Repressive performances of power

The theater has become the most important of the arts, and the Ministry of Culture checks the magazines about the theater for efficiency

The Ministry of Culture of Russia is going to reduce the financing of theater magazines, including the most famous - the magazine "Theater".

"On April 21, the news appeared on the website of the newspaper Izvestia, at 12:16 , from which I learned that the Ministry of Culture intends to reduce financing of 15 theater magazines, the department created a working group led by critic Grigory Zaslavsky , which will determine inefficient journals, as well as the principles on which budgetary funds will be allocated for theater press, public hearings on financing theatrical magazines On April 21 , that is , on the same day.

The article in Izvestia gave the arguments of the Ministry of Culture: "The release of theater magazines was spent up to 20 million rubles a year, while the publications write mainly about the theaters of Moscow and St. Petersburg. We would like to formulate the principles by which the effective theater media should work." In an interview with the newspaper, Zaslavsky said that reducing financing theatrical periodicals is a natural process with general cutting the budget for culture: “Medinsky ( Minister of Culture. - RS ) is the first person who raised the question of clarifying the principles of financing. Such a desire seems to me understandable and natural.”

Zaslavsky began the hearing like this: "No one is going to anyone, he cannot close, and there is no such desire, and there is no right."

In an interview with Radio, Freedom Zintsov said that no one informed him in advance: "The editor -in -chief of the magazine" Theater " Marina Davydova was notified about this late in the evening. Apparently, knowing well - I do not believe in such coincidences - that she will not be in Moscow and will not arrive right away, throwing everything here."

Zintsov continues:

- I know that late I learned about the hearings, for example, the editor -in -chief of the St. Petersburg Theater Journal, Marina Dmitrevskaya , who also could not get together quickly, jump onto the train and arrive at the appointed time. At the same time, for example, the director of the Vakhtangov Theater, who read his text on a piece of paper, was invited. That is, obviously, he was in advance, prepared and, possibly, even instructed, which, in fact, should be discussed. This cannot be called some court or something else, because it was very streamlined statements, with the exception of several ...

Vera Maksimova at the hearing : “This question of a wild warrior about censorship. We lived on censorship, they didn’t live ... God forbid, so that the censorship is returned, by the way, I don’t see the possibility of its return ... Do you need censorship today? What are these people who do this particularly bold, I'm sorry. Here, the question of gays. Sorry, I would talk about it, one magazine was dedicated to this ... can I talk even? This is not at all that give money-this is itself prepared for the topic of censorship, gays and so on ... The second theme, which I thought, will be raised, the topic of Ukraine ... What, we missed these magazines? That we are almost on the verge, the fact that the situation is terribly difficult and very dangerous, that society, as, however, is the theater, as well as criticism, because today, to be honest, we don’t greet half of the people, we will never sit down next to each other ... Today the gaps are huge, largely the theater "Theater" contributes to this ... "helps ..." "

That is, drama was built. Boris Nikolaevich Lyubimov spoke very streamlined, for example, who recalled how good it was in the former times and how the theater criticism, theatrical publications were now. There were few direct accusations, but they were addressed to the magazine Theater. Despite the fact that there were a variety of editions there, for some reason the theater magazine was more occupied by many of the speakers than their own publications.

- And what specific charges were expressed against the magazine Theater?

- Critic Vera Maksimova from the magazine "Theater questions" very fiery. On the one hand, she had tribal speech, and on the other, such a stream of consciousness in which homosexuals, Ukraine, some other troubles were interfered, and all this was related to the magazine Theater and to which the theater magazine is bad. For some reason, she did not see the difference between Facebook and the magazine, the old grievances on replicas on the private Facebook Marina Davydova intertwined there. We do not print this in the magazine, the magazine is busy with other issues. And this stream of consciousness was built in such a way that all this is the same thing - both the magazine and the sexual orientation of the British playwright Ravenhill or the Polish director Varlikovsky ... Everything was interfered with one lump and pathetically said: and now you give money! Then at the end some person whom I do not know directly said that the magazine Theater must be closed.

