At the end of last year the artistic head and founder of the Left Bank’s Theater of Drama and Comedy produced the Three Sisters based on Anton Chekhov’s work. The production was unique and sincere, and made the audience laugh through the tears and cry with compassion. The actor’s work was wonderful: as if there were no drudgery, frenzied pace of life, chronic tiredness or apathy. It has been a while since actors have played in such an inspired manner on a Kyivan stage — far from the tomfoolery of today’s theater. In a word, the Three Sisters turned out to be a work of great talent. Alas, in our capital a cultural event cannot a priori be a sensation: it has a different scale, and wrong sphere, not linked with the narrow world of “big” politics. The masters of culture are not known to anyone, and how many true masters are left?
Actually, Mytnytsky’s play, which makes one recall what real art is, was the reason of our conversation, which enables one to view via magnifying lens our “time of troubles” in a more careful way, and recognize the faces of present-day heroes without make-up and masks. Mytnytsky’s observations were on the spot and ironic, yet quite inauspicious.
Do you think we can meet Chekhov’s characters in everyday life, not just on stage?
“I think as long as there are intelligent people in our country, or in any other country, Chekhov’s dramaturgy will have a future. Everything repeats itself, in one way or another, because mankind does not learn from its mistakes, and this has been known for long, and little if anything changes at all, only clothes and some habits. So to say, the ‘superstructure’ changes, whereas the fundamentals of human life remain practically unchangeable. Therefore it is very important to direct rays of light on present-day life, not to excavate the past. Most importantly, the human sufferings concerning one’s place in life persist (in normal proportions human ambitions are clear, necessary and life-giving). Every person seeks to take his or her own niche: instinct and subconsciousness realize our ‘rightful’ desires and needs to some level. But there is always an aggressor which impedes us. This aggressor is life.”
Today, via mass culture, i.e., cinema and television, the idea of the superhero, almighty and omniscient, is being cultivated. This type stands absolutely opposite to Chekhov’s intelligentsia, always in doubts, and not knowing how to live.
“This is not true. They do know! They know how to live, it’s just they are not bandits. Today’s Hollywood superhero (who has been pathologically spread on our backward, petty television) is open propaganda for violence. And in an over-populated world with extreme population density, a man can take his place (advantageous and profitable) only after killing the one living next to him. The struggle for survival, which is not controlled by anyone, is going on. And there are people that act this way without even a thought about the fact that not all means are good to realize oneself in this life — unite in a community of humans, homo sovieticus; the present-day people living according to ‘prison laws’ come from there. The Prozorov sisters and their milieu come from the 19th century, when the intelligentsia was being wiped out, yet left a memorable trace, fortunately, before leaving this world. There was a doubtful palliative, the ‘people’s intelligentsia’ in the former USSR. Nobody knew what it was. In my opinion, there is either intelligentsia, or vacancies.”
Your Three Sisters shows the characters’ pathological fear of responsibility and avoiding consequences. In your opinion, where does responsibility begin?
“I think that life is fundamental to all deeds, actions, considerations of a human being. On the one hand, love is an immense notion, on the other hand, a concrete one. People may succeed in what they are doing (or there is at least hope that they will achieve success), if they are doing this with love, according to their soul’s call. A soul is a brand that guaranties quality. And I think that good is equivalent to responsible.”
All your performances have a sad ending, and the characters have no chance to survive. In Three Sisters the finale is intriguing; the heroes decide to attack the wall that is standing on their way during the entire performance. A question arises: Is this wall a barrier or a dead end?
“I am interested in the future. But I think everyone has his/her own views in this respect. I have an impression, judging from how the world is living now, how values with no alternative to counter them emerged and are being confirmed. Maybe, mankind will live for several hundreds years more, but the fact that the current world is unstoppably going to hell seems clear to me.”
Thus, the wall is rather a blind alley, not a barrier?
“I think it is a blind alley to a greater extent. I can’t see Ivan Susanin lead us from the thicket. There can be no Jesus Christ in this world, He will be destroyed immediately, because nobody needs Him, He will just be standing in the way.”
Are their any contacts between the theater, society and the authorities?
