Petr Pospelov. "Golden Mask 2000". Part I: Drama

"Golden Mask 2000". Part I: Drama
Petr Pospelov

Publication date: April 7, 2000

Italics is not mine

The drama section poster did not become the object of critical criticism this time:

“We must pay tribute to the current expert council: the choice this time was serious, and the festival’s poster was much more diverse and encouraging. Large forms alternated with small ones, classics with modern plays, long performances with short ones (though there were more long ones), and traditions - with, so to speak, innovations." (Natalia Kaminskaya, "Culture")

They predicted that the jury would have to sweat:

“The most difficult choice is in the nominations “Best Performance” and “Best Director”. There are more than enough contenders here, and this time it will not be possible to please everyone: “Mystification” and Mark Zakharov, Kama Ginkas with “The Room of Laughter” and especially with "Pushkin. Duel. Death", "Chevengur" and Lev Dodin, "PS" and Grigory Kozlov (Alexandrinsky Theater), finally, the Bulgarian Alexander Morfov, but without "The Tempest" - in this case, the performance of the St. Petersburg Komissarzhevskaya Theater as a whole is worse than the brilliant direction." (Pavel Rudnev, Nezavisimaya Gazeta)

“We had to distribute earrings to the sisters, while there were no obvious first aid items” (Dina Goder, “Results”)

No one was able to accurately predict the judge's verdict:

“As we suspected in Saturday’s issue, the fate of the two main awards - for best performance and director - was resolved in the triangle Lev Dodin - Kama Ginkas - Mark Zakharov. But who would have imagined that the jury would dare to recognize the head of the Moscow Lenkom as the odd one out of the corners" , who still does not have the country’s main professional theater award?” - Roman Dolzhansky (Kommersant) is surprised.

“Almost no one doubted that this time among the winners would be “Mystification” by Mark Zakharov, who until now had been ignored with enviable consistency. His productions were either not included in the festival’s playbill at all, or, as in the case of “The Barbarian and the Heretic” , got in, but didn’t receive anything. Since “Mystification” is one of Zakharov’s best performances in recent years, everyone was sure that “Mask” would go to Lenkom. But that was not the case. Zakharov again - and in not a single nomination - received anything . The main award went to Kama Ginkas, who in the past was also deprived of "Masks". A clarification needs to be made here. The fact is that Zakharov is not awarded for reasons of principle (it is believed that he makes theater for the needs of the public, and the professionals on the jury of this are not respected), Ginkas becomes an “outsider” rather due to an offensive combination of circumstances,” explains Marina Davydova (“Vremya Novostei”).

This time the circumstances did not come together in an offensive way, and so -

“The best Russian performances of the last season were Kama Ginkas’s “Room of Laughter” based on the play by Oleg Bogaev. Even the most pro-Ginkas-minded backstage prophets did not foresee such an outcome - both in spirit, and in “format”, and even in significance in the biography of the director himself, this good "The production does not fit well with any high-profile titles. It was included in the nomination thanks to the excellent acting work of Oleg Tabakov, who was the favorite of the competition for the best role." (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant)

“The production was considered the most likely contender for the Golden Mask in the acting category, but the jury decided that the story of a lonely pensioner, busy corresponding with Lenin, bedbugs and other exotic recipients, deserves more.” (Oleg Zintsov, Vedomosti)

Critics wrote more readily about the actor than about the director; besides, Kama Ginkas was not in Moscow, and Oleg Tabakov received the award.

“Tabakov did not hide his happiness, and one can understand that, among other things, he also experienced a sense of satisfaction: he was, of course, worthy of the Golden Mask for his role in The Last Ones, but then, several years ago, he received a cardboard copy of it, urgently prepared for the ceremony. This time, leaving the foyer, he slowly, with incredible dignity, walked through the auditorium, ascended the stage, peering into the hall for a long time, then, flashing a huge bunch of keys, said: “It is significant that this “Mask” I received "." (Pavel Rudnev, Nezavisimaya Gazeta)

Other critics describe the scene differently:

