“You know, we will marry him,” the young man Kryvtsov, who rented a room from them, angrily mints the Bessemenovs' parents, brazenly hugging their son Petya to him. - Let's go abroad and get married. Are you glad, huh? Oh, it very much can be! But I won't give him to you, you won't torture him anymore! ”
And what an expressive look Bessemenov sees off his adopted son Neil when he leaves his parental home with the words that he and Paul will earn cryptocurrency!
A scene from the play. oto - Yulia Smelkina.
No, these scenes are not in Vasily Senin's "Bourgeoisie" (and it's hard to imagine something like that in today's Lensovet Theater). I, by a sinful deed, suppose what new realities Gorky's drama could play with so that its conflict agitated the modern viewer. Because after this performance there is a feeling that "The Bourgeoisie" is outdated, does not work - despite the fact that this is the third production of this play in the current St. Petersburg repertoire.
It seems that the main problem of the new "Bourgeois" lies in their compromise. On the one hand, Senin puts on the play “as written”, obeying its flow. The stage design of the director himself reminds of the good old pavilion of the times of Gorky's dramatic debut: on the right is a wall structure, painted in two in a Soviet way, attached to it is an old leather sofa with a very high back, a piano, a pot of ficus; on the left is a massive dining table with chairs. The perspective, which all this decoration hints at, is closed by a spiral staircase to the second floor, to a room rented by the widow of the warden of the prison Krivtsov; the staircase symbolizes the "way up", the exit from the parent's nest. On the other hand, visually the action is shifted into the future, in the Soviet era. Costume designer Olga Nikitina dressed the characters in costumes from the times of the Brezhnev stagnation, although some dresses would look organic if the action took place in the conditionally pre-revolutionary time. The baby (and the play involves a real baby, whose appearance invariably evokes a surprised "ah!" Gorky characters. In the plasticity of the heroes of Senin's play, it slips that they are males and females. Forgive me, dominants and "led". In the poses and gestures of Elena Nikolaevna Krivtsova - tall, sexy, with luxurious long hair - sometimes something of a primacy emerges: Maria Polumogina (the actress of the Bryantsev Youth Theater, invited to the "Bourgeoisie") very expressively brings the sensuality of her heroine to animal manifestations. The appearance of Krivtsova breaks the dull Soviet background: at the beginning, she comes out in such a mini-dress and high boots that she looks like a woman who is popularly called "the gods". Someone here is more a "petrel" (although none of the heroes is certainly not shown on a large scale, no one has "their own truth"); someone is a seagull, like the Fields of Victoria Volokhova (here something pragmatic and predatory is emphasized in the Field); and someone is a "stupid penguin" who "timidly hides a fat body in the cliffs."
A. Vakha (Bessemenov), S. Pismichenko (Akulina Ivanovna). oto - Yulia Smelkina.
The visual solution of the performance does not match the text of the play. If Brezhnev's stagnation and "In the world of animals", then what has it to do with a smoking samovar, sawn sugar, an all-night vigil, a dowry of ten thousand, because of which the older Bessemenovs wanted to marry Nile to some "fool"? What kind of a member of the city council, who barely greeted Tatiana, but paid attention to the judge's kept woman? And when Bessemenov and Akulina Ivanovna return from the evening service (apparently from the Vladimir Cathedral, which is next to the theater) dressed like Soviet bigwigs, I am completely lost. Or did they mean modern officials, those who strikingly mix party vocabulary with the style of Orthodox preaching in their speeches? (We read the parliamentary press.) If the "old people" live in the USSR, why do they ostentatiously go to church and live in such a huge house? And if these are the current bureaucrats, then why are they forced to endure Krivtsova, renting her a room? And when in the finale the puny Pyotr - Ivan Shevchenko crawls after Elena like a dog, and she frightens the older Bessemenovs by the fact that she will live with their son without a wedding - who will you surprise with this in recent decades?
Obviously, the director wanted to create a universal space where pre-revolutionary realities coexist with Soviet realities, but at the same time so that modern allusions arise. But instead of universality, it turned out to be an approximation, the play does not resonate with any era. Either give "Bourgeois" to the realities of the early 20th century, or shift the action to another time, but then inviting a playwright, or at least filtering out the most important and poignant in the play.
There is no conflictual distinction between "children" and "parents", well, except that the former are more liberated, and the latter are conservative and strict. In the second act, a natural child, which invigorates the audience, replaces a natural watermelon, and according to who eats its juicy red flesh, the heroes are divided. Krivtsova - Maria Polumogina eats deliciously, even moaning, annoying the "old people". The student Shishkin - the perfectly structured and funny role of Vladislav Stavropoltsev - confidently and as if casually cuts himself piece by piece, distracting attention with charming remarks about nothing and almost dancing around the table. "Old people" don't eat at all.