“We don’t have any contacts with the authorities for sure. The Soviet Union needed theaters as organs of propaganda and agitation. Now the regime does not need theaters, not because it is ‘bad’ or ‘good,’ they simple don’t need us (to the honor of the government we still can express our opinion freely). As far as I understand the high-ranking officials not only are unwilling to go to the theater, they simply lack energy for this, because demanding money, overcoming fear that stems from possible loss of money or life, requires many efforts. There have already been such situations… Why do they show this stuff and nonsense in theaters? Because television and theater, following in the television’s footsteps — when the audience roars with laughter in theater, seems to relieve the tension. But I wonder what does a man feel when leaving the theater after such performances? His soul is not functioning, neither does his brain, and he is not able to counteract to the hard life he’s living some new content, philosophical motif, some kind of paradox; all he gets is the theater’s ‘hogwash,’ which we give in to too, taking the money and remains of esthetic health from the audience.”
What does being a director mean for you?
“With the help of my profession I contemplate human relationships. For it is no secret that every writer writes about himself, and every director stages plays about himself — of course, not in terms of the plot, but via his own world perception, world outlook. People sitting in front of their houses speak about life with vigor and sense. I am not very talkative, for me it is boring and hard to speak, I always listen eagerly. But for my whole life I have been speaking from the stage. I have always taken interest in human relationships, the motives of actions, the notions of envy, intrigue, fear, hatred, love, meanness, mimicries, having somebody twisted round one’s finger etc.”
Have the proportions of these relations changed in present-day society?
“It seems to me, people have grown more restrained nowadays. People are hiding, hiding their weaknesses and hopes in which they do not believe anymore. Why? In the unstable world a person is not protected; they may get hurt rebounding from constant expectations of new problems, real and spiritual wounds, disappointment, delusion and mischief. When a person is restrained, they think they are protected, negative things disappear — people think this way. But the problems still conquer.”
The play’s subheading read: “Knowing what you are living for, or the rest are petty things.” Have you come close to the answer?
“If to leave one of the working hypotheses, from which I refused later, there was a concretization of the three culprits, the three sisters. But for me it reminds some ‘grace notes’ of many Western directors, even very talented ones. To think this way is to act against Chekhov. My position is to reveal an author to the furthest extent possible, not oppose you to him. I understood, for example, that you want to make a qualified translation, not a word-for-word translation. Then in the language of translation you look for an adequate image, some author’s text, opinion, themes, motifs, in a word, you interpret the author’s idea in your own words. Namely the author’s idea. But you may use your own figurative means. When you finally come close to what is written there, you will understand that it is ridiculous to blame three women for all the problems of the world. They cannot be held responsible for all things that are taking place in the world. They are three homeless ladies. They are homeless because they don’t have love, or purpose, they don’t feel the earth beneath their feet. Yes, we can say that not only society, but also man is responsible; it might be so. Something went wrong in their life, they are not able to ‘hear’ themselves and other people, but should they be hung for this? They are not culprits, they are decent, religious people, the sisters don’t do anything wrong. Why is life always against such people? Are there people that can go to any extremes. For example, Natasha. Maybe, she won’t go and stab others with a knife. But she has this question in her mind: Why do they have such a house, and I don’t? Her mind gets frozen afterwards. She does not think that one should work — not steal, demand, beg, threaten, use blackmail or have sex with the head of the local administration. Natasha is a very modern person in this play: all means are fine. Chekhov’s characters are close to me because they are miserable, like most people. Even those who are well-fed do not feel the ground under their feet. And this dictates every action, every thought — as a result the person lives only with this day. And all the heroes in Chekhov’s works are living in fear, but the fear of some is explicit, whereas the others’ is hidden.”
But what does one live for? Is it possible to invent this meaning?
“One can do so, but still you won’t go anywhere. You may live with illusions for a while. But a person that feels, thinks and suffers cannot hide. S/he may leave real life, disappear in some ‘village or backwoods,’ but they will still suffer. We are living in a dead end time, and every step is like going across a minefield: either you kill, or they kill you. Therefore our life is shaky, I have the impression that we are living in a volcano crater that has been caused by a permanent earthquake.”
