For which theater the future

The new economic situation that arose after the crisis has increasingly affects art and the theater, in particular. Everything is reduced: fees to directors, production costs, touring activities. Halls of many Russian theaters are half empty. Obviously, the theaters in our country in the near future will become less. Why should it happen? Who will decide which theaters to live, and which - to die? The number of spectators and money at the checkout is a reliable meter of the quality of the theater? How did it happen that commercial, in fact, theaters enjoy financial support of the state? Why is it impossible to dismiss actors who have long lost their form from the theater, which means it is extremely difficult to update the troupe? When was it necessary to carry out the strict reform of the theater and is it possible to do it now? These problems were discussed with me by Valery Fokin , the head of the two completely different theatrical institutions-the oldest Alexandrinsky Theater in St. Petersburg and the Modern Center named after the All-Union of Medical Sciences in Moscow. "The nursing home, where, by misunderstanding, performances are performed" | "The actor can be fired only if he is drunk behind the scenes" | "In the theater, profitable investment is impossible" | Kommersants on subsidies "Narbage House, where performances are performed by misunderstanding"

- Valery Vladimirovich, a few years ago the state tried to carry out the reform of the social sphere institutions, which included the theater. Its essence - in relation to the theater - was to free the state from financial responsibility for many theatrical groups. Then cultural figures, including you, stopped this reform. Everything remained as before, all theaters continued to receive funding. Do you think, in the new economic situation, the state will try to free the budget from the expenses related to the theater? - I am sure - this will soon happen. Today's Russian, and world reality is such that it is necessary to save. Our problem is that we have learned to give birth to theaters, but we can’t come to terms with the thought that they should die. Now the state will help us in resolving this issue. In the near future - I feel and see it - the process of freeing the budget from the "theatrical load" will begin. This, in general, theoretically, is correct. After all, this is ridiculous - when a good theater gets as much as bad. - We can say that bad theaters, thus, steal from the good? And steal from the budget? - At a certain point of view, so, of course, we can say. We needed the reform of the theater - but not the one that the state imposed on us. Theater figures needed to make a decision themselves - what theaters to remain and under what conditions. Of the several useless theaters, one could make one good. And many needed to simply remove from the theater card. And to create a system of social protection for those actors and directors who would be without work, for their re -profile. It was necessary to create a system of differentiated theatrical circles: the oldest theaters are fully funded by the state, the rest are on a system of mixed financing: something gives a city, something region, something sponsors. Now, carry out such a complex reform late, because this is needed for this. - But in 2004, you and other theater figures - Alexander Kalyagin, Mark Zakharov , Oleg Tabakov , Konstantin Raikin , now the deceased Kirill Lavrov - went to Vladimir Putin and demanded to stop the reform. - It was a very difficult moment. Then, for example, they wanted to introduce the Board of Trustees at theaters. That is, a tool for control over theaters, which would be carried out by people who do not understand the specifics of theatrical business. Can you imagine what would happen if such a guardian council arose in the province? And if the governor entered there? He would immediately decide that this was his theater, and now he dictates what performances should be staged. At the same time, it was proposed to make autonomous institutions with very slurred financing from theaters. Then we saved the theater from this. But they did not make him capable of withstanding new challenges - first of all, economic, did not make him more viable. And now the state has to solve a difficult, almost impossible problem: to figure out who to give money and who is not, which theater is good and which is bad. - Here the main question arises: who will determine this? And how? - So far, through preparatory, trial documents coming from the Ministry of Finance, it is felt how some norms work. For example: they will calculate the number of performances played by the theater. At the same time, consider how many spectators this or that theater visited. These figures regarding any theater were always known. But, it seems to me that now they will play a very important role in the distribution of funds. Based on these mathematical indicators, officials will determine - the theater is good or bad ... A person who is not very knowledgeable in the theater may seem that such an approach will help to make a decision: which theater to live and which one to die. But, from an artistic point of view, such a “accounting” is complete nonsense. This is an absolute return in Soviet times - when we played collective farms, on military units, and home homes. At that time, the evening with a guitar or reading poems from the collective farm stage was called a performance. So we increased indicators. They put checks. In this calculation system, a full -fledged performance with scenery, with an ensemble game, a performance, for which the long months of rehearsals and the way out with a guitar, went on, were equal. Or a skeleton. I'm afraid we will return to this Soviet calculation system very