“Oleg Pavlovich Tabakov looked the most offended. He made a whole show out of his appearance on stage and then announced that he doesn’t set the awards high, but considers this “Mask” an award for himself personally, since the “Room of Laughter” is practically a one-man show, and all the other participants like the director, artist and others will get what they are owed from his hands. It all sounded rather caustic, but it didn’t seem like a joke, and from how many times over the next days Tabakov repeated this thought to the public, it became clear how hurt he was because he did not receive the award for best role." (Dina Goder, "Results")

Critics write reservedly about the performance itself: it “is one of those that appeals to both professionals and the public: some will appreciate Ginkas’s tough directorial style, others will appreciate the loyalty to the humanistic tradition of the Russian theater, which is revered in our country as a national treasure; not every viewer will see in the “Room” laughter" existential drama, but anyone will sympathize with the old man Ivan Zhukov, another "little man" of Russian literature." (Oleg Zintsov, Vedomosti)

“Ginkas’s masterful, smart, scary work is in many ways inferior to Dodin’s “Chevengur.” “The Room of Laughter,” no matter how you look at it, remains theatrical fiction (especially after Tabakov, in love with applause, crushed the original, clear and ascetic director’s direction drawing)" (Alexey Filippov, Izvestia)

The reason for the decision is explained by jury member Marina Davydova, who, after resigning from her judicial duties, appeared in the Vremya Novostei newspaper as a critic:

“Political considerations played a fundamental role in this case: by preferring the “Chamber of Laughter,” the jury respected Oleg Tabakov and set designer Sergei Barkhin, who competed for “The Mask” in private nominations, thus “freeing up” the coveted awards for other contenders.”

“ Thus, the jury acted by the method of addition. Such simple arithmetic operations, of course, do not work in theatrical art. So the judge's Areopagus showed more thriftiness than aesthetic predilections, saving several professional awards for others.

Secondly, for the first time in the last three years, the main “Mask” remained in Moscow. Therefore, the economic decision also became a political one." (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant)

So, the main award remained in Moscow. What about the others?

“All the Golden Masks in the drama section, minus the most prestigious one, received productions from St. Petersburg,” notes Oleg Zintsov (Vedomosti).

“Chevengur” by Lev Dodin was recognized as the best director’s work. For the third year in a row, his Maly Drama Theater is not left without one of the main “Masks”. But I have nothing special to comment on here: I simply subscribe to the jury’s decision.” (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant)

Alexander Sokolyansky (Vedomosti) would not have done this: Lev Dodin, the artistic director of the St. Petersburg Maly Drama Theater and one of the few truly recognized Russian theater figures in Europe, received the Golden Mask for directing. Meanwhile, his "Chevengur", shown at the end of the festival, became a disappointment for most Moscow viewers. And even those who predicted “The Mask” for him for the best performance were forced to retreat.”

“The Moscow public and critics, while paying tribute to Dodin’s extra-professionalism, did not like his tough, cold and rational performance.” (Dina Goder, "Results")

"Chevengur" is cosmopolitan in the highest sense of the word: it can be performed in Avignon or in New York - intelligent people will understand it anywhere, even in the Bahamas. This performance is supranational, it talks about universal problems, the acting technique is honed, the direction is metaphorical and at the same time absolutely transparent - everything is done with such sophisticated skill that it is even alarming. Russian theater has its own characteristics: warmth, sincerity, compassion, a special, slightly homely relationship with the audience. Dodin in this sense is a European, he does not have an ounce of sincerity (and not a drop of the laxity that usually accompanies it) - this is tough, rational art, verified to the smallest detail." (Alexey Filippov, Izvestia)

"Of the director's works, the jury preferred the skillful and ruthless direction of Lev Dodin." (Olga Fuks, Evening Moscow")

They preferred, but not right away - “We suffered with Dodin: work of this class cannot be bypassed, and no one was in the mood to give “Chevengur” a prize for the best performance of the season.” (Dina Goder, "Results")

How can I say - Marina Davydova, who was a member of the jury, even defends Dodin very much:

“The theater community, ” she explains, “ is divided into two camps - those who believe that Dodin has no soul, just bare professionalism, and those who believe that we cannot know anything about the soul, but professionalism (since the award is called professional) and should be the main selection criterion. Moreover, looking for compassion and love for the characters in “Chevengur”, which, according to critics, indicates the presence of a soul, is like looking for chiaroscuro in Matisse’s paintings. A staging made in collaboration with Oleg Senatov Plato's novel is not a story about the destinies of specific people, but a caricatured quintessence of Plato's utopianism."

