Roman "Oblomov" summary which is given in this article, was published in 1859. It was written by the famous Russian writer Ivan Goncharov. The work has been done enormously. The novel was written over 10 years. After the work was completed, the author admitted that he told about his life in it. He also points out that he and the main character of the novel, the nihilist Oblomov, are united by many common features. Immediately after its publication, the work became the subject of heated debate among critics and writers.
Getting to know the main characters
The scene of the novel is the city of Petersburg, Gorokhovaya street. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov lives here with his servant Zakhar. The protagonist, being a young man, leads an idle life. He does nothing, except that he talks all day long on the topic of how to live, and dreams of a calm life in his native village of Oblomovka. Ilya Ilyich is absolutely not concerned about any problems: both the fact that he is being collected and the fact that the economy is in complete decline. At young man I have a friend who is the complete opposite. This is Andrei Ivanovich Stolz. He is very active and active. Trying to stir up his lazy friend, Andrei invites him to banquets in best houses Petersburg. It is unlikely that he will be able to convey all the feelings and thoughts of the main characters in a summary. "Oblomov" is a novel that has not lost its relevance in our time. We highly recommend reading it.
Oblomov fell in love
What happens next? After Oblomov began to go out into the world, he simply could not be recognized. He gets up not during the day, but in the morning, which he has never done before, is interested in everything that happens around him and writes a lot. Everyone around is shocked by such a metamorphosis in the behavior of a young lazy person. What happened to him? It turns out that the young man fell in love. At one of the receptions, Oblomov met Olga Ilyinskaya. She, in turn, answers him. The history of the development of their relationship is unlikely to convey a brief summary. Oblomov soon proposes marriage to Olga.
Oblomov in the house on the Vyborg side
But this "ebullient activity" of the young nihilist did not last long. Soon he settled in the house of Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna on the Vyborg side. This dwelling is as old and dilapidated as Oblomov himself will soon become. Olga is trying to shake up her loved one, to get him out of this "swamp". But, having come to his house, she realized that all her efforts would be in vain. Agafya Matveevna takes care of Ilya Ilyich, preparing his favorite dishes and mending old shabby things. Unexpectedly for herself, she realizes that she fell in love with her master. Soon their son Andryusha was born. It is impossible to follow how abruptly the life of the protagonist changes, if only to skim through the eyes only a brief summary. Oblomov did not immediately become a prisoner of his "blissful paradise" in Agafya's house. Trying to free himself from the tenacious fetters of laziness and apathy, at first he tries to renew his relationship with Olga. But soon the quagmire of idleness and lethargy completely sucks him in.
Love of Olga and Stolz
Here is only a brief summary of Oblomov. IN full version novel you will read about how the origin and development of love feeling at Olga's to Stolz. In the article, we will only mention how one day our heroine realized that Andrei had ceased to be just a friend for her. Stoltz, on the other hand, always liked Olga, and her attitude towards Oblomov opened her with new side for the beloved. These two were born to be happy together.
Ending
The novel ends with a story about little son Oblomov Andryusha. The main character is no longer alive. Dying, he begged his friend not to leave his son. Therefore, the Stoltsy, who by that time also had children, took little Oblomov to be brought up. This novel was written in difficult period in the history of Russia. A brief summary will not be able to convey the fullness of the conflicting views and ways of that time. "Oblomov" is a work that will be useful for everyone to read. Because it has meaning
How did I. A. Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" end?
The novel by Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov Oblomov ends very simply and, so to speak, according to the script.
Whatever you say, main character Oblomov has become a beloved and more congenial hero for many readers, despite the fact that the novel was written over 100 years ago. That's why this novel You can read it over and over and discover something new every time.
Oblomov's novel ends with Ilya Oblomov dying (Oblomov developed many illnesses from constant laziness and lying down)
Olga married Stolz. They adopted the son of Ilya Oblomov (the son appeared from Oblomov's connection with a simple woman)
Great not afraid of this word Roman! I advise everyone to read love line Oblomov and Olga didn’t end with anything, since she stayed with Oblomov’s friend Stolz, Oblomov had a child from a woman who looked after the housework in his house. In general, Oblomov did not reach any peaks, neither with his household, nor with Olga, but he could not solve his affairs with anything, he was always too lazy, and it was easy to deceive him
The title of the novel contains the entire plot and script. full bummer. The man who showed promise was smart, handsome, in the end he lost all his potential and died almost in poverty in a small hut with a woman who cleaned and washed after him, from whom the son appeared, but whom Stolz and Olga took to their upbringing. As they say, if you are talented, then you are talented in everything, and if you are lazy, then sooner or later you will collapse, and all that remains to be said is my fate.
