Turandot”, a performance that has become the “calling card” of the E. B. Vakhtangov Theater for many years.

Vakhtangov’s creative method, his theatrical ideas are capable of reconciling two types of theater - the theater of “performance” and the theater of “experience.”

Vakhtangov's directing style has undergone significant evolution over the 10 years of his work. From the extreme psychological naturalism of his first productions he came to the romantic symbolism of Rosmersholm. And then - to the expressionism of "Eric XIY", to the "puppet grotesque" of the second edition of "The Miracle of St. Anthony" and to the open theatricality of "Princess Turandot", called by one critic "critical impressionism". The most amazing thing in Vakhtangov’s evolution, according to P. Markov, is the organic nature of such aesthetic transitions and the fact that “all the achievements of the “left” theater, accumulated by this time and often rejected by the viewer, were willingly and enthusiastically accepted by the viewer from Vakhtangov.”

And yet, even in the extreme nakedness of "Princess Turandot" he remained faithful to the truth that he received from the hands of K.S. Stanislavsky. Three outstanding Russian theater figures had a decisive influence on him: Stanislavsky, Nemirovich-Danchenko and Sulerzhitsky. Vakhtangov admitted that he inherited the consciousness that an actor must become purer, better as a person, if he wants to create freely and with inspiration, from L.A. Sulerzhitsky. The decisive professional influence on Vakhtangov was, of course, K.S. Stanislavsky. Vakhtangov’s life’s work was teaching the system and forming a number of young talented groups on its creative basis. From Nemirovich-Danchenko he learned to feel the acute theatricality of characters, the clarity and completeness of heightened mise-en-scenes, learned a free approach to dramatic material, understood that in staging each play it is necessary to look for approaches that most correspond to the essence of the given work (and not set by any general theatrical theories from outside).

The fundamental law of both the Moscow Art Theater and the Vakhtangov Theater has invariably been the law of internal justification, the creation of organic life on stage, the awakening in actors of the living truth of human feeling.

Vakhtangov, like Stanislavsky, had “nothing far-fetched, nothing that could not be justified, that could not be explained,” said Mikhail Chekhov, who knew both directors well and highly appreciated them.

Vakhtangov brought everyday truth to the level of mystery, believing that the so-called life truth on stage should be presented theatrically, with the maximum degree of impact. This is impossible until the actor understands the nature of theatricality and perfectly masters his external technique, rhythm, and plasticity.

In Rosmersholm (premiere April 26, 1918), for the first time, with the help of symbolic means, the gap between the actor and the character he plays, typical of Vakhtangov’s work, was clearly outlined. It was enough for the actor to believe, to be seduced by the thought of being in the conditions of his hero’s existence, to understand the logic of the steps described by the author. And at the same time remain yourself.

Starting with “Eric XIY” (premiere on January 29, 1921), Vakhtangov’s directorial style became more and more defined, his tendency to “sharpen his technique”, to combine the incompatible - deep psychologism with puppet expressiveness, grotesque with lyricism, was maximally manifested. For the first time, Vakhtangov introduced the principle of statuary, fixed characters. Vakhtangov introduced the concept of points. The principle of theatrical sculpture did not interfere with the organic nature of the actor’s presence in the role. According to Vakhtangov’s student A.I. Remizova, the fact that the actors suddenly “frozen” in “The Miracle of St. Anthony” was felt by them as truth. This was true, but true for this performance.

The search for external, almost grotesque character was continued in the Third Studio's play "The Wedding" (September 1921), which was performed on the same evening as "The Miracle of St. Anthony." Vakhtangov proceeded here not from an abstract search for beautiful theatricality, but from his understanding of Chekhov. In Chekhov's stories: funny, funny, and then suddenly sad. This kind of tragicomic duality was close to him.

It is difficult to count the acting schools and studios in which Vakhtangov worked. In addition to the First and Mansurov Studios, Vakhtangov also taught at the Second Studio of the Moscow Art Theater, gave lectures on the Stanislavsky system in the Culture League, in Proletkult, in the studios of B.V. Tchaikovsky and A.O. Gunst. He conducted rehearsals for “The Green Parrot” in the Chaliapin studio. Worked at the Prechistensky workers' courses. Participated in the organization of the Proletarian Studio of workers of the Zamoskvoretsky district, organized People's Theater at B. Stone Bridge, where the Mansurov Studio played.

