Throughline

Link: 'Thirties Forever' in the news.

2010-08-20T23:23:00.000-07:00

Here are links to some of the various video, reviews, and interviews from the 'Thirties Forever' workshop performance last monday...

I'm in one of them (miscredited as Edward Baskin, which is hilarious in and of itself), but they caught me completely off-guard by asking me to anwer in Russian at the last second, so my Russian here is, to be quite honest, shameful.

If anyone asks, it's Edward Baskin who speaks awful Russian, not Adam Muskin...

Сноб/Snob Magazine

Первый Канал/Channel One News

Телеканал звезда/Star TV

Голос Америки/Voice of America

Sorry, my patented 'on-the-fly translation' won't work here... there's just too much. Hope your Russian is good...

-A

Onstage: "Thirties Forever" at the Baryshnikov Arts Center

2010-08-20T23:00:00.000-07:00

On August 16th at the Baryshnikov Arts Center in New York City, the 'Thirties Forever' musical workshop was performed for an invite-only audience of about 200 in the Jerome Robbins Theater. Mikhail Shydkoi (the former Russian minister of culture) was the author of the script, idea, and is the artistic director of the project. The cast involved approximately 10 American and 10 Russian actors, with music performed and arranged by Levon Oganezov. The workshop was directed by Gary Cherniakhovsky.

...And the vocal coach was my good friend and colleague Taylor Sutherland, and I was the associate director. Both of us doubled as actors as well, which was nice for a change, getting back in front of the lights instead of being in the house...

The show revolves around a concept and dream long held by Mr. Shvydkoi; to show audiences in America and Russia how similar we are by presenting us with real examples of music from the 1930's that was popular and heard in both cultures and in both languages. The story line revolves around a Russian takeover of an American oldies radio station by the same name of the show, 'Thirties Forever', and the action takes place over the course of the thirties, forties, and today. While the project is certainly ambitious, it underlines a very interesting, and very true point: that we as two cultures have much more in common than we realize.

Being involved in this project as an actor and an associate director simultaneously presented a huge challenge to me; it's the first time I've ever pulled anything this close to what I call a 'Meyerhold', who used to direct and act in his shows all the time. Of course, being involved personally also denotes without question that I yearn for its success. There is much more work that needs to be done for the idea to take the next step, but it certainly seems poised to after the positive reaction of the mixed Russian/American house we had last monday.

Aside from 'pulling a Meyerhold' (it's like being a player/manager in baseball!) this process also reminded me of something very important that one of my teachers once told me, and continues to ring true. Once upon a time when I was still an acting student at Shkola-Studia MXAT, one of my teachers mentioned the following to us. It actually came as an addendum to an already famous story that involved some students of the first studio who were told to improvise and play the following for an exercise: they had to imagine that they had placed all of their money in a bank, and the bank had gone up in flames. What would their reaction be? They say that many tore their hair out, yelled, screamed and so on, but one actor sat in the corner calmly. When asked why he wasn't trying to get his money, his response was 'my money's in a different bank'. Originality and humor notwithstanding, this anecdote was told to us not to praise the student's wit, but rather to encourage us to put our money IN the bank; to invest ourselves in the show and in our partners, to make sure we were all playing on the same team.

And here's the addendum that was once mentioned by my teacher, but that has proven true for me ever since '...Of course, if you want to take more than five kopecks OUT of the bank, you need to put more than five kopecks IN the bank...'

It is precisely that sentiment that made the challenge of working on this project so worthwhile. In the short window of a two-week workshop environment, with so much media attention and so much demand for success, 'result' and 'process' enter into a kind of conflict. How is one supposed to explore a process when there is such an obvious deadline for immediate results hanging over your every move? How can an in-depth process even function properly when the material and rules are so fluid and constantly adapting and changing? The answer is 'put more than five kopecks in the bank'.

In a situation where results are demanded, and the process cannot be ignored, it becomes increasingly important to contribute every single idea you have TO the process; to put all your money in the bank. The more ideas you invest, the better the result will be. For example, if you're joking around with your actors on the side (within reason!), and you come up with something that you think is funny or could be used somehow, even if the director hasn't staged it yet, you have the responsibilty as an actor to say 'That's ridiculous! Let's see if we can try it!'. The more you fill in the blanks for yourself, the clearer the outline of your work will become, and moreoever, the more it will be truly YOUR work. The director always has the final say, but most importantly it will truly be an image (or образ in the Russian) that you have drawn collaboratively. To create this outline, to fill it in, color it with details and quirks, invent a character, a human being from nothing but sheer creativeness without waiting for the director to do it for you...this is the true meaning of the actor's art.

I hope this project continues, and I hope that I have the opportunity to see it through to the end. I have too many kopecks in the bank already, and so many more to invest...It will be a great pleasure when it's all through to see how it turns out, to see how much interest our ideas accumulate...

Pulled some of these pics from the BAC website and the Сноб review. Links to come shortly...Many thanks to all my friends involved, old and new...

-A

Non-Sequitur: New York State of Mind...

2010-07-09T14:59:00.000-07:00

Hello all once again...I know it's been quiet around here with the theater season in Moscow drawing to a close, but my summer is just getting started! Throughline is coming to NYC tomorrow where I'll be doing my best to keep this site up to date with my dissertation, fundraising for my show, and anecdotes from my rehearsals at the Baryshnikov Arts Center in August!

Some folks like to get away
Take a holiday from the neighbourhood
Hop a flight to Miami Beach
Or to Hollywood
But I'm taking a Greyhound
On the Hudson River Line

I'm in a New York state of mind

-A

In Dialogue: Л.А. Сулержицский/L. A. Sulerzhitsky

2010-07-09T14:47:00.000-07:00

As I was going through Sulerzhitsky's writings, I found this passage in one of his essays on his dislike of hysterics in the theater and in the house. I found it to be particularly moving, and thought I'd just throw it up on the blog to share...

"Когда актер действительно живёт глубоко, когда его игра есть «творение» , то как бы сильно он ни взволновал зрителя – истерик не будет...Наоборот, люди даже с растрепанными нервами и склонные к истерике, поддаваясь их искусству, получат духовное удовлетворение и успокоятся душевно. Они, может быть, будут плакать на спектакле, но это будут совсем другие слёзы, - это будут тихие слёзы и скромные, не для публики, это будут благородные слёзы, умиления перед добром и красотой, слёзы о несчастиях и горе людей, в том числе, может быть, и о своем горе, поскольку и я человек и подвержен вместе со всеми страданиям, слёзы о том, почему мы все несчастны, почему жизнь не прекрасна, почему мы слабы в добре, почему мало любим друг друга и т.д., потому что настоящий талант, настоящее искусство только об этом говорит..."

