Pictured (from left): Aleksandrs Malikovs as Sharikov and Anatoly Fechins as Shvonder in Mikhail Chekhov’s Riga Russian theater play ‘Heart of a Dog’.
Publicity photo (Agnese Zeltinas).
Armands Kalniņš, “Kultūrzīmes”, AS “Latvijas Mediji”
“Mr. Yudina, are you an assistant professor by education?” Deputy Liepiņa fails in the Saeima session
PHOTO. Kaspars Roga left Latvia; “Brainstorming” explains who will do the concerts in his place
PHOTO. You can’t know! The musician and composer Guntars Rachs has changed beyond recognition
Read other posts
The production of Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel “Heart of a Dog” by Mikhail Chekhov at the Riga Russian Theater by director Dmitry Petrenko is a significant and inspiring event, but, to quote, “a terrible story.”
It is not easy to reproduce Bulgakov’s plays in stage and film performances, perhaps the exception is works that correspond to the genre of realism: the novels “Days of the Turbines” (staged at the Riga Krievu Theater in 1977) or “The White Guard” – to some extent it is easier (there is a risk of creating illustrative productions ). On the other hand, the productions of the “biographical” play “Moliere” or “Svētuļi jūgs” in Latvian theaters can mainly be described as an outstanding achievement – the play directed by Ādolf Šapiro in Drama/National Theater (1978), in which there were excellent roles – Alfreds Jaunušans as Molière and Jānis Kubilis as King Louis XIV (strictly outlining the relationship between the autocrat and the artist), or on the contrary – not entirely successful, such as, for example, the opera Roland Atkočuna’s play “The Code of Versailles” at the Fine Arts Theater (2010) or “Kunga Komediants” at the Riga Russian Theater (2013).
Are Bulgakov’s works too difficult to decipher? Perhaps. However, we have to mention very successful, engaging and generally well-received productions: the works of Indras Roga in the Valmiera theater “Zojas odstupnis “/”Zojkina kvartira” (2012) and “Master and Margarita” (2015). Also of note is the tough “New Doctor’s Notes” at the National Theater (2014), directed by Jānis Vimba. Interestingly, “Heart of a Dog” was director Laura Groza’s master’s thesis (2008), in which Lauris Subatnieks played the role of Sharikov, which was terribly unforgettable. It is a pity that several important plays by Bulgakov have not yet been staged in Latvian theaters (“Theatrical Novel”, “The Pink Island”, “The Fatal Eggs”, “Ivan Vasiļjevičs”, etc.), we hope that make them be transformed into comedies, because staging them is a difficult, but honorable and above all fruitful process.
Like many of Bulgakov’s works, “Heart of a Dog” is a political satire, including grotesque, absurd, fantastic and other “refreshing” elements. The story was published in 1925, banned already in 1926, confiscating its text, but the USSR again allowed its publication only in 1987. The original image of the great experimenter and reformer Professor Preobrazhensky is said to be Lenin (film actor by Ingmar Bergman Maxis von Sydow played this role in the German-Italian film), the dog-human hybrid Sharikov, and the basis of the character of the drunkard and hoodlum Chugunkin is Stalin (cast iron – steel), Preobrazhensky’s assistant Bormentals – Trotsky (Bronstein), etc.
Considering the fact that in many of Bulgakov’s works, Bulgakov sharply, albeit indirectly, but unequivocally ridicules “Soviet power”, “dictatorship of the proletariat”, “building communism”, etc. banned, but there were no more severe repressions against him, if not suspension from work for some time. Of course, other forms of persecution and isolation also take a heavy toll. However, Bulgakov at least had the opportunity to work and create works that are relevant and relevant today, even if they have not been published for a long time.
Ridicule and irony were perceived very acutely by Soviet leaders, even if the criticism was mild or not intended to be a deliberate attack on the totalitarian regime. Why was there such a “saving”? Stalin’s crush on a talented man who dares? The whim of the “Great Dictator”? The feeling that something may appear in the writer’s work that can become dangerous, so we “write” and solve problems?
In terms of plot, the play is the story of how Preobrazhensky and Bormenthals transplant human organs into the dog Sharik and as a result he becomes a human being – a fellow citizen Sharikov, but, supported by a Soviet official, he becomes more and more evil, usurping and builds a rapid career in which it is impossible to stop him. In addition, he is ready to destroy former comrades, other stray dogs.
If the show had been created as a mockery of the “old Soviet times” or if the images of communist leaders had been created more accurately, it would have been bald. Director Petrenko’s works are characterized by psychologically developed characters and reasons for the actions of the characters, again. The harmonious acting of the entire ensemble is to be commended. In this show, it is intriguingly supported by Krista and Reiņš Dzudzilo’s “visual dramaturgy” (as it is written in the production schedule): room decoration and costumes.
I cannot claim that all the signs that one reads in this dramaturgy are easily understood and adequately interpreted, but they are impressive, for example, the yellow metal hammer and sickle in the hands of a Soviet official dressed in a red suit, the flag of the ‘USSR between the flags of the Baltic States, the stairs leading to a dead end, the stray dog in his underwear, etc. Oddly enough, this stray dog Sharik has the best heart, which tells the sad story about him at the very beginning of the drama.
He just wants to eat some, but people treat him badly and unlike animals, not because they care about their own survival, but also to humiliate/hurt others. It is not Sharika/Sharikova who is to blame first, but the leaders, those who create these situations, contributing to the emergence of active criminal sharikovs, who are not easier to stop. Then, when the protagonist goes back to being a dog, he is cornered: will he bite, maybe he will give up, maybe he will wait for someone to help him heal?
The show has the characteristic of good works of art: you have to think about it a lot after seeing it. The conclusions are not happy, but valuable.
Themes
