Stirlitz, XX century

... Tikhonov did not play in the theater circle in childhood, did not go on stage, was extremely shy, grew up in a simple working family in the Pavlovsk Posad, a factory town, a gangster, like any suburbs in those years (his hand was a tattoo “Glory”, in intelligent roles, it had to be so, almost hid, according At least not to stick out, so that there is no contradiction in the image), and all his first roles that brought popularity (“it was in Penkov” and so on) are again simple workers “guys”. There was no education, no intellectual education, no preparation, nor courage, to enter VGIK-he himself understood that he was climbing somewhere in the wrong place, his father laughed at him, the examiners were filling up according to the usual standard-neither a drive nor a courage in a guy, but then a teacher who was gaining an acting course (history retained his last name, Bibikov ), and then came in enthusiasm ...

Many people came in delight. Tikhonov, having finished VGIK, worked in the theater of the film actor (at the Povarskaya, former Vorovsky, where the first Soviet cinema house was located). It was a building famous in Moscow, a terribly popular, prestigious place, and no one knew what the film actor’s theater would turn into in the future, in what sad flower garden of old age and unfulfilled hopes. So, there he was seen by the film director of the film “It was in Penkov” Rostotsky and passionately exclaimed: “ Glory, I will make you Soviet ... ”. Well, then different things could follow: Gerard Philip, Alena Delon, Trentinignan ... But it was not possible to affirm the role immediately. The delight of some came across the stubborn resistance of others. Tikhonov seemed to be somehow colorless, too beautiful (there is such a rude Russian word-cute), too blessing, excessively immersed in himself, hermetic, closed actor.

The Minister of Culture, Ekaterina Furtseva, urgently advised Bondarchuk (now it is necessary to add - the eldest) to approve Tikhonov for the role of Prince Bolkonsky in the “war and the world”. The tension of the rhythm on the Soviet film factory in those years was such that the two main applicants - Strizhenov and Smoktunovsky - were forced to refuse, since they were already connected by contractual obligations in other paintings. Under pressure from the Minister of Culture, Bondarchuk Sr. agreed, by the way, he did not like that Tikhonov himself asked for the winning role of the prince, this was somehow not very accepted . For four years, a plowing continued, with Bondarchuk, who rightly considered this film the main one in his life, with a mountain of shot material, when whole villages were demolished on full -scale shootings, huge military units were occupied, thousands of historical costumes were sewn, tens of thousands of pyrotechnic charges were charged, and this film is still considered “the most expensive in the history of the cinema” (though an attempt to recalculate according to the dollar. The rate of the then budget, of course, is completely barren), and when all this abyss of people languished in terrible excitement, in anticipation, when the sun rises above the Borodino field - then all this happened. The worker, the people's intellectual Tikhonov tried on the dear, beautifully sewn white uniform.

It was a monstrous, indescribable splash. The queues for the cinema "Russia" (now it is called "Pushkin") resembled popular unrest. The line at the cashier was guarded by the horse police.

Criticism was not enthusiastic about the role: everyone wanted Prince Andrei to play Smoktunovsky, at worst by Strizhenov , actors with established charisma, with character, with a huge acting temperament. And here - clamped, constrained, too beautiful, as if embarrassed by this beauty Vyacheslav Tikhonov. It was “not that” ... Bondarchuk was still not enthusiastic. (Although Tikhonov will play in his late film “They fought for their homeland”, and he will play great). But the country was delighted. The whole country. In particular, its female part. And the men, of course, felt something unusual: Tikhonov did not play with words, not “the logic of character”, he almost did not build a “pattern of the role”: the role, or rather fate, as if seeped through the frame, without any visible efforts. It was somehow not in advance. Not in the Soviet acting tradition. And not even in Russian.

Tikhonov was, in fact, in that 1967, a real Hollywood star. Which, in principle, is generally not necessary to say in the frame and do something. The texture so coincides with drama that it works on its own.

So what was this texture? Tikhonov’s famous shyness worked (because of which he was overwhelmed by exams at VGIK). In combination with a luxurious officer uniform, shyness became his main property. The Russian heart responded to this "shy under the uniform" by popular adoration. The director of the film, which was not yet called then, a multi -part film about the Soviet intelligence officer Isaev, Tatyana Liosnova, also fell into the huge camp of those who experienced causeless delight (I would even say mental orgasm) at the sight of Vyacheslav Tikhonov. Or maybe she was just a tough professional and calculated everything in advance. Work began on the film "17 Moments of Spring." Not so crazy, long and merciless as over the “war and the world”, but also very large. It even seems to me (from here, from 2009) that Tikhonov practically did not have time to come to his senses from one masterpiece, as he immediately moved into another smoothly.

It is clear that the success of “War and Peace” (this was the first game Soviet film to receive Oscars), and the success of “17 moments” is largely due to Tikhonov’s appearance. And here is not just a successful role, working for a common plan. There is some secret of Russian fate and Russian character in the twentieth century in general .

After all, what is stiffness, timidity, shyness, squeezing - under the officer (or any other) uniform? What is this notorious “folk intelligence” of him? Tikhonov was an actor, he played roles. He played (and in the first part of his life it was especially noticeable) with some tangible voltage. But what is a Russian person with mind, talent, abilities, fate, whom fate brings the devils where, into a distant distance? This is an actor who is involuntarily playing a role. This is shyness, stiffness, internal clamping - under a luxurious uniform. This is, in short, Stirlitz.