And here's your on-the-fly translation...

"When an actor is truly living deeply, when his playing is the act of ‘creation’, then however strongly he may affect the audience – there will be no hysterics….On the contrary, even people with frayed nerves and tendencies towards hysterics, on giving themselves to the art will be spiritually satisfied and will be calmed in their soul. Perhaps they will cry during the show, but these will be completely different tears - they will be quiet tears and humble ones, not for public display, they will be noble tears, emotional before the good and the beautiful, tears for the unhappiness and misfortunes of people, and perhaps their own misfortunes, as far as I am a person and am also subject to the same suffering as all, why are we all unhappy, why life is not beautiful, why we are weak in good deeds, why do we not love each other enough, and so on, because real talent, real art only speaks about this..."

I thought this was a very nice paragraph, and I found the end especially moving. I always love having the greats on my bookshelf, helping me to keep things in perspective when it comes to art and the way we should approach it's creation. It is truly a great responsibility to be an artist...

-A

In the Classroom: 3rd Year Acting Exam/Экзамен по мастерству III-ого курса

2010-06-30T02:37:00.000-07:00

Today the third year acting course (Козак/Брусникин) held their final acting exam of the year. By the end of the third year of study, the acting exam consists of scenes from pieces that are meant to be expanded into a full-scale diploma project; a proposal for a project that can rejected or accepted by the faculty body in discussion afterwards. In Russian, it's called a заявка на спетакль. This acting exam was centered on the piece Материнское Поле (Our Mother, The Fields) by Чингиз Айматов (Chingis Aimatov). Aitmatov was a soviet poet and writer from Kyrgyzstan, and this particular narrative tells the powerful story of the women of small village, their lives, loves, and incredible losses as they come face to face with the horrors of World War II. The work was directed by Maria Zorina.

Before I went to this exam one of my Russian friends mentioned to me that he hadn't been able to stop his tears while watching the work of his female coursemates. He then quipped that he didn't know if I'd be able to appreciate such Russian national themes as World War II, to which I replied that I've been russified to such a degree already that something was bound to get through. I found the writing to be incredibly powerful, speaking simply and without embellishment or coloring about those things that are most important in our lives. In a sense, I was reminded of the delicate and deceptive simplicity of Thornton Wilder's 'Our Town', a piece that never fails to hit home.

The piece has been staged in a 'speech theater' format (to read more on this format and how it's not always my favorite, you can read my blog on Shukshin Short Stories here), and there are no men onstage; each of the girls in the course take turns recounting to each other and to the audience how they fall in love, have children, how their children get married, all to be dashed to pieces with the coming of war. By the end of the story, they have all been widowed, and the audience comes face to face with the brutality and horror of war. The work is powerful but raw, and yet at the same time extremely promising. I have no doubt it will develop into a very nice piece as the girls continue to explore and play with each other, and as the transitions become more fluid. I wish them luck in their process, and am sure the results yielded will be even more moving and powerful than the display I witnessed yesterday; a message about how one must strive for life at all costs, never give up even when the hour is darkest, and never forget how to love.

-A

In The Classroom: The Graduating Class of 2010/Выпуск 2010 года

2010-06-25T22:00:00.000-07:00

Today the senior course of 2010 (Золотовитский/Земцов) graduated from the Moscow Art Theater School in the Hall of Portraits in the Moscow Art Theater.

The ceremony in the Hall of Portraits is always an emotional one, as the joy of the completion of a journey blends with the tears of saying farewell. I also feel older with every one of these ceremonies I go to, as memories of my graduation come flooding back as if it were yesterday, and yet five years have already passed. As I recall, the American Course of 2005 was the first course ever to have its graduation ceremony in the Hall of Portraits, a tradition that has stuck ever since. It's nice to think that after the huge struggle and experiment that was our course, we were able to leave the school with at least one beautiful tradition for posterity, however small.

Congratulations to the graduating class of 2010! Успех, творчество, и везение! Поздравляем!

-A

Link: 'Seeing Past the Present in Moscow, Part One' by John Freedman

2010-06-24T05:57:00.000-07:00

This is a link to what looks to be a great mini-series of articles by Moscow Times Theater critic John Freedman. I have the honor of being acquainted with John, and he always does fantastic work.

'Seeing Past the Present in Moscow, Part One'

And here is a link to his latest review of 'Money' Directed by Konstantin Raikin at the Satirikon theater. I've already had the opportunity to watch it (in my pre-blog days! Hence no blog entry!). I love the picture of Sukhanov at the top of the article...he is obviously channelling Oscar the Grouch in this particular photo...

-A

Onstage: Рыдания/Sobbing

2010-06-22T14:54:00.000-07:00

Victor Ryzhakov's production of Kshishtof Bize's 'Sobbing' starring Svetlana Ivanova at the Praktika theater is perhaps the most powerful one-man (or one-woman) show I have ever seen. It is a tour through the lives of three women; a middle-aged woman, her mother, and her daughter in modern day Poland. As we hear the stories of these three women, their dreams and world views blend into a single message of love, loss, and hope for the future.

Seeing 'Genesis № 2' a few years ago at the same theater with the same actress and the same director was certainly a defining event in my theater life (I feel like I've been writing about a lot of those recently...). Similar to the way I went into 'Lear', I was reasonably excited to see the newest collaboration of this great director (who I also consider to have been an unofficial teacher of mine) and Svetlana Ivanova, an amazing actress and powerful performer. I was not let down...Watch out guys, this entry's gonna be a long one...

Kshishtof Bize's (I hope I'm transliterating that name right....can't seem to find it in latin letters via my trusty friend google) play is a dark, disturbing story about a family of three women who all live together in the same apartment in Poland. The mother, Justina, is 44 years old, and after losing her job she is petrified at the prospect of losing her husband. Her monologue follows her problems finding work despite her two degrees in higher education, to having to continually dip into her savings account until there's nothing left, to her rising suspicions of her husband's infidelity. As her anxiety mounts she fixates on a velvet coat that she has seen recently at a designer store. As she spirals down into insanity, she concocts a scheme to steal the coat with the aid of only a pair of bricks she finds outside her apartment. As she walks out of the store wearing the coat, she realizes her crime has been successful as she arrives home. However, she still cannot find peace, shredding the coat with scissors soon after she has stolen it, trying to purge her soul of guilt, in search of some kind of balance that has been lost along with her job, her husband, and her peace of mind.