“Why Dodin and Senatov decided to shoot poor Sonya Mandrova,” interjects Alexander Sokolyansky (“Vedomosti”), “ why everyone calls Sasha Dvanov the Son of a Fisherman and nothing else - this is beyond my understanding. A hero named Son of a Fisherman - sorry, this is not from Platonov , but from some seedy symbolist poet who decided to dabble in prose. It sounds false, especially when the names of the real inhabitants of Chevengur are pronounced nearby: Kopenkin (Sergei Kuryshev), Piusya (Igor Chernevich), the delightful Chepurny (Sergei Bekhterev), fiery and pathetic - exactly the same as in the novel. But that’s not the main thing. The main thing is that Dodin’s performance deliberately gets involved in a dispute with the novel, trying to refute its logic and its love. In the Chevengur utopia, Dodin finds absolutely nothing inspiring, and doesn’t even try to look "According to Dodin, Chevengur is poverty, violence, paranoid exaltation, a frenzy of false passion. Collective suicide, and nothing more."

Alexey Filippov (Izvestia) only partly agrees with his colleague: “Dodinsky’s “Chevengur” tells not about the collapse of the communist utopia, but about the fact that man will never be able to reach the sky. About death, from generation to generation, conquering life. that those who try to put themselves in the place of Christ will become the forerunners of the Antichrist."

“The world, created not by God - where does it come from - but by the Chevegur people themselves, is presented from creation to the apocalypse. Home-grown demiurges themselves invented it, and they themselves refuse it. And it is difficult to sympathize with them, because they voluntarily prefer life to death. Needless to say "that Dodin has no equal in the ability to build mise-en-scenes, work with light and subordinate actors to his power. The head of the Maly Drama Theater received a prize for directing as a result, which saved the jury members from shame." (Marina Davydova, “News Time”)

Lev Dodin himself told the Itogi magazine the following:

“Directing outside of those who create the performance actually does not exist. I don’t know what distinguishes good directing from a good performance. Therefore, I’m just glad and believe that this “Mask” is relevant to everyone who created the play “Chevengur” "

“Even if Dodin’s performances have already won at several festivals in a row, at a festival of this level everything should be decided by the relative weight of the works presented, and not by some extraneous considerations. Be that as it may, the leader of our theater today is Dodin, and what he "The Mask" was given not for the performance, but for the direction, this circumstance will not change." (Alexey Filippov, Izvestia)

Although "Chevengur" received only one award, most of the awards were taken home by Lev Dodin's fellow countrymen.

“Today’s theater is growing with St. Petersburg: “a great city with a regional destiny” turned out to be an ideal place for real art... St. Petersburg again collected the richest harvest of awards, but this no longer causes Moscow protests - we are gradually coming to terms with the fact that the capital’s stage is moving to secondary roles. It is clear to everyone that this is a passing thing: in today's St. Petersburg the average generation of directors is stronger, but in Moscow there are interesting (even if they did not make it to the current festival) youth growing up. At "Mask" 2000, the general level of St. Petersburg performances was not too different from those in Moscow - Ginkas and Zakharov was in no way inferior to Morfov, Kozlov and Dityatkovsky. Dodin's "Chevengur" was beyond competition - but there is only one director of this level in our country." (Alexey Filippov, Izvestia)

Roman Dolzhansky (Kommersant) tests St. Petersburg products with the tastes of his colleagues:

“Strindberg’s “The Father” is one of those performances that polite critics primarily praise for its “staging culture.” If we translate from professional euphemisms into ordinary language, this means that the scenery is designed in muted colors and made of high-quality materials, the actors do not shout , do not wave their arms and are focused on their roles. In Grigory Dityatkovsky’s performance, this supposed concentration is brought to the extreme of slowness. The director thought that if the Swedish classical play was played in great detail and quietly, in a gloomy northern interior, against the backdrop of a large frosted window-screen ", then everyone will certainly remember Bergman's films and will immediately begin to look for a special, difficult charm in the painfully drawn-out rhythm of the action. You really remember the great film director, but only in order to feel the difference."

