Encyclopedia of Russian History

by James Millar

  The undisputed turning point in Russian theater occurred when Konstantin Stanislavsky (1863-1938), an amateur actor and director, and Vladimir Nemirovich Danchenko (1858-1943), a playwright who also taught at the Philharmonic Drama School, joined forces and created the Moscow (Popular) Art Theater in 1898. In productions that reflected trends in Europe at the time, an overall conception of the director united all parts of a production: script, actors, movement, costumes, sets, and lights. They also tried to create the impression that audiences were observing real people with psychological depth in realistic circumstances by incorporating historically accurate costumes, sets, and props. These hallmarks of naturalism were most successful in productions of Anton Chekhov’s (1860-1904) plays, but the theater also staged works by Maxim Gorky (1868-1936), Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906), Gerhart Hauptmann (1862-1946), and many others in its long history. The theater fostered many outstanding performers, including Ivan Moskvitin (1874-1956), Olga Knipper (1868-1959), and Mkhail Chekhov (1891-1955). In a series of studios, Stanislavsky experimented with actors’ training and developed his “system,” also known as the Method, which has had a profound impact on theater and film in the West.

  The era of 1898 to 1929 was the richest period for Russian theater. Stanislavsky’s pupil, Vsevolod Meyerhold (1874-1940), rejected naturalism and strove to maximize the theatrical elements of performances, an approach that did not always enamor him to the public or to performers

  1537

  THEATER

  such as Vera Kommissarzhevskaya (1864-1910), a great actress of the day. Evgeny Vakhtangov’s (1883-1922) brief career culminated in his Princess Turandot (1922), an example of his style of fantastic realism, which bridged Vsevolod Meyer-hold’s abstractions and Stanislavsky’s naturalism. At the Kamerny Theater, Alexander Tairov (1885-1950) created an atmosphere for the expression of the deepest emotions of performers through movement rather than naturalistic acting. While writing plays and theatrical theory, Nikolai Evreinov (1879-1953) directed at Kommissar-zhevskaya’s theater and his own Crooked Mirror, an example of popular small theaters at that time. Symbolism, a neoromantic movement that arose in reaction to realism and emphasized aesthetics and the spiritual, influenced some of the era’s important playwrights, including Leonid Andreyev (1871-1919), Fyodor Sologub (1863-1927), and Alexander Blok (1880-1921).

  Following the Russian Revolution in October 1917, theater experienced an outpouring of innovation. Theaters were divided into two groups: former important theaters became academic theaters with substantial subsidies and considerable freedom, while smaller theaters received less support with greater controls. In 1923 the government established Glavrepertkom, the organization responsible for censorship over theaters. Meyerhold developed his theory of movement known as biomechanics. Increasingly influenced by cubism and constructivism, he and other directors of the day often turned to abstract artists, such as Lyubov Popova (1889-1924) for set designs. The Jewish Habima Theater and the Moscow State Yiddish Theater also flourished. Important playwrights including Vladimir Mayakovsky (1893-1930), Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940), Nikolai Erdman (1901-1970), and Sergei Tretyakov (1892-1939) offered critiques of the young Soviet society.

  Popular participation in theater exploded at this time. Proletkult, an organization that called for a new culture by and for workers, supported such activities as TRAM (Theaters for Working Youth), whose actors worked in chosen professions by day and rehearsed and performed during their free time. Other amateur troupes formed in army units, factories, and local clubs. Their performances sometimes involved courtroom scenarios, known as agit-trials, with audiences as juries to debate current issues. Traveling companies of “living newspapers” and “blue blouses” performed a series of short skits of news and other issues to illiterate au1538 diences. Amateurs and professionals worked together to realize “mass spectacles” that recreated major historical events, such as The Storming of the Winter Palace (1920), which involved five hundred musicians, eight thousand performers, and over one hundred thousand spectators.

  As Communist Party controls tightened in the 1930s, theater and all arts were expected to follow the guidelines of socialist realism, which called for upholding Communist Party policies in an easily understandable realist style. This highly didactic formula presented “positive heroes” for the public to emulate, and plays always pointed toward an optimistic socialist future. Experimentation in text and technique ended. In this environment playwrights such as Nikolai Pogodin (1900-1962), Alexander Afinogenov (1904-1941), Vsevolod Vishnevsky (1900-1951), and Alexei Arbuzov (1908-1986) managed to create meaningful dramas in spite of the limitations. A new generation of directors also attempted to offer interesting but safe productions: Nikolai Okhlopkov (1900-1967), Yuri Zavadsky (1894-1977), and Nikolai Akimov (1901-1968). Others suffered. Accused of “formalism,” a euphemism for nonconformity, Meyerhold was executed in 1940. Playwrights Tretyakov and Vladimir Kirshon (1902-1938) met a similar fate. Tairov struggled to stage permissible plays. TRAM theaters came under state control as professional Komsomol theaters.

  Although many professional troupes performed for frontline troops and new plays supported the war effort during World War II from 1941 to 1945, strict controls were reestablished after the war until Josef Stalin’s death in 1953. Tairov was removed as director of his Kamerny Theater in 1949. As part of the rootless cosmopolitan campaign predominantly against Jews, Solomon Mikhoels (1890-1948), a famous actor and head of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, was killed. Dramatists were expected to adopt the no-conflict theory that corresponded to the supposedly new level of socialist achievement in the Soviet Union: no longer was society divided into bad opponents of the system and good supporters. Now socialism and drama reflected struggles between the good and the better. Without meaningful conflict, the quality of drama declined. Theater attendance fell, and the party renounced the theory in 1952.

  The period following Stalin’s death is considered the Thaw in Soviet society and culture. In the theatrical realm Glavrepertkom was abolished, and

  ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

  THEATER

  the Ministry of Culture assumed responsibility for censorship. Although socialist realism continued, theaters increasingly staged productions with non-realist sets and pessimistic or ambiguous endings. Productions also began to breach the “fourth wall” by incorporating the audience in the action. Two important theaters emerged: the newly created Sovremennik under the leadership of Oleg Efremov (1927-2000) and the Taganka led by Yuri Lyubi-mov (b. 1917), whose group of recent theater school graduates performed Bertolt Brecht’s Good Person of Sechuan and revived the moribund troupe. Its later productions included adaptations of Yuri Trifonov’s (1925-1981) prose works and recent poetry by An-drey Voznesensky (b. 1933) and Yevgeny Yev-tushenko (b. 1933). The Sovremennik emphasized new playwrights such as Viktor Rozov (b. 1913) and Vasily Aksenov (b. 1932). At the same time, talented directors Anatoly Efros (1925-1987) and Georgy Tovstonogov (1915-1989) took the helm at reputable theaters. Arbuzov and young dramatists, such as Alexander Vampilov (1937-1972), Alexander Volodin (b. 1919), and Eduard Radzinsky (b. 1936), explored the dilemmas of everyday life. Many recent foreign dramatists were published in translation. Student theaters thrived.

  After Nikita Khrushchev’s fall from power in 1964, a more conservative approach to the arts ensued, but innovation continued. Although important directors continued to work, Efros and Lyubi-mov repeatedly had their productions banned or censured by the press. While socialist realism represented official policy, synthetic theater, which emphasized the use of music and lighting to augment the emotions and messages of a production, allowed greater flexibility in staging. By the early 1980s most professional theaters in Leningrad and Moscow created “second stages” that allowed for further experimentation. In this venue promising directors, such as Lev Dodin (b. 1944), Kama Ginkas (b. 1941), and Peter Fomenko (b. 1932), could stage new works, and young actors gained valuable experience because important rol
es on the main stage were reserved for senior performers. On the Taganka’s small stage, Anatoly Vasilev (b. 1942) staged Viktor Slavkin’s Cerceau, considered one of the most innovative productions of the 1980s. Ludmilla Petru-shevskaya’s (b. 1938) plays, whose language has been described as “tape recorder” for its ability to copy natural speech, were first performed by amateurs. Both playwrights addressed the elusive nature of a meaningful life in modern Soviet society. Amateur stages provided rich alternatives for both proENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY fessional and amateur directors as well as spectators who were seeking new approaches to theater.

  The final decade of the Soviet era began with severe censorship, but the twentieth century ended with almost complete freedom. In 1982 Yuri Andropov became General Secretary of the party, and initiated a strict anti-Western policy that adversely affected theatrical repertoires. Under his successor, Konstantin Chernenko, Yuri Lyubimov was forced into exile in 1984. Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost policy reversed this trend, and by 1989 theaters operated without political censorship. Theaters attempted to operate under self-financing, which removed governmental subsidies. Lenin Komsomol Theater director Mark Zakharov (b. 1933) led the effort to establish independence for troupes. The number of theaters mushroomed when the government allowed the formation of theaters without official supervision. However, the success of some troupes depended on those earlier conflicts with the state, and Lyubimov’s return to the Taganka in 1989 could not revive its former glory. The Moscow Art Theater split into two companies: Chekhov MAT, led by Oleg Efremov, who had led the combined troupe since 1970; and Gorky MAT, led by Tatyana Doronina (b. 1933). In the 1990s Vasilev and Fomenko formed their own troupes to accommodate their unorthodox approaches to rehearsals and performances. Like many troupes desperate for funds, Dodin’s theater toured abroad extensively and was awarded the Europe Theater prize in 2000. However, most troupes, including former amateur companies, discovered the near impossibility of surviving without some government subsidy and sought to receive some support while retaining repertory freedom. Since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russian theater has operated under an economic censor, as in the West. See also: ANDREYEV, LEONID NIKOLAYEVICH; BOLSHOI THEATER; CHEKHOV, ANTON PAVLOVICH; GOGOL, NIKOLAI VASILYEVICH; GORKY, MAXIM; GRIBOEDOV, ALEXANDER SERGEYEVICH; MEYERKHOLD, VSEVOLOD YEMILIEVICH; PUSHKIN, ALEXANDER SERGEYEVICH; SHCHEPKIN, MIKHAIL SEMEONOVICH; SUMAROKOV, ALEXANDER PETROVICH; TAGANKA; THAW, THE; TOLSTOY, LEO NIKOLAYEVICH; TURGENEV, IVAN SERGEYEVICH

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Braun, E. (1995). Meyerhold: A Revolution in Theatre. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

  1539

  THEOPHANES THE GREEK

  Gorchakov, Nikolai A. (1957). The Theater in Soviet Russia., tr. Edgar Lehrman. New York: Columbia University Press. Karlinsky, Simon. (1985). Russian Drama from its Beginnings to the Age of Pushkin. Berkeley: University of California Press. Leach, Robert, and Borovsky, Viktor, eds. (1999). A History of the Russian Theatre. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Mally, Lynn. (2000). Revolutionary Acts: Amateur Theater and the Soviet State 1917-1938. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Segel, Harold B. (1993). Twentieth-Century Russian Drama from Gorky to the Present, updated ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Slonim, Mark. (1962). Russian Theater from the Empire to the Soviets. New York: Collier Books. Smeliansky, Anatoly. (1999). The Russian Theatre after Stalin, tr. Patrick Miles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Warner, Elizabeth. (1977). The Russian Folk Theatre. The Hague: Mouton. Worrall, Nick. (1989). Modernism to Realism on the Soviet Stage: Tairov-Vakhtangov-Okhlopkov. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  SUSAN COSTANZO

  Vladimir Andreevich. The most important surviving projects in Moscow are the main icons (1405) for the iconostasis of the Annunciation Cathedral, Cathedral Square, and the Moscow Kremlin. Here he was assisted by the Elder Prokhor of Gorodets and Andrei Rublev, according to the Troica Chronicle. Another separate icon attributed to him is the Bogomater Donskaya (Virgin of the Don) and on the back, the Dormition of the Virgin, 1380s (Tretyakov Gallery). A very expressive early fifteenth-century Transfiguration of Christ icon (Tretyakov Gallery) has been attributed to Theophanes as well. His figures tended to be very tall and severe, with dark faces and long, thin arms. Mystical elements in his paintings are believed to reflect the influence of Hesychasm. Theophanes was truly one of the greatest of the early Russian icon painters. See also: DIONISY; ICONS; RUBLEV, ANDREI

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Cheremeteff, Maria. (1990). “The Transformation of the Russian Sanctuary Barrier and the Role of Theophanes the Greek.” In The Millennium: Christianity and Russia, A.D. 988-1988, ed. Albert Leong. Crest-wood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

  A. DEAN MCKENZIE

  THEOPHANES THE GREEK

  (c. 1340-1410), renowned artist and philosopher.

  Theophanes the Greek began his career as an artist in the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. He worked in the media of fresco, egg tempera for panel painting (icons), and tempera for book illustration. In the 1380s he immigrated to Russia, first of all to Novgorod. An important source for his life is a letter written by Hieromonk Ephiphanius to Cyril around 1415. He states that Theophanes was an artist, a sage, and a philosopher. The stone churches he decorated with frescoes include several in Constantinople, Chalcedon, Galata, and Caffa. Altogether, he painted frescoes in over forty churches. In Russia his most important surviving frescoes are to be found in the Church of the Savior of the Transfiguration, Novgorod (1378). He worked swiftly without the use of pattern books. Nor did he mind spectators. As his fame spread, he was invited to Moscow in the 1390s. Among other projects in the 1390s, he painted a panorama fresco of Moscow (nonextant) in the stone palace of Prince

  1540

  THICK JOURNALS

  For more than two hundred years, Russian and Soviet “thick” journals (tolstye zhurnaly)-a term alluding to their usually 200-plus pages per issue -played the role of social and cultural trendsetters. Traditionally, prose works and poetry were first published in such journals and only later as books. Published among the literary works were nonfiction articles and essays on a large variety of topics. Literary reputations were fostered mainly through thick journals. Some, such as the twentieth century’s Novyi mir, were considered more prestigious than others.

  Edited by Gerhard Friedrich Mueller of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, the first independent Russian journal was Ezhemesiachnye sochinenya, k pol’ze i uveselenyu sluzhashchie (Monthly Writings Serving Purpose and Enjoyment; 1755-1797). Inspired by the principles of the European Enlightenment, it was followed by an ever-increasing number of similar undertakings on different subjects, includENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

  THIN JOURNALS

  ing literature. Nikolai Karamzin’s Moskovskii Zhurnal (Moscow Journal; 1791-1792) already could count Russia’s leading authors among its contributors.

  The early nineteenth century saw another increase in the number of thick journals, most of which were short-lived. However, some boasted sizable circulations; the prestigious Vestnik Evropy (Messenger of Europe) had about 1,200 subscribers; Biblioteka dlia chteniya (Library for Reading) had 4,000; and Otech-estvennye zapiski (Notes of the Fatherland) had close to 4,000. Despite strictly enforced censorship, the leading thick journals managed to develop a recognizable aesthetic and ideological profile. For example, Sovre-mennik (The Contemporary; 1836-1866), founded by Alexander Pushkin, catered to the liberal public, whereas Russkaia beseda (Russian Conversation; 1856-1860) targeted Slavophile readers.

  In the aftermath of the 1861 Reforms that included some censorship relief, hundreds of new thick journals emerged, providing a multifaceted forum for Russian public discourse. Most influential were Russkii vestnik (Russian Messenger), in which Ivan Turgenev, Leo Tolstoy, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky published major works, and Russkaia mysl’ (Russian Thought; 1880-1900), to which Vladimir Korolenko, Dimitri Mamin-Sibiriak, Nikolai Leskov, and Anton Chekhov contribu
ted.

  By the end of the nineteenth century, illustrated weekly journals outnumbered the thick monthlies. Then the 1917 Bolshevik coup destroyed this pluralistic journalistic scene in less than a year. The New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s reconstituted some variety, but all within a framework of loyalty to the Soviet regime. Thus Krasnaya nov’ (Red New Soil; 1921-1942) in the 1920s was the forum of the less politicized poputchiki (fellow-travelers), whereas Kuznitsa (The Smithy; 1920-1922) belonged to militant proletarian writers.

  No other period of Russian history increased- or inflated-the importance of thick journals more than Mkhail Gorbachev’s perestroika, which caused a veritable explosion in circulation, with several journals printing more than a million copies each month. Glasnost transformed decades-old, dogmatic publications into thought-provoking, open intellectual forums. In hindsight, the formation and formulation of diverse viewpoints would have been impossible without journals such as Novy mir (New World; 1925-), Druzhba narodov (People’s Friendship; 1939-), and Znamia (Banner; 1931) on the liberal side, and Nash sovremennik (Our Contemporary;

  ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY

  1964-) and Molodaia gvardiia (Young Guard; 1922-) on the conservative.

  However, with the meltdown of the Soviet system, thick journals rapidly lost their significance. Despite the press law of August 1, 1990, which formally abolished censorship and gave these journals economic and legal independence, few of them survived commercial pressure, competition against electronic media, and overall cultural disintegration. See also: GLASNOST; INTELLIGENTSIA; JOURNALISM; NEW ECONOMIC POLICY; PERESTROIKA; THIN JOURNALS

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Frankel, Edith Rogovin. (1981). Novy mir: A Case Study in the Politics of Literature, 1952-1958. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ruud, Charles. (1982). Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the Russian Press, 1804-1906. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.