Working in various studios provided Vakhtangov with enormous human and acting material. He loved actors and always tried to test everyone's creativity. The principle by which he selected the performer for the role is well known - not the one who is better, but the one who is more unpredictable.

But it was in the Third Studio that many of Vakhtangov’s theatrical ideas were formulated.

1. The studio principle. Vakhtangov, like Sulerzhitsky, began his education as an actor not with work on external technique, and not even with internal technique, but with the very concept of “studio”. Vakhtangov believed that excessive pursuit of artistic pleasures is harmful to a young artist. A studio is an institution that should not yet be a theater. A student must maintain purity before the god of art, not be cynical in friendship and strictly adhere to ethical standards. Vakhtangov turned the great discipline of the Moscow Art Theater into theatrical magic. Studio work, Vakhtangov said, is first and foremost a discipline. No discipline - no studio.

The studio principle was supplemented by the inextricable formula: “School – Studio – Theater”. Three in one. The studio preserves the very spirit of art. The school educates professional actors of a certain type, with a common aesthetic. The theater is the place of true creativity of an actor. Theater cannot be created. A theater can only form on its own, retaining both a school and a studio within itself. Thus, the formula “School – Studio – Theater” is constant and universal for any truly creative theater group.

2. "School". The teacher’s tasks were defined by Vakhtangov as follows: to find the student’s individuality, develop his natural abilities and “thirst for creativity,” so that the actor does not have the feeling: “I don’t want to play.” To give techniques and methods of approach to working on a role in the theater - to teach how to control attention, how to disassemble the play into pieces. Develop external and internal technique, develop imagination, temperament, taste - the second nature of an actor.

Constantly repeating the high mission of the studio, Vakhtangov declared that he had a theatrical religion - this is the god that Konstantin Sergeevich teaches to pray to.

You can create only when you believe in the importance of your creativity. Faith requires justification, that is, an understanding of the reason for each given action, position, state. Vakhtangov identified a number of elements that an actor must be able to justify: 1) pose, 2) place, 3) action, 4) state, 5) a series of incoherent positions. The teacher’s task, with the help of exercises, is to develop in the actor the ability to justify his entire stage life.

The actor's faith is based on a special stage naivety. An actor cannot help but know that he is on stage, but thanks to faith, he can truthfully respond with feeling to fiction. He doesn't need to convince himself that the matchbox is a bird. It is enough, thanks to naivety and faith, to sincerely and seriously treat a matchbox like a living bird.

Important in the education of an actor, he has a sense of internal tempo, the art of mastering increased and decreased energy. Low energy – melancholy, boredom, sadness. Increased – joy, laughter. The same physical action in a different energy state has a completely different stage design and requires different devices.

However, the actor is not alone on stage. And the effect of a particular scene depends on the skill of his communication with his partner. Communication consists of conveying our feelings to each other: my living acts on my partner and vice versa - my partner’s living acts on me. When communicating, the object is a living soul. If the partner does not “live” with a genuine (affective) feeling, a tasteless “show” begins. He offered artists the following sketch to test the truth of theatrical communication: “Here is a box, now tell me that it is gold, and it doesn’t matter to me what you believe, but let your partner believe that it is gold.”

Vakhtangov did not consider the Moscow Art Theater “fourth wall” necessary. Deliberate alienation from the audience is pointless. The actor’s task is to influence the viewer, and for this he needs not only a developed internal technique, but also an effective external technique. The degree of his “infectiousness”, the measure of influence on the viewer, depends on the actor’s external technique. This does not at all mean that external technique can have some independent meaning outside of the artist’s stage experiences. The actor must find such external theatrical forms so that the finely developed internal drawing reaches the viewer as much as possible.

3. “Theater”: Actor and image. In Vakhtangov’s theatrical methodology, the directing part, the art of staging a performance, and techniques are of particular value. collaboration director and actor on the stage image.

