On the verge of criticism

The “pier” of Rimas Tuminas is a performance that almost completely excludes the possibility of a critical statement. The story and motives of its creation cause one feeling - sincere and deep respect. Until recently, the difficult relationship of the famous Baltic director with the troupe of the theater named after Vakhtangov gave the ground for discussions and gossip to most central media. And now the new artistic director managed to at once strengthen the bridges on the bridges, to pay tribute to the founders of the theater and a tribute to respect for the older generation of Vakhtangov stars.

Tuminas did all this, it seems, in the most appropriate and elegant way. He neglected the traditional dusty exhibitions of previous achievements in the theater’s lobby or posters with optimistic common photo against the background of its facade. The director gave Vyach. Shalevich, V. Lanovo, Yu. Borisova, Yu. Yakovlev, V. Etosha, I. Kupchenko and E. Knyazev, L. Maksakova, another opportunity to go on stage, allowed them to do their favorite business. Tuminas used all the sophisticated filigree of his talent to create comfortable conditions for actors. He built the mise -en -scenes so that the performers could rest, without ceasing to be the center, the core of the episode. Compiled a performance from the plot of unrelated episodes. Even the “Pier” program is divided into separate cards, the sequence and composition of which is easy to change. In the same way, in case of illness of one of the actors, the formulations of the picture “shuffled” - quickly and with minimal damage to the whole.

The intolerance, even the cruelty of our society to older people, has been talking a lot and absolutely fair. A significant part of these claims can be forwarded to the theater world - the more noticeable and valuable the delicacy of Rimas Tuminas is more noticeable and valuable.

So, “Pier” is a great gift for the 90th anniversary of the theater. Vakhtangov. One of the brightest premieres of last season. The owner of numerous awards. The benefit of actors loved by several generations. An example of a respectful, even reverent attitude to traditions. And ... blackmail. Rough, unconditional in his unconsciousness. Accepting what remains behind the scene - i.e. The goals and motives of the director, we are forced to accept what is happening on the stage, i.e. The performance as such. To say that the “pier” did not like or did not work out, the tongue does not turn. For some reason, it seems that this is equivalent to the manifestation of disrespect for actors, the denial of ideas whose conductor was the production. As a result, the audience (including professional spectators, they are also critics) either scatter into immoderate praise, or limited to vague: “Well, there is Etush/Yakovlev/Maksakova, etc.”

The production included in the repertoire of the famous theater and thereby submitted to the court, the possibility of such a court - in other words, the possibility of objective analysis - excludes. The “pier” is outside the artistic process. And they do not go to the performance in order to plunge into his special atmosphere, but to see the Vakhtangov stars, "while they are all alive." Probably, this is inevitable - as a flip side of hypertrophied veneration. But still do not forget: the actors go on stage to play. It is respect for their talent and professionalism that allows and even obliges to evaluate the “pier” without inappropriate indulgence and awkward discounts on age.

To do this is much easier, dividing the social and theater component of the performance. The first aspect was talking above. He gives a “pier” a kind of Carte Blanche, an unconditional and unconditional right to not leave the stage as long as possible. But in itself, it does not allow to attribute the production to the category of masterpieces. Rather, on the contrary. Captured by humanistic impulses, the director involuntarily distracted from artistic tasks. And the results were not long in coming.

It is logical to assume that its name is its name between episodes of the production. That Tuminas gives actors the opportunity to take stock, talk about doubts and faith, naivety and wisdom, time and eternity, faded dreams and preserved ideals. But if the first half of the performance with the history of the rebel, living in the bosom of weakness and regrets (“Galileo’s life” by B. Brecht), the touching benefit of the middle -aged singer (“The favorable participation” by I. Bunin) and the poems of Pushkin supports this illusion, then the “pier” literally collapses to the end. And the point is not only that in the farce about a deceived lover and a fictitious marriage (“Filumen Maturato” E. de Filippo) or in the corruption, gambling passionate scenes from the “player” of Dostoevsky is difficult to find traces of a peaceful refuge.

Fragments of the performance are too different. This is manifested in genre affiliation, subject, duration and intonation: from mild irony to pathos, from sentimental sadness to tragedy to rupture of the aorta. It is almost impossible to make a single canvas from this variegated mosaic ... As a result, the final chord of the “pier”, when photographs of those who owe the wealth and brightness of its history, on emotional influence, overlap the four -hour production. And the question: "Why is it so often bored at a star performance?" Persistently requires an answer. In addition to the lack of a through plot and a common idea, the list of reasons: lack of internal tension, turning off the episodes transferred to the stage from the general context of the work - and the selection of these episodes itself.

Most Tuminas sketches are monocentric. This does not mean that few actors are involved in them. In the already mentioned “player” or “visit of the ladies”, F. Dürrenmatt is employed by more than ten performers. However, they do not claim to be audience attention or participation, reminiscent of life -like mannequins surrounding Grapenka performed by Lyudmila Maksakova and Julia Borisov in the role of Clara Yakhaansyan. Probably, the director deliberately weakened some images and roles to bring the “pier” closer to the series of benefits. At the same time, not noticing how the performance loses the main dramatic property - dialogue. Together with worthy interlocutors from most episodes, movement, conflict leaves, and the Vakhtangov stars have to fill the emptiness that has formed, keep the hall with the same energy and personal charm. That not everyone succeeds and not always. The most successful and harmonious scenes remain where there is deep interaction. For example, “Dark Alleys” with a bright duo of Yuri Yakovlev and Lydia Velezheva. Or the “price” of A. Miller - from our point of view, one of the best episodes of the “Pier”. In the everyday meeting of the Jewish Jew, Gregory Salomon (V. Etush) and the owner of Viktor Frank (A. Ryshchenkov), which had outlived his age of furniture.

Irony, giving dialogues colorful and depth. Perhaps it is her most that the "life of Galileo" is most lacking. Torn from the general context of the play, the monologue of the rejected scientist (despite the efforts of Vyach. Shalevich) seems too pathos - and therefore impersonal.

Unobtrusive symbolism. The hidden meaning is also present in other episodes of the “pier”. The finale of the “Lady's visit” is especially remembered, which opens the features of death itself in the pampered multimillionaire Clare. Nevertheless, this bright, but one -time insight is inferior to the opportunity to decipher every word, which, like a comet in the night sky, leaves the tail of interpretations, without losing its simple domestic meaning.

The coincidence of the atmosphere of the work with the temperament of actors. The absent, for example, in Filumen Maturato, is excessive and therefore unconvincing in its expressiveness.

A deep and soulful conversation about the outgoing era and its beauty, the human soul and its infinity. A conversation that is within the power of (if not “only”, then “first of all”) to the older generation of Vakhtangov actors. The idea of ​​how it can and should be gives not only the “price”, but also the sparkling “beneficial participation”. The uncomplicated, slightly mocking story of returning to the scene of a middle -aged primadona due to the elegance of the Bunin text and the amazing energy of Galina Konovalova captures, absorbs. It makes you forget about the time, about the age of the actress, that the episode is monologue, that for half an hour, only a story about the wisdom of the ladies' toilet and the small tricks of the elderly coquette sounds from the stage. It is uttered so that there is not the slightest doubt: we entered the sphere of art. And what happens on the stage is outside (above!) Skeptical views and critical assessments. Without any discounts, concessions and reflection on social significance.

Source of photography: The official website of the Evgeny Vakhtangov Theater