In the play "Father" the jury paid attention to the acting work:

“The title character is played by the outstanding Sergei Dreyden, but he brings the theater under the article of mismanagement: taking a strong eccentric and forcing him to whisper, elaborate and weave psychological lace is somehow wasteful.” (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant)

"Drayden is a brilliant eccentric artist. Here he has to exist within the framework of a boring psychological theater. Very psychological and very boring. Being a top-class professional, Drayden perfectly mimics - he replaces bright oil paints with pastel colors, goes into detail. In general, he works in a harsh , Scandinavian, Bergman spirit. But the main facets of his talent are in the shadows." (Marina Davydova, “News Time”)

“The Women’s Prize will certainly be (or should be) received by Elena Popova, who played the role of Laura in Grigory Dityatkovsky’s play “Father” (BDT named after Tovstonogov). There were no other major female acting works at the festival. “Golden Mask” for Best Actor "Many are worthy, and most of all, Elena Popova's partner Sergei Dreyden, who played the role of the Captain. It will be beautiful if both acting awards are received by the performers of the main roles in "The Father" - thereby the "Golden Mask" can support the dear traditions of the acting theater and the inexhaustible school of the BDT." (Pavel Rudnev, Nezavisimaya Gazeta)

Accepted for execution:

“The best actors were named Sergei Dreyden and Elena Popova, who played in the play “Father” by Grigory Dityatkovsky.” (Oleg Zintsov, Vedomosti)

Popova did have some competitors:

“In “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf” (Magnitogorsk Drama Theatre), Farida Muminova could well have competed for “Mask” for Best Actress. Perhaps in St. Petersburg Elena Popova played stronger, but in Moscow, in my opinion, the provincial actress was more interesting " (Alexey Filippov, Izvestia)

“With female roles, as last year, things were bad. And the choice of Popova is, of course, the choice of the best from the mediocre.” (Marina Davydova, “News Time”)

With male roles, as last year, things were better. Oleg Tabakov had to be satisfied with participation in the “Best Performance”, and “in the male category exempted from the main favorite, Sergei Dreyden excelled. The performance is more boring than “The Father”, we still need to look for it, but for such an outstanding artist, gold is not a pity. To be honest, it’s a pity for Elena Popova’s partner - her role turned out to be quite inexpressive. One can only assume that the jury simply decided not to aggravate the conflict inherent in the play: the characters of Drayden and Popova, according to Strindberg, are consumed by a quiet hatred for each other . In the play, however, it is too quiet. Jokes aside, this is the second year that there has been an embarrassment with the female roles in “The Mask.” Last year, women were not nominated at all. There was a scandal. To avoid its repetition, this year the lists of private nominations were not made public at all "No scandal. No impressions either." (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant)

There is another opinion:

“Masks,” which was given for the best acting work to Sergei Dreyden and Elena Popova from “The Father,” seemed dubious to those who considered Strindberg’s long, painful family drama, staged at the Bolshoi Drama Theater by Grigory Dityatkovsky, boring. It seems to me that we have not seen works of such subtlety, complexity and variety as shown by the St. Petersburg actors (especially the amazing Dreyden), and if we consider the “Golden Mask” to be a truly professional award, and not an audience award, then this is the one of the most unconditional awards for the “mask” story. (Dina Goder, "Results")

Reflecting on the choice of artist, critics wrote:

“We can almost certainly say that the master of his art, Oleg Sheintsis, will be recognized as the best set designer for the scenery for “The Hoax.” (Pavel Rudnev, Nezavisimaya Gazeta)

At the same time, “everyone who saw the performance of the Komissarzhevskaya Theater, even during the theatrical tour, said goodbye with the words: “Well, the scenography is clear...” (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant)

The set design for the performance at the Komissarzhevskaya Theater was made by St. Petersburg artist Emil Kapelyush.