Quite naturally, the novel ends with the death of the protagonist - Ilya Oblomov. This is like a sentence to the way of life that he led and which did not lead to anything. However, Oblomov found his happiness, he married Agafya, his son was born. But his indifference and laziness completely ruined Oblomov, he himself couldn’t keep an eye on the household, and the scammers did not doze. So after the death of his father, Oblomov's son would have been threatened with poverty, if not for Stolz, who, by that time married Olga, took the boy to be raised. I think that with such an adoptive father, Andrei Oblomov should have grown up a completely different person than his own father was.
The novel ends with a kind of epilogue in which Zakhar tells the story of his unsettled existence: he was expelled from everywhere, because in modern times the masters needed much fewer servants, and he couldn’t cope with his duties either: drinking at the workplace, then crushing expensive Bohemian dishes, then other offenses of varying degrees of unacceptability will be committed. He ended up as a beggar begging for a penny. Stolz promised him a corner on the condition that Zakhar would not get drunk.
The fate of the heroes is discussed in the penultimate chapter. Ilya Ilyich died from a blow,
His widow Agafya Matveevna was, of course, a woman of a different plan than Olga, but she loved her husband sincerely, because after his death
The household was cleaned up by the brother and his wife, in whom she is actually in the servants, since
She gave her little son Andryusha to be raised by the Stolts. Thus, the author gives the reader hope that Oblomovism will not spread further, and little Oblomov will not repeat the fate of his father, in a healthy balance of his Russian soul and half-German upbringing.
Ilya Ilyich Oblomov died at the end of this work, which, in my opinion, perfectly shows the incorrectness of his life, his existence. A person who leads a meaningless life sees no meaning in it, so he dies.
ENDING OF THE NOVEL BY I. A. GONCHAROV OBLOMOV.
The ending of Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov's novel Fathers and Sons was, to some extent, quite predictable. Andrei Ivanovich Stolz, which is due best friend Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, married on beautiful Olga Sergeevna Ilinskaya. Unfortunately, further relations between Oblomov and Ilyinskaya did not work out: they are too different people. Ilya Ilyich was the first to write a letter to Olga Ilyinskaya with a request to forgive him, but the couple has no future. As he himself said, his life will be a burden to Olga, but he will never resort to the path of correction.
The protagonist of the novel Ilya Ilyich married Agafya Petrovna Matveevna, the owner of an apartment in the village, to which he once moved from the problems and turmoil that had arisen in the city.
Shortly after the engagement came into being firstborn. The hero was named Andrey.
After parting with the master, the servant Zakhar drank heavily.
Later died Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. Life for him lost all meaning, so he did not want to stay in this world.
Agafya Petrovna was very upset by the death of Ilya Ilyich and could not come to terms with his passing away.
small Andrey Stoltsy took in for their upbringing and considered him family.
1. What things have become a symbol of "Oblomovism"?
The symbols of "Oblomovism" were a bathrobe, slippers, a sofa.
2. What turned Oblomov into an apathetic couch potato?
Laziness, fear of movement and life, inability to practice, substitution of life for a vague dreaminess, turned Oblomov from a man into an appendage of a dressing gown and sofa.
3. What is the function of Oblomov's dream in the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov"
The chapter "Oblomov's Dream" draws an idyll of a patriarchal serf village, in which only such Oblomov could grow up. The Oblomovites are shown as sleeping heroes, and Oblomovka as a sleepy kingdom. The dream shows the conditions of Russian life that gave rise to "Oblomovism".