soon. - But is the attention of the audience, attendance is not an indicator of the need for the theater? - Serious theaters cannot be measured with such measurement. Rather, it is impossible to measure only with such a measure. Because with water you can throw out the child. Even the type of theater, which the great Polish director Jerzy Grotovsky called “poor” - enjoyed very serious financial support. But it was a laboratory that gave performances only two to three times a month. The rest of the time was research. And the Grotovsky team had a tremendous influence on world theatrical art. This example is very indicative in the context of the conversation that we are conducting - “measurements of usefulness” of theatrical institutions. Grotovsky Theater would be closed by one of the first, using this assessment system - the number of spectators, the number of performances (laughs). - But in Russia there are many Darmoye type theaters - twenty percent of the audience in the hall, the quality of the performances below low. And they exist on the same financial conditions as the theaters are in demand. And the leaders of unsuccessful theaters are also not averse to bringing Grotovsky’s hedgehog - they say, we put theatrical experiments here, and the viewer is not a decree for us. - All this is so. But in this situation there are a lot of pitfalls. For example: we all know that the buildings of theaters and other cultural institutions - and theaters, as a rule, are in the city center - have always attracted the attention of businessmen. Especially in the province. Is it not seductive to declare a theater artistically insolvent, free the building from the troupe, and then give it to the fitness club? Or under a casino? Or maybe this or that theater does not go to the theater not because the theater is bad, but because the city is not theatrical? And if there is one theater in the city, and he does not shine - what, it needs to be closed? Based on these indicators - fees, the number of performances, the number of spectators - this can be done. - When you say so, it may seem that you are afraid for your theaters. - I have nothing to fear for myself: the Alexandrinsky Theater, one of the oldest theaters in Russia, cannot be left without state support. The Meyerhold Center lives at the expense of sponsors and squares, which were specially, even during construction, were planned for change. - You lead the oldest Russian theater and theater center. What do you think - by what type of theater is the future? For such as Alexandrinsky - with a well -established troupe, rare premieres, long rehearsals? Or for such as the center of Meyerhold, where is one project replaces another, where there is no permanent acting team? What is more viable in the new reality - theater-house or theater center? - I would like to survive the one and another type of theater. And I have already talked about the problem of theaters-house more than once: many have turned into nursing homes. In boarding houses, which only by misunderstanding produce performances. "The actor can be fired only if he is drunk behind the scenes."
- At the end of the eighties you made new economic initiatives. In 1987, you proposed to make them from the theater. Ermolova, who was led by theater center. That is - think of projects, think about the ability to earn money, try to fit the theater into new economic conditions. Your economic proposals were not understood then, and now in most theaters the Soviet approach reigns in the worst sense of the word: pay us, even few, and we will engage in “high art”, without thinking about the viewer or the checkout. - When I became the head of the Ermolova Theater, I understood that the time would come when the subsidies would end and it would be necessary to survive on my own. And he proposed to rebuild the theater building, build a hotel that would become a financial source for our team, for our work. Can you imagine what is - in 1987 to offer to attach a hotel to the theater? Do not make a theater, but a center? At the meeting, the artists raised a scream. One actress yelled: “Do you want to build a hotel here, and we will work as prostitutes?!” I could not restrain myself and answered: "Yes, who will take you!" It was a clash of the old Soviet theater car with a new look at the theater. I was doomed to defeat. But time proved my innocence: theaters began to look for new economic grounds for life, entreprises appeared, the surrender of the squares did not surprise anyone, and there are a lot of theatrical centers now. And I am again afraid to be right: our inaction, the desire to be good, shift the solution of old problems to those directors and actors who come after us - can lead the Russian theater to disaster. - The Soviet heritage is manifested in the entire organization of theatrical affairs. For example, the contract system has not been introduced. The artistic director still cannot draw up the troupe at his discretion. And how to take responsibility for the team from which you can’t fire almost anyone? - Yes, this is a huge problem. The old Soviet system is still working in the theater, and they will not change it. Otherwise, acting riots will begin. The heads of theaters can not do anything with people who work on an unlimited contract. And there are a lot of such in our theaters. It is very difficult to get rid of artists who have long lost their shape. Such an actor can be fired only if he is drunk behind the scenes. Moreover, with witnesses. It is impossible to prove that he is professional. - That is, it is impossible to conduct mass dismissals in any theater? - Can. But for this, by order of the Minister of Culture, the theater must be closed. And again open. Such cases were only twice in our theater history. This was allowed to do to BDT Georgy