In the end of the past week Oleg Menshikov's production of "The Gamblers" by Gogol (with himself as Uteshitelny) hit the stage, though Theatrical Company 814 didn't consider this performance official premiere. Probably because judging by the experience of previous Menshikov's productions – "Woe From Wit" and "Kitchen" – no matter how many rehearsals there have been, the first public performance will be worse than all the following ones. But this time the majority of the spectators who filled the hall "Under roof" of the Mossovet theatre remained quite satisfied. One can even presume that when "The Gamblers" gets into its stride and grow stronger, public's applause and laughter will hardly die away during the performance. All in all, this is precisely can be considered a success.

In "The Gamblers" Menshikov seems to care about pleasing the public more than in his other productions. All the ingredients of public success are quite evident: the performance is short, costume, with live music and rich decorations. The public is not "overburdened", but on the contrary entertained to the utmost and not by means of special effects and card tricks. The cards themselves together with their Pushkin and Gogol's mystery seem not to bother the creators at all. But in the play too the swindlers win their battle not at the card-table, not with the help of sharping or marked cards. Sharping genius, philosopher and stoic Ikharev becomes a victim of mystifiers' gang who don't beat him, but overdo him. And in such a way, that the humiliated and insulted can't but admire the deftness of the show performed for him. In the play the winning company looks frightening. In the performance it is rather merry and strives not so for banknotes, as for the pleasure to swindle their neighbor. If there were no Satan himself in Woland's company, and it was ruled by, say, Koroviyev, it could meet equally the gang of the present "gamblers". However, even Koroviyev hasn't enough artistry to have a battle with Oleg Menshikov's Uteshitelny.
Besides a playbill the performance is provided with a deck of cards (printing design by famous AEC Group). On the face of each card there is a photo of some participant of the project, and on the back – some "message" addressed by the character to the public. For example, director of the performance, Galina Dubovskaya writes the following: "I'm very trivial. Of all the cities I prefer Paris, of all paintings – Giaconda, of all the flowers – roses, of all the roses – pink rose, but my dream is to grow a green one. Advice to a gardener: summer radish is to be planted in shadow not to grow in tops". Actor Alexandr Usov is more laconic: "Damn it! On Gogol again!" The back of Menshikov's card is blank. But Dmitry Mukhamadeyev's (Alexey) one is filled up with the following text: "1st State Prize for the film "Burnt by the Sun". 2nd State Prize for the film "Prisoner of the Mountains". 3rd State Prize for the film "The Barber of Siberia". Laurence Olivier Prize for the role of Esenin in the performance "When She Danced". "Idol" Award for the performance "Woe From Wit". "Triumph" Award for the outstanding contribution into the native culture. But actually I love Dasha". And a stamp in the bottom – "Stolen from Oleg Menshikov".
Looking at Uteshitelny you are convinced for another time: Menshikov received all these prizes not for nothing and not in vain he has always been spoken about by Nikita Mikhalkov as one of the best actors there're on earth nowadays. If some theatrical award had a nomination "virtuoso", Menshikov and his new role would make the first nominee for it.
Uteshitelny in this interpretation of "The Gamblers" is the author, the director and the moving engine of the story developing on stage. The amount of masks he is changing during the action can't be counted: an unaffected merchant with curled hair, a respectable middle-aged gentleman, a hussar, a tutor for the young… Some moment he seems to have left all his masks and aloofly watches his subordinates work over their victim – and now he is not Koroviyev, but almost Voland himself.
At any top Uteshitelny alone was enough to make "The Gamblers" an absolutely successful project. The problem is that this play of "theatre in theatre" proposed and led by Menshikov-director can be really successful only when there's a perfectly coordinated ensemble on stage. But even taking into account that a next month or two the performance will be improved, unfortunately, there's no particular certitude that such ensemble will appear.
There's a beneficially displayed Glov, senior: elder brother from Balabanov's films Viktor Sukhorukov (in the performance he as beneficially plays the part of local official Zamukhryshkin under the name of "Rotkiv Vokurohkus"), there's always precise in details and as if hiding behind his pals' backs Alexandr Sirin (Krugel), but even they still exist out of common "jazz improvisation" which such kind of a performance should make to be a real success. The current of interaction begin to rush about the stage only when Nikita Tatarenkov appears. In "The Barber of Siberia" he played one of the cadets, in "Kitchen" with Menshikov as king Gunther, he played Siegfried. And in "The Gamblers" he is Glov, junior – another counterfeit from Uteshitelny's deck pretending to be a landlord's son for the first time breaking away from his father and dreaming to be a hussar. From the whole gang he is the only one who is well matched for the leader – actually he tries on the fate of the sharpers' leader and is ready to serve it even more selflessly, desperately and devoutly than his elder colleague. With the advent of Tatarenkov you understand how attractive and amusing the performance could be if the parts were expressed more precisely and the actors were selected more carefully. The main director's error in this view seems Ikharev performed by also a young, but already popular in Moscow theatre circles Alexandr Usov (Mirzoyev's "The Eye" and "Millionair", Zholdak's "The Seagull"). Notionally you realize, that the interpretation of the part suggested for him – seriousness, nervousness, Dostoiyevsky's type, strong logical intellect being made a fool of – is curious and accurate in a way. You "read" it, but don't see. Ikharev on stage is so strained, relative and without charm, that absolutely takes away from the performance "the second pole" so necessary for "voltage rise".
And there's another aspect – if switch to the level of "the highest standards" set by Menshikov himself for his works. None of his previous producing experiences – neither "Woe From Wit", nor "Kitchen", nor even genius, as we may say after the decade, "Nizhinsky" – was perfect or totally professional in the true meaning of the word. But each of them carried some movements of the soul, attempts to disclose some deep-laid existential problems which completely lived down all the directing drawbacks and turned out to be genuine actor revelations. There's nothing of the kind in "The Gamblers", and actually there's no harm in it: artistic way is not obliged to be constant break- throughs – there may and even must appear also nice and pretty unpretentious "trifles", which often turn out to be more meaningful for theater history than staged colossi and eposes. But this kind of precious "trifles" can be created only by those possessing the highest technical level in their craft. And it is the directing technique that Menshikov hasn't mastered yet. In this field he can win only as an artist, but not as a craftsman.
No matter what critical arrows were shot into his "Kitchen" and "Woe From Wit" you can hardly imagine another person in Moscow who could direct and perform Griboyedov's comedy as the drama of solitude. Or choose Maxim Kurochkin from all the modern playwrights, compose with him a most interesting and non-trivial play and produce it into the powerful though uneven performance.
"The Gamblers" of 814 – a much more "decent" and proper for contemporary Moscow stage production – could, without Menshikov, appear almost in any Moscow theater: from Vakhtangovsky to Central Children's – at first to arouse interest owing to Sukhorukov's participation among "The Brother" fans (if they go to theatre at all) and quite soon become a routine.
Of course with Menshikov-Uteshitelny this performance will have entirely different life: long- termed and, obviously, excited demand within the public. The authors will hardly resist the temptation to consider it a real success. And after all, if view Menshikov's directing as the only condition for Menshikov-actor not to leave the stage, the result really is quite satisfactory.