Once again about Hainer Mueller and the Russian Theater

Among the many reviews on the column of Marina Davydova “Hainer Müller and the Russian Intelligentsia” CoLTA.ru also received the polemic text of Vladimir Fedorovich Kolyazin, the largest domestic researcher of the work of Müller, the translator and compiler of the first Russian -language collection of texts of the German playwright. True to the Audiatur et altera Pars, the editors considered it necessary to publish this text, offering a different point of view on the poetry of the creativity of Heiner Muller and the history of his reception on the Russian stage.

I will not argue with whether Kirill Serebrennikov is in the performance of Kirill Serebrennikov and “intelligible message to the Russian public”, since I have not seen the production in some way involved. Many thoughts of Marina Davydova are close to me, the pathos of the author of the article is close, especially clearly expressed in her last paragraph. However, I would like to argue with some postulates a critic, believing that Hainer Muller is alien to the Russian stage.

In principle, yes - after all, the Russian theater was always based mainly on the utopia of humanism, and Muller saw his main “pleasure in destroying illusions”. But.

It seems to me that it is not a Müller alien to the Russian mentality and the concepts of stageness, and the Russian scene did not grieval to understanding Müller - and this, as they say, is two big differences. However, I had to see fragments of the “Volokolamsk Highway” in the St. Petersburg Generation Theater in the production of Danila Korogodsky, in which there were no alienations, the Müller intellectual message and the eagerness of its stylistics found poetic forms that are quite adequate to Russian mentality, but maybe the miserable that this play was still accepted by Müller. Russian material ( the story of Alexander Bek )? In one of the domestic theaters on the way, as I heard, the production of the equally complex play “Cement” according to Gladkov is attempts to dismantle Soviet mythology, clothed in the form of Brechtian-Mythological parables.

It seems to me that in the gracefully written article by Marina Davydova paradoxically, the view of the work of Muller, adopted by the West German intellectuals of the period of the GDR, is dominated by the left-minister orientation and phraseology of the playwright of the 50-60s, which was still a past. Davydova begins with the thesis that Müller became the "embodiment of the left idea." But the fact is that he was a sort of muddy criticism boy that had not grown out of Marxist pants to exist as long as the GDR existed, and for some time after the unification of Germany. It is already that it was written in his youth “on the table”, Hayner Müller is the purest philosopher-monitor, which derives the picture of the world from the development and criticism of history and myth, and not from Marxist philosophy. In the late 80s-early 90s, the playwright rushed towards metaphysical immatheralism, discovering the relativism of the upcoming virtual-electron-technological era, threatening the end of mankind and man. To understand this transformation, turning the playwright facing the organic origins of his work and presenting his own theater in the light of the Wilson optical-metaphysical conceptualism, it is enough to re-read the extensive Muller conversations with critics, journalists, culturalists (and, above all, Alexander Club ) of the last decade of his life.

Hayner Müller - “Left Intellectual”? Yes. But Müller would not be Müller if he had not constantly denied his leftist by inspection at the myth, which freed him from the burden of Marxist left -randiganism, and his paradoxes. The amplitude of movement from protest and protest aesthetics to enlightened conservatism is characterized by more than one muller, but a large part of the Western left-intelligence-sixties: one of the most striking examples is the work of Peter Khandke , who in recent years has passed from the “scolding” of the layman to the desire, then Chekhov, to understand “ordinary people”-“innocent,“ innocent, “innocent,“ innocent, “innocent,“ innocent, “innocent,“ innocent, “innocent” Without evil intentions, closed in their circle, who do not want to know that there are others. ”

We have to state that we do not know this late Muller, as well as the “complete Müller”. We do not know either his mythological dramas, nor his Shakespearean processing, while the experience and tradition of our Shakespearean theater would be quite capable of “developing them out” and appropriate - there would be no laziness and ignorance. As the compiler of the first and only domestic edition of his works, it would be worth repenting that there are no many significant dramas, late texts, essaystics, especially fundamental dialogues with Alexander Club. However, I remind you that the story of the publication of the collection ready by the beginning of 1990 lasted more than fifteen (!) Years, and the Rosspen publishing house today is not even able to reprint the volume that has dispersed in the blink.

To be a muller means to be a “two -faced Janus”, looking simultaneously into the past and future.