Tovstonogov and Yuri Lyubimov on Taganka. Although these two examples indicate that this method is very effective. And very painful. But differently happens very rarely. So there is only a theoretical possibility of serious updating the troupe. That's why now many theaters exist without artistic leadership? The directors have always been in short supply. But the problem is that in Moscow, and in St. Petersburg, and in the province, artists do not want any artistic leadership. Many people want - and they have repeatedly talked about it - to get to the civilian requiem so that no one was climbing, not interfering, and did not introduce artistic discipline. And you need either the director - who is “ours”, and everything will understand, or our colleague artist, whom we delegated to the post of chief director. But he is his own! And his friend-actor can at any moment open the door to his office and say: “Well, Sanya! You are the artist yourself, you understand that I need to star in the cinema now - so I will neither rehearse or play for several months. ” And the director who comes to the theater and begins to build a new policy of the theater - and therefore, to tighten the nuts, insist on the discipline - why do artists need it? “In the theater, profitable investment is impossible” - when for the first time they began to talk about the theater in the context of financial problems - about income from the performance, about the unprofitability of the theater as “enterprises” - did you see in this a positive, updating moment? Or took these conversations negatively? -The terms “negative-positive” are inappropriate here: a new life simply began. Without capital, the theater and art cannot exist at all-and it would be ridiculous to talk about it in some negative aspect. Both sponsors and the state must be understood - in the drama theater, profitable investment is impossible. If there is a desire to increase capital, you need to invest in other types of art. You can spend funds on the performance that goes in the hall for fifty spectators. And his value is that he is unique. There is no financial value. The problem is that our institution of philanthropy is not developed. It will arise only when it will profitably invest in culture. When this exemptions from taxes of businessmen. In the meantime, we have very few people who disinterestedly sacrifice money for the development of culture. A few years ago, one very rich man suggested that I finance the performance. He asked only one service: “You are a member of the Council for Culture under the President, and I have only one request for you. I have a familiar artist, he would like to give a picture to the Kremlin. Could you do so that Putin (then he was the president) attend the gift ceremony? ” And I immediately understand this simple intrigue: he also wants to be present, he will be noticed in the “right” company, he will acquire a new status ... I, of course, refused such a “philanthropy”. - How do you feel about expressions that are increasingly included in the theater vocabulary: “Theater is the entertainment scope, and the performance is a product”? - Unfortunately, officials operate with these definitions. There is nothing to be done here. This should be treated with understanding, just as the resulting among officials to the expression, with which they denote artists: "Creators." How many times have I heard this at meetings. Some deputy minister acts and calls us "creators." Like, I'm a normal person, and you are creators. “Why didn't you, creators, have given the product”? (laughs). And, of course, many perceive the theater, and art as a whole - as an absurd, not very necessary fun. And because only financial problems begin in the state, the first thing they cut off the costs of culture. “After all, it, our Russian culture, is strong, it will survive in any way” ... And it begins: “We have the best ballet, we have a tender, we have Stanislavsky’s covenants” ... Similar conversations are still popular among officials-and why? Thus, it is proved that our culture is so powerful that it is not necessary to support it. Kommersants on subsidies - but you do not claim that absolutely everything in art depends on money. - Against. We discuss only one side of the problem. I am sure that everything depends on artistic consciousness, on the idea. In art, it often happens that restrictions give birth to an unexpected thought. Recently, I thought: if very bad times come, then we will make a performance using old scenery. This can give a completely unexpected effect. Here Meyerhold set the “hole” at the beginning of the last century, cleaning the theater platform. In the depths stood the scenery of old performances that simply could not be removed. And Meyerhold - in this case involuntarily - said a new word in theatrical art. The noise rose: “I exposed the wall”, “New theater reality” ... So - the question is in the idea. Many theaters have no ideas, and therefore it will be easy to strangle them with the economy. - Or in state theaters more and more boulevard performances will appear. After all, this happens more and more often. Both commercial success and state support - all such theaters are provided. And the main directors of these "institutions" swear great traditions.
- Yes, today it is fashionable to swear both Stanislavsky and Nemirovich, and even Danchenko. They put boulevard performances, but at the same time they repeat the mantras about the theater-guard, and his god-Stanislavsky. Kommersants on subsidies are nonsense! The stage is now so, transition. But I would not want this to be preserved as a new type of theatrical consciousness. After all, we strive to be in full care of the state, and at the same time to do what we want to live, as under capitalism. From this all today's troubles.