Vakhtangov called the actor’s work on the role the creative part of the system, and believed that the system in itself does not determine either the style of production, or the genre of the performance, or even the methods of acting themselves. Working on a role means searching for and developing in the actor the relationships needed for the role. To understand a character, you need to reproduce its feelings, and then express these feelings on stage. An actor who exists truthfully on stage is one who, at the same time, lives in the proposed circumstances of the role and controls his stage behavior. In order to correctly play the end-to-end action of a role, the actor looks for its “grain”, the essence of personality, something that has been formed over the years and life experience.

In Vakhtangov’s method of working on a role, the external and internal always coexisted on equal terms. Every physical action in the theater must have an internal justification, and any characteristic cannot be “sticky” - it is not coercion, but a natural state, an external expression of a certain inner essence. Vakhtangov did not like long analyzes of plays at the table, but immediately looked for action, tried to find the type of imagery of the play and the psychological essence of individual characters. He tirelessly invited artists to fantasize around the role: “today I dreamed, and tomorrow it will be played against my will,” he asserted.

Vakhtangov's rehearsals were endless, endless improvisations by the actors and the director. In his plan for the system, he called rehearsals “a complex of accidents” in which “the play grows.”

The director influenced the actors in a variety of ways. His main creative method there was a show. Shows sometimes turned rehearsals into a one-man show in which the director showed off his brilliant acting miniatures. He infected the actor with both his temperament and his naive faith in the character.

When the grain of the role has fully matured, the actor does not need to worry about identifying certain features of the internal and external physiognomy of the image. The very artistic nature of the actor guides him. All that remains is celebration, freedom of creativity, the joy of feeling the stage. This is true acting inspiration, when all parts of an actor’s work - both elements of internal technique and external technique - are flawlessly polished. The actor improvises freely, and each of his impromptu is internally prepared and flows from the grain of the role.

The dream of an improvising actor playing a role from scratch was one of Vakhtangov’s favorite ideas. He dreamed that someday authors would stop writing plays, because in the theater piece of art must be created by the actor. An actor should not know what will happen to him when he goes on stage. He should go on stage, just as we go to some conversation in life.

Such are Vakhtangov’s aesthetics, his pedagogical and directorial methods. Thus, in his work, the concept of “fantastic realism” arose, most fully realized in his last two performances: “Gadibuk” and “Princess Turandot”.

Vakhtangov began to call his theatrical method “fantastic realism” shortly before his death, declaring that the principle: “there should be no theater in the theater” should be rejected. There must be a theater in a theater. For each play it is necessary to look for a special and unique stage form. And in general, there is no need to confuse life and theater. Theater is not a copy of life, but a special reality. In a sense, superreality, a condensation of reality. Theater can never become an absolute reality - since there is a convention of the stage, actors representing other people, fictitious characters and situations of the play. The term itself was not heard for the first time; it was used by Dostoevsky, Blok, and other artists. But Vakhtangov applied it to the stage, giving it a new meaning.

“Fantastic realism” is realism because the feelings in it are genuine, human psychology is real. The conventional stage means themselves are fantastic. An actor should not portray a character naturalistically. He must play it using the entire arsenal of stage expressiveness.

The spectator in the theater of “fantastic realism” does not forget that he is in the theater, but this does not at all interfere with the sincerity of his feelings, the genuineness of his tears and laughter.

The task of “fantastic realism” in any production is to find a theatrical “form that is in harmony with the content and presented by the right means.”

The actors in these productions, transforming into the image and trying to “dissolve” in it, seemed to shine through the image with themselves and, playing another person, expressed themselves in it.

Of course, “Princess Turandot” is the quintessence of Vakhtangov’s method. One of the defining ways of combining such diverse elements into a single whole was the principle of irony... A lady's stocking on the head of Emperor Altoum, a tennis racket as a symbol of royal power, shaggy towels instead of beards among the sages - all these and many other ironic elements were not an end in themselves. The task of Vakhtangov’s irony is aimed at creating a new truth from the contradictory combination of the conventions of theater and the truth of human feelings - the truth of the theater. And in this sense, the director’s last work turned out to be a true innovation, because nothing like this had ever been done in the Russian theater before.