The second monologue that is presented to us is that of Anna, her 18 year old daughter. From the moment Svetlana steps onstage again, this time wearing a 'Minnie Mouse' mask (wrapping a symbol of youth, childeshness, and purity in a truly absurd, humourous and disturbing package), we are immediately put to terms with the truly amazing talent of Svetlana Ivanova. As stunning and as powerful as the first monologue is, she is able to completely transform her body language, vocal intonation, and tempo-rhythm so effectively it is staggering. Anna delivers to us what would be considered by any adult to be a disturbing account of her normal teenage life, ranging from unprotected sex to drugs in nightclubs to selling sexual favors for money. Furthermore, she does so with the flair, positivity, and upbeat tempo of just a simple girl. She is invulnerable to the world; to her, it's just another 'day in the life'. During the monologue, Anna tells us about a pair of new jeans she has noticed in a store window, and if she were to find the money to buy them, she would be the prettiest girl in school. As Svetlana's movements and plasticity along with the musicality and fast pace of her speech blend together to create an almost hypnotic effect, the narrative reaches the point where she is in the backseat of a stranger's car in the middle of the night, after having met him in a nightclub. She is high. She is still all roses and smiles. His unexpected questions of 'do you love me?' is followed by silence, interrupting Svetlana's text, but not her dream-like movements, creating an unnerving break in the hypnosis. The question and the pause are repeated. 'Do you love me?'. 'Of course', the smiling Anna says, 'I have to be careful what I say, otherwise he won't give me the money I need to buy the jeans.' After she has performed fellatio on him for money, she gets out of the car and hurls insults back at him, telling him he is the most boring, smallest man she has ever met, and all with a smile. She is pleased to have enough money to buy the jeans. We are left with the impression that she too, like her mother, has lost something. She is seeking to fill some kind of hole with worldly goods at any cost, but no amount of money will ever be sufficient to reclaim her innocence and purity.

The third monologue belongs to the grandmother, Zofya. She is 67, but feels much older, as she speaks to the audience as if in dialogue with her dead husband. At one point she tells him to stop frightening the cat away, scolding him that if he keeps showing up and frightening the cat people will think the apartment is haunted. Her story develops into a harrowing tale of robbery and murder, as two young people find their way into her apartment and after having their fill of the contents of the refrigerator, start demanding money from the old woman, eventually choking her to death. 'I know you always told me to never open the door when I'm home alone,' she says 'but the girl outside said she had a cut on her finger, and needed to bandage it up. What was I supposed to do?'. As they continue to choke her, she laments about how she had planned to go to the doctor the next day, and how everyone will see the bruises.

'Рыдания' leaves us with a sense that each of these three women are dealing with profound loss, each in their own way; A mother's job and husband, a young girls innocence and purity, an old woman's love and sense of security. Each of these things has been taken away from them rather forcibly, creating a tragic piece where the need to love and be loved is underlined. Perhaps the most interesting, and yet at the same time most logical and expected decision is the lack of actual sobbing, weeping, or рыдания onstage. True to Russian form, the actors (or in this case, actress) are much more focused on overcoming their problems at any cost rather than giving in to self-pity, the actual inner weeping of their soul. As a result, the piece becomes that much more powerful, the performance that much more personal.

On the Рыдания page on the Praktika theater website (http://www.praktikatheatre.ru/Spectacle/Details/93), there is a YouTube interview with Svetlana Ivanova and Victor Ryzhakov where he speaks about the purity and importance of love in this piece. Victor in this interview is (as always) dynamic, poetic, ethereal and mysterious. Perhaps it is through this sense of loss of love that we can begin to truly appreciate it's significance as a powerful and essential force in our lives.

-A

Non Sequitur: Марьино Роща!

2010-06-20T14:33:00.000-07:00

On a side note, part of the wonderful experience of seeing King Lear last night at the Satirikon Theater was that I got to and from the theater on....drumroll please.....THE METRO! That's right folks, the new station at Марьино Роща opened yesterday!

It was kind of like a separate part of the fun....after 8 years of waiting, the new station FINALLY opened, making travel to and from this great theater SO much easier. No more excuses not to go! I took these pictures with my camera phone, so they don't really convey the full effect, but the new stations (yes, Достоевская opened yesterday as well!) are very beautiful...

...What a relief!...

-A

Onstage: Король Лир/King Lear

2010-06-20T09:49:00.000-07:00

Last night I finally had the opportunity to enjoy Yuri Butusov's production of King Lear at the Satirikon theater.

After having seen this dynamic combination of director (Butusov) and actor (Raikin) produce nothing short of a visionary version of Richard III at the same theater, I was understandably excited for last night's show and a reunion of the same creative team, anxiously waiting to see if lightning could strike twice. Adding to my anticipation was the fact that I had just seen Butusov's Ivanov at the Moscow Art earlier this month, and that this was the first time I had ever seen a production of Lear. In short, I was reasonably pumped.

Lear is no simple play, neither for the directors, the actors, nor the audience. Even writing an analysis or review of the production seems to be a task daunting in size. As we were riding home on the metro immediately after the show, I found myself nearly overwhelmed with the seemingly simple task of summarizing the plot with my friend, not wanting to skip over or leave out any plot point which might be important later on, and at the same time trying to keep things as clear as possible. I suspect this blog entry will resemble more of the same; trying to streamline the impressions from this particular interpretation while also trying to convey a piece of the profound significance of Lear's message.

In search of a starting point for this entry, I visited the Satirikon website, where among some great photos of the show, I found this note. It certainly puts a lot of this extremely intense piece of theater into perspective...

"Не упрощая шекспировских смыслов и предлагая зрителю довольно сложную метафорическую структуру, Юрий Бутусов рассказывает историю, в которой распад семьи, распад страны, распад личности – все связано друг с другом. Король Лир вообразил себя равным Богу – вот и раздал королевство дочерям, чтобы просто посмотреть, что из этого получится."

And here's my patented on-the-fly translation...

"Without simplifying Shakespeare's meaning and proposing a relatively difficult metaphorical structure to the audience, Yuri Butusov tells us a story in which the collapse of a family, the collapse of a country, and the collapse of an individual are all connected to each other. King Lear imagined himself to be God's equal - and so he divided his kingdom between his daughters, just to see what would happen."

