The time of the action developing in the Ermolova Theatre's production "Sport Scenes of the Year 1981" (the play by E. Radzinsky) seems to be defined with the name itself. The setting - with the very first phrase: just 40 minutes walk from Kutuzovsky Prospect, and you are in the plain air, perfect opportunities for jogging, which then was in fashion.
However, this setting can say little to an inexperienced spectator. We'll outline a bit different frame. In the previous theatre's production "Speak!" which appeared a program performance, defining a lot in the intentions of the troupe and its new director V. Fokin, there was a group of characters defined as "participants of the events". They took little room on stage, they seemed to feel not quite comfortable trying to reach the audience among the tables, and they spoke little too: the slogan of the performance "Speak!" seemed to be addressed to them in the first place. But they meant a lot.
So, if draw some diameter "through the whole society" from them to the opposite edge, exactly there, on that opposite pole the present action is set.
"The participants of the events" had a hard life, the theatre pointed out the difficulties of their existence, caused by the war, the after-war ruin, weather conditions and the drawbacks of the system of management. Due to this the first question about their social antipodes, displayed this time, may sound like this: and these ones - are they happy? Can they really be envied as it often seemed to us, watching not from the edges but from the middle? Indeed, they have opportunities - both material and prestigious, or whatever.
Mikhaliov and Mikhaliova, the elder couple, drove in a "Mercedes" to jog. Serezha and Katya, the younger, also came not by foot or city transport. They have a car, though not so fashionable. True, it was bought and presented by Serezha's parents. But the "Mercedes" wasn't earned either - it was presented to Inga Mikhaliova by her father.
But don't bother with this conventional signs of material well-being and unearned income. Neither Mikhaliova's father, nor Serezha's father and grandfather have anything to do with petty racketeers, who remain petty no matter how much they steal. Serezha was driven to school when a boy. But what can you feel to an offspring, say, of a manager of the even large store? The worst is envy. The adults - teachers, leaders in pioneer camps, etc.- spoke to Serezha in especially cooing voice. Why?
Imagine in one of the city apartments a brontosaurus is living. How to take it? In a far Loch Ness Lake, probably, here's nothing of the kind. And Serezha is a boy from such an apartment. And you will show unstrained respect, and shyness, and anything quite unpredictable. And you will coo.
So, is this universal exceptionality good for living, for luck, for happiness after all? We, being distant, probably happened to envy it. And in this production we are led into these usually hard-to-reach places. Finally we can take a narrow look. "I don't know, how it looks from outside", tells every character about himself, "but personally I have forgotten long before what it is - to be happy. Of course, if presume that I knew it some time". To the question of Nekrasov's type ("who lives happily and freely" etc.) here everybody answers without hesitation: not me.
Ihga Mikhaliova from her young years for some reason tried to bring troubles to her own family. She got married nearly to spite it. And she was scourging her darling in every possible way.
T. Doronina, a bright actress of a beneficiary type, doesn't grudge the colors to make us see how hard her life was. Why did she torment everybody? Obviously, once she happened to wish something badly (may be to love). It was Serezha's father. But for her, not used to, not knowing how, having no idea of why, for what reason and in what way she should deny herself anything, there was, as we say, "nothing to catch". Serezha's father was busy arguing with his own family, trying to punish it. And Inga - what kind of punishment is she? She is a natural, allowable, and assigned by the joint choice match - a girl from our circle for a young man from our circle. So never be it!
And so on. The play is written in a manner that reminds of Ibsen's dramaturgical methods. Sometimes such plays are called analytical, sometimes something else, but the main thing is that the most important had happened before the curtain was raised. There's no curtain here, then before the lights died out.
The esthetics of the show includes some "lateness". You know, everything has been before. And not once. Let's say, a man slaps a woman on the face. Then - what then? - he achieves his goal. It seems almost - or rather complete - crime. And there's such article in the criminal code.
If this happens in the play, then, probably the climax is the most horrifying thing? But it depends. In one of the following conversations, comparatively calm, we learn that the action was of a kind of ritual character, it was foreseen by the both sides and there was a taste of though silent but still audible agreement. So, what has violence to do with it? As some Ilf and Petrov's character used to say, consent is the result of non-resistance of the parties.