And it doesn’t matter where fate goes to the Central Committee of the CPSU, in the KGB, abroad, in intelligence, in science, for stage, in writers, in astronauts, or football players. And it doesn’t matter who he brings - an intellectual or a “simple working guy”. It is important that all his life that person does not cease to be amazed, surprised, not even believe internally - is it really me? And this is the secret of his completely slaughter, incredible charm. This softness. Rather, a combination of softness and hardness.

In general, there were a lot of written handsome men and charismatic men on the Soviet screen. And each, of course, had their own subtext in roles, their own philosophy. But with Stirlitz-Tikhon, a special case. In fact, this is his soft, inconspicuous transition from Prince Andrei to Maxim Maksimych, from one person in a luxurious white uniform - to another, in luxurious black - became his main creative movement, the main accomplishment. And this is no accident. Tikhonov’s accomplishment (made thanks to Julian Semenov and Liosnova, as well as thanks to the author of the literary basis for the script by Leo Tolstoy and director Bondarchuk-Sr.)-it was not at all that he was a brilliant Russian actor (although, of course, he was for them).

His achievement was that he brilliantly (in Stirlitz) expressed this main Russian drama of the twentieth century . The need to constantly grow on Wednesday, to pretend, to adapt, to play, to be your own among strangers, the need to constantly think about not losing a face, the need to speak with enemies in their language, the need to remain in any, most incredible conditions, the need to be internally lonely. A bold conjecture has long been expressed that Liosnova and Semenov turned out in the “17 moments” not Hitler Germany at all, but the Central Committee of the CPSU and the KGB, and indeed any totalitarian and bureaucratic environment, it doesn’t matter what exactly is called, and therefore almost the main film about the victory over the enemy looks so shocking, so paradoxically. Because the main winner is among enemies. He bears the uniform of the enemy. He is not just a spy, a scout. He is Stirlitz.

We were all Stirlitsa. At party and party conferences and party conferences, at the congresses of the Komsomol and the party, at lectures on Marxism-Leninism , on fly and gluing, at colleges and advanced meetings, at meetings with readers, spectators and voters. However, what am I talking about?

I personally did not choose anywhere and in the Soviet years I did not meet with any readers, thank God. But looking at the Stirlitz, at how he goes along the corridor, burns in an ashtray a encryption or bakes potatoes in the fireplace (and also saves the radio operator Kat and hits the bastard Holtooff with a bottle on the head)-I somehow, unnoticed and unconsciously, saw not a scout only, but such a Soviet intellectual, which did not lose face and dignity, so that, in order to not lose their face and dignity, in order to not lose their face and dignity. Always internally clamped, constrained, tense, and precisely because of this, its quality (after all, this is a secret, mystery!) - sometimes unusually high is ascended.

But the mask, alas, is often growing to the face. In Soviet life, and not in the film, old Müller beat the Stirlitz, took out and broke it.

Alas.

In the huge filmography of Tikhonov-actor (the first film, “Young Guard”, 1948, and the latter, “Tired of the Sun-2” will be released in 2010), there are really few bright works. Well, who now remembers the “front without flanks”, “front in the enemy’s rear” and “behind the front line”, where Tikhonov is the head of the reconnaissance group, or a special detachment, prevents the Germans from delivering the finished FAU-2 to the front (and who remembers what FAU-2 is?), And so on, and so on ... Meanwhile, this trilogy was the most significant role after “17 moments”. Again, the scout, albeit front -line, again, the war, again the uniform, again the Germans ... but by the way, to regret the unsounded? After all, a lot was played, and everything honestly, with the same insinuating indescribable intonation, with the same charisma. And even in good films, Tikhonov did not get the first roles, but in the bad ones - the first, all this does not matter . The main thing was done.

He survived in life the same terrible tragedy that Bulat Okudzhava and Korney Chukovsky, that is, lost his eldest son, but he was happy in his second marriage, and he was loved by the country, and he was arranged by creative evenings, and he was awarded the highest awards of his homeland, he lived well, easily, brilliantly and brightly, well -to -end, successfully avoided.

And although he was sometimes bored that they shouted to him on the streets: “Stirlitz, Stirlitz”, and jokes were intrusively told, again, almost the funniest Russian jokes in the twentieth century, despite all this, I think, he was grateful to fate for everything. Including jokes, this is also glory. This is the highest criterion of glory.

But at the end of life, when a television movie about young Isaev was released on the screens, it somehow suddenly became very unpleasant . That they did not inform, they did not say anything. It hurts.

As a result, a certain document was born, just recently, shortly before his death, published in the media. It says that the family is outraged that the image of a Stirlitz, created by a brilliant actor, is assigned by all who are not lazy, that there are two restaurants in the name of which this name is used, that photographs of Stirlitz in these restaurants hang on the walls, and no one paid a dime, and in general ... and then there is no restaurant and why it was impossible to play the “young Stirlits” without the consent of the old actor - without the consent of the old actor. Very clear.

One thing was clear: all this was very sad. And it hurt us all - with him.

Because, I repeat, Stirlitz has not just iron will, non -Russian punctuality and sacred patriotism. And he also has an inner drama. And the whole thing is in it.

In it - unspoken, hidden deeply inside.

He brought her into the film, he lived with her, and for her - we are grateful to him. Because she is not only him, but also ours.