University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Two plays and a film: The Meyerhold /Faiko collaboration

(USC Thesis Other)

Two plays and a film: The Meyerhold /Faiko collaboration

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content TWO PLAYS AND A FILM: THE MEYERHOLD/FAIKO COLLABORATION by Allison A. Comins-Richmond A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE DCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (SLAVIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES) May 2004 Copyright 2004 Allison A. Comins-Richmond R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. UMI Number: 3140460 Copyright 2004 by Comins-Richmond, Allison A. All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI UMI Microform 3140460 Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 1 1 Dedication Dedicated to the memory of Maria Valentei, preserver of her grandfather’s legacy, heir to his brave spirit. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Ill Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people for providing invaluable help to me in a variety of capacities in the writing this dissertation. First and foremost, my husband and colleague. Dr. Walter Comins-Richmond, for his love, support, and proofreading many, many drafts. I would like to thank my committee for their suggestions, time and assistance: Drs. Marcus Levitt, Sharon M. Camicke, and David St. John, and also John Bowlt for his classes and scholarship on the Russian Avant Garde. Thank you to the u s e Slavic Department and The Writing Program, particularly Jack Blum and John Holland for supporting my academic career and Susan Kechekian for assistance in getting the important things done over the years. Thank you to my proofreader and best friend, Susan L. Feuerzeig. My gratitude to Vadim Shcherbakov, Beatrice Picon-Vallin, Maria Valentei, and John Freedman for their work on Meyerhold and supporting my interest and research about him. My great thanks and gratitude to RGALI for its assistance in providing me access to the crucial documents necessary to this dissertation and preservation of invaluable information. My personal thanks to Elena Ermilovna Gafher and Irina Zelenina for going beyond the call of duty in getting my documents at lightning speed. My thanks to the following professors with whom I had the privilege of studying and for increasing my knowledge of Russian language and literature and R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. IV my passion for the culture: Vera Dunham, Catherine Nepomnyashchy, Harlow Robinson, Henryk Baran, Tamara Epifan, Princess Catherine Volkonsky, Erik Hoffmann, Ina Vishnevskaya, Jonathan Sanders (for getting me on Soviet television). Professor Katerina Clark: for inspiring me with her work and for telling me, an unknown graduate student, to finish writing her dissertation, and that she believed the topic was interesting when I started to have doubts myself... For friendship, assistance, and inspiration for/during my many trips to Russia: Svetlana Piataikina, Dr. Vladimir lurievieh Kolesnov, Elena Pogrebinskaia, Marina Stepnova, Oleg Korostelev, Alexandra Ilf, and Rudolf Duganov. For friendship and support stateside: my parents, Edwin and June Comins, B. Jean Brevik, and Patricia Flaherty. Lastly, for everything, Thurmond. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. V Table of Contents Dedication il Acknowledgements iii Abstract vii Preface ix Chapter liVsevelod Meyerhold and Alexei Faiko, Collaboration and Collision Introduction and Background 1 An Unequal Partnership: A Brief Background of the Director and the 13 Playwright Chapter 2: A Survey of Relevant Critical Material 28 Chapter 3: Lake LyuV Lake Z,y«/-Plot Summary 86 The Response by the Press 98 Result of LyuV 118 Chapter 4: Decoding the Real Drama Behind Bubus: The Cigarette Girlfrom 121 Mosselprom Chapter 5: Bubus’ Explanatory Brochure, Summary of Faiko’s Play^ and 168 the Press’ Response Meyerhold’s Bubus -Translation of the Explanatory Booklet 178 Section^ 1: The Play’s Content 179 Section 2: A Comedy Set to Music 181 Section 3: The Construction of the Production 182 Section 4: Acting and Pre-Acting 183 Faiko’s Bubus— Ploi Summary 185 Bubus and the Press 203 Vs. Meierkhol’d, Uchitel’ Bubus. Tri akta Alekseia Faiko v Postanovke Vs. Meierkhol’da—komediia na muzyke. V. Fedorov, ed. (Moscow: Iz.Teatra im.Vs. Meierkhol’da, 1925). Published for its first time in its entirety in English. ^ In the original program written by Meyerhold, “sections” were literally referred to as “chapters” as in a book, but for the sake o f clarity in this dissertation they are here referred to as “sections.” R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. VI Chapter 6: Meyerhold’s Bubus and Kabuki: More Than A Bamboo Curtain and a Bechstein: Tracing Meyerhold’s interest in Kabuki 236 Bubus: A Soviet Kabuki 247 Chapter 7: Conclusion 268 A Selected Bibliography 274 Appendix 1 Lenin Citations and Placards-Removed from Bubus (in 287 Russian) Appendix 2 List of Musical Works included in Bubus 292 Appendix 3 «nannpocHMua o t MocceJibnpoMa»-Meyerhold’s letter of 294 response to The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom under the pseudonym “Dottore” R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. v il Abstract Vsevelod Meyerhold’s two productions of Alexei Faiko’s two plays, Oaepo Jhonb {Lake LyuV) (1923)and y^HTem By6yc{The Teacher Bubus){\925) stand out as overlooked and misunderstood productions among his oeuvre. Lake Lyul ’ constituted the beginning of a shift toward the inclusion of cinematic devices and other highly technical additions. Bubus, on the other hand, showed a significant return to many things with which he had experimented decades earlier in Imperial St. Petersburg, especially with Japanese Kabuki. Ironically, as Meyerhold experimented with devices based upon film or the experience of viewing a film, while he was in rehearsal for Bubus, a film, nani/ipocHma o t Mocce/inpoMa {The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom), by its playwright and Meyerhold’s leading comic actor had a devastating effect upon the production of Bubus and Meyerhold personally. Re-examining Meyerhold’s productions of two of Faiko’s plays and the film that had such a pronounced effect upon Bubus provides us with a more complete conception of Meyerhold’s work in the 1920s and an opportunity to explore his unrealized experiments with Bubus as well as those which, though realized, have been forced into obscurity until now. The dissertation includes biographies of Meyerhold and Faiko. It examines prior key scholarship on these two productions. The exploration R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. V lll of Lake Lyul ’ includes a detailed plot summary and a survey of the wild response the production touched off in the press. It also a examines the movie whieh affeeted the Meyerhold/Faiko relationship and the production of Bubus and traces the multiple scandals and different accounts of them. It compares the satirieal movie’s text to its targeted subjects. The examination of Bubus includes an explanation of the tangled events surroimding the produetion, a translation of Meyerhold’s brochure, a summary of Faiko’s play, and a survey of the erities’ response and role in transforming the play. Lastly, the dissertation explores Meyerhold’s interest in Kabuki and its importanee for Bubus. It demonstrates that Meyerhold’s interest in Kabuki began before the Revolution with his interest in the aetress, Sada Yakko and compares Kabuki’s devices with similar ones in the production of Bubus, thus demonstrating that Kabuki was indeed its integral model. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. IX Preface This project began when I was asked during my PhD qualifying exams to define “Meyerhold as a director.” Despite the fact that I had read many excellent, credible books on the subject, I felt unable to do so. I came up with an answer, but I was unsatisfied with it. The source material had created a picture of a series of different “Meyerholds”: the Moscow Art Theater Meyerhold, the Imperial Theater Meyerhold, the Dr. Dapertutto/cabaret Meyerhold, the Soviet Commissar Meyerhold, and finally the tragic genius-victim Meyerhold. While he was indeed all these things, I began a quest to look for constants across these periods. I noticed two productions about which much less had been written than other Meyerhold productions. Both plays had been written by Alexei Faiko. I could find virtually nothing about him, particularly in English. I went to Russia to teach at the Gorky Institute and to explore the goldmine known as RGALI. I discovered more than I dreamed possible. I am indebted to them. Years later, after having delivered several parts of my research in many places, I was invited to speak at the Meyerhold Symposium in Paris in 2000. It was an overwhelming experience and I met Meyerhold’s granddaughter, Maria Valentei, there. She was being assisted by a Japanese woman. I had read parts of what became Chapter 6 in this dissertation on Meyerhold and Kabuki. In 2001, during a winter in Moscow that was cold enough to have stopped two marauding European leaders, I called Madame Valentei at her museum. She remembered me from Paris, although we had not really spoken at all and invited me R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. X to see the famous apartment, now museum, of her grandfather. This was the apartment where the famous tragic portrait of Meyerhold by Konchalovsky was painted, where Meyerhold, Raikh, her children and their numerous students, actors, and friends would gather, rehearse, and live. This was also the place where Raikh was brutally murdered. Madame Valentei had dedicated her life to getting the apartment away from Beria’s driver’s family, restoring it, restoring her grandfather’ to history and opening this museum, in short, preserving her amazing grandfather’s legacy. After allowing me to roam the apartment freely, she kindly asked me to tea. I told her of my great admiration and love for Meyerhold and my refusal to write an easier dissertation on Tairov which seemed to please my committee more. Somehow, this kind lady divined that I had really decided not to bother finishing my dissertation. She looked at me and told me that I must finish it, that it was important. I promised I would. She then paid me the highest compliment of all: after a long pause, she said that her grandfather, Meyerhold, would often say that he only wanted to work with people who had real “passion” to do so. She elaimed she saw this quality in my dedication to her grandfather’s work. Sadly, Madame Valentei passed away a year later. This is my fulfillment of my promise to her. Note on the System of Transliteration: I have used the Library of Congress system of transliteration with the following exeeptions: all surnames which should end in “skii”, I have used instead the more traditionally used “sky”, for e.g. “Staniskavskii” is referred to as “Stanislavsky”. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. XI An additional exception is the spelling of “Liul”’ as "Lynf " the way it more frequently appears in more hooks in English. “Meierkhol’d” is transliterated at “Meyerhold, as it commonly appears in English. Passages are provided in Russian followed by my translations in English, except for the footnotes in which journals and article titles are left in transliterated Russian. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. Chapter 1:Vsevelod Meyerhold and Alexei Faiko, Collaboration and Collision Introduction and Background Despite the fact that a huge volume of material has been written about Vsevelod Meyerhold and his career, his two productions of Alexei Faiko’s two plays, Oaepo Jhom {Lake Lyul’ )(1923)and y^MTe/ib By6yc {The Teacher Bubus){\925) stand out as noticeably overlooked and misunderstood productions among his oeuvre. Not only is the body of literature on them scanty, it is often contradictory, yet the study of these two productions reveals a great deal about the man, the director, and milieu in which he operated. Lake Lyul ’ constituted the beginning of a shift toward the inclusion of cinematic devices and other highly technical additions. Bubus, on the other hand, showed a significant return to many things with which he had experimented decades earlier in Imperial St. Petersburg, especially with Japanese Kabuki. However, because of the political climate of the 1920s, critics were impeded from making such a connection because although artistically valid it was politically loaded. The early 1920s was a time when art had to be shown to be thoroughly new and fresh like the Soviet state and not a reminder of its connection to its pre-revolutionary past. While intellectuals such as Meyerhold had embraced the Revolution to be freed of the political censors, with his production of Bubus, Meyerhold began to feel the pressures of the evolving Soviet culture police. Meyerhold’s sensitivity to this change is evident in his attempts in Bubus to R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 develop the means to communicate to his audience by theatrical but non textual and non-literary means, through such things as npennrpw (predigry) or pre-acting; a method of acting that Meyerhold developed for the production in which the actor wordlessly prepares the audience through use of his face and body for the lines of dialogue to follow. He also added Lenin citations which were projected on a screen adding ironic commentary to the play’s action, as well as devices adapted from Japanese Kabuki. These productions also constitute a significant shift in Meyerhold’s position. He had held a distinguished position as director of the Imperial Opera and Dramatic Theaters before the Revolution. After the Revolution he served as the First Commissar of Theater, and his theater became Russian State Theater Number One (RSFSR I). He enjoyed both cultural and political power as well as success. With Bubus Meyerhold discovered that his own position depended not upon his own talent but things as fragile as the egos of his playwright and star actor and as intractable as the evolving Soviet culture censors. He was not immune to either. For all these reasons, the two productions of Faiko’s plays represent a significant change in Meyerhold’s oeuvre, and in his position in the Soviet theater world of the 1920s, as well as his own realization of both of these. The call for new repertoire in the Soviet Union of the early 1920s did not necessarily mean the call for new “theater” but to Meyerhold it was synonymous, or at least he treated it as such. He was interested in R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 3 experimentation before the revolution and remained so afterwards. Both of his productions of Alexei Faiko’s plays demonstrate his continued commitment to experimentation but differ in degree. In tempo, movement and modernity. Lake LyuV had more in common with Meyerhold’s productions which immediately preceded it, although its polish and expenditure clearly reflected a change. While The Teacher Bubus raised the level of polish and expenditure even further, its tempo and movement were a radical departure from recent productions and a return to experiments and his interest in Kabuki from nearly two decades before. While audiences embraced LyuTs moving elevators and foxtrots, they were dismayed by Bubus’ slow stylized movement and endless background of classical music score on a concert piano. Both productions were clearly influenced by cinema and cinematic techniques in very diflFerent ways. Lyul ’ eagerly borrowed from film: quick scene changes, stage design and props which were built rather than painted on slats, and a melodramatic plot that drew directly from contemporary Western films. Bubus ’ adaptation of cinematic techniques was far more subtle and less obvious as it was intermingled with both complementary and incongruous devices from Kabuki. Bubus ’ use of a piano player and titles flashing over the screen are in itself reminiscent of the showing of a silent movie. The exaggerated poses taken from Kabuki are similar to close-ups. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 4 Ironically, as Meyerhold experimented with devices based upon film or the experience of viewing a film, while he was in rehearsal for Bubus, a film by its playwright and Meyerhold’s leading comic actor had a devastating effect upon the production of Bubus and Meyerhold personally. The film flani/ipocHma o t MoccempoMaiJhe Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom) made a mockery of the lives of Meyerhold and his wife, Zinaida Raikh, particularly his efforts to make her into his theater’s lead actress. The result was that Meyerhold lost the star of Bubus barely two weeks before its premiere which irreparably damaged his production and his relationship with Faiko. By the time Bubus opened, the scandals surrounding it had begun. Critics were polarized, contradictory, confusing and often capricious. The theater censors struck some elements from the production; so without its star and these crucial elements from the production, one must feel that the critics could not have seen Meyerhold’s intended production. After a significant review by the powerful critic Blium, the production was further changed to significantly shorten it. Faiko, after long simmering disagreements launched another scandal in the press, protested Meyerhold’s deformation of his text. All of this irrevocably changed Meyerhold’s choices in repertoire, and, for the most part with but a few notable exceptions (Erdman, Mayakovsky and Olesha) pushed him further toward classical authors who were “sleeping peacefully in their graves” so that he could R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 5 experiment and adapt freely, or at least without interference from a living, breathing author. The two ignored productions reveal many crucial things about Meyerhold’s development as a director. They demonstrate that the pre and post Soviet works by Meyerhold were much more organically linked, an impression not often created by the scholarship. The scholarship was flawed by the political need to show how new, different and Soviet these productions were, something Meyerhold publicly promoted. To have trumpeted its connections to his symbolist aka tsarist past in his post at the Imperial Theaters in St. Petersburg would have been dangerous and ludicrous. Later because Lyul ’ was so connected to the disgraced NEP period and Bubus to the pre-revolutionary period, materials on these two productions were virtually impossible to access. This further flawed the subsequent Soviet and Western scholarship. The materials on these productions remained largely inaccessible until the late 1980s, not because of its lack of its success with the befuddled public, but clearly because Meyerhold had created productions which were inextricably tied to events which the Soviet government wanted to fade fi'om public memory; Lyul ’ had become synonymous v^ith the New Economic Policy (NEP), Bubus with artistic experimentation into the political and artistic realms which were being declared off limits. Only since the 1980s has it now been possible to re-evaluate these two forgotten productions which help to fill in many R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. important gaps about Meyerhold the director and the man. Despite his privileged position before and immediately after the Revolution, 1925 proved to be a harbinger that he himself was not untouchable professionally or personally. Ironically, Meyerhold’s decision to stage Faiko’s first play was in response to the Party’s cry of dismay that a new theatrical repertoire was needed which would further the goals of the new Soviet state. Meyerhold recognized the importance of staging new playwrights both in continuing what he had learned at the Moscow Art Theater and keeping in step with the times. "Theatrical October," which he himself initiated in 1919 as the First Commissar of the Theater sought, like similar movements in literature, to create a new body of work equal in quality to pre-Revolutionary standards but superior in that it also added the element of the new Soviet consciousness. Melodrama, such as Faiko’s Lake Lyul’ , lent themselves to political ends as it employs a clear delineation of characters as heroes, victims and malefactors. Similarly, its simplicity further suited it to pedagogical purposes. Anatoly Lunacharsky, the head of the Committee on Education and Enlightenment (Narkompros) had long felt that theater could play an important part in educating the masses and promoting the new Soviet platform. “Lunacharsky had been arguing for at least two decades that the theater should be accessible to the masses, and he was delighted to be able to enforce those policies himself. With fi'ee performances and subsidized tickets, his government attempted R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 7 to bring the lower classes into the theater on a large scale.”* He felt that the best way to produce quality Soviet productions was by calling for a return to the classic repertoire and long accepted forms and genres. Immediately after the revolution, he demanded a return to the classics and “called for a theater of classical tragedy, high comedy, and romantic drama that would stage plays devoted to historical subjects.”^ “He, Lunacharsky, and others advocated that the cornerstone of the new theater be either tragedy or melodrama—melodrama, that is, in its old sense of high drama interspersed with musical renditions.”^ However, in the early 1920s in honor of the 100* anniversary of Ostrovsky’s birth, Lunacharsky felt that classics came to be even more narrowly defined as only “Back to Ostrovsky.” For Lunacharsky, Turgenev and Chekhov were too complicated. Western-influenced, and hence alien to the Russian spirit. Ostrovsky was a hugely prolific playwright and a conservative in terms of dramatic form; moreover, his plots centered around Russian life and because it skewered the evils of the petty merchant class, they were conducive to the new Soviet theater. Most of the leading directors, including Meyerhold, staged Ostrovsky productions: Meyerhold staged flee {The Forest) and JJoxojjHoe Mecro (A Lucrative Post) (in a far from classical manner, but he had fulfilled the letter of Lunacharsky’s “law.” Although they worked together at Narkompros, Lunacharsky and Meyerhold crossed swords many times throughout the 1920s. One could not always refer to * Katerina Clarke, Petersburg, Crucible o f Cultural Revolution. (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1995): p. 107. 2ibid.,p. 111. ^ibid., p. 110. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 8 the timbre of their relationship as “comradely”. Lunacharsky proved far more conservative and orthodox toward theater than Meyerhold and often vociferously criticized him in the press. Maybe this stemmed from the fact that Meyerhold never expressed interest in staging Lunacharsky’s own plays. Nonetheless, in response to fulfilling Lunacharsky’s call for a new Soviet drama as well as the genuine deficit of new repertoire, Meyerhold searched for a new Soviet playwright. However, in doing so, he discovered that his own desire for a new Soviet “theater” might be best served not by a new playwright but by his own means of redacting a play’s text even of a classic. Creatively, Meyerhold's staging of the two Faiko plays signify the importance of several Meyerhold hallmarks: the innovative use of music, the development of a new type of agitational theater, the changed fluid nature of the written play text, the increased role of the director/auteur, and the push toward the development of a new Soviet theater of masks. These developments came out of a variety of exigencies: changing socio-political conditions, Meyerhold's increased interest in the synthesis of art forms (here drama, opera, and kabuki), the desire to communicate with audiences through associations conditioned by literature, music, and cultural references, and his constant search for ever new types of theater as a means to do so. Meyerhold intensely studied and documented his audience’s response to every scene and gesture of this and other productions of the period. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 9 Meyerhold’s conception of the director’s role seems to be at least loosely based upon his mentor Stanislavsky’s belief that a production should be the embodiment of "Wagnerian Gesamtkuntswerk " conceived and created by the director^. Twenty years before, Stanislavsky had laid the foundations for the "the concept of a play production whose every aspect— the visual, musical, and dramatic— were under the control of one director who assumed the fimctions of an auteur, as the term is understood in later film theory."^ In film, when an author hands his text to a director, he presumes the director is then free to actualize and adapt as he sees fit, and the director is thus an auteur, however, with a play, the playwright assumes that the director should stage his piece as written. Stanislavsky, although he believed it was the director’s task to unite all elements of the production, particularly in his earlier work, believed in the sanctity of the author’s text which he as the director believed he was actualizing. While Stanislavsky sometimes incurred the displeasure of a living writer, he did not deliberately alter his text. Meyerhold, unlike his mentor Stanislavsky, worked with the texts of contemporary authors much as a film director does with a script, in essence as an auteur rather than a regisseur, in which it is presumed the director may shape the text for public presentation as he sees fit. In this way, Meyerhold, surpassing the ideas of his predecessor, applied cinematic methods and principles ‘ *Simon Karlinsky, "The Early Twentieth-Century Cultural Revival and The Russian Merchant Class" in Nancy Norman Baer, ed, Theater in Revolution.-Russian Avant Garde Stage Design (1913-1935). (San Francisco: Thames and Hudson, 1991); p. 29. 5ibid„ p. 29. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 10 to his theater productions. It is through his use of Kabuki in Bubus which helped him to develop many of these cinematic principles. Meyerhold's two productions productions with Alexei Faiko, Lake Lyul ’ and The Teacher Bubus, offer a different perspective than one we scholars traditionally have of him. With its huge number of rehearsals and its desire for a unified production, Bubus in some ways was reminiscent of Meyerhold’s mentor’s work at the Moscow Art Theater; however, artistically Bubus signified a return to and perfection of many of the experiments Meyerhold had done after his work in Moscow with Stanislavsky, and in St. Petersburg before the revolution. In this production, Meyerhold employed orchestrated long pauses and music as integral parts of a production (clearly derivative of Symbolist static drama) and used stylized movement £U id costumes. Bubus, recalled Meyerhold's Petersburg productions’ elaborate system of extra-textual references that assumed a familiarity with the history of the musical pieces added to the production, and possessed a distinctly elitist bent. Many of these elements added by Meyerhold through his staging and designing of the production operated in an Aesopian sense; much as Lev Loseff describes a televised performance by a singer meaning something quite different to an audience well aware of the political history of his song, Meyerhold's productions clearly were designed to speak differently to different audiences. Beginning with Bubus we see a change in Meyerhold's creative endeavors which actively engaged both the Russian theatrical tradition and contemporary R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 11 political events. Meyerhold's coneeption of the director's role was that the production would be conceived not by the author or composer but by the director mounting the work. After 1925, he begins to sign himself as the author of the production, or the co-author of plays, even of a classic. In a return to the mood and method of his Symbolist productions, Meyerhold sought to produee productions united holistically by a single conception in the Wagnerian sense. Like opera, he wanted to include music, rhythm and stylized movement united with costume and set design. While it is common knowledge that Meyerhold experienced controversy and the world of theater in general is one Russians call a “swamp” known for gossip and sniping, I believe it is a common misconception that everyone who worked with Meyerhold, while exasperated with his character, nonetheless, conceded his brilliance or least acquiesced to his wishes. When Meyerhold began experimenting with textual boundaries of long-dead playwrights before Faiko, the shouts of protest which he encountered from the critics were de rigueur for the Soviet 1920s and for Meyerhold; but when he began to apply this same methodology to a living playwright with a living ego, Meyerhold found himself at daggers' point with far more than the critics. After this experience with Bubus, Meyerhold became far more careful in choosing authors who were more amenable to the Meyerhold method. In both the theory and practice of theater, the boundaries between play text and performance text and the role of the director with regard to the playwright's text have been traditionally fluid ones. While these R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 12 are questions of long standing, they have been the particular focus of critical literature on the theater in the past half century. Meyerhold's work, particularly during the mid 1920s, preceded the critical and theoretical vogue and simultaneously points to both the ground breaking nature of his exploration of these boundaries and its result: Meyerhold's work in these productions clearly establish him as the father of modem theater in directing just as his mentor Stanislavsky was to the systematization of acting. In his discursive writings, Meyerhold's repeated references to the conventions of Asian theater as an inspiration for his production of Bubus strikes one initially as incongmous or ingenuous. However, on closer inspection, there are many interesting parallels with the devices introduced in this production with that of one particular type of Japanese Drama, particularly the Kabuki These parallels have been overlooked by other Meyerhold scholars but merit exploration if one is to believe that the famous director had not just political but aesthetic goals. During the same time as Meyerhold’s Petersburg productions Japanese and Asian Theater grabbed the interest of many English modernist writers around the mid 1910s, particularly William Butler Yeats and Ezra Pound, as well as the attention of all of Europe and subsequently of Russia. Politically and artistically, Meyerhold's staging of Faiko's The Teacher Bubus signaled a new period of return to, alteration and re-contextualization of these earlier experiments with Asian theater which lent themselves to both aesthetic and political purposes. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 13 Though The Teacher Bubus' text might contain orthodox Communist elements such as a an eventual victory by the people armed with political rhetoric, the elaborate sets, costumes, wigs, classical music of Chopin and Lizst, many other elements of the old high culture seemed to make a louder statement than the actual words spoken by the characters. Thus, this production marks Meyerhold's departure from the overtly proletarian image he had cultivated in the early Soviet period and the reclamation, not rejection, of his pre-revolutionary work in both Symbolist and Realist theater. Re-examining Meyerhold’s productions of two of Faiko’s plays and the film that had such a pronounced effect upon Bubus provides us with a more complete conception of Meyerhold’s work in the 1920s and an opportunity to explore his unrealized experiments with Bubus as well as those which, though realized, have been forced into obscurity until now. An Unequal Partnership: A Brief Background of the Director and the Playwright A brief comparison of the biographies of the director and the playwright not only provides background but also a picture of the unequal nature of the men’s positions at the time the two productions Lake Lyul ’ and Bubus were staged. The theatrical milieu often is fertile ground for scandals and squabbles and Moscow in the 1920s certainly contained a lot of activity in this area, but even so, these two productions stand out in the amount and degree generated. Meyerhold’s biography shows him to be a part of virtually R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 14 every important theater movement of the late 19'" and early 20'" centuries and in contact with its greatest luminaries before becoming one himself. By the time he and Faiko met, Meyerhold was indubitably the second most famous person in Soviet theater, second only to his mentor Konstantin Stanislavsky. Faiko’s career on the other hand had not yet begun when he met Meyerhold and indeed his career came about because of his work with Meyerhold. In 1874, Karl Theodore Kasimir Meyerhold was bom in Penza, a provincial center south of Moscow. In 1895, Meyerhold began his first year of law school at Moscow State University but continued to work with a small theater company in Penza in the summers. At about this time, Meyerhold converted from Lutheranism to Russian Orthodoxy and changed his name to Vsevelod. In 1896, after one year at law school, Meyerhold changed his area of specialization to acting and his school to the Moscow Philharmonia. He graduated in 1898, receiving the gold medal for the best actor, sharing the honor with Olga Knipper who later became Anton Chekhov's wife. Both were invited by their teacher Vladimir Nemirovich- Danchenko to join the new Moscow Art Theater, which he was then in the process of founding with Konstantin Stanislavsky. From 1898 until 1902, Meyerhold was an important member of the Moscow Art Theater and played eighteen roles— including creating the roles of Treplev in Chekhov's ^af^Ka (The Seagull) (the play which made the theater's reputation and gave it the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 15 emblem it still uses, and Tuzenbach in TpM Cecrpu{Three Sisters.). When he was not invited to become a shareholder when the company was reformed in 1902, and because of problems with Nemirovich-Danchenko, he left the company. His disagreements with Stanislavsky were both more artistic and temporary and the two men's lives personally and artistically rejoined later. In 1902-04, Meyerhold began directing and acting in a cooperative of young actors staging roughly 170 plays in two years— spending the first season in Kherson, the second in Tiflis. In 1905, Meyerhold was invited to direct in Stanislavsky's own personally financed first Theater Studio of 1905 which attempted to discover a method of staging the new symbolist works— "to stage the unreal." Meyerhold's two productions for 1905, Maurice Maeterlinck's The Death ofTintagiles and Gerhardt Hauptmann's Schluck und Jau, were shown in dress rehearsal but never opened because Stanislavsky did not approve them and because the Revolution of 1905 caused Moscow theaters to close temporarily. From 1905-06, Meyerhold went to St. Petersburg and became heavily involved in its cutting edge literary salons, cabaret performances, and evening readings by the literary elite. Andrei Bely and others brought him into their circle expressly to formulate a new Symbolist theater based on their new ideas and theories. During the other half of season, Meyerhold continued working with his acting troupe in Penza. In 1906-7, Vera Komissarzhevskaya, the famous actress, invited Meyerhold to be the director R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 16 of her own newly formed company in St. Petersburg. Meyerhold's most important productions here ranged from Ibsen's Hedda Gabier to Maeterlinck's Sister Beatrice , Blok's Fairground Booth {Ba/iaraHHHK), Andreev's HinaHb ^e/ieeeKa {Life o f Man), Wedekind's Spring Awakening and Przybyszewski's Eternal Fairy Tale. In 1907, during several trips abroad, Meyerhold saw and was influenced by several Max Reinhardt productions in Berlin. When he returned he was dismissed by Komissarzhevskaya who replaced him with her brother Fyodor. Despite this setback, Meyerhold's position in the theater world skyrocketed. For the next ten years, from 1908-18, he was appointed director of both opera and drama at the Imperial Theater in St. Petersburg. Some of his most important productions were Moliere's Don Juan (1910) and Lermontov's MacKepajj {Masquerade) (1917). He also staged operas such as Gluck's Orpheus and Eurydice (1911) and Richard Strauss' Electra (1913). These years in Petersburg were probably more influential than any other on Meyerhold’s development as a director. Many ideas which would become hallmarks in his later career have their inception here. At the same time he held this high official position, Meyerhold experimented with "imderground" productions done under the pseudonym Dr. Dapertutto (after an E.T.A. Hofifinann tale, meaning Dr. Everywhere.) Meyerhold performed, wrote, and staged pieces at sueh cabarets as the Creseent Bay, The Comedians' Stop, and the Stray Dog. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 17 During the early to mid 1910s, Meyerhold's theatrical endeavors extended beyond Russia's borders, taking him abroad and allowing him contact and artistic collaboration with many important new trends in Western Europe. In 1912, he worked with a summer theater group in Finland and then directed Gabrielle D'Annunzio's Pisanella in Paris for Ida Rubinstein. Upon his return, from 1914-16, Meyerhold began to conduct his own studio and began his journal. Love for Three Oranges, which produced nine issues. Meyerhold briefly worked in film; in 1915 he directed and acted in the silent film. The Picture o f Dorian Gray, based upon Oscar Wilde's novel of the same name. This and another unnamed film have both been lost or destroyed. Meyerhold, as well as theater directors Nikolai Evreinov and Alexander Tairov, wished to further exploit the popularity of Wilde's works by attempting to stage his play, Salome. All of these productions were forbidden by the Tsar's censors. However, the Revolution of 1917 forever changed the censorship system, and altered Meyerhold's position forever. He soon became not only a theatrical powerhouse, but a political force as well. In 1917, Meyerhold began to work for the Theater Division of which he became the head in Petrograd in 1918-9. In 1918, he joined the Communist Party and soon after produced Vladimir Mayakovsky's MMcrepH/J Eytfup (Mystery-Bouffe) in honor of first anniversary of the revolution. In 1919, during the Civil War, Meyerhold was arrested by the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 18 Whites. After his release, in 1920-21 Meyerhold returned to Moseow to head the Theater Division of Commissariat for Enlightenment-Education & The Arts. He created the slogan "Put the October Revolution into the Theater" and continued to build his reputation as an innovator who had embraced the revolution. He opened the most important Soviet theater, RSFSR I, with Verhaeren's The Dawns. His image at this time also changed; among Meyerhold scholars this has been referred to as his "Mauser Period”. Meyerhold began to play his part as the head of the Revolutionary theater movement wearing a black leather jacket and cap and sporting a mauser strapped to his waist. In 1921, Meyerhold, or “Master” as his students called him, began his first courses in his own theater workshop and began to teach biomechanics," a science of movement and technique for stage communication important for future film directors Eisenstein and Okhlopkov, and began to work with many actors such as Erast Garin, Igor Ilinsky and Maria Babanova who would become famous and fairly constant members of his theater, as well as in the young Soviet film industry. The Magnanimous Cuckold was the first stage production in which Meyerhold applied biomechanics to the acting and constructivism to set design. The constructivist sets were designed specifically as an apparatus for the biomechanical method of acting. The bare bones approach to costume and set design consisted of unisex factory-type jumpsuits or prozodezhda R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 19 and ramps, wheels and platforms also stemmed from practical concerns— the scarcity of materials resulting from the Civil War. Among the other young actors and directors was Zinaida Raikh-Esenina who had just divorced the famous Imagist and peasant poet, Sergei Esenin with whom she had two children. Soon after, she became Meyerhold’s second wife and his future leading actress. In 1923 he staged a mass spectacle with a cast of thousands, the anti-war epic 3eMJifi Mbi6oM {Earth Rampant) and celebrated his five year jubilee as Soviet director at the Bolshoi. "Meyerhold believed in the revolution's political as well as artistic aims— coined the term “Theatrical October”— as the newly appointed head of Theater Department for the Commissariat for Enlightenment Meyerhold argued for “the creation of aesthetic forms that would contain and express the spirit of the revolution".^ Even as Meyerhold moved from his Constructivist productions and biomechanics to his work on Bubus, despite biomechanics’ basis in the machine and Taylorism, his description of them as having a dance-like quality makes even this transition more of a continuation than a break with his earlier work. He said of biomechanics that “the motions constructed on (the basis of biomechanics) are distinguished by a dansant quality. The labor process used by experienced workers always resembles the dance... ^ibid., p. 45. ’ibid., p. 48-49. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 20 Up until and during Lake Lyul in addition to holding his position of political and artistic importance, Meyerhold was also officially the main director of two theaters: The Revolution Theater {Teatr Revoliuitsii) and the theater which bore his own name. Unofficially, he was also overseeing much of the work done at The Vakhtangov Theater. His theater also conducted courses in acting and directing and it also contained a publishing house. All in all, not only was Meyerhold extremely famous and powerful, he was also almost “superhumanly” occupied with this panoply of duties when he decided to stage a virtually unknown playwright’s, Alexei Faiko’s, first major play. Alexei Mikhailovich Faiko is a name known to few Western scholars of Russian theater. Faiko was bom September 6,1893 and graduated from the Moscow Gymnasium. Other than the archives, the only source for factual information of Faiko's early biography is the introduction to Faiko's selective memoirs, Ja/wc/w Craporo Tearpa/ibiunKa {Notes o f An Old Showman.) Faiko grew up in Moscow in a family which was not itself artistic, but which was connected with some of the most famous actors of the day, largely because Faiko's maternal grandfather ovraed a well known restaurant in town. Not only did the Faikos attend many performances, their social schedule included hosting many parties and dinners for their talented friends, particularly the family's artist-friendly restaurant. Young Faiko attended a prestigious gymnasium and grew up speaking French as well as Russian. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 21 One of Alexei Faiko's earliest jobs involved him moving to the great actress Ermolova's estate and serving as tutor to her young nephew, Konstantin Zelenin. Though the young Faiko dreamed of the theater and literary studies, his parents pressured him toward a more practical career in medicine. Rudnitsky claims that as a compromise Faiko studied at and graduated from the German department at Moscow University. The opus at RGALI states that in 1912 Faiko entered the history department at Moscow State University from which he graduated in 1917. Even at the turn of the century, knowing a foreign language in Russia was still considered a practical skill. Faiko's years at the university corresponded to a very stormy time in Russia, and soon after university, both the revolution and the civil war gripped Russia. Immediately afterward, like many others of his generation, in accordance with the new political and social structures Faiko encountered difficulty because of his background, upbringing and general tumult and could not find employment commensurate with his education; he served in various civic posts, among them a security guard, a building supervisor, and eventually a translator cum diplomatic attaché thanks to a fiiend. In the late 1910s and early 20s, when Faiko was declared unfit for active military service, he began working with the military's educational- agitational theater corps as a teacher. He was delighted to be connected to theater, even in this remote fashion. He helped to organize various R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 22 performances in small military clubs; his other duties also included traveling on open flatbed trucks to see troops off to the front and to educate the populace, etc. The level of the performers' talent and qualifications varied greatly, ranging from lumpen-proletariat to future stars of the Soviet stage and cinema. Nonetheless, Faiko enjoyed the excitement and the proximity to his would-be profession, despite the often grueling schedule and conditions. He also wrote several shorts sketches and reviews for these venues. In 1921 Faiko began his career as actor, playwright, and screen writer in the Studio of Improvisation which was organized by the theater Jleryuiaft Muiub {The Bat). Although Faiko had begun his work there as an actor after its founder Nikita Baliev's emigration, Faiko also began to write, produce and direct productions there; he became one of its leaders. He began writing more lengthy and substantial plays in the early 1920s, and gained a small but significant reputation as the new Soviet theater continued to be plagued by a lack of new Soviet plays. Nonetheless, some of Faiko’s comic sketches done at The Bat at this time were attended by theater’s luminaries; particularly Konstantin Stanislavsky enjoyed them and felt that he showed promise.* After his work at the Bat where Konstantin Rudnitksy says Faiko clearly displayed “an instinct for theater”^, one of the most significant * Konstantin Rudnitsky, “Introduction,” Zapiski starogo teatral'shchika. (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1978) p. 9. ^ ibid., p. 8. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 23 productions he was involved in at this time was a production of Mayakovsky’s Mystery Bouffe. in 1921 in honor of the third anniversary of the Comintern. This production was done on a very large scale as a mass- spectacle in an almost circus-like manner. Although it was staged by Meyerhold’s Theater, Teatr RFSR I, this production was guest directed by the Ukrainian Avant-Garde director, Alexei Granovsky, and was performed in German; Faiko played the role of “the Australian.” Among its many stars was the famous actor of the Jewish State Theater Solomon Mikhoels. How and when Meyerhold and Faiko became acquainted is not entirely clear. Meyerhold makes no mention of it whatsoever. However, in addition to the previously mentioned artistic endeavor, a document exists dated September 23, 1921 in which Faiko proposes an improvisational studio at GITIS' The Bat as well as a suggested curriculum. This document contains two signatures, Faiko's and Meyerhold's.** Presumably, Faiko consulted with Meyerhold, then first Commissar of Theater, about this project. There is also an enthusiastic fan letter which exists in Meyerhold’s archive, which neither of them mentions, from Faiko dated October 18, 1922. In it he thanks Meyerhold for looking at his play. Throughout the whole letter filled with obvious, fulsome and obsequious praise, he tells * * * This play was first staged by Meyerhold in Petrograd in 1918. **RGALI f. 2205, op.l, ed. khr. 423. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 24 Meyerhold he wants to talk to him about all his impressions. In his post script he asks Meyerhold not to show this letter to anyone.’2 Faiko claims in his memoirs that Meyerhold's pupil, the future film director Vladimir Room, brought Faiko's melodrama and first major play. Lake Lyul', to Meyerhold's attention. Meyerhold was then the head of the Revolution Theater. Faiko says that rehearsals on his play were well underway before Meyerhold met him or participated in the play's rehearsal process. Lake Lyul' brought Faiko fame as staged by Meyerhold at the Theater of the Revolution. His next play. The Teacher Bubus opened Meyerhold's new theater which bore his name (The Meyerhold State Theater, GOSTiM). His next major play was EBrpatp, McKaTejib ripuK/iioaeHHM{Evgraf, The Seeker o f Adventure){\926) staged at The Moscow Art Theater's Second Studio. His last important play which brought him the greatest renown and greatest financial success was 9ejioBeK a nopripe/ieM {The Man With a Briefcase) (1928). His later plays, He6/iaroMapHaft pojib {A Thankless Role) (1932) and KoHuepT{The Concert) (1935) enjoyed more modest success. Faiko also conducted seminars on playwriting at GlTlS and worked as a director in the Moscow Dramatic Theater and The Theater of Revolution. More importantly, he wrote several screenplays for several significant early Soviet silent films, the classic Aajinra {Aelita) (1923), co- )2 RGALI f. 998, op.l, 2ed. khr. 483 Meyerhold’s personal fond.. Letter from Faiko to Meyerhold dated Oct. 18, 1922 (handwritten). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 25 written by Fyodor Otsep directed by Protozanov, and The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom (1924) also co-written by Otsep but directed by Zheliabuzhsky. His other screen writing credits include Knfiab cepe6pfiHbi(i {The Silvery Prince) (1923), Cepaue •■leTepbix {Four Hearts) (1935), B 6ypmo{Into the Storm) (1939), and Math {Mother) (1953). In 1939, Faiko was awarded the Sign of Distinction ("3H aK rioMeTa"). During World War II, he lived and worked in Tajikistan, translating many local playwrights and teaching them their craft. He returned to Moscow in 1943. In 1946, in the Moscow Theater of Drama (Mosokvskii Teatr Dramy), he staged his new play, B cernx MoSpoaereJin {In the Benefactor’ s Clutches) which later was renamed KanMTdH KocrpoB {Captain Kostrov). In 1949, the Ermolova Theater, staged his play, HftTb rioMpyr{Five Girlfriends,) which was co-authored by Ts.S. Solodar. Faiko also composed libretti for opera such as Into the Storm (mentioned above as a screenplay), based upon the novel by E. Birt, OMUHonecTBo {Loneliness) and Mother based upon works of the same titles by Gorky. In 1951, Faiko wrote a dramatic composition, JJopora cBo6oabi {The Road o f Freedom) based upon the novel by G. Fast. In 1957, Faiko completed his last major play. He coTBopn ce6e xyMBpa {Don’ t Create Idols For Yourself)) also dedicated to the Soviet intelligentsia. His archive at the Russian State Archive for Literature and Art (RGALI) although finished in 1961 remained closed until 1988. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 26 Chapter 1 provides the argument, background, and biographies of Meyerhold and Faiko. Chapter 2 examines the key scholarship on these two productions—the major insights, gaps, and flaws. Chapter 3 discusses Lake Lyul’: Meyerhold’s experimentation with devices adapted from cinema, electrical gadgetry and fashions from the West. The chapter includes an extensive plot summary and a survey of the response the production touched off in the press which helped make it a smash hit. Chapter 4 provides a close examination of the movie which affected the Meyerhold/Faiko relationship and the production of Bubus. It traces the confusing series of events: while in rehearsal for Bubus many problems arose—Raikh received the lead role written for Maria Babanova. Meyerhold discovered the disloyalty of the playwright and lead actor when the film. The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom, was released. The quarrel between Ilinsky and Meyerhold became both a scandal mid a legal matter. Ilinsky left and then was legally barred from Meyerhold’s theater. The chapter traces the series of scandals and different accounts of them. It also compares the movie’s text to its targeted subjects in order to evaluate the validity of the claims made about it. Chapter 5 discusses the second Faiko play, Bubus for which Meyerhold designed an elaborate explanatory program for his audience to prepare them for his complex experimental production. It involved a new style of acting, a new method of using live music played by a concert pianist as well as Lenin citations flashing on screens above the stage. The censors demanded R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 27 changes on the grounds that particular elements were politically harmful. In response to external pressure from critics and dissatisfied audiences the production was significantly shortened. Because of the changes, Faiko renounced responsibility for his own play. The chapter includes a summary and explanation of the tangled events surrounding the production, the translation of Meyerhold’s program, a plot summary of Faiko’s play, a brief comparison of the two, and a survey of the critics’ response and role in the transformation of the play. Chapter 6 explores Meyerhold’s interest in Kabuki and its importance for Bubus. This chapter first demonstrates that Meyerhold’s interest in Kabuki began before the Revolution, spurred by the fame of the actress, Sada Yakko. The chapter also compares the devices of Kabuki with Meyerhold’s production of Bubus; thus demonstrating that Bubus was indeed his attempt to develop a “Soviet Kabuki.” Chapter 7 is the conclusion. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 28 Chapter 2: A Survey of Relevant Critical Material The critical material about Vsevelod Meyerhold is not only daunting in its volume but also appears in a panoply of forms. Despite a veneer of the polemical language of the period, several of the books and monographs by Soviet authors written during or close to the period at hand (1927-1931) seemed to grasp the significance of Meyerhold’s work on the Faiko productions as well as or better than the majority of subsequent scholarship, in both the Soviet Union/Russia and the West for a variety of reasons. Later Soviet scholarship— (theatrical histories, personal reminiscences and biographies written after Meyerhold's disappearance and disgrace in 1940 but before the late 1980s)— either omit him or mention the most basic facts that these productions occurred and recount almost nothing about Faiko. These later Soviet pieces are less influenced by fear of reprisals and much more so by a lack of available information; this is something which also flawed much of the Western scholarship until the 1980s when fear disappeared and long-lost or forgotten materials began to appear and/or become available, but many gaps and misconceptions remained. What I have tried to do is to take advantage of the loosening of official and unofficial restrictions to explore a particularly acrimonious, yet important period of Meyerhold's creative and personal life that has been virtually ignored, obscured and unwittingly or deliberately forgotten. Meyerhold’s productions of two plays by Alexei Faiko are an area of scholarship that needs not only R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 29 examination but also re-examination. The best sources I would argue are, in chronological order; Gvozdev, Alpers, and Rudnitsky from the Soviet Union and Hoover, Symons, and Braun from the West. Lastly, Turovskaia, one of the best sources on the Meyerhold/Faiko productions, does not directly write about either, but about Meyerhold’s actress, Maria Babanova. Gvozdev’s monograph, despite its publication date of 1927, so soon after these productions, offers amazing insight and probably is the best at placing Meyerhold’s Soviet productions in perspective of his larger oeuvre. Despite digressions into enthusiastic Communist rhetoric typical for the period, this work is amazingly clear, succinct and insightful—describing Meyerhold’s style and method as a director probably better than any other work; moreover, Gvozdev does so with far less preamble than other authors then or since. In addition to citing the importance and difficulty that Meyerhold had in finding suitable plays and new Soviet playwrights, Gvozdev recognizes the importance of Bubus to the evolution of Meyerhold’s body of work probably more so than anyone except for Boris Alpers three to four years later. In discussing the hallmarks of Meyerhold’s theater, Gvozdev points to two problems, which Meyerhold recognized soon after the revolution: that there was “nothing in common between the old theater and the new R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 30 audience.”' The new Soviet theater going public was not the same as the pre revolutionary one and thus, could not be treated as such, and “first and foremost, [Meyerhold] established a new relationship between the theater and the playwright.”^ Gvozdev discusses as a general phenomenon what came to be the root cause of the Meyerhold method and Meyerhold/Faiko conflict; the director’s right in essence “to create” his own text Ifom a play. Gvozdev goes as far as to say that the lack of contemporary repertoire indeed caused or at least served as the catalyst for Meyerhold more actively redacting plays rather than merely waiting for a new dramaturgy or playwright to fall into his lap: Teaxp M M . Mei?lepxonbfla He cxan flowMflaxbcn, noKa apaMaxypr coaaacx ribecy, coaByMHyic coBpeMeHHocxM. Oh caM Bsnn na ce6n M H M U M axM B y m cxan cbommm coGcxBeHHbiMM xeaxpanbHbtMM cpeacxBaMM sawxaxb H O B b iM ayx B cxapoe xeno. [. . . ] Teaxp Bann na ce6n ponb ApaMxypra m xbm caM W M m pacKpwBan nyxM k hoboM ApaMaxypxMM, yKaausan eM xeMW m npweMU o<|>opM neH M n.3 The Meyerhold Theater didn’t try to wait for a playwright to create a new work which reflected contemporary life. It took the initiative to became its own theatrical means in itself with which to breathe new life into an old body.. .The theater itself took on the role of playvraght and itself showed the way to a new type of dramaturgy, demonstrating its themes and devices of its formulation. Gvozdev specifically lists the plays that Meyerhold had to significantly adapt; he puts Bubus first among these weak and/or flawed works: ' A.A. Gvozdev, Teatr imeni Fs. Meierkhol’ da (1920-1926). (Leningrad: Academia, 1927): p. 12. - ibid., p. 13. 3 ibid., pp. 13-14. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 31 Ewiy n p w u i/io c b flO B O JibC T B O B axbC fl cjia6biM M n b e c a iv m , B p o A e « B y 6 y c a » <Da(*lKo, n e p e f le jiK a M n C T a p u x a p a v i ( « C w e p T b T a p e /ib K M H a » , « / l e c » ) , n fle o jio rn M e c K H wywwMi/i npoM aB eaeH M B iviM B p o a e «B eA H K O A y u iH o ro P o r o H o c e u a » (D p a H u y a a K p o M e jw H r a m/ im w e n o cp eacT B eH H b iM M KOMnHJIBUMBMM M3 paSH blX pOM aHOB (« fl.E .» )'* It [Meyerhold’s Theater] had to contend with weak plays such as Faiko’s Bubus, redoing old plays {The Death ofTarelkin, The Forest), ideologically alien works such as Francois Cromelynck’s The Magnanimous Cuckold or compilations from various novels {D.E.) Gvozdev categorizes Meyerhold’s experiments in the early Soviet period (1920-1923) as an attempt to strip away the strictly decorative function of set design and pare it down to those elements that either assisted or highlighted the performance of the actor. Gvozdev points out that after 1923 Meyerhold added some of these elements back but for a different and new effect: he mentions complex systems of lighting and sound effects both referred to as “m ontages,and he began to use music in an entirely new manner, not as mere background accompaniment, particularly in Lyul ’ and Bubus: B M ecT O M y sb iK a n b H O ro «B K K OM naHM M eHTa» C T a p o r o r e a r p a — noA B M n o cb peB O Jib B ep H b te B b ic rp e n b i m n e r a p A b i, luyiM w ioT ouM K na m a 6 T o w io 6 M n n a p y w e M H a n n a n b 6 a , uiyM 6 o m 6 M « a n e K T p o c H a p n A O B » B S A yw anM H a A w 6w T ew eH M e A ePlcTB M n, pasMewBBbiBan ero m o ia h u m m aKueH TaM M . HapnAy c s t m m u in o n o c T p o e H M e c n e K T a K J in n a M y s u K e , K opeH H biM o G p a a o M BM AOMSM eHnn n p e w n e e n o n o w e H M e ee b A paM aT M uecK O M T e a rp e .® Instead of the musical “accompaniment” of the old theater— revolver shots and fireworks, the noises of motorcycles and ^ ibid., p. 14. [D.E. means Daesh’ Evropu.] 5 ibid., p..21. 6 ibid., p. 21. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 32 automobiles, gunfire, the noise of bombs and “electric gadgets’ were dreamed up to accompany the course of the action, fixing the boundaries with their powerful accents. This array suited the conception of the play set to music [Bubus], by its very essence it transformed its former position in the dramatic theater. Lastly, Gvozdev recognizes Bubus as Meyerhold’s attempt to create a new form of drama based upon the synthesis of music and drama, “ . . . B o n p o c 0 HOBbix ÿ o p M a x iviyawK anbH oiÿi K oivienuM , a a a a H u e , n o ja B e p r u i e e c n c n e u k ia n b H O M y M ayneH H to b p a S o T e H a n « B y 6 y c o M » .” ^ (...the question about new forms of musical comedy were exposed by the special study of the problem during the work on Bubus.'’ ’ ) Although Gvozdev could not precisely define this new synthesis, only a few years later, another of Meyerhold’s close associates, the erudite Boris Alpers did so. Alpers, a critic and lifetime fiiend of Meyerhold, in his 1931 monograph on Meyerhold, The Theater o f the Social Mask, was among the first to note the importance of Meyerhold’s confusing and controversial The Teacher Bubus, simultaneously citing it as a clear departure from the works of his recent past and the beginning of a new period, while also perceptively identifying it as a return to the experiments made during his tenure at the Imperial Theater in St. Petersburg before the revolution. Despite its lack of popularity with the public, even so soon after the production, Alpers nonetheless decisively cites Bubus as an essential and monumental work in ^ ibid., p. 22. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 33 Meyerhold’s oeuvre worthy of more than a brief mention and a mere eouple of pages that so many other later critics devote to it. Alpers’ Theater o f the Social Mask unequivocally recognizes Meyerhold's staging of Alexei Faiko's The Teacher Bubus as groundbreaking and as a major turning point in Meyerhold's career. Even so soon after its production six years earlier, Alpers recognized that critics hostile to The Teacher Bubus failed to notice its connection to his earlier theatrical experiments. He implies that their oversight was attributable to their lack of cultural perspective and by their lack of experience and education: B « B y 6 y ce» Mei?iepxonbfl BocnponaBOflUT b yBennMeHHbix M aciuTa6ax cbom neT ep6yprcK ne CTyflMPiHbie nocTaHOBKM 1915-16 roflOB b 6enoM KonoHHOM a a n e Ha BopoflMHCKoPi. KoHeMHo, xen ep b B ce a r c cjaenaHO c GonbuiHM pasMaxoM H c GojibUiHM BHeuiHHM B e/iM K oneniieM .[. . . ] TonbKO t o t , KTO He B w aen paGoTbi M ef^epxc/ibfla neTepG yprcK oro nepw ofla, TonbKO to t npoR aeT mmmo sto to paanTenbH oro cxoflCTBa «ByG yca» c o CTyflnC*iHbiMii naHTOMHMaMM 1915-16 roAOB, n ep w oaa paGoTbi M eA epxonbaa naju «MacKapaxioM».^ In Bubus Meyerhold recreates his Petersburg studio productions of 1915-116 in the white columned hall on Borodinskii on a larger scale. Of course, now its all done on a grand scope with great outward amazement. [... ] Only those who did not see Meyerhold’s work of his Petersburg period would overlook what a close similarity there is between Bubus and the studio pantomimes of 1915-16, the period in which Meyerhold worked on Masquerade. * B. Alpers, Teatr sotsial’ noi maski, Teatral'rtye ocherki v dvukh tomakh. (Moscow; Iskusstvo, 1977) I: p. 70. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 34 Alpers points out such similarities as Meyerhold’s utilization of orchestrated long pauses and music as integral parts of a production (clearly derivative of Symbolist static drama), stylized costumes, elaborate make-up, and hyper choreographed movement. Bubus, like Meyerhold's Symbolist productions, also contained an elaborate system of references to other works of Russian literature, important cultural Russian figures, and presumed an in- depth knowledge of the history of the musical pieces added to the production—all of which lent a distinctly elitist bent to the production, in short a marked contrast to his more recent appeal to a wider audience. However, while many of these elements added by Meyerhold through his staging operated in a truly symbolic sense which presumed such things as a multiplicity of meaning, unlike the Symbolists these statements carried political meaning as well. Beginning with Bubus, Meyerhold's productions began to operate more deliberately on at least two planes at once, with one foot in the political arena and another in the artistic. Meyerhold issued a detailed explanatory program, which was given to the audience at Bubus, in it he describes the characters as “social masks.” Alpers’ entire monograph on Meyerhold is entitled the The Theater o f the Social Mask. Its first paragraph mentions Bubus as integral to M eyerhold’s development as a director.^ Indeed, it is probably Alpers who was the first 9 ibid., vol. I, p. 30. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 35 Meyerhold scholar to understand the depth of Meyerhold’s bold experiment with Bubus. He was able to find value in it according to its artistic goals rather than dismiss it because of its lack of popularity with its audience or attacks upon it from semi-literate or politically bombastic critics of the day. He also clearly pinpoints and clarifies why Meyerhold’s audience’s expectations were fhistrated, hence providing a convincing reason for its inability to gain popularity: H m m to, H e Morno 6biTb 6onee H eoK M flaH H biM ann apM Teafi TeaTpa Me^iepxcnbaa, m bm noneneHi/ie na ero cueHe a w M o P i cesoHa 1924/25 roaa cTpaH H om « K O M eflM M na M yawKe» non H aaeaH H eM «Y M H Teab 5y6yc». Bce OKaaanocb «Hao6opoT» B 3TOM cneKTaKne. HencTOBO SopoBUiMpicn npoTMS KpacMBOOTH I / I acTeTHavia na coBeTCKoPi c u e n e , M eAepxonbaoBCKM A reaxp na stot paa coaaan neoG biH aPiH o aneraHTHyio B H eu iH O C T b cneKTaK/in c yK /ioH O M b caaoHHyio w aw cK aH H O C T b. OSu m m o oT K p b iB aB u iM A b c io cBoio cueny ao Konua nepea BarnnaoM aio6onbiTCTByiomero apMTenn— aaecb xeaxp enepBue aa M H orwe roaw sepHyncn K aaM acK M poB aH H O M y naB i/uibO H y: nnoT H biP i nonyKpyr na M acT bix 6aM 6yK O Bbix nanoK aaMKnya nnomaaKy aeAcTBMn O T Bcem ocTaabHom cueHbi. OxKaaaBuiM Aca or aoK opauM M , B «By6yce» reaxp K aK 6yaxo BepHyncn k nem , B U C xpoM S 6acceAHbi m (|)O H x a H b i, KpyrauA akiBan, ycxaH O B M B y nopxanbHoA a p K M aepeBflHHyio npktcxpoAKy— M acckiBH yio BxoaHyio aaepb. npaaaa, Bce arc H e 6bino aeKopauneA B o B b iM H O M cMbicne. 3aecb ne 6bino nwcaH bix xoacxoB, Bce 6bi/io caenaHo na Hacxonmero iwaxepnana. Ho axa oGcxanoBKa cneKxaKJin, ero BemecxBeHHoe o(|>opM neH M e onenb tt/iano noxoannn na KOHcxpyKum o BpeweH «PoroHoceua» nan na o6opyaoBaHne B em aiviM m npn6opaiviM «Jleca» A oxM acxM «H.E.». B «By6yce» onpeaeawaocb aBHoe cxpeviaeHMe k cxaxM M ecK O M y aoKopaxABHOM y neAaawy na cuene, cymecxByiomeMy caMocxoaxeabHO, bhb aaBAC A M ocxA ox aeAcxByioiaMX cpeaw nero aK xepoB.*® Nothing could have been more unexpected for the audience of Meyerhold’s theater than the appearance on its stage of the strange “comedy set to music” called The Teacher Bubus during the winter season of ibid., vol.. I, p. 68. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 36 1924-25. Everything seemed “backward” in this production. Having furiously fought against beauty and aestheticism on the Soviet stage, this time Meyerhold’s theater created work with an unusually elegant appearance that leaned toward the luxury of a salon. Typically, the entire stage was completely visible to the gaze of the curious spectators—here, the theater for the first time in many years returned to a masked pavilion; a solid half circle of bamboo poles closed off the place of action from the rest of the stage. Having formerly rejected decoration, in Bubus the theater seemed to return to it, with its constructed bridges and fountains, a circular sofa, and ending with a massive door underneath a large wooden arch. While it is true all of this was not decoration in the typical sense. Here nothing was on painted canvas but [everything] was made from actual materials. But for this aspect of the production, its mis-en-scene little resembled that of the time of Cuckold. The props and costumes did not resemble The Forest and only partly D.E. Bubus strove to create a clearly static decorative picture on the stage which independently existed apart from the actors which moved through it. Alpers is also the first to take seriously Meyerhold’s fascination with Japanese theater traditions, which was particularly important to Bubus. Alpers felt that throughout his career, Meyerhold's theatrical endeavor always was a theater of masks, one that depicted generalized types rather than individual characters. He based this upon Meyerhold's long-standing interest in the masked theater traditions of commedia dell'arte, the Japanese Noh and Kabuki. Alpers explained Meyerhold’s intererst in many ancient theatrical traditions because they used theater for more than entertainment purposes. Alpers’ definition isolated a mask’s ability to appeal on a universal rather than specific level : R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 37 Tearpa/ibHafl MacKa, KaK npaBH/io, o6biM H O BbtpawaeT oKocTeHeHwe counajibHoro Tuna, yrepio k iM kiHAkiBM Aya/ibHbix MepT, Ae/iaioiukix ero eme w kiB bivi jii/iL iG M , arc npeflejibHyio cxeMaTaaaumo n o6mHocTb. Ona Bceraa npoTMBOcTonT xapaKxepy m jim H M 3 u ie(* i ero CTyneHM -HiaHpoBoA ((inrype^' The theatrical mask, as a rule, typically consists of a solidified social type stripped of individualized characterization, turning it into a human personality reduced to schematization and general characteristics. It is always in contrast to a character or its lowest form—a generic figure. Furthermore, Alpers noted that Bubus ’ utilization of slowed movement rather than the acrobatics used in the productions immediately preceding Bubus was borrowed fi’ om Asian theater traditions. The use of mime progressed further to still poses and figures, which he used later in his more successful productions. Nikolai Volkov’s two-volume study of Vsevelod Meyerhold in many ways reflects the fate of its subject; two volumes were completed by 1929, the last and third projected volume, intended to cover Meyerhold’s Soviet productions from 1917-29 was never written. Volkov’s missing third volume eerily demonstrates the shift against Meyerhold, which picked up momentum in official circles around this time, reaching a horrible crescendo over the next decade with the loss of his theater and his life. The end of volume two seems to introduce the ideas which presumably Volkov was to develop vis-à-vis the productions of the 1920s. Though discussing ibid., vol. I, p. 102. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 38 Meyerhold’s productions in late 1916 and early 1917, Volkov picks out elements that also play central roles in his production of Bubus, such as the importance of costume, stage design, the curtain, and a special attention to the composition of the text.'^ In the penultimate paragraph of volume two, Volkov makes a statement on the importance of music which seems particularly relevant to Meyerhold’s work later on the Faiko productions: MysbiKB Boe Gonbiae n Gonbiue onpenenneT pewMccypy Mei^iepxonbfla. He TonbKO b onepe, ho m b flpawe oh Tpe6yeT ot aKTepa noflMMHeHnn cBoePi wrpw viysbiKa/ibHOMy conpoBowneHHio. UpaiviaTMHecKMPi aKTep, no MeAepxonbay, Ao/iwen omymarb ce6n BKniOM eHHNM B C T I/IX M IO MyaUKa/lbHblX PM TM O B , CTporo G ornacyn xapaKTep cbomx ABM M eHM A c saKOHOMepHbiM TeMBHneM MysbiKanbHoro <t>oH a. ripeMbepa «MacKapa^a» b (|>eBpane 1917 rofla flBJifleTCfl MxoroM Ann onpoAenennoro UM KJia M C K aH M A MePiepxonbAa.’^ More and more music defines Meyerhold’s directing. He demands of his actors that they subordinate their acting to musical accompaniment, not only in opera but also in drama. According to Meyerhold, the dramatic actor must feel himself included in the musical rhythm, strictly making the character of his movements correspond with the orderly flow of the musical background. The premiere of Masquerade in February 1917 is the result of this specific cycle of Meyerhold’s quest. One cannot rule out that those who knew Meyerhold personally and/or saw this production seem to grasp Bubus ’ merits better than later scholars who lacked o f access to both the production and to those who knew it. Certainly Nikolai Volkov, Meierkhol’ d. Tom II (I908-I9I7). (Moscow: Academia, 1929): pp. 475- 480. He particularly focuses on Meyerhold’s production o f Lermontov’s Masquerade. ibid., p. 490. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 39 with regard to the value of Bubus, Gvozdev, Alpers and Volkov bear this out. Despite the fact that more than thirty years have elapsed since its publication, Konstantin Rudnitsky's Pemmcep Mefiiepxomjj {Meyerhold the Director) remains one of the best sources in any language on this subject. No work is as comprehensive and as facile with the context. For its time (published under Brezhnev) it is amazingly non-doctrinaire and untainted by political padding and avoids lies and politically clichéd thinking. Moreover, unlike the vast majority of quality Soviet and recent Russian researches on Meyerhold which still tend to be purely descriptive/historical, Rudnitsky's monograph contains analysis of unparalleled quality: macro analysis in particular which places a production or an event within the context of Meyerhold's development as a director. While Rudnitsky includes biographical detail, this is not another biography of Meyerhold—such detail is included only to elucidate his professional choices and development. What makes Rudnitsky’s work unique stems from the fact that he includes his evaluation of a particular critic or scholar’s point of view, bias, etc. He alone offers otherwise lost or hidden information about relevant contextual matters that have either been unwittingly or deliberately forgotten. While he presents many pieces of the puzzle and answers to questions about the Faiko/Meyerhold collaboration not given anywhere else, the picture he presents is nonetheless an incomplete one. Rudnitsky’s work omits the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. scandal and enmity which arose during Bubus between its author and director and its effect on the production and on both men’s careers. Rudnitsky also seems to understand better than anyone else Meyerhold’s problem of repertoire in a broader theatrical context. He explains particularly well both the fascination with and strange adaptation of German expressionist plays by Meyerhold during the early 1920s. He insightfully points out that while these works were clearly anti-bourgeois and cutting edge, their main themes were often at odds with goals of “Red October”—in particular the themes of the individual being alienated from the masses, and the rage against the machine: XapaKTepHO, OflHaKO, mto ocHOBHbie motubu HeiweuKoü aKcnpeccMOHMCTKom npaMw Ha coBCTecKi/ix cuenax Macxo BwpBopaHMBanwcb HansHaHKy. C rpax nepea BaGyHTOBaBweMcn TonnoM OMeHnncn npocnaaneMMewi peBonioiiMOHHbix Macc. Teiwia TparwHecKoro oflMHOHecTBa He noHaxHoro HaponoM BOfla xpaKxoBanacb mpohmm6ckm, m K O H <|>nnK X Mewjuy HaponoM h nwHHOcxwo peuianca b nonbay napona. HaKOHBU, xeivia HenaBwcxM k Mauii/ine npexepneaana cawiyto pasHxenbHyio MexaMop<|)03y: nbecw aKcnpeccHOHMCxoB CX aB M U M C b B K O H CX pyK X M BM CX O M O^OpMneHMM, M nio6oBaHi/te Mauinnepi/iei;^, BcecwnbHoA Mombio xexHMKM OKaabiBanocb en ea nu ne rnasHUM coflepwaHMeM cneKxaKneRj'^ Characteristically, however, the basic motifs of German Expressionistic drama on the Soviet stage often were turned inside out. The fear of the raging masses gave way to the glorification of the revolutionary masses. The theme of the individual’s tragic and incomprehensible alienation from others ironically became the conflict between the people versus the individual which was decided in the favor of the people. Finally, the theme of the rage against the machine underwent the most marked 40 Konstantin Rudnitsky, (Moscow: Nauka, 1979)321. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 41 metamorphosis—Constructivists whose fascination with machinery and the wholehearted power of technology ended up being the main focus of the productions staged the plays of the Expressionists. Rudnitsky also speaks of the transition in Russian theater during the early 1920s from crude works designed only for political purposes to ones that were centered on entertainment. For this reason he provides a context and background to evaluate Meyerhold’s productions of this period. Finally, Rudnitsky explains Meyerhold’s predicament: in order to retain the new theater-going public, Meyerhold needed to both educate and entertain. So in order to combine these two things—the political and the popular— Meyerhold needed a new type of contemporary drama: nnaKBT 6onbuie He HHTepecoBana ny&nwKy. [ ... ] Ere nonwTMHecKMM TeivinepaMeHT b 9TM X ycjioBMflx M O P nonHocTbK) BwpaawTb ce6n TonbKO B coBpeivieHHOiÿi npaivie.i^ The public was no longer interested in crude political drama, and especially the Foregger-type did not suit Meyerhold. In such an environment, Meyerhold’s political temperament could only completely be expressed in contemporary drama. As discussed earlier, Meyerhold’s work with the German Expressionists did not prove to be as fruitful material for his theater’s repertoire. He began searching for young Soviet playwrights to provide this new type of drama. It is precisely the confluence of circumstance which Rudnitsky points to as the reason for Meyerhold picking the unknown Faiko’s first play: Bot Tyr TOT momoht, Korna MePiepxonbn 6wn ywe yTOMnen HeGnaronapnoM paGoToB TeaTpa PeBomouHM 15 ibid., p. 321. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 42 Haû SK C npeC C M O H M C T C K M M M flpawaMM (KOTOpbie ycnexa He npwHocwnwX noflemicfl MOJioaoA flpaMTypr AjieKcePi (t> a(^ K O co ceoeR nepeoR nbecoR «Oaepo Jlio/ib»4^ At the Revolution Theater, at the very moment when Meyerhold was drowning in fruitless work on Expressionist plays (which brought him no success), a young playwright, Alexei Faiko, appeared with his first play. Lake LyuV. Rudnitsky characterizes Faiko’s play as the embodiment of its time despite its lack of potential as a classic: “«Oaepo Jlionb» 6bino caMUM HenocpeflCTBeHHbiM oGpaaoiw CBnaano c pyccKoR cwTyauweR 20-x roflOB.”^ '^ (Lake Lyul ’ was the work most connected to the situation in Russian in the 1920s.) Rudnitsky astutely points out that the play’s success stemmed from the fact that the public adored a look into a NEPman’s existence and the wildness of the new-moneyed and corrupt class, more than the fact that this was a compelling piece of theater literature: fepoR 3 T0 R nbecw A htoh flpi/iM Bwxoflnn na cueny KaK BonnomeHMe msmtw HanwaHHOB o ronoBOKpywMTenbHOM, nerKO aaxBaMeHHOM 6 oraTCTBe, 0 6 «yflOBonbCTBnnx», nonyneHHwx ubhoR npennpMHMMMMBooTi/i. A htoh flpM M 6 wn co6na3HTenbHWM, m , nano oKasarb TanaHTnnBo oMepeflHWM BonnomeHH8 M hx waeana [. . . ] To, M To AneKceR (haRKO— BeponxHO, Bnonne RCK P6 H H 0 — HaawBan «MHûRBMflyann3M0M» AHTona ripHMa, Ha caMOM none 6wno hotkrm xyAowecTBeHHUM BonnomeHRBM HsnMancKoro Mfleana: «XoTb Mac, na moR!»i* The hero of this play, Anton Prim, appeared on the stage as the embodiment of the NEPman’s dreams of head-spinning, easily seized wealth— the joys received '6 ibid., p. 321. 17 ibid., p. 322. ibid., p. 322. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 43 and the values of such enterprise. Anton Prim was the alluring and, one must say, talented latest embodiment of such a person’s ideals [•••] That which Alexei Faiko probably referred to as the“individualism” of Anton Prim, in actuality was the definitive artistic embodiment of the NEPman’s ideal: “If only for an hour, it’s all mine!” Rudnitsky, unlike those who either unfairly attack or praise his talent, accurately assesses that Faiko’s play’s success stemmed from timing above all else. He gives Faiko credit for capturing the spirit of the moment: flMHaMMMecKan, xnecTKan, bwcTpan MenonpaMa 0aRKO Bo6pana b ce6n m ooTpyio cioweTHOCTb nwHKepTOHOBCKoR nuTepaxypbi, u i onwx ywe cjiowiiBUjerocn b xo speMn KWHonexeKXMBa. (baAKo nonuxancn noflM M H U X b axy «xexHUKy» cbomm ue/iBM, H O ona ero nepe6opona. nepe6opona rnaBHbiM o6pa30M noxoMy, mxo (D aA K O onepwpoBan anecb HeanaeMbiM, BUM biuineHHUM MaxepHanoM, w H <M 3H eH H an KOHKpexHocxb B peM BH M , Korna nwcanacb Rbeca, npopbiBaJiacb b nocxpoeHwa npaviaxypra HeaaBM CM M o ox ero bojim.^^ Faiko’s dynamic, biting, fast melodrama had absorbed the brisk-moving gripping plot style of Pinkerton-type literature and the experience of detective movies that already existed at the time. Faiko tried to subordinate these “techniques” but they took control of him. These techniques at the time Faiko used when he was writing the play were largely unknown imaginary material but the concrete reality of life ripped into the creativity of the playwright, independent of his own will. Lastly, beyond providing reasons for the Meyerhold/Faiko collaborations, Rudnitsky also understands much of the major significance of their second work together. The Teacher Bubtis, and acknowledges the 19 ibid., p. 323. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 44 importance of Alpers’ monograph Tearp Couna/ibHoPi MacKn{The Theater o f the Social Mask) to understanding it. Although he concedes that Alpers tries to force all of Meyerhold’s work into one formula, he agrees with him on the importance of Bubus for Meyerhold’s development as a director: 3 T O —KpHTMWeCKeCKMPI MOMeHT. M 6o B nepecneKTMse BoaHUKaeT— c HewaGewHOCTbio!— BTopweHwe H8 TeppnTopmo T earp a npaiviwx W M 3H6HHW X cooTBeTCTBMB, TeaTpa nci/ixojiorMMecKoro. M , cjiejaoBaTe/ibHO, BOSHUKaeT Bonpoc KapflHHa/ibHoPi BawHOCTM: cnoco6HO /1M 6yaeT wcKyccTBO ycnoBHoro TeaTpa coxpaHHTb Ha aToPt «yywoM» TeppMTopww C B O M cpeflCTBa BbipaaMTeubHocTM, cBoio o6pa3Hyio CTpyKTypy? M/in ncHxonorimecKMPi TeaTp H3HyTpM 3 aan aaeeT yc/ioBHbiM, noflMMHMT e ro o eée? Bonpoc M O W H O 6biJio 6bi <|)opiviyni/ipoBaTb w T3K: B03M0WHbl JIM HOBWe— H3 6330 yCJlOBHOrO TeaTpa— <()opM bi peanMaivia? X oT A B n o c n e a o B a B w e m B O K ope n o c j ie «Oaepo Jlio jib » nocT aH O B K e noBoM n b e c w A. (DaMKO «YMMTe/Tb By6yc» (23 BHBapa 1925 rofla) MCKyccTBO couMa/ibHoM M 3CKM oiue nwTajiocb oTCOBTb C B O M npoBa Ha cymecTBOBaHMo, ho nonWTKM 3TM 6wJ1 M AOBOJIbHO pO0KM M M M HywflaJiMCb— 3T0 MyBCTBOBaji MePlepxoJibfl— B ycMAOHHom noflflepwKe.^o This is a critical moment— in hindsight one can unavoidably see this-the invasion of the theater’s territory, the theater of the psychological with life directly. Out of this a question of cardinal importance arises: will the art of the “uslosvnyi” theater be able to preserve the means of expression with its structuring of images on this “alien” territory or will the psychological theater overcome the “uslovnyi” and tailor it to itself? One could frame the question thus: Could new forms of realism be created on the foundations of “uslovnyi” theater? However, in the rush after Lake Lyul ’ to stage the new play by A. Faiko, The Teacher Bubus (January 23, 20 ibid., p. 326. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 45 1925), the art of the social mask still had not managed to solidify its rules, although the attempts toward this were suffieiently timid but necessary, Meyerhold sensed this with a greater intensity. Rudnitsky also concurs with Alpers that Meyerhold’s production of Bubus was a change from his recent productions both in tempo and in use of the space: Bee, 683 M C K /iioM eH M n, nocnepeBontouwoHHwe cneKTaKJiM Me^kepxonbna Gwnw ycKopeHHUMn, fli/iH aM M M H faiM M . fly/ibc ero MCKyocTBa 6bin yMameHHHM , nHoma jinxopaflOMHbiM. B «BySyc» no cueHG paajiMJiocb MenaHxonnMecKoe cnoKoRcTBMe. Bojiee Toro, BnepBue nocne MHorojieTHero nepepuBa MeAepxonbaa He noHaaoôwnocb Gonbtue eecTw neRcTBwe na pasHwx «arawax» K O H O T pyK U M M m H e aaxoTe/iocb Bbixoni/iTb sa npenenw TpaflMUMOHHoro cueHMMecKoro nopTana.^i Without exception all of Meyerhold’s productions since the Revolution had been fast-moving and dynamic. The pulse of his art was quickened, and sometimes even feverish. In Bubus melancholic placidity washed over the stage. Moreover, for the first time after a hiatus of many years, Meyerhold did not need to conduct the action on various “levels” of construction and did not feel like leaving the boundaries of the traditional scenic proscenium. Rudnitsky attributes these changes to Meyerhold’s experimentation with pre acting, including the covering of the stage with a carpet to muffle sounds of the movement so as not to disturb the elaborate musical score. CKopee, oGcTaHOBKa a ra cnywmia coBcew mhoP i uenw. Ona ynoGna Buna n/m onuTOB b oBnacTM «npejawrpbi»— HOBoro yB^eweHMn MeGepxonbaa, KOTopbie B «ByGyce» Gbuio onpoGoBano^z 21 ibid., p. 328. 22 ibid., p. 328. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 46 Most likely these conditions served a completely different purpose. They suited experimentation with predigry, Meyerhold’s new object of fascination which he was trying out in Bubus. Rudnitsky also offers valuable commentary on Meyerhold’s own often confusing explanations for his work: TeopeTMMecKne BHKuaflKM m fleKuapaunn Mei?lepxojibfla Bcerna 6bmn 6ojiee muh MBHee npi/l6/1M 3M TeJ1bH bl. He06X0flM M 0CTb cbinaTb B Teopnio nepeu nonMTMwecKoM TepMUHonoruM eme aanyTHBana fleno. CyTb we npnewta, npuweHHoro b «5y6yce», cocTonua b tom, mto naysbi McnousoBanacb flJin naH TM M M M M M eC K O rO M M M U M eC K O rO noKaaa aKTepcKoro oTHOiueHun k oSpaay. noH A TM K ) «nonreKCT», poflUBtueMycn b cTGHax XyflowecTBeHHoro jeaxpa, Me(*iepxonbflOBCKafl «npeawrpa» npoTMBO- nocTaBJinna mto-to Bpoae «KOHrpTeKCTa». 3x0 6biua nonwxKa BoRxw b ncMXonormo mane, cpeacxBaMM nanxoMMMbi ii mmmmkm npojaeMOH- CTMpoaaTb ayujeBHbie flBnweHun nepcoHawa, k3k 6bi KypcM BO M M o6o3HaMaxb npemae, m6m nepcoHaw npon3Hecex cboio pen/inKy.23 The theoretical explications and declarations of Meyerhold were always just more or less approximations. It was necessary to sprinkle the pepper of political terminology into his theories, which complicated and confused them. The heart of the device applied in Bubus consisted of pauses used for the pantomime to mimic the display of the actor’s attitude toward his character. In comparison with the idea of a “subtext” at the Moscow Art Theater, Meyerhold’spredigra in contrast is something more like a contra-text. It was an attempt to enter into the psychology from outside by using pantomime and m im icry to d e m o n stra te the spiritual m o v em en t of a character as a type of italics and to reveal it before the character pronounces his lines, [sic] 23 ibid., p. 330. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 47 Thus, Rudnitsky, clearly demonstrates his own skepticism and understanding of Meyerhold’s polemical expository prose. He also insightfully points to many inspirations for predigry in Meyerhold’s past theatrical endeavors as well as that of others. It is precisely this type of insight which truly make Rudnitsky’s work unique and unparalleled. Rudnitsky moreover borrows the main image from Boris Alpers' monograph, entitling his chapter on Meyerhold's work of 1925 "Masks and Characters." In the 1970s, like their Russian colleagues, two American scholars, Marjorie Hoover and James Symons, attempt to define the hallmark of a Meyerhold production and a unifying principle. However, they offer two things that the Russian scholars do not. Firstly, they attempt to define and analyze terms and concepts created by Meyerhold such as pre-acting, or predigry, the method of acting developed for Bubus. Secondly, they also tie his work to other innovative directors working at approximately the same time, and thus offer yet another perspective. James M. Symons' Meyerhold’ s Theater o f the Grotesque— The Post Revolutionary Productions— 1920-32 remains one of the most thorough attempts to isolate and present a unifying principle for Meyerhold's oeuvre, organically identifying the key factor as "the grotesque." He provides compelling evidence that despite widely divergent aesthetic and political goals Meyerhold's unique brand of theater involved a one constant element which spanned from his earliest directing ventures into both drama and R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 48 opera in St. Petersburg at the turn of the century to his later Soviet productions whether they were constructivist, agitational, satirical or his own version of Russian and Western classical drama. Symons categorizes Meyerhold's brand of the grotesque as a "frankly theatrical aesthetic,”^^ full of physicality or "bodiliness"^^ whose goal was to "rescue the Russian theater from its own desire to become the servant of literature. According to Symons, "For Meyerhold the grotesque was the most dynamic means at the disposal of theater artists for giving expression to the joie de vivre that is all too often missing from man's daily life."^^ By this Meyerhold did not mean the "manifestation of skepticism or ironic detachment"^* but a method for synthesizing opposites and emphasizing contradictions, which might not be apparent otherwise to the spectator in his life. Meyerhold's theater would be "a place for confronting an audience through conventionalized means peculiar to theater, with a synthesized distillation o f life's extremities in conflict with one a n o t h e r .[italics Symons’] Like other Meyerhold scholars, Symons sees the foundation of Meyerhold’s method in his Petersburg or Symbolist period. He cites Meyerhold's staging of Alexander Blok's Balaganchik as one of the most James M. Symons, Meyerhold's Theater o f the Grotesque-The Post Revolutionary Productions 1920-32 ("Coral Gables: University o f Miami Press, 1971); p. 60. ibid., p. 61. ibid., p. 63. 27 ibid., p. 67. 2* ibid., p. 67 29 ibid. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 49 formative productions for Meyerhold as both director and as theoretician of the theater, as well as the beginning of the unifying principle of Meyerhold's career of "the grotesque." He argues persuasively that directly and indirectly Meyerhold returned to many of the staging principles and methodology as both director and theater theoretician such as those he described in his book O teatre (1907). Symons demonstrates that Meyerhold himself referred to this early production many times even as late as 1935 as a touchstone for explaining his ideas.^® Symons emphasizes that Meyerhold's Studio curriculum goals (listed in Volkov's monograph), which were directly utilized in the staging of Balganchik later, also became the recipe for staging the “grotesque.” Interestingly, all the following principles are also directly applicable to Meyerhold’s staging of Bubus, thus supporting Symons’ theory, as well as my own research later on in this study. These goals were as follows: 1) study of the technique of stage movement, 2) study of the basic principles of staging techniques of improvisational Italian comedy 3) employing in the modem theater the traditional methods of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 4) musical reading in drama 5) practical study of the material elements of production: building, furnishings, lighting, properties and makeup.^ ^ ibid., p. 29. ibid., p. 65. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 50 Unlike other studies of Meyerhold, Symons' remains probably the most thesis-driven. It compellingly illustrates and provides evidence for his theory of the grotesque as the running "m otif or driving principle throughout Meyerhold's theatrical career. Symons refreshingly does more than just retell the same story, he tries to define Meyerhold's legacy and signature as a director and not just as a personality of epic proportion. Symons quotes Meyerhold to define his concept of the grotesque: The grotesque...is the method of synthesizing rather than analyzing whereas the grotesque refuses to recognize the one aspect, only the vulgar or only the elevated. It mixes the opposites and by design accents the contradictions.^^ With regard to the Faiko productions, Symons seems uncomfortable categorizing particularly Bubus. Nonetheless, like other scholars, he does see it as a continuation of Meyerhold’s earlier work: Meyerhold's seemingly consistent inconsistency was at no time more startlingly in evidence than when his productions of The Forest and D.E. were followed by The Teacher Bubus. It is as close as we come to a real anomaly in Meyerhold's major work, and it is one of the rare instances of a radical Meyerhold experiment seeming to spring from nothing but a sudden impulse.^) The production is not totally without explanation in terms of his previous work and concepts, but it is such a surprising departure that one cannot help but ponder the possibility of motives beyond those of theatrical experimentation. But as tempting as it is to see in this production a grandiose slap in the face to his critics by an ibid., p. 135. 33 ibid., p. 125-126. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 51 abrupt reversal, there is no evidence that such was his intention [... ] Both the production of The Teacher Bubus and Meyerhold's expressed concepts regarding it verge on being anomalous to everything else he did and wrote both before and after 1925. If the notion that it was just a big hoax is discarded and discarded it must be for want of any supporting evidence-than we must regard Bubus as the experimentational manifestation of a new Meyerhold approach to propaganda theatre. And in spite of the unsuccessful oddities of the production, it would appear that it was not without some positive influence on later, much more successful shows.^^ In addition, Symons also relies on secondary sources particularly with regard to the productions of Faiko’s work Symons quotes Edward Braun's translation o( Meyerhold on Theater to describe the stage design for Zyw/’ among other things. Symons also depends too much on secondary sources when he says of Bubus that it is generally regarded as one of Meyerhold's weaker selections because Marc Slonim refers to it as "an inferior play," and that “Edward Braun says that Faiko's play "was so insubstantial that it presented no intellectual challenge whatsoever to M eyerhold. "”35 Yet Symons provides little information about these works of Faiko and gives little evidence of his familiarity with the works, the problems and criticisms surrounding them. Most likely the material was simply unavailable to him, but nonetheless these errors need to be noted and 34 ibid., p. 127. 35 ibid., p. 128. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 52 addressed with regard to these productions so as not to continue the flawed impression even if it was created unwittingly. Finally, there are also statements which are misleading and further demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the production history of Bubus. The huge debates and furor touched off in the press and among the critics and theater-going public were not for the reasons listed below, certainly not in any significant way: There were three major aspects of the production which caused surprise and consternation: the enclosed stage, the continuous use of music to the extent of turning the production into a dramatized symphony, and the laborious technique of pre-acting [... This misrepresents both the production’s strength and its problems, such as conflicts with the censors and the cast, both of which I focus on in this dissertation in Chapters 4 and 5. The most important aspect of Symons’ work is his explanation of the acting method Meyerhold developed for Bubus, called predigry or pre acting. Symons explains pre-acting: "instead of concentrating on external physical dynamics— a kind of gestalt characterization— he was primarily concerned with revealing the internal thought processes and emotions which precede and underlie speech.”^^ He helpfully contrasts it to Stanislavsky’s method: "But unlike Stanislavsky, who was interested in the same thing, he ^ ibid. 37 ibid., p. 131. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 53 did not seek to reveal this through speech (the dialogue) but through the physical expressions of gesture, movement, and p o se . "3* Symons does not mention Meyerhold’s citation of Kabuki as an inspiration for Bubus ’ acting style, and expresses doubt in Meyerhold’s sincere interest in the great actor Lensky’s method of acting which Meyerhold cites in his discursive writings on the topic as a true inspiration for this method: This ostensibly, was the historical precedent in the Russian theatre for the experiment in pre-acting which Meyerhold conducted in his production of The Teacher Bubus. By invoking the precedent of Lensky he was undoubtedly seeking merely to forearm himself against the critics of pre-acting who were bound to charge him with senseless experimentation, dilletantism, aestheticism, and so forth.'^® Yet ultimately, Symons stresses that Gorchakov, a well-known Soviet theater scholar and friend of Meyerhold, saw precedent for predigry in Meyerhold’s earlier work: Such criticism did follow, but these charges to the contrary notwithstanding, Meyerhold's puipose and motive in the matter of pre-acting appear to have been quite serious and not at all divorced from his previous concepts and methods of acting. Nikolai Gorchakov, then a student at the Moscow Advanced Theatre School, recalls that pre-acting "was constructed on the same principle that he [Meyerhold] used for staging the dances in the play— not on a 'legato' but rather on short rhythmic bits, the dancers would pause motionlessly. The characters in the play would also freeze into the numbness of pre-acting before moving or uttering a word, as if they were trying first to listen for something before moving. The text merely 38 ibid. 39 ibid., p. 130. '* 9 { b id . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 54 furnished the sense of the pantomime to follow. Symons thus concurs that predigry was not something entirely new but the further development of something begun much earlier: The concept of pre-acting, contrary as it appears at first glance to Meyerhold's previous instructions to actors, is not really inconsistent with his earlier ideas of acting. Not only is it still in line with a fundamentally visual, physical, and mimetic approach to acting, but it is also closely connected with one of Meyerhold's most basic concerns as a theatricalist: the integration of music and drama."*^ Unlike Symons, I find Meyerhold’s claims that one of his inspirations for predigry to be Lensky to be genuine. He does not refer to the actor merely in the explanatory program but he also made extensive references to Lensky in instructing his actors on this method which are well noted in his director’s notes and stenograms, particularly when expressing his frustration at the lack of trained actors like the great Lensky. Symons also points out that Meyerhold’s longstanding interest in the integration of music and drama was similar to that of other important theater innovators of the period: Along with such pioneers as Appia, Craig and Fuchs, Meyerhold had always insisted that music was as much of theatre as literature, if not more. At a time when Stanislavsky was considered an innovator for having removed the orchestra from the theatre, Meyerhold insisted on retaining it and sought to employ it not only for mood and intermission entertainment but also to involve it directly in the production. 41 ibid., p. 131. 42 ibid., p. 132. 4 3 ibid. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 55 Symons characterizes Bubus as a failure during its time,^^ yet, recognizes the merit of Bubus to Meyerhold’s subsequent work: In the productions subsequent to The Teacher Bubus the new elements in Bubus (aspects of pre-acting, the enclosed stage, the musical fundament, the pauses for aim, and socio-mechanics) were not discarded as impulsive ideas that didn't work out, but were added to Meyerhold's increasingly complex synthesis of theatrical devices. Consequently, it seems that, circumscribing Meyerhold's eclecticism and apparent impulsiveness, was an idea of theatre which gave a unity and consistency to the whole of his directorial career— r/jc Teacher Bubus included.'*^ Maqorie Hoover's full-length study of Meyerhold, The Art o f Conscious Theater, remains probably the most lengthy and detailed on the director, particularly in English. Although it struggles to define Meyerholdian direction and production, the argument of a "conscious theater" is much more general than Symons' grotesque. In addition, Symons carefully follows his argument in a linear, chronological fashion; Hoover, while admirably trying to capture the many faceted nature of Meyerhold's work, constantly shifts between time periods and productions. However, the sheer magnitude of specificity and detail in the text, the indices and the appendices make Hoover's monumental work unparalleled in the completeness of its scope. The large number of carefully selected photos and diagram s are u sed e ffe c tiv e ly , and further b oth her an aly sis and g iv e her 44 ibid., p. 133. 45 ibid., p. 142. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 56 readers a better conception of how Meyerhold’s productions appeared to his audience. Hoover's hook offers important comparisons, analyses and linkages unavailable in other sources. Most of all she boldly offers explanations for events in Meyerhold's life which other works either dance aroimd or present as lucky fate, such as the choice of the avant-garde Meyerhold as director of the Imperial Opera in St. Petersburg. She also details many of Meyerhold's productions and draws upon a variety of sources to describe and analyze them: contemporaries, artists, critics, and foreign visitors. Unusually, Hoover draws parallels to later theater practitioners such as Peter Brook and Jerczy Grotowski that are particularly helpftil to theater scholars familiar with more contemporary Western material. Hoover does an excellent job of tracing those things that interested Meyerhold and which he applied throughout his career: physicality, theatricality, and musicality. She also recognizes his dedication to the preservation and application of an incredible range of theatrical knowledge: history, and practice spanning many cultures -Italian Commedia dell'Arte, ancient Greek tragedy, Japanese [Kabuki and Noh] and Chinese drama, German Romanticism, French Realism and of course classics from the Russian traditional repertoire. The most significant phenomenon that Hoover traces throughout Meyerhold's long and varied career is his seemingly contradictory desire to free the theater from the bonds of literature and to systematize the notation R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 57 of a production so as to be able to reproduce it and to lay conerete elaim of creation of it. She examines a broad, multi-faceted explanation for this, whieh ineorporates Meyerhold's personality, the politieal climate, and the tastes of the day. Since his earliest days, for example, Meyerhold never believed the theater was merely a means to take a literary text, novel or play and reereate it for an audienee. He believed the theater's role was to bring out the hidden, the obscure— and even to create something other than what the text itself might say. Meyerhold’s lifelong pursuit ehallenged much of what has traditionally constrained direetors— an author's text, the order of the scenes, the inclusion of music, the use of non-traditional costuming, etc.— and increased his own eontrol over his productions. Hoover also astutely notes that Meyerhold like other directors had to deal with a produetion changing throughout the course of its run, particularly if it was a long one, and often markedly decreasing in quality and bearing little resemblance to the production in its original form. She explains, for this reason, Meyerhold's intense interest in musical and dance notation, his desire to claim "authorship" of his work as auteur/director or author of a production, as well as the political vogue of the time toward adding science to the arts (the influenee of Taylorism, Communism, the cult of efficiency and predictability). All of these factors in unison lead Meyerhold to developing a way to "diagram," "notate," and "seript" his performances beyond the traditional dialogue and stage directions. In this demonstration of trying to R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 58 make the impermanent and transitory (a performance) more reproducible, more permanent, and to preserve and lay claim to the director’s contribution to the creative process, Meyerhold was clearly ahead of many theater directors and conflicts to come later on in the 20* century. Hoover offers the clearest definition of any critic of exactly what Meyerhold means by pre-acting or predigry and convincingly links it to his previous work with biomechanics. Most importantly, she clarifies how different Bubus' method of movement was for an audience awaiting more of the biomechanics he had been focusing on: If such double speed and cinematic acrobatism showed biomechanics at an accelerated tempo, Meyerhold’s pivotal production, Aleksei Faiko’s Bubus the Teacher (1924), exemplified its application in slow motion. For in Bubus Meyerhold demonstrated the three elements comprising each movement according to biomechanical analysis: first, pre-action, or preparation, as in the backward sweep of the arm before the forward thrust; then action, or the movement itself; and finally, reaction, or recovery. Meyerhold extended pre-action to mean also the psychological preparation of the audience, which he found exemplified in a great performance by Aleksandr Lenskii as Benedick in Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing... Hoover's work is amazing in its breadth, detail and description of productions, and the impressions of contemporaries witnessing them is unparalleled in English. However, on the two productions on which Meyerhold and Faiko worked together. Hoover is amazingly sparse. Marjorie L. Hoover, Meyerhold-The Art o f Conscious Theater. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1974): pp. 107-108. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 59 Unsurprisingly given when she wrote her book, her sources on these productions are similarly scanty. One of the most misleading errors she makes in describing the production is in stating that a lack of screens with explanatory text in Bubus severely impeded the production, as if it were a detail forgotten by its director: Unfortunately, unlike the more orchestral score of a Wagnerian opera, the Lizst and Chopin accompaniment never became an integral part of Bubus, and so the association between leitmotiv and character did not necessarily take place in the audience’s mind. Nor were there any titles and texts, like those projected in D.E., to help the mystified spectator. Perhaps the Bubus experiment could succeed only in such a work as The Threepenny Opera, in which music and ironic counterpoint are truly integrated form the start. Meyerhold did have an extremely elaborate system of these projected citations. They survive in RGALI. Unlike the more directly narrative function which they seemed to fulfill in D.E., however, they added more contrapuntal irony to the action onstage. They also were struck from the production by governmental order for being politically inappropriate. Apparently, Glavrepertkom did not like Meyerhold using citations from Lenin as ironic commentary. This is yet another detail that I provide in my appendix to address this oversight. In spite of Hoover’s oversimplified explanation for the production’s failure that “the price paid for almost intolerable retardation caused by Meyerhold’s pre-acting was misunderstanding and boredom on the 47 ibid., p. 150. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 60 audience’s part,”'* * she also concedes that the production was an important one for his later work: But if the experiment of pre-acting did not succeed in Bubus, the device of accompanying physical motion did serve as a rich commentary on the action a year later in The Inspector General. And if Bubus was too slight to sustain the greater weight Meyerhold wanted to give it, still it did mark in his career a turning point toward increased se r io u sn e ss/^ The best of Edward Braun's scholarship on Meyerhold, his most recent edition of his earlier work, contains the updated facts surrounding Meyerhold’s arrest, interrogation and execution which had become confirmed and available since the original publication of the book; nonetheless the book's emphasis is on historical/biographical facts, and is very light on analysis. One of its theses, the development of the "all encompassing work" is dealt with in far greater depth, detail, and justified with far greater archival research by other scholars. BxwLrT s A Revolution is Theatre often seems to be an uncomfortably close paraphrase of Rudnitsky, particularly on Bubus in places such as: Bubus was hardly the response the critics were demanding; yet another flimsy political farce depicting the exhausted last fling of the rulers of an imaginary capitalist country on the verge of revolution, it invited the very schematization of Western decadent types that Meyerhold had already exploited to its limits. The one exception was the character of Bubus himself, an intellectual idealist who vacillated 4* ibid., p. 150. 49 ibid., p. 150-151. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 61 ineffectually between two camps and found himself rejected by the revolution when it finally came. He was an individual embodying the conflict of class loyalties within himself, instead of displaying in two dimensions the attitudes of one particular side. In conception at least he represented a significant advance on the placard style of earlier Soviet theatre, a shift from crude agitation to more reasoned propaganda. Unlike Rudnitsky, Braun does not contextualize this remark, and his impression of Bubus is often based upon the words of Meyerhold’s most strident and vicious critic, V.V.Blium, aka Sadko. Blium’s criticisms of Meyerhold are noteworthy for their biting nature, which at times makes them almost comic. They are consistently so vicious that while they are memorable, they are not typical and are of limited reliability. This is information not provided by Braun as he generalizes it as if it were typical. Braun says: Unfortunately, this constant interpolation of mime emphasized rather than made good the vacuity of Faiko's text, and was seen by most critics as a regression to the self-indulgent aestheticism of Meyerhold's World of Art period. 'Sadko' of Evening Moscow remarked maliciously that 'at times it was like sitting in some provincial offshoot of the Kamemy Theatre.^i In addition, Blium was to play a far more significant role in many aspects of Bubus, with which Braun is not familiar but which I shall address. Edward Braun, The Theatre o f Meyerhold-Revolution o f the Modern Stage. (London: Methuen, 1986): p. 200. 5>ibid.,p.203. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 62 Braun’s work contains some serious oversimplifications to the point of misleading the reader. One such example occurs when he states that Meyerhold sought to find a dramatist who could "rival Mayakovsky in artistic skill and political acumen, and now the repertoire situation was causing acute em barrassm ent. jjere he oversimplifies the problem of repertoire faced by Meyerhold as well as all the other theaters of the young Soviet Union. Thus Braun’s remark distorts the relationship of Meyerhold and Mayakovsky and presents a flawed picture of both the theatrical milieu and what Meyerhold was looking for in Faiko. Braun misinterprets the complicated scenario in which Soviet theaters sought to define a new genre of plays and a new generation of playwrights. One of the most crucial things Braun notes is that one of the early yet destructive events which condemned Bubus to failure stemmed from a decision to cast Zinaida Raikh, Meyerhold’s wife, in the role of the lead ingénue in Bubus instead of Maria Babanova for whom the part of Stefka was written.: The production was further undermined by a fundamental error in casting on Meyerhold's part. The leading role of Stefka had been conceived by Faiko with grace and comic talent of Maria Babanova in mind, but to the actress's great chagrin Meyerhold insisted on casting Zinaida Raikh, who had made a triumphant debut the previous year as Aksyusha in The Forest. To make matters worse, Ilinsky, for whom Bubus had been created, took exception to the director's persistent attempts to place Raikh's indifferent performance 52ibid., p. 200. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 63 at the centre of the produetion and walked out shortly before the opening night. It was a loss that Meyerhold and his young company could ill afford, but three years were to elapse before Ilinsky was persuaded to return to play Famusov in Woe to WitJ^ The star’s departure, Igor Ilinsky, for whom the title role of Bubus was written, did harm the production’s success, but his leaving is not simply attributable to the easting and treatment of Raikh by Meyerhold. As my research shows, particularly later in this dissertation, this problem involved more than casting. Although Faiko did conceive of the role of Stefka for Babanova, it was also a combination of several other factors such as Meyerhold’s unwillingness to remain faithful to the author’s text, as well as clashes with both critics and censors that began the long, ugly quarrel that surrounded Bubus. Nonetheless, Braun grasps perhaps better than almost any other American scholar, the importance of Bubus ’ production as a return to some of the finer productions he did at the Imperial Theater in St. Petersburg and as a continuation of this earlier tradition; There was no production by Meyerhold that did not reaffirm his conception of rhythm as the basis of all dramatic expression, but in Bubus he restored it to the pre-eminence it had enjoyed in such pre-1917 works as Tristan and Isolde, Don Juan, and Orpheus. 53 ibid., p. 203 54 ibid., p. 200. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 64 Braun clearly recognizes Bubus ’ importance to Meyerhold’s oeuvre, saying of it: Even so, for all its shortcomings, Bubus the Teacher remained for Meyerhold and his company a valuable exercise in rhythmical discipline which told strongly in subsequent productions. Above all, it marked his “rediscovery" of music, the vital component in his finest work yet to come.^^ Other memoirs fall into two basic categories with some variations. The goal of the first, represented by Alexander Gladkov, is to humbly preserve and transmit all he can about his beloved teacher and idol, Meyerhold. Similarly, the memoirs of Tatiana Esenina, Raikh’s daughter from her first marriage to Sergei Esenin, not only provide crucial details which help fill in the picture about Raikh, but also serve as a crucial counterbalance to the many biting negative remarks about her which often seem to have a subtext behind them. The second category includes the reminiscences of the troupe's most famous actors, Erast Garin, Igor Ilinsky and Maria Babanova, which primarily tell the stories of their own lives on the stage and beyond. Meyerhold appears to varying degrees as a secondary character. With regard to Meyerhold, Garin's memoirs in particular seem the most cautious; Ilinsky's come across as straightforward but have glaring omissions, particularly with regard to Bubus. "ibid., p.203. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 65 Turovskaia’s biography of Maria Babanova is unique in-depth, detail and usefulness with regard to the Faiko productions in order to fill in many important gaps in information of both a professional and personal nature. Not only does she elaborate on much of what happened the behind the scenes, details which she garnered from interviews with the actress herself, she backs them up with in depth scholarly archival research, and is the only scholarly source which in any way links the scandals surrounding Bubus to Faiko’s screenplay of the same period, flannpocHma or MoccejinpoMa {The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom), which played such a crucial final blow in ruining the Meyerhold/Faiko relationship. My research adds much of the material which Turovskaia only heard of from Babanova but which clearly was not at her disposal. There is a current resurgence in publishing materials about Meyerhold. In particular, those done by the Committee for the Creative Research of V.E. Meyerhold are the most ambitious and promising. Nonetheless, none of this material is about either of the productions of Faiko’s plays. The two scholars primarily involved, Oleg Feldman and Vadim Shcherbakov, also heavily enlisted Meyerhold’s granddaughter, Maria Valentei, in their undertaking. Similarly, several among the best new works on Meyerhold also omit discussion of these works such as Meyerhold Rehearses and Meyerhold—Toward A History o f the Creative Method— Publications and Articles. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 66 With regard to Alexei Faiko, outside of archival sources at RGALI, the only real source for biographical and professional information of any depth on him is his memoirs, SanncKn Craporo Tearpanbmi^Ka {Memoirs o f an Old Showman). Although like many autobiographers, Faiko edits many unpleasant things from his reminiscences or simply remembers them differently, Konstantin Rudnitsky’s excellent introduction fills in many factual gaps. Having surveyed much of the vast material on Meyerhold, the most interesting thing in all the scholars’ work was their attempt to isolate the key elements which defined a Meyerhold production and made it unique. Whether they describe the unifying principle as the social mask (Alpers), a conscious theater (Hoover), the grotesque (Symons), etc., all of these critics (whether or not they explicitly addressed the Faiko productions by Meyerhold or realized its importance) their work all focuses on elements which Meyerhold experimented with in his staging of Lake Lyul and even more so with Bubus. All of these scholars discuss the centrality of music, the importance of costume and stage design and a fluid relationship to the original text of a play all of which were united by the director’s vision and goal of producing a total, unified production. My study attempts to add to this body and to correct some errors made because crucial pertinent materials were not available to the formidable scholars at the time of their writing. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 67 Chapter 3: iMke LyuV After mixed success with such pieces as Cromelynck's Magnanimous Cuckold (1922), Meyerhold needed real box office success. Meyerhold had been experimenting with biomechanics, a type of movement based on scientific breaking down types of actions such as shooting an arrow, etc. to acrobatics which took place on Constructivist platforms, wheels and ladders. While this dynamic type of acting and stripped-down stage design and costume was exposed, so was the bareness of current Soviet repertoire. The party was calling for theaters to foster new Soviet playwrights. Edward Braun states that Meyerhold sought to find a dramatist because “the repertoire situation was causing acute embarrassment. In addition, the New Economic Policy had created a thirst for material goods and a peek into places such as Western Europe and America from which they had been isolated. Meyerhold saw in Lake LyuV the opportunity to satisfy all of these demands. Meyerhold banked upon Alexei Faiko's Lake LyuV to fulfill party directives to foster new Soviet talent and to feed the public's thirst for a peek into the decadent West. His 1923 production of the first major work of this young playwright from the Moscow Association of Playwrights drove the public and the critics wild. His theater's box office reflected this, and arguably this production propelled Meyerhold's theater into a greater ^ Braun, Revolution o f the Modern Stage, p. 200. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 68 position of prominence, which it enjoyed until 1938. This production also launched his brief but tumultuous association with the playwright and a longer but more tumultuous relationship with the theater-going public and the Soviet bureaucracy, which oversaw it all. Something began to change with Meyerhold's oeuvre beginning with his collaboration with Alexei Faiko in 1923. Up until this point, Meyerhold's productions enjoyed varying degrees of success with the public. Because of economic hardship in the Soviet Union during the late 1910s and early 1920s, real box office success had eluded Meyerhold. Meyerhold wanted something to which the public would flock and which could contain some mild type of politically educational content. Like the agitkas, a crude purely political sketch, the melodrama was clearly built upon the simple lines of character delineation into clear-cut categories of good and bad. Nonetheless, with Meyerhold's production of the young, virtually unknown Alexei Faiko's first play. Lake LyuV, neither Meyerhold nor Faiko was ever the same again: Faiko immediately became an overnight success and Meyerhold's renown soared to creative, critical and economic heights which would continue until Soviet political reality made it impossible. The two would collaborate on one other production. The Teacher Bubus, in 1925. Though this partnership enjoyed both wild success and controversy, it would prove to be one fraught with not only artistic differences of opinion, but bitter disagreements played out through the press and journals of the day and R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 69 directly involved the organs of the Soviet theater system such as the Main Committee on Theatrical Repertoire (Glav-repertuar-komitet, or Glavrepertkom). The second of the two works they produced together, Bubus, would surpass its predecessor in controversy; it also caused dissension not just from without but from within. Today La^œ LyuV, although not a great work of dramatic literature, but a great work of theater and a cultural milestone, has been unfortunately forgotten. Although Meyerhold had experienced controversy before, the whirlwind which surrounded Lake LyuV was to mark the first of a series of controversial productions which would soon become the Meyerhold rule rather than the exception. Much of it bears recounting in great detail, because this chapter of Meyerhold's career has been heretofore largely overlooked by Meyerhold scholars, because of intervention by the government among other factors. Although Alexei Faiko's archive was completed at RGALI in 1971, for no apparent reason it was closed until 1988 and was not available to scholars. Meyerhold decided to mount a flashy production of the first play by a playwright from a group of young, innovative writers and critics, the Moscow Playwrights' Assocation (Moskovskaia Assotsiatsia Dramaturgov, or MAD). Not only would Meyerhold be able to stage a new Soviet play, he would also be able to capture the spirit of the times, the New Economic Policy, as well as the public's imagination, showing them things and places R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 70 which up until now they had only imagined. This play would be Alexei Faiko’ s Oaepo fho/ib {Lake Lyul') which he staged at the Theater of the Revolution in November of 1923. As Symons says, "Except for his association with Mayakovsky this was one of the first times that Meyerhold worked on a play in the presence of its author.”^ While Lake LyuV followed the pattern of several other works produced by Meyerhold at this time, such as The Magnanimous Cuckold and The Death ofTarelkin, in its exploration of innovative set design, its particular elements were like nothing ever beheld on the Russian stage before: the inclusion of live jazz bands, lit flashing storefronts, and particularly real working elevators, which were seen for the first time on the Soviet stage. The sets and costumes glittered, the jazz blared, and the lively foxtrot and Charleston blazed across the stage. The first inclusion of live jazz bands by Meyerhold has been mistakenly attributed to Meyerhold's production, D.E. {JJaetub Espony, or D.E.) (1924) instead of this production of Lake Lyul ’ the previous year. What Edward Braun has said of D.E. more aptly applies to Faiko's play: that the fox-trotting, Cake-Walking, and other dance numbers were "energetic, diverting, and helped greatly by the performance of the first jazz band to appear in Soviet Russia (The jazz band ^Symons, p. 109. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 71 was assembled by the poet, Valentin Pamakh ('Pamok'), recently returned from Paris where he had frequented Dadaist circles.)."^ The productions which immediately preceded Zyw/'made use of bare bones sets, stages and costumes, ostensibly to highlight the actor and Meyerhold's new method of acting, biomechanics. Lyul's elaborate set design and costumes loudly proclaimed the end of the immediate poverty which followed the Russian Civil War and virtually emblematized the conspicuous consumption and curiosity of the NEP period. In 1922, NEP normalized relations with the United States and Western Europe. The public’s stifled interest in the West finally had a legitimate outlet; This compromise with ideological enemies was rationalized along these lines: although the wealthy capitalist exploiter is and always will be the enemy, there is nothing wrong with admiring and learning from the scientific and industrial accomplishments of Western workers who are, after all, potential comrades- in-arms with the Russian proletariat[... ] And along with the imported goods and returning Russian travelers came an influx of morals, manners, and cultural tastes from the rapidly modernizing Europe and America of the late 1920s. The fox-trot, the Charleston, tap-dancing, and especially American jazz came to symbolize for the Russian the morals and manners of the Western bourgeoisie. The figure of Western decadence was shifted from one of paunchy self-righteousness to that of the finger-snapping, daringly-dressed "slickers", who spent most of their tim e d an cin g from o n e n igh tclu b to another.^ ^Edward Braun. Meyerhold-A Revolution in Theatre. (Iowa City; University o f Iowa Press, 1995): p. 198. ^Symons, p.107-108. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 72 Meyerhold, Raikh, Pamok and many other Russians brought back and applied many things from their travel to their art. Meyerhold and Raikh had just returned from Paris. Scholars such as Symons, Braun and Rudnitsky concur that Lyul ’ represented a continuation of some the aspects of productions immediately prior to it, but more importantly it added elements which had never yet been seen on the Soviet stage and synthesized them. Symons, who describes LyuV as "highrise agitprop," says that the episodic, montage quality of Lake Lyul ’ was a concept which interested Meyerhold at this time and he had experimented with it in The Forest and D.E.^ The production which immediately preceded LyuV, Ostrovsky's Lucrative Post," had used similar lighting, costumes, props, acting, and the same subtlety of exaggeration (subtle in comparison to his previous productions)."® Yet in Lyul ’ , Meyerhold "mobilized" the entire production through such devices as episodic progression, slide projections, highly selective spotlighting, and an infinitely flexible setting— ten nine-by— twelve wooden screens on casters which were moved about the bare stage floor by hidden stagehands in order to shape the playing area of each individual episode." Symons notes that projections were first used in the Earth Rebellious^ Lyul's set design was not a complete break from Meyerhold's productions which immediately preceded it. Braun and Rudnitsky, discuss this and point out how its sets were used to create an almost cinematic effect. Braim describes it: Sibid., p. 122. ®ibid.,p.llO. ’ibid., p. 1 2 2 . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 73 The setting designed by Victor Shestakov bore a distinct resemblance to Popova's construction for The Magnanimous Cuckold, though it was cheerfully represented and hardly 'constructivist' in the precise sense. Meyerhold exploited the construction to its limits, using area lighting to switch the action constantly from one level to another, sometimes playing two scenes simultaneously in different places. Its technical sophistication afforded him the flexibility that he had sought through the episodic adaptation of such works as Columbine's Scarf and Masquerade, and led him on to further experiments in montage at a time when that technique had scarcely been exploited in the cinema.* Rudnitsky emphasizes that while Lake LyuFs set design represented a synthesis of Meyerhold's previous work with constructivism in its use of platforms and ramps, it was more innovative as a bold foray into applying technological advances to set design, special effects and awe-inspiring props which duplicated the feel of cinema: Ben (|)opMa npencTBBJieHun 6wna Ha a<j«|)eK T. KoHTpyKuwn Si/iKTopa UJecTaKOBa, BnepBbie ycTpoMBUiero na cuewe ABMmyutMecn nw^TW (arc 6wn rnaBHwM «Koaupb» nocTaHOBOMHoro peuieHMn), noasonnna MrHOBehHo nepenocMTb aeMCTBwe (a noauac m repoes) c oaHom nnomaaKM Ha apyryio. MrpoBwe nnomaaKM 6binn paaMemeHW na rpex «arawax» KOH CTpyK U w w . M x nocHepeano BwpwBan na TeM HOTbi M O uiH w A nyn npoweKTopa. flpkmeM BcnKan ycranoBKa KOHKpeTHO naohpawana onpeaeneHHoe MecTo aeMcTBwn— wiaraawH, oTe/ib, Bunny, weneaHoaopowHbif^ moct m r.a. Bee aeHcTBwe paaBMBanocb c GpocKOR cBnaHOCTbio KMH0$wnbMa. CneKTaKnb luën b ypeaBwyaMHo 6bicTpoM TBMne, M K pw T M K M B oawH ronoc nHcanM o npHMenenHbix ryx Me^epxonbaoM npweiviax «KM HOM OHTawa», a KHHeMaTorpa(|)imecKOM MenbKaHww oTaenbHux «KaapOB» cneKTaKnn. MaucKannan wyawKanbHwx *panweHTOB, Hani/ioaHHbix H . nonoBUM,— ycyry6nnni/t aaMaHMHBocTb Toro apenmue.^ ^Braua, A Revolution in Theatre, p. 195. ^Rudnitsky, Rezhisser Meierkhol’ d, p.324. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 74 The entire form of the performance was for effect. Viktor Shestakov’s construction with the first ever moving elevators on a stage (this was the “trump card” in the staging decisions) allowed for the instantaneous change of scene (as well as heroes) fi-om one plane to another. The acting planes were arranged on the three “floors” of the construction. They were brought out of darkness in order by a powerful projector light. In this manner every set concretely reproduced a specific place of action—the store, the hotel, the villa, the railroad bridge and so on. The entire performance played out with the “uninterruptedness” of a film. The performance went at a phenomenally rapid pace, and the critics unanimously wrote of the “cinema-montage” device used by Meyerhold and the cinematographic rapidity of individual “shots” of the performance. The precision of the musical fragments composed by N. Popov deepened the illusion of this spectacle. The designer Shestakov's construction consisted of a luxurious hotel with three levels "with working elevators and numerous platforms built against the theater's back brick wall."*® Symons describes it as "seven large playing areas, not counting the stage floor, with the uppermost at a height of about twenty feet from the floor. These platforms, which were completely unmasked, were connected one to the other by ladders at fiighteningly steep angles (and without handrails)."" Lastly, he characterizes the stage design of Lake LyuV as "Meyerhold's most extensive use to date of large platforms at varying heights." 12 The platforms and elevators added more than dazzle; they also served an ultimately practical function as well: "While scene changes were economically indicated by a few furniture shifts and horizontal signs, such as for the expensive store, the characters were transported fi-om one platform of '^Hoover, Design, p. 137. "Symons, p. 110. i2ibid., p. 110 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 75 the set to another by two elevators, one vertical, the other horizontal, both of which w o r k e d ," 1 3 although as one of the actors, Erast Garin, remarks, "most of those in town didn't, "i'* The cinematic feel was enhanced by the original uses of selective lighting: "The quick episodic change of scene was realized partly by the light of a projector which successively pulled single parts of the multiple set out of the darkness. The Soviet critic Pavel Markov referred to it as “the curious 'theatricalization' of cinematographic methods.”! ® Faiko describes the sets, costumes and overall sense of the production: The back wall of the theatre was bared. Girders stuck out and wires and cables dangled uncomprisingly. The centre of the stage was occupied by a three-storey construction with receding corridors, cages, ladders, platforms and lifts which moved both horizontally and vertically. There were illuminated titles and advertisements, silver screens lit from behind. Affording something of a contrast to this background were the brilliant colours of the somewhat more than life-like costumes: the elegant toilettes of the ladies, the gleaming white of starched shirt-fronts, aiguillettes, epaulettes, liveries trimmed with gold.i^ Costuming and acting devices also helped to create not only a cinematic effect but an almost Hollywoodian glorification of luxury and elegance. Capitalist men wore tall hats and boutonnieres. The capitalist's mistress, Ida Ormond, had her evening dress tried on by a couturier, as well as patronizing the boutique of the luxury store "Excelsior". 1 7 i^Hoover, £>es/g«, p. 138. I'lErast Garin, S Meyerholdom. Vospominaniia. (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1974); p. 66. i®Hoover, Design, p. 138. i^L.D. Vendrovskaia, Vstrechi s Meyerholdom. Sbornik Vospominanii. (Moscow: Vserossiiskoe teatral’noe obshchestvo, 1967): p. 298. 17 Hoover, Design, p. 138. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 76 Beside the bedazziement of elegance, a final melodramatic trick worthy of Hollywood and owed to the setting in height, helped Lake LyuV to popular success. Remarking to the director's furtherance of improvisation by the actors, Faiko reports: "Glagolin [who played Prim] proposed another novelty just at the very end when Prim is brought down by Maisy's shot. Glagolin-Prim climbed up the stage portal on a rope ladder, and when at the very top the revolver bullet hit him, he fell head down and remained hanging in the air, held by one heel in a loop of rope.”* ® Another of LyuT s strengths was the nature of its chief villain, an anti-hero, Anton Prim. His exploits were not only entertaining but seemed to also resonate with the public who came to see the performances. Ironically, Prim, although a negative character, was the one with whom the audience identified: fe p o M 9ToM n b e c b i A h t o h flp u M B b ix o a w n H a c u e n y k b k B o n n o m e H M e w eM Tbi nam viaH O B o rono B O K p y w M T en b H O M , jie rK O aaxB aM eH H O M S o r a r c T B e , 06 « y n o B o n b C T B w a x » , nonyw eH H W X u e H o R npeanpMiviMHMBOCTM. A h t o h flpH M 6bin co 6 n a3 H M T en b H b iM m, n a n o C K a a a r b , ran aH T n M B O oM epneH H biM B o n n o m eH M eM w x w n e a n a . O c r p o e o m y u teH M e K paT K O B pew eH H ocT W c p o K a , o r n y m e H H o r o WHSHbK), 6 e 3 0 w w 6 o H H o e npejcm yB C T B H e c B o e R n o 6peMeHHOCTM, K O T o p o e m n o p o f l n n o t b k H a3W BaeM bim « y r a p n a n a » , a a c T a a n n n o B M juerb b n ex H T p o M n p o r p a v iM e A h t o h b flpHiy/ia («Bauin r n a s H b i e y c T p e M n e H M n -? » -« M a K C k iM y M y jaoB o/ibC T B H fl») enM HCTBeHHbiA c M b ic n a e M H o ro S b i r a .i ^ 0 6 o 3 H aM eH i4 B B « O s e p o J lio n b » aaM aH H M B an B 03M 0W H 0C T b n o B K o M y aaM JiH B o oM aH U B aT b p e B o n io u H io , x o a w T b n o rpaHM, p a a n e n n io m e P i « K p a c n o e » w « 6 e n o e » , 6 a n a H C H p o B a T b n a a r o A rpaH M , c p u s a n « U B e x u y ao B o n b C T B M B » ,—T w cn u B K p aT H O ycM /iM B ana n p M B n eK aT H o cT b * n r y p b i A h t o h b PlpMMa n n n H anw aH C K oR ayAMTopMM. H e n n p o c r o n e m o p oGomxM Cb 6 e a r a K o r o ^^Rudnitsky, Rezhisser Meierkhol ’ d , p.322. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 77 repofl, B M bB M oôpaae peneraTCTBO oKyTWBa/iocb poM BHTi/mecKMM aBBHTiopiisMMa. U I4H H 3M npeBpaïua/icB B aoBJiecTb.2o The play's hero, Anton Prim, appeared on the stage as the fulfillment of the NEPman's dreams of head spinning, easily acquired wealth and the "pleasures" received as the fruits of such enterprise. Anton Prim was a tempting, and one must say, talented fulfillment of their ideals. The heightened sense of that brief period of time and being carried away with life, along with an unmistakable premonition of its course, had given birth to what was known as the "intoxication of NEP" and was there for all to see. In the simple plan of Anton Prim: "Your main goal--?" "— Maximum pleasure" was the only conception of daily life. The meaning in Lake LyuV of the tempting possibility to deceive the revolution deftly and successfiilly, to walk the line between "red" and "white", balancing on this line ripping off the "flowers of happiness"-led to the strengthening of the attraction of the figure of Anton Prim for the audience of NEPmen. NEP simply could not have gotten away without such a hero — the renegade wrapped in romantic adventurism. Cynicism had come to prevail again. Other characters in LyuV also engaged its audiences. Maria Babanova created what would become a series of crowd-pleasing roles as a chic, young jazz baby who wore the most current clothes and danced the hottest new dances. Because of Meyerhold's attention to detail, the stylish clothes worn by the actresses were modeled on the most up-to-the- moment trends that Meyerhold and Raikh had just seen in Paris. After ^ Lucrative Post in May, Meyerhold and Raikh decided to take advantage of the ability to travel more freely internationally since the Revolution. Many women, particularly the nouveau riche, according to Rudnitsky, came particularly to see the performance as a fashion show of sorts: 20ibid., p.323. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 78 [... ] a pocKOUiHBfl, CHoriun6aTejibHaa Mfla OpwoHfl c ee Tya/ieTaMM, BM /iJiaM U , /TOuiaaflMH, c ee «MyflecHUMn H O W K B M M » M n p O M M M M H eO nM C yeM bIM M npejieCTflMM t... ] Cuena, Koraa iAaa b npi/icryTCTBMM ripnMa npuHUMaer nopTHMxy, 6w/ia BonJiomeHneivi aepaHOBeHeRwMX BOMAeneHMA H am viaH CK H X wew, Aio6oBHMu n AOMepe(*i....^‘ [... ] but the elegant Ida Ormond, with her stunning wardrobe, villas, horses, and her "amazing legs" and other indescribable charms[...] The scene where Ida admits her tailor in Prim's presence, was the embodiment of the audacious avarice of the NEPmen's wives, lovers and daughters. . . Moreover, Meyerhold skillfully used casting to heighten these associations with his public: rioACTaTb B . fnaronwHy 6wna m 5. PyTKOBOKan b ponw klAU OpMOHA. Ponb Benaob aKTpwcom, aubho ocBOM BUiePi aivinnya «(isompeHHUx, pa*MHMpoBaHHWX, WH^^pHanbHwx» W eH IU H H , BeCbMa «pOCKOUiHO», nW U lH O , M AeMOHCTpaUMB nnaTbeB repowH, cuJMTbix no nocneAHem aanaAHoA moab, aaHMMana ny6nnKy He Menbiue, mbm aBaHTiopwaivi repoa.22 Han6onee tomho ynoBH/in rpeBOWHH^ neATMOTWB w HepBHwm pM TM pewMccepcKom napTHTypu M . Ea6aH0Ba b ponw nsB M M K M WopweTTbi BbeHeMs, 8. SaRHW KOB b ponw mypHanwcTa Mrnaua BMTKOBCKoro, M . TepeiuKOBHM b ponw 6aHKnpa HaraHa Kpona.^^ B. Rutovskaya was cast opposite B. Glagolin in the role of Ida. The role was played by the actress who was well acquainted with playing the character of the “sharply refined, infernal” woman. The very luxurious, magnificent demonstration of the heroine’s gowns that had been created according to the latest western styles fascinated the public no less than the hero’s adventurism. In no less precise a fashion did M. Babanova in the role of singer Dzhordzhetta Ben’eme, V. Zaichikov in the role of journalist Ignats Vitovsky, and M. Tereshkovich in the role of banker Natan Kron capture the troubled leitmotif and nervous rhythm of the director’s score (plan). ^hbid. 22ibid., p. 325. 2^ibid. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 79 Braun describes Lake LyuV's dialogue as "terse and the structure episodic, designed to convey the breakneck tempo of life in the 'big city'."^^ Hoover concurs : "Neither great art nor prophetic, Faiko's melodrama alludes to rapid changes of fortune not so much in the West as under Soviet NEP, written in the staccato telegram style of German expressionism, as in the early plays of Georg Kaiser, the dialogue reminds in tempo of the fox-trot. "^5 Although Rudnitsky also notes the popularity of German expressionism might have influenced Meyerhold to choose Faiko's play, he feels that the similarities are fairly superficial. Rudnitsky isolates concrete elements of the genre, but points out that the overall mood and theme of expressionism had little in common with Faiko's slick melodrama: Ere d b e c a km ea/ibH O cooT B eT C T B O B a/ia HaM epeHi/inivi i/i w enaH M nM M eP iep x o n b x ia T oA n b ecb i. Bee t o , m to pyKOBOAMWibie M eC^epxojibAOM p ew M ccep b i T e a r p a PeBOJllOLlMM HaCMJlbCTBeHHO HaBBSWBanM aKcnpeccMOHMCTKOPl n p aM B , B « O a e p o flto /ib » cy m e c T B O B a u o y w e n 3HaMa/ibH0 . re p o M -o a w H o y K a pasB eH M M B ancH , p eB o n io u M n n p o cJ ia B n n J ia cb . X a p a K e x e p H N e m o tm b u aKcnpeccMOHWCTKoM A paM arypri/ii/i, e e H epeH w R , ôecn oK oR H w A pMTM, e ë CKnoHHOcTb K y p 6aHM3My B n b e c e O a « K o 6binn aaanTM poBaH W t o m h o t b k w e , k b k n ep eo cM b icu M B a u n cb OHM B coB ercK M X n ocra H O B K a x n b e c T o /u ie p a . M, KOHBMHO, B M T ore JierK O M W ojieH H oe « O a e p o J lio jib » H e M M euo HMMero o G u te r o c rparMMecKOM aKcnpeccMOHMCTKoM ApaM oM . T oA b K o H B K O T opoe B H eu in ee CXOACTBO COXpaHMAOCb. (OHO M UpMBOAO SaTOM K MHoroAOTHMM saSA yw A eH M A M MCTopMKOB T o a x p a M ApaMW, y n o p H o aayMCAABiuMM a r y n b e c y « n o eeA O M C X B y» aKcnpeccM OHM 3M a.26 ^^Braun, A Revolution in Theatre, p. 194. ^ Majtjorje L. Hoover, Meyerhold and His Set Designers (New York: Peter Lang Publishers, Inc., 1988): p. 137. ^^Rudnitsky, Rezhisser MeierkhoTd, p.322. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 80 His play corresponded ideally with Meyerhold’s intentions and wishes for this play. Everything that directors under Meyerhold’s supervision at the Revolution Theater had forcibly tied to Expressionist drama already was contained in Lake Lyul. The solitary hero is belittled and the revolution is praised. The characteristic elements of Expressionist drama, its nervous and unsettled rhythm, its tendency towards urbanism, were adapted in Faiko’s play in exactly the same way that they the Soviet stagings of Toller’s plays had done. And of course, taken as a whole the simplistic Lake LyuVhaà nothing in common with tragic Expressionist drama. Only a few external similarities were preserved. (This also led to a long term confusion among historians of theater and drama who consistently included this play “in the realm” of Expressionism.) Rudnitsky feels that LyuV caught Meyerhold's attention, as well as that of his public, because it seemed to have captured the essence of the NEP period: fluHaMMMecKan, xnecxan, Gwcxpaa MenonpaMa (DaAKo Bo6pana b ce6n n ocTpyio ctoweTHOcTb nwHKepTowoBCKoM nwTepaTypw, n onwT ywe cnowMBUierocn b to Bpeiwn KMHonereKTMBa. OaAKO nonw ranca noflMMHurb a ry «xexHMKy» C B O M M uenaM, ho ona ero nepe6opona. riepe6opoaa rnaBHHM o6paaoM noTOMy, mto OaPiKO nepwpoBan aaecb HeanaeMUM, BbiMbiumeHHbiM MarepMaaoM, m wMSHeHHaa KOHKpeTHocxb BpeMSHM, Korna nwcanacb nbeca, npopwBanacb b nocxpoeHwa flpaMaxypra HeaaBM CM M O ox ero Boan.2’ Faiko’s biting, fast-paced and dynamic melodrama drew on both the sharp plot structure of Pinkerton literature and the detective film, which were prevalent at the time. Faiko attempted to subordinate this “technique” to his own goals, but it challenged him at every step. It challenged him first of all because here Faiko was writing unknown, undeveloped material, and the life and events of the time when he wrote the play burst into the playwright’s creation independently of his will. The first of these aspects was a desire to see something other than the crude "agitki" of the early Soviet period. There was a lack in the repertoire and a 2’ibid„ p. 323. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 81 great hunger for pieces that were lighter in political, instructional content and heavier in entertainment and excitement: «Oaepo Jlionb» 6bino caMbiM HenocpeACTBeHHbiM oGpaaoM oBnaaHo c pyccKom cMTyauweR 20-x ronoB. O ra cBnab BM AHa ywe b tom, kbk ^opMyuMpoBau C B O M acTeTMMecKMe ueun aBTop. «A cm/iraK),— roBopmi oh— , M T O coBpeM eH H wA peB oniouM O H H biA penepTyap aonweH GoaaaBaTbon ne no npw H uw ny jioayhroBO-n/iaKaTHbix, cxeM aTM M ecKM x cneKTaKneM, arwTauMOHHoe aHayeHwe K O T O p b IX T0H8T B T O U O M K p i/IK B M H 6 H B X O flH T HacTonmero aKTya/ibHoro OTHOuieHnn apwTena, a no npwHUwny aaHMwiaTenbHwx, a*$eKTHO nocTpoeHHHX, TeaTpanbHo m cueHMMecKw ueRcTBeHHWx nbec co cuowHoPi <t>a6y/io(’ i, nepenueTaiomi/iMHcn MHTpwraMM m aMouMOHaubHod HacbimecTHocTbio.»28 SnaMHT, rnaBHom nanaueR npoTWB xapaKTepnoR a n a arMTauMOHHoro TeaTpa npwGnMaMTenbHocTM h cjiyMaRHOcTM (|>opM bi AJieKceR OaRKO CM W Tan «aaHMMaTejlbHOCTb», «W HTpW W HOCTb», aO*OKTHyK) nocTpoeHHOCTb craweTa, cnowHOCTb *a6ynbi. AHTMTeaoR TeaTpa «ronoro KpRKa» CTaHOBwnca TeaTp TOMHeRuiero ai/iHaMMMecKoro pacMeTa^* Lake Zjm/’ was tied to the Russian situation in the 1920s in the most spontaneous manner. This connection is seen as early as the author’s formulations of his aesthetic goals. “I believe,” he said, “that the contemporary revolutionary repertoire should not be created according to the principle of slogan-poster, schematic productions, the agitational meaning of which moans in a bare cry and fails to find a genuine, actual relation to the viewer, but according to the principle of fascinating, effectively structured, theatrical plays, performed on the stage, with complex plots, intertwined intrigues and emotional depth.” This means that the main panacea against similarity and coincidence of form, characteristic of agitational theater, was for Faiko “fascination,” “intrigue,” the effective construction of plot development, the complexity of the plot. The theater of precise dynamic conception became the antithesis of the theater of the “bare cry.” 28ibid„ p.322. 29ibid. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 82 Faiko himself said that the form was necessary in order to show the paucity of unbridled egotism; "Oaepo Jlionb»-MenoflpaMa.-roBopMn O aPiK O , ee ncM X H fl— TeMn, crpacTb n ynapHocTb». «fpy6o roBopn, — yTBepwaan <D ai?iK 0,-M 0M M sanaHneM 6bino BbipasnTb Kpax HHflMBHflyanncTMMecKoro MnpocoaepuaHnn.”^ ® (Faiko said, ''Lake Lyul, is a melodrama whose psychology, tempo, passion are striking.” “To put it crudely,” Faiko asserted, “my task was to express the collapse of the individualist world view.”) However, Rudnitsky ironically comments that Tpy6o ro6opn, H M M ero M 3 9Toro He Bbiujno."3i (“To put it crudely, nothing of the sort came out of it.”) Why did Meyerhold choose to stage a melodrama? By its definition, it had a political element like the agitational theater but retained strongly Populist elements, which were designed to emotionally engage the masses. Frolov, a specialist in genre studies, defines the Soviet conception of melodrama thus: MenoflpaMa— O flM H ms ocHOBHbix manpoB, 6ea KOToporo Henbaa npencTaBMXb ce6e cMcxeiviy wanpoB b pyccKoM flpaMaxyprMM XX BeKa.