Already in the prologue, all the participants introduced themselves to the public by name and then acted on their own behalf, in front of the viewer, either seriously getting used to the role, or slightly mocking their character. Vakhtangov set a very difficult task: first to completely destroy the stage illusion, and then to restore it. Then - destroy again and reassemble. The actor was encouraged to constantly play with the image. In “Princess Turandot,” the “face” of the actor and the “mask” of the image did not completely overlap each other and existed (at least in the director’s very idea) simultaneously.

The director's plans have been preserved, which allow us to judge how Vakhtangov intended to develop the principles of his “fantastic realism” in the future.

In the project for the production of “The Fruits of Enlightenment,” he proposed creating conditions for the actor that would combine stage conventions with the truth of the characters in Tolstoy’s play. The actor again, as in Turandot, was asked not to play a role from the play at all, but himself, sitting in the hall at a rehearsal. Next - myself playing in the hall Yasnaya Polyana in front of Leo Tolstoy himself. And only then - to portray a certain character.

While working on the project for staging “Hamlet,” which he also intended to take as a “pretext for exercise” at the studio, Vakhtangov admitted that he could not find a form for “Hamlet” other than the one he had discovered and tested in “Princess Turandot.”

Evgeny Bagrationovich Vakhtangov, who grew up as a master in the bowels of the Moscow Art Theater, accomplished an incredible creative evolution over the course of several years. He felt the features of the new theater so vividly and so convincingly that the Art Theater readily admitted that it was Vakhtangov who “made a shift in his art.”

However, even as the director’s creative style changed, the truth remained unchanged. Vakhtangov’s understanding of the theater’s purpose remained virtually unchanged. Theater is the path to the spiritual. Theater is service. There is no theater without a sense of celebration. Each performance is unique, and each performance is a holiday.

Vakhtangov understood the modernity of theatrical art not in the special topicality of the plots, but in the fact that the very form of the performance corresponded to the spirit of the times.

In general, as P. Markov wrote, the theme of Vakhtangov’s entire theatrical work was “the liberation of the actor’s subconscious forces before a breakthrough into new theatrical forms.”

In his “fantastic realism”, human feelings are genuine, and the means of expression are conventional, the form is fantasized by the theater from the real material of the play.

Necessary elements of any theatrical performance according to Vakhtangov: The play is a pretext for stage action. The actor is a master, armed with internal and external techniques. The director is a sculptor of theatrical performance. The stage is the place of action. An artist, musician, etc. are the director’s employees. All these elements make up a single organism of the performance, alive in all its parts.

Vakhtangov saw the theater of the future, capable of conveying the fullness of the life of the human spirit, in the forms of an amphitheater, where every movement of the actor’s soul, the expression of his eyes, every almost elusive gesture are best seen. The main thing in this perfect theater will be the actor, who, having combined the perfect internal technique with the developed external technique, will turn into a true master improviser, organically living on stage and creating the texture of the theater of “fantastic realism”, and not just playing this or that role assigned to him play.

“Gradually a special Vakhtangovsky variant of the Stanislavsky system, which still fertilizes the creative and teaching practice theater" - wrote B.E. Zahava. “Until now, the Vakhtangovites - directors, teachers and actors - when analyzing any role, use Stanislavsky’s teaching on an effective stage task, which, in accordance with Vakhtangov’s interpretation, consists of three elements:

Actions ( What am I doing);

Goals and desires ( why am I doing this?) And

Image of execution or "device" ( how do I do)».

Through the “image of performance” the performer conveys both the style and genre of the work, and the director’s form of the role, and finds the plasticity of the image.

Vakhtangov showed himself to be a true creator not only in the creation of his theater, his theatrical aesthetics, he made an innovative contribution to the development of Stanislavsky’s teachings. Therefore, the “Vakhtangov direction” can be understood in two senses - as the basis of a new artistic direction and as a moment in the development of the System.

Now, it sometimes happens that the embodiment of Vakhtangov’s ideas comes down to using the techniques of “Princess Turandot”. But Vakhtangov’s theatricality is not a technique or a sum of techniques. This is a method of theatrical expression of content, which is found anew every time for each new performance. This is the harmony of the idea and its stage embodiment. This is the very “magic of the theater” that shocks the viewer.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. “Conversations about Vakhtangov.” Recorded by Kh. N. Khersonsky. M.-L.: WTO, 1940.