The first thing that caught my attention after watching the show, and what this paragraph essentially confirmed for me was the complexity of Butusov's visual metaphorical language. Butusov has always been a champion of the etude and metaphor; his production of Richard is full of imagery as well, but there the metaphors are much clearer. Here they are shrouded in mystery are association. Noticeable is how the use of the color red grows throughout the show, starting out as merely an accent, and eventually covering the entire stage as the bloodiness and horror of the story mount. Each of Lear's three daughters has her own color as well, with Lear sharing white with Cordelia. By the end of the show, white is almost completely supplanted by red. Butusov's use of acrobatics is also in full force in this piece, with characters like Edgar and Lear himself (Raikin's physical and acrobatic ability never cease to amaze me) pulling flips and fast-paced rolls, either during Edgar's transformation into Tom o'Bedlam, or during Lear's rant against the storm. They suggest something of a mental transformation is occuring alongside throbbing background music that borders on techno; Edgar pronounces his intention of going into hiding, covers himself in slime and practically breakdances in the muck to a deafening, throbbing synthesized beat. It produces an effect that is both grotesque and urgent. In short, the visual language is complicated and intense.

As far as plot goes, it is interesting to note that this interpretation does not combine the roles of Cordelia and the Fool; and the effect is fascinating...and harrowing all at the same time. In a play that is so overwhelmingly dark (Gloucester has his eyes put out onstage), we as audience members are constantly looking to find some form of sympathetic character. We cannot fully sympathize with Lear, as much of the trouble has been caused by his own foolishness, and Gloucester has to lose his sight before he realizes his errors. If the roles of Cordelia and the fool are combined, then the obvious saviour and voice of reason in the play immediately becomes her. In this show, however, there are no easy answers. Cordelia is absent during her father's insane journey through storm, and in this version Lear even kills the fool in a fit of raving madness. We are left with Kent, loyal from the beginning to Lear, but he is presented to us in such a feeble and helpless state (indeed, he is always either in the stocks, getting beaten, or is completely stripped of all his clothes, naked and defenseless against the world) that it is impossible to picture him as any kind of a heroic character. The result is a world where madness and evil reign supreme, and those qualities such as justice and good which we would search for to come to the rescue arrive too late to repair the damage.

The moral of this Lear becomes bleak and disturbing. "Nothing comes from nothing" is taken one step further in this show to "evil comes from evil", as all the characters realize their mistakes too late to save themselves from the cruelty of reality, the harshness of the storm. Butusov saves his most powerful image in the show for last, as Lear, who has survived all three of his daughters, helplessly and feebly tries to prop each of them up againt three pianos like life-size dolls, trying to return to them some illusion of life. As the stage is slowly engulfed in darkness, he moves from corpse to corpse as the bodies fall repeatedly onto the keys behind them, giving a discordant voice to Lear's inner agony and grief; all is lost.

Keep the Date: Синяя Птица/The Bluebird.

2010-06-17T22:44:00.000-07:00

It has been called many things: Bizarro MXAT, Evil MXAT, MXAT Alternate Reality Version...the architecture is so imposing it looks as if it could eat you alive from the outside...so imposing in fact, that the theater circles had a secret nickname for the building when it first opened (at least, according to my Stage Tech teacher)...Moscow State Crematorium #1 (yikes!)....But whatever its current hapless nickname, it remains...The Moscow Art Theater named after Gorky...

On June 26th, at 12:00, Maeterlinck's 'The Blue Bird' will be playing at the Gorky Moscow Art...and I am planning on attending. The show has been in repertory since 1908; it is Stanislavky's original production.

I am fascinated by how a piece of theater can be in repertory for 102 seasons....but here it is. They say that the show was intended for adults when it premiered in 1908, but has since become a children's theater piece. In any event, I'm interested in what it will be like, and what the atmosphere is like INSIDE THOSE WALLS...In 8 years in Moscow, I've never been inside this theater, generally fearing my soul will be devoured or permanently stained somehow once I cross the threshold...its that freaky looking...

I'm curious to see what the administrator does when I try to get in on my student ID...I'm not sure the last time they'll have seen one of those from the Shkola-Studia...

...Angels and ministers of grace defend us...

-A

Non Sequitur: Галина Аксёнова/Galina Aksyonova

2010-06-16T16:39:00.000-07:00

Galina Aksyonova is one of the teachers at the Moscow Art Theater School, specializing in film history. Today, while trying to explain some of the cultural differences between Americans and Russians in regards to a film, she had the following anecdote (Russian for 'joke') to share with her American students...

"In America, boys like girls. In Soviet Russia, girls like tractors..."

......Yes......

-A

In Dialogue: Л. А. Сулержицкий/L. A. Sulerzhitsky

2010-06-16T12:06:00.000-07:00

I've been reading bits and pieces from Leopold Antonovich Sulerzhitsky's writings and essays on theater and his experiences with teaching the first Studio. For those who don't know, Sulerzhitsky (or as Stanislavsky refers to him in 'My Life in Art', "Good old Suler"...) was a contemporary of Stanislavsky's, known for his character, travels, and resolve to do the hard work. When Stanislavksy opened the first studio, Sulerzhitsky was the headmaster teacher, and in lot of ways was responsible for the original pedagogical application of Stanislavky's then brand new system. He taught Michael Chekhov, and to a degree Vakhtangov as well. Going through his notes and lectures, and reading one called "О взаймоотношениях актёра и режиссёра" (On the Relationships Between the Actor and Director), I discovered some surprising and particularly harsh criticism of Meyerhold...

"...Единственный режиссер, попытавшийся проникнуться сферой...декадентских идей,- был Мейерхольд с его условным театром, игрой на плоскости и т.д. Но ведь попытка эта, как неверно обоснованная, в очень короткий срок исчерпала себя...Но кто же из видевших театр Мейерхольда и знающих остальные театры скажет, что Мейерхольд заразил своим влиянием театр? Если влияние и было, то только отрицательное, так как Мейерхольд, несмотря на громадные теоретические знания, ясно и отчетливо показал, как "не надо"..."

And here we go again with my on-the-fly translation...

"The only director who ever tried to push through to the sphere of...decadent ideas was Meyerhold, with his conventional theater, surface games, and so on. But this attempt, incorrectly founded as it was from the beginning, very quickly exhausted itself...Who from among those who have seen Meyerhold's theater and who know other theaters will say that Meyerhold infected theater with his influence? If there was in fact any influence, it was only repulsive, as far as Meyerhold, tremendous theoretical knowledge notwithstanding, clearly and distinctly showed us how 'NOT to work'..."