^2 M e n o A p a iv ia o G p e x a n a B bicoK M e 4>yHKUMM, nanpM iviep, b T p M flu a x b ix r o f l a x XIX C T o n e x M a bo (PpanuM M , b nepM O A p eB o n io u M O H H o ro ABM weHM a. l o r A a o n a o6 /iM M an a « u ap C T B O 6aH K M poB », rp a 6 M T e jib C T B 0 M opanM 6ypw yaaM M , c coM yBCTBM eM n o K a a b iB a n a 6 e c n p a B M e m H M m ery T p y A O B o ro n iO A a.33 B «TeaxpanbHoR anuMKnoneAWM» mu naxoAMM xaKoe onpeAeneHMe wanpa: «MenoApaMa-waHp ApaMaxyprMM» nbeca, oxnuHatomaaca ocxpoR MHxpuroR, npeyBenMMeHHoR aMoiiMaJibHocxio, peaKM M 3 ® ib id . 3* ibid. Frolov, OSovetskoi Komedii. (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1954): p. 364. 33ibid., p.364-65. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 83 n p o T M B o n o c T a B /ie H n e M f l o 6 p a m 3/ia, M opa/ibH O -noyM M T e;ibH oi?l T eH fleH u n ei?l.» 3 4 Melodrama is one of the fundamental genres, without which it would be impossible to eoneeive of a system of genres in Russian dramaturgy of the 19*^ Century. Melodrama acquired important functions, such as in the 1830s in France, the period of revolutionary movement. At that time it uncovered the “kingdom of bankers,” the bourgeoisie’s morality of thievery, and sympathetically portrayed the lack of rights and the poverty of the working man. In The Theatrical Encyclopedia we find this definition of the genre: “Melodrama is a genre of plays which is distinguished by sharp intrigue, over-emotionality, a clear delineation of good and evil, and a moralistic-educational tendency.” While not exactly Bolshevik, the genre of melodrama, like many other literary endeavors of the Soviet 1920s, still managed not to countermand the Communist Party dictums and allowed the inclusion of negative characters and anti-heroes; something which would not be possible in another ten years. Faiko, in an interview in Zrelishche, attempts to justify the more reserved nature of the political content of his play as well as defending the need to stage such works as this: I think that a contemporary revolutionary repertoire must be created not like slogans or propaganda posters, which groans in a raw shriek and does not establish a real relationship to the audience, but according to the principle of meaningful and effectively constructed theatrical and scenically effective plays with complex plots interweaving intrigues and emotional satisfaction. If we have moved away from naturalism, with its cataloguing of everyday detail and psychological overburdening, for a long time we have wandered the cliffs of aesthetic "stylehounds", of stylization and the approach (Kamemy Theater) that now our path leads 34ibid., p. 365. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 84 toward a well-defined, precise realism without compromise and theatrically justified^s Faiko's Lake LyuV as a melodrama easily lent itself to lampooning corrupt agents trying to take advantage of the working class. With its crude delineation of character into clearly good or bad categories, staging a melodrama was not a great deal different from staging an agitational play, or agitka. Lake LyuV takes place "somewhere in the far West, or maybe the distant East," on a "large island which is the center of civilization and cosmopolitanism"; most of the action is in a resort hotel, the Atlantis, clearly a symbol of a lost or fallen civilization of the same name. Many of the characters' personalities border on national cultural and literary stereotypes; The Germans are orderly, the Chinese are cunning, and the English behave with decorum; in particular, Migler, with his German surname, as engineer, follows a 19*century tradition in Russian literature, including from Goncharov and Turgenev, among others. Also, the characters' names play upon cultural assumptions and stereotypes, often serving as "telling names," another theatrical and literary tradition: Peter Bul'mering (Boomerang), elder and younger, obviously an English upper-crust surname, a country with a fairly rigid class system and a monarchy; Pedro Kabral seems to be in a tradition particularly popular in the literature of the 1920s, the Mexican revolutionary figure such as Ilya Ehrenburg's Julio Jurenito. (Margarita Bul'mering, the wife of Bul'mering Junior, has a Spanish first name and incidentally also turns out to be Pedro Kabral's secret ally.) Natan Kron [Nathan Krone] is a backstabbing, anti-Semitic portrait of a Jewish person. Zrelishche, No. 6, 1923. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 85 Ida Ormond, the courtesan, resembles the great femme fatale Ida Rubinshtein. Anton Prim, the wheeler-dealer protagonist's name, is obviously ironic. Maisie [Mezi], obviously sounds like either an American or English serving girl as does Bob, a popular nickname of the time for Boris. Chong-Khe is referred to as "devious," Georgetta B'eneme (Bienamais), Ida's competition, former friend and unsuccessful courtesan's name ironically means “well loved” in French. Other characters include Evelyn Kriu, the clothing designer, Ignatius [Ignats] Vitkovsky, obviously Polish; Migler, obviously German; Count Leopold Al'bano, obviously an Italian, Von Kurtz [Eon Kurts], also obviously a German, and the servants all with British names: Fanni, Machbub, and Cutie [K'iuti]. Clearly, the risks involved in the production were not just those run by the actors. Meyerhold himself incurred substantial risk to his reputation as Commissar of Theater and the creator of Theatrical October: Korna MeC^epxonbû cxasun «Oaepo Jlionb» b xeaxpe PeBonK)UM M , onacHOCTb oxnaTb ceoe ncKyccxso s ycnyweHne H am waHCKoM ny&nwKe 6wna an a Hero oMenb peanbHa. flojiHOcxbio oh axoM onacHocxw ne H 36ewan. B axoM onyce nonwxMHecKMm xeaxp— no KpameM iviepe, oxMacxM— cxaHOBMncfl xeaxpowi pasBneKaxenbHbiM.^^ When Meyerhold staged Lake Lyul ’ in the Theater of the Revolution, the danger of putting his art to the service of the NEP public was very real to him. He did not flee from this danger completely. In this opus the political theater—at least to some degree—became a theater of entertainment. Nonetheless, the direetor’s gamble paid off handsomely. ^^Rudnitsky, Rezhisser Meierkhol’d, p. 324. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 86 Lake Lyul'-V\oi Summary Faiko's Lake Lyul' contains an extremely complicated plot with many crowd-pleasing elements. It bears retelling in substantial detail because of the rarity of the text and the lack of familiarity on the part of most Slavists and theater specialists alike. In addition, the particular language of the play, littered with actual and borrowed foreign words and the viciously greedy phraseology of the New Economic Policy, helps the reader understand the play's overall character and mood and also provides understanding of the characters. Like most melodramas, its characters are not complex. The plot, also like the typical melodrama, sides with the underprivileged classes. This particular melodrama is typical of Soviet NEP drama in that the picture of capitalism presented predictably is of a relentless, bloodthirsty struggle for territory, money and power. Some critics have compared the play's structure to Expressionism because it quickly shifts scenes and the dialogue is often so brief that it borders on being like a telegram. Faiko claims his play shows the dangers of unbridled ruthless individualism in a straightforward, clear manner but often it seems that his goal was to present an enticing and exotic picture that would lure audiences to the theater. The plot revolves around three major characters, all of dubious nature: Anton Prim, a former convict and current opportunist; Bul'mering Senior, a rich, powerful finance capitalist; and lastly, Bul'mering Junior, a power-hungry middle-aged man, tired of living in his father's shadow. All of them men are involved in a complex play for power and for the beautiful Ida Ormond, the current mistress of Bul'mering Senior. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 87 The play is set in an unnamed location far away on a large island and a center of both civilization and cosmopolitanism. The first act opens in a luxurious hotel abuzz with commerce and communications. Bul'mering Junior confides to Migler, an engineer, and Vitkovskii, a journalist, that his father's mistress, Ida Ormond, is fleecing him of all his money and this must be dealt with; thus we are immediately shown a picture of bloodthirsty, disloyal capitalists plotting against each other. Soon after, Anton Prim enters having returned from three years in prison and looking for work at the prestigious Excelsior Hotel where his old acquaintance Maisy (Mezi) works as a maid. She clearly loves him, a fact he is ready to exploit to his own ends. He shamelessly takes money from her and enlists her aid in finding a job. He secretly has been in touch with his old cronies from Lake Lyul', a group of underworld gangsters. Prim maneuvers and manipulates to get a job, all the while humming what will be his anthem throughout the piece: ECUW WM3Hb nO tU na l/l BKpi/IBb H BKOCb, nnaKaxb, npyr M oia, 6pocb. n p u ro T O B M T b C B oflenaTb xon-C K aM O K , XanaA cBoM KycoK!^^ If life has tossed you back and forth Stop crying, my friend. Then you have to do a hop and jump. And grab your own little piece. Prim's anthem, in a nutshell, summarizes the typical NEPman's attitude: grab what you can now, for tomorrow it might not he possible, which obviously strongly contradicts any sense of the collective, the future, the greater good or any type of morality. A\QX&iVmko, Lake LyuV, Teatr-P’ esy, Vospominaniia. (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1971): p. 15. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 88 The servants have exotic foreign names and their speech, like those of the main characters, is interspersed with foreign words. Several repeatedly shout "all right!" in English. Others connected to the dubious conspirators on Lake Lyul' are stereotyped characters such as Chong-Khe, an Asian with a long braid down his back who works in the laundry and Pedro Kabral', the brave hotheaded Mexican leader of the Lyul' group. Although Pedro does not work at the hotel, he clearly controls many of those who do. However, the conspiracy and the battle lines of the impending conflict are but sketched out, leaving the audience to piece together a virtual cloak-and-dagger detective story. The exotic names, places and spectacles play a far greater role than do any of the individual characters. Ida Ormond has her own new villa, horses and cabriolet, as well as own personal dress designers and tailors, which she flaunts in the other characters’, and presumably the audience's astounded faces.^* Her behavior and her possessions highlight wild conspicuous consumption. Her speech is also littered with foreign borrowed words and she prefers being addressed as either "miss" or "mademoiselle." Ida’s vanity gives Prim an opportunity to further his career. He makes her acquaintance by claiming her riding boots need to be shined and he offers to do it, flattering her all the while.^^ B'eneme steams at Ida’s pretensions as 3«ibid., p. 20. 3%id., p. 22. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 89 she, like many others who became rich during NEP, has forgotten her humble origins when they worked together in a restaurant. Ida has Bul'mering Senior hire Prim as one of her estate managers for her new villa. The first rumblings of those beginning to conspire against Bul'mering Senior begin. Because Migler did not complete some of Bul'mering Senior's tasks as he was busy doing his son’s bidding, Bul'mering Senior fires Migler on the spot. Bul'mering Senior realizes his son's and Migler's treachery and threatens them both with prison. Bul'mering Senior’s enemies laugh about the kind of people he has working for him. Even the last holdout supposedly loyal to Bul'mering Senior, Natan Kron, promises Bul'mering Junior to count him in on their plan, though he leaves with Bul'mering Senior in order to at least keep up the facade that he is still loyal to him. Bul'mering Junior’s group rejoices in what they feel will be their imminent success. Vitkovsky and his girlfiiend B'eneme suggest a fine breakfast and champagne to celebrate. Vitkovsky slyly asks Ida Ormond's seamstress Kriu whether or not she will mind changing her main client from Ida to B'eneme. Kriu, sensing that the political tide might be changing, agrees.^® The act ends with Prim returning Maisy's money but leaving her with no promises of his return as he goes off to his new employment at the Villa Ormond. Thus, we are shown that the world of Lake Lyul' is one of conspiracies, counter-conspiracies, and of ever-changing shifting sands of 40ibid., p. 27. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 90 alliances. Loyalties are a commodity like anything else to be traded, bought, sold or stolen, for everyone from the lowliest seamstress to the great capitalist's own son. Prim begins giving the other employees of the Villa Ormond new orders. He pretentiously addresses them as "ladies and gentlemen" (naan m flweHTenbMeHbi). They are all of the same ilk as Prim himself: greedy, self- serving and looking out for their own best interests, which makes his form of address particularly ironic and out of place. Prim tells them that they haven’t developed a sense of freedom and that they should remember that style comes first, people second.'*^ The chauffeur’s comment that rats are beginning to jump off the sinking ship furthers the impression that servants are a conniving disloyal bunch and that conflict is imminent. Prim secretly meets with more of his old acquaintances from those still connected with the mysterious "Lake Lyul'" group. He discovers that someone working at the villa has been sent by Pedro Kabral'. Prim plans to clear his path to power: to finish off Bul’mering the elder, to begin working on the younger Bul’mering by infiltrating Bul’mering City in small groups, and then replace Migler, who has denounced Prim. Moreover, Prim discovers that the traitorous Bul’mering Junior has financed a coup. Like Prim and other characters, Ida wants her every whim fulfilled this "very minute." Ida meets with her personal clothes designer, Kriu, who R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 91 fits her for some fine new clothes^^. In similar spirit with Ida's extravagance is Prim's Epicureanism, his thirst for more, now at all costs. Prim displays this with another of his famous aphorisms: “Live hy burning hot and bright, without stopping."^) Ida Ormond demands more money from Bul'mering Senior. She refers to herself as the “finest quality goods. Furthermore, her goods clearly come at a price, as she refuses to give him any more caresses until he gives her more money.^s Kron suggests to Bul'mering Junior that they need to eliminate his father and that he should steal his father's mistress, Ormond. Ida seems to he amenable, showing interest in his financial assets, particularly if they are more stable than his father's. She offers herself as a prize, repeating that she "loves to crown the victors.”^^ When Kron and Migler arrive to announce that Bul'mering Senior has been killed and that Bul'mering City has been evacuated, several people shout for joy. Kron gives an obsequious speech which seems to almost parody Communist rhetoric in which he refers to himself as a member of the lowest working class “Mu, MepHopa6oMne M M 3H M , 3a6pu3raHHue rpfl3b K » , noKpuTue KonoTbio, pa6u xiejia”. (“We, life’s most menial laborers, soiled all over in filth, covered with soot, slaves '’^ibid., p. 36. Although insignificant in terms o f plot, nonetheless was a show stealer. Women in Moscow fiocked to see this because the styles shown were the hottest fashions in Europe which Meyerhold and his wife had just seen in Paris. 43 ibid., p. 37-38. 44ibid., p. 33. 45ibid. 4®ibid., p. 44. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 92 of work.”) Kron nonetheless does a quick about-face and curries Ida Ormond's favor, bows to her and asks her if she will allow him to be her “court treasurer.The whole scene exudes luxury, devil-may-care attitudes and intrigue, particularly callous in light of the discussion of a murder, the announcement of a death, and a putsch: Vitkovsky calls for champagne; Ida asks “3HaMMT-status-quo?” '‘* (“So this means everything is status quo?") Fon Kurtz answers in Latin: "A htb 6ennyM."^9 (“Ante helium.”) The scene closes with everyone raising their glasses to Count Leopold Al'bano's toast: "Le roi est mort, vive le roi!"^® He then smashes his glass. The imperialist overtones are thus reinforced not only with the crash of a champagne glass but the ironic "the king is dead, long live the king." Even more ironic, "the dead king," Bul'mering Senior, astonishes everyone by appearing in the middle of their premature celebration. A fight between father and son ensues; the father faints and is carried off. Despite their efforts to promote B'eneme as Bul'mering Junior's new mistress, Ida has retained her position with the "victor," Bul'mering Junior; both Vitkovsky and B'eneme quickly shift strategies and assure her of their undying loyalty. Prim explains to Ida that “in the depths of the island is the small Lake LyuT, his home and his school. In its factories and towns live strong people who work and wait. They are sure of their goal and move p. 45. 4»ibid. "%id., p. 46. 50ibid. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 93 resolutely toward it. They want to remake the world and to create happiness for all.” Life moves forward. Always go forward, while you still can. Prim's speech seems an ironic parody of revolutionary rhetoric. Ida allows Prim to kiss her. Kron, who has been spying all the while, interrupts them and lets them know he has seen and heard everything and Prim slips him some money. The act ends with Prim and Ida kissing. Act III takes place in the plush store. Excelsior, in the luxury goods department. The stage directions call for "huge display cases, lots of salespeople, and round sofas. Announcements, advertisements and posters hang everywhere.” While presumably this is here to show the spiritual and moral bankruptcy of the characters, this display of decadent wealth is also a clever way to include more crowd-pleasing elements. There are throngs of well-dressed shoppers browsing and sometimes the sounds of a string orchestra are heard. Fon Kurtz, the store manager, proudly tells two photographers that this department is the meeting place for the crème de la crème of society, the most beautiful women and the most important men. Margarita Bul'mering meets with Pedro Kabral' to pass on money she has been stealing from her husband for "the cause," the rebellion in the works, but Bul'mering Junior comes upon them and demands to know what she is doing and asks his wife for a complete accounting of his missing money. ^hbid, p. 49. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 94 Afterward, Maisy informs Kabral’ that she has heen fired from her post at the Hotel. Kabral’ demands to know Prim's whereabouts but Maisy reftises to tell him and she rushes off to find him. Ida Ormond, Prim and Kron show up and find out from the journalists that there has been a battle on board the ship. Counterforce, several subsequent arrests, a large train wreck with many casualties, and a rebellion brewing in some battalions. Kron believes Prim is connected to the Lyul' group and tries to make a deal with him because of Prim’s popularity with the people, even promising to make him a minister if he eooperates.^^ Pnm refuses to make any alliance with Kron, who responds by sending agents to keep an eye on him. Ida Ormond, on the other hand, begins to exchange her old lover for his son. She reinforces the earlier line that the Bul'merings are kings as well as her own status as the mistress of the king, no matter who he is.^^ Bul'mering Junior behaves like a would-be king, cavalier with the lives of his subjects; he ruthlessly says, “those who will die are those who must die. "^4 jjig authoritative tone extends to Ida when he threatens that he won’t tolerate any competitors.^^ The would-be queen refuses to be cowed and answers that it is his business to get rid of his own competitors for her affections and repeats her earlier statement that she loves to crown the 52ibid., p. 59. 53ibid., p. 61. 34ibid. 35ibid., p. 62. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 95 victors.5^ Prim jealously tries to threaten Bul'mering Junior but Ida continues her regal mood and tells Prim to know his place. The agents drag in Maisy on the trumped-up charge that she has stolen Ormond's purse. She begs for Prim to help her and threatens to tell everyone about his plans. She forcibly is taken away. Prim begs Kron to bring Maisy back. Kron tries to use this to get Prim to join his side but he refuses. Pedro Kabral', the revolutionary populist in the play, displays almost Communist fervor and sentiment when he delivers a rabble-rousing speech against the greed, excesses and injustices of the wealthy and much like a sans coulotte, tells all to prepare for revolution and to save Maisy.^^ Act III ends with a melee: the police arrive and round everyone up. Kron gets them to release him and his "personal secretary" Prim. Prim has now officially taken sides with Kron and his ilk. Act IV opens with Count Al'bano and Bul'mering Senior playing chess for fine cigars. Al'bano wearily remarks in Latin: "Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis."^* Prim is giving an interview with reporters and reveals that his main goal is "maximum pleasure"^^ and that he sides with the anarchist party.^*^ He also claims that his short-term goal is to rest and have some fun and that his favorite form of government is despotism. When asked 56ibid. 57ibid., p. 68. 58ibid., p.70. 59ibid., p.71. 60ibid. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 96 who his favorite historical hero is, he answers, "Judas," an obvious ironic reference to not only Prim's lack of loyalty but the other characters' as well. Bul'mering Senior asks Prim for money, and after some badgering he agrees, telling them “every one needs to live for today because tomorrow it could all turn to dust and that new people will begin new lives."^' Soon after he adds, “One must live. Now is the time, later will be too later. Today! You have to live, begin to live. Life is everything. Time is calling. Ring out, ring out! The hell with you, ring out more!"^^ Qnce again, we are struck with the immediacy and almost fanatic passion to live for today, not plan for the future, again an inversion of Communist ideals. The Lyul' group comes to talk to Prim who has managed to free Maisy through connections. Prim brags about his political power in the capital, Bul'mering City, and promises to hand it over to them in exchange for the support of the Lake Lyul' group and also to signal the start of the rebellion for them. Migler and Kron begin to suspect Prim of treachery. After they all have left. Prim sits in the dark and sips gin (an exotic beverage for the Soviet Union) and philosophizes much like Nero fiddling while Rome bums.^3 Ida comes in and he again sings his song about life. Prim takes pride that Natan Kron taught him all he knows but now he can outdo them all—alone. In yet another non-Communist, egocentric sentiment. Prim 6iibid„ p. 72. “ ibid., p.73. “ ibid., p. 79. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 97 brags that they all wanted to kill him hut he sent them to decimate all his enemies, i.e., each other. He believes his main enemy to he Bul'mering Junior. Ida frantically tries to convince him otherwise and that Kron has deceived and used him. Prim becomes confused, not knowing who or what to believe. He accuses Margarita Bul'mering of being a spy and tempts her with offers of saving her husband. When she tells him that nobody can, he responds by throwing her across the room. Bul'mering Junior arrives at that moment and holds up Prim with a gun. Prim tries to trick and provoke him with taunts that he will frighten "their" Ida (who has long since left). What finally distracts Bul'mering is the sight and sound of his beloved Bul'mering City under fire and siege. Prim attacks him and beats him to death as Ida runs in. They put his body in an armchair "like a lord." Prim threatens to kill Ida. Chong-Khe and Maisy run in. Maisy wants them to kill Ida, but Prim forbids it. Prim agrees to flee with them, having proved his loyalty to the Lyul' group by killing Bul'mering Junior. Soon after Kron and Migler arrive to discover a dead Bul'mering and a distraught Ida. She tells them Prim has betrayed them. The act ends with Migler dispatching a search party after Prim against a background of the city burning. Act V wraps up the obvious plot threads. On Lake Lyul', there are constant falling stars, a sign of impending doom. The battle begins. Kabral' orders Prim to stand at the main road and to send a flare signal at the appropriate time. He agrees, but after they leave. Prim tries to leave, despite R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 98 his promise. Maisy tries to stop him and she bravely stays behind to give the sign, finally understanding how fi-uitlessly she has loved Prim and what a scoundrel he is. The Lyul' group wins. Prim returns to save Maisy from being tortured. The final scene of the play is against a background of trumpets blaring and shouts of "Long live Lake Lyul'!" which sharply contrasts with "long live the king." Pedro Kabral's collective has, in good Communist fashion, toppled both the monarchy and the corrupt. Prim feels that he has been saved; however, Maisy quickly disillusions him just as he has done to her throughout the play, threatening him with a gun that “there is no saving him."^^ Prim does not believe her because he thought she loved him. Nonetheless she shoots him and he falls. After, the last lines are Maisy’s declaring her love for him.^s Duty proved stronger than love and thus, a dog dies a dog's death. The Response by the Press Initial reviews, even in more conservative publications such as Pravda and Izvestiia, were extremely favorable. Izvestiia, which reviewed the play before its staging declared it to contain "a wealth of material for satire of the capitalist world and the individualism of bourgeois society, brightly depicting its decay and destruction."^^ A. Fevral'skii, Meyerhold's friend, said of Lake Lyul' that "it was dynamic, but not filled with rhetoric," ^^ibid., p. 100. 65ibid. “ peueH3MM M aaweTKM o YMUTejib By6yc u O sepo Jl. Meyerhold Theater and the Revolution Theater.” Aug. 26, 1923. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 99 and that it was "an impressive and riveting sight" and proclaimed it the "best of the Theater of the Revolution's repertoire."^’ The public went wild, there were no tickets to be had, and a battle in the press ensued which verged on the comical. No detail related to the production escaped controversy, even the sale of tickets warranted disagreement. In the theatrical journal Rampa, the production's success is described as a train, an "express train-Moscow-Chicago-Lake Lyul'."^* The reviewer also categorized the production’s wild success in terms of ticket sales at the Theater of the Revolution: "you need to stand in line for a pass to stand in line for tickets, and when you get to the ticket window, it's sold out. Rabochii ZriteV sniped back that the way tickets were being sold at the Theater of the Revolution mirrored the modus operandi of the NEPmen it portrays.’® Whatever a reviewer's opinion, there would follow a review criticizing him, and subsequently a third reviewer would criticize both of them for confusing the public. Just as many of our own popular stars have realized, controversy helps sell tickets. Meyerhold's theater had known great hardship and financial difficulties up until, arguably, this very production; although previous plays had won kudos fi'om Meyerhold's fellow artists and acceptance from the political machine governing theater. Lake Lyul' marked Meyerhold's first true "smash hit" particularly with the public. Pravda, Nov. 9, 1923. ^^Rampa, n. 2-15, 1924. ’® Rabochii ZriteV, #6 1924. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 100 In a preliminary review in Zrelishche by Vladimir Vol'kenshtein, like Faiko, a member of Moscow Playwrights’ Assocation, liked Faiko's unfinished play: rio/iaran, mto b Haiue Bpeiwn He ycTaHOBMSujerocn 6bija H eB O SM O M H O npKan h noMB6HHan peanwcTMHecKaa nHxepaType— T6M 6onee npaMa— mu mueM b xeaxpe pesKO nocTaHaBJieHHUx, com/ianbHO-(|>Hnoco(|>CKM X npobneM, npenMymecTBeHHo b nnane MOHyMeHxanbHom repowyecKoM npaMu m aKcueHxpwyecKoM K O M eflM M [. . . ] M U cK/ioHHU nyMaxb, yxo npaKxwKa nonxBepwaaex cnpaBeanwBocxb natuHx w cK aH M R. W a n y io x c n Ha c K y n o c x b c o a p e M e n n o r o p e n e p x y a p a . Ho, 6uxb Mowex, penepxyap ne noKaaancn 6u xaKi/iM cKyflHUM, ecnw 6u xeaxpu npwaaBanw 6onee caMOflOBneiomee anayenue npaMaxyprwH, bhb saBM CM M ocxM O X yncxo-aKxepcKoro noaxona, c xoyKM speHHB pacnpeaeneHMB ponem h x.a. Bchomhhm xoxa 6u PeMnrapaxa, KoxopuM c ocobennuM BHUM anweM o6cxaBnnn nepaoe noBBneHwe na cuene HOBoro aBXopa.^i By proposing that in our time, when daily life never stops, that our own purely realistic literature—much less drama—is impossible, in theater we are searching for sharply posed social-philosophical problems, primarily along the lines of monumental heroic drama and eccentric comedy [... ] we are inclined to believe that experience has confirmed the justness of our search. They complain about the poverty of the contemporary repertoire; but perhaps the repertoire would not be so poor if theaters were to give a more independent significance to dramaturgy that goes beyond dependence upon a purely actor-centered approach, the distribution of roles and so on. If we recall Reinhardt, for example, who organized the first appearance of a new author on the stage with particular attention. In his discussion, he stresses the poverty of the contemporary theatrical repertoire and says the organization's goals are to rectify this problem. '^^Zrelishche #20,1923. ibid. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 101 another piece in Zrelishche Vladimir Mass, another member of the same organization, praises Faiko's play lavishly and concurs that it "will enrich our poor repertoires."^^ At least partially, the argument of a lack of new Soviet plays was partially utilized to stage less than staunchly revolutionary works and became a rallying cry for those who wished to do so. Certainly, The Playwrights Association of Moscow ("Moskovskaia Assotsiatsia Dramaturgov" or MAD), which was formed in the autumn of 1922, had a vested interest in promoting their cause, the development of a new repertoire. The main goal of the organization was: coaflaHne penepxyapa, coaByMHoro coBpeMeHHocxn: poMaHTwyecKoR npaMbi, npenMymecxBeHHoro MOHyMeHTanbHoro Tuna « xparejam/i, npoHi/iKHyxoR couMarTbHo-(|>i/uioco<|)CKMM coflepwaHi/ieM» <|)a6ynRCTMMecKM aaHMMaxeribHoR MenoapaMbi n eKcueHxpkmecKoR K oivienM R .74 the creation of a repertoire that harmonizes with the present: romantic drama, especially of the monumental type, “the tragedy imbued with social-philosophical content,” the melodrama with an engaging plot and eccentric comedy. This also seems to suit Meyerhold's ends as well. At the time of Lake Lyul's performance MAD’s members included playwrights, critics and journalists such as Antokol'skii, Apushkin, V. Bebutov, Bromlei, Faiko, Globa, Lipskerov, Mass, Neverov, Pamok, Vol'kenshtein, Zarkhi; many of these rallied around Faiko's and therefore Meyerhold's new performance.’^ Around this time Novaia Moskva promised to publish the first series of plays from Zrelishche # 2 0 ,1923. Izvestiia, May 13, 1923. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 102 MAD consisted of six books: Vladimir Vol'kenshtein's-i? fJaji/ia-TpareM!^^ {In the face ofLalla-a. tragedy), Andrei Globa's CaaMbda Aiyora-Tparn-KOMeAMfi {Hugo’ s Wedding-a tragic comedy), Konstantine Lipskerov's KapMeHCMra m Abae-TparM-KOMenun {Carmencita and Josc-a tragic comedy), Alexei Faiko's Oaepo Æ?Æ,-coBpeivieHHan MenoflpaMa {Lake Lyul’ -a contemporary melodrama), Vladimir Mass' AaaHTbiopbi (The Adventurers), Pavel AntokoFsky’s KyK/ia i/iH(paHTbi{The Infanta's Puppet.) One of these six books was Vol'kenshtein's book on the theory of drama MpaMaryprna (P layw righting.Clearly, the relationship between Meyerhold and the newly founded MAD was a mutually beneficial one. Faiko's own comments in an interview in Zrelishche echoes his comrades' description in characterizing what he feels the task of contemporary repertoire should be: 5 1 CM M Taio, M T O coBpeMeHHUfl peBO JiK )m /ioH H biC!i penepryap nonweH coaaaBaTbcn He no npwHUMny noaynroBO-nnaKaTHbix cxeiviaTMMecKHX cneKTaKnem, arwTauMOHHoe aHaMenwe KOTopwx tohbt b ronoM kpmkb M He HaxoflMT HacTonmero aKryaribHoro OTHOiueHMn apure/m , a no npwHuwny aanwMaTe^bHwx, 3<|)eKTHO-nocTpoeHHbix rearpa/ibHoro m cueHi/mecKHM aeRcTBeHHwx nbec co cnowHod $a6yno%, nepen/ieraiotuHMHCfi MHTpwrawM m aiviom/ioHanbHoA HacbimeHOCTbio. Ec/ im M bt yuiJiH O T HATyPATIMSMA c ero 6WT0B0R aeTanwaauweR M ncwxonorMMecKoR neperpywenocTbio ao/iroe Bpeivm GaywaaiiH no yme/ibBM M aCTOTMMeCKMX CTMUbMMKOB, CTHJlHaaUM R I/I nOflXOflUOB (KaMepHbiR Tearp) to TeaTp b Ham nyTb BeaëT k M ëTKOMy becKOMnpoMMCHOMy M TeaTparibHoro onpaBaaHHOMy peani/iaMy.^^ I believe that the contemporary revolutionary repertoire should not be created according to the principle of slogan- 76"Novye p'esy,” Trudovaia kopeika, Sept. 20,1923. ^^"Ozero Lyul',” Zrelishche #60, 1923. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 103 poster, schematic performances, the agitational meaning of which moans in a bare cry and fails to find a genuine, actual relation to the viewer, but according to the principle of fascinating, effectively structured, theatrical plays, performed on the stage, with complex plots, intertwined intrigues and emotional depth. If we left NATURALISM with its mundane detail and psychological overloading and wandered aimlessly through the ravines of aesthetic little stylists, stylizations and approaches (The Kamemy Theater), then the theater of our path leads to a clear cut, uncompromising realism that justifies the theater. Faiko also touts the political potential of LyuV, as his main idea in the play was to portray "Kpax nHAMBunyanMCTUMecKoro coaepuaHnn."^* (“The collapse of the individualist worldview.”) He describes his main character. Prim, as an egocentric and selfish negative example which all can learn fi-om. Glowing reviews continued to pour in, even from more conservative publications. Izvestiia characterized the play's potential political benefits as positive: 'Tlbeca n aër SoraTwM viaTepnan nnn caxupbi Ha K anM TanM C TM H ecK w m mhp m HHflHBM nyan m bypwyasHoro obmecTBa, npKo pHcyn ero paanomeHwe m rube/lb.("The play provides rich material for satire of the capitalist world and the individual from bourgeois society, brilliantly depicting its dissolution and death.”) Trudovaia kopeika concurred and characterized LyuV as "nonbiTKa naobpasMTb peBontouHOHHyio bopbby b (|>opM e nbecbi co onowHO ^^"Khudozhestvennoi rabochii plan teatra na predstoiashchii sezon,” Izvestiia August 26, 1923. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 104 MejioflpaMaTMMecKoi^ M HTpnroi?i."^o (“an attempt to depict the revolutionary struggle in the form of a play with complex melodramatic intrigue.”) However, the tide strangely began to turn when Khrisanf Khersonsky, a former student of Meyerhold, parried Faiko's comments and strongly disagreed with him. In his review of LyuV, he says that if the author seriously meant to show failure of the individual or the consciousness of an anarchist-revolutionary ripped away from the collective, he did not accomplish this. Khersonsky is equally critical of the production of the play. He says the plot resembles a detective story or film and is constructed like kinomontazh and that it should have been done more simply and more dynamically. He calls the second act "anemic," also that the fourth act achieves the opposite effect of what is desired— "laughter." The overall plan and design is weak and Khersonsky suggests to both Meyerhold and Faiko to re-do it for film— to shorten and quicken it, especially the second and fourth acts. He says that five acts in four and half hours is "yTOMi/iTenbHo" (“torture.”) Film would force it to be clearer, simpler, deeper. After Khersonsky's review, the praise became more mixed and the criticism more vociferous, often volleying back and forth among the critics and censors themselves. Isbach's review in Rabochaia Moskva claims that the play's goal is interesting and worthwhile but makes some mistakes in *®"Ozero Lyul'," Trudovaia kopeika Sept. 25, 1923. **"Ozero Liul' vteatre revoliutsii," /zvestua November 10, 1923. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 105 developing its plot because the author mixes social and purely personal moments. It is unclear whom Prim actually sides with. "3to crpauiHo HeynpaBHOBeujeHHan MflTyman < J> M ry p a MHTennnreHTa-HeBpacTeHUKa."*^ ("It is a dreadfully unbalanced, disturbed figure of the intellectual- neurasthenic.”) The figures of capitalists are clearly defined and interesting. Isbach feels that it is reminiscent of Toller's plays and Pinkertonism. Like Khersonsky, he suggests shortening the play into a good three acts instead of five long ones.*^ Trudovaia kopeika gives the play a strongly polar opinion. It claims "onb-pai?iT" should be pronounced "onnpaiTiT" (“all right” or “ole right”) and criticizes the main character for being a “buffoon." It calls the third act "wilted," the revolutionaries "ny6oMHwe" (“caricaturish.”) It feels the Chinese character is unnecessary and the scenes with Prim and his Indian servant are "HenpwaTHwrn Hanej flocToeBmnKM ann neveR cpeawero BoapacTa" ("an unpleasant flight of Dostoevskism for middle-aged children.") The second act is too long and the critic did not like the inclusion of all the "colloquial low-class Americanisms." But then the critic dismisses his own criticisms as nonsense because he thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish. The critic says Faiko's melodrama was written "intelligently and strongly;" he develops the plot well, creates characters without making them into caricatures and the dialogue is clear and sparkling. The whole *^Isbach. "Ozero Liul' k postanovke v Teatre Revoliutsii," Rabochaia Moskva November 11, 1923. 83ibid. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 106 production is successfully done thanks to the work by Meyerhold, Room and Shestakov. The play's essence displays "ycnoBHwR peannsM rporecKa." ("the uslovnyi [theatrical] realism of the grotesque.”) He concludes that he always wanted to know what was going to happen next.*^ Trudovaia Kopeik 's reaction in many ways contains the kernel of most reactions: the politically dubious overlay makes them uncomfortable, yet the production's sights and sounds make it an unforgettable experience. Pravda finds fault with the play, the theater and all those involved and says that particularly Teatr Revoliutsii's latest production, Faiko's LyuV has, more in common with an American bar than with the revolutionary struggle: ribeca A. 0aPiKO «0.J1.» nanner co6oM npmviep (j)a n b C M (|)M K a m 4 M peBoniomioHHoro rearpa. Ha6nionaTenbHbiPi nyHKX asTopa noMemeH He B ryme peBo/iwuMOHHOPi 6opb6w, He b pnaax peBontouMOHepoB, anaiomMx aa to mto ohh 6opioTcn, a aa cToMKoA aMepMKancKoro 6apa. Faiko’s play O. L. is an example of the falsification of the revolutionary theater. The author’s point of view is not entwined in the thick of revolutionary struggle, but with revolutionaries who know that all they’re struggling for is a spot in an American bar. It describes the main character. Prim, as "oTueneHeu"(“a renegade”) and “Miofla peBntouMH ("a Judas of the revolution.”) It also faults the play's approach to revolution as "alien." P ravda prudishly gasps "one even plans to marry a capitalist." Its final pronouncement is that the work is "o6beK T M B H O ^^"Prostaia istina-Ozero Liul' v teatre revoliutsii," Trudovaia kopeika, November 11, 1923. "Po povodu p’esy Ozero Liul’ ot Glavrepertkoma,’’Pravda November 11, 1923. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 107 BpeflHo" ("objectively harmful") and refers to it as "npuK/iioMeHMecTBa ksk TaKoro" ("pure adventure literature") and concludes that “toP i aHapxo-èOKCTPOTHoPI MenojipaMbi HanaKupoBaHHan cyTonoKa 6ypwya3Horo KahaKa."*® (“this anarchistic foxtrotting melodrama is like the slick clamor of a bourgeois tavern.”) Worst of all it is ultimately a waste of revolutionary money. Pravda then printed an answer to Glavrepertkom hy Vladimir Mass, Meyerhold and the assistant representative of the Politsovet of Teatr Revoliutsii, Raphael: fnaBpenepTKOM no eux nop, oMeBnnHo nonaraer, m to sanaMa rearpa no oTHouieHnio k peBO/nouktu— noAKypuBarb (|> iiM i/iaM b i o6mnx MecT, o6neKan peBoniomiOHHyio M bicjib b (|>opM y oJB/ieMeHHux nM $M pawi6oB. M bi nonoraeM, mto BOcnwTW BaTb apMTenem He S H B M M T K O pM H Tb M X C JlO W eM K M C JiaA K M M C M ponO M aneivieHTapHoA nonM TM M ecKoR iviopanM .*^ Up until now Glavrepertkom has obviously proposed that the task of theater in its relationship to the revolution is to hum the incense of common places, clothing the revolutionary idea in the form of abstract dithyrambs. We propose that nourishing the audience does not mean feeding them with a spoonful of the sweet syrup of elementary political morals. Finally, they say the best evidence that the public understands the play is the loud, united applause of the auditorium of workers after every act. However, Glavrepertkom answers in the same article that despite criticism in recent previous issues of Pravda, Lyul ’ was highly praised. It emphasizes that they (Glaverpertkom) had problems with the form: "nnenyivi November, 16, 1923. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 108 npn3Haji npaBM JibH ePi oSmyto oueHKy aaHHoM nbecbi, ho ne cor/iacnjicfl c O opM oM , B KOTopyio STB ouGHKa 6biJia o6jieMeHa.”* * ("The plenum acknowledged the general evaluation of the given play was correct, but it did not agree with the form in which this evaluation was cloaked.”) V. Fedorov in Zrelishche praises the production, the director and staging as well as the play because "it is necessary in a work to always leave something for a viewer to fill in; in this sense Lake Lyul' is a good play because it forces the audience to contemplate every act: "Emë ne npennaraeTcn roTOBux peuieHM A k cBefleHHio m pyKOBoncTBy, ho oh caM flenaer re BbiBonw, na KOTopue naMeKaer aarop A . (D aiJtK O ."^^ (“It still does not present finished answers to information and leadership, but it makes conclusions itself, to which the author A. Faiko alludes.”) In S. Prokofiev's mixed review for Trud, he faults the play for painting the capitalists as more interesting than their virtuous working-class counterparts: B Hbece we Oaepo Jlionb nio6oPi GypwyaanwA nepconaw BHyiuaeT Gonbiue C M M n aT M M , mom < |> M ry p b i KaproHHWx peBomouMOHepoB, nmueHHue wanemweM y6eflHTenbH0CTM, K aw A biM C B O k iM noBBneni/ieM BusbiBaiouuie CK yK y H HeAoyMeHne.90 In the play Lake Lyul ’ any bourgeois personage would inspire more sympathy that the figures of the cardboard revolutionaries who stripped of the least bit of persuasiveness, and who evoke boredom and confusion every time they appear. ^^Raphael. “Po povodu p’esy Ozero Liul’ otvet Glavrepertkomu: Vladimir Mass, Meyerhold, and zam. pred. politsovet o f Teatr Revoliutsii,” Pravda November 16, 1923. Fedorov. "Teatr revoliutsii-Ozero Liul”," Zrelishche #63, 1923. ^ S . Prokofiev. Truai November 29, 1923. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 109 Yet, he deems ZafeZyw/'“oflH M M m ueHHeM wwx cneKTaKneR b HBCToameM ceaoHe."^* ("One of the most worthwhile performances of the current season.”) As the popularity of the production increased so did the intensity of the debate surrounding it. Critics such as those for Rabochaia Moskva began to criticize previous reviews, in this case, Fevral'ski, for praising the production too strongly, and even Glavrepertkom for being too damning. Finally, it concludes with criticizing the critics for confusing the public and says the play does not warrant the noise and passion that has arisen around it.^^ Soon after, the Party machinery did not take kindly to being criticized. Pravda's I. Trainin takes issue with the way the revolutionaries in Lake LyuV are portrayed and demands resolution: [... ] H O B Teaxpe PesoniouMi/i nocTaBneHHOM rocyflapcTBOM B M CK nioM M Te/ibH oe nonoweHi/ie (KOTopwM ne nonbayeTCfl hm oarh rocTearp) h MaxonnuiRMcn non Ha6/iK)fleHneM aBTopHTejHbix napTHRHUX TOBapmneR w a no/iMTcoBeTa, 3TG TpeôyeT ocywaeHMn.^^ [...] but the [case of] Revolution Theater, which the government put in an exceptional situation (unlike no [other] single state theater) finds itself under the observation of authoritative party comrades of the Politsovet, requires condemnation. After hearing Narkompros' complaints. The Presidium pronounced Lake LyuV "ideologically unfit" for the Theater of the Revolution but because of all the work put into the production, would allow the play to run to the last performance under the conditions which Glavrepertkom together 91 ibid. 92"Po povodu kritiki Ozero Liul'," Rabochaia Moskva November 21, 1923. 9^1. Trainin. November 21, 1923. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 110 with the Politsovet of the theater would make. However, the play's performance in the provinces would be strongly restricted: KpoMe Toro, rnaepenepTKOMy nopyweHo hb o6mnx c flpyrnMM TearpaMM ocHOBaHunx noflMUHHTb Tearp PeBonjouMM ce6e nnn coBery MocKOBCKOMy oprany B M B C T M , KBcaiomePlcn KOHTponn HBfl penepTyapoivi.94 Besides, Glavrepertkom governs The Revolution Theater on the same basis as other theaters and is subordinate to the part Moscow soviet that exercises control over repertoire. Soon after, the play was discussed in great depth at a meeting of the Theatrical Section of the Russian Academy of Artistic Sciences. Meyerhold did not attend, but they praised him. "BonbuiUHCTBO roBopM BiuM x xapaKTepM30Ba/iM i/i nbecy i/i nocraHOBKy b ono6pi/iTenbHbix BwpaweHM BX." (“Most of those who spoke characterized both the play and its staging in laudatory terms.”) Vol'kenshtein, Morits, P. Markov, V. Sakhnovskii, N. Volkonskii, N. Zarkhi, V. Filippov, Faiko (the author), Shestakov (the set designer), Glagolin (who played Prim) all spoke.^^ Nonetheless, on November 24, 1923, Izvestia announced that Narkompros would not allow Lake LyuV io be performed in the provinces in its current unaltered form.^^ One publication satirizes the whole situation. Although the presumed author who writes columns in "The Programs o f Moscow Theaters" says he hates gossip his words belie this: CnneTHMKOB hmkto He nio6i/iT. Pyran ^'^"Po povodu Postanovki p'esy Ozero Liul', "Pravda November 23, 1923. ^^"Vokrug Ozero Liul'," Zrelishche #64, 1923. ^Izvestiia November 24, 1923. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. I l l K y/iM C fal Tearpa, munar: c n n e r m , nHTpurn. ^ C0BC6M MHOrO M H eH M H o CHJieTHe. CoBceM O H a He TaK yw MepsKa axa caiviaa cnjiexHa.^^ Nobody likes people who gossip. In the wings of the theater, they hiss with gossip and intrigue. I am of a completely different opinion about the gossip. Isn’t this just as foul as the gossip itself? Yet he then maliciously gossips about the scandal surrounding Lyul': "Cnwxan, mxo MeAepxonba xpyawncn nan «OaepoM» ho M 3 «Oaepa» Bbiiano 6onoxo."^* (“I heard that Meyerhold labored over Lake. But out of the Lake came a swamp.”) The greatest irony of the matter is the degree of honesty in these biting lines. Although one might think that this would have ended the debate, but it continued. In Pravda of December 5,1923, the polemic continues with the Politsovet countering that the show depicts a bloodthirsty, cold-blooded picture of capitalism and emphasizes that no audience member would think that the revolutionaries in the play were being equated with fascists or bandits as was suggested by all opponents. B npaBe m iviw nacxanBaeM na noapoGHOM npoxHBonacxaBJieHHM nfleonorMH KaKoe npoxHBonacxaBJieHHe oxpMuaxenbHbiM nepcoHawawi M M H O BH M iuero MHpa nan rorojib b cBoëM «PeBHsope» w pasBe M O W H O oxpwuaxb rnyGoKoe peBoniomioHHoe 3HaMeHne fl/in cBoero BpeMeni/i roroneBCKHX «MepxBbix ayuj» xonbKo noxoMy, mxo «MepxBbiM» nyuiaM ne Gujim npoxMBonocxaaneHw «hikiBue.» Is it right for us to insist on the detailed contrast of ideology of a negative representative of the bureaucratic world Gogol gave us in his Inspector General and indeed it is really Zrelishche #64,1923 RGALI. ^«ibid. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 112 possible to deny that Gogol’s Dead Souls has a deep revolutionary meaning for our time only because the “Dead” souls are not contrasted with the “Living.” Pravda then recapitulates all Glavrepertkom's criticisms of Meyerhold's production and responds to them:^^ 1) The revolutionaries in the play do not force Mezi to endure the caresses of her boss as Trainin has emphasized and do not deny her assistance when she is hungry. On the contrary, Kabral’ (head of the revolutionary group) tells her to go quickly to the staff and scolds her for not turning to him for help sooner. 2) Trainin points out that “the revolutionaries in Lake Lyul ’ are introduced in the capacity of Pinkertons to the hotel Atlanta and to the villa of the coquette Ormond because they secretly also work for the revolution; their revolutionary struggle in the play is shown not only at the moment of mass participation but also in its underground period. This situation's necessity is determined by the melodramatic construction of the play, contained and emphasized in the plan of schematic realism more than by the dictates of the dialectical struggle. The characters thus act primarily not as a staff of the party but as a tiny, petty mesh of the revolutionary organization.”! * * ® Pravda December 5, 1923. !®®ibid. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 113 3) “The "dirty money" whieh the revolutionaries use in Lake Lyul' is necessary because in as much as Faiko's play portrays a picture of the last throes of capitalism when money was most concentrated in the hands of the few ruling groups, this money cannot be clean. They grew rich on the tears and even the blood of the working class. The revolutionaries are right to expropriate it from capitalist pockets. Here the great ends justify the means. The revolutionary in his avowed but hidden struggle is not a "beloruchka" (a white-collared worker) and in the given situation has no reason to come to the play in the gloves of doubtful morality. Of course there is nothing unusual in that the capitalist world perishes in internal contradictions on the mill of the revolution. At the moment of the sharpening of the class struggle, all means are directed against the enemy, employed in equal measure by both sides. This struggle is the main material for the plot of Lake LyuV. It blends intrigue into the complex whole and for this reason it is clear that the capitalist, Bul'mering Senior, is struck partly by the help of the revolutionary strike paid for with the money of other capitalists: another capitalist, Kron, who prepares the removal. For this reason Bul'mering Junior cultivates the provocateur Prim, etc. All these circumstances which were carefully described by Trainin as proof of "political awkwardness" (HenenocTb) can in no way serve as arguments against the play.”i‘ ^ ^ ‘O iibid. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 114 Trainin goes on to suggest a sixth act as he exclaims that "isn't this a caricature of the revolution?" 102 Jt concludes with the judgment that "It is perfectly clear that no caricature of the revolution is included in Faiko's play" and is signed POLITSOVET TEATRA REVOLIUTSIL'03 It also includes Trainin's reply to this article.The article ends with the comment by the editors to consider the polemic on the question of the play Lake Lyul’ to b e over. 105 Zhizn' iskusstvo not long after proclaims that Lake Lyul ’ continues to enchant the public and wisely notes the author is lucky because the argument surrounding his play between Glavrepertkom and others have brought him fame. As a result of the loud questions about the future of the counter revolutionary play Lake Lyul', Narkompros decided that future stagings of the play will be possible largely because of the amount of money already spent on the production: M O TM B b 38TpaTbl, npOI/l3BefleHHbie H8 nocT8HOBKy 03ep o Jlionb TearpoM, noMCTUHe— xoanRcTBeHHwM pacMëT ecxb ochob8 TeaxpanbHoM no/iM X M K M B H 8 U J M flH M . laK MHoro npnMepoB noflXBepjKflaex 9 x0 nonoweHne.io^ The topic of the expense incurred by the staging of Lake Lyul and its actual economic calculation is the basis for theatrical politics in our day. This situation is confirmed by many examples. I03ibid. lO iibid. iii^ibid. ^^^Zhizn' iskusstvo #50, 1923. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 115 luri Sobolev for Khudozhestvennyi Trud pronounces Faiko talented although "sTopoM copT” ("second rate".) Yet, he likens Faiko's play to B'esy as it also serves as a poisonous caricature of revolution even if it wasn't the author's intent, but the unwitting (positive) result. He pronounces in its formal accomplishment "cneKTaK/ib gam e epeneH." (“The show is even dangerous.”) Although he adds: "But I must confess that Lake Lyul' is one of the sharpest, brightest and most interesting shows not only of the season but of the past few years." lo? He praises Meyerhold's brilliant staging for being dynamic and for recreating American life with its fast tempo, working elevators, telephone ringing, department store, hotel, telegraph machines, lights. He acknowledges the director's accomplishment in staging it as a purely cinematic montage. Yet, he also cryptically calls the piece everything from a boulevard novel to a detective story with a mask of romanticism under which is the flat face of a policeman. He pronounces it a victory for Faiko and Meyerhold, but a pyrrhic victory. “Emë ouHa TaKan no6eaa a ocTaHycb 6ea BoPicKa."'08 ("One more victory like that and I will have no army.”) Yet nearly a year after its premiere. Lake LyuV had remained a part of public consciousness, so much so that Zrelishche included a supposed children's song which made reference to this play. Meyerhold and Faiko’s •*^^Iurii Sobolev. Khudozhestvennyi Trud #4,1923. lO ^ib id . R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 116 Lyul ' is credited with having touched off a long-lasting negative effect on other directors, even Tairov: M x cneKTaK/ib HeyaaMen Towe ot i/iannuiHero eeponenaMa. ABaHTK)pn3M , caenaBwwm KoppeKTHoro flunnoMara (D aPlK o copaTHUKOM Mei?iepxonbfla noaBonwn 060MM flOCTaTOM HO yHnrowaioim/ie pacKpwTb nponwTaHHW R M aaflbixaiomMPica ot aToro aaaHTiopMaivia Sanaa. Y TawpoBa oco6eHHO nocne noeaaKH stot saKaTbiBaiomkiii’ ica Sanaa BbisuBaer TonbKo ynuGKy yM M JieH M B . KaK oneperra 6ea aereKTMBHoPi MHTpum, 6ea C U eH M M eC K M -npM K /IK JM eH M eC K O C *! aH H aM M K M . M oCTbl, npbiwKH, apecTU, aaroBopw, npoBOKaTopw renepb anb^a n oiviera apaiwiaTiiM ecKM -peBOJiicuM OHHO(*i pO M aH T M K M .^09 Their production is also a failure due to an excess of Europeanism. The adventurism created by Faiko, the correct ambassador and Meyerhold’s partner, allowed them both to show the West as over-satisfied and suffocating in this adventurism. At Tairov’s, particularly after a tour, this declining West evokes only a smile of tenderness, like an operetta without intricate plot twists and turns, without dynamic stage adventures. Bridges, leaps, arrests, conspiracies, and provocateurs are now the alpha and omega of the dramatic revolutionary romantic. Zhizn' iskusstva decided to take the matter before a random sampling of workers out of the realm of critics, artists and intellectuals. It polled seven different types of workers (seven people) about the play in Rostov-on-the- Don ft-om office to farm to factory workers. As a group, they understood the play as depicting bloodthirsty capitalists feeding off the blood and sweat of workers and showing their selfish egotism; they noticed the consciousness of not "we" but "I" in Prim. They felt that the work showed them how to distinguish friends from foes, as well as the need for the revolutionary party ^^^Iskusstvo ipromyshlennost’ # \, 1924. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 117 to be careful with intellectual revolutionaries. The largest weakness was not enough about the workers' struggle and the life of the workers. Their final pronouncement: the play would be suitable for productions on the workers' stage and should be considered necessary for the repertoire of every theater... "it would be successful in workers' clubs." Ironically, these same workers were far less kind in reviewing Lunacharsky's play, MeMBetHbn CaaMbôa (The Bear’ s Wedding) Even reviews from as far away as Baku said the play was successful and that the spectators left fascinated and satisfied.*Reviews from Kharkov were also f a v o r a b l e . * * 2 Later, LyuV even played in as remote places as Kislovodsk.* * 3 Faiko avidly discusses the public response to his piece, which went far beyond great attendance at the performances. He recounts a provincial person's impression of Lake LyuV which ended with the spectator returning to his lodgings taking a long leisurely bath while smoking a fine c i g a r . **4 Not only did LyuV set trends for theater productions, it also touched off many new fads and wild, bourgeois behavior. This result was one of the things for which Meyerhold and Faiko were roundly criticized in the press and party. With pride, Faiko proclaimed that the production of Lake Lyul' Sukhovyx. "Ozero Lyul' pered sudom rabochei kritiki," Zhizn' iskusstva #18. ^^^Rabochiitrud (Baku)November 1, 1923. **2r g a LI, 2205,1,555,158 a review o f Lyul' by an unnamed Kharkov paper. **3r g a LI, 2205,1,555,201 unnamed, undated paper. Zapiski starogo teatral'shchika. (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1978): p. 192-3. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 118 marked a new period of Soviet theater.Strangely enough, preserved in Faiko's archive is an advertisement from a tobacco; “77/0/7*. Jho/ib— KpuM Ta6aK Tpecr. 1-aa roc. Ta6. < pa6p. naMarn 9 Hoaôpa 1920r. r. KepHb.”^^^ (" Lyul. Lyul—Crimea Tobacco Trust. First State Tob<acco>. Fact<ory>. 9 November 1920. Kern.”) Clearly, Meyerhold and Faiko's production of Lake LyuV was of great significance for its day. Result of LyuV Both Braun and Hoover, respectively, aptly say about the production: "A far cry from Meyerhold's earlier work at his own theatre. Lake Lyul was a huge success. It was Meyerhold's second and final production at that theatre; in effect, he ceased to be its artistic director after the 1923-24 season, handing over the post to his former Petersburg pupil Alexei Gripich."ii’ "Despite Lake Lyul's popularity at the Theater of the Revolution, Meyerhold did not repeat its multiple set at his own theater."!'* A year later, in 1924, the Moscow Playwrights' Assocation (MAD) announced that the following new plays would be read at their next meeting: Boris Romashov's Vozdushnyi Pirog, Faiko's new play, and a comedy by Nikolai Erdman. Its updated list of members included Vol'kenshtein, Andrei Globa, Konstantin Lipskerov, Alexei Faiko, Vladimir Mass, Pavel' Antokol'sky, Boris Romashov, N. Bromlei, Nikolai Erdman, lurii lur'in, la. Apushkin, Natan Zarkhi, and Vitalii Zak."^ Of these, Meyerhold would soon “ 5ibid., p. 190. "A r g a l i , 2205,1,555,114 "^Braim, A Revolution in Theatre, p. 195. "*Hoover, Design, p. 138. "^"Moskovskaia AssotsiatsiiaDramaturgov," Aova/aRoOT/>a #15,1924. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 119 stage the unnamed plays by both Faiko and Nikolai Erdman; they were The Teacher Bubus and The Mandat respectively. Thus, Meyerhold believed he had foimd a successful formula, which he hoped to adjust and adapt. The controversy around Lyul' had proven many things. One of these was a multi-faceted method of pleasing the public and confounding the critics and censors through the exploitation of the gap between printed text and that which appears on the stage. Technological and material advances not only added gloss or mood to a production but they also promised a new realm of operation— a way to add a subtext which might or might not already be included in the text of the play. Although the newspapers, journals and Glavrepertkom did not exactly pinpoint this loophole, their manifold problems and praise of the play clearly grapple with this problem. Meyerhold chose to make this "problem" his fixture hallmark. However, the production of Lake LyuV was a much more mixed bag than its success would have us believe. Indeed its wild success as a bona fide hit might have created many of The Teacher Bubus ’ problems. Its popularity inspired Meyerhold to hire Faiko to write another play for which he signed a contract sight unseen, maybe insufficiently considering the second piece might not be as good or to his liking. In a word, Bubus is a far weaker and less interesting play than Lyul Lyul ’ had a lot of action, sharply delineated characters, and a fascinating diabolical anti-hero at its center. The production added new exciting elements such as lit store displays and moving elevators. This same success probably affected the theater-going public into expecting a similar spectacle—with a brisk tempo, exciting characters, flashy and flashing sets, blaring jazz, and of course, another hit. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 120 When they were presented with Bubus, a slow, complex, confusing piece which required a convoluted explanatory program that did little to help them understand it, they certainly did not enjoy it. Although there was some jazz hy Valentin Pamok’s famous jazz band, the majority of the music was an elaborate piano score of Chopin and Lizst. Rather than acrobatics and catchy dances, Bubus incorporated a great deal of mime and a ballet solo, “The Dying Swan.”'20 Lastly, there was no strong character at this play’s core, and Meyerhold’s best actor left two weeks before its premiere; as such it also had no strong performance to counteract the weak secondary nature of the title role. As any recording artist or actor with a first big hit or box office success, the immediate follow up is truly the hardest part of their career. Most choose to do so with something similar and thus less of a gamble towards ensuring its success. Meyerhold chose to make a radical departure with dubious results at best. Lastly, unbeknownst to the public or Meyerhold himself at the time, it is clear that Lyul ’ might have also generated or fuelled some powerful grudges against him—on the part of some critics, some of his actors, and the playwright. All of this would only become clear during the rehearsals for and run of the doomed Bubus. It is unclear whether the solo, “The Dying Swan”, was based upon the ballet o f the same name which was choreographed by Fokine and originally danced by Pavlova or whether it was the solo o f the same name from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake and choreographed by Petipa/Ivanov. The latter is and was far more famous, particularly to Russian audiences. The former is better known abroad and associated with the Ballet Russe. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 121 Chapter 4: Decoding the Real Drama Behind Bubus: The Cigarette Girlfrom Mosselprom After Lake LyuV s wild success, one would have expected both its director and its playwright to be not only anxious to work together again but also to do so harmoniously. This however, could not have been farther from the truth. Although Meyerhold asked Faiko immediately afterward to write another play with which he planned to open his theater and Faiko agreed, what unfolded simultaneous to the writing and rehearsal of the second play. The Teacher Bubus, demonstrated that behind the scenes a great deal of resentment had grown amongst many people whom Meyerhold considered his inner circle. Despite Meyerhold’s immense influence and LyuTs great popularity, concurrent with the creation o î Bubus, Faiko wrote a screenplay together with Fyodor Otsep for a new film studio, Mezhrabpom-Rus. In the events that followed, the most significant of the movie’s participants was Igor Ilinsky, who was also cast to play the title role in The Teacher Bubus. The film. The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom (1924), was the one of a series of reasons that caused Faiko and Meyerhold never to work together again. Apparently, Faiko, as writer, Ilinsky, as actor, along with Zheliabuzhsky, as director, decided after Lake LyuV m late 1923 or early 1924 to settle real or imagined slights with Meyerhold and his wife, Raikh, by writing a pointed but thinly camouflaged parody of their marriage and creative relationship and making it into a film. Meyerhold blamed Faiko as R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 122 the writer most; but as Meyerhold was acquainted with Ilinsky far longer, it is far more probable that the details of Meyerhold and Raikh’s personal life must have come from Ilinsky. Zheliabuzhsky seems to have been the opportunistic facilitator in an effort to build his fledgling career. Faiko and Ilinsky’s reasons for making this quarrel so public come across at best as puzzling and foolhardy, as it could only have alienated the powerful director. Indeed, it both infuriated Meyerhold and set off a series of scandals, which not only were painful, but they also destroyed any chance of Bubus being a success. Despite the fiiror it caused among its participants and the cultural cognoscenti of the time, today few people know of either the film or the play, or more importantly, the inter-relationship between the two. A brief chronology of the tangled web between the movie and the play is as follows. Faiko was angered by Meyerhold’s brusque treatment of him during Lyul '. Ilinsky, who had been with Meyerhold and had starred in many of his recent productions, was also angry with Meyerhold for devoting less and less attention to him during rehearsals and increasingly more and more to his wife, Zinaida Raikh. This began during the rehearsals of The Forest, her debut, in which Ilinsky starred. Prior to this Raikh had no theatrical experience beyond being a student of Meyerhold’s in the directing school whereas Ilinsky, a longstanding Meyerhold pupil, was becoming if not already a star. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 123 After Lyul’ s , great success, Meyerhold asked Faiko to write another play for him. Faiko agreed to write a play similar to Lyul At the approximate time, Faiko created the screenplay with Otsep, The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom. The film featured Nikolai Tseteretelli; an actor from Meyerhold’s rival, Tairov’s theater; Julia Solntseva, a budding cinema star; and Igor Ilinsky, Meyerhold’s featured comic actor. Preparation for Bubus began also around this time. The main female role written by Faiko for Meyerhold’s talented young actress Babanova was given to Raikh, infuriating Faiko, hurting Babanova personally as well as professionally, and exacerbating Ilinsky’s anger at Meyerhold’s preferential treatment for an actress who had no real training and who was occupying most of the director’s attention. Meyerhold conceived an elaborate plan for the design, music, movement and diction for Bubus. The premiere date repeatedly got pushed back as Meyerhold struggled to transmit his complex plan to his actors and to his audience. While in rehearsal, Meyerhold learned of The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom after its release when it was playing in movie theaters around Moscow. When he questioned Faiko about it, he claimed the similarity of the name of the movie’s heroine, Zina Vesenina, to his wife Zinaida Esenina Raikh was purely a chance resemblance. Meyerhold responded by writing a scathing review of the movie and of Ilinsky’s performance under a barely concealed pseudonym, Dottore. Everyone in the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 124 theatrical world knew that Meyerhold had used the name Doctor Dapertutto for all his pre-revolutionary cabaret work. Simmering hostility became open conflict two weeks before the premiere. A great deal of rehearsal time had been devoted to Raikh exclusively and increasing the significance of her role in the plot. Ilinsky’s wife, also an actress in Bubus, during one such rehearsal complained directly to Meyerhold of his treatment of the other members of the cast. Ilinsky defended his wife’s position, thus enraging Meyerhold. Ilinsky and his wife quit as members of Meyerhold’s theater. Meyerhold was left without his star in the title role two weeks before the premiere. Faiko began to question Meyerhold’s staging of his work and became unsure of its successful realization. Meyerhold then launched a eivil suit against Ilinsky for sabotaging his production of Bubus. The press buzzed with Ilinsky’s departure and the suit both to punish him and to exclude him from acting in Moscow. During the hearing, a fistfight broke out. Meyerhold lost his case to get Ilinsky boycotted from Moscow theater troupes but “won” his expulsion from the Meyerhold Theater. Meyerhold was forced to hand over Bubus ’ title role to Belsky, a seeond-tier aetor who struggled to learn the role in two weeks. Bubus opened to a flurry of mixed and confusing reviews. Behind the scenes, the censors secretly demanded the removal of the flashing citations from Lenin and the make-up designed for the Minister of Fine Arts. Finally, R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 125 one critic, the infamously vicious Blium, gloated that Bubus was a failure. In response to this and the fact that the show’s running time was so long that people could not catch public transport home, Meyerhold furiously redacted the play. Faiko, aggrieved over Meyerhold’s treatment of him, the casting of Bubus and now over the cuts and staging of his play, launched another salvo in the press: he renounced responsibility for his own play in its current form as staged by Meyerhold. The reviews became as involved in their personal and artistic conflict as with disagreeing with each other about every aspect of the production. Any reasonable prospect of the complicated Bubus ’ success was now quashed although it continued its run. References to it and to the director and playwright’s quarrel continued in the press. Clearly these two men would never work together again due to artistic differences and personal acrimony. Thus, The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom’ ’s subtext and its surrounding scandals are integral to understanding the Meyerhold and Faiko relationship as well as Bubus ’ checkered production history. Meyerhold's personal relationship with Faiko clearly seemed bent on confrontation from the start. While the young Faiko was thrilled to have his first major work, LyuT, staged hy the famous director, Meyerhold was cavalier at best in his treatment of him. In his memoirs, Faiko bitterly recounts that Meyerhold was abroad well into the rehearsal process. Faiko claims that Meyerhold had only cursory knowledge of his play before it went R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 126 into production, which is difficult to believe given Meyerhold's almost obsessive tendency in production dating back to his days at the Moscow Art Theater. Their first meeting did not bode well: though Faiko had been in near constant attendance at the rehearsals, Meyerhold criticized him for not being at all of them, stressing the need to rely on the author as much as possible. Faiko also desperately tried to elicit some praise from the famous director. When asked whether or not he liked his play, Meyerhold's only reply was that "he was staging it wasn't he." These were hardly the words of praise the young playwright had wished for. This interchange was only the first of a series of confrontations with Faiko. However, this early incident alone did not cause the deeper discord between the playwright and director. Faiko recounts that on the eve o î Lyul’ s premiere, Meyerhold heard of Faiko receiving a congratulatory telegram from Baku on the premiere of the same work there, thus premiering in Baku before Moscow, unbeknownst to Meyerhold. Meyerhold was furious, believing Faiko had broken their contract, though their contract proclaimed that Meyerhold only had the exclusive rights to premiere the work in Moscow.! Paiko recounts his disappointment that at the wildly successful Moscow premiere Meyerhold did not acknowledge him privately and ^¥a.Tko,Zapiski,ç. 189. Reproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 127 snubbed him publicly, neither shaking his hand offstage nor inviting him onstage to share the spotlight.^ Faiko balances his bitter account with praise of Meyerhold, describing in great detail the amazing production, which left audiences in awe and inspired wild attendance and response. Faiko avidly discusses the public response to his piece, which went far beyond great attendance at the performances. Not only did LyuV set trends for theater productions, it also touched off many new fads and wild, bourgeois behavior. This result was one of the things for which Meyerhold and Faiko were roundly criticized in the press and party. With pride, Faiko proclaimed that the production of Lake Lyul' marked a new period of Soviet theater.^ The Teacher Bubus or simply "Bubus" as it was renamed for Moscow's audiences was Faiko's second play, commissioned by Meyerhold as the work to open his new theatre. Problems began virtually from the start with the easting and distribution of the roles. While Faiko had written the title role specifically for the famous actress, Maria Babanova, Meyerhold cast his wife, Zinaida Raikh. Like Meyerhold's biographer, lurii Elagin, Faiko blamed Raikh's influence over her husband for giving her the role'^ and her monopolization of Meyerhold's attention for the problems in Bubus' production, particularly those with the other members of his company. ^ibid., p. 193. % id., p. 190. 4ibid., p. 199. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 128 Faiko also blamed Raikh's conflict with the famous actor, Igor Ilinsky, for his departure from Bubus ' title role on the eve of the premiere. Ilinsky's wife followed, abandoning a secondary role.