4. Can Oblomov be called "an extra person"?
ON THE. Dobrolyubov noted in the article “What is Oblomovism?” that the features of Oblomovism were characteristic to some extent of both Onegin and Pechorin, that is, “superfluous people”. But the "superfluous people" of previous literature were surrounded by a certain romantic halo, they seemed strong people, distorted by reality. Oblomov is also "superfluous", but "reduced from a beautiful pedestal to a soft sofa." A.I. Herzen said that the Onegins and Pechorins treat Oblomov like fathers treat children.
5. What is the peculiarity of the composition of the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov"?
The composition of the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov" is characterized by the presence of a double storyline - Oblomov's novel and Stolz's novel. Unity is achieved with the help of the image of Olga Ilyinskaya, which connects both lines. The novel is built on the contrast of images: Oblomov - Stolz, Olga - Pshenitsyna, Zakhar - Anisya. The entire first part of the novel is an extensive exposition introducing the hero already in adulthood.
6. What role does I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov" epilogue?
The epilogue tells about the death of Oblomov, which made it possible to trace the whole life of the hero from birth to the end.
7. Why is the morally pure, honest Oblomov dying morally?
The habit of getting everything from life, without putting any effort into it, developed apathy, inertia in Oblomov, made him a slave own laziness. Ultimately, the feudal system and the domestic upbringing generated by it are to blame for this.
8. As in the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov" shows the complex relationship between slavery and nobility?
Serfdom corrupts not only masters, but also slaves. An example of this is the fate of Zakhar. He is as lazy as Oblomov. During the life of the master, he is content with his position. After the death of Oblomov, Zakhar has nowhere to go - he becomes a beggar.
9. What is "Oblomovism"?
"Oblomovism" - social phenomenon, consisting in laziness, apathy, inertia, contempt for work and an all-consuming desire for peace.
10. Why did Olga Ilyinskaya's attempt to revive Oblomov fail?
Having fallen in love with Oblomov, Olga tries to re-educate him, to break his laziness. But his apathy deprives her of faith in the future of Oblomov. Oblomov's laziness was higher and stronger than love.
Stolz is hardly goodie. Although, at first glance, it is new, progressive man, active and active, but there is something in him from the machine, always dispassionate, rational. He is a schematized, unnatural person.
12. Describe Stolz from the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Ob-crowbars".
Stolz is the antipode of Oblomov. He is an active, active person, a bourgeois businessman. He is enterprising, always striving for something. The outlook on life is characterized by the words: "Labor is the image, content, element and purpose of life, at least mine." But Stoltz is incapable of experiencing strong feelings, it exudes the calculatedness of each step. The image of Stolz in the artistic sense is more schematic and declarative than the image of Oblomov.
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
On this page, material on the topics:
- quizzes on the topic of potters bummers with answers
- potters Oblolov answers to questions
- Oblomov questions with answers
- Oblomov novel test
- how the exposition of the novel Oblomov is built
In the third and last time Stolz visits his friend. Under the caring eye of Pshenitsyna, Oblomov almost realized his ideal: “He dreams that he has reached that promised land where rivers of honey and milk flow, where they eat unearned bread, walk in gold and silver…”, and Agafya Matveevna turns into a fabulous Miliktrisa Kirbityevna… The house on the Vyborg side resembles a rural free space.
However, the hero did not reach native village. Subject "Oblomov and the men" runs throughout the novel. Even in the first chapters, we learned that in the absence of the master, the peasants live hard. The headman reports that the peasants are "running away", "asking for quitrent". It is unlikely that they became better under the rule of the Worn One. While Oblomov was drowning in his problems, he missed the opportunity to build a road, build a bridge, as his neighbor, a village landowner, did. It cannot be said that Ilya Ilyich does not think about his peasants at all. But his plans are to ensure that everything remains as it is. And to the advice to open a school for a peasant, Oblomov replies with horror that “he, perhaps, will not plow ...” But time cannot be stopped. In the finale, we learn that "Oblomovka is not in the middle of nowhere anymore<…>the rays of the sun fell on her! The peasants, no matter how difficult it was, did without the master: “... In four years it will be a station on the road<…>, the men will go to work on the embankment, and then roll along the cast iron<…>bread to the pier ... And there ... schools, letters ... "But did Ilya Ilyich manage without Oblomovka? Goncharov proves his favorite thoughts with the logic of narration. And the fact that on the conscience of every landowner lies the concern for the fate of hundreds of people ("Happy Mistake"). And what country life is the most natural and therefore the most harmonious for a Russian person; she herself will direct, teach and tell you what to do better than any “plans” (“Pallada Frigate”).