Oleg Zintsov says that he is grateful to Alexander Kalyagin ( actor, director and head of the Union of Theater Workers of Russia. - RS ), because "he said very delicately, but at the same time he had this firm position that we should have different magazines, we will not influence the editorial policy":

These things on part of the theater community act like a red rag

- He said that all theatrical publications are children of the STD, and everyone must be supported equally, not in the sense of vibrantly giving everyone, but in proportion to those niches that these publications occupy. Because the magazine "Theater" is much more expensive than, relatively speaking, the newspaper "Actor's House", which several times a year comes out on a pair of leaves. Of course, the people who represent these publications complained and said: we have such budgets, and the magazine "Theater" has such a budget, and we suffer - and still all converged on the magazine "Theater". And in the background, of course, there was a dissatisfaction with the editorial policy, which differs from what was previously in theatrical publications. We have a wider coverage of topics, thematic numbers, conceptual numbers, they are devoted to the embedification of theatrical art into the general context of today's art. They consider the connection of the theater with politics and with other areas of life, and these are often numbers on the really sharp topics that arise in society. For example, we had a number dedicated to gender issues in art, and a campaign against gay propaganda served as an initial impetus for him. Of course, he was not dedicated to this, but he was dedicated to the issues of some gender roles, shifts, games with them, all these issues dealt with seriously cultural studies. This was not topical for serving. Or, say, when the events in Ukraine began, we released the number that was dedicated to the Ukrainian theater, because it is really the closest to us and a rather serious theatrical space, neighboring us, and we know almost nothing about what is happening there. And we decided to figure out what is happening now in the Ukrainian theater, what was there, what the main names are there. It was again a number about art, and not about politics. But these things on part of the theater community act as a red rag, because this part of the community is configured so that the theater magazine should simply describe the premieres in theaters.

Vladimir Medinsky

- It is difficult to imagine that everyone simply gathered and began to express dissatisfaction with the content of the magazine Theater. Do you have the feeling that you are dissatisfied with the views of the editorial office, who can disagree with the views of the state, now actively expressing his position, say, the mouth of the Minister of Medinsky?

- Undoubtedly. Only here there is one more thing - some of the theater community have long -standing claims, just now they were given administrative good to their statement. Now they could speak out in such a genre of appeal to the representative of the Ministry of Culture.

- It seems to you that this is coming from the Ministry of Culture, or are it people who are dissatisfied with the policy of the magazine Theater, finally, found the opportunity to speak?

-I think that this is rather the initiative from below. And I think this initiative largely belongs to the criticism of Zaslavsky, who headed this very commission to determine the inefficiency of the magazine. Of course, the ministry participates in this, because this working group was created under the ministry. And yesterday we were told, there was a deputy minister at this meeting, her name is Elena Milovzorov that she initiated this working group. But this could not come from nowhere, it is precisely taken from the initiative in the field. And there should have been such a critic Zaslavsky, who would say: you know, we have a mess here ...

Fragment of the production of "Tangaiser" at the Novosibirsk Opera and Ballet Theater

- Now there is some confrontation between part of the theater world and the Ministry of Culture, say, on the issue of Tangiazer. What is the place of your magazine in this confrontation?

- The magazine "Theater" does not have such a frequency that we react to Tannanizer in the magazine itself. We have a blog, and there it is unsubscribed-premieres, the current process, some situations. This is the network part of the magazine "Theater". And the numbers of the magazine "Theater" themselves are thematic and such academic. This is not about current events. And we cannot make a number about setting up the opera Tanniger in Novosibirsk. We can build on some relevant topics, but in general we make a big and detailed story from this, try to somehow penetrate the essence of serious problems, and not to get to one or another position. We are trying to engage in art and modern culture in a broad sense. This is all some kind of unhealthy scandalous that accompanies the theater today, we do not need it at all, we have not initiated it, it prevents us from working. We would like to watch art, not an insult to anyone's feelings. And we are trying to do this in the magazine Theater.

Financing was cut by 75 percent at the end of last year

- Now the state has a certain active policy regarding art, the division into "ours" and "not ours", and the state says: we will not feed ours, we will not give money.