According to Davydova, the paradox of Muller - and he really is hidden from paradoxes, syllogisms, and relationships - in the fact that in this world "everything is already destroyed, there is nothing more to destroy." However, here we see the non -fundamental paradox of his philosophy - this is only A , behind which Bies B and C. Let's read to Müller himself, try to understand what he understands by the “Theater of Resurrection”, the theater of new “game models”. “The plot,” says Müller, “is an explosion of memory in a dead dramatic structure. The dead in the theater is not dead. Drama function - the dead spell; The dialogue with the dead should not be interrupted until they take up what is buried with them in the future. ” Without staging the Müller dialogues with Hitler and Stalin, the dramatic preparation of the brutal clowning of history (from “Filcete” to “Battle” and “Germany. Death in Berlin”), the Russian theater will actually remain far from Muller as our society is far from overcoming our own past. This means that the paradox of Müller is to force the dead to speak, to reveal the truth of the past to the end.

It must be admitted that our theater science as a whole is poorly oriented in the philosophy and aesthetics of the Muller Theater, especially late, and this is one of the main obstacles to the Russian scene on the way to the development of Müller - while we were generally wealthy from intellectual drama. And to the one who claims that Müller has outlined his own, we must advise just to sit down at the table and carefully read the twelve volumes of his collected works.

In 1995, Alexander Klug asked the playwright the question of what position he actually stands in. He replied: “To the position of Stoic. I am fundamentally a disappointed Republican, who then passes to the side of the monarchy. " A strange combination of Nietzschean cynicism and the Brecht Hegelian! We are faced with a completely different model of worldview than Brecht, a model close to listening to the voice of rock in ancient tragi and rocking in a romantic comedy.

In an interview with comfort, Sharpenberg “Theater is Crisis” Müller repeated the Chekhov’s demand “new forms” in relation to the computer eyelid, the century of “virtual reality and spiritualistic communication”, recalling that this thought has excited him since the writing of “Hamlet Mashina”. Walking from art to his "intellectual provocation" theater, Müller considered it impossible to break with the text - on the contrary, in search of "new ways of handling the theater space, Iron from the text from the text." “Without a step in the absolute gloom, the absolute unknown theater cannot exist further” (ibid., 1995).

Davydova writes: according to Müller, “wandering in the darkens of my own“ I ”and in the endless maze of the universe <...> better than the shining hambers of the new harmony, and better destroyed to the damn mother of the world of classical culture” - and writes in essence correctly, calling a number of classics, including Dostoevsky. But Müller’s attitude towards the classics is not a general nihilistic, especially to antiquity and Dostoevsky - about the attitude of the playwright to the latter should be read in numerous conversations and interviews.

Davydova claims that Müller's plays are “not about the horrors <...>“ falling out of culture ”, the same culture that is the main religion of our intelligentsia; They, if you like, about the need for such destruction and such falling. ” It turns out that the requirement of “falling out of culture” is the only, according to Muller, a possible recipe for saving the culture of the future. And this is only partly true: destruction cannot continue endlessly. Are the central dramas of the Müller of the Gader period - “Gundling's Life ...”, “Battle”, Shakespearean processing - not the condemnation of Germany’s loss from classical German culture? They are about this: about the perversion of the Apollonically-Donisian, Getevsko-Klyaystovsky began culture, about the loss of contact with myth, Homer, Ovid, so powerfully mastered in the age of German romanticism.

Yes, Heiner Müller is an embodied cynic and destroyer, who finds not progress in history, but only “redistribution of violence” or “a mixture of violence and tolerance” (because there is a certain eternal “quantum of violence”). But two years before his death in one of the conversations with the South Korean journalist H. Lee, the playwright called the main impulse of his work, “revenge, and then understanding what I missed in my history of a clash with violence, or the experience of the inability to object to him.” To be a muller means to be a “two -faced Janus”, looking simultaneously into the past and future.

Laying from culture, according to Muller, cannot, at least be an endless process; Both in nature and space, and in culture, the explosion and destruction is accompanied by the “search for new frames” - it seemed to be close to Vernadsky and Hawking. In an interview with the club, the playwright postulated: “Cosmos is always in motion, and someday the framework is not able to hold it (the explosive situation.- V.K .), and new frames are needed. The ideal is not a mysticism of endless ruining, but a flight over history. ” Returning to the Ovidian understanding of “metamorphoses”, Müller is so interpreted by the process of cultural and historical cycle: “Metamorphoses is an attempt to constitute, justify civilization, but this does not succeed, the journey itself is a transformation” (in a conversation with A. Clug, 1995).

A similar view of the history and the process of changing civilizations primarily determines the view of the late Muller to the theater. To assert after Marina Davydova that in the plays of Müller from the world of “classical culture” “literally there was no stone on the stone”, it would be extremely careless, because all the work of Muller is a continuous dialogue with a classical culture, which for him does not completely lie in the ruins.

We obviously agree with Davydova, at least in one thing: the Russian theater is today only on the threshold of the opening of the “Theater of Darkness” of Müller - in fact, not so thoroughly dark.