“His excellent, simple design of the Shakespearean performance - two rows of freely hanging slats, turning into a ship, then into a forest, now into the storm itself, now into a wizard’s cave, now into the mystical skeleton of the universe - is the surest candidate for “The Mask” for scenography. There are still objective values." (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant)

“The huge skeleton of the ship, which organized the entire spatial solution of the Tempest, is the best thing that was in Morfov’s inventive, but lacking in integrity performance.” (Marina Davydova, “News Time”)

Everyone was happy:

“There can be no objections to the decision of the jury to give a prize for the best scenography to Emil Kapelyush in the play “The Storm” of the Komissarzhevskaya Theater, who invented such a scenery that could “play” a storm, and a forest, and masts, and witchcraft, and the wind, and a swing for lovers, and a figment of fantasy." (Olga Fuks, "Evening Moscow")

You know, the dramatic program was strong, since even critics shed tears over unawarded works:

“It’s a shame for the performances “Pushkin. Duel. Death" and "PS"., which fully deserved awards and were left without them." (Olga Fuks, "Evening Moscow")

“Pushkin. Duel. Death,” as jury member Marina Davydova explained above, was left without awards in favor of “Room of Laughter” - another performance by the same Kama Ginkas: “Two performances by Ginkas received the same number of points, drawing votes from each other.” Olga Yakovleva used her right as jury chairman to have two votes in controversial cases and gave her preference to the "Laughter Room"." ("Results")

But of the St. Petersburg performances, “only Grigory Kozlov’s “PS” left with nothing, declared by St. Petersburg critics to be almost a masterpiece, but received rather sluggishly in Moscow.” (Oleg Zintsov, Vedomosti)

“The St. Petersburg “PS” turned out to be far below its reputation. The performance lasts almost four hours. What it is actually staged about remains unclear - Grigory Kozlov’s production is cleanly done, cold and vague.” (Alexey Filippov, Izvestia)

There is nothing wrong with this, says Roman Dolzhansky (Kommersant): “If after the first viewing of the play you catch yourself unable to clearly retell the plot, do not be embarrassed. The creators of “PS” wanted this. the content of, say, a symphonic work, although if it was well performed, there is no shortage of artistic impressions. Grigory Kozlov's production leaves a tart and exciting aftertaste. The performance is strange, very refined, at times choking in Hoffmann's romantic verbosity, but invariably floating to harmonic points ", that is, performing those very promised cadences. However, with a less trusting attitude towards stage material, "PS" can be considered simply as a manual on the poetics of romanticism."

However, “the beloved “PS” in St. Petersburg completely turned sour in the modest branch of the Maly (its main effect was built on playing up the luxurious Russian hall of the Alexandrinka).” (Dina Goder, "Results")

“Grigory Kozlov’s production of Hoffmann’s works is so tied to the theater’s interiors that part of the Mask jury had to be sent to St. Petersburg on the eve of the festival.” (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant).

But that didn’t help either.

Remembering provincial works, critics did not predict anything good for them:

“There is no doubt that all the dramatic Golden Masks will remain in Moscow and St. Petersburg this time, since the distinctive feature of this festival was the very representative program of the capitals and, almost without exception, the nondescript picture of the provincial theater.” (Pavel Rudnev, Nezavisimaya Gazeta)

The Minusinsk play “The Cynics” became a symbol of the theatrical province in critical publications.

“The city of Minusinsk is located in the Krasnoyarsk Territory. It has about sixty thousand inhabitants, an electrical plant and a drama theater: knowledgeable people assure that the theater in Minusinsk is very good. He came to the Golden Mask festival and showed Mariengof’s Cynics: they were staged and " was staged by the theater's chief director, Alexei Pesegov. What happened was what one would expect: on the Moscow stage, the performance, which the festival experts considered one of the best, looked completely different." (Alexey Filippov, Izvestia)

“It is generally accepted that the trouble is that experts don’t travel around Russia much. At the play “Cynics” at the Minusinsk Drama Theater, I suddenly thought that the whole problem was precisely in these trips. Imagine: a compassionate Moscow lady arrives on a crossroads to conduct an examination in a provincial town, the very name of which evokes sub-zero temperatures. And there, out of nowhere - a natural theater with a stage! The artists and the director strive for high things, for penny salaries they protect the Siberian audience from savagery (I’m not being ironic now - this is an explanation especially for wrestlers with the cynics of the capital), they stubbornly put not French tricks or "orders" for export, but a half-forgotten imagist with an aristocratic surname. What kind of heart here would not tremble, would not order to reward the nice cultural traders with a trip to the Mother See, listing them, separated by commas, with the performances of Ginkas, Dodin , Zakharova, Kozlova┘" (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant)