- If we talk about yesterday's meeting, I didn’t stand right, I won’t disturb. It was very ornate in this direction, but the question did not stand right. The haste of creating this commission, holding this meeting reminds me of district meetings on the issue of land surveying, the construction of a new shopping center, which are imported by some specially trained residents of the district, and the announcements are posted the next day. Financing was cut by 75 percent at the end of last year. We could not release the number that was done in January, which was dedicated to the documentary theater. This is perceived again in the context with a scandal with the theater. DOD, but a documentary theater is not only a theater. DOD, it has a lot of types, genres, problems associated with it, and we made a number about it. He was ready in early January, he went out of the press only now, because we did not receive any funding, and as a result, the Prokhorov Foundation gave us money for this magazine.

Fire, burns, we will urgently gather and discuss who do not give money yet

- Why did you cut funding last year?

- The Ministry of Culture gives money, the general budget is allocated for the creative projects of the Union of Theater Workers, and the STD is already distributing further. The total budget was cut in connection with the crisis. I hope that this had no background, except for economic. And now six months have passed, and when we found our own funds and still released this number and prepare the next one, then suddenly the question of the effectiveness of theatrical publications arises hastily. He did not arise when we cut the budget without any discussion, and for some reason it arose now in this form: a fire, burning, urgently gather and discuss who does not give money yet.

Deputy Kalyagin Gennady Smirnov at the hearing : “The Golden Mask just took place, an event of an all -Russian scale ... Here it would be necessary to give a wide panorama of theatrical life of Russia ... But all the publications that wrote about the“ Golden Mask ”went under the heading of the Golden Mask leaning the Minister. This is the only thing that those who were on the Golden Mask saw. Is it true? I believe that it was just a hooligan trick. If it weren’t for the journalists, but theater scholars, they would have found something to write about the fact that some lady shouted at the ceremony what could be dispensed with without. ”

- There was a “golden mask”, at the ceremony to the minister whistled, and the girl who shouted “return the“ tanneser ”” was applauded. Can't it be an indirect response of the theater community?

-Then the stars somehow agreed, apparently. I do not think that this is so strictly stripped. I think these are some counterclaims. There are activists from below, from the theatrical critics who are unhappy with the magazine Theater. There are public scandals associated with the "golden mask". There are people who are very dissatisfied with the "Golden Mask" in the theater community. Here is the magazine "Theater" and "Golden Mask" in some similar positions, because they are trying to blame us for the same sins that we are almost one clan. Despite the fact that I have nothing to do with the "golden mask", and these are completely unrelated institutions - neither financially nor organizationally, in any way. We are the brand of the Union of Theater Workers.

- Why has the theater has recently become the most important of the arts? Not even a movie that has much more coverage. "Leviathan" with all the scandalous, criticism as a result is rolled around the country. And the theater, in principle, chamber business, thousands of people go there, maybe tens of thousands, but incomparable from the cinema, and it is the theater that is suddenly now in the center of such a polemic?

-Well, here you need to explain this in detail, going into history, or just say that the theater still has a much stronger emotional impact, because everything is happening here and now, there is direct contact with the public in the hall. And the theater concerns the political sphere too. It is strange that this has reached such academic theaters as in Novosibirsk, but it is for a culturologist, for a cultural historian is in the same context with Pussy Riot and some kind of contemporary art, which also directly contact the public and cause resonance.

Nadezhda Tolokonnikov against the background of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, where the "punk-summer" was executed

Everything that breaks out of the framework in which we simply look at some work of art and say “how beautifully”-contemporary art is trying to overcome this frame all the time and reality. In the theater, she goes into reality in the same way as in the performance, does not come out as much, of course, but she also goes into reality, in real contact with the public. Perhaps that is why this is perceived more acutely. And then, in the cinema you will not arrange a performance among the public, and in the theater this can be done simply. Performans take place not only on the stage, but also in the hall, when some Orthodox activists appear and begin to climb onto the stage when the Minister of Culture shout “Turny” Tangeyer. The theater is a space where these performative acts are possible on both sides, both from the stage, and from the public. Therefore, of course, a reaction to the theater is more acutely than the cinema. For me, a little for me. It is strange that the theater has been suppressed by contemporary art, actionism, such practices.

Power answers questions with repressive performances

- And it turns out, freely or involuntarily, he draws power into this performance, and the power takes part in this.

- Yes. The differences between art and power is that art cannot include repressive mechanisms, and power includes them. That is, the government produces repressive performances with the help of a variety of agents or actors of these actions. Art, primarily performive, asks questions, poses problems. And the authorities answer these questions and these problems with repressive performances.