I laughed out loud when I read this passage, as it is so uncommon nowadays to hear anyone really speak ill of Meyerhold. Generally in today's theater world, he is one of the few individuals credited with 'inventing the director', however misguided that title may be. I think it's great that back then the debates were just as fierce and fiery. Meyerhold was known for having a disagreeable character, and as the essay goes on, Sulerzhitsky makes his critisicm clearer, stating that Meyerhold's 'conventional theater' demanded such precision of his actors that there weren't in fact any actors today (his day, that is...) capable of doing the job...Sulerzhitsky explains further that the ability to repeat with pinpoint precision a perfectly choreographed blocking, and at the same time emote the exact same feelings at the exact same point in that blocking every night on cue was impossible, and there might never be any actors capable of the task. To him, emotions are things that are so unpredictable and delicate that to demand such pinpoint precision of the actor is a detrement to any show and prove Meyerhold a despot.

So where do we come down on this? Suler has a point, to be sure, but at the same time it's hard to forget about all of Meyerhold's breakthroughs. It all seems to come back to the two camps of directors and the eternal debate between them; those who give the actors relatively more freedom, and those who Stanislavsky called the 'despots', not allowing for any creative contributions from the actor. Where do I fall, what kind of director do I prefer as an actor, and what kind of director will I end up being? It's all very interesting to think about....

-A

In the Classroom: Константин Райкин, I-ый курс, и Достоевский/Konstantin Raikin, the first year course, and Dostoevsky

2010-06-15T16:02:00.000-07:00

Tonight Konstantin Arkadyevich held his final meeting with his first year students, giving them their homework assignments for the summer, and preparing them for next year. The students will continue their curriculum of etude work, but instead of etudes based on observations, objects, paintings, animals and the like, the students will delve into what is called этюды к образу. In english, the best way to identify this concept of work is 'etudes as a step towards a character/image'. It's not quite pedagogical scene work, but it is a step towards creating a sharpened representation of a character, one that is truly 'far from oneself'. The literature to be used for the purposes of these etudes will be Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov'.

I've mentioned this before, but I love sitting in on Raikin's classes. The man has a plan, and it seems he has a very good idea of where he wants his students to end up at the end of four years...and it's only the end of year one. And he's already hinting at it. Of course there will be changes along the way, but the amount of thought and foresight used to structure the entire four year course of study is inspiring.

Of course most of the evening was spent talking about Dostoevsky's book, his last and greatest achievment. Raikin even quoted Einstein as saying that 'not a single book I have read in my life has ever invoked in me a larger desire to live and to create than The Brothers Karamazov...' (sorry for my paraphrased translation of the quote....It's probably not exact, but that's the drift.), and said that The Brothers Karamazov was a work of such rare importance that one can divide a person's life into two periods: before reading Brothers Karamazov, and after. It's significance and message is that essential and universal.

Raikin also spoke about the need to encounter certain authors during a students course of study, likening them to 'fronts on a battlefield'...'As we were encounter these authors, as we travel through the zones they occupy, we learn something about them and about ourselves as we struggle with them...'

This is a concept I've heard Raikin mention before. I remember translating him for a question and answer session he gave the A.R.T students in 2006, at which point he mentioned that there are certain authors a student must encounter before they can truly count themselves an actor. For Raikin, those authors are Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, Ostrovsky, and Chekhov. As an addendum, as if reciting the vowels of the alphabet 'and sometimes Moliere' was added, but he admitted that every teacher has their own taste for what they think their students must encounter on their path to the profession.

The value of this selection is that each of these authors demands their own unique approach to the material; one cannot play Shakespeare the same way one would play Chekhov, and so on. The more of these great authors we encounter in our training, the more well rounded and better actors we become, better suited to face the challenges of the various genres these authors left after them.

Perhaps one of the more memorable quotes of the evening was the closing note of Victor Rizhakov, quoting an ancient Arab philosopher, reminding the students of the kind of approach they must take towards the great tasks imposed on their summer: 'Don't try to find logic in time, as there are only two things in the world; love, and love.'

It is this love, he said, with which we must meet the work presented to us.

-A

Onstage: Лафкадио/Lafcadio: The Lion Who Shot Back.

2010-06-15T08:45:00.000-07:00

Lafcadio: The Lion Who Shot Back premiered last night on the small stage of the Мастерская club/cafe/theater in Moscow. The show is based on a story by Shel Silverstein, directed by Svetlana Ivanova (An actress at the Praktika theater, Бытие № 2, Рыдания) and stars Cazimir Liske and Odin Biron. The set designer is Dmitry Razumov and the light designer is Yevgeniy Vinogradov.

Before I get down to basics about this show, let me just start out by saying that Caz and Odin are two acquaintences of mine who I've had the pleasure of knowing a long time, and who have never done anything short of impress. Caz, Odin and I share the same alma mater, but where I graduated as part of a 100% American course (well, lets say closer to 82%...three Russians graduated with us...), Caz and Odin graduated as part of a Russian course, something that always evokes a special respect and love for the two of them. As a result, they handle the challenges of performing in a foreign language with a deftness and style all their own, making the occasional difficulties of pronunciation or translation work for them and not against them. The result is a performance that is charming, humorous, witty, full of laughs and not short on brains or relevance.

This is a project that has been percolating for a long time now, taking its first steps last year as part of their (Caz and Odin's) fourth year speech exam. The work back then was only part of Silverstein's short story, and was impressive on its own, but with the help Svetlana Ivanova and their own individual perseverance, they have taken the work to the next level, producing a piece of fairy-tale theater enjoyable for children and adults alike. Indeed, it is a rarity to find modern theater that is so adept at appealing to both audiences. One of the sponsors for this project is the "Будильник" (Alarm Clock) Theater, which has the show listed as part of its repertory. I don't know much about this theater, except what is written on their website (www.teatrbudilnik.ru/), a theater that wants to tell 'fairy tales that don't put you to sleep, but tell you to wake up'. If Caz and Odin keep working the way they are, however, my ignorance about this seemingly new theater is bound to be merely passing.

"Lafcadio" is the story of a lion in the jungle that one day, instead of running from his hunters, eats one, takes his gun and learns how to shoot it, becoming the 'best shot in the jungle'. As his skill and renown grow, a circus director named Filchfinger arrives in the jungle to sign him to a contract promising to make him not only the best shot in the jungle, but the 'best shot in the world' in his circus. Lafcadio journeys to the big city, where fame, fortune, and tons of his favorite Marshmellows (in Russian, Marmelade) await him. However, years later, after he has achieved success, Lafcadio falls into depression because he wants something 'new'. His friends decide to take him on a safari to the jungle to go hunting, and when he stumbles onto his fellow lions, he faces a terrible choice; which world is he part of? Human, or Lion? With both sides pleading and at the same time threatening in their efforts to convince him to join them, Lafcadio drops his gun and bolts, not being able to choose either, never to be seen or heard from again.