2. Vakhtangov E. Notes. Letters. Articles. M.-L.: Art, 1939, p. 306.

3. Evgeny Vakhtangov. Collection / Compiled, edited by L.D. Vendrovskaya, G. Kaptereva. M.: WTO, 1984.

4. Markov P. About the theater. In 4 volumes. Volume 1. From the history of Russian and Soviet theater. M.: Art, 1974.

5. Simonov R. With Vakhtangov. M.: Art, 1959.

6. Smirnov-Nesvitsky Yu.A. Evgeny Vakhtangov. L.: Art, 1987.

7. Khersonsky H. Vakhtangov. M.: Young Guard, 1940.

8. Chekhov M. Literary heritage. Memories. Letters in two volumes. T. 2. M.: Art, 1995.

Khersonsky X Vakhtangov, p. 106.

Khersonsky H. Vakhtangov, p. 110.

Khersonsky H. Vakhtagnov, p.128.

There, p. 129.

B. Zahava. Vakhtangov and his studio. Quoted from Khersonsky H. Vakhtangov, p. 174 – 175.

Markov P. About the theater. In 4 volumes. Volume 1. From the history of Russian and Soviet theater, p. 422.

Chekhov M. Literary heritage. Memories. Letters in two volumes. T. 2, p. 372.

"Conversations about Vakhtangov." Recorded by Kh. N. Khersonsky. M.-L.: WTO, 1940, p. 69.

Vakhtangov E. Notes. Letters. Articles. M.-L.: Art, 1939, p. 306.

Evgeny Vakhtangov. Collection / Comp., ed. L.D. Vendrovskaya, G. Kaptereva. M.: WTO, 1984, p. 435.

E.B. Vakhtangov in the assessment of his contemporaries. Quote by: Smirnov-Nesvitsky Yu.A. Evgeny Vakhtangov. L.: Art, 1987, p.238.

Markov P. About the theater. Volume 1, p.210.

Quoted from: Smirnov-Nesvitsky Yu.A. Evgeny Vakhtangov. L.: Art, 1987, p.233.

Vakhtangov had a wonderful rule: he must “hand over” his productions, his teaching work in various studio groups, as he put it, to Stanislavsky, Nemirovich-Danchenko, and the team of the Art Theater. He often mentions this in his diaries, rightly believing that in this way an organic connection is established between his directorial and teaching activities and the teachings of Stanislavsky and the creative life of the Moscow Art Theater.

The first performance that Vakhtangov staged at the Moscow Art Theater Studio was Hauptmann’s “Feast of Peace.” The premiere took place in 1913. This performance was the first passionate embodiment of Vakhtangov’s passion for the principles of the new “school of experience” that Stanislavsky proclaimed. As the famous theater critic P.A. wrote. Markov, already in “Festival of Peace” the young student of Sulerzhitsky discovered his own goals and individual directing techniques. Vakhtangov enlarges the play and events, makes them more global, reveals the most complex borderline situations, where everyone’s monologue is the last confession containing some kind of tragic beginning. The heroes of Vakhtangov’s play are simply burned with a passion for analyzing life. The elders of the Moscow Art Theater, led by Stanislavsky, did not accept the performance: they found the actors’ performance neurasthenic. And it is not surprising that Vakhtangov’s teachers, seeing their principles brought to their most extreme expression, stopped in bewilderment in front of such an irreconcilable consistency of their student, not recognizing the fruits of their own teaching in his work. But, above all, this performance was an extremely passionate expression of the painful search for those paths that lead to moral ideal kindness, love and humanity. The director of this performance was equally ardently devoted to both one and the other: the principles of ethical theater and the teachings of Stanislavsky. For him these were two sides of the same coin. He himself was, as it were, at the intersection of these two influences. They merged in his consciousness into one whole, having first passed, of course, through the unique originality of his own human and creative personality and, as a result, turning into something third - specifically Vakhtangov.

Vakhtangov staged the second play, “The Flood,” by the writer Berger, within the framework of the tasks of the ethical theater and the Moscow Art Theater Studio. For Vakhtangov, this play says: as long as the capitalist system and the associated exploitation of man by man exists, as long as there is social inequality, the pursuit of the dollar, the stock exchange, it is useless to dream of love and unity of hearts. The objective conditions of the capitalist system are such that they kill any possibility of the triumph of “good” feelings. But at the Art Theater Studio, “The Flood” is interpreted differently. “Everyone is sweet and warm-hearted,” says Sulerzhitsky about the heroes of “The Flood,” “everyone has excellent opportunities to be kind, but the street, the dollars and the stock exchange have taken them away. Open them kind heart, and let them reach the point of ecstasy in their rapture from new, revealed feelings, and you will see how the viewer’s heart will open. And the viewer needs this, because he has a street, gold, a stock exchange... For this alone, it’s worth staging “The Flood.” Vakhtangov wanted to stage the play not in order to open the hearts of the audience with feelings of love and forgiveness, but in order to awaken hatred and a thirst for struggle in their hearts - this would be a task worthy of the high and truthful art needed at that time. In this performance, the views of Vakhtangov and Sulerzhitsky collided, and in his person the views of the entire Art Theater did not go in the direction in which Vakhtangov wanted to move.

Vakhtangov had a difficult time experiencing the revolution. But she became the catalyst for his ideas and aspirations; after the revolution, he makes a series of entries in his diary in order to summarize, theoretically comprehend and justify the work already done. Vakhtangov wrote in his diary: “The new people... must be shown the good that was, and preserve this good only for this people, and in new conditions of life, where the main condition is new people, you need to listen just as talentedly as in old life to create something new, valuable, great. Only the people create, only they carry the creative power and the grain of future creation,” writes Vakhtangov. - If an artist wants to create “new things”, to create after the Revolution came, then he must create “together” with the people. Not for him, not for his sake, not outside of him, but with him.” Vakhtangov develops a new idea of ​​the theater; after analyzing his experience and combining it with reality, he draws new conclusions about what kind of art should be in the theater in his own understanding. So, the conclusions drawn by Vakhtangov:

1. “The more persistently time demands from the artist, so that he not only deeply understands and appreciates reality, but also helps the people decisively rebuild it, the more hostile to art is the wingless philosophy of naturalism. It becomes an obvious obstacle to the development of new art, which should be born of the revolution”;

2. “We must more definitely express all our feelings, all our thoughts, all our criticism of the old world from new (this is the main thing!) positions that were given by the revolution, on which stand the victorious people, the people creating the revolution.”

3. “A new viewer came to the theater. For the theater to become effective, active, it needs to use all means to influence the consciousness of the viewer, it is necessary to return theatricality to the theater, it is necessary to use the entire arsenal of its weapons - not only experience, thought, word, but also movement, colors, rhythm, expressiveness of gesture, intonation, visual power of decoration and music. It is necessary to find in each performance a clear, clearly and sharply expressed form, subordinate to the single goal of the performance.”

Requirement for theatricality? A retreat from psychological realism? From the teachings of Stanislavsky? Not at all. Before the start of the new season (1920/1921), Vakhtangov writes a letter to Stanislavsky:

“Dear Konstantin Sergeevich, I ask you to forgive me for disturbing you with letters, but it’s so hard for me now, so difficult that I can’t help but turn to you. I will write about things that I have never told you out loud. I know that my earthly days are short. I calmly know that I will not live long, and I need you to finally know my attitude towards you, towards the art of the Theater and towards myself.

From the moment I got to know you, you became what I loved to the end, who I completely believed, who I began to live with and who I began to measure life by. With this love and admiration for you, I infected, both voluntarily and involuntarily, everyone who was deprived of knowing you directly. I thank life for giving me the opportunity to see you closely and allowing me to at least occasionally communicate with a world-class artist. It is with this love for you that I will die, even if you turn away from me. I don’t know anyone or anything higher than you.