^ Most importantly, he faulted Raikh for his own personal and professional discord with Meyerhold. Faiko's conflicts with the famous director also extended to creative differences. Faiko quibbled that Meyerhold ignored both his wishes and his text^, working on Bubus "as if there were no literary material. Faiko felt that Meyerhold had forced Bubus into a mould purely of Meyerhold's design. In fairness to Faiko, he was not the only one who noticed the disparity of visions between the printed and the performed texts of Bubus. Novyi ZriteV noticed that the Bubus of Faiko and that of Meyerhold did not seem to be the same: "in some moments it was if there were two Bubuses, Faiko's and Meyerhold's."* (This will be explored in more depth in Chapter 5.) This further enraged the aggrieved playwright. Faiko then launched a wave of protest in the press, which became the next of the scandals that plagued Bubus. First, in Vestnik rabochego isskusstvo, Faiko announced his protest against Meyerhold's transformation of his plays and renounced any responsibility for the play because it had been so completely changed (by Meyerhold).^ Five days later, in Vecherniaia M oskva, Faiko protested that ^ibid., p. 206. 4bid., p. 203. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 129 his play in its shortened form completely distorted the author's conception of the work.io He again renounced responsibility for the work and the changes done hy Meyerhold. Faiko further protested that the particular sections omitted by Meyerhold played an important part in the development of the action and violated the overall plan of the work which lacked “taste and style.” Soon after, a response to Faiko's letter appeared in the Program from the State Academic Theaters, which asserted that Meyerhold's changes to the play had been caused by the attacks of one particular critic, Blium: The most outspoken among Meyerhold's Moscow critics, V. Blium, in his review of Bubus, pronounced the fatal phrase: "large ships can take large voyages and they can also have great disasters." Well, after this how could he not undertake a new version of the play! Dr. Dapertutto Meyerhold thus decided to cure teacher Bubus. Because of the success of Lyul ', both director and playwright were anxious for a follow-up. Though Meyerhold planned to leave Teatr Revoliutsii, he made sure to take the most talented with him for his next production: Faiko, Babanova, and Ilinsky. But before he left, Meyerhold asked Faiko to write him a play for his theater. Maybe this is indeed one of the sources of discord: a misunderstanding of whose play it was to cast, particularly as it was a commissioned or requested play, and who owed whom more for the success of LyuV. Faiko’s description of the incident in his memoirs shows that he felt that Meyerhold was beholden to him: ^^Vecherniaia Moskva, 11/4/25. "Program from Bolshoi Gosudarstvennye Akademicheskie Teafry (State Academic Theaters), N .9 ,1925. By Viktor Ermans. RGALI, f. 2205, 1, 555, item #101. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 130 B n ep efli/i 6 b i/in 6o/ibU Jne njiaHbi, mnpoK M e nepecneK T M B bi, m B c e e e / i o f l BMUJibeBUH p e iu n ii paccT B T b C B c T e a r p o M P eB O Jiraum i. DpomaBCb, O H npeAJiowHJi mhc nanncarb HOByio nbecy, ywe a n » e re T earpa, h roTOB 6bi/i aaKJllOMMTb CO W H O M flOrOBOp 603 BCflKHX npeflBapHTe/ibHwx sobbok, tb k cK aaarb, b KpeflMT, Ha ocHOBaHMH Hawem nepBOM BCTpem/i. OnapoBaHHWR h noKopenHwR, b, kohomho, aoroBop noanHca/i h peiuH/i chobb o6paTWTbCB k KoiweawRHoiviy wanpy, onBTb we na aapyôewnoivi waTepuane h O RBTb B TO M W 8 0 6 0 6meHH0-yCB0BH0M nBBHe. 06 3TOM B cMHTaa C B O M M flOBroM Bce we MePiepxoBbaa npeaynpeaHTb, ho ero e r o ne McnyraBo. no-MoeMy, aawe, cKopee, HaoôopoT.*^ Ahead of us were big plans, wide vistas, and Vsevelod Emirevich decided to part company with the Revolution Theater. As he was doing so, he suggested that I write a new play for his new theater and he was ready to sign a contract with me without any preliminary demands, that is on credit based on our first meeting [Faiko means their work together on Lyul ’ ]. Enchanted and obedient, 1 , of course, signed the contract and decided to write another comedy, based on material from abroad like before and once again in the same general plan. I considered it my duty to warn Meyerhold of this hut it didn’t frighten him, in my opinion, quite the contrary. Even early on Faiko showed his unhappiness or at least discomfort with the process. Soon after he began the first of a series of arguments with his director. Faiko in hindsight rather venomously describes the encounter with Meyerhold and Raikh and their disagreement over the role of “Stefka.” Although Faiko wrote it for Babanova, Meyerhold presented him with an uncomfortable fait accompli; when he asked him in front of Raikh who should play the role, he was clearly asking the question rhetorically: Faiko, Zapiski, p. 196. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 131 A c K a a a /i, mto e c / i n p o /ib 5 y 6 y c a a n u c a / i a / i f l H /IbM H CK O rO , T O B pOJIM CT6(|)KM A BMWy TO/lbKO 5a6aHOBy. CKaaa/i i/i ry r oceKCfl. BceB&noa SMi/iAbeBUM w SuHanfla HMKO/iaeBHa 6bicTpo neperjiAHyjiMCb, b r/iaaax n Ha ry6ax y hhx MejibKhyA CMeiuoK, noTOM 3nHanfla HwKonaeBHa npocxo rpoMKo paccMeAxiacb, ne nwTaacb ce6 a cflepwHBaxb. —H y ? C eBO M K a. M xo a x e 5 e r o B o p n A a ? —c n p o c M A a o h a IWeMepxoAbaa. A OH, HH3K0 c o rn y B u iH C b , n p o x A H y B C A O weH Hbie pyKW M ew f ly K O /ien , C M fleji n s K o x o p o e B peM A MOJiMa. Hoxom BbinpAMMflCA, n o c M o x p e /i H a m b h a b y n o p m n p o w a n e c OMBHb BKpaflMklBO H /1K)6e3HO: -BaM, K0H6MH0, 6yfl6x npwAXHO yanaxb, mxo poAb Cxe<|)KM corxiacMflacb B3AXb na ce6A 3nnanfla hHKOJiaeBHa.i^ I said that if I had written the role of Bubus for Ilinsky, then in the role of Stefka I eould envision only Babanova. I said it and froze. Vsevelod Emil’evich and Zinaida Nikolaevna quickly glanced at each other, their eyes and lips hinted that it was funny to them. Then Zinaida Nikolaevna simply began to laugh loudly without trying to control herself. — Well, Sevochka. What did I tell you?— she asked Meyerhold. And bending down low, putting his folded hands between his knees, he sat for a short while in silence. Then straightening up he looked at me point blank and said very ingratiatingly and politely: -Of course you will pleased to know that Zinaida Nikolaevna has decided to take on the role of Stefka. Maria Babanova also discusses the easting of Bubus in her memoirs with great pain. Unlike Faiko, however, she refused to argue with Meyerhold, and unlike Ilinsky, she stayed with the production and even supported many of its salvos into the journalistic realm. Babanova was in an unusual and difficult position for a variety of reasons. Firstly, she worked with Meyerhold in two venues, at the Teatr Revoliutsii and at the theater 1 3 ibid., p. 199-200. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 132 which bore his name; so, not only was she doubly dependent upon his favor, she also had an almost hero-like worship of her director who had helped to make her an up-and- coming actress if not a star. Secondly, she was a young, pretty woman and as such for both roles and attention was viewed as competition with Zinaida Raikh, Meyerhold’s wife and muse. Lastly, she was vastly flattered to have a young playwright with whom both she and Meyerhold had just had a big hit. Lake LyuV, write a role specifically for her. All of these things together put her in the untenable and unenviable position of having to either accept “second-tier roles” at Meyerhold’s theater with the director whom she so admired, or to break with him when he left the Teatr Revoliutsii and remain there with starring roles but with second- rate or unknown directors.!^ Babanova and Faiko give similar accounts of their reactions to this decision. Babanova’s account clearly shows that Meyerhold knew of and played upon her steadfast loyalty to him. Even though the role of Stefka had been written for her, Babanova felt that Meyerhold knew his personal request of her to play another role carried greater weight: Me^lepxonbA co iviH oM homtm HUKorna He pasroBapMBan, M n flepwanacb ot Hero Buanw. A ry r oh wenn caw Bussa/i M OKasan: «B npouiy sac b «5y6yce» curparb ponb Tea, KOTopyto n BaM Haanamm. B npoiay Bac ne oTKaabiBaxbCfi i/i cnenaxb a re Ann mbhb.» Hy M T O M He 6bino Aenaxb? A anana, mto OaPiKO npocwn ABTb M He CTe*Ky. Ponb, npaaaa, mho ho oMenb HpaBwnacb, ne to mtoG u sto 6bina mob ponb. Ho Bce M. Imowskaia, Babanova-Legenda i biografiia. (Moscow: Iskusstvo: 1981): p. 66. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 133 paBH O , fl n jia K a /ia a e H b i/i homb— i/ir p a jb -T O x o x e /i o c b ! H o M e f* le p x o /ib fl M eH fl H H K o ra a H W K o ra a hm o mom H e npocM Ji. O h B o o 6 m e n e n p o c M /i—r o B o p n n , e r o c /iy iu a /iH . A x y x OH c a M mohb n p o c n /i! A c o r jia c M /ia c b , kohomho. A B 3 fljia a x y T e a , x o x m e x H p o /i n y M e n a y w e box r a e 6bl/1H. H 3 a 3 X 0 OH M He K o e -M x o n o a 6 p a c b i B a / i—6 o a b iiie , MeM o6biMHO. O h noH M M a/i, m x o m o h a o G w a e a , h o e n a a , m xo b B c e A iifl H e r o c a e x ia io . C K a w e x B w ô p o c w x b c a H3 O KH a—B b i6 p o u jy c b . B o x x a K b n o a y M H /ia a x y p o jib .* ^ Meyerhold almost never spoke with me and I stayed far away from him. But then he summoned me and said “I ask you to play the role of Tea in Bubus which I have assigned to you. I ask you not to refuse and to do this for me.” Well what could I do? I knew that Faiko had asked him to give me Stefka. Truth be told, I did not really like the role but it was my role. Nonetheless I still cried day and night—I really wanted to play it! But Meyerhold had never asked me to do anything. In general he didn’t make requests—what he told people they did. And here he was asking me! I agreed of course. I took the role of Tea although I had already played such roles. And because of this he paid more attention to me—more than usual. He understood that he had hurt me, but he knew that I would do anything for him. If he told me to jump out of a window, I would have done so. That is how I received this role. Faiko concurs that Babanova was inconsolable but there was nothing to be done about it: O ropM B H M e M api/iH klBaHOBHbi B a b a n o B o M 6 w n o 0M 6Hb BeJiM Ko, K aK M M o e , p a a y M e e x o n , ho n HMMOM H e M o r e e yxeiuM X b, K o r n a c n w u ia n b xene<j>OH 6 6 ap o w am M P i o x c n e a r o n o c . B o a p a w a x b M e M e p x o n b a y , B blC X aB /inX b C06 CXB6 HHW6 x p eb o B aH M B v\m np6A T > flB /m xb K aK i/ie-H n 6 y flb y n b x y M a x y M w K a s a n o c b M H6 B XO BpOM fl KOIMyHCXBOM.'^ 1 5 ibid., p. 67. 1 ^ Faiko, Zapiski, p. 200. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 134 Maria Ivanovna Babaovna was very upset just as I was as one could imagine. But I couldn’t console her at all when I heard her voice on the telephone fighting hack the tears. To object to Meyerhold, to make personal demands or give him any kind of ultimatum at the time seemed blasphemous to me. Babanova’s biographer, Turovskaia, attributes some of Faiko’s wrath to more than his anger over his authorial rights, but to the fact that she believes that Faiko was also in love with Babanova, though there is no evidence to say this relationship was realized. In Faiko’s words: To M yB C T B O , KOTopoe n ncnuTbiBan Torxta k 5 a6aH0B0M , a Mepea Hee k Teaypy PeBOJiiouM M n k rearp y BOo6me n nawe k co6cTBeHHwwi cbohm japaMayprnMecKMM nnaHaw, — arc M yBCTBo cKopee Bcero M O W H O 6uno 6w HaaaaTb M yB C T B O M BJiK)6/ieHHoro Me/ieBeKa. B h6m 6buia i/ i paflocTb, M pobKOCTb, I /I flepaocTb, i/i HepeiunTe/ibHOCTb, m rpycTb, M 6ojib, i/i cyeBepHwe npmvieTbi, Bocxopr I / I MsyMneHwe, Munni/ioHbi pasHux BonpocoB, xyMaHHNX Haaewjo, n cyeBepHoro orpaxa. Bbina r y j M peBHMBocTb.'^ The feelings that I had then for Babanova, and because of her for the Revolution Theater and for theater in general and even to my own plans as a playwright were almost like that of a person in love. There was happiness, daring, indecisiveness, sadness, pain, superstitious moments, joy, amazement, millions of various questions, vague hopes and superstitious fear. And there was also jealousy. Before Bubus, while Meyerhold still directed in two theatres, the problem of having two leading ladies was not a problem. While Babanova was starring in Lake LyuV at Teatr Revoliutsii, Raikh was starring in The Turovskaia, p. 67. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 135 Forest at Meyerhold’s theater. At the time of casting Bubus, Babanova was a far greater star if not talent. Babanova’s biographer, Turovskaia, compares the situation with the two actresses in territorial terms: B T O caMoe speMn, Korna y HmkmtckmxI^ CTaBnuocb «Oaepo Jlionb» m Mei^iepxonbfl, coBMecTHO c UJecTaKOBbiM, BoauBMran Ha cuene A M H aiw M H H yio KOHCTpyKiiHio, npn3BaHHyK) 3pnMO Bon/ioTHTb ero BneMajneHi/in o r ôecnoKOMHoro, JiHXopanoMMoro 6biTnn nocueBoeHHoM Eaponbi, na CaaoBoPi^^ roTOBwn oh BeuMKonennwR pyccKnR 6anaran «Jleca» i/i repenuMBO penem poBan c PaRx ponb Akciouiii, BnepBue peuiwBuiMCb B W B 6C TM Ha cueHy C B O K ) o6owaeMyio weny. PaRx R noTOM ne nrpana na cuene T earpa PeBoniouMM— xyx ocraBanaob 6a6aHOBCKan TeppwTopwn, "R aMnnya, nepBonauanbHO onpeneneHHoe eR MeRepxonbflOM, eme ne npeneem ano hr Gyaymyio «TBapneRoKyio TRrpeccy» Anny A napeeeny Ckboshrk- flMyxanoBCKyio^o, hr «nawy c KaMenR«MR».2i At the time when they were staging Lake Lyul’ at Nikitskie and Meyerhold together with Shestakov erected a dynamic construction on the stage which was the visual embodiment of his impressions of the nervous, feverish life in post-war Europe [obviously here it means the period between the two world wars] while on the Sadovaia he was preparing the amazing Russian farce The Forest. There he was patiently rehearsing the role of Aksiusha with Raikh, having decided for the first time to put his beloved wife on stage. Raikh then and afterward did not act on the Revolution Theater’s stage—that was still Babanova’s territory—and the types of roles at first given to her by Meyerhold did not foreshadow either the future “militant tigress” Anna Andreevna Svkoznik- Dmukhanovskaia or the “lady with the camellias.” he means Teatr Revoliutsii. he means GosTiM or Meyerhold State Theater. These two later roles in Gogol’s Inspector General {Revizor) soon after Bubus in the mid 1920s and in Dumas’ Lady o f the Camélias in the late 1930s were considered Raikh’s finest performances even by her greatest detractors and harshest critics. 21 Turovskaia, p. 50. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 136 Babanova’s position working in two of Meyerhold’s theaters, despite her recent fame, for which she felt greatly indebted to her famous director, made her very nervous and put great stress upon her. KpyroM TBopi/iuacb necrpafl, cyM6ypHan wi/i3Hb TearpanbHoA MocKBbi, b KOTopom Ba6aHOBa— HeaaBHnn aeSioTaHTKa— aaHMiviana o a h o m 3 caMbix noMeTHbix Mecr. Kawflbiiüi Be yep ona luna t o Ha Boribujyio CanoByio, t o K Hmkmtckmm (coBwemaTb an a TeaTpa cTanoBiuiacb Bce TpyflHee), ho coBecTb ee, xoTb paSoTaaa ona ne 3a cTpax, a aa coBecTb, He 6biaa cnoKoRnaZz The colorful, chaotic life whirled around the world of Moscow’s theaters in which Babanova, who had just recently made her debut, occupied one of the most honored places. Every evening she would either go to the Bolshaia Sadovaia or to the Nikitskie [theater] (to be simultaneously a member of two theaters was becoming more and more difficult). Though she worked not out of fear but according to her conscience, it still gave her no peace. Babanova displayed tremendous loyalty to him, but she also became more and more aware of the difficult position it put her in with regard to Raikh as both Meyerhold’s wife and leading lady. Babanova could not imagine leaving his theater, but staying was becoming more complicated and less professionally rewarding particularly as it concerned Bubus: McTopwA, cnyMMBiuancn bo Bpeiwiena «By6yca», BnepBue h Gea oGhhbkob noKaaana BaGanoBOP^ ee pea/ibHoe Gynymee b leaT p e hmbhm Mei^epxonbAa, r a e Morao GwTb MHoro apTMCTOB, ho nepean apTHCTKa oana: SwHawaa Pa«x. HawBHo nojiaran, M T O wM 3Hb npea/iaraeT e« nenerKuPi BuGop, ho Bce me awGop, aHaweHMTaa BaGanosa nonnaKana, noropeBaaa, pacnpocTnriacb c MeMTaviH o GoabuiHx H raaBHbix po/inx m cor/iacnaacb GwTb ^ ibid., p. 64. Bolshaia Sadovaia here means GosTiM, the Meyerhold State Theater and Nikitskii means Teatr Revoliutsii. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 137 BTopocreneHHoi?! y Macxepa. WusHb Bfla/in o r Hero ona ne viucjiHxia. B H O BoPi komoamm A/ieKce(^ 0aMKO, OM apoBaHM bii?! TajiaHTOM M npejiecTbio M O A O A O i?! apTMCTKH, Hannca/1 cneuMaAbHO flJiB Hee rjiaBHyio pojib CTe<j)KH. Ho nojiyMHJia ee SwHawAa P a C * ix .2 3 The story of what happened at the time of Bubus to speak plainly showed Babanova for the first time a realistic picture of her future at Meyerhold’s Theater where there could be many actors but only one main actress: Zinaida Raikh. Naively suggesting that life was offering her a difficult choice. But what kind of a choice was it for the famous Babanova? She cried, grieved and said goodbye to her dreams of large or main roles and agreed to be second-tier with Meyerhold. She could not imagine life apart from him. In his new comedy, enchanted by the talent and loveliness of the actress, Alexei Faiko had written the main role of Stefka especially for her. However, Zinaida Raikh got the part. Meyerhold’s highhanded treatment of him from his previous collaboration on Lake LyuV had obviously angered Faiko in the director’s disregard for his opinion as the writer of the text. He clearly found Meyerhold’s decision to make his wife the central actress of his theater ridiculous. This was compounded with the casting of Bubus which occurred after the writing of the screenplay but which ironically mirrored it. Faiko believed that Raikh was not artistically suited to or capable of playing this role in particular, leading roles in general. Turovskaia agrees that Faiko’s indirect method of revenge was to write the screenplay for The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom in which he displayed his low estimation of Raikh’s ability as an actress among other things. Turovskaia also states that ^ ibid., p. 66. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 138 Meyerhold saw it and responded by writing a seathing review under an obvious pseudonym: HenponopnuM OHanbHoe BbiflBnweHne SuHanjau PaPix, KOTopoe Hawanocb H M eH H O c «By6yca», noTecHuno H e oany Ba6aH0By. K Toviy w e C T e< |)K a, Tpe6yK )iM an or aK Tpwcw rpauM O SH oR v\ civienoPi K O M e flM P lH O C T H , 3nHaMfle Hi/iKonaeBHe abho H6 AaBanacb, \ a arc BH O cw no H epBO SH ocTb b o6myio aT M O c<|)epy peneT M U w R . Bbixb Mowex, ne 6ea xaRHoro anopajdcxBa, b K O xopoM H e npn3Hancn oh H M MeRepxo/ibfly, h m HM xaxeneM M eM yapoB, < D a R K O oKpecxMn repoM H io cuenapMn «flanM pocHM ua ox MoccejibnpoMa» (nanM caHHoro mm coBMecxHO c OuenoM fljin hoboR K M H 0*a6p M K M «MewpaBoM-Pyob» 3 m h o R BeceHMHoR. Bo b c h k o m cnynae, McxopMn K paCM BOR nO X O M H M U bI, KOXOpafl no npO X O K U M M cxaHOBMXcn aKxpMcoR, 6wna npMHnxa MeRepxonbxtoM Ha CMex weHbi. TeaxpanbHwe Hpaaw ne oxriMManMCb b X O BpeMfl uepeMOHOcxbK), m o h npnMO oG B M H M n b axoM aBxopa, McxMxe/ibHO coMxnob c hm m b pasHocHoR peueHSMM noa npoapaMHUM nceBflOHMMOM.24 The disproportionate promotion of Zinaida Raikh which began namely with Bubus affected not only Babanova. The role of Stefka demanded a grace and bold comedic quality which clearly Zinaida Nikolaevna did not possess. This created a nervousness in the general atmosphere of the rehearsals. Possibly with a secret spite which he did not confess to either Meyerhold or to the readers of his memoirs Faiko christened the heroine of the screenplay The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom (co-written by him and Otsep for the new movie studio, Mezhrabpom-Rus’) Zina Vesenina. In any case, the story of a beautiful street vendor who becomes an actress because of the protection of a director was taken by Meyerhold to be about his wife. The morals of the theater world were not known for standing on formality and he directly accused the author of this, vengefully settling his score with him in a scathing review under a transparent pseudonym. 24 ibid., p. 71. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 139 Turovskaia thus concurs that the cigarette girl’s similarity to Raikh is not merely something noted in hindsight. Faiko’s aeeount of both Ilinsky’s departure and of Meyerhold’s “misunderstanding” about The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom differs widely from the faets and other scholars’ analysis. He tries to pass off the resemblance between its protagonist and Zinaida Raikh as pure paranoid fantasy on the part of Meyerhold and Raikh. $ 8 3 8 KOH(t>ni/IKTOB H 8 S p e B 8 n 8 M 0 KBWAWM flH6M Bce 6onee Tpe6oB8n8 nnn ce6n oTKpuToro B W p8W eH M R . fleno H8M8nocb He c Menn. B36yHT0B8n8Cb T8TbBH8 HB8H0BH8 UnbM HCKBB, pen6TMpOB8n8Cb B H8pe 0 5868H0B0M OAHy 1 /1 3 AeBOM BK 58836. H8fl0 CK838Tb, M T O H8l/l6onbUJee” M O W H O CK838Tb, yKnioMMTenbHoe— B H M M 8H M 8 BceBenofl 3M M nb8BM M 0TA8B8n 3M H 8M A8 P8M X , M CnonHBBW eÜ ponb C T 8 < J> K M , B M 3B 8C TH O M ciwbicne nonoMMTenbHom repowne kom8amh. Bce C M w neT M M M8CT8P8, BCe 3T0 H8CKpblB88M08 npM CTp8CTM 8 6binn 06p8m8H bl H8 3T0T yM B C T O K n0CT8H0B- H O M H O rO *P0HT8. HH0rA8 H O B T O pW , H0K83W , H O M C K M B 8P1/18H T0B flJin CT8(|)K M 0 T H 1 /IM 8 J1 M BC8 peneTMU- M O H H W e M 8C N , T8M 6on88 M T O nOM n83HO p83p86o- T8HH8fl np8flHrp8 TOM 8 H8 T8K yw npOCTO A3B8n8Cb 3M H8M A8 HHK0/188BH8. B T8KM 8 A H M McnoAHMTenw Apymx poneM yxoAwnw ao m o i?i yTOMneHHbie m HeyAOBneTBopenHwe 6e3AeRCT- B 8H H blM npi4CyTCTBM 8M H8 CU8H8. M BOT nepBwü ro n o c noAHnne TexbBHe MB8H0BH8, 38nBMB, M TO XOTb 0H8 Mrp88T M8/18HbKyiO ponb, H O H8 H<8n88T 6UTb CT8T- MCTKom M o6cnywHB8iomMM nepcoHonoM. He SyAyMM yMeHMuem MePiepxonbAa m o6n8Aan, 0M 8BM AH0, peUJM TenbHbIM X8p8KT8pOM, MonoAan OKTpwca nouina na s t o t AOMapui. MePiepxonbA, BCKi/inen i/i Aan peaKWR oTnop, He BxoAn B K8KHe-nH6o paatncHeHwn no cymecTBy npeT8H3nn. TaTbHHa HB8HOBH8 0TK838n8Cb ponOTH- poB8Tb. 3a weny BCTynwncn H . M nbM H K C w R . He 3H 8K ) T O M H O , 6wnw A M y H8r0 A O 3T0r0 AOnon- R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 140 HMTe/ibHoro TBopnecKHe pasHor/iacufl c MacrepoM, H O K O H (j)J1M K T paspaCTaJlCfl M npHHHMa/1 < t> opM y CKaHAaaa. B cawwR paarap co6w TM B n yexan b JleHMHrpafl, H a npevibepy «yywTeaa By6yca» B Bo/ibUiOM ApaMaTHHecKOM T earpe b nocTaHOBKe K . XoxAOBa, a BepnyBUJMCb, aacra/i cepbesHbie nepeMenbi: M jibH H C K M t*i m TaTbmna klBaHOBHa yuiA M H3 Teaxpa, By6yca aKcxpenHO peneTMpoBan B . BeAbCKwA, a po/ib TwAbxen 6biAa nopyyena X . J1okujm hoi?i. B reax p e naKanyne npeMbepbi uapwAa ywe ne xoAbKO nanpameHHaa axMocx<|)epa— 6yiueBaa aapaa.^s The period of conflict was coming to a head; every day it became more [intense] and its open expression was inevitable. It all started not with me. Tatiana Ivanovna ITinskaia rebelled. She and Babanova bad been rehearsing the roles of Baaze’s daughters. One could say that Vsevelod Meyerhold gave the majority or even all bis attention to Zinaida Raikh, who was playing the role of the positive heroine. All bis energy, bis obvious bias was devoted to this small part of the production. Sometimes the need to repeat things again and again, to demonstrate them, to search for different variations for Stefka took up all the rehearsal time, moreover, the tendentious and meticulous predigra wasn’t difficult for only Zinaida Nikolaevna. On such days the other actors went home worn-out and dissatisfied with what was happening on the stage. The first voice raised was Tatiana Ivanovna. Having announced that although her part was small she did not expect to be either an extra or a stage hand. Not having been a pupil of Meyerhold’s and obviously possessing a strong personality, the young actress spoke her piece. Meyerhold got boiling mad and gave a sharp rebuff without giving any kind of explanation or any semblance of once. Tatiana Ivanovna refused to rehearse. 1 . ll’inkskii took his wife’s side. 1 don’t know whether he had Faiko, Zapiski, p. 205-206. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 141 other artistic differences with Meyerhold up until then, but the conflict grew and became a scandal. In the very thick of the events, I left for Leningrad for the premiere of The Teacher Bubus at the Bolshoi Dramatic Theater directed by K. Khokhlov. However, when I got back serious changes had occurred: Ilinsky and Tatiana Ivanovna had left the theater, B. Bel’skii madly rehearsed the role of Bubus, and the role of TiTkhen was given to Kh. Lokshina. On the eve of the premiere, the atmosphere which reigned over the theater was not only tense, a mutiny was raging. Though he says the contrary, Faiko’s memoirs further link the problems with Bubus to The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom. In the next paragraph following the above incident with Ilinsky, Faiko describes Meyerhold’s reaction to the film for which he wrote the screenplay and in which Ilinsky starred. Curiously, Faiko does not even mention that Ilinsky played a lead role in this film, but by virtue of its physical proximity in the text, it is clear that Faiko is revealing and/or concealing the interrelated nature of these two events. His feigned innocence is unconvincing. A r y r y M U H n nponaoiima eme oflHa oM eHb crpaHHan w a n a Mean HeowkiaaHHaa oTUMKa c Me^iepxonbAOM. B TO speMfl Ha aKpanax noaawnacb Hosaa K M H O K O M eflM H — «rianMpoGHMua o r MoccennpoMa», cueHapwA KOTopoR Hanncan a coBMecTHo c 4> . OuenoM. rnaBHyio ponb nankipocHi/mw Srhu BeceHWHoR wrpana K ). ConnueBa, nesaaonro nepea tbm cHRMaBuiaaca b «AanMTB». M b o t KaK-xo sbohmt Tene*oH, m a cnuuiy b xpybKe eapxaxHwR xeM6p MeRepxonbaoBCKoro 6apnxoHa. Ho B 9T0M 6apxaxe Tawnocb mto-to snoBemee; — 9x0 B bi coM M H M nM «BanMpocHRuy ox MoccennpoMa»? -fta. . . M b i 0 OuenoM. — Ero a H O snaio. B awaio Bac. — fta. M Mxo we? R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 142 --A T O , M T O B bf no3B o/iM JiM ce6e HeyMecTHyio m jaepsKyio BblXOflKy. — To ecTb? — Bbm M SBecTHO, M T O SuHanAB HM KOJiaoBHa 6biJia weHom no9Ta EceHMHa? - û a . . . Ho KaKoe. . , -A TaKoe, M T O B bi HasBa/iM @ T y Bauiy . . . npoflaBiunuy 3 wHo8 BeceHMHoM c bbhum homokom w rpyGwivi Bwnaaoiw npoTMB SuHawAw HnKOJiaeBHbi, npoTW B . . . M ac. A coBepuieHHO oneiun/i. A H W K aK He mot ceaaaTb oaho c ApyrHM, M oSBM H eH w e BceBejioAa Sw iw A beB M M a noKaaanocb mho ne TOAbKo o6M A H biM , ho h cMexoTBopHUM. A cTaA yeepBTb, mto mho He b roAOBy He M O T A O npw M T M HM M ero noAo6Horo, mto Aawe ceRMac A c TpyAOM yAaBAMBaio s to CAyMaRHoe m OTAaAennoe coBnaAeHMe, h TaK AaAee b tom Ayxe. MeRepxoAbA CA yU iaA BH RM aTO A bH O M O A M B , R H O T O M CnpOCRA B ywe 6oAee cM A TM eH H O M Tone: — A KaKne B b i ayMaere npw H A Tb Mepw? — KaKwe me Mepw BoeeeAOA 3 M HAbeBRM ?! Ha *a6pwKe yw e He SyAyT MeHATb TwTpw. KapTWHa ne r a o t nepewR A6Hb. A rOTOB M SB R H M T bC A nepeA SW H aW A O R HwKOAaeBHoR, x o ta mhb KaweTCA Bce-TaKR, mto same GoAeaneHHoe BooGpaweHwe . . . — KaKoe y moha Boo6paweHne— cyARTb ne bam, a SwHawAe HM KOAaeBHe ne nanoMMHaRTe GoAbuie npo aTy RCTopmo. B w AocTBTaMHo M CTpenaAM ee nepBW. A oGtjAchk) caM. A B W npMAeTe na nuMbepy? -flAa!...-OTBeTMA A ApornyBUiMM toaocom. -f lo CBMAaHMAl-B TpyÔKO m O A K H yA O , M rOAOC aaMOAK.26 Then yet another very strange and unexpected skirmish happened between me and Meyerhold. At Âat time a new film, a comedy called The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom, was playing. I had co-written the screenplay with F. Otsep. The starring role of the cigarette girl was played by lu. Solntseva who just before it had filmed Aelita. And the telephone starts ringing and I hear the velvet tones of Meyerhold’s baritone coming fi’ om the receiver, but in it loomed something sinister: — Is it you who wrote The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom! -Y e s... Otsep and I. — I don’t know him. I know you. -Y es. And what’s your point? 26 ibid., p. 206-207. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 143 — That you have allowed yourself an inappropriate and audacious outburst. -W hat do you mean? -D idn’t you know that Zinaida Nikolaevna was the wife of the poet Esenin? -Y es, but w hat... -Then as such because you called your... salesgirl Zina Vesenina was an explicit reference and crude attack on Zinaida Nikolaevna, on... us. I was completely taken aback. I could not connect one thing with the other at all, and Vsevelod Emil’evich’s accusation seemed not only offensive to me but laughable. I began to try and convince him that any such thing could not have been in my mind and that even now it was difiScult even now for me to see this chance and remote coincidence, etc. Meyerhold listened attentively and silently and then asked in an more softened tone: — But what measures do you plan to take? — Vsevelod EmiTevich, what kind of measures are there?! It is too late for the factory to change the titles. This is not the first day of the film’s run. I am prepared to beg Zinaida Nikolaevna’s pardon although it seems to me that this is all your own sick imagination... -Whatever my kind of imagination is not for you to judge. Don’t ever remind Zinaida Niolaevna of this ever again. You have upset her enough already. I will explain it myself. But are you going to the premiere? — Yyyes... I answered with my voice trembling. -Goodbye!—the phone clicked and the voice was gone. Faiko’s account stresses that Meyerhold’s anger was directed toward him for writing the screenplay as an obvious insult to his wife, but he does not even mention Ilinsky’s role in the film. Yet Ilinsky’s account of the related elements differs from both Babanova’s and Faiko’s in that he does not mention any connection to his wife. Ilinsky stresses that the film. The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom, was written and shot before Bubus. Ilinsky would have us believe that Meyerhold R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 144 was angry just because Ilinsky was developing a successful film career and that this film could have been any film. Ilinsky states that the new film company, Mezhrabpom-Rus’, shot Aelita^^ and this film at the same time with the same actors, and that when they were both released that fall 1924 they were huge financial successes. Ilinsky paints a picture of Meyerhold being both jealous and possessive but he does so with very few specifics. Ilinsky generalizes about Meyerhold’s disapproval of his work in film yet only mentions Meyerhold’s critical review of the fihn which mocks his personal life. Meyerhold clearly was not happy with this particular film but it was not for the reasons Ilinsky lists. However, this perceived or misperceived lack of enthusiasm on Meyerhold’s part by Ilinsky for Ilinsky’s work in cinema might have caused his resentment and thus offers clues as to why Ilinsky chose to take part in such a vicious attack on his mentor: Meü^epxo/ibA koco OTHecon k mohm ycnexaM b kmho, < t» M /ib iv ib i eiviy He noHpaBMnncb, ecnw roBopwTb cepbesHo, TO , HMen 6onbUiyio nonynnpbHocTb y uiM pO K O ^ ny& nw K M , O H M AOBonbHo cyxo 6w/im npMHnxbi nepenoBoM rearpanbHoM M KM H6M aT0rpa(|>M HeCK0M oémeCTBeHHOCTbK). KaK pas K aroMy BpeiweHM y Mena HaMexMnca paanaa c BceaenonoM 3M M nbeBM M 6M . Mne Kasanocb xom a, mxo cxom/io mho ocxanoBMXb cboM Bu6op na ero xeaxpe, cxoM/ia mho npoaBMXb HaM nyM Luee oxHoweHwe k neiviy, cxom/io ewy yBepMXbca b xom, nacKo/ibKO a uenio ero k3k pewMccepa, KaK B oxBex nocneaoBano c ero cxoponw ropasao xyauiee HeaocxaxoHHO BHMMaxenbHoe oxHoiueHMe ko mhc, hcm Koraa, oGoioanbie noaospenMa, MenKMe m Kpynnwe K O H < t> n M K X b i. Cosaanacb nesaopoBaa o6cxanoBKa. 9\ He cH M is/iaio c ce6a B M H W . BecbMa aepoaXHO, mxo 6wnM $aKXW sasnaMcxBa m 2^ Aelita was directed by Protazanov, Papirosnitsa by Zheliabuzbsky. Both films starred Nikolai Tseretelli and lulia Solntseva. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 145 npMMbepcTBa i/i c ivioeR cTopoHU, noAorperue ycnexoM b kuho, KOTopwm pasApawaJi Me«epxo/ibûa, tbk KaK oh eeayc/ioBHo X0T6A, mto6u M oA ycnex 6u/i cBaaan TO/ibKO c ero rearpoM. A yanaji, mto oh Hanncaji KpnTMMecKyio peuensHto o (|>M JibM ax, ra e « yyacTBOBan. 3 ra peuenawa b jieHHnrpaACKOM wypna/ie «Tearp h MCKyccTBO» 6buia nanHoana mm nofl ncoBflOHMMOM Dottore. OH nMca/i raM, mto a wrpaio b kmho o naocKMM lOMopoM, KOTopwm npMTOfleH fljia «KeabMopoB 6epaMHCKMx H M B H blX .» 9\ 6wa o6M H <eH , mto oh tb k nMiueT o cbobm ynenMKe. U JaM penoTM U M M nbecw (D aP iK O «YMMTeab By6yc», a o npMMbepbi KOTopom ocTBBaaocb neAean ABe. ATM Oc<t»epa MaKaawaacb M peaBW M amno. K onaa na O A H O R m 3 peneTM UMR MeRepxoabA CTaa Mne noAaaaTb nMAwaK, saGoTaMBo cnpaiuMBaa, He ycTaa aw a, a nonaa, mto KOH*aM KT H eM M H yeM .28 Meyerhold looked askance at my success in film; he didn’t like movies, anything which enjoyed great success with the broad public. Truth be told, they were treated rather coldly by the rank and file of file theater and film societies. It was at this time that I had a disagreement with Vsevelod EmiTevich. It seemed to me then that it was in my best interests that I should choose his theater and maintain the best relations with him and to make him understand that I valued him as a director. His answer was much worse and insufficient attentiveness in his relations with me than when we had mutual suspicions, petty and serious conflicts. An unhealthy atmosphere was created. I don’t deny my own guilt. It is very true that my own conceit and egotism fueled by my success in film irritated Meyerhold as he unconditionally wanted my success to be connected only to his theater. I discovered that he had written a critical review about films [sic] in which I acted. This review in the Leningrad journal, Teatr i iskkustsvo, was written by him under the pseudonym “Dottore.” He wrote that my screen acting, the humor is flat and suitable for waiters in a Berlin beerhall. I was offended that he could write about his pupil like that. Rehearsals for Faiko’s play. The Teacher Igor Ilinsky, Sam o Sebe. (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1973): p. 240. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 146 Bubus, were underway and only about two weeks remained before the premiere. The atmosphere extraordinarily intensified. When Meyerhold at one of the rehearsals started to hand me my jacket, considerately asking me whether or not I was tired, I understood that our conflict was imminent. Ilinsky’s account of Meyerhold lighting his wife during a rehearsal for Bubus during his monologue, which he follows by a tirade against Raikh’s lack of talent in his eyes, smacks of a petty prima donna not getting the attention he feels he deserves. As Babanova and others have stated, when Meyerhold was satisfied with an actor’s work, he allotted them less attention rather than more. After working with Meyerhold for a serious period of time, Ilinsky should have realized this. But his star ego obviously could not forgive it. Moreover, this was but a rehearsal and not a final lighting cue, which further diminishes Ilinsky’s perceived slights’ true magnitude. Ilinsky states: Ha cnenyiomePi peneTw uM W Bcesenon SwimibeBwy CTaBwn CB6T M B O Bpevifi Moero ocHOBHoro MOHonora ocBeTMn He Mena, a 6e3Mo/iBHo npoxoAHBUiyio no cuene B O BpeMB MOHonora 3. H . Pa«x. BuABHweHMe 3. H . PaGx, weHbi Mei^epxonbaa, b to Bpeivia npoBonwnocb BoeaenoAOM Biy/iHjibeBimeM owenb wHTeHcwBHo M BuabiBano bo wiHe, oco6eHHyio b jy nopy, qyBCTBO n porecra, ra x xax 3MHawAa HMKonaeBHa He mviena HMKaxoB uiKonw h, Ha MoA Bar/WA, 6bina AnneraHTKo« 6ea KaKMx-nn6o B H A H M bIX AaHHbIX \A CnOCOGHOCTem He TO/lbKO aaHMIwaTb oco6oe nonoweHwe b re a rp e , ho BOo6me 6biTb axTpMCom. B Aa/ibHef^ujeM a yBWAen. h to a necKo/ibKo ouinGanca, Tax xax HexoTopwe ponn 3. H . PaRx wrpana anonne aoctoRho m xopouio. Mnorowy ona ycnena nayMMTbca y BceBenoAa 3MnnbBMMa m bo BoaxoM c/iyMae, c ra n a axTpwcoR He xyme mhotmx APymx. Ho b to apeivia ee cueHHMecxaa 6ecnoMomHocTb, a Taxwe Owawyecxaa HenoAroTOBJieHHocTb m , nonpocTy roBopa, neyxniomecTb 6wnw cnkiuiKOM oweBMAHbi ii BwawBanw nyscTBO R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 147 n p o recra nporuB crojib HecnpaBefljinBoro, bbho MCKycrBeHHOrO BblflBHWeHMB.^^ At the next rehearsal, Vsevelod Emil’evich was working the lights and during my main monologue did not light me but a silent Z. N. Raikh who was crossing the stage during the monologue. Z.N. Raikh’s promotion, Meyerhold’s wife, was brought about by Vsevelod Emil’evich and created in me especially at that time the feeling of protest because Zinaida Nikolaevna had no formal education, and from my point of view was a dilettante who lacked any kind of obvious given talent to merit not only her special position in the theater but to be an actress in general. Much later on, I saw that I had made some mistakes when Z.N. Raikh gave performances in several roles that were very worthy and good. She succeeded in learning a great deal from Vsevelod Emil’evich and in any ease became an actress who was no worse than many others. However, at the time her lack of preparation and simply put, awkwardness was too obvious and aroused in me a feeling of protest against such unfair, clearly artificial promotion. Morever, Ilinsky concludes his account with a gmdging admission that later Raikh clearly was not as poor an actress as he had thought at this time. By his own admission, his temper and ego had clouded his judgment. Another actor’s lack of ability does not seem worthy of the amount of ire it caused in Ilinsky or the tantrum that it brought about resulting from it. In fairness, Meyerhold’s reaction also seems extreme, but it seems that Ilinsky’s multiple provocations finally proved too much for him: 29 ibid. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 148 A npepean cueHy, cnpocun Meü^epxo/ibfla, TaK M M m ocTaweTCfl b jaanbHec^uieM ocsemeHMe. Oh OTBeTM Ji yTBepflMTe/ibHO. noc/ie OKOHHaHwa peneTM U W M a noflaa aaaBaeHwe 06 yxoae H3 rearp a, oTKaaaBUiMCb O T yyacTwa b «YHMTeae By6yce». BMecxo Toro HTo6w npwasaxb MeHa m noroBopi/iTb co M H om , Me^epxoabu noflHaa cTpauinyio 6ypio. HeMejaaeHNo nanaaacb aKCTpeHHbie aaceaaHwa 0 tom, mto a copaaa nan cpwBaio npeMbepy, na caeayiomMA we aenb a 6bia saMeHen. Haflo MHoA HaBMc M 6M B03Me3flna. MePiepxoaba xoxea o6mecTB6HHoro cyaa, npi/iMeM aa mho« nocxynoK xpe6oBaa oôtaBaeHwa Mne noBceMecxHoro ôoMKOxa M aanpemeHMa paGoxaxb b KaKOM-awGo xeaxpe.^® Saceaanwe «cyaa», nan paaGop MHUMaeHxa, npoMCxoawao HOBepoaxHO 6ypno aaw e no xoMy BpeMenM. [... ] rioaoGHwR xoa aaceaaHwa coBepuueHHo c6wa c nanxaabiKy npeacxasMxeaeM coioaa PaGwc, m ohm npMHaaM coaoMonoBO peuioHMe: «HcKaiOMMXb HabMHCKoro M 3 Teaxpa MeMepxoabaa». Ho GoMKOxa ne oG taaaaxb M aaw e naoGopox: npeaocxepeMb ox bo3Mowhocxm xaKoro GoMKoxa.3i I interrupted the scene to ask Meyerhold whether the lighting [cue] was going to remain like that. He answered firmly. After the end of rehearsal I announced that I was leaving the theater [permanently] having refused to participate in The Teacher Bubus. Instead of summoning me to speak with him, Meyerhold created a horrible stir. Emergency sessions began about the fact that 1 had ruined or was going to ruin the premiere. On the very next day 1 was replaced. Above me hung the sword of retribution. Meyerhold wanted a public trial for the crime that 1 had committed. He demanded that the announcement of a boycott of me and the prohibition of me working in any theater. The “court” hearing or the investigation of the incident was unbelievably turbulent even for that time. [... ] A similar motion of the meeting of the representatives of the union, Rabis, drove them out of their minds and they made a decision worthy of Solomon: “Exclude 30 ibid., p. 241. 31 ibid., p. 241. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 149 Ilinsky from Meyerhold’s theater.” But they could not announce a boycott and moreover, they were forbidden the possibility of such a boycott. Babanova’s biographer confesses that the amount of attention Meyerhold allotted to Raikh during rehearsal bothered many actors but clearly feels that Faiko’s screenplay was a reaction — a cruel one. Turovskaia displays sympathy for Ilinsky in light of Meyerhold’s wrath but does not seem familiar with Ilinsky’s possible more active role in the creation of the vindictive Cigarette Girl. She also says, like Faiko and unlike Ilinsky, that it was Ilinsky’s wife who set off the conflict at the rehearsal: Ha 6eny, t o t we M n b M H C K w R , K O T opw R peneTMpoean By6yca, nrpa/1 m rnasHyio ponb b ifrnnbM e. F h o b MeRepxonbfla He nomaflkin m nK>6nM oro yyeH W K a. Ko Bcewy nponeviy wewa M nbH H C K oro, HeaaBHo B C T ynw B U ian B T M M , wrpana ponb TwnbxeH Eaaae b nape c Tea Gaaae -G abaH O BoR . To, M T O SeaponoTHO C H O cw na npocnaaneHHan Ea6aH0Ba, H aM M H aiom an M n b W H C K a n C H O C H T b H e aaxoTena. Ona oTBawHo noflnnna ronoc np oT W B nsHoro npwcTpacTM n MacTepa k PaM x. MeAepxonbja Bcnbuinn, Bcnwnnn M n b M H C K w A — O H nioôM n cB O fo weny ne M eH biue, m o m MeMepxonbu c b o io . B aTM oc4>epe naapeBaiomero cKannana, h o m th b Kanyn npeM bepbi, M cnonH M Tenb rnaBH om ponn noKiinyn TeaTp. By6yca nprnunocb cpoM H o nepeaaTb cpenneMy aKTepy B enbC K O M y. SMecTe c M n b H H C K H M yiuna ero wena.^^ Unfortunately the same Ilinsky who was rehearsing Bubus also played a main role in the film. Meyerhold’s anger did not spare even his favorite pupil. Concerning the others, Ilinsky’s wife who just recently had become a part of the Meyerhold theater was rehearsing the role of Til’khen Baaze along with Babanova who played the other daughter. Tea. The beginner ITinskaia did not want to be worn out by what had worn out the uncomplaining but celebrated Babanova. She bravely raised her voice against Turovskaia, p. 72. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 150 Meyerhold’s blatant bias toward Raikb. Meyerhold exploded, then Ilinsky exploded—be did not love bis wife any less than Meyerhold loved bis own. In the atmosphere of the brewing scandal, almost on the very eve of the premiere, the actor playing the lead role abandoned the theater. They were suddenly forced to transfer the role to a second-tier actor, Belskii. Ilinsky’s wife left along with him. No matter which account one finds the most believable, Ilinsky’s departure on the eve of the premiere was yet another major blow to Bubus' potential ability tosucceed. Clearly, the final straw in the already strained relations with Meyerhold was Faiko’s screenplay. The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom, which he co-authored with Fyodor Otsep. Not only do the situations bear strange resemblance to the theatrical situation, so do the fietional characters to their presumed real counterparts. Furthermore, this artistic endeavor involved many of the same players and those sympathetic to them. In short, despite disclaimers and false trails. The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom is a thinly veiled attack on the artistic and romantic partnership of Vsevelod Meyerhold and his wife/muse Zinaida Raikh. All in all, far too many plot details in Faiko’s screenplay mirror the facts surrounding Raikh and Meyerhold’s life in 1924 for us to believe that his film's heroine bears chance resemblance to Zinaida Raikh. Given Faiko's attitude toward Raikh and the closeness of the names, I concur with Meyerhold and Raikh, despite R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 151 Faiko's disclaim ers.^^ Faiko tries to pass off the charges against him as misdirected ire, saying that others saw themselves in these same characters. He recounts that decades later when in evacuation he met Blium, the same staunchly anti-Meyerhold critic, who had caused many of the problems with Bubus. Blium told Faiko that he thought the character. Teacher Bubus, had been based on him as he had also been a teacher in a provincial gymnasia and his name began with the letter "B". Although this is presumably meant to parallel Meyerhold and Raikh seeing Raikh in the cigarette girl, it is ultimately unconvincing and does not disprove Meyerhold's allegations.^'* More than anything else, the film itself strongly contradicts Faiko's proclamations of his innocence. The main character's name was Zina Vesenina and both Meyerhold and Raikh felt it to be a thinly veiled, unflattering portrait of Raikh’s acting career and love life. In the film, a young, pretty girl who sells cigarettes has many customers/admirers, one of whom is a young accountant at Mosselprom, Matiushin, played by the famous Igor Ilinsky, the original choice for Bubus. An expatriate rich American businessman, Oliver McBride (who is a dead ringer for Faiko), also is struck by Zina the cigarette girl, as is a young film cameraman, Latugin. The cameraman is determined to bring her to his director's attention and make an actress of her. He decides ^^Faiko, Zapiski, p. 206. 34ibid.,p. 209. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 152 to instruct her himself after the director proclaims her without talent. Latugin refuses to believe this and makes his own film of her. Zina, despondent that she gave up her job as a cigarette seller and has failed as an actress, writes a letter to McBride agreeing to become his mistress. As Latugin is begging her to return to him, he sees the letter, and Zina flees. Some time later, Zina, well dressed and on McBride's arm, attends the races and encounters Latugin. Zina becomes upset as McBride scolds her to stop making scenes, as she is no actress. Eventually, McBride proposes to Zina but she refuses and returns to selling cigarettes. Later, Latugin finds her again and they decide to get married. The movie ends with a frame within a frame: Latugin's new movie, starring his Zina Vesenina, entitled "The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom" is being shown. The poster displayed within the movie is exactly the one used to advertise the actual movie. Latugin at last has made Zina a star. The many parallels to Zina Raikh Esenina Meyerhold, her relationship to Meyerhold and to her critics are blatantly obvious. Physically, Zina resembles her namesake in features, hairstyle, makeup, and particularly several costumes, which resemble those Zinaida Raikh wore in recent Meyerhold productions such as The Forest earlier in 1924. The film character's name Zinaida Sergeevna Vesenina obviously resembles Raikh's name when she was married to her previous husband Sergei Esenin; moreover, it is a point that is hammered home to the viewer throughout the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 153 movie. Several shots focus on her name— once on a manuscript dedicated to her, another time on her signature on her letter to Mr. McBride and finally, the film within the film prominently displays her image and her name. The viewer is never allowed to forget the cigarette girl's full name. On a deeper examination, the plot bitingly attacks Raikh's ability as an actress and the will and position of her husband to overcome this. The film character's attempts at acting mirror those of her prototype: Raikh was often criticized for having no talent and for becoming famous through the will and talent of Meyerhold, much like the Vesenina/Latugin relationship. Raikh was also famous for her temper tantrums,^^ alluded to at the races in the film as well as in both the memoirs of Faiko and Esenina. With her numerous suitors and her dubious relationship with Matiushin and Mr. McBride, the film's Zina is shown to get ahead through her beauty and sex appeal rather than her talent, yet another criticism leveled at Raikh, particularly in light of the fact that two of her husbands both happened to be among Russian culture's greatest stars. Yuri Elagin, a Meyerhold biographer, never mentions the film in his biography of Meyerhold, Temnyi Genii, yet his description of Meyerhold and Raikh's relationship strangely parallels it. He writes: 35 Tat’iana Esenina,“Dom naNovinskom Bul’vare.” Soglasie. 4 (1991): pp. 133-208. Tatiana Esenina discusses her mother’s temperamental nature in the 1920s when she could either break into tears or send out a stream o f angry words. Later, when she would calm down she would regret it. Esenina clearly ties it to both her mother’s physical and mental illness at the time. p. 159. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 154 H aM M H ancfl y w e e r o pO M aH c OAHOR n a a r c yw eHW u, nepeuiB A U iR R e c K o p e c e r o C T opoH w b c T p a c T H y io , M yM M Te/ibH yio /iio 6 o B b - n e p B y io m eflM H cxB eH H yio 6 o jib u iy io J1 K)6 0 Bb B TeM BHU e BC6R e r O JKM3HM. 3 X 0 yMBHMUa 6 b l/ia 6 w B w a a c e K p e x a p iu a e c e p o B O K o R r a a e x w « A e iio H a p o a a » S w H a w a a P a m x , c K o x o p o m n o aH aK O M R /icn o h e m e b peB o/uouH O H H O M H e x p o rp a jE ie b 1917 r o a y . 3 a r o a a o x o r o B peM eH M , o K o x o p o M w a e x peM b (B x o p a m n o a o s M H a 1921 r o a a ) , P a R x p a s o i u a a c b c o c b o r m n e p B u v i M yw eM C e p r e e w EceHWHWwi, o x K o x o p o r o y n e e 6 b i/io a s o e a e x e R ... [ . . . ] n p M u iaa P a R x yMMXbCfl M C K yccxB y M e a b n o M e H b i k c B o e M y c x a p o iv iy snaK O M O M y M e R e p x o a b a y - B p a a JIM w cK p eH w e B a e K /io e e k x e a x p y , K3K B c e r a a a n e n e x k M C K yccxB y x a a a H x a w B w x o x n p R p o a w a i o a e R . X o x a y P a R x 6 w a o K p acM B o e a w u o w 6 w a a o n a O M a p o B a x e a b H o R m M H x ep ecH o R w eH iuM H oR , HO c p e a w B c e R M o a o a o w R , n p R u ie a u ie R b x e r o a w y H R X b c a k M e R e p x o a b a y , 6 w a a e a a a nn n e caiw oR 6 e s a a p H o R . 14 b x e y e H w e B c e x n o c a e a y io iU R x a e x n o H a a o G w a a c b H e H e a o B e w e c K M e y c w a w a B.3., y x o 6 w c a e a a x b w a n e e x o x a 6bi M a a o -M a a b C K R npw aw H H yio aKxpMcy.36 He began a romance with one of his new female students, and for him, it soon became a passionate torturous love-the first great love in his entire life. This student was the former secretary of the Socialist Revolutionary (S.R.) newspaper <Delo Naroda>[sic], Zinaida Raikh, with whom he had become acquainted in Petrograd inl917— around the time of the revolution. Only a year before, during late 1921, Raikh had separated from her first husband, Sergei Esenin, with whom she had two children... Raikh came to study the art of Melpomenes with her old acquaintance Meyerhold. However, she was not like those who are drawn to the theater by their natural talent. Though Raikh had a beautifiil face and was a charming, interesting woman, she was probably the least talented among all the young students who came to study with Meyerhold at the time. Over the next several years V.E.'s superhuman efforts were needed to make her into even the most barely decent actress. 3®lurii Elagin, Temnyi Genii. (Vsevelod Meierkhol'd) {London: Overseas Publications Interchange Ltd., 1982): p. 240. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 155 The deeper criticisms in the film of Meyerhold and Raikh are the following: Raikh arrived in Moscow with no talent, desire or experience to become an actress. She was beautiful girl who got places because of her looks. She attracted the attention of two men who competed over her (Esenin and Meyerhold in real life or Matiushin and Latugin in the film respectively). Both men dedicated their talents-acting and poetry-to her. While they saw something in her, others dismissed her as talentless. She also entertained the affections of her two suitors simultaneously. She indulged herself in expensive clothes. Later, she becomes despondent and others believed that she would commit suicide. However, she eventually had success at the box office because of the persistence of the director/camera operator but the poet continued to pursue her, until he was dragged off by an older woman (Isadora Duncan in real life, Rybstova in the film) who has long been in love with him. At the beginning of the film, the young pretty Zina is shown in her uniform as Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom. Similarly, Zinaida Raikh had come originally to Moscow in November 1919 to work not in theater but for another Soviet acronym, Narkompros.37 Soon after, some men fi"om the movie studios see her and the cameraman, Latugin, announces to his film's director that he would like to use this girl with the pretty face for small roles. "B 6bi McnonbaoBan ary nannpocHMuy Ha ManenbKMX ponnx. Esenina, p. 173. (Elagin, p. 240 cited above concurs with this.) R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 156 riocMOTpnTe KaKoe (“I could use this cigarette girl in some small roles. Look what a face she has.”) They argue about it. When visiting American businessman, Oliver McBride, sees her, he agrees and says: "This girl has the perfect face for the screen and she could become a great actress like many other movie stars who have been discovered on the sidewalk. Latuguin is happy after the director stares intently at Zina's face and agrees to give her a shot, but tells her to go home and prepare. At home she is shown trying all these classical tragic heroine poses with ridiculous results. Latugin then drops by ostensibly to help her with her preparations. Similarly, Raikh’s children (and Elagin) say that Meyerhold and Raikh’s acquaintance was made by chance around 1920-21 when Meyerhold was head o f the theater section of Narkompros, and Raikh was working for Lunacharsky. He was supposedly impressed with statements she made at a meeting of theater groups that the dramatists fi’ om the RAPP [the Association of Russian of Proletarian Writers] group were ruining the Russian language.'*® This also bears strong resemblance to Tatiana Esenina’s memoirs of the courtship period of Raikh by Meyerhold after she had just begun studying with him: Macro nocne saHarwA, yme aa nojiH O M b, mu umw M3 U1KOJ1U KO MHO. M e C ^ e p x o jib u n p o B O w a ji 3 m h v, m m u A Comedy in 6 parts. Screenplay for Papirosnitsa at Mosselproma by Alexei Faiko and Fyodor Otsep. Directed by Zheliabuzbsky. Corrections by Zheliabuzbsky. p. 9. RGALI, 2354,1, 19. 39RGALI, 2354,1,19, p. 12. '* ® Esenina, p. 157. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 157 BMecre BBa/iMBa/incb b moio KOMHaxy. M b axoR wa/iKoR KOMHaxe BceBBJiofl SM U/ibeBM M , «Macxep», K3K mu ero HaawBann, paaurpwBanw nepea SmhoR w nepeao mhoR uenue cneKxaK/m, paccKaauBan o cborx aaMuc/iax, o CxaHHCiiaBCKOM, MexoBe, KoMMccapweBCKoR, ronoc ero ryaen m Becb aoM, r coceaR co Bcex cxopoH cxyyanR b cxbhh, b noxonoK, b non, rpoawnR BwaBaxb M RnRU RlO . . . Often after classes when it was already after midnight, we went from school to my place. Meyerhold accompanied Zina and we all squeezed into my room. And in this pathetic room Vsevelod Emil’evich, “Master,” as we all called him, would act out entire shows for us, and would tell us his thoughts about Stanislavsky, Chekhov, Komissarzhevskaia. His voice would ring out throughout the entire house and my neighbors on all sides would bang on the walls, the ceiling, and the floor and threatened to call the police. In the film, the director’s comments mirror those of many critics of the time. The director pronounces that Zina so lacks talent that she does not even know how to walk properly: "6e3H8flewHO...Beflb ohb no/iHan 6e3AapHocxb"42 "Bw cynapuHn aawe xoaRXb He yMeexe. . . 3x, HaBH3anR mnb B ac... " '* 3 (“it’s hopeless. You, miss, don’t even know how to walk properly. Ugh, why did they saddle me with you!”) Zina holds back tears says to operator “A SeaaapHOcxb. . . xenepb Bce KOHM eHo.'’ '* ^ ("I told you “I’ve got no talent at anything.. .now it’s all over.”) She runs away. Tatiana Esenina notes that one of the harshest criticisms of her mother and Meyerhold came fi’ om another Meyerhold biographer, Volkov. In his ibid., p. 159. 42 RGALI, 2354,1, 19, p. 14 «RGAL1, 2354,1,19, p. 17 44RGALI, 2354, 1, 19, p. 17. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 158 opinion, Zinaida Raikh lacked any kind of artistic ability and he considered it a psychological riddle that Meyerhold would devote his mind to locating and developing talent without noticing the obvious— that there was none/^ At one point the fictional Zina contemplates killing herself after her rejection. This is one of the cruellest subtexts. Tatiana Esenina recounts that around the time Raikh met Meyerhold, Raikh had been ill from a variety of diseases and possibly her divorce from Esenin and suffering from depression; as a result she ended up spending some time in the psychiatric hospital. O caMbix Tflwenux Mecnuax CBoeM w mshm oHa He nio6i4na paccKaawsaTb. Ho He pas BOcnoiviMHana, kbk HaBecTwna MePiepa b SonbHMue, 3T0 6bino eme no Toro, kbk y H M X «Bce HaManocb». . . Koraa ona Buiuna M S 6onbHMuu nocne cwnnoro Tw$a, y nee 6bina BCTpena c Mei?iepoM. B ronoBe 6bin xaoc, H O ona noMHnna, mto oKaaana eiviy «y Bac na cepaua ropMar howm» a oh c TpeBoroM Ha nee nocMorpen. Ha cneaytomnn aenb ona 6bina yme, KaK renepb naawBaioT, b «ncMKyuJKe».'^^ She did not like to talk about the most difficult months of her own life, but more than once she would reminisce about when she brought Meyerhold to the hospital, this was before “it all began between them”[ . ..] When she got out of the hospital after having typhus, she had a date with Meyerhold. Her mind was in chaos but she remembered that she said to him “you have knives sticking out of your heart” and he looked at her sadly. The next day she was already in what they call the “psych ward.” Esenina, p. 174. 46 ibi.d, p. 158. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 159 Esenina links this illness to Meyerhold's efforts to distract his wife from her worries and cares. Like the character in the film, Zina's debut is not of her own choice or ambition but the desire of the besotted director/camera man: Memep BcnnecKH nuTancn orpannTb ee o t BonHeHW M, ho nOBpeflMTb, M T O M X BblSOBBT, 6binO XpyflMO. BcnbUlbM M BOCTb He B C M B T [...]. OceHbio 1923 rofla MeMepxonbja Bsnncn aa cneKxaK/ib «Jlec», M rnaBHyio ponb nopywMn HMKonaeBne. Korna ee BnocnencxBMM cnpauiMBanM; KaK we xaK nonyMMnocb, aKxpMcom cxaxb ne co6Mpanacb, na cueny hm pasy He BuxoAMna, m cpaay rn aanan ponb? — Ona oxBBMana: — HM KaK He MornM noAo6paxb aKxpMcy na ponb Akokjuim, peujMnM nocMoxpexb, mxo nonyMMXcn y wenn.^^ Meyer tried to protect her against every type of upset but to foresee what would bring them on was difficult. Her temper was unpredictable. In autumn of 1923, Meyerhold began work on his production of The Forest and he gave the lead role to Zinaida Nikolaevna. Subsequently when she would be asked how did it come about that even though she didn’t plan on becoming an actress and had never been on stage, she immediately got the leading role? “ She would answer: — They could not find an actress for Aksiusha no matter what they did so they decided to see what they could do with me. Esenina attributes one of Meyerhold’s reasons for casting Raikh, a novice, in her first role in The Forest to a trend at the time in cinema for a director to find unknowns whom they selected according to their faces or appearance: BnpoMew, axo 6bi/io b ayxe BpeweHM. Kpmxmkm aaiviexMnM, M X O B «JÎece» MeMepxcAbA uiMpoKo no/ibaoBancn npM eM BM M HOBoro, aapowAaioiuerocfl 47 ibid., p. 159. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 160 MCKyCCTBa-KMHeMaTOrpa<|)MM. flOCTaHOBlUHKH (|)M ;ibM O B HepeflKO npeflnoMMTajiM hobmmkob npo<|>eccMOHanaM— Jimiib 6w O H M noflxoflMJiM K po/iM H O cBoeMy TMny, no BH 6U 1H 0CTM , H O flyujeBHOMy cK/iafly.^S By the way, this was in the spirit of the times. The critics noticed that in The Forest Meyerhold widely made use of devices from the newborn art form of cinematography. Film directors often preferred novices to professionals—as long as they suited the roles in their type, their faces and in their personalities. However, the film also targets Raikh’s former husband, the poet, Esenin, and hints that their relationship had not ended despite her marriage to Meyerhold. Matiushin, a ridiculous representation of a poet, seems to represent Esenin. He is shown writing high-flown poems and screenplays for Zina. Moreover, a rather sickening type of competition between the“Meyerhold” character (Latugin) and “Esenin” (Matiushin) is implied in the next couple of scenes: while in a park, Zina grabs the operator's camera and he teaches her to shoot,clearly a reference to Raikh beginning her career as a directing rather than acting student. This seems to parallel a comment by Esenina that in October 1921 when Raikh had just divorced Esenin, that same autumn she joined Meyerhold's theater school not to study acting but directing, Not to be outdone, Matiushin goes to the film studio to market his screenplay "The Forgotten Flower." The camera focuses in on the fact that it is dedicated to "a young but talented film actress— Zina 48 ibid. 49 2354, L 19, p. 28. ^^Esenina, p. 158. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 161 Vesenina."5i When he shows this to her, she gently touches his hair, to which he replies that “he is now a finished man.’’^ ^ Thus, the film more than hints that more than just fiiendship exists between the two of them and between the people they represent, Raikh and Esenin. Nonetheless, Latugin (“Meyerhold”) wins out as Zina spends more time with him as he films her in many different roles, for virtually every scene of "BwTb HoeoR MocKBbi." (“ A Day in the Life o f the New Moscow") In one such scene, he films Zina in her garb as a Mosselprom worker much like at the time, Raikh wore many of her own clothes in Bubus, according to her daughter. 5 3 Interspersed with these film scenes is one of the most frequently recounted poison-laced barbs directed at Raikh: “Recently, Moscow’s ladies have begun to dress very elegantly.”("3a nocjieflHee spewn Mockbrmm cTanM O M B H b 3/ieraHTHo ofleBaTbcn.")^'^ Immediately a scene follows in which Zina is shown in an elegant, stylish woman's hat. It next shows her hand with a fancy bracelet and an elegant lacy handkerchief. Then the camera pans to Zina's legs in open, delicate fine shoes and her kissing someone. Raikh was constantly sniped at for her supposed love of fine clothes. Her daughter’s memoirs make a point of trying to refute this, saying despite the fact that many criticized her mother for having a weakness for 51 RGALI, 2354, 1, 19, p. 33. 53 ibid. 53 Esenina, p. 173. 54 RGALI, 2354, I, 19, p. 37. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 162 expensive clothes, her mother's daily uniform was a white blouse and a dark skirt. Yet some details Esenina includes seem to refute her own statements, such as when she says because her mother played a contemporary woman in Bubus, she wore her own clothes for the role. “On returning home she would lift up her skirts and show us her scraped knees and shredded silk stockings. The women in our building oohed and ahhed in horror that she had ruined yet another pair of silk stockings.’’^^ Silk stockings were indeed a luxury item at the time. The fact that in the above scene the fictional Zina’s legs in particular were shown makes this detail all the more important as proof of the deliberateness of Faiko’s pointed jokes. Years later, Elagin again provides commentary on Raikh eerily similar to Faiko’s fictional Zina: PaRx 6 b tn a u p e a B w u a R H o M H T ep ecH o R m o 6 a n T e n b H o R weHiUMHoR, o 6n aA a B U ieR b OMeHb 60/ib u io R C T en eH R t 6 m H eo6-bncH R M biM A p a ro u e H H W M K aM ecTBO M , K O T o p o e n o -p y c c K R H a s b iB a e T c n « n o A R c io A a » , r h b S a n a A A R 3B 6C T H 0 n o A RMeHRBM sex appeal. B c e r a 6 w n a o H a O K pyw 6 H a 6onbU lR M K pyrO M nOK/lOHHRKOB, M H O rR e R 3 KOTOPWX A eM O H C T pR poB anR e R c b o r n u /iK R e n y B C T B a b B ecb iw a OTKpOBeHHOR (|>OpMe. P a R x n io 6 R n a B e c e n y io r 6 n e c T n iu y io WR3Hb: n io 6 R n a B eq ep R H K R c T aH u aM R r p e c T o p a H u c u b ira n a iv iR , HOM Hue 6 a n w B MOCKOBCKRX T e a T p a x r 6 aH K 6 T w b H a p K O M a ra x . /lK )6 R n a Tyanexbi r3 flapRwa, Bew w r Bapwasw, KOTRKOBbie R K a p a K y jie B b ie iu y 6 w , <t>paHuy3CKRe A y x R (cTO RBU iRe T o r A a b M o c K B e n o 200 p y 6 n e R a a M aneH bK R R ^ n aK O H ), n y A p y K o t r r uienK O B bie MyjiKR . . . r n io 6 R n a nOK/lOHHRKOB.^® Raikh was an extraordinarily beautiful and charming woman, having a large quantity of that inexplicably rare quality which we call “come hither” in Russian and in the West is referred to as sex appeal. A large circle of admirers, many of whom Esenina, p. 173. 56 Elagin, p. 292-93. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 163 demonstrated their ardent feelings in a very obvious manner, always surrounded her. Raikh loved the happy, glamorous life. She loved parties with dancing and restaurants with gypsies, late night balls in Moscow’s theaters and offical banquets. She loved designer clothes from Paris, Vienna, and Warsaw, fur coats of seal and astrakhan, French perfume (which cost more than 200 rubles for a tiny bottle), Coty facepowder and silk stockings...and she loved admirers. Meyerhold’s attempts to make Raikh into an actress in Jlec (The Forest) as a laughable enterprise are hinted several times. In one such scene, a group of film executives finish watching Latugin's film and as the lights go on they break out into derisive laughter. They evilly look at Zina who is cringing and crying from disappointment. She runs out, Latugin follows her and she cries that it is all because of him; he should not have compromised her in front of everyone. Later, Zina decides after many trials and tribulations to work for McBride. She is shown in a fine clothing store being outfitted by him and getting into his fancy car along with several other similarly dressed young women. McBride offers to bring her to the USA as his wife, but she refuses. Matiuishin is present in McBride’s car serving as translator for them; in doing so he refers to her as Zinaida Sergeevna. This seems to be a scrambled conflation of Esenin when he left the country to marry Isadora Duncan and of Raikh as a woman whose affections are dependent upon material rewards. Eventually, all intrigues and misunderstandings are sorted out and Latugin marries Zina. A scene follows depicting her artistic as well as R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 164 romantic success. Huge posters are being hung which depict Zina in her Mosselprom uniform and cap, above her portrait written in large letters "HoBan pyocKan nocxaHOBKa «nanwpocHMua ox MoccennpoMa».”^^ (“The New Russian Production-The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom.”) Inside the movie theater, Zina and Latugin are shown sitting in a box. On the theater screen is the inscription: "nannpocHMua ox MoccenbnpoMa. riocxaHOBKa w $oxorpa$MM A . ilaxyrnHa, B rnaBHOM ponw SMHawna BeceHUHa.’’^ ^ (“T T ie Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom. Directed and filmed by A. Latugin. Starring Zina Yesenina.”) On the screen Zina's picture appears "kuk apxMcxKM.''^^ (“as an actress”) Yet the screenplay’s next lines that “M shmk nopxpex 3wHw MoccenbnpoMUJimbi.”) ® ® (“The picture of Zina the Mosselprom worker appears.”) ironically implies that Latugin like Meyerhold has made his lady love a successful leading lady but that she has not changed at all. Zina might call herself an actress and have a starring role, but she is still the same woman she was at the beginning of the film. The ridiculous failed poet and suitor, Matiushin, cries out her name and looks on as Zina and Latugin look lovingly into each other's eyes in their box. The camera focuses on their intertwined fingers symbolizing their complete union. An older woman, Rybtsova, who has pursued Matiushin throughout the film, drags him off saying that she is taking him home. This could be an ” RGALI, 2354,1,19, p. 63. ibid. 59r g ALI,2354, l,19,p.64. * ibid. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 165 allusion to Esenin’s marriage to the much older Isadora Duncan after his divorce fi’ om Raikh. Tatiana Esenina provides probably the last and most crucial clue as to why Meyerhold and Raikh found this petty parody of Faiko’s so pointed and embarrassing. The film shamelessly makes a mockery of Meyerhold’s love for his wife and his desire to make “a silk purse out of a sow’s ear,” but also trumpets that Meyerhold had not just staged The Magnanimous Cuckold, but he was a cuckold, namely by Esenin. In 1924, the same year as the writing of the screenplay for The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom, there is evidence that Esenin and Raikh probably rekindled their relationship, or in any case that was certainly what was being bandied about. Raikh’s old friend Zinaida Veniaminovna Geiman recounted this to Esenina and her brother many years later when Tatiana was already in her 30s: A eTM , B b i cTanw coBceM Bcpoc/iue, n n Mory paccKasaTb B aM oAHy Beiub. B 1924 rony y Bauinx poA M TejiePi BosH M K na H aA o6H O C T b noroBopwTb, m ohm B C T p eT M /iM C b y Mena, b 3toM K O M H are, tab mu cm am m . PaaroBop 6wA n p M M H 6, peM b tuna o paanux AO Aax, TonbK O B aiua M aM a BHauane cKaaana: «A BM Aena bo cne, mto mu onnTb BMecTe», a oh otbot npoMorma/i, ne cKasa/i H M M ero .^ * B nenaT M cx a n M n o n B n n T b c n yTBepwAOHM n, 6yA T 0 KBapTM pa. 3 . B. feMMan CAywM/ia mbctom T aM n ux B c x p e n EceHM Ha CO cB oeM 6uBuieM weHoM.®^ “Children because you are all grown up now I can tell you something. In 1924 your parents needed to discuss something and they met here in my apartment where we are sitting. I was present during their conversation which was about various things, but at the beginning of it your mother said T Esenina, p. 156. 62 ibid., p. 157. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 166 had a dream that we were together again.’ His answer was silence. He didn’t say anything.” The press had begun to allege that the apartment of Z.B. Geiman served as a secret meeting place for Esenin and his former wife. Though Meyerhold had banked upon Faiko's play to victoriously open his new theater, he met with scandal, humiliation, betrayal and the end of a brief, rocky but significant collaboration. The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom served as Faiko's petty attempt at revenge for real and imagined slights. Though Faiko would produce one more successful play. The Man with a Briefcase, which made him an incredibly wealthy man, Meyerhold never worked with or spoke of him again in his copious correspondence and director's notes, despite the fact that the earlier Lake LyuV remained in his theater's repertoire until the late 1920s. Despite his wealth and renown, after 1925, it is interesting to note that few people who corresponded with Faiko were of the caliber or stature of those with whom he had been on fairly close terms prior to The Teacher Bubus and The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom. This leads us to believe that far more of Moscow's elite than just Meyerhold and Raikh had noticed Faiko's ill-conceived vendetta and that The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom was more than a light comedy of the Soviet 1920s but also was correctly read as a well-encoded attack on Meyerhold and Raikh. Because of its release simultaneous with Bubus’ production, the movie is inextricably linked to the play’s complicated history, production, and R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 167 reception. Moreover, The Cigarette Girl burned any real chance Bubus had of success. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 168 Chapter 5: Bubus’ Explanatory Brochure, Summary of Faiko’s Play* and the Press’ Response After Lake Lyul Meyerhold decided to continue his successfiil relationship with Faiko; he commissioned his second play, The Teacher Bubus {YanTeJib By6yc) to open the new theater which bore his name. Though Meyerhold had experienced controversy with LyuV, it was largely with the critics and the theatrical wing of the Party’s struggle to define the acceptable new Soviet theater literature. The whirlwind which surrounded LyuV was faced by a united front of Meyerhold, his actors and the playwright (Faiko). The production elements heightened the script or at least did not significantly diverge from it. Most importantly, the staging of Faiko's first play was a resounding, far-reaching success for everyone involved. Except for including many of the same players, the experience of the Bubus production was different in every respect, by Faiko's admission, right from its inception. Unlike the many complicated twists and turns of the plot in the melodrama, LyuV, Bubus was a sophisticated salon comedy which bordered on the comedy of manners model. The plot also follows Russian models from the previous century and the theatrical tradition much more closely; indeed, it bears a striking resemblance to Fonvizin's Brigadier, The Minor and Griboeydov's Woe to Wit. However, Meyerhold decided to take this fairly traditional “comedy” and greatly heighten the socio-political content, adding satirical subtext along with music. While the political elements which were added to the production, such as * Vs. Meierkhol’d, U chitel’Bubus. Tri akta Alekseia Faiko v Postanovke Vs. M eierkhol’ da—komediia m muzyke. V. Fedorov, ed. (Moscow: Iz.Teatra im.Vs. Meierkhol’da, 1925). Published for its first time in its entirety in English. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 169 suspended screens with citations from Lenin, made the production much more immediately relevant to its audience’s milieu, the artistic elements of the production such as the highly stylized acting (both voice and body work) the elaborate classical musical component (fully scored with selections from Chopin and Lizst) and rare luxurious props (a fine brilliantly red and green rug under the actors’ feet, the omnipresent Bechstein piano over the stage, and the splendor of the costumes) all seemed to place the work in another time and place far, far away from Soviet realia. While Meyerhold wanted to exploit this disjunction both artistically and politically, Faiko eventually protested that the Bubus being staged by Meyerhold was no longer the same one he had written. Coupled with the simultaneous release of the film. The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom, the scandals which bled over and affected Bubus as well as several generated by the play’s production itself marred any chance of Bubus having real success with the public. This neglected production demonstrates that Meyerhold’s complicated experimentation was hampered by interference from the censors, hostile critics, and protests by its author, resulting in an incomplete realization of a unique idea which was judged, misjudged and judged again without comprehension by those doing so of either the complex conception or the equally opaque set of circumstances surrounding it. As such, when theater scholars discuss Bubus it is done so without many crucial components. First, they often lack a clear understanding of what the plan actually was. Secondly, they are often unaware of the role that the censors, critics and playwright played in its failure. Lastly, its artistic merits have not been fully explored. Its radical attempt to utilize many devices from Kabuki has been ignored completely. Herein I attempt to fill in as R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 170 many of the above-mentioned gaps as possible to allow this production and its history to reach a wider audience who can now finally examine what might have been a far more successful production. Every aspect of Bubus was elaborately conceived and executed. The luxurious stage design for The Teacher Bubus was the first of a series of elements in which it markedly differed from recent productions: [Meyerhold and Shlepianov] covered the stage floor with a huge, round, luxurious carpet and backed this with a continuous semicircle from one side of the stage to the other of dangling bamboo strips. Thus an enclosed horizontal circle constituted the playing area for The Teacher Bubus-a. far cry from the construction of ramps, stairs, and levels amid a denuded stage that typified his earlier work.^ The one exception to the horizontal plan of the production was a large platform which overlooked the stage from a height of about twenty feet at a position all the way upstage center. But there was no acting on this platform; instead, it contained a concert Bechstein piano and a prominent Moscow pianist who played Chopin and Lizst almost continuously throughout the production. In all, he played forty-six excerpts from the two romantic composers, both as a background to the spoken dialogue and as accompaniment for the extensive pauses and miming that constituted such a large part of the acting.^ The carpet as well as other props had more than merely decorative functions; The carpet covered the floor of the playing space and served both as grass in the garden and floor covering indoors, for Meyerhold used the same setting for outdoors and indoors-as in Shakespeare, he claimed-with only different centerpieces to mark the change: a fountain in Act I, a circular sofa in Act II, and a fireproof safe in Act III. Above the pianist's niche political slogans projected on a screen spelled ^ Symons, p. 129. ^ ibid. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 171 out the show’ s propaganda intent, and electric signs flashing advertising slogans lent an urban atmosphere on stage/ Just as the sets and props were very different, so too was the acting and movement a distinct break from Meyerhold’s recent productions; As a result, the "Meyerholdism" of virtually continuous stage movement— either by means of vertical construction or the movable wooden screens— was notably absent from the production of The Teacher Bubus. Instead, the production became at times more physically static than even the Moscow Art Theatre productions of Chekhov/ A special type of acting developed for The Teacher Bubus, that is, slowed movement to music and musical tempos, also differed from recent productions and barkened back to a much earlier period of Meyerhold’s work. Like much of his work before the Revolution, the movement was stylized rather than acrobatic: [movement] played a very important part. Not only were there several scenes of actual dancing (highly stylized), but each major character was assigned a particular rhythm and tempo of speech and movement which served— like the symbolic costume colors in several of his earliest productions— to identify a character and his nature through theatrical devices. Gorchakov called it "a system of rhythmic masks" and Lunacharsky termed the feature "sociomechanics" as opposed to biomechanics.^ Boris Alpers not only describes the elaborate set design in succinct detail, he points out its similarities to Meyerhold's work before the Revolution: "Hoover, Design, p. 144. ’ Symons, p. 129. * ibid., p. 132-133. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 172 B «5y6yce» Mei^epxojibA BocnpoiiSBOAMT b yBeJW M eH H bix MaciuTa6ax cbom neTep6yprcKne CTyflM«Hue nocxaHOBKM 1915-16 roflOB b 6e/ioM K O A O H H O M aa/ie m BoponnHCKO^. K oH eM H O , renepb Bce 9T0 cAe/raHO c 6oAbiunM pasMaxoM n c 6 0 A b lU H M B H eU lH M M B eA I/IK O A enM eM . Mexbipe 6aM6yKOBbie naAKH, c KoxopwMn cxyA M f^U M , OAexbie b cepo-roAy6yio nposoAewAy. paawrpwBaAM naHxoM^Mbi Ha iw ieA A enH bix xopwecxBeHHUx A BM H 4eH M BX ,-@ TM naAKM B W pO C A M B «Byôyce» B UeAblM 6aNi6yK0BCKMm ABC, MepHO K O A W X aBIU M ^CA H nO CX yK H BaBlU M Pl npM A BM w eH M M aKxepoB. npocxoA KOBep-Max, paccHAaBuiMMcm no nony cxyAW W nepeA Hana/ioM nanxoMMMbi, Bbipoc B «By6yce» b CAonaHHwM no aaKaay orpoMHwA OBanbHbiA KOBep aacxMnaBuiMA bck) nnomaAKy AeAcxBwn cneKxaKJin. PoA/ib, aa KoxopuM b axoM we cxyAHM KOHcepsaxopoKMA yyeHM K paawrpwaan aab nanxoMM M M e(|>M Cxo-Ba/ibc JlMCxa, BaA bC bi UJonena h Apyrwe oxpw BK W wa npowaBeABHM A 9 X M X KownoawxopoB, oKaaaAcn nepeHeceHHWM B «By6yce». M xox we w iyaw K aA bH w m penepxyap H A JIIO C X pM pO B aA C A O H iH y tO naH X O M M M M H eC K yiO X K aH b cneKxaicnn. TonbKo caiviw A ponAb 6wA noAan na cneuwanbHom acxpaAo c noaoAoweHHoR paK O B M H oR , a M a nwaHMcxe, bmbcxo AOMauinero nHAwaKa 6biAa waAexa acxpaAnan yHM(|)opMa-9AeraHXHwR $paK m AaKwpoBaHHwe xy$AM . ToAbKo xox, Kxo H 9 BHA eA paGoxw MeRepxoAbAa nexep6yprcKoro neptioAa, xoAbKo xox npoRAex mrmo axoro paawxeAbHoro cxoACXBa «By6yca» co oxyAHRnuM M n aH X O M H W iaM M 1915-16 toaob, nepwoAa pa6oxw MeRepxoAbAa naA «MacKapaA0M»7 The four bamboo poles with which the studio participants, dressed in blue-gray overalls, pantomimed in slowed, majestic movements,— in Bubus, the poles grew into an entire bamboo forest, rhythmically moving and knocking together along with the movements of the actors. The simple rug-mat, scattered on the floor of the studio before the beginning o f the pantomime, in Bubus grew into a large oval rug which was specially made to order and which ^ B. Alpers, Teatr sotsial’ noimaski, Teatral'r^e ocherki v dvukh tomakh, Tom Pervyi. (Moscow; Iskusstvo, 1977): p. 70. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 173 lent its style to the place where the entirety of the action takes place. In the studio a conservatory student played the Mephisto waltz, waltzes of Chopin and Lizst and excerpts from other composers on a piano while the pantomime was going on, this too was transposed onto Bubus. The same musical repertoire illustrated the complex fabric of the piece’s pantomime. The only difference was that this same piano was given its own special stage with a golden band shell and the pianist in place of plain suit jacket was dressed in the uniform of the stage—an elegant tuxedo with polished shoes. Only those who did not see Meyerhold’s work of his Petersburg period would overlook what a close similarity there is between Bubus and the studio pantomimes of 1915-16, the period in which Meyerhold worked on Masquerade. Meyerhold’s meticulous choreography of movement and gesture complemented a similar use of color in costuming. Hoover elaborates on Meyerhold’s meticulous use of costume and make-up in the production to bring to mind associations with other characters from his own recent plays and even from world cinema such as Charlie Chaplin, whom Meyerhold greatly admired: Finally, besides the music and the return to a stage setting, Meyerhold reverted to elegant costumes and exaggerated makeup, designed after his plan by his Workshop pupil, Il'ia [lul'evich] Shlepianov. The director derived Bubus' character from the Menshevik in Mayakovsky's Mystery-Bouffe, the little man of good intentions who can't make up his mind, and even re-assured the first actor to rehearse the role, Igor Ilinsky, that he need not fear repeating his characterizations of the Menshevik and of Bruno in The Magnanimous Cuckold, any more than Charlie Chaplin feared to repeat himself.* [... ] Accessories very like the immortal Charlie's served the actor Boris Zakhava to create the capitalist Van Kamperdaf, tall hat, white starched shirt front, bamboo stick. A gait too, quite like Chaplin's unforgettable flatfooted hop, characterized *Hoover, Design, p. 144. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 174 Van Kamperdaf: "...in his entrance scene he marched impressively, half-galloping, a stick on his shoulder (like a gun) to show his devotion to warlike discipline and, in general, militarism." The ladies too used accessories, thus fan and gloves, to create an image. The two society debutantes. Tea and Tilchen, gracefully played ball, and one of them, Tea- Babanova, even danced "The Dying Swan" to paint a physical picture of her character. The General modeled his [character], according to Garin, on caricatures by George Grosz.^ Alpers and Braun both conclude that one of the reasons why Bubus failed was precisely that it did not fulfill both audience and critical expectations of what each had come to expect most recently from Meyerhold. Braun focuses on the critical and political establishments who hoped to shape the direction of the new Soviet theater: Bubus was hardly the response the critics were demanding; yet another flimsy political farce depicting the exhausted last fling of the rulers of an imaginary capitalist country on the verge of revolution, it invited the very schematization of Western decadent types that Meyerhold had already exploited to its limits. The one exception was the character of Bubus himself, an intellectual idealist who vacillated ineffectually between two camps and found himself rejected by the revolution when it finally came. He was an individual embodying the conflict of class loyalties within himself, instead of displaying in two dimensions the attitudes of one particular side. In conception at least he represented a significant advance on the placard style of earlier Soviet theatre, a shift from crude agitation to more reasoned propaganda. ’ibid. 1 0 Braun, Revolution o f the Modern Stage, p. 200. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 175 Alpers clearly describes the unexpected nature of Bubus for the theater’s spectators: Hmmto, HeMorno 6wTb 6onee H eom M X iaH H biM nnn apuxenn reaxpa Mef^epxcnbaa, M 6 m noasneHMe Ha ero cuene 3M M 0A ceaoHa 1924/25 rona CTpaH H O M «K O M eflM M na MyawKe» non naasaHMeM «YnHTenb By6yc». Bce oKaaanoob «Hao6opoT» B aroM cneKxaKne. HewcxoBo GopoBuiwRcn npoxMB KpaoMBOcxM H acxexMawa na coBexcKoR cuene, wePiepxonbAOBCKMA xeaxp na axox paa coanan H eo6biM a(*iH O aneraHXHyio BHeiUHOcxb cneKxaxna c yKnoHOM B canoHHyio wawcKaHHocxb. 06biM HO oxKpuBaBiUM^ B C K 3 cBOlo cueHy no KOHua nepen BarnnnoM nio6onbixcxByiomero apMxenn— anecb xeaxp anepewe aa MKome ronw Bepnyncn K aaMacKMpoBaHHOMy naawnbOHy: nnoxHwA nonyKpyr wa Macxbix 6ais/i6yKOBbix nanoK aawKnyn nnomanKy neMcxBM* ox BceM ocxa/ibHoR cueHw. OxKaaaBuiMAcn ox neKopauMW, B «5y6yce» xeaxp KaK Synxo BepHyncn k w eM , BwcxpowB 6acce«Hbi m *OHXaHW, KpyrnwA flMBan, ycxanoBMB y nopxanbHOM apK W nepeBBHHyio npMcxpoPiKy-MaccMBHyio Bxoanyio neepb. ripaana, Bce axo He 6wno neKopauweB b o6biM H O M cMwcne. 3necb ne 6wno nwcaHW X xoncxoB, Bce 6bino cflenaHo na Hacxoninero Maxepwana. Ho axa o6cxaHOBKa cneKxaK/in, ero BeiuecxseHHoe o<|>opMneHne O M eH b Mano noxoAB/iH na KOHcxpyKUHio Bpewien «PoroHoceua» M nw na oBopynoBaHwe eemaMn M npuBopaMH «Jleca» M oxnacxM B «By6yce» onpenennnocb RBHoe cxpeMJieHMe k cxaxi/mecKOMy neKopaxMBHowy neBaawy na cuene, cymecxeyiomeMy caMocxonxenbno, ane aaBMCBMocxB ox neBcxBywiuBX cpenw nero aKxepoa." For an audience member at Meyerhold’s theater nothing could have been more unexpected than the strange “comedy set to music” called The Teacher Bubus which appeared on its stage during the winter season of 1924-25. Everything seemed “opposite” in this production. Having fiercely fought against beauty and aestheticism on the Soviet stage, this time Meyerhold’s theater created an unusually elegant production, which leaned toward the luxuriousness of a salon in its appearance. Typically the entire stage had been completely open to the eyes of its curious viewers—here the theater for the first time in many years returned to being a masked pavilion: a thick semi-circle of simple bamboo poles closed off the action space from the rest of the stage. Having rejected decoration, in " Alpers, vol.. I, p. 68. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 176 Bubus the theater seemed to return to it with its constructed pools and fountains, a round divan, and at the end of an arch was a wooden construction—a massive entrance door. However, these things weren’t decoration in the traditional sense. These were not painted on slats—everything was made of actual materials. But this aspect of the production, its material composition, bore little resemblance to the constructions of the Cuckold period or to the props or costumes of The Forest and only partially to D.E. Bubus was distinguished by its marked move toward the static, decorative stage scenery that existed independently of the actors who had to move among it. Rudnitsky also offers valuable commentary on Meyerhold’s often confusing explanations for his own work. It explains the confusion both for the audience of the time and for scholars who wrestle with Meyerhold’s opaque explanations of Bubus-. leopeTMMecKne BbiK/iaflKn m aeKuapauMW Metiepxonbfla Bcerfla 6biJin 6onee mum ly/ieHee npM6uM3MTeubHbi. Heo6xoAMMOCTb cwnaTb b reopMio nepeu nouMTMMecKoM TepMMHOuorMM eme aanyrbiBaua fleuo. CyTb we npMewa, upMMBHHoro B «By6yce», cocToana b tom, mto nayaw McnouaoBauacb auu naHTMMMMMHecKoro MMMMMecKoro noKaaa aKTepcKoro oTHouieHMn k o6paay. noHBTMK) «noflT8KCT», poflMBiueMycn b creHax XyflowecTBeHHoro Tearpa, MeMepxoubAOBCKau «npeAurpa» npoTMBo- nocraBUflua mto-to apoae «KOHypTeKora». 3 to 6buia nonuTKa BoRTM b ncMxouorMio m B H e, cpeflCTBaMM naHTOMMMW M MMMMKM npOMeMOH-CTpHpOBaTb AyUJBBHblB ABMweHMU nepcoHawa, KaK 6bi KypcMBOM m o6o3HaMaTb npewMB, M6M nepcoHaw npoMaweceT cbok) penuMKy/^ Meyerhold’s theoretical explanations and declarations always were more or less approximations. It was necessary to sprinkle into the theory some peppering of political terminology and this further confused matters. The device applied in Bubus consisted of pauses, which were used for pantomiming mimetic poses of an actor’s attitude toward his image. In comparing what was known as “subtext” which had been created at the ■ Rudnitsky, Rezhisser Meierkhol’ d, p. 330. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 177 Moscow Art Theater, Meyerhold’s predigra (pre-acting) was something like contra-text. It was an attempt to enter the psychology from the outside inward by means of pantomime and using actions to demonstrate a character’s emotional changes before he or she even said his or her lines, rather like italics. Meyerhold himself understood that his treatment of many production details of Bubus was both difficult and confusing, yet he was determined to make his conception comprehensible to his audience. In place of a usual short program with a list of the cast of characters and those involved in the production, Meyerhold created an explanatory brochure resembling but far more detailed than an opera program for his audience. Because Bubus was billed as "a comedy set to music," in many ways it resembles an opera. Meyerhold designed the movement to be rhythmic and the dialogue to be intoned like recitative. The first chapter, as it is literally referred to, is a brief summary by Meyerhold of the plot of the play. The second chapter is entitled "a comedy set to music" and explains the overall conception of the production. The third chapter is entitled "the staging of the production" and explains all the concrete aspects of the piece such as the lighting, props, set designs. Chapter four is entitled "acting and pre-acting" and explains the particular type of acting methodology used for this piece and Meyerhold's reasons for doing so. The booklet concludes with the typical listing of dramatis personae and also an unusually detailed act-by-act description of the production's elaborate musical component. The detailed brochure demonstrates and maybe is even eharacteristic of Bubus-, the public found the brochure, like the produetion, to be utterly confusing. Symons correctly summarizes the situation: “since the days of his pre-Revolution R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 178 productions The Teacher Bubus was Meyerhold's first major failure with erities, friends, and the general audience alike. By examining the explanatory program and comparing it to statements by both Meyerhold and Faiko in the press and journals of the day, we can attempt to better understand the production of Bubus and to see some of the differences between the director's and the author's conception of the piece. Meyerhold’s brochure, which he included for his audience, gives a clear impression of his version of the play’s plot. Interestingly, it is but one of four chapters, revealing that even with his own conception of the literary material, it was but one fourth of the production, the other three being the props or objects, the music, and the acting. Because very few copies of this brochure still exist, I include a translation of it, which follows as well as the original in the appendix. Only part four of this brochure on acting and pre-acting is readily available. Similarly, because even for specialists of Russian theater Faiko’s play is unfamiliar, I include a detailed plot summary of Faiko’s play. After both of these, there is a brief comparison of the two different plot summaries to give a clearer picture of the differences between Meyerhold’s and Faiko’s conceptions. Meyerhold’s Bubus -Translation of the Explanatory Booklet^” * The first chapter of the program is entitled "the play's content." This is presumably Meyerhold's conception of the work. He describes it thus; Symons, p. 133 Published for the first time in its entirety in English. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 179 Section 1: The Play’s Content The comedy's action takes place in a small European capital amongst the provincial bourgeoisie, which deliberately tries to imitate the bourgeoisie of the world's centers in every way. The important merchant. Van Kamperdaf, who has decorated his home with luxurious objects, contrives to lure a fresh, young, happy and unspoiled girl to his magnificent home. Aided by a teacher, he tries to refine this "wild flower" and to obliterate her moral peasant culture with his lies and to make her into his courtesan. In Van Kamperdaf s service is an explosive baron (Tesha Feiervari) whom he uses to do his bidding. He sends him to Paris in order to engage the famous professor, Bua-Kolett, as a teacher for Stefka. Stefka falls in love with Feiervari but views her relationship with Van Kamperdaf as a duty as her aunt has made her believe that only he can make her happy. Feiervari does not fulfill Van Kamperdaf s orders and does not bring back professor Bua-Kolett fi-om Paris. On the day he returns from Paris, however, a demonstration of the unemployed takes place in the city. This demonstration arouses great panic among the city's important capitalists. Feiervari uses this panic and substitutes a simple schoolteacher, Bubus, in Bua-Kolett's place; he discovered Bubus, who while fleeing from the street demonstration had hidden in Van Kamperdaf s garden purely by chance. Teacher Bubus is a typical representative of the urban intelligentsia. This group embodies the helpless petty bourgeois consciousness inherent in the basis of the forces acting in the capitalist world. Bubus strives to be a teacher in the broadest sense of the term, but the absence of a holistic, firm purpose makes him a blind weapon in the hands of the ruling class. Having fallen into the home of an industrialist, Bubus tries through moral influence and peaceful propaganda to "correct" and "enlighten" the powerful representatives of the bourgeoisie. In so doing, his isolation from his class and the half-heartedness of his polities becomes starkly apparent to him. Although he is subjectively honest and has an idealistic nature, objectively he is a hypoeritical coward. He deceives himself with his own optimism and uses it purely as a lip-service justification for his unresolved eontradietions. His inelination toward socialism never goes beyond convoluted and abstract verbiage. His concerted activeness is empty and abstract and only scratches the surface of the real goals. He gets lost in the nets of petty, personal intrigue and his "higher mission" ends as a pathetic farce. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 180 A telegram to Feiervari from Bua-Kolett in Paris unexpectedly arrives and falls into Stefka's hands first and then into Van Kamperdaf s. Bubus, who has been brought in to masquerade as Bua- Kolett by Tesha Feiervari, is found out. They plan to send him packing but Feiervari cleverly uses the moment when they are informed of a serious crisis in the parliament when Van Kamperdaf suggests the creation of a new cabinet. Feiervari convinces him to put Bubus forth as the candidate for the election as "a true representative of the masses and as the embodiment of an ultra democratic beginning, in short to act as bridge between the bourgeoisie and the leftist groups." Van Kamperdaf agrees. They return Bubus. During an evening of dancing which follows Bubus tries out his speech before the assembled guests in Van Kamperdaf s home. During his short time at Van Kamperdaf s as a tutor, Bubus managed to instill in Stefka the thought of fleeing along with Feiervari from Van Kamperdaf. At the same time that Bubus is giving his speech at the ball, Feiervari ransacks Van Kamperdaf s safe and runs away. Stefka tries to go after him. She meets him on the street. Feiervari, however, wants to flee abroad alone and pushes Stefka aside. Stefka hurries home to Van Kamperdaf where it is necessary to save Feiervari from a street mob (a civil war has already begun to unfold). Here, against a background of gunfire, a liquidation of relationships take place: Stefka and Van Kamperdaf and Stefka and Feiervari. Stefka throws off all the precious jewelry given her by Van Kamperdaf, tossing them in his face and throws herself into the heat of the civil war. When the mobs of workers and soldiers force themselves into the house, Bubus panics and tries to hide himself in the safe. When he is discovered, he grovels before the revolutionaries, asking them to allow him to be a part of their cause. He promises to continue to fight "arbitrary rule and lies." They arrest Bubus and the play ends with his pitiful voice: "They don't understand, nobody understands!" The comedy is built around the principle of realistic eccentrism. Buffoonery serves as comic relief. The theatrical situation and dramatic conflicts flow along the plane o f plausible unbelievability. The characterization, although individually detailed, as a whole resembles masks from nowadays. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 181 Section 2: A Comedy Set to Music Music, which in the dramatic theater normally is used in only measured doses, is used to strengthen the effect of the agitational eontent of the play on the audience. But in such case, music serves a static background. Here it plays an aetive role, as a tour guide or as an illustrator, not as an oeeasional helper. Here, music almost constantly intermingles with the lines of dialogue beeoming a unique recitative, in the free manner that occurred in Prokofiev's The Gambler or in the ancient Chinese theater in which the orchestra acts as a stimulus, whipping up the audience to heightened attention. Here the music's sounds add to the material elements of staging, arousing associations in the minds of the viewer who needs to grasp the complicated urban construction. Here music is its own unique construct that sharply highlights and targets the absurdity of the proletariat’s class enemy. The pianist's presence onstage performing a score drafted from the works of Chopin and Lizst is a visible part of the construction and reminder to the audience that music is itself an aesthetic component- reminiscent of music in plays of mood like those of Chekhov or Leonid Andreev or in sueh salon comedies as Symphony by Modest Chaikovsky. Music does not act upon the audience as if there were someone in the next room merely practicing exercises on the piano. On stage, the golden band shell littered with cheap electrically- lit paper lanterns is completely at odds with the concert Bechstein piano and the virtuoso-pianist. This same pianist also makes use of the conductor's wand. In the middle of the action, he pauses for an instant on the 100th beat of Dante’ s Sonata and interrupts it with a Chopin etude quickly and within a few minutes he again returns to the interrupted Lizst. It would be, however, ignorant to consider the linking of Chopin and Lizst’s music with Alexei Faiko’s text as being similar to typical “melodrama.” Chopin and Lizst were included in the performance specifically to stand for the bourgeoisie’s and the intelligentsia’s dividedness, their fall, but also their refined cultivation of the piano repertoire of Chopin and Lizst. Chopin's meeting with Georges Sand, set up by Lizst, is a tragedy of love and of the death of Chopin. The temperamental Hungarian, Lizst, having experienced the flames of intoxicating love, nonetheless, at the end of his life after he became an abbot, never ceased to love refined music {Mephisto Waltz) and even wrote his R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 182 greatest oratorios and magnificent choral works for church cathedral services. Lizst and Chopin lend their own organization of sound, which are necessary additions to the concept of the production. Without it the director would not have been able to realize the entirety of the impressions needed to fully discredit the harmful refinement of a class perishing in its own decay. Section 3: The Construction of the Production The material construction of the production of Bubus is woven around the kernel of its agitational plan. The set is surrounded with Indian bamboo [poles], which is suspended from copper rings before the entrances and exits of the characters. The rattling sounds of the bamboo are a necessary addition to the tapping of the Bechstein keyboard. The first act on stage only one detail is shown: a garden with a fountain. The second act contains a complex lighting montage and a set of splintered episodes. In this act, a setting device is introduced different from those in acts I and III: in the first and third acts only two important objects (the fountain and the safe) are shown. In the second act, by means of the rearranging the furniture and props a series of changing scenes are shown: a) a room with a green footstool for the utmost comfort, b) a receiving room, e) classroom, d) "Beethoven's room", e) an extra modem room— a room in the tacky contemporary style— where the central melodrama takes place, f) the ballroom. The central melodrama which focuses around the unmasking scene (Bua-Kolett-Bubus) makes wide use of the devices of ancient Japanese theater such as simultaneously showing both the inside and outside of rooms where the action is taking place. This is also where and when the acting falls into the exaggerated style of bloody Japanese tragedies. Here these elements burst out into the action, appearing as luminous advertisements, typical in the large capitals of the West and America. These electrical effects are not being used as aesthetic phenomena but are to strengthen the dynamic melodramatic action unfolding on the stage and they fulfill a particular agitational function. According to the principles o f Japanese and ancient Chinese theater, within the proscenium a door is included on the left and a window on the right. The door and the window are used only once in the action of the play in the course of the entire play: Feiervari enters through the door and Stefka disappears through the window. Above the door and window are two small screens for inscriptions. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 183 A green carpet edged with bright pomegranate-red is spread across the entire stage in order to ensure the silent movement of the actors who are given the difficult task of coordinating their movements with the rhythm of the music. This is the set, which represents the decadent culture of Europe in decline. Section 4: Acting and Pre-Acting^^ The acting consists of the artistic interplay of pre-acting and acting. The famous actor A.P. Lensky (1874-1908) influenced the Russian theater with his perfection of the art of pre-acting. In the role of Benedick in Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, he gave a classic example of pre-acting which was described at length in the 1908, No. 241 edition of the journal, Russkie Vedomosti: Benedick, lying in wait, comes out from a bush, from which he has just overheard a conversation which was specially said for his ears that Beatrice loves him. Benedict stands for a long time in shock staring into the audience with a stunned, frozen countenance. Suddenly his lips tremble just a little bit. Now one attentively looks at Benedick’ s eyes, everything else is still frozen but from under his moustache an enigmatic victoriously happy smile gradually begins to appear. The actor does not say a word but one can see that a great wave o f happiness has washed over Benedick which nothing can stop. His muscles and cheeks smile, his smile spills over his trembling face without ceasing. Suddenly this unconsciously happy feeling gives rise to a thought and like the finale o f this entire act, this bright happiness flares in his frozen and amazed eyes. Now the entire figure o f Benedick is one total burst ofjoy and the audience breaks into thunderous applause, although *^This entire chapter is reprinted in Meyerhold's Stat’ i, Rechi, Besedy, P is'ma, p. 93- 94. It is the only part o f die explanatory program which is included. The only other piece on Bubus is an explanatory talk given by Meyerhold in January o f 1925. This section is referred to extensively by both Symons and Hoover in their discussions of Bubus. Although both of these critics make mention that this chapter is part o f a program or pamphlet put out by Meyerhold, it is clear that the other chapters were possibly unavailable to them as they were neither consulted nor further made mention of. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 184 the actor still has not said a single word and only now begins his monologue. Now one could say that this is the typical device of all acting where the text spoken by the actor is accompanied by the accompaniment of corresponding gestures. We, however, using cursive have specifically redone the last words fi-om the excerpt of the reviewer's analysis in order to further clarify what it says. Pre-acting is that which prepares the audience for the understanding of the action on stage, so that the audience perceives from the stage all the details in their completed form, so that everyone understands the ideas put before them onstage and they are not forced to waste any effort doing it. This device was also a favorite in both the ancient Japanese and Chinese theaters. In our own time, when the theater returns to its beginnings, a time when a system of acting in which pre-acting had a particularly important place and we bring back the agitational tribune which was a key element, it will again move to the forefront as a system. The actor-tribune wants to convey to the audience his relationship to them, through the words spoken by him on the stage as well as through the action; he wants to convey to the audience a very specific impression and no other, so that the audience understands the action unfolding before them on the stage. The actor/tribune does not create his craft for art's sake and not by means of art does he want to create his work. The actor-tribune sets a task for himself— to develop his stage actions not so that the events on stage are "beautiful" with their theatricality but in the sense that like a surgeon, he lays bare what is on the inside. The actor-tribune does not act the situation itself but that which for him himself is hidden and also reveals his defined goal (agitation). When out from under the mantle of created image the actor- tribune shows the nature of this image to the eyes of the audience and does not say even a word written by the playwright but almost the essence of these words; when the actor-tribune fi-om the erroneous mass of technical contrivances of complicated theatrical tricks (the inescapable technical given) twists the thread of clear-cut agitational purpose, he acts not the events themselves (the traditional elements of theater) but the heart of them; when the actor-tribune encounters these new tasks, he needs to look again at the elements of his craft, he needs to return to the theater that was lost during the period of reaction when theater crawled into the crevice of apolitical small talk. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 185 Faiko’s Bubus— V\oi Summary Faiko’s play The Teacher Bubus takes place in a European capital in the midst of a workers' rebellion. Characterization is clearly divided into good and bad; as one would expect in a Soviet play the line of demarcation is based upon and follows their class origins—demonstrated both in their allegiances and actions; the aristocrats predictably guard their interests, callously ignore or subvert those of the lower classes and only the feeble representation of the intelligentsia, the title character, the teacher Bubus, vacillates between the two. The list of characters includes Varfolomei Van Kamperdaf, a rich government official who runs his elaborate home like an estate and has many servants, sycophants and even a courtesan-in-training, Stefka, a poor beautiful girl from a small town in Poland. Baron Tesha Feiervari is a foreigner and another guest; although he claims he is Van Kamperdaf s friend, he secretly encourages the affections of Stefka behind Van Kamperdaf s back and always serves his own interests first. Gertruda Baaze, along with her daughters, Til'khen and Tea, try to curry their host's favor, as he is a man of extreme position and wealth. They try to supplant Stefka at every turn. Despite Gertruda’s degree as a doctor of philosophy of women's studies, her methods and goal of trying to arrange an advantageous union with Van Kamperdaf clash with her false opinion of her own education and background, as does her ruthlessness. Pastor Ziusserlikh is a Protestant clergyman who has been R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 186 engaged to teach Stefka morals and religion. He and General Berkovets never contradict their influential friend and patron even when their other duties, to God or the army respectively, should encourage them to do so. Clearly their primary allegiance and duty lies with Van Kamperdaf, often to the point of ridiculousness. The play begins with Feiervari returning from a trip to Paris to bring back the famous Professor Bua-Kollett for Van Kamperdaf. Instead he squandered all the money given him on women and debauchery and did not even call upon the professor. Feiervari's trip was motivated by his debts to Van Kamperdaf only to come back even more indebted to "this fat brainless tarantula."'^ When Stefka complains that she was not informed of Feiervari's return, he criticizes her open display of her emotions as crude. She naively accepts his efforts to placate her by referring to her as "madam" and kissing her hand. Stefka is impressed by his Paris suit, and considers him the epitome of taste and elegance.*^ Feiervari continues to criticize Stefka's open display of emotions and direct speech as "vulgar," and also reminds her that she belongs to Van Kamperdaf who might honor her with a proposal of marriage if she is lucky. Despite her pleas that she loves him, he chides her that she lacks morals. She promises him she will memorize everything from her lessons on morality with Pastor Ziusserlikh for him. When Stefka inquires about the professor fi-om Paris’ appearance and personality, they are Faiko, Lake Lyul', p. 104. ibid., p. 105. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 187 interrupted by noise from a demonstration by the unemployed on the street. When she asks what they want, Feiervari callously replies, "to eat."*^ As Bubus hides from the demonstration in the bushes on Van Kamperdaf s estate, he overhears Gertruda Baaze and her daughters gossiping about Stefka and Baron Feiervari spending so much time together. Of the two daughters, Til'khen is more reserved and Tea ironically displays the qualities for which Feiervari scolds Stefka: she is crude and debauched. When Baaze exclaims how Stefka was hanging on the Baron's arm. Tea claims "B yivieio 3 T 0 f l e n a x b r o p a a f l o n i/iK a H T H e e ."’^ (“I can do that too but even better.”) Ironically, Baaze refers to Stefka as a "plebian" and then wistfully delivers a soliloquy on her hopes that Van Kamperdaf will play in her daughters’ futures. Baaze tells her daughters that one of them must marry Van Kamperdaf. When they object on the grounds that he loves Stefka, she tells them they have to change that at any cost. Baaze tells her daughters that as an expert in women’s studies she feels it is part of their mission as women to attach themselves to Van Kamperdaf like vines. Obviously, Baaze's conception of both women's issues and her role as an educator are far less progressive than the rhetoric, names and terminology she uses. Bubus remains hidden in the bushes as General Berkovets and Van Kamperdaf discuss the rebellion. Van Kamperdaf complains of the angry and demanding masses who **ibid.,p. 108. ibid., p. 109. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 188 have no appreciation for tradition, culture or the work the government does for them. Berkovets declares his first loyalty is to Van Kamperdaf and to guard citizens such as him. Stefka runs in and improperly greets Van Kamperdaf by his first name. He too scolds her for impropriety. When the hypocritical pastor tells Stefka that wealth and spirituality have no correlation to each other, Ziusserlikh shows that his first allegiance is not to his Maker but to his patron. Finally after much vacillation, Bubus comes out of hiding, scaring Van Kamperdaf and himself in the process. They fight until Baron Feiervari breaks it up. They both look ridiculous, and we see that Van Kamperdaf s gentility is but a veneer as Bubus says of him that he scratches like a leopard. Van Kamperdaf demands Bubus’ arrest because he believes he is a member of the rebelling workers. Bubus tries to explain he is only a schoolteacher of penmanship and geography in a local city school. Van Kamperdaf continues to threaten poor Bubus. Feiervari decides to use the situation to his advantage— demanding that Van Kamperdaf needs to be more polite as he is addressing the famous, erudite Professor Bua-Kollett from Paris, whom he had asked to come teach Stefka. All of this completely confounds Bubus, who has no idea what he is talking about; all he does is stutter "Bu-bu-bu." Feiervari introduces him as Professor Bua-Kollet from the Sorbonne, critic, and arbiter of taste, scholar. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 189 and artist. Feiervari uses Bubus’ unexpected entry to pass Bubus off as the French professor for whom Van Kamperdaf sent him abroad to retrieve. Bubus first believes they are going to falsely arrest him but when Feiervari explains the situation, Bubus initially refuses to play the part. Feiervari threatens Bubus that if he does not go along with his plan, he will send him to prison. Bubus unwillingly agrees, although he keeps forgetting to play his part. When Stefka meets him and he gives his real name as Bubus rather than Bua-Kollett, Feiervari quickly says it stems from his habitual use of his literary pseudonym not just in print but also in fine Parisian literary salons. When Bubus continues to stutter his answer, Ziusserlikh attributes it to him being a Parisian. Bubus is almost discovered when he believes one of the servants is his former student. (It is actually his former student’s sister). When Bubus refuses to cease his discussion of his former student, Ziusserlikh continues to attribute it to the fact that he is a Parisian. Despite many opportunities to discover Bubus' falsified identity, those around him ignore or overlook them, thanks to Feiervari's quick thinking and their own stupidity. Ironically, when Bubus tells the truth about his own identity, he finds it far more difficult to convince those in the Van Kamperdaf household, to whom lies and artifice are second nature. Only Stefka seems close to the truth, ironically something which those around her attribute to lack of refinement or good breeding. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 190 Baaze tries to impress Bubus with her doctorate credentials. Van Kamperdaf displays his deep ignorance of intellectual or cultural pursuits. He values the arts, sciences and “such” because people who know them can think of clever things to say and all types of jokes. Van Kamperdaf further reveals his ignorance as he attributes high spiritual values not to the Pastor who lives with him, but to a professor whose work he does not know and whom he has just accused of everything imaginable. Bubus tries to get out of his role, but Feiervari will not allow it. Feiervari tells Bubus that he has a noble duty to fix society and to lead it along the path of great ideals. Feiervari also tells Bubus to get a salary advance from Van Kamperdaf of which he will give ninety percent to him; Bubus can keep ten percent. Bubus is in a fog. Feiervari tells Bubus to come to his senses; ironically, he is asking him to do so by pretending to be someone else. Bubus reminds himself of his great mission, his wonderful adventure, and that it all has happened not out of chance but the utmost necessity. Baaze and her daughters discuss Bubus' strange manners, such as eating with his hands. Tea attributes the strangeness to their own provinciality and suggests that "riocne B oM H W npocTOTa wanep cmiTaTeTcn npwaHaKowi xopoiuero TOHa"^® (“Since the war, simplicity of manners have been considered a sign of good taste.”) Baaze scolds feels Bubus' ways stem fi*om the fact that he's from Paris. Her attitude echoes the Gallomania prevalent 20 ibid., p. 129.. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 191 throughout much of Russian history among the upper classes and which was a particular subject for late 18“* century Russian comedies such as Fonvizin’s The Minor (Nedorosl ^ in which a stupid wealthy family also engages foreign tutors and is duped by imposters. Stefka overhears Baaze and her daughters plot to ensnare Van Kamperdaf but thinks it is about Feiervari. Stefka openly threatens to expose them. They accuse her of bad manners, which they again attribute to her rural upbringing. When Stefka tries to speak to them "woman to woman," Baaze refuses claiming that her daughters are not women but (innocent) young girls who understand her insinuations. Ironically, particularly Tea has the maimers of an alley cat. Stefka declares her feelings for Feiervari to Van Kamperdaf so that she can leave his "damned house." Even when she begins crying, they are so jaded that they all believe it to be “cheap theatrics.”^' Bubus interrupts, rubbing his stomach, a symbol of bourgeois complacency in the Soviet 1920s, and tells them that the main thing on his mind is lunch. Once again, they believe that this stems from his French backgrotmd and light French cuisine. Baaze reminds Bubus of another of his, or rather Bua-Kollett's works with which she is familiar. The Notes on the Theory and Psychology o f An Adulterer. Baaze demonstrates that her daughter Tea's lasciviousness has been a lesson that she has learned from her mother and that her mother's taste in academic subjects leans toward the "picant" 21 ibid., p. 130-131. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 192 rather than the intellectual. Although Baaze firmly believes in the strength and depth of her own mind, clearly she symbolizes a false intelligentsia, which lacks any knowledge of culture or the great works of civilization and prides itself on name-dropping, a veneer of style and substance. Since we are presented with two presumed educators if not intellectuals, clearly a statement is being made about the Soviet intelligentsia. This was an area latched onto quickly by the critics and censors. The play also follows in the footsteps of its theatrical predecessors in its engagement of Russia's peculiar relationship to the West, particularly the French. Although it is the Soviet 1920s we still see those who hunger for Western culture, assuming its superiority. It is similar to early 19th century Russian plays, in which Gallomaniacs, would-be philosophes and dandies were popular targets for satire and comedy. The speech of Baaze and her daughters is littered with French caiques and borrowed words. The daughters have all manner of silly assumptions about Bubus (as he is supposedly French) such as his probable craving for absinthe and that he must have an exotic redheaded stenographer at home. As Bubus runs off to see Valentin, Stefka is shocked at how the girls chase after the professor like wild geese. The deception continues, as does the farce. Berkovets, Ziusserlikh and Van Kamperdaf all joke about Bubus' constant presence around the women. Even the pastor attributes it to Bubus being a “real” Parisian. Ziusserlikh’s mix of elevated Church Slavonic words and the low context of the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 193 conversation (Bubus' presumed womanizing) make it an incongruous thing for a man of the eloth to say. The pastor’s lack of real dedication to his calling mirrors Baaze’s surface dedication to intellectual pursuits despite her PhD in women’s studies. Similarly, Van Kamperdaf, a political official, desperately hungers for a veneer of cultural polish which he does not understand and Berkovets, a military man, puts Van Kamperdaf s business over his other duties. Feiervari's feigned friendship, loyalty and serviee to his patron. Van Kamperdaf, is also a sham. When they comment on Bubus' strangeness, Feiervari defends himself by asserting that he only imports the finest goods (By goods he means Bubus). Baaze continues to wind herself around Van Kamperdaf and tells Bubus that fate has sent him to them. Van Kamperdaf still cannot understand Bubus' strange behavior; Feiervari again says it is because he's French. Ziusserlikh likens him to Martin Luther. Bubus explodes and tells them all that they are false priests of false gods, particularly Ziusserlikh. Berkovets ironieally answers that Bubus is indeed like Martin Luther. Bubus lashes out at Van Kamperdaf, too, calling him “the rotten offshoot of insignifieant ancestors.”^^ Feiervari tries to cover all of this up, trying to pass it off that Bubus has been acting, doing a parody of a street orator and joking. Berkovets gullibly asks if this means Bubus is also an actor among all his other qualifications. ibid., p. 136. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 194 Feiervari continues to threaten Bubus with dire punishment if he won’t play along with his ruse. Van Kamperdaf concretely outlines the type of education he expects Buhus to instill in Stefka. His veneer of intellect and culture consists of two or three names of famous paintings, the titles of some intellectual novels and a few aphorisms. But the main things are the finer points of “manners and conduct” such as how to behave in a cabaret at night or a fashionable restaurant, how to hold a glass of liqueur or how to smile at men when he tells her to do so. Berkovets warns Van Kamperdaf of the continuing workers' demonstrations and public meetings by the far left, and they discuss a strategy to subvert this opposition. The pastor adds his support to "Christian civilization," which in this case is the powerful rather than the poor and meek. When Van Kamperdaf is advised to flee he refuses. Bubus then decides to declare his allegiance to the working masses, claiming that he took part in the demonstrations with the same masses from which he was fleeing that morning. Feiervari threatens Bubus that he created "Bua-Kollett" and he can destroy him. He pressures Bubus to demand money from Van Kamperdaf. Bubus proudly refuses and displays an inflated and misguided sense of his own and presumably the intelligentsia’s role in history: Oh nprnuneT Mne mok) yneHMuy. A newy n nonweH em ymiTb? 3t8 yw achan nporpaMwa BaH-KaM nepfla<j)a npMflaBMJia M o C * i Moar, h secb iwoA onuT paccennon k b k aum . 3aecb M op!i nepswR ypoK, a raw pacT yr BoriHbi napoAHoro rneBa. 1 4 Bce nano coenwHMTb. Bee n a a c onpaBAarb. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 195 O, f\ B O /iH ytocb ô eay M H O —3 T 0 c o e e p iu e H H O O M eenflH O . Tflwe/ioe 6peMfl H a /ro w n jia t u H a m o m n/ieMM, M CTopM a/^ He is sending me my pupil. But what should I teach her. It is an awful curriculum. Van Kamperdaf pressured my brain and all my experience evaporated like smoke. Here is my first lesson but there the waves of the people’s anger are growing. And I have to put everything together. And I have to justify everything. Oh, I am terribly worried—it’s completely obvious. History, you have placed such a heavy burden upon my shoulders. Bubus and Stefka begin their lessons, but Bubus cannot lie to her nor can he instruct her to become what Van Kamperdaf wants, a kept woman. When he asks her if she knows what a courtesan is, her naivete is painfully comic. She answers that it is a chic woman who gets married many times but who never has any children. Stefka begs him to make her into a courtesan, seeming to like the idea in the abstract, but when Buhus asks if she loves Van Kamperdaf, she decides to confide in him that she and Feiervari are in love; hut since he has no money, they are biding their time. The equally naive and idealistic Bubus tells her to run away with Feiervari if she loves him and not to wait, as they can always find some way to make money. Stefka, overjoyed, innocently kisses him on the cheek as she runs off to dress for the evening's festivities. Unfortunately, the vile Baaze sees this and decides to use this to her advantage: to discredit both Bubus and Stefka in Van Kamperdaf s eyes. She attributes Bubus' supposed womanizing and low morals to the fact that he is a Parisian. Baaze lays out her devious plan: she will use this to help snare ibid., p. 140. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 196 Van Kamperdaf for one of her own daughters. Bubus accuses her of selling her own daughters into prostitution. Baaze pressures Bubus to encourage Van Kamperdaf to look on her daughters with favor. When Bubus is aghast that her daughters would go along with this, he expresses sympathy for them, seeing them as the products of an abnormal upbringing, and he vows to try and save them. Baaze convinces him that if he helps with her plan, he will be saving three lives (hers and her daughters’). She claims all she wants to do is to let her daughters show off their talents to Van Kamperdaf. Bubus has been strong-armed yet again by neither agreeing nor opposing, demonstrating his weakness and his willingness to rationalize his actions. Van Kamperdaf continues to complain of the workers' strikes interfering with his business and refers to the current head of state as a blabbermouth and a coward who must be eliminated: 9 \ yTBepwjuaKJ, mto hbuj H biH eiiiH biC ^i npewibep— CTapwR 6onTyH M Tpyc. C aapaaoR, nflymei?i k Haw c BocTOKa, HywHO 6opoTbcn 6ecnomanHO.[... ] BecnomanHo!^" I underscore that our current premier is an old windbag and a coward. We need to fight relentlessly against this pest coming from the East. Relentlessly! Van Kamperdaf tells Bubus that he plans to destroy his enemies by any means necessary, either by existing laws or other ways. Despite their own disdain of Stefka's lack of refinement, the Baaze daughters’ behavior belies the thin veneer of their own. Tea dances an erotic ibid.., p. 146. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 197 dance and Til'khen sings a blatantly vulgar song. Even the worldly Van Kamperdaf is shocked by this behavior; however, the arrival of the Minister of Fine Arts and the Minister at Large ("bea nopT^enfi") interrupt the scene and add further double-edged political statements. The Minister of Fine Arts justifies his unexpected visit with the axiom “When the bullets rumble—art is silent” ("Korna ropoxHyr n y iU K H — mokyoctbo this interchange foreshadows the impending violence. Van Kamperdaf encourages Bubus/Bua- Kollett to ask the ministers about the course of politics in the government, because he needs to know about all types of political dealings for his job. The Minister of Fine Arts, however, only wants to discuss beautiful women and the latest play he has written, “a lyric tragedy with a jazz band.” When Bubus questions the other minister about his strange title, although the minister promises the answer is simple, it is long, confusing, jargon-filled and riddled with logical flaws; in other words, it clearly parodies Soviet bureaucratic language.^^ A telegram arrives addressed to Feiervari from Paris from the real Professor Bua-Kollett, explaining that he will not be arriving. (Note: This is a classic comedy of manners device that a crucial piece of information regarding mistaken identity or a scheme gets revealed in some type of letter.) Stefka grabs it from Feiervari and is delighted to discover that Bubus is not the real professor; he confesses that he is but a schoolteacher. The others are ibid., p. 148. ibid., p. 149. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 198 furious and discuss whether to punish Bubus with arrest or just humiliation and ejection. Van Kamperdaf and Baaze are particularly angry and malicious. They insult and hustle him to gather his things and go. However, General Berkovets arrives to announce that the government is about to collapse due to increased power of the leftists and populists. He tries to convince them to reform their royalist position and to create the façade that they are in sympathy with the new government. When Berkovets makes it clear that all the former ministers will be the new ministers but with new rhetoric and new titles. Van Kamperdaf warms to the plan. Feiervari points out to make the plan work they need a true representative of the people, one who is on their side; he quickly suggests the very Teacher Bubus whom they have just ejected. Feiervari points out that Bubus will be a willing if not gullible accomplice and is proven right, as they all quickly reassure Bubus that they are sorry, were mistaken, and that now he has a great and important duty to his country and humanity. At first Bubus thinks it is a horrible joke, another chance for Feiervari to dupe and use him, but Stefka naively assures him they are serious. Bubus gladly and proudly accepts his new destiny with the false promises of both his duty and his importance. For a supposedly educated man, Bubus is shown to be an utter fool full of vainglory, delusions of grandeur, and of little political knowledge or loyalty. In short, if one views him as a representative of the intelligentsia, the picture he presents is not a flattering one. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 199 In the darkened offiee of Baron Van Kamperdaf, Bubus stumbles upon Feiervari in the process of robbing the Baron of his money and preparing to run off with his ward/mistress Stefka, having convinced her that he loves her. Bubus is already having second thoughts about accepting a post for which he is neither qualified nor in which is he really interested. Bubus recoils in horror when he realizes that Feiervari has deceived his supposed friend. Van Kamperdaf, but now has resorted to theft. Feiervari tries to offer him some of the take; when that does not work he bullies and threatens Bubus. Finally, Feiervari tricks Bubus by claiming that he is doing what Bubus wanted— taking the naïve Stefka away from this pit of vipers, particularly the Baron. Feiervari escapes and leaves a dazed Bubus with an empty safe. Before he can leave, Baaze’s daughters, Tilkhen and Tea, come in to seduce who they presume is Van Kamperdaf. Ironically, Baaze has instructed them that offering their “love” is their last chance at saving their good name! Van Kamperdaf enters with his servant to discover Bubus, the empty safe, and the girls in a compromising situation. Baaze is summoned, but they discover she was there all along. At first Van Kamperdaf is shocked at Baaze’s complicity; however, she quickly covers this up with the accusation that Bubus has not only seduced and ruined her daughters, but his darling Stefka as well. She correctly presumes that inciting his possessive jealousy about Stefka will deflect his anger toward Bubus. Baaze and her daughters also accuse Bubus of being the one who has stolen Van Kamperdaf s money. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 0 Van Kamperdaf s exclamation that criminals surround him delivers a message of dramatic irony to the audience. Soon after, the search for Stefka uncovers the fact that both she and the money are missing. Berkovets and Ziusserlikh arrive to inform them that the workers’ rebellion threatens to arrive at any moment. They all consider fleeing the country but decide on disguising themselves as servants—the very class of people for whom they have shown nothing but contempt. Bubus finally takes a stand against them; he denounces them all for their foul behavior and expresses faith in the kindness of the people and humanity. Suddenly, a hysterical Stefka appears. She explains how she was deceived by Feiervari to flee with him after helping him to rob even more things from Van Kamperdaf. However, when she was to meet him, he shoved her out of his escape vehicle. The angry crowd tossed her around and she barely made it back to Van Kamperdaf s. She simply had no other place to go. Van Kamperdaf offers to forgive her but Stefka has had enough. She fully expresses her loathing and disgust for her former benefactor, revealing that she no longer is the naïve girl she was. Feiervari reappears at the door, also fleeing the mob. The rebellion had encircled the rail station and prevented him from fleeing abroad. He tries to claim that he was but trying to save his friend Van Kamperdaf s money. Stefka refuses to allow him to lie and also explains her own duped complicity in Feiervari’s scheme. All the while, the group has held Bubus captive, fearing R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 1 that he will denounce them to the rioters. Stefka interprets this, however, to mean that he has now joined them in their agenda, despite his earlier support for her freedom and happiness. The fact that Bubus remains silent while Feiervari lies, allowing Feiervari to slander both him and Stefka so infuriates her that she throws off all of her expensive gifts from Van Kamperdaf, breaks a window and escapes from the pit of vipers she fell into long ago. Her honest and bold move gives us hope for her future. The rebellion arrives at the door to arrest the corrupt ministers of the current government despite their cowardly attempts at disguising their identities. They arrest Ziusserlikh, Berkovets, and Van Kamperdaf. When it seems that Feiervari will escape arrest because he is a foreigner. Van Kamperdaf denounces him for theft, so he too is taken along for this matter to be investigated later. The leader of this rebellion. Max Guzbakh, keeps asking for the Teacher Bubus, finally finding him wedged under a desk. Bubus presents him with his certificate of his real identity. Gusbakh remembers that Bubus was his teacher twelve years ago. They laugh together over the fact that Bubus had nicknamed him “the Bully.” Bubus remembers Max’s intelligence and his terrible penmanship. Max jokingly reminds him that Bubus also told him that he would end up either a bandit or a bum. The teacher anxiously asks what path he chose in life. Gusbakh has worked as a mechanic in Van Kamperdaf s factories and has become the secretary of the metallurgist’s union. Bubus delights that he has lived to see his former pupil and the new R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 2 generation and declares that all his suffering has heen worthwhile. Max asks Bubus how he wound up at Van Kamperdaf s. Buhus explained that he had lost his job and was looking for work. When Max does not understand how he came to look for presumably a teacher’s position, at night, at Van Kamperdaf s, Bubus explains that it is a long complicated story and begs his former student to allow him among the ranks in their brave struggle. Gusbakh tells him he might he placed in one of the poorest schools in the capital. Bubus cannot decide whether or not his fate will be good or had, hut it will he honest. Thus, the play ends leaving the impression of the “learned” Bubus as a well- meaning but spineless fool who cannot see the forest for the trees. The main thing that is clearly apparent from Meyerhold’s vision of the production from the booklet is that the plot is only one element of his elaborately conceived production. It is hut one section of the four included in it. In addition, Meyerhold clearly made the play more like a melodrama than “a comedy set to music” as it is billed. While there is a great deal of irony, such as the use of Chopin and Lizst and Lenin citations used out of context, the mood of classical music, with a concert pianist in formal evening dress, and stylized movement lends itself more to seriousness than laughter. Morever, the heroine, played by Zinaida Raikh, is made into a more classical victimized innocent from a melodrama rather than the wit that outsmarts the corrupt as in a comedy of manners. Although she never displays a quick mind, she eventually embraces much more Communist or Populist ideas. Stefka’s R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 203 role becomes far more central in Meyerhold’s staging. She clearly becomes the social consciousness of the audience as she is first exploited by those older, wiser and more powerful, yet she foils their efforts to corrupt her body and her spirit. Bubus rather than being a comic character—a teacher who is ultimately shown to be foolish—elicits more contempt than laughs as he prevaricates until the very end. Although he eventually sides with the rebellious masses and has had some pangs of conscience until now, he really only does so in Meyerhold’s version because they are victorious. As a representative of not only the educated but an educator, he is not only lacking knowledge but any type of political principles. Bubus and the Press The examination of the whirlwind in the press of the day that Bubus caused exposes the very reasons why it was both misunderstood and later forgotten. Meyerhold helped to create the conundrum that ended up swallowing Bubus; he added many political elements to the production to make it timely, innovative and controversial. At the same time, because of the political components added to the play, Meyerhold confused and angered important political figures that demanded that two significant production elements be removed (the projected Lenin slogans on screens suspended over the stage, and the make-up of one character, the Minister of Fine Arts). He also further alienated the playwright, Faiko, who waged open war against Meyerhold in the press over his right to have his play remain intact. After the R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 204 interference by the censors, loss of its star, open hostility from the playwright, and the incapacity of many of the critics to understand what Meyerhold was trying to do, it is no wonder that Bubus was misunderstood completely. However, its lack of success may not be the only reason that has prevented it from being a part of the Meyerhold pantheon of productions. Its political content made it questionable with the censors even before Meyerhold himself was written out of theater history with his arrest in 1939, and mention of this play was tentative and then only made by theater scholars. Meyerhold’s problems with the censors about Bubus clearly show that his troubles began much earlier than perhaps current scholarship has shown. After Meyerhold’s “disappearance,” when Faiko remained an employed and financially successful playwright, although it is mentioned that he had two plays staged by Meyerhold, little else is mentioned about Bubus. Ironically, the examination of the inflammatory and often contradictory critiques of the day reveals that Bubus was new, unfamiliar and hence exciting, but also possibly perceived as more threatening than previously believed. Despite the confusion and controversy or maybe because of it, Bubus was quite possibly a more successful experiment than we have realized. Meyerhold experienced controversy after this as well, but none of his other staged produetions has been as “consciously forgotten” and critically unexamined as this one. The criticism which surrounded Meyerhold’s production of The Teacher Bubus falls into four categories: 1) that which deals with the aesthetic R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 0 5 or artistic merits of the produetion (This is usually a thinly-veiled polemie either siding with Meyerhold or Faiko at the expense of the other.), 2) that whieh read the production as a socio-political treatise rather than as an artistie work, 3) that which dealt with the one of the scandals connected to the produetion or 4) the critics polemicizing with each other usually about one of the above. Although highly colorized polemical language is much in the spirit of its own times, the Soviet 1920s, these public battles had eonsequenees and high stakes at a time when the personal quickly became political, and political offense and politieal disgrace eould adversely affeet an artistic career. The aesthetic criticism either admired the production for its experimentation or damned it either for its incomprehensibility to its audience or for being an unsuccessful pastiche of devices. These critics also tended to be better edueated, but not neeessarily friendly to the more avant-garde nature of Meyerhold’s theater; this included Anatolii Lunacharsky. Often this amounted to an issue of taste; however, it was nonetheless often eloaked in political terms. The purely socio-political critics, like most Leninist-Marxist theorists, tended to focus only on the social message of the work and how well Bubus (or any artistic work) communicated it. In these critics rhetoric runs high, and the analysis seems crude. Unlike the 19‘* ' eentury eritcs, however, these new would-be soeiological erities were nowhere as highly edueated as Belinsky. These new erities, sadly, though equal in enthusiasm were often young. R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 206 recently literate and often culturally illiterate, schooled in only the most orthodox Communist party line. Ironically, some of them, while familiar with the criticism of Dobroliubov and Pisarev, seem shockingly unfamiliar with the texts about which they wrote. But it is in the reportage of the details of the scandal surrounding the production where we see what most clearly seems like personally motivated venomous vendetti against Meyerhold and his ilk. Some of the championing of Faiko seems more to oppose the powerful Meyerhold than to support the playwright; most notable among this category was Limacharsky. All in all, the press of the day presented a confusing and often-contradictory impression of what Bubus was, what its merits and weaknesses were. In any case, these categories only appear in hindsight, and the result was an entangled, often contradictory, rarely enlightening saga which could have only bewildered those but a very few. Difference of opinion about Bubus on even a basic level oecurred from the start. One of the first mentions of Bubus, even before it opened, in Vecherniaia Moskva in December of 1924, says Bubus was being staged in "realisitic tones."^’ Not only was “realistic” not used to mean the Realism of the great writers of the 19^ century such as that of Tolstoy or Dostoevsky but rather in a loose sense of meaning reflecting “real life” and therefore of being a legitimate form of expression for the new Soviet stage; even this said 27 Vecherniaia Moskva, Dec. 16, 1924 R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 207 “realism” bore no resemblance to Meyerhold’s Bubus, one of his most stylized productions since the Symbolist period. This was just the beginning of a series of uninformed, misinformed and even deliberately misleading things printed about the production. Soon after, the reviews started producing confusing and often contradictory reactions. Izvestiia’s reviewer categorizes its style as the furthest thing from Realism— that it was reminiscent in mood of Maeterlinckian tragedies and that he found it “melancholy and dragging.” He faulted Meyerhold’s inclusion of devices from Japanese and Chinese theatre for not being suited to Faiko's comedies’ lightness and quick tempo, and his inclusion of flashing citations from Lenin's speeches as artificial. All in all, he pronounced the show boring. Yet, only the day before, Vecherniaia Moskva reported that Bubus got a warm ovation from the public.^^ Still other reviewers began explaining the public’s and their own reactions to the production. Many of these reviews seemed to give little thought to helping any potential theatergoer. One such review openly addressed itself to other critics rather than to the public. In Zhizn' iskuvsstva, "OpneHTi/ipoBom/iHHoPi MBTepnan arm kpmtmkob" (“Orientational Material for Critics”), the title hints that like the early 19* century when Russia was developing a learned readership, the Soviet period similarly needed to raise both its critics’ and its readers’ cultural literacy. Yet this review seems to be ^ Kh. Khersonskii, untitled review. Izvestiia, Feb. 1, 1925. ^ Vecherniaia Moskva, Jan. 30, 1925. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 208 about impressing other erities and not at all about edueating them; it is so loaded with allusions to many figures from literature and World Theater that it ohfuscates rather than clarifies anything about the production. The reviewer’s criticisms of the production seems far-fetched and obscure: in response to a criticism of Meyerhold’s elaborate use of music in the production, he defends it by comparing it to Greek tragedy’s use of a chorus which musically intoned dialogue and the ancient Chinese theater’s use of instruments which also drowned out the words. He loftily likens the character of Bubus to a modern- day Don Quixote or Candide who also has characteristics of the heroes of Dickens and Chekhov. Finally, he feels Bubus to be a continuation of the pathetic hero of Dostoevsky’s Poor Folk or Gogol’s Overcoat because of the abuse he suffers at the hands of his superiors such as the Chamber of Commerce when Bubus can only answer B TO/ibKo yMMTenb...uiKonbHbi(?i yM M xenb!”^^ (“I am only a teacher.. .a schoolteacher!”) The review seems more a venue for the critic to display his own knowledge of literature rather than analyzing the production or advising viewers. Sadly, this characterizes many similar reviews of this type. Other critics began reviewing each other rather than the production. One review, entitled "fleHarb o By6yce" (“Publications about Bubus”) is dedicated to just the eriticism surrounding Bubus. In order to help the theater- P. "Uchitel’ Bubus v teatre im. Melerkhol’da-orientirovatsionyi material dlia kritikov Zhizn' iskuvsstva,'H.5, 1925. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 209 going public navigate this confusing sea of commentary the writer summarizes all the critical divergences and conflicts among seven current publications at that time. Another thrust of criticism focused on equating the characters with extra-literary factors such as class and profession. These socio-political readings of Meyerhold's production of Bubus range from the sophisticated and venomous to the standard Leninist-Marxist critique, to those who naïvely equate complete correspondence between a character with entire classes of society, often to comment upon current events rather than the production. Again, these types of reviews seem to be more indicative of the reviewers' misguided convictions than credible artistic opinions. The critics could not even agree about whom the title character seemed to represent politically. Several critics seized on Bubus as being a representative of the old intelligentsia and their inability to wholeheartedly embrace the new regime and way of life. In one of the earliest reviews immediately after its premiere Pravda uses the review to attack societal problems and praises Meyerhold’s efforts in addressing them. It states that in Bubus we are given a clear example of the intelligentsia wavering before the question of whether or not to participate in the revolution and of trying to unite two irreconcilable desires: R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 1 0 yK/ioHMTCfl O T yMacTHfl, HHTe/i/inreHxa crpaiuMT Hacn/ine Heki36ewHoe b rpawaaHCKoPi BoRHe a BMecxe c tbm oh nbiraercfl B3«Tb na ce6B mmccmic «o6’ beflMHHTb» «npMMkipuTb» AB6 ôopfomi/iec^ the intellectual, frightened by unavoidable violence, evades participation in the Civil War and instead of doing so, tries to take a mission upon himself to “unite” “reconcile” two opposing forces. Zhizn' iskusstva similarly refers to the hero as "representative of the urban intelligentsia."