“Excellent peripheral works in Moscow look completely different: this is an old theatrical secret, for which there is no complete explanation. You can fall in love with the theater of a provincial city: strong and smart direction, excellent actors, performances can be taken anywhere - even to Moscow, even to Paris ! And so they come to Moscow, and the theater audience, the circle of experts who judge the guest performers according to the Hamburg score, throw up their hands: this or that, it seems that a little dust has fallen on the production." (Alexey Filippov, Izvestia)

Sad about the fate of the play “Cynics,” Pavel Rudnev (“Nezavisimaya Gazeta”) admits: “It lacks the prowess characteristic of “festival” performances, which are capable of “shoving” their entire philosophy in just an hour into the consciousness of the festival viewer who watches this the same day, three more of the same performances. It is noticeable that the Minusinsk Theater works for its own, urban, partly patriarchal audience, who come to the theater to see a long, fascinating and “everyday” history."

“The secret of the “Moscow imprint” is in the different vital tone of our city; Moscow and Russia remain different countries, and the theater, closely connected with the time in which its small homeland lives, demonstrates this as clearly as possible. Moscow critics who select performances for the festival, for several days they immerse themselves in the aura of a provincial city, dissolve in the auditorium, walk along the streets of the one-story, pre-revolutionary center, on the way to the airport they pass through factory suburbs. something that may be in demand by the local audience. He will come to Moscow - and the same people will gasp: the production does not match the hall, it seems like yesterday, a little archaic, a little awkward; everything is sound - and not particularly interesting. Taking this work to distant lands There's no way it was worth it." (Alexey Filippov, Izvestia)

“In “The Cynics” exactly one directorial technique is used - if a person speaks from the stage, then he needs to be illuminated. And one scenographic sign: the rails leading from the depths of the stage diverge into three branches. That is, Russia is at a crossroads. And also the main actress " He speaks in a singsong voice all the time, obviously imitating Elena Solovey. The performance, by the way, is very typical: it is infected with a serious occupational disease of the Russian provincial theater, which Alexander Genis recently very aptly called “unaddressed significantness." (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant)

Explaining the inclusion of some provincial works in the playbill, festival selector Marina Zayonts gave the following reasoning for her choice to Itogi magazine:

“I prefer psychological, atmospheric performances. As an expert, I recommended the best provincial performances of this particular direction - everything there is built on the subtlest relationships between the artists, and not on the director’s strict will. This subtle and elusive thing suddenly disappears from a change of venue, from fear of the Moscow audience But what remains is the inexperience of the artists, the deliberateness of their intonations."

“There is no real, tough school, when an artist who is ideally prepared, who has gotten rid of the local dialect while still in college, is flexible, and is able to fit into any ensemble, is ready to play a role at any time and in any place, even if you disturb him in the middle of the night, even in most metropolitan theaters. What can we say about the province, where young people who graduated from local theater schools work, where training has long left much to be desired? (Alexey Filippov, Izvestia)

It would seem that things are bad. But the jury got out of the situation and noted “Cynics” in a separate line.

“Geopolitical news: for the first time in all the years of the award’s existence, none of the provincial theaters received anything. It’s not customary to do this at Mask. Therefore, having come to their senses, the jury gave its special prize to the drama theater from Minusinsk, and in its person - to all theaters involved in educational radiation in the dark kingdom of the province." (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant)

Pavel Rudnev (Nezavisimaya Gazeta) finds “nobility” in the jury’s decision - after all, “the production, which split criticism into those who were enthusiastic and those who were upset, could not compete with the capital’s theatrical bison.”

“In Moscow, staged repetitions became more noticeable, and the overall protractedness of the performance began to catch the eye. What it actually was could only be imagined if there was good will - and this time the Moscow audience, spoiled by the abundance of easily digestible spectacles, had enough of it In the second act, the performance “got off,” and neither the local dialect nor the fact that the Minusinsk artists had not a trace of metropolitan polish could interfere with this.” (Alexey Filippov, Izvestia)

However, reproaches against the judges also followed:

“The strangest decision of the jury seems to be the award of a special prize to the absolutely helpless Minusinsk production of “The Cynics.” Judging by the text spoken from the stage at the time of the presentation of “The Mask,” the encouragement of this theatrical graphomania is explained primarily by the joyful circumstance that in the city of Minusinsk, whose population is 60,000 inhabitants, there is actually a drama theater." (Oleg Zintsov, Vedomosti)

The jury's decision reflected the ambiguity of the perception of the Minusinsk performance by the Moscow public and the press:

“The play “The Cynics” amazed many, as well as disappointed the rest of the audience. It is curious that the maximum interest in the production was shown by Western theater critics and impresarios, of whom there are more and more at the festival every year.” (Pavel Rudnev, Nezavisimaya Gazeta)

In general, the critics did not throw rotten eggs at the jury:

“In delivering their verdict, the jury achieved the main thing: a combination of surprises and obviousness.” (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant)

And in the “Novation” section the jury didn’t have much work to do:

“The most indisputable award was in the “innovation” category: playwright and character Evgeny Grishkovets with his one-man show “How I Ate the Dog” was a completely uncontested candidate here. He also received the critics’ prize. Considering that just in December Grishkovets was awarded “ Anti-Booker", the success of the "new sentimentalist" (as the laureate presents himself) should be considered deafening." (Oleg Zintsov, Vedomosti)

“Evgeniy Grishkovets won the separate competition “Novation” with his one-man show “How I Ate the Dog.” But this certainly cannot be passed off as news: his laureate was predicted more confidently than the results of the presidential elections.” (Roman Dolzhansky, Kommersant)

“The jury members discovered his professionalism, talent, and - most importantly - soul. And they voted almost unanimously. In this sense, the ironic and lyrical director from Kaliningrad is an absolute champion. Not like the winner of the presidential race, Vladimir Putin, for whom Unlike our Grishkovets, only half of the voters voted." (Marina Davydova, “News Time”)

If Putin has half the merits of Grishkovets, then, obviously, it is precisely the one that Natalia Kaminskaya (“Culture”) defines:

“Grishkovets’s language and plasticity are absolutely modern, not convex, blurred, because young people today do not like openly direct statements.”

"Grishkovets is a social phenomenon." (Pavel Rudnev, Nezavisimaya Gazeta)

In the last issue of the review “Italics are not mine,” we cited a piece from an interview with Evgeniy Grishkovets, which he gave to Nezavisimaya Gazeta as a laureate of the Anti-Booker Prize. Let's quote it again:

" How did you feel about being awarded the Anti-Booker Prize?

- I'm glad. Although at the award ceremony I felt uneasy: everything was too real, too many photographers, too many famous people, too much attention. For my father it was more important than for me, but it is important for me since it is important for him. But to be precise: I was very happy.

- Do you have a life strategy, how do you see your future?

- I’m not building a strategy, I clearly know one thing: in the near future I will not move to Moscow and will live in Kaliningrad. I like the rhythm of my life now. I feel free from a notebook with phone numbers and daily tasks. My family is still understanding about the current period of my life, I can travel actively. For the next six months I have a fairly busy travel schedule with performances. But most of my time is spent at home. I am now in a state of mental balance, this is a happy feeling. As long as it persists, I will live in the current rhythm."

After winning the Golden Mask, Grishkovets also answered questions from journalists:

"- Many people hinted and winked at me that I would receive the “Mask” for “Novation.” But I still didn’t believe it. Of course, I really wanted to. And it was very nice. I’m really new, because I’m not old yet, and new in relation to what I have been doing for ten years in a row. There is no opposition to my newness. And therefore, what I am doing now does not offend anyone. And the prize of criticism was completely unexpected for me." ("Results")

"How do you feel about life in general?

- I can’t say that I love life, but I feel it very strongly. I am in a constant state of surprise in front of her. This is not even an artistic position, but a way of existence. I don't do memories. I just learned to live in such a way that everything remains an asset. I don’t understand when life is treated as “nothing special.” For me, everything that happens in it is extremely important. For example, I understand that now it is very important for me to learn to communicate with people formally. But I still can’t learn.

- Popularity obliges you to use this skill. Otherwise, you may go crazy from communication.

“Until I learn, I won’t move to Moscow.” (“Kommersant”)

(To be continued. Read reviews in the sections “Opera”, “Ballet”, “Modern Dance”, “Dolls”, “Festival Results”)