In the house on Vyborgskaya Oblomov sank down. What was a free dream became a hallucination - "the present and the past merged and mixed." On the first visit, Stolz managed to lift Oblomov off the couch. In the second, he helped a friend in solving practical cases. And now, with horror, he realizes that he is powerless to change anything: “Get out of this hole, out of the swamp, into the light, into the open space, where there is a healthy, normal life!” Stoltz insisted...
“Do not remember, do not disturb the past: you will not turn back! Oblomov said. - I have grown to this pit with a sore spot: try to tear it off - there will be death ... I feel everything, I understand everything: I have long been ashamed to live in the world! But I can't go your way with you, even if I wanted to. Maybe the last time was still possible. Now... now it's too late... Even Olga is not able to resurrect him: "Olga! - suddenly escaped from the frightened Oblomov ... - For God's sake, do not let her come here, leave!
As in the first visit, Stolz sums up the sad result:
– What is there? Olga asked...
- Nothing!..
Is he alive and well?
Why are you back so soon? Why didn't he call me there and bring him? Let me in!
- It is forbidden!
- What is going on there? ... Has the "abyss been opened"? Will you tell me? .. What is going on there?
- Oblomovism!
And if Ilya Ilyich found people who are willing to endure this life around them, then nature itself, it seems, opposed, measuring out a short period of such an existence. That is why the attempts of the same Agafya Matveevna to restrict her husband produce a tragicomic impression. "How many times have you gone? - she asked Vanyusha ... - Don't lie, look at me ... Remember Sunday, I won't let you visit<…>". And Oblomov, willy-nilly, counted eight more times, then he already came into the room ... "; “It would be nice to have a pie!” “I forgot, I forgot! And I wanted it since the evening, but my memory seemed to be knocked off!” - Agafya Matveevna cheated. It doesn't make sense. For she cannot offer him any other goal in life than food and sleep.
Goncharov devotes relatively little space to the description of the illness and death of his hero. I. Annensky summarizes the reader's impressions, saying that “we read 600 pages about him, we do not know a person in Russian literature so fully, so vividly depicted. Meanwhile, his death affects us less than the death of a tree in Tolstoy's…” Why? Critics " silver age are unanimous, because the worst thing has already happened to Oblomov. Spiritual death overtakes physical death. “He died because he ended ...” (I. Annensky). "Vulgarity" finally "triumphed over purity of heart, love, ideals." (D. Merezhkovsky).
Goncharov says goodbye to his hero with an excited lyrical requiem: “What happened to Oblomov? Where is he? Where? - In the nearest cemetery, under a modest urn, his body rests<…>. Lilac branches, planted by a friendly hand, doze over the grave, and the wormwood smells serenely. It seems that the angel of silence itself guards his sleep.
It would seem that there is an undeniable contradiction here. A lofty eulogy for a fallen hero! But life cannot be considered useless when someone remembers you. Bright sadness filled the life of Agafya Matveevna with the highest meaning: “She realized that<…>God put a soul into her life and took it out again; that the sun shone in it and faded forever ... Forever, really; but on the other hand, her life was forever comprehended: now she knew why she lived and that she did not live in vain.
In the finale, we meet Zakhar in the guise of a beggar on the church porch. The orphaned valet prefers to ask for Christ's sake than to serve the "obnoxious" mistress. The following dialogue takes place between Stolz and his familiar writer about the late Oblomov:
- And he was no more stupid than others, the soul is pure and clear, like glass; noble, gentle, and - gone!
- From what? What reason?
“The reason… what a reason!” Oblomovism! Stolz said.
- Oblomovism! - the writer repeated with bewilderment. - What it is?
- Now I'll tell you ... And you write it down: maybe it will be useful to someone. "And he told him what is written here."