^^ Yet soon after, Zhizn' iskuvsstva’s Moscow edition mentions that Bubus is a Menshevik^^ and Rabochaia gazeta feels that the play makes a statement that another party, the Social Democrats, is patently untrustworthy: ribeca n o K a a w B a e x m to H eB 03M 0W H 0 b KaKoPi-nn6o M e p e n o n o w M T b c n n a c o r n a m a T e n e P i i/i c o m /ia n -a e M O K p a T O B K O T o p u e B KOHeMHOM CMëxe B c e r n a n o flja e p w i/iB a io x K anM xajiH cxM M ecK H Pi p e w i/iM .^ "* The play shows that it is impossible in any measure to depend on the social democrats that in the final tally always support a capitalist regime. Other reviews felt it necessary to discover if Bubus was understandable to the masses. To get a real working-class perspective Rabochii Zritet interviewed an entire worker’s committee for its article; the workers were of many different occupations and opinions. While some admitted they did not understand it but enjoyed it, others were less Pravda, Dec. 31,1924. M. M. "K postanovki Bubusa Alekseia Faiko na stsene teatra im. Vs. Meierkhol'da," Zhizn' iskuvsstva, N. 2, 1925. P. "Uchitel’ Bubus v teatre im. Meierkhol’da-orientirovatsionyi material dlia kritikov,” Zhizn' iskuvsstva, N .5, 1925. M oscow edition. "Uchitel' Bubus, Teatr im. Meierkhol'da, " Rabochaia gazeta, Feb. 1, 1925. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 2 1 1 entertained. However, the interviewer, showing proletarian hostility to the intellectual elite, tacked on a false concurrence of opinion, concluding that as whole they didn't like the show and that Bubus was the personification of the intelligentsia’s particularities and shortcomings. “C/iobom, yMnxenb By6yc-nepcoHM<|>MKcnpoBaHHafl (npeflcraBneHHan b oahom Jinue) MHTen/iMreHUMfl, co bcsmm eë K/iaccoBUMn oco6eHHOcTnMH m HenooTaTKaMM.”^ ^ (“In a word, the teacher Bubus is the personification (the representation in one person) of the intelligentsia with all its class characteristics and feults.”) In actuality, the review seems a vehicle for the publication to vent hostility against intellectuals and white-collar workers. Similar in spirit, dissimilar in its target, Iskusstvo Trudiashchikhsia felt that Bubus was actually a vehicle to chastise the hard-working educational establishment. Mania Markovich angrily proposed that the character, Bubus, represented a general slander of teachers. Because it opened soon after the Congress of Teachers, it was particularly offensive and tactless. She concluded that the production was so uninteresting that it did not even merit a 36 review. In yet another misguided attempt to identify the characters and situations in the play as corresponding with reality, Novyj ZriteV, in “Whom is the Teacher Bubus Teaching?” ("M eiviy Xmmt YMUTe/ib By6yc?")^’ claimed "Rabkory ob Uchitel' Bubuse," Rabochii Z ritef, N .6, 1925. 36 Mariia Markovich. "Teatr im. Meierkhol'da, Bubusa,” Iskusstvo Trudiashchikhsia, N .ll, 1925. "Chemu Uchit Uchitel’ Bubus?" N ovyj ZriteT, N .6 ,1925. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 212 that the meeting referred to in the play was actually LEF because the digressions were exactly those of Mayakovsky, the poet: “Mayakovsky’s About It contains the same types of digressions as those at the meeting” (“Ha coBeiuaHMH yKaauBajiMCb TaKMe oTCTynneHMH, kbk noara ManKOBCKro, «/7/?o 9to»{. .. Finally, several critics complained of the lack of sophistication on the part of those writing for the press. One writer from Novyj ZriteV responded to the ignorance of other critics and aptly (but with great irony) described Meyerhold’s plight in dealing with their confusingly contradictory statements made about his production: By6yc (haPiK O y Memepxonbna— 3To peBoniouMOHHO HacTpoeHHwA AAeanMCT, OKaawBatouiMAcn KawAuA paa Aon K A X O T O M npM C TO nK H O B eH M M 0 AeACTBMTenbHOCTblO. MHorne cMMTaioT nbecy aa caTMpy na re x «MyAaKoaaTbix» AAeanncTOB KOTopux aaAen b AaBecTHOM nwcbivie EepnapA Uloy. y MeAepxonbAa By6yc, AAeanMCTAMecKA npAMeHHiomAA npaKTAMecKyio AOKxpMHy Mapxca, npoAonwaeT o6paa HecMacTnABueBa Aa «Aeca» Oh yrnySnneT e ro ao jo ro , mto KawAwA, neaannbiBUiAA MBancTBOM peBoniouAOHep Mower npAMepAXb o6paa xaKoro By6yca a na ce6n. Tob. MeAepxonbA. bu Ao6ApaAxecb a ao nac— Bnpase 6bin cKaaaxb xoaapAiuy MeAepxonbAy oaah Aa paBoxHAKoa repMancKoA KOMnapxAA. Bnnoxnyio noAXOAy k cawoiviy ce6e, AoporoA xoBapAiu, AonweH 6bin nonpaBAXb ero MeAepxonbA- A M bI X O , M O C K B A M A , 3X0X0 A H O aHaAA! TOKOe HeowAAaHHoe oxKpwxAe! By6yc, axox 6brbABuiAA Aa ywa cxapAMOK, aaxonycxHbiA lUKonbHuA ywAxenb, ox KawAoro Bbicxpena npnMyiuAA ronoey na rpyAA y KanAxanAcxa-A BApyr-AAeanAcx, yyeGHAK MapKca, HecMacxnABueB Mnen repwaHCKoA KOivinapxHM m HaKoneu . . . caw MeAepxonbA- Box yw noACXAHB: M rnaronnx ero yoxa M yuib npeaenAKyioF’ ibid. 39 "Chto glagolit Glagolin?" N avyj ZriteV, N-16, 1925. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission. 213 Faiko’s Bubus as done by Meyerhold is a revolutionary-inspired idealist, who turns out to be a Don Quixote every time when he smashes into reality. Many consider the play a satire of those “eccentric” idealists mentioned in Bernard Shaw’s famous letter. Meyerhold’s Bubus, while idealistically applying the practical doctrine of Marx is a continuation of the character of Neshchialivtsev from The Forest deepened it to the point that every revolutionary who is swollen with pride can see the image of such a Bubus in himself. Comrade Meyerhold, one of the workers from the German Communist Party has the right to say to Comrade Meyerhold come and deal with us. Meyerhold had to fix it, dear comrade to whom this resembles. However, we Muscovites didn’t know this! What an unexpected discovery! Bubus is an old man who has lost his mind, a provincial schoolteacher who hides his head in the capitalists’ arms with every shot he hears, and suddenly he is an idealist, a student of Marx, a Neshchiastlivtsev, a member of the German communist party, and finally.. .even Meyerhold himself. Here is the real truth: that he [the foolish critic] is the one who utters the greatest nonsense. However, amidst all of the more heated but nonetheless harmless commentary, some reviewers carried more clout than others; clearly V.V. Blium’s (aka Sadko) carried more clout, bite and came to affect the form of Bubus. In one such damning review of his in Vecherniaia Moskva, Sadko declares everything about the production to be a complete failure. Not only does he declare the choice of Faiko’s play to have been a mistake, he refers to Meyerhold’s political commentary as “tasteless” and bordering on the “illiterate” and shameful. He snidely comments that this will provide an opportunity for Meyerhold’s enemies to say that he has been treating Lenin as a commodity to be traded. [ . . . ] TO nycTeH bK M ^ TpexaK TH w A B O jaeB nnb, Ha KOTopwA a B T o p B 3 fly M a n n aB ecT M HBKOTopw coui/ianbHO-peBoniouMOHHbiR nocK. [... ] A MeAepxonbA KaK Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214 pas a ra peBOjuounoHHo-BoaeBHjibHaa Katua oôwnbHo nojiMTa coycoM na /leH M H C K M X unTaj (Haanucn Ha aKpane). 3 tO T KOMeHTapH« K BO jaeBM JIbH O M y TeKCTy H K *aM KOBCKom nojiMTrpaMore aanaeTca BepxoM no/iMTMMecKoro 6e3BKycna, rpaHMMawmero c asHOR HerpaMOTHOCTbK) (Hanp. Koraa KanuTanwcT «M/iJiKîCTpMpyeTCfl» uMTaTom H3 JleHMHa. 3a stm Haanwcw Ha aKpane npocTo ctuûho! m x naflo y6parb xotb 6bi fljia Toro, M To6bi H6 AaTb noBoaa BparaM Me(^epxo/ibAa ujMneTb o ero «cneKy/umnn na mmbhm JleHWHa»*" ...[it is] an empty little three-act vaudeville that the author decided to add a thin veneer of social-revolutionary gloss. [...] but Meyerhold then covered the revolutionary-vaudevillian kasha abundantly in sauce made of Lenin citations (inscriptions on the screen). This commentary to the vaudeville’s text and to Faiko’s elementary course in political education is the height of political tastelessness, surrounded by the grossest illiteracy (for example when the capitalist is “defined” by a citation from Lenin.) These Lenin citations on the screen are shameful! They should be taken out even if just to avoid giving Meyerhold’s enemies a reason to whisper about him that he is “using Lenin as currency.” Yet, in contrast, Krasanaia Zvezda’s A. Novinskii felt Meyerhold’s artistic methods emphasized his strong Communist beliefs: M bi emë P83 y6eH<aaeMcn b orpoMHof^ arwTauwoHHom cwne (j)opManbHoPi cTopoHbi Tearpa, Korna nocpeflCTBOM nopaawTenbHMX MHsaHuen (cooTHouieHMA pacnonomeHwa aKTepoB Ha cuene) m nepexoAOB aKxepoB, MeRepxonbn pMcyer, nanprnviep, pacTepaHHocTb h cTpax Gypwyaaww nepefl HanaBwemca peBoniom/iem. MHoro6pa3Hbte cnoco6bi ocBeujeHMfl (B TO M MHcne paaHOUBeTHaa ABwwymaaca 3/ieKTpMMecKaa peKnaMa) coanaiOT CBeTOBoR h uBeTOBoM < |)0 H cneKTaKJia, na KOTopoM 6onee apKo BWcrynaioT paanwHHwe M O M eH X hi neRcTBMa. — H Ta MCKnioMMTenbHa arwTauMOHO- uenenanpaBneHHaa cnaaHHocTb Bcex sneMeHTOB Teaxpa, KOTopaa xaK CBORcTBeHHa pa6oTa m KOMMyni/icTa MeRepxonbfla.'“ We again are convinced of the huge agitational strength of the practical aspect of the theater when by means of the amazing ‘ *®Sadko. "Bubus (teatr im Vs. Meierkhol'da)," Vecherniaia Moskva, Feb. 2, 1925. Novinskii. "Uchitel'Bubus: Teatr Meierkhorda-teatr plakat,” Krasanaia Zvezda, Feb. 10, 1925. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215 mis-en-scene (the inter-relationship of the placement of the actors on the stage) and the actors’ movements, Meyerhold draws, for example, the bourgeoisie’s dividedness and fear right before the beginning of the revolution. The multi-faceted means of enlightenment (among them the colorful moving electric advertisement) create a colorful and brightly lit background for the production against which various moments of the action shine even more brightly. [...] and the exclusive and agitationally-focused unity of all the elements of theater which is particularly unique to the work of the communist, Meyerhold. Trud completely disagreed that Meyerhold successfully added political content to the piece and concurred with Sadko/Blium that the Lenin citations did not add anything for the working-class spectator. Not only was it incomprehensible to such an audience, it was boring. Trud also used the review of Bubus to criticize the intelligentsia: Ho T8K K8K o n u T npomBOMUJicfi He B CTyMHH M H e a n n o p ra H M M e c K o ro K p y r a x y a o w e c T B e H H W x c n e u o B , a b T e a r p e , n o c e u ia e M O M pa6oM H M H w K p acH o ap w eA u aiv iM , t o M e W e p x o n b fl, o x p a n a n peB oniouM O H H yio p e n y r a u m o C B o e r o r e a r p a , B u n y w a e H 6 w n -3 a T w m e B U B a n n e p e n iw accoB w iw s p H T e n o M CBOM MCTMHHwe H a M e p e H M H ,-n p w a a sa T b c n e K T a K Jiio B njinM O C T b p e B o n io u H O H H o ro . M s a r o r o , O A H aK o, n o n y H w n o c b M a n o n p o K y . U M T a ru n a a K p a n e w a p eM eB T. JleH M H a (rn aB H w m K o a u p b ) o n p w p o n e c o m i a n - c o r n a u j a T e n e M m G ypw yaaw M m n p ., K O T o p u e A onw H bi 6 w n w K O M M eH X M poB arb a e R c T S M a n e p c o n a w e R n b e c b i, n p w a a B a x b H ecB O R cx B eH H y io e R R a e o n o r w io , n e B a a n w c b c x o a o m a e R c x B M a , HMKaK n e c o H e x a n w c b c o B ceM c x R n e M c n e K x a K /ia . Ha a K p a n e c e p b e a n w e m ra y G o K w e m u c / i r n a c o B e p u ie n n y io o o p e a e n e n n y i o , a c n y io r B a w n y io x e w y , a H a c u e n e b e r o B peivia H R K aK o ro o x H o iu e H R a k a x o R x e iv ie n e R M e to u te e . M acco B O M y paG ow eiviy a p R x e /iio c n e K x a /ib H R u e r p n e a a c x . On w a n o n o n a x e n , x a r y n r b u e n o M c K y n e n . H o B a a n b e c a A . O a R K o n a n R c a n n a a b x o n a x n ë rK O R K O M eaR R B w a B J ia e x b K a p a K a x y p n o w i o G p a a e y u R x e n a ByGyoa x o x c a o R R H x e n jiR re n u R R o K o x o p o M m u b CCCP n a u R H a e M , y w e a a S u B a x b —R n x e n n R r e n u R R , p a a a a B n e n n o R Trud, Feb. 5,1925. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216 coôcTBeHHbiMM npoTM BopeM M fJM M H 0 Haxoflfli«e« ce6e Mecxa, nepexoflflmef*! o t noyyeHwa k O TM aH H M io m CTaHOBameAca MrpyiuKoPi b pyKax nio6oR ycToRM M BoB But since the experience was created not in the studio and not for the organic circle of artistic specialists but in the theater dedicated to the workers and Red Army soldiers, Meyerhold, preserving the revolutionary reputation of his theater, needed to conceal from the mass audience his true intention—to give the production the appearance of being revolutionary. This however produced little results. The Lenin citations on the screen (the main trump card) about the nature of the social appeasers and the bourgeoisie among others about whom the characters of the play had to comment in order to give/add an ideology which did not go with the events of the play’s action and did not at all suit the style of the production. On the screen, the serious and deep ideas on a completely separate and entirely clear, important theme, but had no relationship whatsoever to what was happening on the stage. The production does not mean anything to the typical working- class audience member. It’s mostly incomprehensible, slow and on the whole, boring [... ] In A. Faiko’s new play, written like a light comedy, the teacher Bubus appears as a caricature of that level of intelligentsia about which we in the USSR have already begun to forget—the intelligentsia destroyed by its own contradictions and who could not find a place for itself, wavering between sermonizing and despair and which became a toy in the hands of whomever had the strongest personality. Yet Rabochaia Moskva's critic Staryn, unlike the critic from Trud, felt that the working-class audience member was bored for a different reason altogether; rather than being a result of his lack of understanding, it was because he had surpassed the low level of political consciousness that the play presumes. ^ "Postanovki moskovskikh teatrov. Uchitel’ Bubus v teatre Vs. Meierkhol’da,” Trud, Feb. 5,1925. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217 Furthermore, he faulted Meyerhold for not comprehending his viewers’ political sophistication: H ym H O , Boo6me, npn3HaTb, mto apuxenb Hauiero rearpa (rearp MeRepxonbna cneayeT npwaHaxb H auiH M ) He HywflaeTcn b H a p o w M T M W i npoTweonocTaBneHM M G ypw yasH M pa6 0M eM y K/iaccy, KOHTp-peBonwuM M. Heo6xoAHMo M b Tearpe noKOHHwrb c KaseHHUM 6narononyMneM. Tearp MePiepxonbfla ne saMeMaer, mto ero spwrenb Bupoc w flawe nepepoc ero rearp.'^ [sic] We must confess, in general, that the audience of our theater (Meyerhold’s theater ought to be called ours) does not need to present the contrasting representation of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie to the working class. The theater especially needs to stop being fiscally rewarded. The Meyerhold Theater hasn’t noticed that its audience has grown and even outgrown his theater. Yet Staryn concluded his review with praise that the production signified a step forward for art, even if it was step backward for politics, and nonetheless was interesting to watch: [... ] Ho #aKT ocTaeTcn <|)aK T O M : b nbece «5 y6yc», mu HMoeM KpacMBoe M CKyocTBO . . . B GypwyasHOM CMUcne cnoBa, c npeoGnaaaHMOM Kpacoru M /ift Kpacoru, MCKyccTBa Ann MCKyccTBa. Tcm ne Menee, «By6yc» CMorpHTcn c 6onbuiHM HHrepecoM.'*^ [...]—but a fact remains a fact: in the play, Bubus, we have beautiful art in the bourgeois sense of the word, with a predominance of beauty for beauty’s sake and art for art’s sake. Nonetheless, Bubus is most interesting to watch. In another strongly contradictory view, Novyj ZriteFs M.Zagorsky sneered at the presumably “average” audience member and the political censors for being easily pleased and deceived by elegant costumes if they are accompanied by a red flag: ^Staryn. "Meierkhol'dovskii Bubus,” Rabochaia Moskva, Feb. 5,1925. ibid. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218 ny&nwKa ;iio6mt (|)paK-fla e y a e r noaxoMy Ha cuene caxi0H"H0 no/iMTnpocBex /ho6ht peBo/iioumo-M noxoMy aa cueHoM nycxb xoabx g KpacHUM <j)JiaroM.../^ The public loves formal wear and for this reason there is a salon on stage, but the Politprosvet [The Committee on Education and Enlightenment] loves revolution—and for this reason has them walk around with a red flag even if it is behind the scenes. Zhizn' iskuvsstva, more subtly, indirectly criticized Meyerhold. Despite noting many aspects of production, obviously Meyerhold’s work, and its detailed description of the staging and props, it pointedly claimed that the production’s success stemmed from the ability of the actors and not the director: 3xox cneKxaKJib cxpowxca ne m b peWMCcype a H B MacxepcxBe aKxencKom xexHHKH. Bee, M xo M3to6pexaexcn m pewMccypof^, m M O H X w poB O H H oM wacxbK) xeaxpa, naexcn kbk onepa nnn BKxepa, a rnaBHoe-nnn ero xaK HaawBaeMoA npeawrpw/? This production is not built upon the direction but on masterful actors’ craftsmanship. Everything by the direction and production department of the theater is created like an opera for the actor, mainly that which is called predigry. However, other reviews had a completely opposite point of view. Whereas the review above acted as if the director was of no importance and hence gave him no credit, some wanted to blast Meyerhold for despotically controlling the production. Despite earlier official praise in Pravda, which declared that Meyerhold had strengthened the political content of the play with his new type ^ M.Zagorskii. "Bubus v Moskve i v Leningrade,” Novyj ZriteV, N .6 ,1925. Zhizn' iskuvsstva, N. 51?, 1924. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219 of acting"^*, Pravda reversed its stance on Bubus and angrily sniped that Meyerhold had ruined the production with all his gimmicks--of Chopin and Lizst, political slogans, etc.-and that his actors were just obediently following his orders. Indeed, it felt that the play should be renamed “The Teacher Meyerhold": npeacTaaneHMe Morno HaawBaeTon «Y M H Tenb Met’ iepxonbA»- KoMeaMn-0apc luna s MeoneHHOM revine non MpoHwuecKoe MyauKaribHoe conpoBowneHHe UloneH n JlMCTa. IlnaKaTbi w noni/iTMMecKMe noayHru HanpacHo nwTanwcb noawepKHyTb aneMBHTbi nonwTMyecKom caTwpw, KOTopoB hbt b $ToM npOCTOR «KO M eAM M HpaBOB». OTCyTCTBMe BOrpeMM M BW Ay aBTopoM M pewMCcepoM ry6nnM nbecy m Aenano ôecnnoAHoM pa6oTy peweccepa. [... ] BepoATHO TaKom CAenaHHocTM ponem b hx wienoyax A8BH0 He 6bino B MemepxonbAOBCKMX nocTaHOBKax, M noc/iyiUHbie yueHM KW , noKa emë He npeoAoneBUine aaKOHOB MacTepa Aonro SyAyv BonoMMHaTb xy aKxepcKyic paGoxy, Koxopyio M X aacxaBMA npoAenaxb MeMepxcjibA.'” The production should be called Teacher Meyerhold.. .The comedy farce moves along at a slow tempo to the ironic musical accompaniment of Chopin and Lizst. The posters and political slogans tried in vain to emphasize the political elements of satire which do not exist in this simple “comedy of manners.” The lack of meeting of the author and the director killed the play and made the work of the director fruitless. [...] Undoubtedly such trifles in Meyerhold’s productions have not played a role in his productions for a long time and his obedient pupils because they have not overcome their master’s rules will long remember their work as actors which Meyerhold forced them to do [in this production-acr]. The most apt reviewer of all from Novyj ZriteV, A. Tsenovskii, noticed the key problem that the Bubus of Faiko and that of Meyerhold do not seem to be the same. He accurately pinpointed a lack of harmony between the author 48 Pravda, Dec. 31,1924. 40 p. Markovitem . "Uchitel'Bubus (Teatr im Meierkhol'da),” Provtia, Feb. 1, 1925. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220 and the director’s vision. He noted that during some moments the split was palpable: HaTnHyxocTb, ncKyccTBeHHocxb, paaHOflBoeHHocxb [... ] M3-aa cni/iHbi MeMepxo^bncKoro WHoraa noKasbiBaexcn By6yc OaPiKo, By6yc aBXopcKwR, Koxopowiy nywAbi Bce axw aaxen, Bca axa «KOMeflun H a MyauKe».^® The tension, artificiality, and that it is split into two. [... ] From behind Meyerhold’s back sometimes Faiko’s Bubus peeks out, the Bubus of the author which is alien to all these embellishments, the entire “comedy set to music.” Tsenovsky feels that because of this gap between the interesting combination of music and comic action that there is not a completely clear holistic impression. Faiko also played an active role in the press, first attacking hostile critics, then his director, Meyerhold. In Novyj ZriteV, Faiko disparaged theater critics’ low level of knowledge being at odds with their power and their zeal. Faiko faulted “their destructive work” as stemming from misguided dedication to principles to such a degree that they lost sight of the object of their analysis “among the disorder of their own principles”: m ero n n n ypeawiepHoR Kpenocxbto BwaepwaHHoR waeouorMM s a HeowMnaHHwiviM KanpnsaMH nori/mecKoi;^ MucjiH, O H B nanaex MHorna b aaxpynHHxe/ibHoe npoxHBopeMHe, ho b u x o a i/ia n e ro wcnwxaH \ a B cerna oMOHb npocx. OrynbHan sa GeanoKaaaxanbHan pyraHb. riopoK) Kawexcn, Gyjaxo K pM X W K W sooGiue kpobho s a rnySoKO o6nH<eHbi xom, (|)aKxoM hxo nbecu em ë nmuyxcn, cxaBBXcn sa cM oxpnxcn sa ohsa na/iHBaiox cBoto oGway b HBHCxoBO-GypHbix S A J S S A npeapMxeubHO naoBHXbix cxaxbnx/^ ^A. Tsenovskii. untitled review. Novyj ZriteV, N.9, 1925. "A.M. Faiko writes about critics," Novyj ZriteV, N.14, 1925. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 1 Flaunting his excessive strength of self-possessed ideology and with unexpected capriciousness of logical thought, he [the critic] sometimes falls into a complicated contradiction, but leaving it behind is old hat and always very simple. Groundless abuse is not based on any evidence. From time to time, it seems as if the critics in general are deeply and mortally offended with the fact that plays are still being written, are being staged, and are being watched, and their outlet for their offense is their furiously tempestuous or contemptuously poisonous articles. He bitterly concluded his piece noting that critics had begun to write plays themselves with little results to speak of in a praiseworthy manner, implying that these critics have no more right to judge his plays than to write their 52 own. Soon after, in Vestnik Rabochego Isskusstvo, Faiko attacked Meyerhold. What had been merely “in-house” squabbling between director and writer now became public and political. In this and other Moscow newspapers Faiko announced his protest against the transformation of his play by the directorial changes of Meyerhold " b rpyny 6ec<|>opMeHHbix o6noMKOB" (“an entirely formless wreckage”) and announeed that he refused any responsibility for the play because it had been so manipulated by Meyerhold that it no longer resembled his original work.^^ Because so many critics had complained that one of the most egregious sins that Bubus committed was that it was too long, so long that the performance finished after public transportation stopped running, Meyerhold announced in Vecherniaia Moskva that on Oct. 30, a new variant would begin, an entire hour 53 "Faiko i Meierkhol'd,” Vestnik rabochego isskusstvo, N.8, 1925. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 222 shorter/'* Less than a week later, also in Vecherniaia Moskva, Faiko protested that the version of his play, which was performed on Oct. 30 in a new shortened form done by the director, completely distorted his conception of the work. He renounced any responsibility for the work and the changes, proclaiming that it was an entirely new work—one with no taste and which lacked style: E c n n nocT aH O B m i/iK B o n e H T p a K T O B a rb A p a M a T k m e c K o e npoM S B eA eH i/ie c o r n a c H O O B oeM y p e w e c c e p c K O M y s a M u c n y , to, bo bcbkom c n y n a e OH A o n w e n H e H CxoA HX b o x A a n n o r o a B x o p o M w a x e p w a n a a H e n p e s p a m a x b b M a n o o n p a B A a n w x a K c n e p w M e H x a x u e n b H o e np o M S B eA eH w e b r p y a y 6e3<|>opM eH H bix o6aomkob. [... ] o6pa30BaBUiMXcn npoBanoB npwcoHMHen H O B W M xeKox, ywacatomuM no oBoeMy 6e3BKycmo h oxcyxcxBMK) cxi/inn.^ If the one who stages a work is free to interpret a dramatic work according to his own directorial conception, then in any case he must not step away from the material given to him by the author and not turn an entire work into a little justified experiment or an entirely formless wreckage. [...]... .having turned out failure, a new text is created which is frightening in its tastelessness and lack of style. Not to be outdone, Meyerhold's actors, including his wife, Zinaida Raikh, answered with a collective letter to Vecherniaia Moskva, which supported Meyerhold's decision to shorten the text. It answered Faiko's complaints item by item including the need to bolster up the weakness of the play by the director. Lastly, they snidely remarked that if Faiko were truly interested in shaking off all responsibilities for the play and its production, that would mean that he would also refuse his fee. But because they knew Faiko well, they also knew this would "Q vtous," Vecherniaia Moskva, Oct. 23, 1925. ^^Vecherniaia Moskva, Nov. 4, 1925. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223 never happen. The letter is so detailed and amusing that I am including it in its entirety: yeawaeMbii?! t . PeuaKTop. B H o. 252 «Be^epH e(>i M o c k b u » noMemeHO nucbMO A . <t>a^Ko noAHMiviatomee png BonpocoB, CBaaaHHwx c H O B O M peuaKunePi cneKxaKnn «Y M U Teub By6yc» A . (DaAKo aHeprnMHO ocnapuBaeT npaBO xeaxpa npoM3BOAMXb MSMeHeHwa B aBxopoKOM xBKcxe BooGme M npoxecxyex npoxnB usivieHMPi, caeuaHHWX b xeKcxe «By6yca» b yacxHocxw. M w , yHacxHMKM cneKxaKJin, i/ivieeM aanBwxb no axoiwy noBoay cueayiom ee: M3M0Hi/in aBxopoKoro xeK cxa npaKXMKyioxcn hb xonbKO xeaxpoM H O h utoB oC ^ uMxepaxypHoR penaKUMBPi. B o6bmHOM Bouuio, npBflnaraxb aBxopoM npeflynpew aaxb peaaK xopa o HBnpHBMneMocxM a n n hmx m3Mbhm«. A . (O aD ilK O xaKWB hb 6biu uhujbh axoM bosmowhocxh h bb hb M CnOJlbSOBaU. B O B O B M nM C bM B O H CBMflBXbCXByBX O X O M , H X O 0 npBflCXOfllUHX pBflaKUHOHHWX M 3M BHBH M BX cnBKxaK/in 6biuo oB baeneno uaw e nenaxHO. 3 x o nOBBlUBHHB 6WUO, H M M OUHaUMBO HpHBXHO K CBBUeHHIO, a B xaKHx c/iynanx MOJinaHHB B cerua BB/inexcn bhbkom coruacMfl. npMHiinnna/ibHan npaaoxa, xaKMM o6paaoM, hb na cxopoHB A.<Pai?iKO. Mxo K acaexca xbxhmhbckmx BoapawBHnPl upaMaxypra, xo O H H CBOflBXOn K HpOXBCXy npoXMB: a) COKpam BHHPi XBKOXa, 6) nepecxaHOBOK HBKoxopwx aBUBHwR, b) cpamBHwR XBKCXa B MBCXaX Kyniop, KaKWe M 3M BHBHM B, H O M H B H M IO A . OaRKO, HKo6bi Hapyuiatox BUMHwA BHyxpeHHwR nuan bbuim. COKpaiUBHHB XBKCXa BWaWBanOCb npBMOPl HBoéxOflHMOCXb— B HBpBOM BapHBHXB CnBKXaKJlB H B yuaBanocb aaKOHHi/ixb panbUJB 12:30 hbcob HOHM-Kymopw flOBB/IH e ro flO HOpMaUbHOm flJlMXBJIbHOCXH: CnBKXaKUb cx an KopoHB na 1.5 naca. Kymopu, bcxbcxbbhho, oKasaui/icb 3HaHwxanbHWMH. Mbi, wcnouHMxeuM no3BOJiBBM cb6b uyMaxb, hxo naM nynujB, aexopa y u aex cn ynwxwBaxb yxOMUBBMocxb HawBM ayaoxopwM m cyxtMXb o HB06X0AM M 0CXH COKpamBHHB CnBKXaK/in. HB06X0flHM0CXb 9xa flun Hac GBCcnopna. nonyxopanacoB an Kyniopa, COBBPUJBHHO HBM 36BH<H0, SaxpOHyua p n u BblXOUOB M noxpe6oBana Hx MoxwBaaauMM oxcioua M nepBcxanoBKa HBKOXPUX BBnBHkim, OXCIOfla M HB06X 0flHM0CXb UononHMXBUbHoM pa6oxbi n a n ocxaBUBHHWM xbkoxom. Pa3BMXMB craWBXa OCXaJlOCb HBH3MBHHblM— M 3M BHBH H B BHypexpBHwR nnan, kbk yxBBpwaaex A.(haPiKo. a ero BH BUJH BB BW paW BHM B: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224 MoTMBasauM;) H p aecT seH H oro n ep ep o w A e H n a repow H w nbecbi A. (PadK o o 6 y c jio B /ie H o cooépaweHMBMM nioG oB H oro paaoM apoBaHHB m hmmbm He n o a r o T o a n e n a stot nocaeaH M A n p o 6 e a npi/iuiaocb aanoaHMTb b nepBOM peaaKUM M HCKJllOMHTeabHOi;’ ! HOBOm WrpOR. n o aKOHOMHH BpeMeHM, naHTOMMMy o K a sa a o c b Heo6xoaHMbiMM aaweHMTb caoBOM M noawepK H yTb cou w aab H w e npeanocw aK W x ap aK T ep a CTeipKM. RoaMTMMecKaa xapaKTepMCTMKa «B yG yca» b aBTOpOKOM TOKCTe oTcyTC TB yeT . E r o n oxom aen u B M , n oaroM y, B c e r a a r p o 3 n a a on acH ocT b cpw B a b npocT eA u iyio BoaeB w abH yio nyraH M uy. H ep B aa p eaaK U w a cn eK T aK n a n u r a a a c b noMOMb a e a y T e K c x a n a aK p an e, npoTWB n e r o a a x o p He n p o r ecT O B a a —c p e a c T B o a r o O K aaaaocb caHuiKOM caaG uM : aonoaH M xeabH w R xeKCT r e n e p b ro B o p w T ca aK xepoM . «BeaBK ycM e» m «oTcyTCTBuie cT w a a » K o r o p u e AO aM K o ocM arpM B aeT b aonoaH M xeabH O M x e K c x e , n o n a x w a BsaMMHO noK pbiBaiotaH eca, k Kpamneiviy cow aaeH H io ohh a B a a e x c a ocnoBHbiM c bo h o x bo m B c e r o a B x o p cK o ro x e K c x a aon oan eH M a, b o h m b npHHunna o a H o p o a H o cx w , a o a w H u Gbinn, n o b o 3 moh< h o cxh, c a e a o B a x b a e x o p c K o v iy aaaanM io. H e y w e a n A .0 a A K o n o a a r a e x , mxo B y S y c, <P oh KaMnepaa<)> M ap.-aioan c BK ycoM , M yBcxByjom He cxwab. 8 aaKatoMOHMe: mxo n p e a c x a B a a e x coGom x o p w e c x B e n H o e «CHflXMe oxBexcxB eH H biM » a a xokox, n p o B o a ra a u ia o M o e A. (PaAKO, KaK a x o anaM wao Gw o x K a a o x a a x o p c x B a —3 x o anaM nao Gw o x K a a m ox a a x o p o K o r o roH op ap a, a o x n e r o , HacKoabKO anaeM , A. (PaAKo n e o x K a a w B a a c a M n e o x K a a w B a e x c a npaaaHWM w ecx o M , amueHHWM KOHKpexHoro anaMeHwa. A K xepw , Bw cxwnaioiaM e b cn e K x a K a a x «ByGyc». H. OxaoHKOB, B. BeabCKMA, 8 . PeM w aoBa, M. C a e e a b e B , C. M apxHHcoM, M. K op en eB , E. B eH rw c, A. TeiviepMH, M. HiapoB, 8 . 3aA aw K 0B, M. B aG anoB a, X. JloKuiAHa, Sw H aw aa Pamx* Dear Comrade Editor, Number 252 of Evening Moscow is dedicated to a letter by A. Faiko which raises a series of questions coimected to the new version of the production of The Teacher Bubus. A. Faiko energetically disputes the right of a theater to make changes in an author’s text in general and protests against the changes made in the text of Bubus in particular. ^ REZH. CHAST.Collective letter from the participants in the show "Bubus"-signed by N. Okhlopkov, S. Martinson, M. Babanova, Z. Raikh, and others to the editor of Vechem. Moskva in response to A. Faiko's article about the new traktovka of his play "U.B.". Also included (p. 10) is a hand-written note from Meyerhold to U.A. Aksenov about peresylke of this letter to the newspaper "Iskusstvo trudiashchikhsia". Dated Nov. 25,1925. GOSTIM, 963,1, 432 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225 We, the participants in the production, announce the following in regard to this matter: Changing an author’s text is practiced not only by theaters but also by any literary editor. Typically, it happens that the author forewarns the editor about the unacceptable nature of the changes. A. Faiko was not denied this possibility but he did not make use of it. In his letter, he proves that the current editorial changes in the production were announced and even printed. This notification was accepted by him silently as a piece of information but in such situations silence always is taken as a sign of agreement. The principle of innocence/rightness is not on Faiko’s side. As concerning the technical objections of the playwright about a protest against: a) the shortening of the text, b) moving around a few scenes, c) the union of the text in place of a cut; such changes in Faiko’s opinion make it seem as if they ruin the entire internal plan of the thing. The shortening of the text was called for directly out of necessity. In the first variant, the production could not end before 12:30 at night. The cuts were made to make it of normal length—the show was shortened by an hour and a half. These cuts, naturally, turned out to be significant. We, the performers, believe that we can judge better than the author the tiredness of our audience and to decide the necessity to speed up the production. The necessity for us is indisputable. The cuts by an hour and a half completely and unavoidably touched off a series of entrances and demanded motivations for them and the changing of a few scenes, and from that came the necessity for additional work on the remaining text. The unfolding of the plot remained unchanged—The change was not in the internal plan, as A. Faiko emphasizes, but in its external expression: The moral rebirth of the heroine of A. Faiko’s play caused by romantic disappointment was not motivated by anything and this gap forced additions to be made in the first version of the entirely new acting. In order to save on time, we found that pantomime was needed to replace the words and to emphasize the social pre-condition for the personality of Stefka. The political aspect o f Bubus in the author’s text is lacking. It always presented a danger of exploding into the lowest form of vaudevillian confiision. The first version of the production tried to help this problem by adding text on a screen, against which the author presented no protest. The means, however, turned Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226 out to be too weak; the additional text now is spoken by an actor. The “tastelessness” and “lack of style” which A. Faiko sees in the added text, first are one and the same thing and secondly, most regrettably, they are the main characteristic of the author’s entire text. According to the principle of continuity the additions must follow the author’s text as closely as possible. Isn’t it A. Faiko who suggests that Bubus, Van Kamperdaf and others are people with taste and who have a sense of style. In conclusion, to imagine that the pompous declaration by A. Faiko that he “renounces responsibility” for the text would mean that he refuses to claim his authorship—but that would mean also refusing his author’s commission and as well as we know him, A. Faiko has not refused nor will he refuse it—it is a meaningless gesture devoid of any real significance. The actors performing in the production of Bubus. N. Okhlopkov, B. Bel’skii, V. Remizova, I. Savel’ev, S. Martinson, M. Korenev, E. Bengis, A. Temerin, M. Zharov, V. Zaichikov, M. Babanova, Kh..Lokshina, Zinaida Raikh The public quarrel and the issues raised by Faiko and Meyerhold over the rights of the director versus that of a living playwright with regard to the text became so serious that Faiko’s piece in Vercherniaia Moskva was responded to in a program from Bolshoi Gosudarstvennye Akademicheskie Teatry (State Academic Theaters), N.9, 1925. The author Victor Ermans, while responding to Faiko's letter, did not take sides. He claimed that Meyerhold felt compelled to change the play because of Blium's other criticisms. The main point he raises is the heart of the creative disagreement between Meyerhold and Faiko: what exactly is a play: the basis for a performance or an opportunity for a director’s work? riMCbMO 3T0 He M O W eT 6blTb nOKpblTO M O nM aHM BM . Oho chobb b K O TO pw m pas— noAHHMaer GonbW oM Bonpoc o BsaM M OOTHoiueHM flx BBTopa H pewMccepB, o Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227 HenpuKOCHOBeHHocTM T6KCTa, o npaeax nocTaHOBmnKa Ha nepejaejiKM m nepe6pocKH us ojanoro axTa b apyroR. H m t. H . pacTBOpeHwe âBTopa b pewHccepe. lloKa B. 3. Me(^epxo/ibA nepeKpawBan hokoI^hmkob — aBxopcKMx npoTecTOB He 6w/io c/iuuiho. Flo M H eH M io oûhmx asTopw-noKoAHMKM B 3H3K npoTecTa nepeBopaMMBanncb b rpo6ax no Mnennio apyrMx c/ieflOBa/in MyapoMy cosexy noaxa m «cnanw b rpo6e M M pH O ». Tenepb MePiepxo/ibA aaaen aa W HBoe, aa cymecxByiomero na seMne ApaMaxypra (DaAKo. Peaynbxaxw na AMUo-nMCbMo-BonAb na cxpaHMuax «BenepKH». d > at* tK O McnoAbsoBaA npaea WHBymero. 9 \ oxammho noHMMaio MeRepxoAbAa— on hb Mor H B nepepBAaKXMpoBaxb <DaPiKocKoro yywxBAA. BeAb, bcam nO M H A X H M X aX B A M , H B aH aiO U lM A nO C A B A H M B X O A W nopawBHMR MePlepxcAbA na «Ey6ycB»...cnoxKHyACA. nocxaHOBKy hb npwanaAw. He npwHAAw. A Han6oABB O X K pO B B H H W A M 3 M O C K O B C K M X K pM X M K O B . B. M . BaWM A BW B HanMcaA b pbubh3mm o nocxanoBKB MeMepxoAbAOM «By6yca» cbok) yG M RcxBBH H yK ) (|>pa3y: «BoAbuiOMy Kopa6Aio G O A blU O B H A aB B H M B M . . . G O A b U IM B B B B pM M ». 3xOX npM X O B O p H B AaBBA Met^epxcAbAy npeAan nyG A M M H O na ombpbahom AMcnyxe ana^uBMe xoBapMWAB-peuBHSBHXOB. H y, kbk wb nocAB Bcero axoro hb aaHAXbca nO M C K aw M H O B O R peAaKueR. flOKxop JQlanepxyxxo MeRepxoAbA xowe, peujM A nO A A B M M X b yM M X B A A ByGyca. A «oG M A M M B biR » AabkcbR (PaRKO 03A M A CA M «C H A A C C B G A O X B B X C X B B H H O C X b 33 npoMSBBAeHHbie M aH M nyA A U M M »; 3xo B3m, x.x. pewMCcepw, H B Co4>OKA M hb U JM A A B P M H B OcXpOBCKM R, K O X O pW X M O W H O B3AXb H O A pyK M (X bl, M C A , A3 A , M C A ), K BK 3X0 ASABAM B. lUepuieHBBMM. B. ByoGyxoB m mhoxmb Apyrne m nepBKpoMB M X npoM3BBAeHMA HanMcaxb CO (|>O K A -llJBpU ieH BBM M M A M UlMAABp-BeGyXOB. KX O W B , O A HBKO , npBB— ABXOP, O X paH A tO lU M R XOAbKO C B O M 3BM W CA M ? M HBK O H BU , M X O X3K0B HbBCa? OCHOBB CnBKXBKAA M A M XO AbKO nOBOA AAA peW M CCBpCKOR paGOXW? EcAM npM HAXb aa B K G M O M y nepBoe noAowBHMB, xo O brko, 3Babuimr «CBM blR pB U IM X B A bH W R OpOXBCX» M X.A. GoayCAOBHO npBB, B C A M we Bxopoe, xo npaB MeRepxoAbA, npMHecuiMR B mepxBy cbobr GypnoR ^anxaaMM «GoAbuiMe KycKM» xbkcxb, nopAAOK CU BH M BK X O B M B O U lB A U iM R K dBXOpy, B H B R «nyXBM, npM C O M M H B H M A » H O B O X O XBKCXa. flO SX M M B O A H yiO U lM M BOnpOCBM M bi npBAABrBBM BWCKaaaXbCA Ha cxpaHMuax nporpaMM aaxopaM m nocxanoBiuRKaM ^Co^HHHT0J1f1M M npHCO^iHHHTeJI/lim [. . .]” The letter cannot be met with silence. It has raised and raises again important questions about the relationship between an ^Viktor Ermans. Program from Bolshoi Gosudarstvennyi Akademicheskii Teatr (State Academic Theater), N .9 ,1925. The response to Faiko's letter does not take sides. Claims that Meyerhold decided to change play because of Blium's criticisms. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228 author and a director, about the inviolability of a text, about the right of the person staging a work to re-do and move around a piece of text from one act to another. Does that dissolve the boundary between the author and the director. While Meyerhold remade the dead, the authors' protests were unheard. Some believe that these same deceased authors have been turning over in their graves; while others believe that they have but followed the words of a poet and have "slept peacefully in their graves." Now Meyerhold has upset a living, breathing playwright, Faiko. The results have been his shrieks on the pages of Vecherki {Vecherniaia Moskva{ Faiko has invoked the right of the living. However, I understand Meyerhold perfectly-he had to re-edit Faiko's "teacher." In case our readers haven't noticed, the production has not been received well. The most outspoken among Meyerhold's Moscow critics, in his review of Bubus, pronounced the fatal phrase: "large ships can take large voyages and they can also have great disasters." Well, after this how could he not undertake a new version of the play! Dr. Dapertutto Meyerhold thus decided to cure teacher Bubus. But the "offended Alexei Faiko" got angry and "renounced responsibility for the manipulation of his work." Who is right? The author who is only preserving his creation? And again, what is a play? The recipe for a performance or only a means for a director's work? If we believe the former, than Faiko, having announced his "last decisive protest" is unquestionably right. If we believe the latter, then Meyerhold is right to have sacrificed his elaborate fantasy along with big pieces of the text." To these questions at hand, we suggest to both the playwright and the director that they take up fiiis issue on the pages of this publication and hence refer to themselves as "creator" and "re-creator." Thus, Ermans explicated one of the main reasons for the Meyerhold/Faiko conflict over Bubus. Similar conflicts would play a significant part in many other better-known productions elsewhere in theater history such as Samuel Beckett suing Joanne Akolaitus several decades later over changes made to his play. Novyj ZriteV soon after dedicated an entire article to the problem of the role of the director with regard to a living playwright's text, entitled Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229 "PewMccep M Abtop" (“Playwright and Author.”)^* For the most part, the quarrels regarding the production died down in the press after the piece mentioned above; yet Bubus neither became a hit nor did it disappear. It continued to play in Moscow and in other places around the USSR for some time. A series of articles dedicated to the scandals surrounding the production continued sporadically for almost a year and a half afterward. Obviously, it had made a strong impression on the public’s consciousness. Many expressed the depth to which the scandals had penetrated the culture. The first one, through its vague attempt at alluding to Eugene Onegin in form and content, summarized the whole morass: ycT3B O T B K T O B K MeJ^epxc/ibfly nouiën M o i? i flnnn oTjQ oxH yTb. Oh Bepvin nesoMy reponbny Bor m e HaRny MCKyccTBa cyrb! Ho axl-CKopee naRre Harpy... (DaRKO-ranareH, no6p m mr/i: He nofl/iowRJi CBWHbio rearpy, A TonbKO...«By6yc» nonnowR/i. M to xywe-n CKaaarb ne cweio, Ho oMeHb ny&nwKy waneio.^’ Tired of the acts, to Meyerhold My uncle set off to relax. He had believed the leftist herald That he would find art there. But alas! Give me some acid— Faiko is gallant, kind, and nice— ^*"Rezhisser i Avtor,” Novyj ZriteV, 1925. ^^Novyj ZriteV,N.i, 1925. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230 He didn’t play a dirty trick on the theater, But only played Bubus. I don’t dare say anything worse Just that I am really sorry for the publie. Yet despite all the scandals, Meyerhold’s Bubus was written about in many cities around the Soviet Union ranging in years from 1924-26. Ironically, as early as 1924, before it opened in Moscow, a Kharkov journal seemed to have already understood the crux of what would come to be the root of the problems with Bubus in Moscow. It noticed the play wasn’t very revolutionary, yet the reviewer also praised it as witty.^ In Voronezh a local critic, Ruiskii, thought Bubus was worth showing to a wide audience of the working masses.^’ Still other theaters on the edges of the Soviet Union produced their own version of Bubus. A reviewer from Khabarovsk when Bubus opened locally called it one of the best plays of the season and that it was chosen because it was a play from the repertoire of Meyerhold's theater.^^ Even as late as 1926, a production of Bubus was playing in Tula.*^^ Another piece joked about the the discord surrounding Bubus, showed that it was so acrimonious and widely known about that it was still a topic in the public’s memory two years later when this piece was dated. It also “ Larek (a Kharkov journal) Dec. 1924. VoronezhskaiaKommunista,'i:ioy. 11, 1925. ® Tikhokeanskaia Zvezda Feb. 28,1926. ® March 6 , 1926-advertisement from unspecified Tula newspaper for Uchitel' Bubus. Item #112. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231 referred to the work which had influenced Bubus ’ production and all of those who were involved in its creation, and of course, the scandal surrounding it. The work was the film. The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom.^ Lastly, one of the most significant events that harmed Bubus’ production occurred behind the scenes, early in the production’s run, in February 1925. A secret document published for the first time here shows the production was considered harmful by the censors. It called for the removal of all Lenin citations, which were projected on screens above the stage. In addition, it demanded that the make-up for the Minister of Fine Arts be changed because it seemed to slander the Soviet government. I can only surmise from hints fi-om compiling many sources that the minister was made to look like a particular member of the government at the time. Because of its rarity I am including it: n o BOnPOCY: O CHBTMM C BJIMW. nOCTAHGBOK «yMMTEBB BYByCA»®" Ha ocHOBaHMM nocTaHGBneHun fnaBpenepTKOMa o t 23 <t>eBpann c /r Moc.ry6jiHT n p eflJiaraer cHnTb c ôni/iwaPiuinx nocTaHOBOK «yM nrenn By6yca» neMOHCTpupoBaHue u n r a r M 3 C O W M H eH M M B .M . JleHMHa. KaK a rc HeonHOKpaTHo noflMepKMBanocb naweR nponerapcKoR neMaxbio yKaaannbie uMxaTW m s coM M H eH M R ^ Argo. “ Ot chistogo serdtsa," Sovremennyi Teatr, N.8, 1927. ^^GOSTIM F. 963, 1,430. MONO=MOSKOVSKII OTDEL NARODNOE OBRAZOVANIE REZHISSERSKAIA CHAST’. RASPORIAZHENIE MOSKOVSKOGO OTDELA NARODNOGO OBRAZOVANIAI TELEFONOGRAMMAIZ MOSGUBLITA V TEATR O SNIATIIDEMONSTRIROVANIIA DIOPOZITIVOV S TSITATAMI IZ PROIZVEDENII V.I. LENINA I OB IZMENENII GRIMA MINSTRA IZIASHCHNYX ISKUSSTV. FEB. 26, 1925. SEKTRETNO.(DOCUMENT NO. 84 c). This secret document is being published for the first time. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232 B.H. JleHMHa noM TM HMKBKoro oTHOujeHMfl no cymecTBy k nbece; YyMTe^b 5 y 6 y c t He M ivietO T m Tew caMUM oTflexibHbie cnoBa m JioaynrM t . JleHMHa cûenaBiUMecn jioaynraMM m saBexaMM uimpokmx rpyflnmMxcn Mace— ne nonynaioT uenocooGpaanoro McnonbsoBaHMn. OflHOBpeMeHHo 0 3TM M Moc.ry6/iMT noflHepKMBaer, mto Tpe6oBaHMe ero o chatmm yKaaanHux umtbt ho naao paccMaTpMBaTb, kbk bkt BMeuiaTenbCTBa b *opwy Tearpa/ibHoro TBopwecTBa, Bbi6paHHyio rearpoM, m jioayHPM flpyroro coaepwaHMa, ho ho M 3 com. t. JleHMHa, Mowex 6bixb, 6ojiee MexKO oxxenaiomMe cyxb nbecbi, Moryx M B aajibHeMiueM aeivioHcxMpoBaxbca, oahbko m x coaepwBHMe noa/iewMx npeaBapMxe/ibHOMy coraacoBBHMio c PenepxyapHUM Oxa. Mocry6aMxa.*'' Tbb. Moc. ryôaMXOM P. (mam B.) Fyxivian CeKpexapb Mocry6aMxa 3bb. TeaxpoM Be. MePlepxoabaa m y Mocry6aMx KaxeropMMecKM npeaaeraex b ceroanauiHeM we cneKXBKae «YMMxeab By6yc» M SM eH M X b rpM M M M H M Cxpa MsaiUHbix MCKyccxB. Fy6aMX CMMxaex, mxo b nbece M3o6paweH 6bix sanaaHoeBponneMcKoR GypwyasMM, He aonycxMMB uiapwMpoBKa Maena coBexcKoro FlpaBMxeabcxBB, aMCKpeaMXMpyiomaa coBexcKyio Baacxb. FloaMXKOHxpoab O.F.FI.Y. npoc6a npoBepMXb McnoaneHMe, MaaoweHHoe xeaxpoM. FloanMcaaM, Fyxwian. CeKpexapb SaRuea. FiepeaaMB Hobmkobb F lpMHaa 3y6uoB^ TOP SECRET (document number 84) On the question of removal from the next performances of The Teacher Bubus: On the basis of the resolution of Glavrepertkom on 23 February of this year Mosguhlit orders that the display of citations from the work of V. I. Lenin he removed from future performances of “Teacher Bubus.” As has been repeatedly underscored in our proletarian press, the above mentioned citations from the works of V. I. Lenin possess virtually no connection to the essence of the play. The Teacher Bubus, and thus individual words and sayings of Comrade Lenin, which have become slogans and ordinances of “ GOSTIM, 963,1,430. GOSTIM, 963,1,430. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233 the working masses, are to be used in a manner that properly conforms. At the same time Mosguhlit underscores the fact that this demand for the removal of the above mentioned quotations should not be viewed as an act of interference in the form of the theatrical work selected by the theater, and slogans with crude content, and not from the works of Comrade Lenin, perhaps more properly pertaining to the essence of the play, may be displayed in the future; however, their content will be subject to prior approval by the Repertoire Division of Mosguhlit. Mosguhlit categorically demands that in today’s performance of The Teacher Bubus the make-up of the minister of fine arts be changed. Gublit believes that in a play that reflects the life of the Western European bourgeoisie it is not fitting that a member of the Soviet Government be caricaturized, and in so doing it discredits Soviet power. This document strongly hints that something in the play’s political subtext, which Meyerhold added in these elements, was enough to keep documents about this production sealed until 1988. Examining Bubus in hindsight is in many ways as confusing as it was while it was playing in Moscow in 1925. The director’s aspirations were high: to take a Soviet comedy of manners and make it both satirical and musical. But its mix of flashing Lenin citations, elaborate costumes, lush sets combined with a score of refined classical piano pieces interspersed conterpuntally with audacious jazz band numbers confused the public and angered the censors. Who or what was really being satirized? In contrast to Meyerhold’s recent productions’ rapid, athletic dynamism, Bubus also changed tempi in movement not just music. His new type of acting, a stylized form of reacting to an action before actually doing it Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 234 was slow and perplexing, particularly to the new theater-going audience whom Meyerhold had conditioned to expect another type of spectacle. The critics further compounded the confusion by adding snippets of knowledge: bits of political theory, bits of literary history, mixed with large amounts of rhetoric and ire. In addition, Bubus was further hampered by a titanic clash among its cast and crew— the actors versus the director, the actors versus the playwright, the director versus the playwright— some of it regarding creative issues such as casting, decision-making; others involving clashing egos and personal conflicts which were brought to the movie screens and press. Not only did The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom clearly foretell some actors’ and the writer’s problems with Bubus, it created more of them, causing such a row that the actors for whom it had been written left or were cast in other roles. The result was a theatrical broth ruined by too many cooks: censors, critics, actors, the writer and the director. The recipe that resulted was thus never fully realized, tried or tested. Meyerhold’s real vision, poorly articulated by him in word and deed as a modem adaptation of Kabuki, was thus hidden in plain view. Examining all that prevented it from its full appreciation helps us to understand why Bubus has been neglected, but it also runs the risk of perpetuating the problem of eclipsing Bubus ’ artistic merit unless it is examined methodically and seriously. The next chapter attempts to do so after almost eighty years in order Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235 to show that Meyerhold’s interest in Kabuki was in earnest and how he tried to adapt it for the Soviet stage of the 1920s. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236 Chapter 6: Meyerhold’s Bubus and Kabuki: More Than A Bamboo Curtain and a Bechstein Tracing Meyerhold’s interest in Kabuki In his discursive writings, Meyerhold mentions the influence of a Japanese actress, Sada Yakko, on his conception for the mis-en-scene for his production of Bubus, particularly in a speech delivered on New Year's Day, 1925, subtitled "The Problem of A Play Set to Music". While many scholars have chosen to ignore this reference to the Japanese actress, it is an avenue worthy of exploration for a variety of reasons. The seemingly off-hand remark offers insight into this wildly ambitiously experimental production which, though courageous, was a failure with critics and audiences alike. More important than its lack of success, is an examination of Meyerhold's goals for applying the devices of Asian, particularly Japanese theater to his own evolving directorial repertoire. What were the points of intersection between these two wildly different cultures? How sincere was he in his endeavors and in his claims? In general, because of its failure, scholars have largely ignored this production. Even some respected scholars such as Ernest Symons have dismissed Meyerhold's claims of his admiration of Sada Yakko as fabrication or fantasy that Meyerhold personally witnessed her performance. However, even if Meyerhold was not among her audiences, this certainly did not preclude him from knowing about her, particularly from someone such as Stanislavsky. Second, Meyerhold was interested in many types of theater, which he was more likely to have read about than he was to have witnessed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237 particularly those distant from him either chronologically or geographically. Third, Meyerhold was interested in experimenting with a variety of theatrical methods, devices, traditions, etc. in order to perfect his own craft and repertoire as a director. My goal is not to definitively prove whether or not Meyerhold witnessed Sada Yakko's performance, but to show by virtue of her fame in European theater, the similarities in his productions to Kabuki, and to his direct references over the course of his career in his discursive writings, that he was familiar with her accomplishments and methods as an actress as well as with her biography. Most importantly, examining the figure of Sada Yakko and the devices of Kabuki allow us in the present to understand a greatly misunderstood work of the past— Meyerhold's production of Bubus. What is important to remember, as a type of caveat is that his adaptation of Kabuki was much like his adaptations of classical plays, his use of an artistic text, a theatrical style or movement; Meyerhold's goal was not to duplicate but rather to synthesize something new and his own, renovate something old, rework it into something new even if it bore little to no resemblance to the original. Meyerhold's knowledge of Sada Yakko most likely originated long before her tours of Russia in 1902 and 1909— from the sensation she created at the International Exhibition in Paris of 1900: The fabulous Sada Yakko blazed for a few months like a comet out of the East, dazzling the French public with the skill, emotion, and theatricality of Japanese dramatic art. Reports of her acting had preceded her to Paris; she was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238 received as the most illustrious living Japanese actress, a kind of Duse of Japan. i Sada Yakko's husband, acting partner and director, Kawakami Otojiro, accompanied her as well as a whole troupe of other actors all of whom were the first to ever visit Europe from Japan. In England, she performed before Queen Victoria and Ellen Terry, the great actress of her day, who made many superlative praises of her acting. Most of all they were awed by her dramatic intensity, which she displayed particularly in her death scenes; one of her most famous was in the Dame aux camélias, which was translated into Japanese for her. After her huge success in Paris, she hoped to return to Japan with the million francs she had earned to build a modem theater where the works of Corneille, Moliere, Hugo, Shakespeare and other European writers' works could be performed. Despite the fact that Sada Yakko was Europe's introduction to Japanese theater, Leonard Pronko astutely points out that Sada Yakko and Kawakami were anything but classical Japanese actors. Sada, in fact, had never been on the stage in Japan, and her acting in the West had come about as an accident. In Japan, Sada Yakko had been a geisha before her marriage to Kawakami. She had therefore received training in the traditional Japanese arts and was an accomplished dancer. Her husband, an unsuccessful politician, had turned to the theater and achieved a certain amount of fame as a teacher of acting. In 1898 he and his troupe had decided to make a study tour of the world. They did not intend to perform, hut simply to study Western theater on its home ground in order to "modernize" the theater in Japan. When they arrived in San Francisco, an impresario asked them to perform. At first Kawakami was hesitant, but ^Leonard Pronko, Theater East and West—Perspectives Toward a Total Theater (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1967): p. 120. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239 the impresario was so insistent, and the offer so remunerative, that he finally agreed.^ Furthermore, in Japan, women were not allowed on the stage and so all the roles in Kawakami's troupe were played by men. Sada's debut happened by chance when the "heroine" of the play was too ill to perform and Sada offered to take his place. Surprisingly, Kawakami agreed "and the performance turned into a personal triumph for the diminutive woman. She was called back for ten curtain calls."^ Because they were the first Japanese actors to perform in Europe and abroad, Kawakami and Sada Yakko "revealed to Western audiences an actual example of the forcefiil, emotional, intensely “realistic" theater most Westerners had only read about. While of course the term "realistic" is extremely fluid, particularly as it reflects the technology, tastes and perceptions of a particular era, what both critics and audiences of the time seem to have grasped was that "the truth embodied in the Japanese productions was not a lifelike but an artistic truth, a transposition of life into a more theatrical key, both dreamlike and true." With its specific and heightened use of music, rhythm, movement gesture, and facial expressions, clearly the transmission to the audience of internal emotions and thoughts by these external means signified the conveyance of something true in life but did not necessarily duplicate life. 2ibid., p. 121-122. 3ibid„ p. 122. % id., p. 123. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240 Sada Yakko returned to Europe in 1908 to similar exeitement and acelaim, though artistieally it already had moved further toward exploration of more symbolic, Symbolist and what would come to be known as Expressionist theater. Rather than being merely new and exotic, Japanese and other non-Naturalistic forms of theater began to be appreciated not just for their exoticism but for their potential for creating a new theatrical truth. Beyond acclaim in her craft, what was Meyerhold's interest in Sada Yakko and Japanese theater? This further begs the question, which form of Japanese theater; many would simply raise the choice of either Kabuki or Noh. However, it is precisely Sada Yakko and her husband Kawakami Otojiro who expanded the realm of Japanese theater and began a movement called shinpa, literally "new school." Kawakami successfully adapted Western plays such as Othello, Hamlet and The Count o f Monte Cristo to Japanese settings. He also introduced Maeterlinck and Sardou to Japanese audiences. James Brandon, a renowned specialist of Asian theater, describes the new genre of shinpa as one which developed as the theater of the half-Westemized, half-traditional urban middle class that rose to prominence during the Meiji era. It was a transitional theater whose rationale for existence was the rejection of "old" values. Due to Sada, the 1629 law banning women from the public stage was repealed.^ ^James R. Brandon. The Cambridge Guide to the Asian Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993): p. 153. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241 So it is interesting to note that the "Kabuki" which influenced Meyerhold was probably not entirely pure Kabuki but a genre in its transitional and experimental phase. Sada Yakko and Otojiro were as interested in modernizing their own theater's traditions as Meyerhold was, more interestingly while Yakko and Otojiro were looking West and Meyerhold was looking East, both were looking at the theater of Shakespeare as one of the means for doing so. Just as the Japanese pair was trying to apply a blend of Western and Kabuki methods to staging Shakespeare, Meyerhold, particularly with Bubus was employing the lessons from Kabuki as well as Elizabethan Theater in order to create the mis-en-scene as well as a different style of acting. In addition, Kawakami Otojiro and Sada Yakko offer an interesting parallel as a creative partnership to Meyerhold and Raikh as they also adapted plays in a manner that often stirred up controversy. Kawakami was criticized for “ruining” classic plays and taking liberties with them: The early, localized adaptations of Shakespeare done in Kabuki style were immediately ridiculed as being vulgar distortions of the works of a foreign dramatic genius. Tsubouchi Shoyo expressed typical scholarly disdain of adaptations in general when he wrote of the shinpa version of Othello in 1903 that Kawakami Otojiro had “unnecessarily changed a historical drama \jidaimono] into not merely a domestic [sewa] but a crude domestic [kizewa] comedy thereby destroying the original’s magnificent nature.”^ ® James R. BraMon, “Kabuki and Shakespeare”, p. 37. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242 Meyerhold’s use of Kabuki was thus similar. He seemed to make an ad-hoc mixture of several genres of Japanese theater, mostly but not exclusively Kabuki, as a medium "halfway between realism and stylization" ^ and thus as a "meeting point for the theaters of East and West."* Meyerhold seemed particularly interested in the hanamichi or bridge from the back of the audience to the stage, the intoned dialogue, the stylized movements often loosely referred to as "dance," the elongated pauses in the dialogue, the heightened pauses or "miye poses," visual and vocal characterization based on type, dramatic costuming, and the unique use of music and sound effect to heighten the mood and the attention of the audience to the events on stage. Meyerhold wanted to update the European, bourgeois melodrama and to find other means to reach the audience by nonverbal means. However, Meyerhold's interest in Japanese theater long preceded Bubus; since well before the Revolution during his Petersburg period. In these earlier pieces we see the early partial influence of Kabuki, which would become more fully utilized in Bubus. Meyerhold’s use in Bubus' of rhythmic movement and intoned dialogue barkened back to his productions of both The Death o f Tintagiles (1906) and in Andreev's Life o f Man (1907), "he worked out significant ritual gestures in slow tempo, carefully harmonized with the set and musical background, a kind of rhythmic bas- ^Pronko., p. 138. *ibid. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243 relief. Central to the director's notebooks were sketches in which Meyerhold fixed the actors' harmonious poses in relation to each other for each of their speeches."® Furthermore, he had his actors "speaking lines in a rhythmic monotone (which Meyerhold reused in Ibsen's Hedda Gabier), or the melodramatic communication of emotion through background choral music," what Hoover refers to as "the substitution of a musical for a conversational tone in the lines." Meyerhold's article on Wagner's Tristan and Isolde (1909) again speaks of Japanese theater. "To express a great deal with very little-this is the essential thing...The Japanese draw a single twig in blossom and this is a whole spring. We draw a whole spring without making even a twig!"*^ Furthermore, in preparation for this production, which opened at the Mariinsky Theater on October 30,1909 as well as his article about it, Meyerhold did extensive research in German, particularly pertaining to the most current trends in theater innovation. In addition to reading Wagner, he also read Adolph Appia's work (in German) as as well as Georg Fuchs' fresh ideas on breaking the wall between the stage and the audience and destroying the "illusion of the spectator." (Fuchs organized his Kuntslertheater in 1908 on these principles.) But the most interesting item in ®Hoover, Conscious Theater, p. 26. îOibid, p. 27 Ihbid., p. 24-25; Rudnitsky, p. 56 (for rhythm o f actions in this). 12 Meyerhold Articles, p. 160; pp. 148-149. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244 Meyerhold's bibliography is a book by A. Fischer, an illustrated history of the development of Japanese theatrical art from 1901.’3 In his book On Theater (1913) Meyerhold breaks with naturalism and instead he proposed the principle of theater as uslovnyi. "Meyerhold then filled in the meaning of uslovnyi as form, not content: it pre-supposes an audience to complete in imagination what is merely suggested by the production. "14 "Uslovnyi" theater never lets the audience forget that there is an actor who is acting before an audience on a stage. Kabuki would be an obvious choice as form in contradistinction to naturalism. In his production of Blok's play The Fairground Booth {Balaganchik ) Meyerhold first worked with two key concepts: the "forestage" (thrust or apron stage) and the "mask," as he called them in the preface to On Theater. “The concept of the apron stage means direct contact with the audience and the renewal of theater technique associated with arena staging. The concept of the mask relates to the dichotomy between the actor and his role, his skill in "showing" the character he plays; this concept is best known today under Brecht's term “alienation.” The two ideas together— apron stage or arena staging, and the mask, or alienation-amount to what is today understood by "theatricalism," as opposed to realism."i^ These two key elements seem to be rooted in Meyerhold's strong interest in Japanese theater at the time. The i^ibid., Volume I, p. 333. l^Hoover, Conscious Theater, p. 49. iSibid., p. 47. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245 hanamichi or flower path clearly is similar to Meyerhold’s placing the actor where audience could see him, as “he was moved forward toward the audience, who would see him not only in close-up but also in the round." Furthermore, Meyerhold had the stage built out over the orchestra pit which concentrated attention on the actor alone, standing outside the proscenium frame in close contact with the audience. Further deliberately theatrical elements reminiscent of Kabuki were added by Meyerhold in Don Juan, where the stage assistants {cjiyrn npocueHnyMâ) "serve the stage illusion, supplying needed properties and facilitating scene change, and at the same time teasingly to test its credibility"!^ like the men in black in Kabuki. Hoover points out in Blok's Nezknakomka, Meyerhold's staging of 1914 that a device much like Kabuki also was used: However, another device of exposing the illusion which Meyerhold had used in The Unknown Lady has not yet achieved wide acceptance in Western theater. This was the continued presence of stage assistants in half mask and tights during the performance, as in Kabuki theater: the stage assistants represented the falling of a star by extinguishing a long, lighted bamboo pole like a torch in water or showed a falling snow by covering a character with a veil.!^ Meyerhold in his article "Movement on Stage"*® speaks of using a fundamental pose or attitude (pucyHOK or outline), which would summarize i^ibid., p. 58. !^ibid., p. 56. !«ibid., p. 88. !®(1, 1914, p. 62) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246 a character's whole personality or state of mind.^o In 1914, Meyerhold had all his students render entire plays of Shakespeare in pantomime as practice. In the same year Meyerhold's general statements about other older acting traditions bear out his exploration in the Japanese theater both during this time and later on: "The actor of the new theater must establish an entire canon of technical devices such as he will discover by studying principles of acting in truly theatrical eras of the past.''^' In "The Actor of the Future", Meyerhold's lecture of June 12,1922 as reported in Ermitazh, he returned to his earlier idea of the previous decade in his discussion of stylized poses reminiscent of Japanese miye poses but described in the terminology of ballet. He spoke of the need for the actor to cultivate "consciousness of his silhouette in the audience's eyes" he refers to this as a "rakursi" (raccourcu, or pose from a side view.p^ Marjorie Hoover helpfully explains "the ballet term raccourci seems to imply a ballet pose, and ballet was still included in the workshop curriculum for 1920."^^ However, Meyerhold continued to use this term in his director's notes and directions to his actors well into the Soviet period, and is particularly relevant in the production of Bubus. Meyerhold himself, in his explanatory program to the audience mentions that many things in the Bubus production are adapted from Japanese theater. Obviously in this short program he could not explain the ^®Hoover, Conscious Theater, p. 82. 21ibid., p. 84. ^^ibid., p. 102. ^^ibid.Note: It is important to note that Meyerhold’s use o f raccourci is not in the same manner as the French do in ballet which literally means “shortened” which refers to a position in which the thigh is raised, with the knee bent so that the pointed toe rests on the side o f the knee (also called “retire.” Meyerhold uses it to mean a more generalized sense of a pose from a side view almost in silhouette. Dr. Sharon Camicke pointed out to me that Meyerhold’s use differs from generalized ballet terminology. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247 principles of Kabuki as well as explain how he was adapting them to a Soviet play of 1925. Nonetheless, an examination of the clear-cut devices of Japanese theater proves Meyerhold's claims to be both truthful and boldly innovative. Bubus: A Soviet Kabuki In his discursive writings, his direction to his actors, and to his audience in an explanatory program, Meyerhold explained his conception for the mis-en-scene for his production of Bubus as being largely derived from and based upon Asian, and especially Japanese, theater. A thorough examination of Meyerhold's goals for applying the devices of Asian theater, particularly Japanese Kabuki, to this production helps us to better understand this misunderstood and largely neglected masterpiece of Meyerhold's oeuvre. Although Meyerhold's interest in Japanese theater dated back to an earlier decade, as were his forays into working with it at least piecemeal, with Bubus, Meyerhold attempted a full-seale experiment at creating his own analogous system based upon Kabuki. Meyerhold's version of Kabuki was much like his adaptations of classical plays, an artistic text, a theatrical style or movement; the goal was not to duplicate but rather to synthesize something new and his own— renovate something old, rework it into something new and original: "We do not try to re-create earlier forms of theater (the exact reproduction of an earlier period is the business of Evreinov's "Starinnyi" Theater.) This is the difference between reproducing the past and freely rebuilding a new theater based on study of the past and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248 selection from With Bubus, Meyerhold wanted to return to a more deliberately theatrical {uslovnyi) type of theater and certainly Kabuki offered fertile ground for experimentation. "Meyerhold insisted that the audience too must remain conscious of the illusion: "The new spectator [...] is in my opinion quite capable of being freed from the hypnosis of illusion, An in- depth examination of the devices of Japanese theater when compared with those adapted and applied to Bubus proves Meyerhold's claims to be truthful, boldly innovative and enlightening. I will not discuss Meyerhold's longstanding interest in Kabuki nor his earlier attempts to work with it but will examine how Meyerhold adapted Kabuki-derived devices in a more unified manner, particularly in the use of music, theatrical space and stage design, as well as a new method of acting developed for this production. In the program for Bubus, Meyerhold claims that music should not merely serve as a "static background" where its elaborate musical score plays an "auxiliary function, not as a helper who from time to time performs, but as a tour guide or as an illu strato r. "26 "The music is almost constantly intermingled with the lines of dialog becoming a unique recitative" or like "the ancient Chinese theater in which the orchestra acts as a stimulus, whipping up the audience to heightened attention. "22 He further adds "the pianist's presence on-stage performing a score drafted from the interplay of Chopin and Lizst is a visible part of the construction and reminder to the 2'*Quoted in Maijorie L. Hoover. Meyerhold-The Art o f Conscious Theater (Amherst: University o f Massachusetts Press, 1974): 84. 25 V.E Meierkhol’d. S ta t’i, P is ’ ma. Rechi, Besedy. Vol. II 1917-1939. (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1968): p. 43. 26v.E. Meierkhol’d, U chitel’ Bubus.V. ¥eàoxQS,oà. (Moscow: Izdaniia teatra im. Meierkhol’da, 1925): p.6. 22lbid. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249 audience that the music is not there like there was someone in the next room practicing exercises on the piano hut more like an aesthetic com ponent. Meyerhold explained the inspiration of music in Bubus as stemming from Asian theater: . . .Haiua MysbiKB HMeex aanaMy— kbk flepwaxb aan b HanpnweHMM.29 [... jpewnccepbi oTaponnoHOKoro n CTapoKMTBMcKoro Teaxpa. Ohm xowe noHMManM, mxo apMxenio, ec/iM oh H eM H OW KO aeapeivian, nywHO, Mxo6bi O H H O M H O W K O npMnoflHnncn, MXo6bi oh ne OMenb ycnoKOM/icn b apMxenbHOM aane. I/I ohm xowe 6wnM OH O H b XM Xpbie. y H M X OpKOCXp B O O BpSMfl W B pM X . HaflO, H e HBAO—BOB B pSM B OpKBCXp MBpMX BO BpOMH cneKxaK/m.^® [... ]B o x MU M 6 e p 8 M 3XM ppMBMU c x a p o K M x a R c K o ro M n n o H C K o ro x e a x p o B , bboamm M y a u K y , mam x o , mxo C 0 3 A a e X H 6H X 0 BpOAO M enOAeKnaM BUM M .31 .. .our music has a task—to hold the auditorium’s attention. [. .. ] the directors of ancient Japanese and Chinese theaters also understood that if the audience member has dosed off he needs to be woken up a hit so that he does not get too comfortable in his seat. They also were quite clever. Their orchestra was churning the whole time. Necessary or not the orchestra was churning during the entire performance. [...] Thus, we are taking these very devices from the ancient Chinese and Japanese theaters. We are bringing in music or rather that which creates something like the musical accompaniment to a poetry recitation. Just as Bubus used music throughout, "a Kabuki performance is accompanied by music from the moment the curtain is opened; and it continues throughout the play, whenever an actor enters or leaves the stage, and during an action, until the curtain is drawn. The music is stopped only ^®Ibid, pp. 6-7. Meierkhol’d. Stat’i, II, p. 85. 3^ibid., p. 80. 3*ibid. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250 when a greater stage effect is achieved by a break. "Unlike Western theater music. Kabuki music gives no sense of interruption, or of one element dominating the other, for all three elements— acting, narration, music-are entirely integrated. "33 Paul Claudel characterized the use of music by Japanese theater as "music as used by a dramatist and not by a musician, attempting not to create a sonorous tableau, but to jolt and move our emotions by purely rhythmic and sonorous means, more direct and more brutal than words."34 Claudel added that "unlike the music used in Western theater, it does not form a sharp contrast to the spoken word; it belongs to the same order of experience. Thus, Kabuki music may support, strengthen, punctuate, comment upon the situations shown in the drama without drawing attention to itself. "3 3 There are several types of music used in Kabuki. Background or incidental music like that in Western theatre is provided by musicians in the geza (the "music" room on stage-right). "The music from the geza is generally employed to create a mood, to state in introductory fashion the nature of the scene to follow, and to accompany scenes performed in pantomime. In this function, the use of geza music resembles that of the soundtrack music of the film or that of the early melodrame."^^ The music from the geza is thus the most constant or continuous in Kabuki, interrupted 32Yonezo Hamamura,Takashi Sugawara, Jungi Kinoshita, Hiroshi Minami, Kabuki (Tokyo: Kenkyusha Ltd., 1956): p. 34. 33pronko, p. 153. 34Quoted in ibid., p. 153. 35ibid., p. 154. ^^Earle Ernst, The Kabukl Theatre (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956): p. 120. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251 only for marked effect. 3 ? Similarly, the presence of Lev Amstam in an elevated bandshell playing an elaborate, rare Becbstein piano running through a complex score which alternated between Chopin and Lizst was employed for Bubus. Each of the three acts contained no less than fifteen pieces either in exerpts or their entirety (Act III used sixteen).^» The interruptions of the score consisted of periodic jazz numbers from Valentin Pamok's jazz band, which silenced this piano continuo. Meyerhold instructed Amstam to hyperbolize the musical dynamics of the pieces played, i.e. making the piano extremely quiet (pianissimo) and the forte extremely loud (fortissimo). The actors were instmcted to take their cue, to tailor their emotional intensity to the dynamics of the music. Meyerhold also wanted to effect the audience directly with the music: 3&ecb MysbiKa noMTki 6ecnpepbiBHo BMeuiaeTcn, sAecb cnoBecHwR M arepuan cTaHOBi/iTcn cBoeoôpasHbiM peMMTaTMBOM, CB06ojaHNM KBK y HpoKe^beBa ("MrpOK”), TO T 3 K , K 3 K B cTapo-KMTaf*icKOM x e a rp e , m e opK eorp «B/ineTcn CTMMynoM noflCTernBaHun api/ixenfi k HanpnweHHOMy BHUMaHntc.^’ Here music is intermingled with the literary material almost without cessation becoming a type of unique recitative, free as in Prokofiev’s [opera] The Gambler in the same way as it did in the ancient Chinese theater when the orchestra served as a stimulus to whip up the audience to heightened attention. Music in Kabuki is used to provide rhythmic as well as melodic emphasis. The sound of clappers, hyoshigi, in between the accompanying music, quickens its tempo and rises to a crescendo to announce the beginning o f the ^^Hamamura, p. 7. ^^see Appendix 1. ^^Meierkhol’ d,. Uchitel' Bubus, p. 6. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252 play and suddenly "directs the attention of the audience to the stage."'^® Thus, the piano in Bubus would affect both the actors' performance and the audience's response, rather like the hyoshigi did in Kabuki. Another sonorous effect of Kabuki is provided by the samisen, a typical Japanese stringed instrument'** which some Westerners have described as sounding like the "gasping of a strangled rooster"'*^ but by members of its own culture has been likened to "the sighs and wails of the people"'*^ and serves this function within the Kabuki performance. Rather than using this alien sound, Meyerhold chose to have the piano fulfill this function also: J lM C T 1 / 1 U JoneH aatoT opraHi/iaaunei?! aayK O B to HeobxonnMoe nono/iHeHne b KOHCTpyKui/iK), 6ea KOTopoM nocTaHOBiawK He MucnMT BoaMowHbiM flarb bcio nonnoTy accouwauwB b aroM ycTpeM /ieH M H C B oeivi k oco6oM nena/iMpoBKe b nene nM C K peaM T M poB aH w a BpenHoR yT O H eH H O cT M norn6aiomero b cbgbm paanow eH M W K n ac ca A * Lizst and Chopin give organization to the sounds are a necessary addition to the construction, without which the director could not even imagine the possibility to realize the subtle associations in his striving to realize the particular dynamics in the business of discrediting the harmful depths of a class perishing in its own decay. Meyerhold used the music of Chopin and Lizst as the sounds of a dying class much as the samisen resembled the wails of the people; both evoke an associative group response (via music) to the events at hand in the '***Hamamura, p. 2. '**ibid., p. 3. '*2ibid, p. 4. '*^ibid. This non-euphonic music has its origins in the way Buddhist scriptures were read in the past. "This narrative singing o f ancient times developed into various classes o f narrative ballad in the medeival period, and was brought to perfection in more recent times by the plebeian class. ^‘ ^Meierkhol'd,. Uchitel' Bubus, p. 10. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253 performance. These sounds were more familiar and evocative to a Russian audience. In this way, the music of Chopin and Lizst as performed by the on stage pianist folds and fulfills the functions of the geza, the hyoshigi, and the samisen', not a stretch if we consider that a piano is both a string instrument as well as a percussive one. The choho is a type of narrative, which also comments on the action on stage; all Kabuki plays include some type of narration. The chobo consists of both words and music; "the narration sets the scene, comments on the aetion of the play, moralizes about it, and in doing so guides and gives voice to the sentiments of the a u d ien ce ."T h e chobo has its individual attitude toward the characters in the play and their actions, approving this one, censuring that, and throughout reacting intellectually and emotionally from a frame of reference in common with that held by the audience."'*^ They are neither a part of nor participants in the action on stage. However, in Meyerhold's production, rather than cortibine the narration with text in music form, he combined it with stdge design and technology. To fulfill this commentative function, Meyerhold employed a screen suspended over both sides of the stage, which flashed citations from Lenin, which either directly or indirectly commented upon the action occurring on stage. Much like the chobo, these Lenin citations added wry, ironic commentary and were often fairly comic. A couple of examples ate as follows: In Act II when Tea, the spoiled and rather sexually forward daughter of Baaze exits the following citation flashed: p. 117. 46ibid. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254 B o6mecTBe, ocHoeaHHOM Ha BJiacxii flener, ne Mower 6wTb pea^bHoü cBo6oflbi. BypwyaanaB ny&nwKa TpeSyer npocTMTyuHM B Bwae flonojiHeHMB k "CBBTO W y” C L ieH M M eC K O M y M C K yC C TB y.47 In a society founded on the power of money there cannot be real freedom. The bourgeois public demands the prostitution of “holy” stage art. Also in Act 1 1 the Minister of Fine Arts and the Minister at Large {Eea nopT(pe/ift) are discussing his lack of an official area of specialization. In addition to his illustrious title, he promises to briefly expound upon his views on the interrelation between politics and art. As one would expect he shows himself to be an utter fool. The following citation flashed: "TaKoi?i B3Û0P Mor CKaaaxb TonbKo napnaivieHTCKMPi KpexHH. "(“Such nonsense could only be said by a parliamentary cretin.”)" * * Using Lenin in this manner was clearly not acceptable. The theater received secret notification from the Moscow Department of Publie Education (MockobckO i Orjaen Hapoanoro OdpaaoBBHkifi) dated February 25,1925 and soon after opening, Meyerhold was forced to remove his politically suspect commentary as well as the make-up for the Minister of Fine Arts. Meyerhold clearly applied principles of Japanese stage design to Bubus. Meyerhold adapted key elements of Japanese set design, including the obligatory one door and one window, the same ones over which he suspended the small screens to project the Lenin citations mentioned previously. Indeed the door and the window are requisite stage elements 4’RGALI f. 963, op. 1, ed. khr. 429. 4*ibid.. 49RGALI f. 963, op. Led. khr. 430. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255 particularly in the Noh drama hut also may be used in some Kabuki adaptations. Meyerhold himself made this connection: Ha npocueHMyMe cneaa n cnpaaa b npwHuwne nnoHOKoro M CTapo-KMTaiTicKoro Teajpa noiviemeHbi; cneea rteepb, oripasa okho. ifsepb v \ okho b reMeHi/ie sceM nbecw BBOAMTca B flecTBue TOjibKO no oflHOMy paay: b flBepb BXO flM T (DePiepBapw, b okho MCMeaaer CTe<j»Ka. Man O K H O M M Hajd aaepwo aaa Hehonbwwx SKpana fljin HaanMcem^o According to the principles of Japanese and ancient Chinese theater, to the left and right of the proscenium are placed a door to the left and window to the right. The door and the window in the course of the entire play are eaeh only used once: Feiervari enters from the door and Steflca disappears though the window. Above the window and door there are two small screens for eitations. Similarly, Bubus borrowed Kabuki's principle of stage decoration which indicates or suggests a place rather than represents it.^' A common example is the use of a simple prop whose key significance lies in its color: a floor cloth made of thin material and loosely placed on the stage can be used to represent snow (white), earth (grey), or water (blue), or as Meyerhold suggests blood might he suggested with red: "Korna nnoHeu xoMex noKaaaTb m to -to raKoe KpoBaBoe, oh npwHocwT m pacKnanbiBaeT na cuene KycoK KpacHoR MarepMH, c noMombfo KOTopom m BwawaaeT HywHyto accouHauHio." (“When the Japanese want to show something bloody, they bring out and unfold a piece of red cloth. This helps to summon the necessary asso ciatio n . ”)^2 Similarly, in Bubus elements of set decor serve not only a decorative function but also a symbolic function much like a ^*^Meierkhord,. Uchitel' Bubus, p. 11. Ernst, p. 127. Meierkhol’d. S tat’i, II, p. 91. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256 tree might symbolize an entire forest in Kabuki. In Bubus, a luxurious green carpet with bright pomegranate-red edging spread across the entire stage was used to represent the decadent culture of Europe in decline: Ann 6eciuyMHbix uBMweHMü aKTepoB, KOTopbiM nana TpyflHan aana^a coMeTBTb cbom cnoaa n flBHweHun c w iyabiK O i?!, Mepea bokj cuewy paaocxnaH aeneHW# Kosep, OKaHTOBBHHwR xen/ibiM rpeHaxoM. Box o6cxaHOBKa, Koxopan xaK cooxsexcxByex ynano4HMecKoM Kyjibxype ri/i6H ym eC *t EBponbi.^^ A large green carpet with a deep pomegranate border was spread across the entire stage. This was to make the movements of the actors soundless. They already bad the difficult task of making their words and movement correspond to the music. All of this signifies the degraded culture of a declining Europe. The simultaneous setting which shows both the interior and exterior of a structure is another hallmark of Kabuki as is "the rapid, startling revelation or change of its stage effects. "The revolving stage is also used to shift the point of view of the audience for purely spectacular effects rather than to show an actual change of place."^^ Bubus simultaneously showed both the inside and outside of rooms as well as rapidly rotating and changing of scenes, particularly in Act II which utilized five diflèrent rooms. Meyerhold cited the Japanese as his source for this:^^ UeHxpanbHan MenonpaMa, b KoxopoR npoxexaex cuena paao&nayeHMa (Bya-Konexx-By6yc), MHcueHnpoBaHa b npneiviax cxapo-nnoHOKoro xeaxpa, m e , BO-nepBbix, noKasaHO cMeuieHMe b oahom nnane interieur'a n exterieur'a [sic] m m e nrpa aKxepoB Ha Bpewn enanaex b ^^Meierkhol’d. Uchitel' Bubus, p .11. ^'*Emst, p. 148. 55ibid., p. 151. ^^Meierkhol'd,. Uchitel' Bubus, p. 10. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257 HaMepeHHyio yrnpoBKy Kpoeasux bhohckhx TpareawA. SAecb 3/ieMeHTbi BbipeaioTCB b aemcTBwe b bma6 CBeTBmef*icB, peKAaMu TM nwyHom aab 6oAbuinx ctoamu 3 a n a f la m AwepuKM, ho aAeKTpi/mecKiie xpiO K M He A B A A IO TC fl aC T M M eC K I/IM <|)eH O M eH O M , a flaHbl A A A yC H A B H M A A M H aM M K M pa3BepTblBaiOmeroCA Ha RAOmaAKe M eAOApaM M M ecKoro A eM cTSM A ^.. The central melodrama in which the unmasking of Bua- Kollett/Bubus occurs is an adaptation of the devices from the ancient Japanese theater where (first of all) the interior and exterior of a room are shown simultaneously at the time when the acting begins to resemble that of bloody Japanese tragedies. Elements typical of large capitals of the West and America such as lit advertisements break into the aetion, but the electrical components are not included as aesthetic phenomenon but to strengthen the melodramatic dynamics of the action unfolding on the stage. Meyerhold's most obviously analogous adaptation from Kabuki was his use of a bamboo curtain in the same way that a curtain on metal rings is used in Kabuki, for visual and sound purposes: He says, "The set is surrounded with Indian bamboo [poles] which are suspended from copper rings in front of the entrances and exits of the characters. The rattling of the bamboo is a necessary addition to the tapping of the Bechstein k ey b o ard . In Kabuki, at the back of the runway there is a door covered by a curtain whose metal rings hang on a metal rod. "Before eaeh character enters, the screeching of the rings on the rod tells the audience that someone of importance is about to emerge; almost as one body, the public turns to the rear, eagerly anticipating the dazzling appearance of some monstrous or pathetic figure. For the Kabuki habitué, the grating sound of the curtain opening becomes so closely identified with the pleasure of a major p. 11. 58jbid., p. 10. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258 hanamichi scene that the sound itself is a pleasing sensation.M eyerhold, no doubt, felt that the clicking of bamboo not only suited the piano accompaniment better than screeching metal but his public's taste as well. Meyerhold developed a new method of acting for Bubus, "pre acting" (pred-igra)^^, by which an actor would respond with facial expressions and gestures to an event, another character's actions or words before he himself would say his lines; thus the actor would reveal something of his internal state without speaking a word. He described it thus: H bao HaSpacbiBaTbcn He na kirpy, a Aonbiue npeGueaTb b npoBepwM Hrpbi, HaxoflHXb ycnaay b npeflbHrpe. AnoncKaa ujKona, HanpMMep, HHTepecyeTCfl ne wrpoR, a noflxoflOM K Hem. Korfla anoHCKwR aKxëp pacnapweaex ce6e na cuene wmbox, exo mnxepecyex ne axox MOMenx, a npeauiecxByiomMe, kbk noflroxoBMXb k axoMy ny6nnKy.^‘ One should not focus on the aeting but on the further examination of the acting to find the joy in the predigra. The Japanese school, for example, was interested not in the acting but in the preparation for it. The moment when the Japanese actor rubs his stomach on stage does not interest him but the one immediately preeeding it and how he prepares the audienee for it. Meyerhold, in addition to the great actor Lensky's portrayal of Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing, cited the basis for predigra in ancient Japanese and Chinese theater: npeflmrpa xaK n oaroxoB n n ex api/ixenn k Bocnpi/iHnxHK) cueHi/mecKoro nonoweHHn, mxo apwxenb Bce noapoôHocxM ^^Pronko, p. 144. ^^Reprinted in Meyerhold's Stati, Rechi, Besedy, Pis'tna, p. 93-94. It is the only part o f the explanatory program which is included. Otherwise this is chapter four of V. MeJerxol;d, V . Uchitel' Bubus. red. V. Fedorov, (Moskva: Izdaniq teatra im. Mejerxol'da, 1925). RGALI f. 998,op. 1, ed khr. 171,1., 3. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 259 TaKOBoro no/iyMaer co cueHu b xaKOM npopaGoxaHHowi BM fle, M To 6My, fl/ia ncBoeHna cMuc/ia, BJiomeHHoro b cueny, He npMxoawTca jpaxHTb H W K aK M X ycwnwR. Flpw eivi axox 6bin Ma/iioô/ieHHbiM b cxapo-flnoHCKOM m cxapo-KMxai?iCKOM x e a x p a x . ^ 2 Predigra prepares the audience for understanding the events occurring on the stage in that the viewer receives all the relevant details from the stage in a form already prepared for him so that he can assimilate the idea in the scene and does not have to expend any effort himself. This device was a favorite of the ancient Japanese and ancient Chinese theaters. What seemed to capture Meyerhold's interest was not the beauty of Kabuki but rather this ability to externalize a character's emotions or state of mind: AKxep-xpn6yH cxbbhx nepea co6oM aaaaMy— pasBMBaxb C B O M cueHMMecKMe aeRcxBMB He B xoM nnane, ra e cueHMHecKwe noaomenMn "KpacwBwm" CBoe# xeaxpajibHocxbK), ho b xom nnane, ra e oh, kok XMpypr, BCKpusaex BHypennocxM.^^ The actor-tribune assigns himself the task of developing his actions on stage not so that they [his actions on the stage] are “beautiful” in their theatricality but more like those of a surgeon who exposes that which is happening inside. Kabuki is able to lay bear what is on the inside because "movement is a corollary of meaning and emotion, and emotion is always reflected visually. "^4 Kabuki converts words into gestures. Rather than emphasizing movement, it stresses the grace and dynamic tension of poses; Kabuki has been described as moving from pose to pose."^^ Meyerhold spent months in rehearsal developing a slow, non- naturalistic, rhythmic style of movement particular to each character yet at ^^Meierkhol'd,. Uchitel’Bubus, ç. 15. ^Pronko, p. 148. 65ibid„ p. 146. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260 the same time unified as a harmonious whole. Meyerhold explained this at his public speeches about Bubus: [... ] K aw flb iC * ! wecT 6bin oTMeKBHeH. A 6yay npocnTb TOBapM mePi cTporo oTHocnTbcn k Bbi6opy wecTMKynauMW, xaK K B K W eCTbt BBnniOTCfl X aK M M M we onpeflennTenbHbiMM, kbk paKypcbi, kbk koctiom.^^ [... ] every gesture was executed precisely. I am going to ask my comrades to pay strict attention to the choice of gestures in that each of them is as particular as a silhouette or a costume. He also gave his actors even more precise instructions during their rehearsals: rio BpeMeHBM flonwHa 6wTb aaflepwKa, ecnpi He 6ynex sanepwKi/i b Bi/ine mpimpimbckoP ) wrpw, to cpasy oGHapywaxcn 6enbie hmtkm peweccypw, Koxopwx ny&nwKa He aawexHT ecnw ona CKOHueHxppipyer cBoe BH H M aH kie Ha KpynnoPl M M W iH H ecK oPl wrpe aKxepa, Koraa ona Gyaex cneflMTb He aa nepexonaMM, a aa rnaaaMH.^^ From time to time there must be a pause. If there will not be a pause in the acting then suddenly the white threads of the director will be revealed. The public will not notice these if it is concentrating its attention on the intense work of the actor, not his movement but his eyes. Furthermore, Meyerhold understood that the basis of the Kabuki actor's technique is dance. Kabuki dance's very essence lies in its gestures, each of which holds a specific meaning. Particularly in Meyerhold’s use of the French term for outline or profile "recourcu" seems particularly similar to the Kabuki miye: "KawnwPi nonwen noKaaaxb cbokj # r y p y b paKypcax (“Every one must demonstrate his figure in outline.”)^* Meyerhold saw the ^ Meierxol'd. Stat'i, II, p. 88. 67 RGALI f. 998, op. l,ed khr. 171,1 . 2. 6*ibid. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261 importance of the connection between stylized movement and dance. His directions to his actors are in terms of dance. Meyerhold explained while rehearsing with his actors in Bubus: npnëM, T8K CKaaaTb «aaHcaHTHW%»aTO He anam/iT: ne yroflHo, JIM npoTaHuoBaTb non aeyKM JlMCja. Mu nonwHu 6wTb aanflTU, nocTpoeHMeM xapaKTepoB, noxoflOK, ynoeHMeM npenbMrpoPi, nonwHu BUBBJinjb cawue Kopna M 6T K M X *pa3, MrpaTb we cawyK) ^paay, a CBoë aKTepa k H eM MpoHMMecKoe O TH O U JeH M e, mto6 Mpea wiacKy nonasaeMoR <|>M rypu ckbosmjio oTHoiueHMe k neR aKTepa-o6mecTBeHHMKa.69 The device which is called “dance-like” does not mean anything like dancing to the sounds of Lizst. We must be constructing characters’ personalities and the way they move. The joy of predigra must reveal the very roots of distinct phrases, to act out not only that very phrase but the actor’s own ironic relationship to it so that through the mask (of a given figure) the actor-social activist shows through it. He further stressed the connection to Asian theater in his public lecture on Bubus: B Tearpe Boerna HywHo 6ujio conpoBowneHMe iwyauKM , B cerna Hymen 6un Taneu, [ . . . ] m nnoHuu m KMTaRuu XVII B8Ka BHOCBT eiuë nonpaBKy. Mrpa nac MHTepecyeT He K8K TaKOBaa, a nac MHTepecyeT npenbMrpa, m6o to HanpaweHMe, c KOTopuM apMTenb wflëT, Bawnee Toro HanpaweHMB, KOTopoe nonynaeT ca ot ywe nonyneHHoro M paaweBaHHoro.^® In the theater it is always necessary to coordinate the music with dance [...] and the Japanese and the Chinese in the 1 7 * '* century went a step further. Acting as such does not interest us but rather pre-acting, that is to say the tension which keeps the audience in expectation is more important than that tension which has come out of what he has already received and digested. 69RGALI f. 998, op. fe d khr. 171,1. 5. ^^Meierkhol'd. Stat'i, 11, p. 76. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262 Like Meyerhold's eonception and use of "danee" here, Kabuki "dance" has often been described as moving from pose to pose. Miye is one of the features best characterizing the K a b u k i "The miye is an exaggerated pose intended to create a strong impression of the action. At a crucial emotional point in the play, everything stops except for the actor. He does a series of arm, leg and body movements culminating in a very stylized pose and the crossing of either one or both eyes. It focuses the entire audience's attention on the actor's emotions and state of mind. A single actor makes miye in most cases, hut sometimes more than two actors make a miye at the end of an act, so that the stage as a whole presents a p i e t u r e - e f f e c t . ^ 3 Meyerhold's interest particularly in Kahuki acting might seem difficult to understand. However, the slowed tempos of the movement in Bubus, like Kahuki, served primarily to dissect and present in detail a character or characters' response to a given event. Kahuki acting has been described as almost cinematic in its use of time as it allows for "the possibility of an immediate suspension of this time if it is necessary to prolong a certain action or attitude. "The on looking actor in the Kahuki does not 'react' until his reaction is necessary to clarify a dramatic point. "[... ]The audience is given the opportunity to examine in detail the aetion [. .. ] and also the reaction. In the representational theatre the two would have to oeeur almost simultaneously. In the Kahuki, with its visual fragmentation ^iHamamura, p. 6. 74Emst, p. 190. 75ibid.,p. 191. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263 of time, the series of actions, which in real life would occur simultaneously, are held up before the audience separately so that the single impression of each of them is stated unambiguously. The technique employed is similar to that used in the film when a group reaction is broken into smaller units (and actual time is expanded) by the camera's recording a series of close-ups of individual characters reacting to a common stimulus."^^ Similarly Meyerhold directed his actors thus: Coenpaw Tcn ntonu b oyepeuHoR KpywoHOK BMecje. Tyr onflTb opaay no6ewann Bce oflHUHOMKy, KawflbiR no OBoeMy pacTepnnca. noTOM bob, kbk wiarHHTOM, CTBHyTbl B OflHO MeCTO.'^^ People gather in a small circle together. Then suddenly they all run off again, each one scatters. Then they all draw together again to one spot as if by a magnet. As in Kabuki, Meyerhold wanted the play to seem contemporary to his audience but wanted them to be conscious of the fact that it was indeed theater (uslovnyi), a clear mix of the familiar and the theatrical or what he refers to as "plausible unbelievability, " which is similarly reflected in the use of characterization by stock types typical for both melodrama and Kahuki. Meyerhold described it thus: CueHMHecKne nonoweHwa m npaMaTi/iecKi/ie KOH^nwKTw npoTeKatoT b nnocKOCTi/i npaBAonoflo6Horo HeBepoaTna. XapaKTepbi, MHARBMayannaMpoBaHHwe b fle ra n a x , b OCHOBHOM pucyHKe npn6nMHiaioTca k mbckbm COBpeMBHHOCTM^S 76fbid., p. 191. 77RGALI f. 998, op. fe d khr. 171,1. 4-5. ^^Meierkhol'd, Uchitel'; Bubus, p. 6. ^^ibid. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 264 The situations and dramatic conflicts on stage flow along the plane of believable unbelievability. The characters, although individualized in their details are generally drawn to resemble contemporary masks. Kabuki characters evolved and expanded If om a triangular relationship of male, female and comedian initially into eight basic role types''^*’ where "each role type is characterized by particular rules of make-up, gesticulation, and voice placement."*' In addition, strict convention governs not just the costuming of each but even the colors and wigs used for each character type. After years of experimentation with an almost bare stage, minimal costumes and no makeup, with this production Meyerhold applied this deliberate use of costume, make-up, and props in the creation of a character(s). K o c t io m nrpaer rpoMaflHoe SHaMeHne. OûHy MayMMTe/ibHyio noflpo6HocTb a a ë r c b o m x a a w e y a H M n x aBTop. Baaae nocTOBHHo cHUMaer c Hoca n HaaeBaer Ha H O C nencHa, Bennwe nonpaBnner s b w h m k m . 3 ra noflpo6HOCTb aaëT wecr, nywHo ere cymecTBMTb.*^ Costuming has great significance. The author gives one perfect detail from his comments. Baaze constantly removes and dons her pence-nez, forever adjusting the clips for the nose. This detail creates a gesture necessary to create the character. Similarly, he further explained that: B Hauiewi re a rp e . re a rp e accouwarMBHOM, Korna KamnwM w ear G epercn na y u er n n n ro ro , yroGw M3BecTHyio MacKy noKaaarb KaK raKOByio, KaK M M eH H O ary MacKy— n n n KawnoM wacKw nonweH Gbit BwpaGoraH Faubion Bowers. 77îea?re. (N ew York: Hill and Wang, 1952): p. 131. The types are the hero, villain, woman, comedian or foil, old man, old woman, young man, and child. «'ibid., p. 132. «2RGALI f. 998,op. 1, ed. khr.171,1 . 7-8. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265 CBOM CTM Jlb n rp b l." * 3 ”Q kOCTIOMOM BMeCTe npU XO flU T M mecT. KocTKJMy aofiHien cooTBeTCTBOsaTb wecT.”*^ In our theater, a theater of associations, every gesture has the task of demonstrating a well-known mask. For this reason for each mask a special style of acting must be developed. Costuming must coordinate with and suit the gestures. Meyerhold's work with Kabuki exemplified his interest in producing an all-ericompassing emotional, intellectual experience for the audience. Japanese Kabuki as a type of drama, which utilized music as more than accompaniment, intrigued him and he described the ability to regulate such things as the volume or the intensity of a scene in the way the pedals are used on a piano-piano, forte, etc. Clearly long after Meyerhold's work at the Imperial Opera in St. Petersburg, the role which music could play in a production, particularly this one, continued to fascinate him. However, in this case Meyerhold was using music to express what he might have dared not in words. Just as costuming and movement might bring to mind associations in his audience, certainly music could do so as well. As one critic pointed out: [... 1 MyabiKB, B M3BecTHbie MOMeHTbi, roBopuT TO, Merc He Mower cKaaaxb c / i o b o . Ona yrjiy6/ineT cymnocTb npoMcxoflnmero na cuewe. Ona noacnaeT b aononneHMe K cnoBy. . . [... ] At significant moments, music says that which the word cannot. It intensifies the action happening on the stage. It adds clarification to the w ord[s]... ^^Meierkhol'd. Stat;i, II, p. 87. ^^"Ischeznovenie Faiko— komediia namuzyke", Noviizritel; N.I3, 1925. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266 Similarly, Meyerhold did not just bank upon the mood aroused by the notes themselves, but rather, the history of the music’s usage in order to capture yet another level, perhaps an ironic one, for his audience. In other words, he hoped that a Chopin etude would not just bring to mind high culture’s classical music tradition, but also the fact that this piece might have been playing in pretentious restaurants around the capital. Thus the listener would think of the restaurants filled with nouveaux riches rather than a concert hall and an esteemed public: HeKOTopbie Bemn UJoneHa HacTonbKo onoiuneHbi b MocKBe nocTaHOBmnKaMM TaHues, mto Bbipaai/iTenbHocTb noxaôHwx nocTynKOB oSHapywuBaeTcn non avy MyawKy emë peane.*^ A few of Chopin's pieces have been so debased in Moscow by people who stage dances that the expression of obscene acts is demonstrated more intensely and pointedly when they are accompanied by this music. The Japanese Kabuki, with its emotional and dramatic intensity, captured Meyerhold's interest and furthered his work in developing his own version of the Gestamkmstwerk. Just as Kabuki's audience is aware of the symbolic signifieds of the movement or other visual cues such as a character's makeup and costume to communicate everything from social standing, gender, age, and state of mind or mood, in his production of Bubus, Meyerhold wanted to employ these elements of Kabuki to enhance a deeper understanding of character and plot, communicated to the audience wordlessly but not silently from the stage to the audience. However, rather than employ Japanese *^V.P. "Uchitel' Bubus v teatre im. Meierkhol'da— orientirovanuii material' dlia kritikov", Zhizn; iskusstva, #.5,1925. Moscow edition. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 267 "signs," that is music, color symbolism, movement and costume which would create a feeling of something alien or exotic— not at all how a Japanese audience experiences Kabuki, Meyerhold tried to boldly create an analogous system for a Soviet Russian audience of the 1920s using elements which were familiar to them such as the music of Chopin and Lizst, or that of a jazz band. He used elaborate costuming but certainly not kimonos but rather simple everyday garb contrasting sharply with accoutrement of the wealthy: tuxedos, evening gowns, walking sticks and jewelry. Lastly, he knew his audience would prefer jazz and classical music to a sound resembling the gasp of a strangled rooster. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268 Chapter 7: Conclusion Meyerhold’s two produetions of Faiko’s plays and the resultant reactions from the censors reveal that hostile feelings and governmental actions against Meyerhold began much earlier than previously thought. Traditionally, the year 1930 is pointed to as the watershed year when Meyerhold’s unsuccessful efforts to stage Erdman’s The Suicide (CaMoyâuffuaJ had many consequences. Research into the fate of the production of Bubus in 1925 moves this date five years earlier. Volkov says that Meyerhold and Raikh felt that they were surrounded by enemies: “M eiviy I/I ePi K aaan o o b , m to ohm OKpywoHW sparaviM , m a j o w iem ano mm WMTb.” (It seemed to both of them that they were surrounded by enemies who prevented them from living their lives .“)^ Sadly, in hindsight, this seems more realistic than paranoid after two close colleagues (Ilinsky and Faiko) had taken the most intimate details of their domestic life and made public mockery of them by making a film about them. Volkov also noted that the couple became less accessible than they had previously been. Clearly, Faiko and Ilinsky wounded them both personally and professionally. It cannot also he ignored as sadly prophetic of the fate that would befall Meyerhold and his wife less than fifteen years later. Bubus was a useful but painful lesson for Meyerhold. In the artistic realm, the experiments in the production came to fruition and brought * Volkov, Teatral’ nye Vechera, p. 286. ^ Volkov, Teatral’ nye Vechera, p. 286. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269 success: he took several of the devices from the production, modified them, and went on to produce some of theater history’s most famous productions, most notably his famous Inspector General (1925-26,) considered to be his masterpiece, and in which Raikh finally was acknowledged as having given a truly great performance. Subsequently, he also selected playwrights with whom he had better relations and greater artistic success, such as with Nikolai Erdman and Vladimir Mayakovsky. (Erdman’s Mandate (1925) and Mayakovsky’s The BedBug and The Bathhouse (1929,1930). Yet, 1925, in addition to being significant year because of Bubus, also was significant for beginning a series of personal tragedies when soon afterward: Esenin committed suicide. It devastated his wife and step-children. In 1930, five years later, Meyerhold’s star playwright and close fiiend, Mayakovsky, also committed suicide. Also in 1930, Meyerhold’s other star playwright, whose play had been barred from staging, Erdman, was tried and exiled to Siberia and just a few years after that (1939) both Raikh and Meyerhold were murdered by the Soviet government. Faiko, however, prospered. He continued to collect huge a government salary and write and produce many works which have not stood the test of time. Ilinsky’s stage and film career continued. The stark contrast in the fates of all the involved parties is striking. For these reasons alone, Meyerhold’s productions of these largely neglected productions, LyuT m à Bubus, are both vastly interesting and crucial for providing important details that elucidate ellipses about Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270 Meyerhold’s creative and personal life which have been either lost or obscured. The NEP era demanded new plays and new forms of theater. Vsevelod Meyerhold’s two productions of Alexei Faiko’s plays, Lake Lyul ’ and The Teacher Bubus, seemed to capture the spirit of the time in both positive and negative ways. Lake Zyw/ ’joyfully celebrated the jazz age, new technology, and flashy gangster life. The elaborate though vastly different Bubus ’ use of techniques from Kabuki and cinema was a bold attempt to use devices Meyerhold had experimented with before the Revolution in the new Soviet context. The political content of the piece also played a part in the evolution and deformation of the production as some key elements were censored and removed from the production. The scandals, the redactions and the critics impaired and eclipsed Meyerhold’s wildly ambitious and complicated plan for the production. In essence, Meyerhold’s attempt to adapt many of the devices of Kahuki and cinema to the stage design, acting, and musical plan of the piece went largely unnoticed and unappreciated. Subsequently, this has been compounded by scholars who were only able to evaluate what was left—faulty, incomplete, and often biased materials on these productions, and Bubus in particular. In short, they could only examine what was said rather than what was forbidden to be said. Two things became apparent in 1925: the political climate had changed and so had Meyerhold’s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271 ability to work with it. From many sides, Meyerhold clearly received the signal that he had gone too far. A current American director, Peter Sellars, the famous American Avant-Garde theater and opera director, who wrote his thesis on Meyerhold and his production of The Inspector General and cites him as his “mentor” and inspiration, provides a valuable insight into understanding Meyerhold’s predicament. Sellars points to a reason why Meyerhold would expand his use of music and to seek out forms of drama, such as Kabuki, which communicate without the use of words. Sellars feels it came out of Meyerhold being caught between the exigency created by censorship and the resultant political climate that was antithetical to a creative mind which did not operate merely in the realm of the utilitarian goals of the day. Sellars stresses the importance of looking at what could not be said just as much as what was said as crucial in understanding Meyerhold’s work: Much of the discussion about Meyerhold annoys me because it just assumes that he could do anything, and this is what he chose to do. And nobody’s asking “What were the all the things he couldn’t say?” They’re not looking at what he didn’t say and couldn’t say, they’re just looking at what he said. In fact, what he said was completely a strategic reaction to what he couldn’t say. I think Meyerhold’s choice of music was very deliberate. When he said “realism,” he meant it. At that time, Soviet society was busy trying to figure out how to get more productivity out of the worker in a given number of hours, which is just a hideous idea, it’s so ugly. Meyerhold’s trying to say that the reality is not this ridiculous, determinist end/ ' Peter Sellars, “Directing a National Consciousness,” Theater 28.2 (1998): 89. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272 Meyerhold’s asking how theater ean represent the multiple levels of reality that are in people’s lives. You have to understand that in Russia after the revolution, once religious practice was banned, you could not discuss religion. Much of Russian art is profoundly religious, or is a discussion of religion, or a struggle with faith, or an embodiment of spiritual yearning. From the seeond decade in the century you couldn’t even mention these things in your work. How could you suggest that a metaphysical grasp of the world is what’s real, and that the asphyxiating materialist surround [sic] being stuffed down people’s throats is the illusion? The code name that Meyerhold had to use, the subterfuge that so many artists were compelled to employ, was “musieal realism.”" ^ Meyerhold’s work with Bubus, particularly with his pre-acting or predigry and his innovative use of musie, seem to be a real attempt at expressing that whieh could not be expressed in words because of both censorship and craftsmanship. Meyerhold lived in a time when life needed art and therefore art had to be more than beautiful, it had to add something to his audience’s comprehension of life and to help them find the strength, wit and wisdom to withstand it. As Sellars concludes: Meyerhold was one of the most privileged directors in theater history. He worked in imperial theaters, with the most famous artists. In a period when his country was going through a revolution and then a famine, he realized that culture had to be more than decorative. The gesture of biomechanics has almost nothing to do with the Italian commedia dell ’ arte and stereotyping, and has everything to do with the need for grace, strength, poise, and courage in daily life.^ Sellars, p. 89-90. Sellars, p. 88. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273 For Meyerhold daily life and theater were inseparable. What Meyerhold wanted to do was vastly creative and interesting: an adaptation of Kahuki for the Soviet stage which many critics and scholars have either not understood or taken seriously. Meyerhold’s interest in Japanese theater preceded the Revolution, particularly interest in the work of an actress, Sada Yakko, and indeed a comparison of Bubus" production elements with the devices of Kahuki prove his claims to be more truthful than originally thought. Meyerhold’s productions and quarrels with Faiko were unique, fascinating, and even took artistic form, a screenplay. It was a cruel, brilliant, petty form of revenge which became a pyrrhic victory which destroyed both the production of Bubus and any possibility of the two working together again. While the story is fascinating, it is time for the artistic merit of these two productions to no longer be impeded by it and to finally receive the spotlight. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274 A Selected Bibliography Works on Meyerhold Braun, Edward, ed. and trans. Meyerhold on Theater. New York: Hill and Wang, 1969. Braun, Edward. The Theatre o f Meyerhold-Revolution o f the Modern Stage. London: Methuen, 1986. Braun, Edward. Meyerhold-A Revolution in Theatre. Iowa City, University of Iowa Press, 1995. Clarke, Katerina. “Meyerhold’s Appropriation of Gogol for 1926 in the Soviet Union.” Theater 28. 2 (1998) : 27-33 Eaton, Katherine Bliss. The Theater o f Meyerhold and Brecht. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1985. Elagin, lurii. Temnyi Genii (Vsevelod MeierkhoTd). London: Overseas Publications Interchange Ltd., 1982. Gosudarstvennyi Teatr imeni Meierkhol’da (GOSTiM). Fonds 963,968. Gvozdev, A.A. Teatr imeni Vs. Meierkhol’ da (1920-1926). Leningrad: Academia, 1927. Hoover, Marjorie L. Meyerhold-The Art o f Conscious Theater. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1974. Hoover, Maijorie L. Meyerhold and His Set Designers. New York: Peter Lang Publishers, Inc., 1988. Leach, Robert. Vsevelod Meyerhold. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Rudnitsky, Konstantin. Roxane Permar, trans., Lesley Milne, ed. Russian and Soviet Theater 1905-1932. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1988. Rudnitsky, Konstantin. Rezhisser Meierkhol’ d. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275 Schmidt, Paul, ed. Meyerhold at Work. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1980. Sellars, Peter. “Directing a National Consciousness.” Interviewed by Mark Bates. Theater 28. 2 (1998) : 87-90. Symons, James M. Meyerhold's Theater o f the Grotesque-The Post Revolutionary Productions 1920-32. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press, 1971. Volkov, Nikolai. ’ < 7 . Tom II (1908-1917). Moscow: Academia, 1929. Meyerhold by Meyerhold MeierkhoTd, Vs. Uchitel’ Bubus. Tri akta Alekseia Faiko v Postanovke Vs. Meierkhol ’ da—komediia na muzyke. V. Fedorov, ed. Moscow: Iz. Teatra im.Vs. Meierkhol’da, 1925. MeierkhoTd. V.E. Stati, Rechi, Besedy, Pis’ ma. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1968. MeierkhoTd. V.E. Archive. RGALl, fond 998. Memoirs/Related Biographies Alpers, B. Teatral'nye ocherki v dvukh tomakh. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1977. Esenin, Sergei. Archive. Rossiisskii Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Literatury i Iskusstva (RGALl), fond 190. Esenina, Tatiana. “Dom na Novinskom BuTvare.” Soglasie. 4 (1991): p. 133-208. Faiko, Alexei. Zapiski starogo teatral'shchika. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1978. . Archive. RGALl, fond 2205. Fevral'skii, Aleksandr. Zapiski Rovesnika Veka. Moscow: Sovetskii Pisatel', 1976. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276 Garin, Erast. S Meyerholdom. Vospominaniia. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1974. Gladkov, Aleksandr. Meierkhol'd. Moscow: Soiuz teatral'nykh deiatelei, 1990. ll’inskii, Igor. Sam o Sebe. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1973. Koonen, Alisa. Stranitsy Zhizni. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1975. Nemirovich-Dantchenko, Vladimir. My Life in the Russian Theater. John Coumos, tr. New York: Theater Arts Books, 1968. Stanislavsky, Konstantin. Moia Zhizn'v liskusstve. Moscow: n.p., <1925>. Turovskaia. M. Babanova-Legenda i biografiia. Moscow: Iskusstvo: 1981. Vendrovskaia. L.D. Vstrechi s Meyerholdom. Sbornik Vospominanii. Moscow: Vserossiiskoe teatral’noe obshchestvo, 1967. Volkov, Nikolai. Teatral’ nye vechera. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1966. Plays, Playwrights of the Period Afinogenov, Aleksandr. P'esy, Stat'i, Vystuplenia. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1977. Bulgakov, Mikhail. P'esy. Moscow: Sovetskii Pisatel', 1986. Erdman, Nikolai. P'esy, Intermedii, Pis'ma, Dokumenty, Vospominania Sovremennikov. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1990. Faiko, Alexei. Teatr-P'esy, Vospominaniia. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1971. Lunacharskii, A.B. Sobranie Sochinenii. Moscow: Khudozhestvermaia Literatura, 1963. Lunts, Lev. Rodina i drugie proizvedeniia. Ed. M. Vainshtein. Jerusalem: Jewish University, 1981. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 1 1 Mayakovsky, Vladimir. Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenii v trinadnadsitii tomakh. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo khudozhestvennoi literatury, 1955. Olesha, Yurii. P'esy. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1968. Ostrovsky, A.N. Sobranie sochinenii. Moscow: Khudozhestvennoi Literatury, 1960. Romashov, B. P'esy. Moscow: Sovetskii Pisatel', 1954. Zheliabuzhskii, lurii. Archive. RGALl, fond 2354. Theatrical, Artistic and Cultural Histories of the Period Baer, Nancy Norman, ed. Theater in Revolution.-Russian Avant Garde Stage Design (1913-1935). San Francisco: Thames and Hudson, 1991. Boguslavskii, A.O., V.A. Diev, and A.S. Karpov. Kratkaia istoriia russkoi sovetskoi dramatrugii-Ot Misterii-Buff do Tret'ei Pamiaicheskoi. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1966. Bowlt, John E. Die Russische Avantgarde und die Buhne 1890-1930. Schleswig, 1991. Bowlt, John B. Khudozhniki Russkogo Teatra 1880-1930from the Collection o f Mr. and Mrs. Nikita D. Lobanov-Rostovsky. Moseow: Iskusstvo, 1990. Bowlt, John E. Russian Stage Design-Scenic Innovation 1900-30from the Collection o f Mr. & Mrs. Nikita D. Lobanov-Rostovsky. Jackson, Mississippi: Mississippi Museum of Art, 1982. Bradshaw, Martha, ed. Soviet Theaters 1917-41-A Collection o f Articles. New York: Researeh Program on the USSR, 1954. Brader, Kathryn Anne. Absurdist Features in Russian Drama: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International, 1976. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278 Brown, Edward. The Proletarian Episode in Russian Literature, 1928-1932. New York: Columbia University Press, 1953. Carter, Huntly. The New Spirit in the Russian Theater 1917-28. New York: Breatano's Ltd., 1929. Chappie, Richard L. Soviet Satire o f the Twenties. Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1980. Clarke, Katerina. Petersburg, Crucible o f Cultural Revolution. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1995. Clyman, Toby W., ed. A Chekhov Companion. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985. Eekman, Thomas A., ed. Critical Essays on Anton Chekhov. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1989. Evreinov, N.N. Istoria Russkogo Teatra-s drevneishikh vremen do 1917 goda. New York: Idatel'stvo Imeni Chekhova, 1955. Fitzpatrick, Sheila, ed. Cultural Revolution in Russia 1928-1931. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978. Fortune, Richard. Alexander Sukhovo-Kobylin. Boston: Twayne, 1982. Golovashenko, lu. Rezhesserskoe Iskusstvo Tairova. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1970. Golub, Spencer. The Recurrence o f Fate-Theatre & Memory in Twentieth Century Russia. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1994. Gorchakov, Nikolai A. The Theater in Soviet Russia, Edgar Lehrman, trans. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957. Green, Michael, ed. and trans. The Russian Symbolist Theater-An Anthology o f Plays and Critical Texts. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1986. Grossman, Leonid. Alisa Koonen. Moscow: Akademia, 1930. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279 Jackson, Robert Louis, ed. Chekhov-A Collection o f Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. Jackson, Robert Louis, ed. Reading Chekhov’ s Text. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1993. Karlinsky, Simon. Russian Drama-from its beginnings to the Age o f Pushkin. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Kelley, Catriona. Petrushka-The Russian Carnival Puppet Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Leyda, Jay. Kino-A History o f the Russian and Soviet Film. London: George Allen & Unwit Ltd., 1960. Lobanov, Nikita D., Nina Lobanov, and Aimee Troyen. Russian Theater and Costume Design. Fine Arts Museums of San Franeisco Exhibition Catalogue, 1979. Lunacharskii, A. Teatr Segodnia-Otsenka Sovremennogo Repertuara i Stseny.. Moscow: MODPiK, 1928. Markov, P.A. The Soviet Theater. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1934. Miliavskii, B. Satirik i Vremia-0 Masterstve Maiakovskogo- Dramaturga. Moscow: Sovetskii Pisatel', 1963. Peace, Riehard. Chekhov: A Study o f the Four Major Plays. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1983. Poliakov, M.Ia., ed. Russkii Teatr v Krivom Zerkale Parodii. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1976. Roose-Evans, James. Experimental Theater-from Stanislavsky to today. New York: Universe Books, 1973. Russell, Robert. Russian Drama o f the Revolutionary Period. Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes & Noble Books, 1988. Segel, Harold B. Twentieth Century Russian Drama: From Gorky to the Present. Updated Edition. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280 Senelick, Laurence, ed. and trans. Russian Satiric Comedy-Six Plays. New York: performing Arts Journal Publieations, 1983. Slonim, Mare. Russian Theater from the Empire to the Soviets. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1961. Smelianskii, A. Mikhail Bulgakov v Khudozhestvenom Teatre. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1986. Strel'tsova, E.I., ed. Paradoks o Drame-Perechityvaiap'esy 1920- 1930-x godov. Moseow: Nauka, 1993. Sukhovo-Kobylin, Alexander. The Trilogy o f Sukhovo-Kobylin. Tr. and ed. Harold B. Segel. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co.,1969. Sverbilova, T.G. Komedii V . V . Maiakovskogo i Sovremennaia Sovetskaia Dramturgia. Kiev: NaukovaDumka, 1987. Sverbilova, T.G. Tragikomedia v sovetskoi literature (Genezis i tendentsii razvitiia. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1990. Valeney, Maurice. The Breaking String-The Plays o f Anton Chekhov. New York, Oxford University Press, 1966. Worrall, Nick. Modernism to Realism on the Soviet Stage-Tairov- Vakhtangov-Okhlopkov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Yershov, Peter. Comedy in the Soviet Theater. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1956. Znosko-Borovskii, Evgenii A. Russkii Teatr Nachala X X Veka. Prague: Plamia, 1925. Theoretical Works on Theater of Interest Artaud, Antonin. Le Theatre et son double. Paris: Gallimard, 1964. Cole, Toby and Helen Krich Chinoy, ed. Actors on Acting. New York: Crown, 1972. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281 Craig, Gordon. "The Actor and Ueber-Marionette." Actors on Acting. Toby Cole and Helen Kricb Cbinoy, ed. New York; Crown, 1972. Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguisitics, and the Study o f Literature. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975. De Marinis, Mareo. Aine O’Healy, trans. The Semiotics o f Performance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993. Elam, Keir. The Semiotics o f Theatre and Drama. London: Methuen, 1980. Esslin, Martin. An Anatomy o f Drama. New York: Hill and Wang, 1976. Txo\o\,V. O Sovetskoi Komedii. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1954. Frye, Northrop. Anatomy o f Criticism-Four Essays. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1957. Hornby, Riehard. Script Into Performance—A Structuralist View o f Play Production. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1977. Lotman, lu.M. and B.A. Uspenskij. The Semiotics o f Russian Culture, Ann Shukman, ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1984. Pavis, Patrice. Languages o f the Stage-Essays in the Semiology o f the Theatre. New York: Performing Arts Journal Publieations, 1982. Stanislavskii, K.S. Rabota aktera nad soboi. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1989. Tairov, Alexander. Zapisski Rezhessera. Moscow: Kamemy Theater, 1921. On Kabuki/Japanese Theater Bowers, Faubion. Japanese Theatre. New York: Hill and Wang: 1952. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 282 Brandon, James R. The Cambridge Guide to the Asian Theater. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Brandon, James R. “Kabuki and Shakespeare—Balancing Yin and Yang.” The Drama Review 43.2 (Summer 1999): 15-53. Ernst, Earle. The Kabuki Theatre. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. Hamamura, Yonezo, Takashi Sugawara, Jungi Kinoshita, Hiroshi Minami. Kabuki. Tokyo: Kenkyusha Ltd., 1956. Kennedy, Dennis., ed. Foreign Shakespeare-Contemporary performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Pronko, Leonard. Theater East and West—Perspectives Toward a Total Theater. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Newspaper Articles: Argo, “ Ot chistogo serdtsa," Sovremennyi Teatr, N.8, 1927. Viktor Ermans. Program from Bolshoi Gosudarstvennyi Akademicheskii Teatr (State Academic Theater), N .9 ,1925. V. Fedorov. "Teatr revoliutsii-Ozero Liul”," Zrelishche #63, 1923. Isbach. "Ozero Liul' k postanovke v Teatre Revoliutsii," Rabochaia Moskva November 11,1923. Kh. Khersonskii, untitled review. Izvestiia, Feb. 1,1925. M. M. "K postanovki Bubusa Alekseia Faiko na stsene teatra im. Vs. Meierkhol'da," Zhizn' iskuvsstva, N. 2,1925. Mariia Markovich. "Teatr im. Meierkhol'da, Bubusa,” Iskusstvo Trudiashchikhsia, N .ll, 1925. P. Markovitem . "Uchitel' Bubus (Teatr im Meierkhol'da),” Pravda, Feb. 1, 1925. A. Novinskii. "Uchitel' Bubus: Teatr Meierkhol’da-teatr plakat,” Krasanaia Zvezda, Feb. 10,1925. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 283 S. Prokofiev. TryJ November 29, 1923. Raphael. “Po povodu p’esy Ozero Liul’ otvet Glavrepertkomu: Vladimir Mass, Meyerhold, and zam. pred. politsovet of Teatr Revoliutsii,” PravJa November 16, 1923. Sadko. "Bubus (teatr im Vs. Meierkhol'da)," Vecherniaia Moskva, Feb. 2,1925. lurii Sobolev. Khudozhestvennyi Trud #4, 1923. Staryn. "Meierkhol'dovskii Bubus,” Rabochaia Moskva, Feb. 5, 1925. K. Sukhovyx. "Ozero Lyul' pered sudom rabochei kritiki," Zhizn’ iskusstva #18. 1 . Trainin. Pravda November 21,1923. A. Tsenovskii. untitled review. Novyj Zritel', N.9, 1925. V. P. "UehiteF Bubus v teatre im. Meierkhol’da-orientirovatsionyi material dlia kritikov,” Zhizn' iskuvsstva, N.5, 1925. V. P. "UehiteF Bubus v teatre im. Meierkhol’da-orientirovatsionyi material dlia kritikov,” Zhizn' iskuvsstva, N.5, 1925. Moscow edition. M. Zagorskii. "Bubus v Moskve i v Leningrade,” Novyj Zritel', N.6, 1925. Anonymous Newspaper Articles: "A.M. Faiko writes about critics," Novyj Zritel', N.14, 1925. "^vibus," Vecherniaia Moskva, Oct. 23, 1925."Chemu Uchit UehiteF Bubus?" Novyj Zritel', N.6, 1925. "Chto glagolit Glagolin?" Novyj Zritel', N.16, 1925. "UehiteF Bubus, Teatr im. Meierkhol'da, " Rabochaia gazeta, Feb. 1,1925. "Faiko i Meierkhol'd,” Vestnik rabochego isskusstvo, N .8 ,1925. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 284 "Ischeznovenie Faiko— komediia na muzyke", Novii zritel; N.13, 1925. "Khudozhestvennoi rabochii plan teatra na predstoiashchii sezon,” Izvestiia August 26, 1923. "Moskovskaia Assotsiatsiia Dramaturgov," Novaia Rampa #15,1924. "Novye p'esy,” Trudovaia kopeika, Sept. 20,1923. "Ozero Lyul',” Zrelishche #60,1923. "Ozero Lyul'," Trudovaia kopeika Sept. 25,1923. "Ozero Liul' v teatre revoliutsii," Izvestiia November 10,1923. "Po povodu kritiki Ozero Liul'," Rabochaia Moskva November 21, 1923. "Po povodu p’esy Ozero Liul’ ot Glavrepertkoma,”PravJa November 11, 1923. "Po povodu Postanovki p'esy Ozero Liul', "Pravda November 23, 1923. "Postanovki moskovskikb teatrov. Uchitel’ Bubus v teatre Vs. Meierkhol’da,” Trud, Feb. 5,1925. "Prostaia istina-Ozero Liul' v teatre revoliutsii," Trudovaia kopeika, November 11,1923. "Rabkory ob Uchitel' Bubuse," Rabochii Zritel', N.6, 1925. "Rezhisser i Avtor,” Novyj Zritel', N .48,1925. "Yokrug Ozero Liul'," Zrelishche #64,1923. Untitled Anonymous Newspaper Articles: Iskusstvo ipromyshlennost' # \, 1924. Izvestiia, May 13, 1923. Izvestiia, Aug. 26, 1923. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 285 Izvestiia November 24, 1923. Larek (a Kharkov journal) Dec. 1924. Novyj Zritel', N.8, 1925. Novyj Zritel’, N .9 ,1925. Pravda, Nov. 9, 1923. f mvük November, 16, 1923. Pravda December 5, 1923. Pravda, Dec. 31,1924. Rampa, n. 2-15,1924. Rabochii trud (Baku) November 1,1923. Rabochii Zritel', #6 1924. Tikhokeanskaia Zvezda (KhaharoYsk), Feb. 28,1926. Trud, Feb. 5, 1925. Vecherniaia Moskva, Dec. 16,1924. Vecherniaia Moskva, Jan. 30,1925. Vecherniaia Moskva, Nov. 4, 1925. Vecherniaia Moskva, Viow. 14,1925. Vestnik rabochego isskusstvo,'H.%, 1925. Voronezhskaia Kommunista,Vlo\. 11, 1925. Zhizn' iskusstvo #50, 1923. Zhizn' iskuvsstva, N. 51?, 1924. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286 Zrelishche, No. 6, 1923. Zrelishche #20, 1923. Zrelishche #20,1923. Zrelishche #64, 1923 . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 287 Appendix 1 963, 1, 429 Albums and placards with citations from Lenin's speeches and articles for Uchitel' Bubus-PewnccepcKan MacTb________________________________________________ 1) Ha 3 K p a H 6 CTpoKM M3 peM6l?i I/I C T aT eM JleH U H a. 2) riycTb ncbi n cbuhbm yMi/ipaiomei?i bypmyaawM ocbinaioT Mac Kyyaww npoKnaTMR, pyraTenbCTB, HacMeiueK. M bi ropanM cn tsm , mto hb Hamy flonio Bbinano CMacTbe HaMarb anoxy rocnoflCTBa HOBoro K/iacca. (1921, t. XVlii, m . l, CT. 365). (22)____________________________________________________________ 3) Pe/inrna-pofl ayxoBHoM cuByxn, b KOTopoM pa6bi Kani/iTana TonaT CBOü MenoBBMecKMM oGpaa._____________________ (1905, t . VII, m.L, o t. 49)__________ 4) ripoflaeT no cxoAHoM u en e bwneTW Ha HebecHoe bnarono/iyMi/ie. (1905, t.VII, CT .49) (20)______________________________________________________________________________ 5) MeHbiueBHK, KBK onnopTyni/iCT, nepeKpaiuMBaeTca b aaiuMTHbiPl ubbt. Tbk a a au CTaHOBWTca benwM auMOPi. (1921, IX, t.XVIII. m.1, c t . 360.)______ (35) 6. y Bac TOJibKO fleKnaMauMB. Bbi, k b k Jlyki B/ian, Ha n e n e aabwnw o KnaccoBoM bopbbe h noflMGHHXiH e e MenKowbypHtyaaHoC*i <|)paaeonornei?i. (22, IV, 1917)__________(33)______________________________________________ 7. B ot o n a n c n x o / i o r n a (p o c c n c K o ro )- (h a n d w ritte n in and scratched out) H H T e n n i/ire H T a : n a c n o a a x oh xpabpw iTi p a a M K a /i, n a n e n e oh n o a n e H b K w R MMHOBHHK.______________ (1907, T. VllI, C T . 472)(28)_________________________________ 8. yrneTatomMe K naccu nyw aaioTca a n a oxpanw cBoero rocnoacTB a b flByx coukianbHbix 4^HKUMW nanana m nona. rianaM ao aw en noaaanaT b npoTecT m B03H3ineHKe, non ao/iw en mm nepcneKTMBu cMarqeHMa beacTBMü m wepTB. (1915 «ripOTMB TBMBHMa», CT. 154) (24)_____________________________________ 9. O, a a , ro cn o aa, bbi cBoboanw ne TonbKo aaaTb, ho m mttm, Kyaa bbm y roano, xoTa bu b bojioTo: M bi naxoanM aaw e, mto Bauie nacToam ee mbcto M M 6HH0 B bonoTe, M pabOMMG (Mbi) (added in and then struck out) OKBHtyT (6M) (;;) B BM nocM/ibHoe coaeMcTBMe K BaiUBMy nepeceaeHMKJ Tyaa. (1902, t. V., c t. 123.) (19)_______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Bee yBepTKM m co(|)M3Mbi a n a Toro, MTobbi npMKpwTb CBOR nepexoa na coTopoHw bypwyaaMM. 3aecw aapwTa cobaKa. (c t. 14)________________(13) 11. TaKom Baaop m o t cKaaaTb TonbKo napnaMSHTCKM^ kpbtmh. (ct. 17) (15)______________________________________________________________________ 12. B o b m e c T B B , OCHOBBHHOM H a B JiacTM a e H c r , He MOHteT SbiTb peanbHoM C B o b o a w . B y p H ty a a n a a n y b n M K a T p e b y e T npocTW TyuM M b Bwae a o n o n n e H M a k «CBaT O M y» CUBHMMBCKOMy MCKyCCTBy. (1905, T. VII, M. 1, CT. 25) (2) 13. OnepBTbca na «neauB» TBMBHMa, t o b c tb , noaKpenMTb cbok) MMnepManMCTMMBCKyio nonMTMKy b btopm tbtom neawx, hmmbm hb a e n e o t hbb HB ocTynaa. (20-IV-1917) (34)________________________________________________________ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 288 14. Cor/iaiuaTe/ibCKafl MaiunHa pa6oTaex bo-bckj. MeHbuii/iBHKH b noxe jinua TpyaaxcA hbm cocTaBjieHneM cnncKa mmhmctpob. (5-Mafl, 1917, c t . 147) (30)_____________________________________________________________________ 15. napjiaweHT npeBpam aercfl b nyô^M W H W M aom , r a e uia«Ka ôypmyasHwx nojiMTMKaHOB T op ryej onroM n b poawwuy «HaporHoiTi CBoa6oR», m bobmm npO H M M M X O flK M M M TOBapHMM. (1906, T. V ll, M . 11, CT. 79.) (7)___________________ 1 6 . O, yyeHHOCTb! O yTOHMeHHoe aaKemcTBO nepea 6yp>«ya3M ei?i! O ui/iBManaoBaHHaB Manepa noaaaxb Ha 6pioxe nepea KanHTaai/icTaMM m awaaxb M X canorM! (ct.21) (12)_____________ ____________________________________ 17. KaKoe w ryw ee MyBCTBo CTwaa wcnwTWBaewb npn Bi/iae axoA ^wawcTepcKoA nouiaocTM. (1905, t . v i, c t . 92) (4)_______________________________________ 18. Pa6oMne He wayT caeaoK , ne npocTax noaaneK , ohm cTpewiflTCB 6ecnoujaaHo paaaaBMTb peaKUMOHHwe CMabi. (1905, t . VI, c t . 380) (6) 19. J1m 6o noa pyKOBoacTBOM npoaeTapMaxa, aM6o noa pyKOBoacTBOM KanM TaaM CTOB. CepeaMHbi h o t.________ (1921, t . X Y lll, m . 1, c t . 178) (27) 20. ToabKO BoopyweHHbiPi nap o a mowbt 6wTb aeMcTBMTeabHbiM onaoTOM HapoaHoM cBoGoaw. M mbm cKopee y aacT ca BoopywMTbca npoaBTapMaxy, tbm 6oabuiB npoaepwMTca o h na csoeM soBHHoM nosMUMM aaeacTOBiUMKaw PBBOaiOUMOHBpa.... (32...(tomkm))______________________________________________ 21. ...TBM (m hbm) (written in) cKopBB apoPHBT bom cko, tbm 6oabUJB HamaeMca cpeaM c o aaaT araaei?!, KOTopwe noPiMyT, hbkohb u, m to ohm aeaaioT , KOTopwe cTanyT na cToponw n ap o aa npoTMB MaeeproB, npoTMB TMpanoB, npoTMB yôMuy 6B30pyWHblX paSOMMX, M X W B H M aBTBM. (12-1-1905) (32)___________________________ 22. riBHaMTB Ha ce6a, apyaw a, hb ayMaAxe, m to KpecTbane m pb6ommb aaSbiaM BaujM aemcTBMa. (1922, t . x v iii, c t . 12, m . i.) (5)________________________________ 23. WaaKMB MBaoBBKM B *yTaapB, KOTopue CToaaM aaaoKO o t wm3hm, cnaaM m , aacHyB, noa noayiuKoR 6bpbw ho aepwaaM cxapy», MCTpenannyio, HM KOM y HBHywHyio KHM W Ky, KOTopaa a an ao T ca a a a hmx nyTBBoaMTBaoM m yM BÔH M K OM B a e a e nacawaeHMa o^MUMaabHoro couMaaMawia. (1918, t.X V , c t . 89) (23)_______________________________________________________________________ 24. riycTb me npoaexapMaT b u h b c b t TpoRnoe npeapeHMB k MBaK0-6ypwya3H0Pi apaSaocTM. S x a HonaBMCTb m s t o npeapBHMB cnawTaT e ro paaw , aaK aaax e ro a a a HaneueHMa tb x yaapoB, c kotopwm m oh o6pyiuMTca na bob Gypwyaanoe oG lubctbo. (1907, Y llI CT. 472.) (26)____________________________________________________ rocyaapcTBo, MM awe atoaM, ecTb nonaTMe KaaccoBoe. focyaapcTBO ecTb opran Man M aiuM Ha nacMana oanoro Kaacca naa apyrMM. (1917, t .X1V,m.ii, CT. 291.) (9)___________________________________________________________________________ «OGiubctbo» m «MHTBaaMrBHUMM»—npocTo waaKMM yGorMM, TpycaMBO-nOaaBHbKMR npMXBOCTBHb BBPX H M X aecaTM TWCaM. (1907, T.Ylll, CT. 354.)__________ (25)_______________________________________________________________ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 289 ripoMHO o6opyjQOBaHafl cucTewa jiecT, jiwm, MoiueHHUMecTBa, woHr/iepcTBa M O A H U M M cnoHeHKaMM, oGeuiaHM BiviM Ha npaBo w na/ieBO iiK > A t> ix pe<t>opM , nio6bix 6/iar pa6oM M M , unujb 6bi ohh OTKaaa/ii/icb or peBO/iiouMOHHOPi 6opb6bi aa CBepweHMe 6ypwya3Mn. (1916 «ripoTHB jeMeHHB», c t . 539)_____ (3)____________ rocnofla 6ypwya3Hbie wHAMBM ayaAM CTw, M bi ao/ivkhu CKaaaxb B aiw i, mto BaiuH peMH o6 aôcoJitoTHOiTi CBoGoflewoflHO jiniieMepne. (1905, t.YII, m .I, c t. 29.) (29)___________________________________________________________ Oj/iuHHBarb o r onpefle/ieHMB AMKTaxypw npo/Terapi/iara nocpeflCTBOM yM CTBO BBH M R 0 AecnoTH3MewecTb KpaRHBA r/iynocTb, jim6o Hei/iCKycHoe M OtlJeHHHM eCTBO. (CT.12) (11) ___________________________________ rio6o/ibiije <()pa3, hobux 6jiecT0K, nbiuiHbix o6emaHMi?i, necxpom luyM M X i/i. Haao/iro M axoro XBaxMX, rpawflane cxapue wiHHHCxpu h rpam aane, HOBue M M HM cxpbi. ______ (5 Maa, 1917, XIY, ex. 147.) (31)___________________________________ (taken out) noMCXHHe, xomho bo one MOMajiKy wyex. (cx.8)________ (16) Bo rjiaBe Boex xpyflBiunxcfl m aKcnjioaxnpyeMbix aa couna/inaM! (1905, x.Vl, ex. 381) (21)__________________________________________________ riyxaexe, 6ea6owHo nyxaexe, roenoAMH ;nyxaHnun eosexHHK;. (ex. 17) (14)_____________________________________________________ roBopi/ixb o HMcxoü fleMOKpaxHM, o BeenapoAHoexH, K oraa pa6oMne m Bee xpyûBimieea roAoAHw, paaaexw, paaopeHbi, MawyyeHw Kannxa/iMexi/meeKH HaejiHbiM pa6exBOM, a Kani/ixajiMexw npoAOJiwaKJx BJiaaexb ceoePi Harpa&neHHoR «eo6exBeHHoexbK)»-axo aHaywx MsaeBaxbea nafl xpyABmMxea m 9KenjioaxnpyeMbiMH. (1918, x. X IV, ex. 608,808) (10)_______________________ H aul B O A O A eM aaHMwaexea G oaxoBH eM , aaxyuieBbiBafi Bonpoe o npeAexapcKom peB O JiiouH H . (8 nepB O M M O H O Jiore 5y6yee) (ex.8) (17)_____________________ CBoGoAa GypwyasHoB (oro) aKxpwew (xyflOKHi/iKa) eexb aawaeKMpoBaHHaa aaBBei/iMoexb ox aeHewHoro MeujKa, ox noAKyna, ox eoAepwaHwa. (I905,x. Vll, Ml, ex.25) (8)______________________ Ox XX B6Ka GyAex noBapaMMBaxbea k XVlll ox XVlll k anxHMHOB ApeBHoexw. Mu HaAeeMea, m xo A oG w BW M O b AUKXaxypu, sanaAHUB npoaexapwax yBxex axy oKaoHHoexb, noeaAWB ero yMHxeaeM ri/iMHaaBB. (ex.ll) (18— YPOK)________ __ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 290 Act I P en jiM K a H a n o a ro T O B K y P en /iM K a H a n c n o A H e H n e &Man03MTMB l.HaMajio n b e c b i Tpy6a, reMHora 1. 2.M oHO/ior B K «Oh m Tpe6yioT» «XwacHoM CTpane Taw na BocTOKe» 2. 3Ba/i.«Ha ypoKe aaKona Bowbero rocn. nacT. 3ioccep;iMxa; » B-K M 306p. M flyiU M X B uepKOBb; 3 . 4.B .K . «Bu, pa3HMXiM HOByio n e c e n b K y » 3 k )c . «370 He necBHbKa, sto aanoBexiM B/iaweHCTBa» 4. 5.d>. «Bame h b noBTopM M OB « « » » . B . «Bu pa36yA M /iM m b h b « 5. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 291 Act II. 6.B. «Bu npon. K pO BbK ) H O C M T . CMepTM»; B . « y p H e T a r e /i b B s a h a k o b » 7.BpaBo/annJiOflnpyeT B.«He flom/10» 8-BepK. «ripaBMT B aaMeuiaT.» 3 k )C c. «OpraHkisaoBaTb BepKOBHue nponenBean» 9.BepK. «Bu noeflMTe co iviH oR coBeTHi/iK» riana puM CKuPi He buxoabt m 3 BaTi/iKana lO .B . « 0 KOH*, o, CoKpaT»; B .K . « 5 1 Jiry, h o m o b Jiowb cnywHT npeKp. ueriM.» H.M HHM CTP «M AH no J IM H M M H 8 M IV I. C O H pO T»; M mh. «UppauMOHa/ibHux npeayyB C T B M P i...» 12.By6. «Y M M paioiH M M ; axo coBeputeHHo OM8BMflHO»;yxofl Taa; IS.BepK. «npasMT. nepewMBaer k p m sm c » ; «JlMflepaM paôoMeM napxM M .» 14.B-K. «Bu X 0T M T 6 c f l e j i a x b M3 m o h a co u M a /iM c x a .: BepK. «JliofleiTi M3 p a 6 . n a p x .» 15.B .K . « f f l e OHM H a30B . mx.» O eM ep . «MocTKa M e w fly hom m m /ib b . r p y n n .» 1 5 . lô.Tanea Hapnaxa «rioKOHU By6yca» 1 6 . 17.3aK.HKDM . M O HO Jior By6yca. By6. «He 6yflex yanex m yrnexeHHUX. 17. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 292 Act III. 18.B .K . «ffle f le H b r n , r a e m om aeH b rM .: M aajin. 18 . 19.BepK. «KaK 6yaTo nyuiKM.» M aa/in. 19 . 20.BepK.«Toraa STO we yneB cTpe/ib6a»— m aa/in. 20. 21.3IOCC. M aajin. 2 1 . «Toraa arc He caatoT.» 22.By6. « 3 T o - n e p e B o p o T .» By6. « 3 t o n e p e B o p o T , n e p e B o p o T n e p e s o p o T . 22. 23.Ber c ByBycoM By5. «3apio a T o r o m cto p m m . yrpa.» 23. 24.yBOfl ByByca. rycBax (TyaeHBax) nepexoflMT cuewy naaeBo. (nocae ysoaa ByByca) 24. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 293 Lenin citations not used: (errors in nonconsecutive numeration occurs in the originals) 1 .noMeiu,MK-;iMueiviepMeM 1907, T.VIll, CT.547. 2.B/iMflHne MHTe/t/inreHUMfl onacHo 1907, T.VIII, CT.420. 3.Me/ibKm?l 6ypwya...npcjieapMaTy 1917, T.XIV, M . 1 1 , C T .24. 4.KpynHfaifï 6ypH<ya....npo/ieTapMaTa 1918, T.XV, CT .562. S.Bce KpoMe...o6MaHOM Maco 1919, T.XVl, C T .276. 6./lioflM Bceraa 6binui..M Hbix K/iaccoB 1913, T.XII, II, CT.58. 7.Kto paBH0flyuiH0...aT0C*i 6opb6e 1905, T.Vll, M .I, CT .42. 8.M eJiKO>H6yp>Hya3>KKJiaccoBO« 6opb6bi 1907, T.IX, C T. 563. 6.K npaBMT6.nb0TBy...M eHbUJeBM K0B 1917, 5 Man, XIV, CT. 147. 7.JlyMUje...pa6cTBo 1919, T. XVI, C T. 276. S.Hex, rocnoflMH-Jira (ura) 28-lV, 1917. 9.TaK y Hac...MMHMCTepcTBa 7/26/17, XIV, C T. 30. lO.r jiynocTb-ocTaHaBjiMBaTbCB XIV, CT.54 29/XII, 1917. 1 1 .PeBOJIIOUM OHHO-fleM OKpaT. «yeCTHOPl Koannukim.» T.XIV, n.335. 12.PeB0Jll0m/ia-J10K0M0TMBbl M C T O P M l/l... 3Kcn/ioTnpyeMbix H IO H b, 1905 IS.Kyfla npnBejiM-1/iMnepi/ia.ni/icTaM 22-Vl, 1917, T. XIV, M . CT. 279. M .PeBOJllOUM B eCTb B O tlH a...H aC M .nM B 1905, T.VI, n.71. IS.Hurfle B Mnpe-HacujiMB 1907, T.VIll, CT.472. lôMiABaB 6ypHtya3Mi/i-pa6cTB0 1913, T.X 1, C T. 29. 17.3a B C B K l/IM C H D 3H M K 0M -3a BparOM 1906, T.Xll, M .ll, CT.123. IS.OnopTyHMCTbi npeflCTaBJiBiOT- flB M H teH M B T.XI1I, CT. 473. 19.B nap/iaMeHTax...fleMOKpaTMM 1917, T.XIV, M .ll, CT.334. 20.Koraa HaMajtacb...fleMOKpaTHM 1918, T.XV, CT.460. 21.Mepea bcio MeHbujeBHTCKyio... TO TM 3 UacnuaH Cea. 1907, T.VIll, CT. 438. 22.CHaMajiawHa fle/ie CT.9. 23.3TOT aaK O H -PO C C M C K O C l CT.21. 24.BOT B aw i M MMCTaa-Ha KJiaccbi CT.16. 22.KayTCKM« 6eacTbijaHO-o6 aroM MormnT. CT 20. 2 3 .0 h npeflnoMMTaeT...6poiiJiopbi KayrcKoro CT.21. 24.yyeHbiPi rocnoflMH KayxcKMR aaSbiJiwhorpoMbi CT.21. 25. (-9, -10) fleMOKpaTMMecKafl... KannTa.nl/iaivia 1917, T. XIV, M .ll, ct.306. 26.TojibKO HeroflBH hjim /inueMepi/in 1919, T. XVI, ct.336. 27.Pe(|)opMa ecTb ycTynKawMX coawaHMe 1907, T.VIII, CT.272. 28.M oHtHo jiH ce6e npeacTaBMTb.... BocnHTaHMfl Hapojaa. 1906, T.VII, M .I, n.288. 29.0X, cKOJibKO 6ecnoflo6Hbix peyeM- Hafloe/iH Hapoay. 1906, T.VII, M .I, n.288. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix 2 List of Musical Works included in Bubus Works by Chopin and Liszt performed: Act 1 1) Chopin. Etude #12, Op. 10. 2) Chopin. Etude #5, Op. 25. 3) Liszt. Cantique d ’ amour. 4) Liszt. Consolation No. 1. 5) Liszt. Consolation No. 3. 6) Chopin. Prelude No. 18. 7) Liszt. Concerto #1. 8) Chopin. Etude #8, Op. 10. 9) Liszt. Au lac de Wallenstadt. 10) Chopin. Etude # 4, Op. 25. 11) Liszt. Waldesrauchen. 12) Liszt. Mephisto-walz. 13) Chopin. No. #2, Op. 25. 14) Liszt. Consolation No. 5. 15) Chopin. Etude #25, Op. 25. Act II 1) Chopin. Etude #12, Op. 25. 2) Liszt. Sposalizio. 3) Chopin. Etude #2, Op. 10. 4) Liszt. Lorelei. 5) Chopin. Etude #6, Op. 25. 6) Chopin. Etude #9, Op. 25. 7) Chopin. Etude #3, Op. 25. 8) Chopin. Etude #25. 9) Chopin. Prelude #16. 10) Liszt. Canzone. 11) Liszt. Tarantella. 12) Liszt. Liebestraume #2. 13) Schumann-Liszt. Spring night. 14) Liszt. Liebstraume #3. 15. Liszt. Canzone. 294 1 ^ Vs. Meierkhol’d, Uchitel’ Bubus. Tri aktaAlekseia Faikov Postanovke Vs.Meierkhol’da— komediia na muzykeN■ Fedorov, ed. (Moscow: Iz.Teatra im.Vs. Meierkhol’da, 1925) 14-16. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 295 Act III 1) Liszt. Apres une Lecture du Dante. Fantasia quasi Sonata. 2) Chopin. Prelude #21. 3) Chopin. Prelude #15. 4) Chopin. Prelude #13. 5) Liszt. Funérailles. 6) Chopin. Etude #7, Op. 25. 7) Liszt. Penseroso. 8) Liszt. Sonetto 104 del Petr area 9) Chopin. Etude #6, Op. 10. 10) Chopin. Prelude #4. 11) Chopin. Etude #9, Op. 10. 12) Liszt. Sonetto 47 del Petr area. 13) Chopin. Prelude #2. 14) Chopin. Prelude #24. 15) Liszt. Sonetto 123 del Petrarca. 16) Liszt. Apres un Lecture du Dante. Fantasia quasi Sonata. Dances 1. "The Dying Swan" (performed by Babanova, arranged by O.M. Messerer). 2. "Radio Dance" or "Epopee". Performed by Valentin Pamakh. Jazz Band -organized by Valentin Pamakh "Roze of Brazil". "O Nil". "Buddah". "Choo-Choo Blues". "La Flor der Kio grande". "Dansing ot the Honeg-Moon". "Daradanella". [sic] Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 296 Appendix 3 «flanupocHima o t MoccejibnpoMa»’ Meyerhold’s letter of response to The Cigarette Girl from Mosselprom under the pseudonym “Dottore” KapTMHa, rjxe Bce no-eepone^cKH (aawe aarnaane: «nannpocHnua o r MoccenbnpoMa» BMecTo npocro «MoccennpoMtmma»), sacHBja w CMOHTHpOBaHa T8K, M T O 0H3 H6 TOUbKO H6 OTpaWaST COBeTCKOM PO C C M M , H O eme M HacKBosb npoHMaana oBponeRCKH-GypwyaaHoPi MaeonorweB. B caMOM aene: nonyMaeTcn TaK, mto npoaaBiuMUbi naïuH canoHHwe 6apbiuiHM, a coBeTCKi/ie cnywamkie cnoniuHbie aereHepaTW, a MocKsa— Ta me MocKBa, KaKyio aapi/icoBbiBanB Koraa-To TpeTbe-CTeneHHwe nepeaBHWHHKM a n a KOH^eKTHWx Kopo6oK AGpwKocoBa. Hm o anoro npn3HaKa hobob pa6oMe-KpecTb«HCKoB Poccmb. M bi HeaoyMeBaew, kbk Mor npw yM acTM W t. OaBKO (asTopa «Oaepo Jliojib» H «By6yc») nonyMMTbcn TaKoB SearpaMOTHbiB cueHapwB. Teiwa cueHapMH He HOBaa: Koraa-To mu BMaenB, KaK Bepa Xonoanaa CTBHOBBnaCb M 3 yjIM M H O B neBMUeB-KMHO-aKTpMCOB,— TOnepb TBKOe npoBpameHMe noKaaano hbm b McnonneHMM GeaaapnoB CojiHueBoB. B cuenapMM oTcyTCTByoT napacTaHMe mhtpmtm, h o t apaMaTMMOCKoB yeaaKM coGutmB. OTaeabHue KycKM mowho BW K M H yTb m jim nepecTaBMTb, a ec/iM KapTMHy SKcnopTMpoBaTb 38 rpaHMuy m tbm ee cnaGaaT naanMcaMM naoGopoT, to hbuim eparM nonynaT xopouiyio aHTMCOBeTCKyio arwTKy m , K0H6MH0, cyMetOT 66 JIO BK O MCn0Jlb30BaTb npOTMB H6C. BM6CT0 K0M6aMM, M M 6IO IU 6B aaaaMy suaeaTb cm6X nocTpoeHMOM nonoweHMB, norMMecKM BW T6K aiO U iM X M 3 CTpoBHOB apXMT6KT0HMKM CU6HapMa, aOHO HarpOMOH4a6HM6 p aaa M an/iM H C K M X tpiokob, suKpaaeHHUx M 3 aMepMKancKMx < |> M nbM O B m GeccMucneHHO bmohtmpob8hhux b cuenapMB Gea BcaKoro KocTaKa. B «KMHO-Heaene» (N o. 44 2 -X ll 2 4 ) n. BeBwreBn npaBM/ibHo yTBepm aaeT, mto «KMHOMaTOrpa^Ma H6 TOabKO T6X H M K 8 C B U pyM H U M M CB6T0-T6HaMM, aaM UCaOBBTUM M M O H TaW aM M , HanaUBBM M M n p O M M M M BUKpyCTaM M .» DpaBMabHocTb TBKoro yTBopwaoHMa ocoG bhho P63K0 npoaayMaaa b aTMoc<j)6pe ToB nomaocTM, KOTopoB HaBoanena «rianMpocHMua ot M occeabnpoMa» KMHo-pewMccepoM (oh we onepaTop) WeaaGywcKMM. «TyT Bce ecTb. . . KoaM H6t oGMana: M M epTM , M aioG OBb, M CTpaXM , M UB6TU. . . » Bce, M T O aaaaaocb apyrMMM pewMccepaMM apyrnx cTpan, HteaaGywcKMB, c KponoTaMBocTbio nopoaMCToro KOMnnaaTopa, HarpoMoaaMa b sTy KapTM Hy. TyT nymenu b xoa ne ToabKo M yw M e pew MccepoKMe npM 6M w, HaeopoBaHu tbkmb aKTepoKMe npneMw 3anaaa m A M epM K M , KOTopue caM uiKOM xopoluo aanaaM b naMaTb noceTMTeaeB ceaHcoB 0 ynacTMeM ManaMHa, OaTTM, JloBaa. B cyiuHOCTM, He caeao eaao G w noceamaTb 3toB KapTMHe m aeyx c x p o K ( T S K a a s t o a p a n b l ) , e c /iM 6 u b sTy KapTMHy. npeaHaanaMeHHyio a a a pwHOMHoro cnpoca MemaHMna, eme h b yGMToro b CCCP npoaeTapcKoB peeoarauMeB, He Gwa BTanyT aKTep TeaTpa m m . Be. M eBepxoabaa— Mropb M abM H CK M B. [sic] TIanM pocHM ua o t M o c c e a b n p o M a ’’ Z hizn’M u sstva (Jan. 2 0 , 1925). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 297 3 a e c b 3T 0T aK T ep , cHa&weHHwM Man/iHHOBCKHMii rpiOKaMM, npeB pauiB H b c a /io H H o ro k o m m k b Heiy/ieuKnx <|)MJibiyi, a m to m o w b t 6w Tb npOTMBHBB HB CMBUlHOrO OCTpyMMB HBMBUCKMX CaJlOHHbIX KOMMKOB, CnOCOBHbIX BblSblBBTb CMBX /IHUJb y KBJIbHBpOB EBpjIMHCKHX HHBHblX. Dottore. R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Russian metahistorical imagination and Russian fiction of perestroika

