Richard III was very rarely staged in Russian theatre in tsarist and Stalin’s times, because the
story of inhuman tyranny provoked associations with Russian political reality. In the period of
the so-called “Thaw” (1954ß1964) the play became very popular in the USSR and several scenic
productions of it were real events in Russian (and Soviet) theatrical life.
In the essay three most original and successful performances (in Kujbyshev, Gorkij and
Erevan) are discussed and compared

Sokolyansky, Mark

Multicultural Shakespeare Translation Appropriation and Performance

English

Richard III was very rarely staged in Russian theatre in tsarist and Stalin’s times, because the
story of inhuman tyranny provoked associations with Russian political reality. In the period of
the so-called “Thaw” (1954ß1964) the play became very popular in the USSR and several scenic
productions of it were real events in Russian (and Soviet) theatrical life.
In the essay three most original and successful performances (in Kujbyshev, Gorkij and
Erevan) are discussed and compared

Biblioteka Nauki - repozytorium artykuÅÃ³w

Richard III in Russian Theatre at the Twilight of the "Thaw"

Repozytorium Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego (University of Lodz Repository)

Mark SOKOLYANSKYMark SokolyanskyRichard III in Russian Theatre...Richard III in Russian Theatreat the Twilight of the ‘‘Thaw,,Shakespeare’s Richard III played a minor role, if any, in the repertoire ofRussian pre-revolutionary theatre. One cannot speak of a rich scenic history ofthe play in tsarist Russia. In fact, Shakespeare’s history plays were performedrarely on the Russian stage in the nineteenth century or on the Soviet stagebefore the 1960s.1 Moscow’s Maly Theatre, the most important theatre in thenineteenth century, performed Richard III in the 1877/78 season, starringAlexander Lensky as Richard Gloucester. The production was revived in 1884and again in 1896 with the great actor Alexander Yuzhin (Sumbatov) asRichard. Russian theatre historians agree that it was the top achievement inthe pre-revolutionary history of Richard III on the national stage (Shtein278–82).The unpopularity of the play in tsarist and Stalin’s times is a socio-culturalphenomenon which is not difficult to comprehend. This story of inhuman tyranny,in which not only the rise but also the decline and fall of the bloody usurperis represented, could not but help contradict the numerous restrictions andprohibitions of totalitarian ideology and politics. Although neither this play norother dramatic works by Shakespeare were officially prohibited in Soviet Russiaor after 1922, in the Soviet Union, the play was, nevertheless, rarely performed.The Moscow Maly Theatre, which had the most stable interest in this playduring the epoch of fin de siècle, made one more attempt to stage Richard IIIin the season of 1919/20. The performance was directed by the talented Russiantheatrical director Alexander Sanin with the same Richard (Alexander Yuzhin)1 In her monograph on the fate of Shakespeare’s drama on the Soviet stage, Sofia Nels (1960)writes only about the tragedies and comedies.who had starred in the 1896 production. It did not repeat, however, the formersuccess, and its run on stage was brief.In 1935 Richard III was staged by the Great Dramatic Theatre (BDT) inLeningrad. The director’s idea and plan belonged to K. Tverskoj, but two othernames were listed on the playbill as co-directors: V. Sofronov and G. Gurevich.The sets were created by the prominent theatrical artist Alexander Tyshler, whowas also famous as the creator of the sets for the production of King Lear inthe State Jewish Theatre (Moscow) in the same year. Two well-known Russianactors played Richard in turn – Vasilij Sofronov and Nikolaj Monakhov. Theproduction was successful and ran for 124 performances. After this performancethe history of Soviet theatre saw no new productions of Richard III until 1957.For the last eighteen years of Stalin’s bloody dictatorship, the play was neverincluded in the repertoire plans of the vast majority of the theatres in thewhole country.‘‘A new stage in Soviet Shakespeare repertoire began in 1954,,, according toAleksandr Anikst, the prominent Russian Shakespeare scholar of the Sovietperiod (Anikst 630). It was the beginning of the so-called period of the ‘‘Thaw,,.Such was (and is) the widely popular definition of the post-Stalinist, orKhrushchev, decade, which owed its metaphoric semantics to the title of a longshort story of the same name by the well-known Russian writer Ilya Ehrenburg,published in 1954. In short, it was a period of animation in the intellectualand spiritual life of the country, and the changes for the better also touchedthe treatment of Shakespearean plays by Soviet theatre. The essential renovationof national and multinational theatrical aesthetics in Shakespeare productionsbegan then.In 1954, on the threshold of this ‘‘post-Caesarian,,period, a new approach toShakespeare became apparent in two new productions of Hamlet in Moscow andLeningrad (Sokolyansky 118–24). The interest of Soviet directors in Richard IIIripened slowly for different socio-cultural and political reasons. First, none ofthe Soviet multinational theatres (Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian, Lithuanian)could fall back on the considerable national tradition of interpretation; second,the ‘‘Caesarian,,times of Stalinist rule had not yet been relegated to the past,and early changes in the political order had not yet been firmly established.Interestingly, the first attempt to perform Richard III in the post-StalinistUSSR was in Georgia, the motherland of the dictator. In 1957 the KoteMardzhanishvili Theatre in Tbilisi staged Richard III directed by G. Kuntashvili(sets were by the well-known artist Iosif Sumbatashvili) with Vasilij Godziashvilias Richard. In the reviewers’ opinion, the performance was not really a greatsuccess, but it was a necessary and important first step in the appropriationof this play by Soviet theatre (Krymova 150). The real boom in Richard IIIin the Soviet Union began several years later – in the first half of the 1960s,i.e. in the twilight of the Thaw, when this history play became more popular68 Mark Sokolyanskywith Russian (and other Soviet) theatrical companies than even Hamlet orRomeo and Juliet.Why did the interest in this chronicle play develop so slowly in the SovietUnion? Some historians of Russian and Soviet theatre argue that this sluggishnesswas due to the long time it took for directors to comprehend this difficultdrama and develop plans for their productions (Mel’nikova 173–89). Othersargue that the inertia was due to the long engrained fear theatrical directorshad of the theatrical censors for whom the play could easily provoke reminiscencesand analogies of the recent notorious past and concrete political figures (LawrenceOlivier’s film adaptation of Richard III was not shown to a broader Sovietaudience until 1964). The second wave of total denunciation of Stalin and hispersonality cult that took place in 1961 probably stimulated the theatre’s interestin the play. Both explanations may be admissible, but only in an organiccombination one with another. Political and ideological reasons are importantin countries with totalitarian regimes, but one cannot ignore the individualcreative and purely aesthetical motives as well.Three notable performances took place, not in Moscow and Leningrad, theofficial and cultural capitals, but in provincial cities. In 1962 Richard III wasperformed by the experienced director Pyotr Monastyrsky in the dramatic theatreof Kujbyshev (now Samara); the sets and costumes were designed by P. Belov.One year later the play was staged in another Volga city – Gorkij (now NizhnijNovgorod) – by Evgenij Tabachnikov with the sets by Valerij Gerasimenko.One and a half years later The Tragical History of Richard III was performedat the Stanislavsky Theatre of Russian Drama in Erevan, the capital of theArmenian republic. The director was Avet Avetisyan and the set designerA. Shakaryan.The Shakespeare productions of the 1950s were marked as a rule bytraditional and pompous sets which determined, to some extent, an old-fashioned style of acting (Mel’nikova 175). The productions of Richard IIImentioned above were performed with simpler sets, neither conventional andfunctional nor ‘‘archaeological,,and cumbersome. In Kujbyshev and Gorkija throne served as a metonym for the Royal place, a relevant symbol of powerand the protagonist’s thirst of power while in Erevan the accessories of theRoyal palace were even more sparingly represented and the sets were poorand almost ascetic.In Kujbyshev, both the platform before the throne and the path to thethrone were red, which alluded to both the colour of blood and the colour ofthe Soviet flag, and Richard’s costume became a brighter and even brighterred with each new murder he committed or commissioned, a cliché the directorunfortunately did not avoid. In Gorkij, E. Tabachnikov used only one sign forthe palace – a throne located in the centre of the stage. In Erevan, A. Avetisyanpreferred more conventional decorations for the performance. Although timid,69Richard III in Russian Theatre...all these innovations were, nevertheless, dictated by the directors’ will to distancetheir productions from an out-of-date romantic treatment of the well-known play.The decisive point in every performance was the understanding of theprotagonist’s character. In the Georgian performance of 1957, V. Godziashviliplayed Richard in the relatively traditional romantic manner (Bartoshevich 53)– probably the last attempt to romanticize Richard in the Soviet theatre of thepost-Stalin era. The performances of 1962–64 were marked by just the oppositeintention, but the manners of their realization were quite different, as were theactors playing Richard.Nikolaj Zasukhin, in the Kujbyshev performance, looked like a real monster;however, there was nothing extraordinary or monstrous in his manners andspeech. As Pyotr Monastyrsky, the director of the performance, wrote later,the actor tried to express ‘‘the tragedy of individualism’s fruitlessness [...],,.N. Zasukhin summed up the history of his hero: ‘‘Richard shed rivers of bloodfor the sake of power. He profaned all objects sacred to humanity and remaineda symbol of monstrous rationality. Besides, he never felt even the simplest,usual human joy,,(Monastyrsky 203).In the Gorkij production, Vladimir Samojlov wore little make up and inspite of his hump, appeared physically normal, an audacious and clever person;his Richard, in black and grey clothes with the golden chain around his neck,could even be considered to be an attractive man. His ‘‘inner evolution [...]is expressed not through repentance, but through the strengthening boredomand contempt for people,,(Alekseeva 35).In outward appearance these stage characters were totally different, but onecould notice a common trend in both productions: the directors’ and players’distinct intention to deprive their Richards of traditionally demonic features andbring them closer to reality, especially to the audience’s personal experience.And that experience was connected with Stalin’s times. The stance of thetheatre toward the protagonist called forth obvious associations with and discussionsabout not only the extent to which the performances followed the playwright’sconcept, but also the real, bloody ‘‘Richard,,of recent Soviet history.In the Erevan, the director’s intention was unexpected. He wanted to illustratethe old Russian theatre proverb that ‘‘the court played king,,( )and that feudal England, as described by Shakespeare, owed its national tragedynot only to Richard Gloucester, but also to the royal court. Such an intentionwas, however, contradicted sharply by the talented actor performing the leadingpart. Armen Dzhigarhanyan played Richard gaily and enthusiastically, standingout against the background of the rest of the company. His vigorous andsometimes ‘‘merry,,Richard was a villain, of course, but in several scenes heresembled an actor who is inclined to overact. While the whole situation wasclose to tragic, Richard/Dzhigarhanyan himself could act ridiculous. This wasnot an actor’s essential mistake, but his deliberate intention to portray optimistically70 Mark Sokolyanskythe history Shakespeare had painted tragically. He tried to convince the spectatorsthat human history is not absolutely hopeless if people have learned to mocktheir tyrants.Regrettably, it was the last attempt by Soviet theatre in that period tointerpret Richard III optimistically. In the autumn of 1964 a coup d’etat tookplace in Moscow and the Brezhnev era began. This event ended the ‘‘Thaw,,.Later, the Brezhnev period of Soviet history would be called the ‘‘time ofstagnation,,. Shakespearean plays were produced on the Soviet stage for thenext two decades, just as before, but direct political analogies or allusions tothe recent past were either impossible or considerably reduced and softened.This circumstance forced theatre directors and companies to look for otherways and means to bring their message to their spectators.Nonetheless, the work of the theatres which staged Richard III in the early1960s was not in vain; it created a fruitful tradition which was to bedeveloped further in the 1970s when Richard III became one of the mostpopular Shakespearean plays in the repertoire of dramatic theatres in theUSSR: in 1972, at the Rainis Theatre of Latvian Drama in Riga withH. Liepin as Richard; again in 1972, at the Zan’kovets’ka Ukrainian Theatrein L’viv, directed by Serhij Danchenko’s and starring Fedir Strygun andBohdan Stupka; in 1976 at the Crimean Theatre of Russian Drama in Sim-feropol, directed by Anatolij Novikov with Alexander Goloborod’ko as Ri-chard; in 1976 at the Vakhtangov Theatre in Moscow, directed by RachyaKaplanyan, with Mikhail Ulyanov, one of the best Russian dramatic actors ofhis time, as Richard; and finally in 1979, at the Shota Rustaveli Theatre inTbilisi, Georgia, with the widely known production directed by the prominentGeorgian director Robert Sturua with Romaz Chhikvadze as Richard. But thesewere already the events of another historical period and deserve specialconsideration.Works CitedA l e k s e e v a, A. N. ‘‘Vladimir Samojlov v roli Richarda,,[Vladimir Samojlov plays Richard].Uczonye zapiski Gor’kovskogo universitet. no. 69. Gor’kij: Gor’kovskij Universitet, 1964.31–35.A n i k s t, Aleksandr. ‘‘Stsenicheskaja istorija dramaturgii Uilyama Shekspira,,[The Stage Historyof Shakespearean Dramaturgy]. Shekspir, Uilyam. Polnoe Sobranie Sochinenij [The CompleteWorks]. Eds. A. Smirnov and A. Anikst. Vol. 8. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1960. 597–632.B a r t o s h e v i c h, A. ‘‘Dialogi s Shekspirom,,[Dialogues with Shakespeare]. Teatr 6 (1976): 52–56.F r e e d m a n, Barbara. ‘‘Critical junctures in Shakespeare’s screen history: the case of Richard III.,,Ed. Russell Jackson. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2000. 47–71.K r y m o v a, N. ‘‘ ‘Richard III’ v Tbilisi.,,Teatr 8 (1957): 147–52.71Richard III in Russian Theatre...M e l ’n i k o v a, S. ‘‘Teatral’nye paradoksy ‘Richard III’,,[Theatrical Paradoxes of ‘Richard III’].Shekspirovskie Chtenija – 1985 [Shakespeare Readings – 1985]. Ed. A. Anikst. Moscow:Nauka, 1987: 173–86.M o n a s t y r s k i j, P. Glavnyj rezhissyor [The Chief Director]. Kujbyshev: Knizhnoe Izdatel’stvo, 1985.N e l s, Sofja. Shekspir na sovetskoj stsene [Shakespeare on the Soviet Stage]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1960.S h t e i n, A. ‘‘Malyj Teatr igraet Shekspira,,[Maly Theatre Plays Shakespeare]. ShekspirovskieChtenija – 1977. Ed. A. Anikst. Moscow: Nauka, 1980. 257–89.S o k o l y a n s k y, Mark. ‘‘Hamlet in Russian culture of the period of the Thaw.,,Hamlet: East-West.Eds. Marta Gibin´ska and Jerzy Limon. Gdan´sk: Theatrum Gedanense Foundation, 1998. 118–24.72 Mark Sokolyansky

http://dspace.uni.lodz.pl:8080/xmlui/bitstream/11089/9490/1/07-Sokolyansky.pdf

Richard III in Russian Theatre at the Twilight of the "Thaw"

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Biblioteka Nauki - repozytorium artykuÅÃ³w

Repozytorium Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego (University of Lodz Repository)

Richard III in Russian Theatre at the Twilight of the "Thaw"

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Biblioteka Nauki - repozytorium artykuÅÃ³w

Repozytorium Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego (University of Lodz Repository)

Biblioteka Nauki - repozytorium artykuÅÃ³w