Or the young man threatens his wife now with suicide, now that he will kill her. What's her reaction? Quite casual: it has been before. And not once. Starting from their school years: they were class-mates.
Thus the developing tragedies and outbursts of passions are of some secondary, almost everyday character. Generally, more have happened before! And now it's nothing special, nearly out of bore.
Here are the four parts, the four actor's works. V. Pavlov as Mikhaliov confidently sketches the character of a scumbag. There are many bitter pages in his past; he has suffered a great deal from his wife Inga. But the actor needs this prehistory not to make us pity his character. No, it explains a lot, but justifies nothing. He was scumbag both when he was unhappy, and when he celebrates triumph. He understands only one language - that of power. Be there someone with more power - and he will be taken aback, or maybe, weep. But, the actor seems to say, be careful pitying my character. He can feel self-pity, but it is the only feature that is common in him with a human being.
A very complicated, and in some way a grateful for an actor way is gone by T. Doronina's character. So, she's been tormenting everyone she could reach. But after all, the actress seems to suggest, she's not actually that bad. V. Pavlov blames the offered circumstances for they provide the opportunity for the likes of Mikhaliov to celebrate at least temporary triumph. T. Doronina testifies something different: these circumstances some time ago made a devastated, unrestrained, desperate to cruelty character out of a not bad, may be, light-minded and spoiled girl. Let's see: may be even now, in the late, burnt out stage of life there remained something human in her?
It's not easy for the young actors to say their word in the duet with such strong, experienced colleagues, carried away with their rich everyday observations and playwright's social pathos. O. Menshikov manages the task brilliantly. After all, the elder here perform those who perform. Their characters are soaked with their social roles, they not so feel, say, love, jealousy, etc, as know what and how they must feel. But it's better just to notice feelings, in fact not experiencing them. O. Menshikov's Serezha is not like this. He experiences love, jealousy, fear, anger - and doesn't know how to manage this live load. O. Menshikov's artistic life developed so that we know his cheerful winner, a kind of D'Artagian of our days. Kind ("The Pokrovskie Gate"), Not quite ("Flights In Dreams And In Reality") - but always coming to win on behalf of the youth. And here he was sent to suffer constant repulses - on behalf of the same youth. The elder organized his world so that there's no room for him - their delicate, weak, maybe deserving his share of love and care offspring. He is the terrible punishment for his parents, the one Inga could only dream of. They won a strong position for him in the world, surrounded him with adults with cooing voices, released him from any material troubles. But at the same time they destroyed the slightest immunity in him. It's hard to imagine a creature less viable, almost doomed, than this, if look from outside, nearly prince possessing so many desirable toys… For his generation these were disks. Nowadays they were, probably, video.
And, of course, the girl Katya.
It is hard to accept completely the choice of the actress for this part. T. Doguileva plays brightly, bravely. Thus, in the first place, the "simple" origin of the girl Katya is underlined. And in the second, there's a deeper sense. While disorderly, in fact not burdened with moral restrictions Katya shouts, pretends, behaves on the edge of hysterics - you know that for Serezha not everything is lost. This noisiness, this petulance seem to be a wish from the director and the actress: let the young have at least one chance. Just imagine that Katya (and it is possible in the play) is a pretty, or even beautiful, reserved, canny creature. From the point of the "origin" there's no contradiction: such girls easily and quickly seize the basics of high society rules. But then unfortunately poor Serezha really doesn't have a chance.
The interpretation here remains subjective, as if not joining the part. And the conclusion drawn from the play is lost in the lack of character: I wish everything was all right, and then who knows…
But in fact? What should we think - the play ended happily or terribly? Well, you know, that depends on you. It's quite possible that cute Serezha after all has grown reasonable. And entered, as he says, "this damned MGIMO"*. The action took place, as you remember, five years ago. Now he must be about to graduate.
Of course, the play has began long before the first words were pronounced on stage. May be even before Serezha's grandmother, when he wasn't born yet, went to the throw, and his grandfather stayed to lead something. But one the other hand, the play doesn't end at once, not on the day of the so distant for us year 1981.


*) MGIMO - Moscow State Institute of International Relations, the most prestigious and desirable university, especially during the years of Soviet power, for the so-called "golden youth" - the children of well and mighty.