PDF

The debate over Bakunin and Dostoevsky in early Soviet Russia

PDF

Terrible screeching: Adaptation of Pushkin's "Queen of Spades" in theater, opera and film

PDF

Pushkin's taste and taste for Pushkin: Toward a reconstruction of taste mechanisms

PDF

Natan Altman and the problem of Jewish art in Russia in the 1910s

PDF

Sophia, the wisdom of God conceptions of the divine feminine in Russian culture, 1880--1917

PDF

"Master of many tongues": The Russian Academy Dictionary (1789--1794) as a socio -historical document

PDF

The friendly epistle in Russian poetry: A history of the genre

PDF

Children in transition: Popular children's magazines in late imperial and early Soviet Russia

PDF

A cut above: Fashion as meta -culture in early -twentieth -century Russia

PDF

A necessary epigone: The fantastic and "dvoeverie" in the works of A. K. Tolstoi

PDF

Painting as text: Developments in Russian art during the second half of the nineteenth century

PDF

Impostors, antichrists, and satanists: Textual strategies of the central and eastern European fin de siecle

PDF

The face of others, the taste of things: Photogenie and sensation in silent cinema

PDF

Metropolis to necropolis: The St. Petersburg myth and its cultural extension in the late 1910s and 1920s

PDF

Two heterologies: Georges Bataille and Mikhail Bakhtin

PDF

Projections of epic: Spatial transformations and narrative revisions in Italian and European modernism

PDF

Molti -story cinema: The episode film in the Italian cinema

PDF

Leonid Andreev through the prism of the literary portrait

PDF

Andrej Belyj's "Petersburg" and James Joyce's "Ulysses": A comparative study

Asset Metadata

Creator Comins-Richmond, Allison A. (author)

Core Title Two plays and a film: The Meyerhold /Faiko collaboration

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Slavic Languages and Literatures

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Cinema,history, modern,Literature, Slavic and East European,OAI-PMH Harvest,Theater

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-508240

Unique identifier UC11340057

Identifier 3140460.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-508240 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3140460.pdf

Dmrecord 508240

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Comins-Richmond, Allison A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA