Analysis of Reshetnikov’s story “Podlipovtsy”.
In 1864, he became close to the editorial office of Sovremennik, where his story “Podlipovtsy” was published. Since that time, Reshetnikov has been one of the regular employees of this magazine, a friend of Nekrasov. A truthful portrayal of people's suffering, the life of a poor and destitute post-reform village placed the writer among the best writers of that time. According to Saltykov-Shchedrin, the story attracted attention “for the novelty of the situation, the originality of the language and the originality of the idea.” While retaining the features of an ethnographic sketch, “Podlipovtsy” gave readers a broad idea of the life of a remote region - the Perm province, at the same time Reshetnikov shows a vague protest, the desire of the peasants for a better life, which prompts them to leave the villages and go to barge haulers in search of “riches”. Russian literature had never yet seen such a depiction of folk life: it was dominated by sketchy disclosure of individual aspects of folk life. In the images of his heroes Pila and Sysoika, Reshetnikov shows opposite traits of the people's character. The downtrodden nature of the peasant, his weakness and humility are more fully reflected in Sysoika; on the contrary, Pyla to a greater extent embodies the heroism of the Russian people, their ability to protest, and their sense of self-worth. But barbaric living conditions - constant hunger and need - destroy this extraordinary man. “Podlipovtsy” was a new form of story from folk life. The irresistible force of circumstances - the plight of the post-reform village - sets the broad peasant masses in motion, awakens social consciousness in them, and forces them to look for places where it is better. In Reshetnikov’s subsequent work, in his novels, these principles of depicting people’s life will find even more complete expression.
87. Analysis of the poem by A.K. Tolstoy...
Summary of the drama:
The action takes place in Moscow at the end of the 16th century. Dissatisfied with the growing influence of Godunov, to whom Tsar Fedor “entrusted” power, the Shuisky princes and boyars who sympathize with them are trying to plot to remove Godunov from power; Believing that the source of Boris's influence on the Tsar was his relationship with Tsarina Irina Fedorovna (nee Godunova), the boyars plan to divorce Fedor from his wife, as if she were barren. The boyars, inspired by Ivan Petrovich Shuisky, compose a petition in which they ask the tsar to enter into a new marriage; They put their signatures on the petition, but submitting it to the king is postponed due to the unresolved issue of the bride.
The rivalry between Godunov and Shuisky worries Tsar Fedor; not understanding the reasons for this enmity, Fyodor, in Tolstoy’s tragedy is more a saint than a fool, tries to reconcile his rivals; involuntarily, under pressure from the king and queen, the rivals extend their hands to each other, but the struggle continues.
Irina conveys to Fyodor the request of the dowager queen, Maria Nagoy, to return to Moscow from Uglich, where Nagy, along with Tsarevich Dmitry, were sent immediately after Fyodor’s accession. Godunov, who in Tolstoy considers the illegitimate prince to be a real rival, resolutely opposes this. Godunov’s supporter Andrei Kleshnin, the former uncle of Tsar Fedor, delivers an intercepted letter from Golovin, who is close to the Shuiskys, to Uglich; the letter indicates the existence of a conspiracy, and Boris demands that Ivan Shuisky be taken into custody, otherwise he threatens to retire from business. Fyodor, not wanting to believe in Shuisky’s bad intentions, ultimately accepts Godunov’s “resignation”.
Meanwhile, in the absence of Ivan Shuisky, the boyars enter into the petition the name of Princess Mstislavskaya, already betrothed to the young Prince Shakhovsky. The indignant Shakhovskoy snatches the petition and disappears with it. Ivan Shuisky, who had previously rejected the proposal to remove Fedor and elevate Tsarevich Dmitry to the throne, is now inclined towards precisely this method of getting rid of Godunov. Disconnected from business, Boris asks his close associate Kleshnin to send matchmaker Vasilisa Volokhova to Uglich as the prince’s new mother, and repeats several times: “so that she will look after the prince.” Kleshnin, in turn, conveying Godunov’s instructions to Volokhova, makes it clear to her that if the prince suffering from epilepsy kills himself, she will not be asked.
Fyodor, forced to personally deal with state affairs, is burdened by them and is ready to make peace with his brother-in-law, especially since Shuisky does not respond to his calls, saying he is sick; however, for Godunov, the condition for reconciliation still remains the arrest of Shuisky. Kleshnin, aware of everything that is happening among the conspirators, informs the Tsar about the Shuiskys’ intention to elevate Tsarevich Dimitri to the throne. Fyodor refuses to believe, but Ivan Petrovich, called to him, confesses to the rebellion. In order to save Shuisky, Fyodor declares that he himself ordered the prince to be placed on the throne, but has now changed his mind. Shakhovskoy bursts into the royal chambers with a boyar petition and asks for his bride to be returned to him; Ivan Petrovich’s signature under the petition discourages Fyodor. He is ready to forgive Shuisky for his conspiracies and rebellions, but cannot forgive the offense inflicted on Irina. In anger, Fyodor signs the decree prepared long ago by Boris for the arrest of Shuisky.
In the final scene of the tragedy, the action takes place on the square in front of the Archangel Cathedral, in which Fyodor served a memorial service for his father, Ivan the Terrible. “From today,” Fyodor decides, “I will be a king.” Irina and Princess Mstislavskaya beg him to forgive Shuisky. Fyodor, whose anger was only a short flash, sends Prince Turenin for Shuisky, but he reports that Shuisky hanged himself at night; Turenin overlooked it because he was forced to fight off the crowd brought to prison by Prince Shakhovsky, and repelled it only by shooting Shakhovsky. Fyodor accuses Turenin of killing Shuisky; he regrets that he had been making peace with the boyars for too long: “It wasn’t suddenly that the deceased father / Became a formidable sovereign! Through the devious / He became formidable...” At this time, a messenger brings news from Uglich about the death of the prince. Fyodor suspects that Dmitry was also killed; Godunov proposes to send Kleshnin and Vasily Shuisky to Uglich for investigation and thereby convinces Fyodor of his innocence. Immediately there comes a message about the approach of the Tatars to Moscow and the imminent siege of the capital, “in a few hours.” Feeling unable to cope with the problems that have piled up, Fyodor agrees with Irina that only Boris can rule the kingdom. The tragedy ends with Fedor’s sorrowful monologue:
It was all my fault! And I -
I meant well, Arina! I wanted
Get everyone to agree, smooth everything out - God, God!
Why did you make me king!
"Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich"- a tragedy in five acts by A.K. Tolstoy, written in 1868; the second part of a historical trilogy, the first part of which was the tragedy “The Death of Ivan the Terrible” (1866), and the final part was “Tsar Boris” (1870).
Alexei Tolstoy in his trilogy relied on the then official version, according to which Boris Godunov, who was at enmity with the Romanov boyars, the ancestors of the reigning dynasty, was directly involved in the death of Tsarevich Dmitry (historians have long disputed this version). In a commentary to his tragedy (“Project for staging the tragedy Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich”), Alexei Tolstoy wrote: “Two parties in the state are fighting for power: the representative of antiquity, Prince Shuisky, and the representative of reform, Boris Godunov. Both parties are trying to take possession of the weak-willed Tsar Fedor as a tool for their own purposes. Fedor, instead of giving an advantage to one side or the other or subjugating one and the other, hesitates between both and through his indecision becomes the cause of: 1) Shuisky’s uprising and his violent death, 2) the murder of his heir, Tsarevich Dimitri, and the suppression of his kind. From such a pure source as Fyodor’s loving soul flows a terrible event that has broken out over Russia in a long series of disasters and evils. John's tragic guilt was his trampling of all human rights in favor of state power; Fyodor’s tragic guilt is the exercise of power with complete moral impotence.”
The stage history of the tragedy showed that the work of Alexei Tolstoy leaves the possibility of other interpretations of its content, and in particular the image of the main character. The litigation between Godunov and the Shuiskys was often interpreted as a struggle between the nascent autocracy and that “old times” when the Boyar Duma had great influence and broad powers - such an interpretation, in particular, was relevant at the turn of the century.
At the center of the play is the image of a mentally pure, kind, but weak person, a helpless ruler. The conflict lies in the incompatibility of high qualities with the position of a monarch.
I really liked the performance. The actors played great, as always! I recommend everyone to watch)
Play by A.K. Tolstoy's "Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich" - a personal tragedy that became a drama on a national scale and the subject of debate among playwrights and historians, found its stage embodiment within the walls of the "Vedogon-Theater" 11 years ago. During this time, the performance, the strongest in terms of the depth of experience, was awarded many awards, each performance is expected by the audience and keeps the audience in suspense from the moment of meeting the ruler, whose soul is too pure and gentle for the cruel realities of the world, to the closing of the wooden gates, now reminiscent of a place of crying and prayers for forgiveness, supported by the lights of church candles. Turning to historical episodes, in the chronicles you can find a phrase from Ivan the Terrible about his son, which accurately indicated the character of the future heir to the throne: “a faster and a silent person, born more for the cell than for the sovereign power.” In contrast to the demonic figure of his father, Fyodor Ioannovich (Pavel Viktorovich Kurochkin) resembles a big child, looking at those around him with loving eyes, living according to the commandments and choosing the role of a peacemaker in any situation of opposing forces. If a person is blameless, he cannot believe in deceit and meanness until the very end; he is naively ready not only to take care of all those who suffer, but also to warm his chest and forgive even his own enemy who has encroached on the family’s reputation. Why is the throne destined for the kindest martyr, languishing out of place, driven by the desire to settle everything and more than once offering his other cheek for a blow? An irony of fate or a fatal mistake of nature, the consequences of which are catastrophic.. Continuous political games of survival, in which the real future is at stake, and the degree of readiness to betray and destroy one’s neighbor in the struggle for power determines the success of the events. Letters are written on the scroll in calligraphic handwriting, the essence of which is the phrase “execute cannot be pardoned,” which has become a common noun. If the hand trembles at a fateful moment under the influence of interested parties whispering a profitable solution, then the wrong place for a comma will become a point in someone’s life and the stroke of the pen will leave a heavy mark on history. One of the key ones is the strong and completely unsolved figure of Boris Godunov (Alexei Ermakov), who acts manipulatively, operates with facts and categorically issues conclusions laid out in a rigid scheme. Author of the work in 1874 confirmed that the play is in fact dedicated to this very character, clearing his line in a giant chess game, where the initial arrangement is figuratively expressed by silhouettes on the symbolic gates that open the way to the playing field of the Moscow State. Is it possible, under the current circumstances, to trust any of the parties leading the duel? Will steps towards friendship and reconciliation turn out to be an attempt to place the Trojan Horse closer to the throne on territory that has long been unprotected? And is there a Judas in the gathering at the table, reminiscent of the scene from the painting “The Last Supper”? “But what is all the goodness and all the holiness for, if there is no support for them?” - the sealing phrase uttered by Boris Godunov is especially relevant when leading a people accustomed to the iron grip of the previous ruler. Lack of subordination, completely blurred personal boundaries, constant conformism that does not work for the good, inaction and connivance become the main cause of drama. At a turning point, the dark side of Tsar Fedor’s personality awakens, concealing the power of the Terrible Father, but the mechanism for protecting family honor and the well-being of the country works too late. The completion of settlements with life, which are prompted by the tormenting voice of conscience, a monastery for a girl whose cheeks just recently blushed at the sight of the groom, the question of whether Tsarevich Dmitry managed to receive toys as a gift - all the cruelest events in the lives of innocent people evoke a silent cry from sympathy and powerlessness to change anything. Torn to pieces by conflicting information, experiencing an unimaginable amount of pain that fell at once, trying to preserve his mind, clouded by the extreme shocks, Fyodor Ioannovich, with the support of his only relative and holy woman - Tsarina Irina Fedorovna (Natalya Timonina), finds a way to salvation in distancing himself from business The soul, thirsting to bring goodness and light, came to the wrong material body, now the further path lies in serving God with complete dedication. The final scene creates shock and genuine fear, while at the same time being the climax. “It was my fault that everything happened! And I wanted good, Arina! I wanted to bring everyone to agreement, to smooth everything over - God, God! Why did you make me king!” A great degree of respect is evoked by the people whose efforts created the performance, who conveyed so soulfully and convincingly the full power of the historical drama. Tragic events are perceived as part of reality without division into the stage and the auditorium, which the public does not leave for some time, being strongly impressed by what they saw and heard. Standing applause as the highest assessment of the actors' skill and the natural desire to plunge into twilight silence and silence in order to experience personal catharsis become the main signs of this epoch-making evening.
“Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich” at the Vedogon Theater. Very strong!! Majestic.. The audience gave a standing ovation. Full house. Bravo, Pavel Viktorovich!! Bravo! Tsar Fedor entered the heart of the viewer. The Tsar is humane, the Tsar is a saint, as the amazed Prince Shuisky says. His strength lies in purity of thought. And one cannot deny him wisdom, deep human wisdom, which is at the basis of everything. Understanding your own weakness and lack of desire to hide it, openness, integrity... Attracts dynamics. The king, kind and gentle in disposition, is not boring in his kindness. The viewer's love for him is unconditional and forgives mistakes. The beauty of the soul is in a luminous gaze, a childish smile and a burning desire for peace between people... This image cannot be forgotten. Thank you!! The tragedy of A.K. Tolstoy is modern, relevant, interesting. Alexander Bavtrikov created an incredibly attractive character! Ivan Petrovich Shuisky, from the intransigence of an ardent enemy, comes to sincere respect and admiration for him. The rebellious spirit is conquered not by force, not by cunning, but by the love of someone whom he considered an enemy. Very convincing both in rage and in insight. As a result, in the confrontation between Shuisky and Godunov, my experiences are on the side of the hero Alexander Bavtrikov. Godunov (Alexey Ermakov) is strong in spirit, purposeful, cold, cunning. Tough, closed, not sentimental.. His tragedy outside the play and in time will be later, and today he is a winner, but.. it’s bitter from the need to choose either power or soul.. Vasily Shuisky.. (Anton Vasiliev) Not flashy, but a precisely calculated strategy for the behavior of the future king.. Patience and cunning, when all means are acceptable. A recognizable, tenacious breed of successful people. Prince Shakhovskoy (Ilya Rogovin). Ardentness, ardor.. A desperate hero, a bright character.. He is not much able to bend and trade feelings, but he is capable of action. Internal heat and fire, the sparks of which are loved and desired, make the performance emotionally richer and even more piercing. Andrey Petrovich Lup-Kleshnin... intolerant, ruthless, uncompromising, strong-willed. A memorable, strong role by Vitaly Stuzhev. The women of the play.. Beauties, wise, understanding, support, rear.. Different colors of female characters. Each has its own tragedy, but bright faces... Even the corrupt Vasilisa Volokhova (Elena Shkurpelo) evokes a desire, if not to justify, but to explain the motives, i.e. the viewer saw the person and wanted to understand. This is an acting success. Very precise work. Queen Irina... Behind her outward humility, her independent character is visible, and her strength lies in her ability to master it. Royal goodwill coming from the heart and the face is truly like something from a fresco. Natalya Timonina! Mastery in every role. A harmonious duet, very gentle. Natalya Tretyak in the role of Princess Mstislavskaya is extremely good! Stunningly beautiful costume, plasticity, temperament... The viewer sympathizes and admires. The performance is crowded, the palette of characters is interesting and accurate. Each hero has a recognizable Russian national character. Violent, hot Andrei Shuisky (Vyacheslav Semein) and Ivan Krasilnikov (Sergei Nikitin). All the strength of the people and perhaps gullibility lies in Golub (Pavel Grudtsov). Ingenuousness and talkativeness in Bogdan Kuryukov (Ildar Allabirdin). Silent sadness in Metropolitan Dionysius (Dmitry Lyamochkin). Yes, and we allow ourselves to be deceived and are wrong, like Prince Mstislavsky (Mikhail Kalashnikov). But dignity is alive in every character and the audience feels it. I admired with what dignity the queen’s noblewoman (Anastasia Khusnutdinova) came out to bow. The performance is stylish! Music by Sergei Rachmaninov.. The natural color of linen and pastel colors of the wonderful costumes work on the atmosphere of the performance and mood. The essentially difficult ending of the play does not leave a gloomy aftertaste. Hope lives on. For the respect with which the theater touched our history, for the grandiose work of the entire team, there is enormous gratitude and appreciation from the audience. Well done! Bravo!! The performance will call for more, I’m sure.
I watched this performance in 2009 at the “Young Theaters of Russia” festival, during the theater’s tour in Omsk. She interviewed Pavel Viktorovich, which was then published in the Omsky Vestnik newspaper. I was very impressed by this performance, I am incredibly glad that I was able to see it.
Are supreme power and decency compatible, or is it like genius and villainy? Can someone who is called upon to decide the fate of the country live according to conscience, or will anyone at the helm certainly be soiled? Is the desire not to do evil enough to avoid becoming its instrument? These are all killer questions, and answering them is scary. To say “no” means to admit the obvious guilt and depravity of anyone who ends up at the head of the state, as well as the doom of all of us to live under the rule of such a person. To say “yes”, I’m afraid, will sin against the truth... For even the last one before the Troubles was the meek Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, nicknamed blessed not in the church sense, this failed son of the Terrible, presented by the English diplomat Fletcher as “feeble-minded, merciful and not inclined to war” - became the cause of innumerable disasters for the Fatherland, wishing with all his soul only to reconcile the boyars warring around him. I go to the theater much more often than I dare to talk about what I see, but it’s harder for me to remain silent about this performance than to talk about it. In the November poster, he was especially highlighted: “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich” - 10 years on the theater stage. If we don’t watch it now, we might not see it at all, I was scared, and bought tickets - after all, 10 years is a long time for a performance in a theater that is younger than my daughter. I once read the tragedy of the same name by Alexei Tolstoy. The plot is taken from Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State”: two parties clashed for influence on the weak-willed tsar: the Shuiskys, apologists of antiquity, and the reformer Godunov, the tsar’s brother-in-law. They stood up and attacked each other, ready to crush. And between them this... Ioannych: “boys, don’t quarrel” - he’s trying to stop them, to reconcile them. Not for the sake of state benefit - no, he doesn’t even think about politics. He simply loves both of them - Shuisky and Boris, and does not see all the contradictions and mortal enmity behind them. Can't see, not given. And of course, he is unable to either subjugate them or give an advantage to one of the parties, and through this weakness he becomes the cause of the uprising and violent death of Shuisky, the murder of his brother - Tsarevich Dmitry, the suppression of the family, the Time of Troubles. The king’s soul is pure, his thoughts contain only good, but that doesn’t make it any easier for the country... That’s the tragedy: cooing as a dove is not ruling a kingdom. He doesn’t rule, he reigns. He says to Godunov: “You know there, as you know, the state, you are very good at that...” The play is not actually about what history does with such “pigeons” - it is known that, pate. And about what the laws of government do to those who want to rule and can - with the active and intelligent Godunov, who kills opponents and competitors for the “good of the country,” with Shuisky, who, “suffering for Rus',” resorts to meanness, and this himself understands: “...there is no other choice. Untruth is struck down by untruth! “And really, what choice do they have? Is this the “good of the country” of thinking in different ways? After all, Godunov and Shuisky, for a moment,” are not unscrupulous power-hungers who were wiping themselves off the throne - they have a duty, they are still called upon by the Terrible to help his unlucky son. And both “guardians” are ready to drown everyone who interferes with them in blood... They are not the first, they are not the last. The most powerful thing in the play - may the director and artist, whose creative decisions are worth special praise, forgive me, Fyodor Ioannovich himself. He is played by the artist, artistic director and founder of the theater Pavel Kurochkin - and from now on I have a favorite actor here. In all three hours, I didn’t even remember once that I was watching a play, that it was a post-ta-new show! That this, God forgive me, autocrat with his stupidity on the verge of holiness, arousing both pity and admiration at the same time, is a game, a cleverly placed mask. You immediately believe these eyes of a child on an aged face. The laurels he received for this role would be enough for a whole grove. Few! In the gloomy stage space, sparingly lit by five candles, he seemed to be constantly in a circle of light. God knows what the real Fyodor Ioannovich was like - Tolstoy lied a lot in the play, neglecting historical truth for the sake of artistic truth. I saw in front of me a crowned “child” who is trying to reconcile the adults - to unite them, to hold them, so that they stop scolding and quarreling because for him it is torment. How can he understand why one is a good person, and the other is also good - he loves them both - why they will not stop fighting, cannot hug, be together: “well, I have reconciled you, now kiss.” He really wants to succeed... to drive out evil, to change the world. But it doesn’t work out. And he strains himself in this overwhelming task. He rushes about in horror: “It was all my fault! But I wanted the best... To get everyone to agree, to smooth everything out.” And yes, it is his fault and tragedy to exercise power with complete moral impotence. So, can someone who is responsible for everyone and before everyone live “in truth”? At the end, Fedor, leaving the reign to Boris, says: “I won’t interfere in anything anymore!” In all honesty, I could, but otherwise, excuse me. And he cannot go to the monastery, where he strives with all his soul, and it is unthinkable to be a king. And then, on stage, they busily build a terrible wooden sarcophagus in the form of a royal vestment, like a scaffold, and hammer it in, nail it to the throne, like to a cross: if you want good, be ready to sacrifice yourself.
I confess that this was my first time in your small but very nice theater. A cozy hall, comfortable seats and, for sure, a good view from any place. And from the 2nd row everything is in full view. The performance is very interesting, emotionally rich and keeps the viewer's attention throughout the entire performance. In my opinion, this is primarily an actor's performance rather than a director's performance. A magnificent ensemble cast, without exception. Amazingly subtle and very touching Pavel Kurochkin in the image of Fyodor, amazingly collected, wise and intelligent Tsarina Irina - Timonina, beautifully played by the young actor Godunov and everyone else. In my opinion, this is a very difficult play to stage, but everything worked out! There is no false pathos, which very often happens in performances with a historical plot. On the contrary - a very natural presentation of the material, everything is very harmonious, sincere, without pressure, and therefore you believe and begin to empathize, especially in the second act. The sets and costumes are very successful. Maybe it was just the wooden bells that puzzled me a little. Congratulations!!! Great!!! THANK YOU!!!
A very dynamic performance. It draws you into the action so that you come to your senses only from the ringing of your cell phone in the auditorium. It took me out of the action very painfully and was insulting. *in reproach to the careless viewer* You get such a strange feeling after watching: “but then people also LIVED. And how". Despite the fact that I am familiar with the work itself, it was the performance that brought this time and these people to life for me. An excellent solution for quickly changing “locations” of the story, a circular action to involve the viewer. Many thanks to the extras and boyars - everyone played, no one just stood there. I really like to follow the “backgrounds” - the looks, emotions, and actions of the supporting actors helped a lot in the overall atmosphere. The theme of the unhappy love between Shakhovsky and Mstislavskaya was an excellent weave into the overall outline, showing the conflict from a different angle. I would like to say a few words about A. Bavtrikov’s performance. He revealed himself to me from a completely different side. Amazing performance, catharsis from sympathy and empathy for his hero. Godunov performed by A. Ermakov is a very interesting interpretation of the character. I will definitely go again to follow him separately, once again carefully try to grasp all the meanings that the actor put into the role. Unfortunately, the most important point escaped me - my gaze was not on Godunov when the news of the death of the prince arrived. I really regretted this. Special thanks to actor Stuzhev for his strong and confident (which of course applies to all the actors in the troupe too) performance of the key character. The key Gray Cardinal, the shadow spider who, under the thumb of the Great Ones, created this whole nightmare. After all, by and large, he is to blame for what happened. Filigree play on intrigue. Simply filigree. And the cherry on the cake is the touching pair of the Tsar and the Queen. The free feeling of P. Kurochkin and N. Timonina on stage makes reality simply dissolve. A wonderful tandem, a complex line, wonderful interesting characters. The performance left an indescribable feeling.
On June 7, my husband and I arranged a weekend with the “Rurikovichs”. We put together an excursion program, visited the Kolomenskoye estate and the Kremlin, but most of all, the play “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich” at the Zelenograd Vedogon Theater helped us get into the spirit of that time. The first act went under the slogan “Oh, God, how badly I remember the story, what’s going on here?”, but already in the second act the panic passed, everything was remembered, fell into place and we began to empathize with the characters. The cast is very strong, they do not act, but live, it is even impossible to single out someone, because... Everyone plays at the same high level. At the end, I just wanted to loudly applaud everyone who took part in the creation of this masterpiece. BRAVO!
Briefly about the Tsar and not only or a review of Vedogon’s play “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich.” Impression. Let me say right away that I went to the performance with the darkest ideas about it. Those friends who had seen it before (and, if I’m not mistaken, including its director) said that this was a very difficult film and that after it it would take a long time to recover. I was preparing for a terrible tragedy, depression and endless grief. But none of this happened. No, of course, this is not a comedy at all (although its elements were present). But when choosing where to classify this performance - an emotional picture or a historical epic, I would choose the second. And from a historical point of view, there is a lot of good to be said here. It’s not about costumes or vivid living in a specific era. And about the fact that after watching the performance I became interested - hmm, what happened next? How was it there in general? It seems to me that if a 3-hour viewing of a performance makes you want to dig into the archives, that’s truly great! Regarding the acting. During the break, I overheard a discussion among the audience and the phrase from the series “only 2-3 people play.” Complex issue. Sometimes it seemed to me that the characters were overacting, sometimes on the contrary... In the end, everyone sees their character in their own way, and the viewer does not always agree with the actor. Overall: the performance is good, there is no need to be afraid, theater lovers should visit it. About the plot of what happened on stage... A reasonable question arises: should we try to do it better? Reconcile fire and water? Or is it so stupid and naive that it can be seen from the events of almost five hundred years ago? After the performance I was asked a question: whose side am I on? Who is right? Which position would I choose? It turned out that it is not so easy to answer. The king, although not a king, clearly wants only the best and does everything in his power... but it doesn’t work, at all; This is the example by which modern business people prove that saints will not save the world, we must act; and even if, seeing the kindness of the blessed, someone is inspired and changes their views on life - in the global mass this will not change anything, the mass (both people and circumstances) will trample and crush... Godunov? I didn’t see the positive sides in him from the performance, I didn’t see how he would really rule the earth and lead rationally; I saw a cruel dictator, and, if not a killer of enemies, then something very close in baseness and ruthlessness. Chief Shuisky? He changes his opinion and strategy of behavior so often that you can’t help but wonder how he managed to live up to these years and not lose influence (after all, few of those who believe in him will be happy with constant changes in strategy). In the end, yes, Godunov seems to be the most effective figure... Or did they just want to show us that there was no good way out of the situation, there were only more or less negative solutions? Philosophical subtext: “Who is right?” remained uncertain.
We teach the history of Ancient Rome, study the reign of Alexander the Great and know the date of American independence. But, however, how poorly we know our history, our heroes, and even the rulers of our state. Honestly, I don’t really remember that the History of our state was taught in such a way that it would be interesting, so that it would be fixed in memory. After all, without remembering the past, there will be no future.
The tragedy “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich” is rightfully one of the most significant works of Russian classical drama. The author of the play, poet, prose writer and playwright Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy (1817-1875), became widely known primarily as a talented master who devoted his work to the problems of national history, creating vivid pictures of life in Russia in ancient times. With particular strength, the writer’s commitment to the country’s past was embodied in a trilogy, unified in concept and artistic language, consisting of the tragedies “The Death of Ivan the Terrible” (1864), “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich” (1868) and “Tsar Boris” (1876).
The play “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich” was banned by tsarist censorship for several decades and only in 1898 was first shown in St. Petersburg on the stage of the Literary and Artistic Society theater. It is noteworthy that it was with the play “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich” that the Moscow Art Theater opened in 1898.
The performance of the title role in the tragedy of A.K. Tolstoy is associated with the outstanding creative achievements of the largest Russian artists of different generations - Pavel Orlenev, Ivan Moskvin, Nikolai Khmelev, Boris Dobronravov. This role is rightly considered one of the most difficult in the classical Russian repertoire. Each performer discovers new depths of philosophical and moral content in it.
The tragedy, based on real historical facts, takes place in the 16th century, shortly after the death of Ivan IV the Terrible, when his son Fedor was on the throne. The years of the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich (1584-1598) became the eve of a difficult and long period, called the “Time of Troubles.” Around the throne of Feodor, a fierce struggle for influence on the tsar and, essentially, for real power unfolded between the boyars, to whom Ivan the Terrible, dying, entrusted the care of the state. The Shuisky princes advocated for the preservation of the old patriarchal foundations, boyar Boris Godunov - the de facto ruler of the kingdom - sought changes in the existing and already outdated orders. The ups and downs of the struggle for the throne form an important part of the plot of the tragedy. Another important aspect of the play is the conflict between the bright and harmonious personality of Tsar Fyodor and the surrounding world of inhumanity and base passions. “If you imagine the whole tragedy in the shape of a triangle,” the author wrote about the composition of the play, “then its basis will be the competition of two parties, the pinnacle... Fyodor’s “microcosm.” Tsar Fedor’s “microcosm” is a complex world of feelings, thoughts, desires.”
Production - People's Artist of the USSR, Laureate of the USSR State Prize B.I. Ravenskikh
Artist - People's Artist of Russia E.I. Kumankov
Composer - People's Artist of the USSR, laureate of the Lenin and State Prizes of the USSR G.V. Sviridov
Directors - Honored Artist of Russia V.M. Beilis, A.I. Shuisky
State Order of the Red Banner of Labor Republican Academic Russian Choir named after A.A. Yurlova
100th performance - April 7, 1975 (I. Smoktunovsky, E. Samoilov, E. Shatrova, etc.)
200th performance - October 17, 1979 (G. Kiryushina, V. Korshunov, V. Konyaev, P. Sadovsky, Filippov, Y. Baryshev, A. Eybozhenko)
300th performance - December 20, 1980 (V. Korshunov, A. Eybozhenko, P. Sadovsky)
400th performance - March 19, 1984 (V. Korshunov)
500th performance - December 14, 1987 (V. Korshunov)
600th performance - July 1, 1990 (V. Korshunov)
700th performance - February 19, 1994 (V. Korshunov)
800th performance - November 24, 1999 (V. Korshunov)
The duration of the performance is 3 hours 25 minutes.
The last performance was played on March 5, 2004, i.e. remained in the repertoire for a little over thirty years. True, before handing over to the artistic council, I. Smoktunovsky, the performer of the role of Tsar Fyodor, turned to the actors and director with a proposal to film the play. Fortunately, the great actor did not find support. During this time, several generations of Maly Theater artists went through this production. The play outlived its creator - B. Ravenskikh died in 1980 - and was performed by Maly for another quarter of a century.
I. Smoktunovsky’s disagreements with the director and with the interpretation probably did their job. The actor, two years later, left for the Moscow Art Theater, and Y. Solomin was introduced to the role of Tsar Fyodor (1976), then E. Martsevich (1983). Tsarina Irina at the premiere will be played by G. Kiryushina (wife of B. Ravenskikh), and later R. Nifontova will be introduced. Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky will be played by E. Samoilov, then D. Pavlov will be introduced, and after him Y. Baryshev. The first performer of the role of Vasilisa will be the oldest actress of the Maly Theater E. Shatrova, after her five actresses will be introduced. If you look at the chronology of commissionings, they were done until 2002. The only exception will be V. Korshunov, the permanent performer of the role of Boris Godunov.
Maintaining the interest of the audience for thirty years, cherishing the director's score, making introductions to prolong the life of the performance - all this makes Maly's performance an extraordinary event in the history of the Russian theater.
The play “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich” is the second in the trilogy by A.K. Tolstoy - written in 1868, was under censorship ban for thirty years. It was with this play that the Moscow Art Theater opened in 1898, and the performance had a long stage life. How the monarchy leads the country to turmoil is the theme of the trilogy. The despotic Tsar Ivan the Terrible, who unites the country by mercilessly killing and punishing (at the center of the first part of the trilogy). His son Fyodor, whom the cruel John teased as a sexton, takes the throne to rule completely differently from his father, according to Christian institutions - the second part of the trilogy. And the “rootless” Godunov, who takes the throne after the Rurik dynasty ends with the murdered Tsarevich Dmitry, in order to rule according to reason - the third part.
The idea runs through the entire trilogy that no matter what the rulers are - cruel, kind, reasonable - they find themselves hostages of power and cannot reconcile their actions with virtuous institutions. The personality of Tsar Fyodor seems especially dramatic, who at the beginning of his reign wants to “accord everyone, smooth everything out.” And the result of the reign is expressed by a bitter truth for the king: “I cannot distinguish truth from untruth.” He says: “Get away from the world, there is no truth in it.”
From the first scenes I. Smoktunovsky plays neither a blessed nor a holy fool. In his notes, the actor emphasized that Fedor was a philosopher and mystic. It was also important for the actor to show that Fyodor was “adopted by the shadow of the Terrible,” that in appearance he resembles his formidable father, and in his character no, no, and his temper, even suspicion, breaks through. How can one not recall K. Stanislavsky, who was among the five actors for the role of Fyodor Vs. Meyerhold, which would resemble Ivan the Terrible in texture.
On his first appearance in the palace chambers, when Fyodor tells Arinushka that his horse carried him, frightening the king, it becomes clear that the king of Smoktunovsky is suspicious. He interrogates with passion. Fedor is trying to hide this feeling, to fight his father’s genes within himself.
Tsarina Irina G. Kiryushina looks like a nun. It seems that she can easily exchange her richly embroidered outfits, decorated with expensive stones, for a monastic robe. For Fyodor I. Smoktunovsky, marriage with Arinushka is a union of sublime, non-carnal love; for Yu. Solomin, Arinushka is as much a wife as she is a sister. He loves her with all his heart, and when the tsar jokes that Mstislavskaya is beautiful, mischievously saying “After all, I’m not old yet, After all, I can still be liked,” then it becomes clear that he is sensitive to female beauty.
For B. Ravenskikh it was fundamentally important to show the beauty of Russian antiquity, and the artist E. Kumankov became the director’s unconditional ally. They were reproached for the fact that the kingdom of Berendey was on stage, but the authors of the play recreated not so much historical life, although they remained faithful to the era, as they sought to express the poetry of A.K. Tolstoy in the very structure of speech of distant ancestors, and in the beauty of the setting, costumes, and props.
Composer G. Sviridov wrote three hymns and prayers for the performance: “Virgin Mother of God, rejoice,” “You, love, you, holy love, from the beginning you have been persecuted, drenched in blood,” “Woe to you, wretched soul.” The choir of Alexander Yurlov sang prayers. So the performance included a religious theme. And the strict greatness of Orthodox prayer, and the bright sadness, and the bitterness of the suffering of the Orthodox world - all this was powerfully expressed in the performance by the music.
It is typical for the director's style of B. Ravenskikh to enlarge the subject on stage, to bring figurativeness to a symbolic generalization.
Here Tsar Fedor, struck by the fact that Prince Ivan Petrovich Shuisky wants to put the childless queen in a monastery, makes a difficult decision for himself to put the conspirator in prison, albeit temporarily. This scene was played by equally different performers of the role of Fyodor. When the tsar puts a seal, it is not an everyday gesture, but a poetic one. The seal falls on the letter like an ax blow. The Tsar does not know yet, but the gesture gave an alarming sign about the future fate of Shuisky, who, at the instigation of Godunov, will be strangled.
V. Korshunov does not play, however, a villain. Before kissing the cross and reconciling Godunov and Shuisky under Tsar Fyodor, a public dispute takes place between the two warring people, in which Godunov behaves like a smart politician, and the prince behaves like a lover of truth with a warm heart. Godunov is not thinking about reigning, he is thinking about the interests of the state. He sees that Fedor is not able to show will, does not understand that politics is not the sphere of morality. Godunov Korshunov needs power not for the sake of power, but for the benefit of the state. Prince Ivan Shuisky, as E. Samoilov played him, is a straightforward man, passionate about truth and justice, who enters the sphere of politics and loses his life. But Godunov, in his desire for benefit, crosses the line: Shuisky is strangled, Tsarevich Dmitry is killed.
The tsar's awareness of the complete collapse of the state was, of course, played out in different ways. Fyodor Smoktunovsky lost his physical strength and turned into a weak patient who was dying. For Fyodor Yu. Solomin, the death of Tsarevich Dmitry is the loss of his younger brother, who became his son. The last in the Varangian branch, Tsar Fedor himself gives power to Godunov. Godunov takes Monomakh’s hat in his hands, as if trying it on himself, but places it in front of Fyodor, who already hates power.
“The Death of Ivan the Terrible”, “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich”, “Tsar Boris” - dramatic trilogy by A.K. Tolstoy. The genre designation of plays given by the author is tragedy. “The Death of Ivan the Terrible” was written in 1862-1864, first published in “Notes of the Fatherland” (1866, No. 1). “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich” was composed in 1864-1868, the first publication was in “Bulletin of Europe” (1868, No. 5). "Tsar Boris" was written in 1868-1869. and published in the “Bulletin of Europe” (1870, No. 1).
Dramatic trilogy by A.K. Tolstoy was created in the era of liberal reforms, when there was a general interest in the problems of Russian history. At a time of historical shifts and changes in all forms of Russian life, historiosophical issues have acquired particular relevance. In the works of A.K. himself. Tolstoy’s appearance of the dramatic trilogy was largely prepared by his historical ballads, work on the novel from the era of Ivan the Terrible “Prince Silver”, and historical studies. The sources that inspired A.K. Tolstoy was inspired by the creation of historical dramas from ancient Russian stories about the Time of Troubles, the works of Prince Kurbsky, the memoirs of the Dutch merchant I. Massa, volumes IX-XI of “History of the Russian State” by N.M. Karamzin, “The Story in Persons of Tsar Boris Feodorovich Godunov” M.P. Pogodin, “Time of Troubles of the Moscow State at the beginning of the 16th century” I century" N.I. Kostomarov, as well as Pushkin’s “Boris Godunov”.
Dramatic trilogy by A.K. Tolstoy is distinguished by the strict unity of artistic composition, which is based on the Hegelian triad: thesis-antithesis-synthesis. In historiosophical terms, it illuminates the tragedy of power; in religious and philosophical terms, it is based on the discrepancy between earthly truth-justice and heavenly truth-truth; in moral and philosophical terms, it develops the theme of the “direct” and “roundabout” path to the establishment of the kingdom of justice on earth. The setting of the plays is Moscow Rus', the symbolic center of which is the royal throne. Duration: Troubles. The cross-cutting action is built centripetally in relation to the figure of the title character. At the center of each of the three plays is the image of an autocratic ruler, whose personality largely determines the content of the historical process that prepared the Time of Troubles: he explains its causality, meanings and results. The images of the main characters form a triptych depicting the features of the national character and its various types.
The content of the first part of the trilogy is “ Death of Ivan the Terrible“- the playwright makes the “beginning of the end” of John’s reign. The action of the tragedy develops on the eve of the death of the main character. The image of a tailed comet as a harbinger of troubles refers to similar images of Shakespearean tragedies, and the “Cyril’s Day” predicted by the wise men refers to the “Ides of March” of Julius Caesar. The personal collapse of John himself echoes the collapse of his kingdom: “It’s over! So this is where the long path of greatness leads me!” - to “adversity”, “sorrowful vacillation of all Rus'”. In the face of eternity, the “disintegration” of John’s work is perceived as God’s punishment for his innumerable crimes. The king approaches his decline, overwhelmed by repentance and great fear of the Lord's judgment.
Ivan the Terrible is presented in the tragedy as a man “burnt out in passions” (A.K. Tolstoy). All his actions to organize Rus' are constant “paroxysms of arbitrariness”, giving the general flavor of the tragedy a feeling of joylessness and oppression. In John’s circle, two types of characters emerge, not completely crushed by fear, not resigned to the bloody tyranny. Prince Sitsky, who made fair denunciations, and the experienced boyar Zakharin-Yuryev, is the hero of the “straight path” in achieving the goal. The ambitious pragmatist Boris Godunov, whose soul “asks for struggle and action,” chooses for his goals a “slippery,” “roundabout” path, “dangerous for the soul.” He is the most active person in the tragedy. The dream of supreme power forces Boris to expose the conspiracies of the courtiers, buy out traitors, call on the Magi in the hope of finding out his future, hasten and prepare the death of the crown bearer. The tragedy ends with the death of Ivan the Terrible and the first orders of Boris Godunov as the closest adviser to the new Tsar. With the words “This is autocracy’s punishment! This is the outcome of our disintegration!” a moral conclusion has been drawn. The prediction of future disasters is in the final words of Zakharyin-Yuryev: “You have sown an evil seed, boyar Godunov! I don’t expect a good harvest from him!”
The central part of the trilogy is “ Tsar Feodor Ioannovich" - acts as an antithesis in relation to its first part: the formidable king is replaced by a "saint on the throne", reigning "with love, and with piety, and with meekness." The spiritual microcosm of Fyodor Ioannovich is the top of a triangle of power, the basis of which was the mortal battle of two parties in the struggle for influence on the tsar. Each of the participants in this tragedy - both the supporter of the “straight” path, the hero of the defense of Pskov Ivan Petrovich Shuisky and the cunning Boris Godunov - knows what a fair structure of Russian life should ultimately be like. Each of them has their own truth and their own rightness, which they defend with furious hatred of the enemy. The ongoing dispute about the fate of Rus', in which everyone is right and no one is completely right, determines the development of the conflict. This truth and justice of the worldly structure of power dictates the logic of the struggle, the need for which is clear to each of the characters in Russian history, realized by them and, in principle, acceptable to them.
But the gospel “wisdom of madness” of Tsar Fyodor is absolutely inaccessible to the “Euclidean minds” of those around him, unacceptable and strange. He also knows, but his knowledge is “not of this world.” (It is no coincidence that the similarity of this image with the image of Dostoevsky’s “positively beautiful” hero, Prince Myshkin, noted by criticism. Both of them are “the last of their kind” and both are marked by the features of “otherworldliness.”) The spiritual height of Fyodor’s personality is not in the wisdom of the ruler, but in life “according to conscience”, in his calling “to be a man”. The image of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich was built by the playwright on the finest line between holiness and goodness, humility and weakness of nature; between foolishness as a certain type of Russian holiness and mental illness. The playwright calls Fyodor’s loving soul a “pure source.” But from this source flows a terrible event that broke out over Russia in a long series of disasters and evils - the murder of Tsarevich Dimitri, inspired by Godunov. The best intentions of Fyodor Ioannovich, his desire to “accept everyone, smooth everything out,” an attempt to act outside his typical role as a tsar (the famous “Am I a tsar or not a tsar?”) lead to the final catastrophe: “It was all my fault that everything happened...”. From now on, according to the author, “he died for the world, he all belongs to God.”
The final part of the trilogy - “ Tsar Boris" - dedicated to the reign of Boris Godunov. The beginning of the tragedy is the moment of Boris’s highest triumph: the goal is achieved, he is crowned king. From now on, nothing prevents him from synthesizing the best features of the two previous reigns and achieving harmony of the whole: to reign “righteously and wisely, in the silence of Rus', like Tsar Theodore, in fear of the enemies, like the terrible John.”
But Boris is unable to break the “connection with the past”: the shadow of the murdered Tsarevich Dimitri haunts him. Boris “must argue with the name, with the sound.” The ambiguous prediction of the Magi comes true: “He is weak, but he is powerful... Himself and not himself... Guilty before everyone... Killed, but alive” (an obvious reference to the predictions of Shakespeare's witches to Macbeth).
Connected with the theme of an innocent sacrifice for a sinful world is the theme of historical retribution. A series of misfortunes (the appearance of the Pretender, the poisoning of the fiancé of Christian’s daughter, the boyars’ dissatisfaction with the cancellation of St. George’s Day, unrest among the people and the revival of banditry) is Boris’s retribution for the past, which he is unable to either cancel or atone for. According to A.K. Tolstoy, justifying a crime by the height of the goal is impossible due to the absoluteness of the highest truth.
All the themes outlined by the playwright at the beginning of the trilogy find completion in its last part. Showing the worldly content of truth-justice in the light of heavenly truth-truth can be defined as the primary task of the author of this dramatic trilogy.
The first production of “The Death of John...” was carried out in 1867 by the Alexandrinsky Theater (St. Petersburg). The premiere took place at the Maly Theater (Moscow) in 1868. In 1896, the leading role in the tragedy was played by the outstanding Italian artist E. Rossi. Later, the tragedy was staged by directors: K.S. Stanislavsky and A.A. Sanin (Moscow Art Theater, 1899; in the title role - K.S. Stanislavsky and V.E. Meyerhold); L.E. Kheifets (Central Theater of the Soviet Army, Moscow. 1966); R.S. Agamirzyan (Leningrad Drama Theater named after V.F. Komissarzhevskaya. 1976).
The first production of “Tsar Fyodor...” was carried out on October 12, 1898 by the St. Petersburg Theater of the Literary and Art Society (Suvorinsky). On October 14 of the same year, the Moscow Public Art Theater opened with the premiere of “Tsar Fyodor...”: directors - K.S. Stanislavsky And A.A. Sanin; the role of Fyodor is brilliantly gigantic I.M. Moskvin. Later, the tragedy was staged by directors: R.S. Agamirzyan (1972, Leningrad Drama Theater named after V.F. Komissarzhevskaya); M.G. Shepenko (1997, Chamber stage; Moscow).
The first production of “Tsar Boris” was carried out in 1881 in Moscow. On the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater the tragedy was staged in 1898 and resumed in 1900. On the stage of the Maly Theater the tragedy was performed in 1899 and 1902. In 1978, the tragedy was staged by R.S. Agamirzyan on the stage of the Leningrad Drama Theater named after V.F. Komissarzhevskaya, thereby completing her stage triptych based on the dramatic trilogy of A.K. Tolstoy.