With minimal and at the same time highly creative set and light, this show is a testament to the talent of these two young actors, their resourcefulness, creativity, and the story of anyone who is caught between two worlds, no longer able to fully belong to one or the other, forced to forge their own, independent path...

Lafcadio is playing at the Мастерская club (http://www.mstrsk.ru/, http://lafcadio.ru/ ) again on June 28th. If you're in Moscow, and want to see some budding, young, underground theater light on special effects but heavy on talent, this is the show for you...

-A

Non Sequitur: My Jubilee, of Sorts...

2010-06-15T07:18:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, I turned 28 years old, and I had an interesting thought...

In Russia people celebrate their 'jubilee' on their 50th birthday, and while 28 is a long way from 50, I realized that I started serious theater training at age 14 at LaGuardia H.S. in New York. At this point I have been involved in the theater and arts for exactly 50% of my life. Now that's a milestone...

I'm proud that I've made it this far, look forward to going further, and want to thank all of my teachers, colleagues, and students on both sides of the ocean for helping make me the artist I am today. I truly believe there is a lesson to be learned in each and every person you ever work with...

-A

In Preview: Жизель, или обманутые несесты/Giselle, ou les Wilis

2010-06-15T06:54:00.000-07:00

On June 13th, the third year course at the Moscow Art Theater School (Курс Д.В. Брусникин, Р.Е. Козак) held its second открытый прогон (full dress run with audience) of "Giselle, or the deceived brides" on the New Stage of the Moscow Art Theater. The director/choreographer is Alla Sigalova.

The piece is loosely based on the balet by Jules-Henri Vernoy de Saint-Georges and Théophile Gautier with music by Adolphe Adam. The piece runs a little over an hour, and it is obvious that while still in 'preview', as it grows and gains experience onstage it is sure to develop into a powerful success. Alla Sigalova continues to innovate and defies repetition within the walls of the school, while at the same time maintaining her own professional signature style; choreographical story telling to be performed by dramatic actors, not dancers.

Also refreshing in this piece is the use of color in the first act of the piece. I emphasize color, because of all the pieces I have seen of hers (Кармен. Этюды, Стравинский: игры, На едине с тобою, Бедная лиза) this is the first time I have seen the entire stage and actors literally painted with bright pastels, creating an atmosphere of spring time and joy.

I found this piece to be particularly moving not just because the story is powerful, but also because of the circumstances in which this performance is taking place. It seems appropriate that after the tragic events at the end of May that the first show this course places in front of an audience is directed by none other than Alla Sigalova. She herself seems to be leading the way out of mourning for this group, and is showing extraordinary courage, strength, and grace while doing so...But would we expect anything less from Alla Sigalova? Her use of color was particularly powerful to me, all things considered.

In the end, while there are a few rough patches that need work, the most noticable of which is a hole in the dramatic development that needs to be filled between the first and second parts when the action shifts from the land of the living to the land of the Wilis (the dead, deceived brides who have tragically met their end before their wedding day), it is obvious that the work is excellent, and will be ready for its step from 'preview' to 'premiere'...

This show is bound to be a powerful artistic success in the future, and is a just as powerful moral success today. I wish the kids and Alla Mikhailovna the best as it continues to develop...

-A

Onstage: Мастер-класс Константина Райкина/Konstantin Raikin Master-Class

2010-06-12T13:58:00.000-07:00

Last night I attended Konstantin Raikin's "Master class" (a discussion about teaching and pedagogy) at the Meyerhold Center. Raikin spoke about teaching, how and why he uses the methods he does, and his first year course performed excerpts from their acting exam to a packed house on the mainstage.

I was extremely happy for the first years last night. After sitting in and assisting with them any way I could this last semester, I was thrilled that they were given the opportunity to play in front of such a large house. In general the transition from a small auditorium like 4-1 (those who know the Moscow Art Theater School know what I'm talking about) to a space the size of the one at the Meyerhold Center is always difficult, and such transitions for actors and the material being performed are always a trial by fire to some degree; both the actors and the material can be burned by the adjustments that have to be made, and things that work in the intimacy of a classroom enivornment might be lost in a larger space. That said, all of these dangers are part of the growing pains of any process, and while not everything translated well to the bigger stage, I was thrilled that the students got to have that experience together as a course for the first time. The step to the big stage as a course is a big but inevitable one, and they handled themselves well. One of the students quipped afterwards 'Playing 'The Beatles' etude tonight was like performing at a stadium!...'

Raikin is always a powerful speaker, no matter how many times you've heard him speak. Most, if not all of his words bear repeating, and even so there are always more than a few gems of ideas that shine brightly in our memories. Valery Fokin introduced the event and described the ability to truly teach as a truly rare one requiring the ability to wait, to listen, and to believe and have faith. Raikin then spoke about his views on work, school, and how he formulates his pedgogical curriculum. He spoke about his love for work and his 'special inability to stand laziness'. 'Everyone hates laziness,' he said. 'Who likes it? It's just that I especially don't like it.' He spoke about his training at the Schukin Theater School, saying that his experiences, both positive and negative influenced heavily the way he structures his lessons with his first-year students. Things like ПФД (память физического действия/sense-memory exercises) and etudes on 'myself in given circumstances' while to some degree a necessary part of training, don't factor into his approach as prominently as in other classrooms. "I've never understood the necessity to sit on things like 'myself in given circumstances' for longer than a month, let alone seven or eight...It's a necessary part of training, but it exhausts itself as a teaching tool very quickly...when I was a student our teachers told us that 'we know that it's boring' and 'please don't think that this has any relationship to theater'...but I don't want to be bored when I watch...To me, part of the goal of the first year of study is to 'infect the student with theater'..."

Raikin also mentioned how he preferred etudes based on things such as 'myself in fantastical given circumstances', which would make perfect sense, given he was trained at the Vakhtangov school (see Vakhtangov and his genre of theatrical fantastical realism for more info. It's great stuff.).

It is apparent in everything he says that Raikin has a great love for teaching. He calls the first year of study a 'honeymoon' of sorts, a time of заблуждения (delusion). "We always think during the first year that our students are the best and most talented...This is, of course, a delusion. The students come with such energy and love, thinking that their teachers are the best teachers in Moscow...this is also a delusion..." Raikin continues however, saying that such delusions and love are necessary to the process, "Без очарованность не бывает ничего настоящего" (without loving fascination, nothing real is attainable).

I particularly liked those words. It reminded me of a conversation about the relationship between student and teacher I was having with one of friends a couple of nights ago. I remember coming very clearly to the conclusion that I can't give constructive notes if I don't love the student. If I love them, then it makes me pay even more attention to how and when I give notes because I have a personal interest vested in the result. And if I have to tear something apart or criticize because it's bad, I can do that because my love and desire to see the success of the student or actor outweighs my desire not to hurt their feelings. Raikin went further, saying 'really, there's no point in the work if you don't have 'loving facsination' (очарованность) for them (the students). If you don't, then who needs it?'

There is lots more that could be said about this evening, and I hope to have pictures up soon. In the end, the event was very pleasant, and the evening was a very big step for the students to take. I'm glad I was there to be a part of it. What a pleasant way to spend my birthday.

-A

In Dialogue: Сергей Женовач/Sergey Zhenovach

2010-06-09T06:13:00.000-07:00

Hello again! This is the first post in a new category. I have already introduced the 'Onstage' category about shows I have recently seen. This category will be text based, reserved for observations on books about theater and art that I am reading. I was going to go with just 'I'm Reading', but I wanted to go with something a little more theater oriented. I went, opened my books, and found a beautifully worded introduction to the compilation "Искуссвто режиссуры ХХ века" written by Sergey Zhenovach and entitled "Dialogue with the Greats". Here's what he has to say:

"Порой бывает, что репетиция не сложилась либо очередной поворот судьбы в профессии, и учителю позвонить вроде неловко, а каких-то учителей уже и нет рядом, и тогда спасение только в одном: приходишь домой, садишься за писменный стол, включаешь настольную лампу, открываешь книжки и встуаешь в диалог. У каждого человека, занимающегося театром, есть своя домашняя библиотека, круг заветных книг, которые в трудную минуту что-то подскажут, чем-то помогут..."

Here's my translation for those non-Russian speakers out there...

"From time to to time it happens that rehearsal doesn't go well or you run into yet another turning point of fate in your profession, and its awkward to call your teachers, and some teachers aren't even around anymore, and then your salvation is in one thing only: You come home, sit down at your writing desk, turn on your desk lamp, open your books and enter into dialogue. Every person who works in the theater has their own home library, a circle of cherished books, which in difficult times can give you a hint, lend you a hand...."

It seemed to me there was no better quote to start this section, or better name to it. Thank you Sergey Zhenovach, for lending me a helping hand...

-A

Onstage: Иванов в МХТ им чехова/Ivanov at the Chekhov Moscow Art Theater

2010-06-08T16:40:00.000-07:00

For the second night in a row, I've been blessed with fantastic seats. At Shukshin I was ten rows back, and tonight I was third row dead center at Moscow Art. I love being able to see these shows for free, especially when I get seats like these! Let's hope my luck keeps up!

Yuri Butusov is a name in Moscow that is most often associated with originality, interpretation, and Shakespeare. His production of Richard III at the Satirikon with Konstantin Raikin was life-changing theater for me, and I can't wait to see his King Lear there. So it was with great anticipation that this season we were all awaiting the premiere of his take on one of Chekhov's more difficult plays, Ivanov at the Moscow Art Theater. The show premiered months ago and has been embattled from the start, garnering mixed reviews from critics and theater-goers, consigning it to an uncertain fate in the repertory. Tonight I was finally able to see the show and come to my own conclusions about this interesting piece of theater.

To say that Butusov's style is unique is an understatement. With his productions of Hamlet, Richard III, Sunday.Super, Macbeth and others he has certainly established a signature way of approaching material. You know you're at a Butusov show; the aesthetic is recognizable. I ran into one of the teachers at Moscow Art at the show and asked him if he'd seen it, and what he was expecting. He said 'Well, we all know the story.' to which I replied 'Well, it's Butusov. Knowing the story doesn't count for much.' The first peculiarity about this show is that it is...BACKWARDS!...Butusov takes act four first and goes in reverse order, taking the audience through an absurd journey (2 hours 15 minutes without intermission) exploring the title character's malaise. Ivanov's pistol is ever-present (sometimes too much so), and he shoots himself at the end of every act only to be resurrected momentarily at the beginning of the next one to continue his participation in what seems to be an absurdist comedy.

My original impressions of the show were in fact quite positive. For the first two acts, it was clear to me that I was watching a fresh take on Chekhov's classic, and as strange as it might be, it was working. Adding to that was the fact that the cast was exceptional, comprised of several young actors who were my friends from school, alongside older actors (in one case, one of the master teachers at school, Igor Zolotovistky) full of energy, vibrance, and humor. As I looked around at the house, I began to question what the fuss was all about, and whether or not this was a case of the Russian audience not wanting to mess with its classics (Russian audiences and critics can be extremely stubborn about new interpretations of classic works). That maybe they did not want to accept Ivanov's tragedy through the lens of absurdity and humor. I remember thinking at one point 'it's too early to tell, but this might just be genius...'.

But...My speculations ended much the way they had began; as speculation. As the performance wore on, what had at first seemed to be threads in a carefully woven fabric seemed to unravel. By act three, I wasn't sure of my interpretation of events, and the audience's laughter was more awkward than confident; somewhere we waiting for some kind of directorial confirmation of what we were watching that hadn't happened, and didn't occur by the end of the show. Stranger than everything was the ending; abrupt and symbolic (Ivanov starts piling logs onto a pre-existing stack of wood that has been sitting conspicuously on stage throughout the show, as if about to light his own funeral pyre), but at the same time confusing. It was a new symbol in the show's dictionary for the audience, not bearing any overt reference to anything earlier in the performance, and therefore we (and what are we all expecting?...what else?!...THE GUN!) are not quite sure how to interpret it.

Adding to this was the fact that I noticed at one point how intricate the actors playing was, with many exchanges being nothing more than a perfectly timed glance across the stage. Much of the games they were playing had to do with the eyes. Excellent for film or for a smaller, more intimate setting; not so much for the main stage. I was extremely thankful for my close seats, to be able to actually see the work that had been done; had I been sitting in the upper balcony, I am sure the show would have looked relatively static. There are few things I dislike more in theater than when people come onstage and do nothing more than just talk.

In the end, this Ivanov is peculiar. Is it interesting? Yes. Should it continue to be played? In my opinion, yes; the work is interesting and solid enough, although I would seriously consider moving it to the small stage at Moscow Art. However, it leaves the audience with a feeling of incompleteness and unsurity of interpretation. We're not sure what to take home with us from this piece. It just doesn't tie together in the end. We don't understand.

Only time will tell if this production will have a future beyond this season. I hope it does, but there is room for improvement.

Onstage: Рассказы Шукшина/Shukshin Short Stories

2010-06-08T13:33:00.000-07:00

This is the first in what I hope will be an ongoing theme of posts entitled 'Onstage'. This category will be dedicated to analysis of theater I have recently seen, which will hopefully generate discussion and be interesting to read...And here we go! The first show to be written up on my blog!

Last night I had the fortunate opportunity to see "Shukshin Short Stories" as staged by The Theater of Nations (Рассказы Шукшина/Театр Наций). This is quite the show to begin my blog with, and there's a lot to say about it! I'll try and be concise and informative. It has met with almost universal praise from everyone I know who has seen it, won three Golden Mask awards this year (Russia's theater version of the oscars), including best show, and it stars (among others) Yevgeniy Mironov (also artistic director of the company) and Chulpan Khamatova. The director is Alvis Hermanis.

The show is a collection of short stories by Vassiliy Shukshin, a soviet writer and director from the Altay region of Siberia, and the themes of the stories selected for this piece deal with love, betrayal, the interaction of the old with the young, and urban versus rural life, all set against the background of rural Russia; literally. Hermanis' direction places the actors in front of giant photographs taken by the company of real people from Altay; the modern-day equivalents of those same soviet village archetypes from 30 years ago. The stories and the show itself are effectively painted with the seemingly eternal atmosphere and mentality of the Russian village.

The show runs over two and a half hours long, and is well worth it, but we'll come back to that in a bit. The first thing that caught my attention was the fact that when I asked an usher how long the show was going to be, the response was "You'll be getting out at around 10:30. It used to be even longer. They cut one of the stories from last time. And there were cuts before that too." To a masters student in theater, words like those are enough to make your ears prick up with curiousity and optimism. It sends a very clear signal that as the audience member I have walked into a living, breathing process, where things are very much changing from night to night, and even after being awarded the prestigious Golden Mask award for 'Best Show of 2010', the company is not resting on its laurels and still paying meticulous attention to detail. The show is not static; it is alive. In short, they have a love for this piece that is felt in the house very clearly.

Now onto the breakdown...There are three components to this show I found interesting...

First, the genre. This show belongs to a particular genre of drama in Russia; the staged short story. Not an adapted short story, a staged one. Not a single word of the author's text has been omitted, and the narratives in their entirety are preserved. This genre has its merits, as it opens up entire new worlds of literature for the stage, but I have almost always found it to be problematic and risky as well. It becomes increasingly difficult to apply physical action to text that on the surface does not lend itself to a physically expressive performance. Oftentimes the result is a drop-off or hole in dramatic development, where the audience is told what is happening via the authors text as opposed to being shown via the physical expression of the actor's inner psychological state (this approach happened to be one of Stanislavsky's later and greatest contributions to his system, calling it rather aptly his 'Method of Physical Action/Метод физического действия). The latter is, to my taste, more visually and dramatically appealing. Compounding the issue is that this particular production is not one narrative, but a combination of 6 or more separate narratives, essentially making the audience hit a reset button of sorts at the end of every story. Dramatic development must be restarted from scratch every 15-20 minutes, and it can be jarring to the audience. Now, with all of the above said, let me state that this show overcomes all of the above problems not only admirably, but with flair and great ease owing in large part to what seems to be a brilliant relationship between a very talented director, and one of the greatest actors of our time.

Which leads me to the other two components of this production that bear noting, the director and the acting ensemble. Hermanis devises many interesting and clever ways to avoid the pitfalls of static development onstage with some very clever physical expression, whether its a characterized walk, or the way the narrators eat sunflower seeds, the relationship to the action is constantly changing and clearly defined in moments when the actors aren't acting out the story itself. The pitfalls of the 'reset button' are done away with as well, as the stories selected have common themes that lend themselves to the creation of a certain atmosphere around the performance and the posing of a certain, elusive Russian question that becomes clearer with each story, and yet at same time cannot be fully articulated at the end (although perhaps that's because I'm an American!).

The third (and perhaps main reason why this show is so successful) is the acting work. The ensemble is no company of small fries, with Chulpan Khamatova also giving stellar performances alongside a very powerful cast (I was pleasantly surprised to see an acquaintence of mine in the cast!), but Yevgeniy Mironov rules this show. He is the king of перевоплощения (a Russian acting term for a character actor who can easily and seemingly at will create a sharp, concrete role. I'll think about a better way to translate it in the future. It comes from the same root word for 'Incarnate'). Michael Chekhov comes to mind. Legends about the way he could apparently radiate energy from the stage and no one could understand how he was able to achieve such distinct and yet different characters bear a resemblance to Mironov in this performance, and how he is able to exit the stage and almost immediately re-enter in a different role. So different in fact, the audience might as well not even recognize him. It is, in a word, magic.

There are times in this performance where I caught myself realizing what I was watching; a brilliant performance resembling those legends of old by one of the greatest artists of our era at the peak of his career. The kind of performance and career that will be written and spoken about 50 years if not more from now, the same way Markov wrote about the greats of old. The realization of what I was bearing witness to was enough to send shivers down my spine. There is a purity and graceful simplicity about the work being done on this piece. This is one show I'll be telling the kids about for sure. If you're in town, see it.

I've pulled these photos from the Театр наций website. I don't take pictures during a show, I think it's sacreligious. I think I've said enough nice things, I hope they don't sue....

-A

Artistic Beginnings: What is my throughline?

2010-06-07T14:51:00.000-07:00

Hello one, hello all!

Welcome to Throughline. This has just been set up, so it's still a bit sparse around here, but there will be more to come (pictures, links, reviews, blog mission statement...) soon. As a foreword to any who may happen to be out there, here is a preview of what this blog will be...

A forum for discussion on Russian theater from the perspective of a bi-cultural actor/student at the Moscow Art Theater school.

A resource for information about Russian directors, writers, theater culture, and teachers for all students and practitioners of art, wherever they may be.

An ongoing search for an artistic identity (my own personal artistic identity and that of the theater company I have the honor to be a part of), and its effective and adequate expression both on and off the stage.

Exploration. Identification. Expression.

In Russia, they don't drink to the future, but there is one toast I've heard that is allowed...

"Here's to the success of our hopeless endeavor..."

-Adam