In art, I love only the Truth that you talk about and that you teach. This Truth penetrates not only into that part of me, the modest part, which manifests itself in the theater, but also into the part that is defined by the word “man”. This Truth breaks me day after day, and if I don’t manage to become better, it’s only because I have to conquer a lot in myself. Day after day, this Truth aligns my attitude towards people, my demands on myself, my path in life, and my attitude towards art. Thanks to this Truth received from you, I believe that Art is service to the Highest in everything. Art cannot and should not be the property of a group, the property of individuals, it is the property of the people. Serving art is serving the people. An artist is not the value of a group - he is the value of a people. You once said: “The Art Theater is my civil service to Russia.” That's what fascinates me, me - little man. It captivates me even if I am given nothing to do and if I do nothing. This phrase of yours is a symbol of faith for every artist...

I ask you to give me 2 years to create the face of my group. Let me bring you not excerpts, not a diary, but a performance in which the spiritual and artistic organism of the group will be revealed. I ask for these two years, if I am able to work, to prove to you true love my true admiration for you, boundless devotion to you.”

Almost at the same time, within two years, he creates productions of “The Miracle of St. Anthony”, “The Wedding”, “Eric XIV”, “Gadibuk” and “Princess Turandot”.

The first work carried out on the basis of new principles was the second version of the production of “The Miracle of St. Anthony”. The world that needed to be depicted on stage - the stupid and inert world of the hypocritical, greedy bourgeoisie - now evoked in Vakhtangov an island-hostile and mercilessly mocking attitude towards itself. The former “smile” turned into sarcasm, affectionate irony turned into scourging laughter, everyday comedy began to sound like evil social satire, the satirical attitude towards the person portrayed, which previously seemed “terrible” to Vakhtangov, was now the basis of the performance.

Chekhov's "Wedding", which was first shown to the audience of the small hall of the Vakhtangov Studio on Mansurovsky Lane in the fall of 1920 in the "performing evening" of Chekhov's dramatizations, became the second performance. Vakhtangov planned to show “A Feast in the Time of Plague” by A.S. in completely new stage techniques on the same evening as “The Wedding.” Pushkin. In “The Wedding” there are plague-ridden inhabitants who have succumbed to the Plague, its servants, its slaves. And in Pushkin dramatic poem a challenge to proud people, affirmation of the power of free human will, glorification of life and its joys, which no Plague can break. Man triumphs. Strength of spirit brings people out of slavery. That's why there are two feasts in one evening. In “The Wedding,” Vakhtangov requires the actors to find, first of all, the “grain” of each role, from which, according to Stanislavsky’s teaching, everything else will grow.

In "Eric XIV" and "Gadibuk" Vakhtangov shows that any techniques - expressionistic, impressionistic, conventional, grotesque, whatever, can be successfully put at the service of Stanislavsky's genuine realism. It's all about ultimate goal. He managed to achieve the unity of deep content with the sharpest form. Vakhtangov demanded that actors not do anything “so-so” on stage; he demanded that nothing on stage be accidental. In order to achieve the concentration of the viewer's attention on one object common to all, Vakhtangov made the requirement that no one has the right to move on stage while another is speaking. This freezing in immobility will not seem deliberate, artificial to the viewer if each actor participating in a given scene justifies for himself the reason that should naturally and inevitably cause this stop. Using the technique of justified stops of physical action from within with the continuity of the internal line of each actor, Vakhtangov achieved sculptural expressiveness of the mise-en-scenes and groupings. Every gesture, every intonation, every movement, every step, pose, grouping of masses, every stage and acting detail in its amazing skill is brought to technical perfection. Every stage and acting moment can be recorded as a frozen sculptural image. This sculpture, which, being the most characteristic feature of his performances, determines his theatrical form. Vakhtangov defined this theatrical form with the word “grotesque”. Many researchers put forward a theory about the divergence of views of Stanislavsky and Vakhtangov at this time. But a careful analysis of the correspondence and a conscientious study of Vakhtangov’s creative practice gives every reason to speak more about unanimity with Stanislavsky than about any disagreements between them. Stanislavsky's concern was obvious; he was afraid that his beloved student, in his passion for the grotesque, would slip onto the vicious path of “external exaggeration without internal justification,” in which the form turns out to be “larger and stronger than the content.” Vakhtangov's grotesque is deeply truthful, saturated with great ideological content realistic art, which has enormous power of artistic generalization. And it came very close to the ideal that Stanislavsky so clearly and strongly defined when speaking about the grotesque. Subsequently, having watched the performances staged by Vakhtangov, Stanislavsky admitted this and thereby finally buried the legend of the ideological break with his best student. Stanislavsky proclaimed Vakhtangov “the only successor,” prophetically calling him “the hope of Russian art, the future leader of the Russian theater.”

The theme of two worlds - the living and the dead - runs through Vakhtangov's last four performances. In “Eric” and “Gadibuk” the artist finds the most complete expression of the main theme that torments him - the correlation of the living and the dead with movement: he is looking not only for contrast, but is trying to discover interpenetration.

But Vakhtangov’s latest work - “Princess Turandot” - breaks out of the circle outlined tragic theme, and everything is entirely devoted to a joyful, jubilant life; Death, which had come close to Vakhtangov’s life, has now left his work. Life with its joy, with its happiness, love and sunshine celebrates its victory over death in this last creation of Vakhtangov. In creating this performance, Vakhtangov proceeds from his idea of ​​commedia dell`arte. Vakhtangov with the help modern means theatrical expressiveness wants to resurrect not external forms, but the essence, inner nature, the spirit of ancient Italian comedy. The content of the fairy tale itself is presented in this performance as if “not seriously.” Soft, affectionate irony permeates the entire performance. But to present the naive content of Gozzi’s tale to the Soviet audience of those times with a serious face would be an unbearable falsehood. The viewer would feel the untruth in this, and the content of the tale would not captivate him at all. In Vakhtangov’s interpretation, the fairy tale captivated the viewer. For what happened on stage appeared as truth, as the fabulous truth of the theater, and the audience “believed” this truth.

There were a number of moments in “Princess Turandot” when the actors deliberately emphasized that on stage there was no life, but only a game, and thus, as it were, they exposed the illusory nature of the theater to the viewer. Why did Vakhtangov need these moments? Only so that next to them the moments of the actor’s sincere feeling would sound even stronger and thus the power of the theater, its ability to evoke in the viewer “faith” in the truth of stage life, would be demonstrated with the greatest completeness and strength. In other words, Vakhtangov in this performance sometimes deliberately destroyed the viewer’s “faith” only in order to show how easily and simply he could immediately restore it. “Grain” “Turandot” - transformation into your stage hero on stage, in front of the viewer. This is an artistic technique stage solution fairy tales of Gozzi. On February 27, 1922, the young team of Vakhtangovites was in a state of indescribable excitement. The first performance of “Princess Turandot”! And what a crowd! In a small auditorium-- all groups of the Art Theater: the main group led by K. S. Stanislavsky, First Studio, Second Studio, Habima Studio. No strangers. Just actors. The third studio of the Art Theater rents out its work to the Art Theater. Is it possible to forget this extraordinary evening? Is it possible to forget this sea of ​​laughter, these incessant applause, these endless applause at the end of the performance, these happy faces of the extraordinary spectators whom Vakhtangov, with the power of his art, turned into children for several hours!

Already after the first act, such a success was determined that no one in the studio expected. At the end, the “Bravo to Vakhtangov!” proclaimed in the hall. causes a storm of applause. Konstantin Sergeevich addresses the studio with a speech: “Over the twenty-three years of the existence of the Art Theater there have been few such victories. You have found what many theaters have been looking for in vain for so long!”

The creative path that Vakhtangov went through in a fairly short way cannot be called easy. It had its ups and downs. Vakhtangov went through experiments and experiments on the form of the performance, on the actor’s understanding of the image. He always tried not to change his feelings and attitude towards modernity, even if this somewhere contradicted the rules of the Art Theater. He did not reject modern theatrical experience, therefore Vakhtangov is mistakenly classified as a formal or formal theatrical figure. chamber theater. But this is not true. Vakhtangov is a student of Stanislavsky. And in order to be faithful to his teacher and preserve his legacy for future generations, the student must not only protect this inheritance, but also increase it, develop it, supplement it, and if necessary, then change it in some way, correct it, improve it - in a word, go further than your teacher. Vakhtangov did just that. For Vakhtangov, the system became the very foundation on which he was able to build his unique form of performance, which he himself called “fantastic realism.”