Thus, the composition of the novel is strictly circular, it is impossible to isolate the beginning and end in it. Everything that we read from the first pages, it turns out, can be interpreted as a story about Oblomov, his friend. At the same time, Stoltz could tell the story of a recently ended life. Thus the circle human life completed twice: in reality and in the memories of friends.
Goncharov, the harmony singer, could not complete his book with one minor note. The epilogue introduces a new little hero, which, perhaps, will be able to harmoniously combine best features father and teacher. “Don't forget my Andrey! - were last words Oblomov, said in a faded voice ... "" No, I will not forget your Andrey<…>, - promises Stolz. - But I will take your Andrey where you could not go<…>and with him we will carry out our youthful dreams.”
Let's do a little experiment. open last page edition of "Oblomov" - any that you hold in your hands. Turning it over, you will almost certainly find an article by Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov “What is Oblomovism?” This work must be known, if only because it is one of the examples of Russian critical thought nineteenth century. However, the first sign of a free person and a free country is the possibility of choice. Dobrolyubov's article is more interesting to consider next to the article with which it appeared almost simultaneously and with which it is in many respects polemical. This is a review by Alexander Vasilyevich Druzhinin “Oblomov”. Roman I.A. Goncharova.
Critics are unanimous in admiring the image of Olga. But if Dobrolyubov sees in her new heroine, the main fighter against Oblomovism, Druzhinin sees in her the embodiment of eternal femininity: “You can’t help but get carried away by this bright, pure creation who so intelligently worked out in himself all the best, true beginnings of a woman ... "
Disagreements between them begin with Oblomov's assessment. Dobrolyubov argues with the author of the novel himself, proving that Oblomov is a lazy, spoiled, worthless creature: “He (Oblomov) will not bow to the idol of evil! Why is that? Because he is too lazy to get up on the couch. But drag him, put him on his knees before this idol: he will not be able to get up. Dirt will not stick to him! Yes, as long as there is one. So still nothing; and how Tarantiev, the Worn out, will come. Ivan Matveich - brr! what disgusting nastiness begins near Oblomov.
The critic shrewdly guesses the origins of Oblomov's character in his childhood. In Oblomovism, he sees, first of all, social roots: “... He ( Oblomov) from an early age sees in his house that all household chores are performed by lackeys and maids, and papa and mama only order and scold for bad performance. Gives an example symbolic episode with stockings pulled. He considers Oblomov as social type . This is a gentleman, the owner of “three hundred Zakharov”, who “drawing the ideal of his bliss ... did not think to approve its legitimacy and truth, did not ask himself the question: where will these greenhouses and greenhouses come from ... and why on earth will he use them?”
But still psychological analysis character and meaning of the whole novel is not so interesting to critics. He is constantly interrupted by "more general considerations" about Oblomovism. In the hero of Goncharov, the critic is primarily an established literary type, his critic traces his genealogy from Onegin, Pechorin, Rudin. In literary science, it is usually called the type extra person. Unlike Goncharov, Dobrolyubov focuses on his negative traits: “The common thing for all these people is that they have no business in life that would be a vital necessity for them, a sacred thing of the heart ...”
Dobrolyubov presciently guesses that the reason for Oblomov's deep sleep was the absence of a lofty, truly noble goal. He chose the words of Gogol as an epigraph: “Where is the one who would mother tongue Russian soul would be able to tell us this almighty word “forward? ..” ”
Let's now look at Druzhinin's article. Let's be honest: it's a lot harder to read. As soon as we open the pages, the names of philosophers and poets, Carlyle and Longfellow, Hamlet and artists Flemish school so they will dazzle before our eyes. An intellectual of the highest outlook, a connoisseur of English literature, Druzhinin does not descend to the average level in his critical works, but is looking for an equal reader. By the way, this is how you can check the degree of your own culture - ask yourself which of the mentioned names, paintings, books are familiar to me?
Following Dobrolyubov, he pays a lot of attention to "Snu ..." and sees in it "a step towards understanding Oblomov with his Oblomovism." But, unlike him, focuses on the lyrical content of the chapter. Druzhinin saw poetry even in the “sleepy servant”, and put Goncharov in the highest merit that he “poeticized the life of his native land". Thus the critic touched lightly national content Oblomovism. Defending his beloved hero, the critic urges: “Take a close look at the novel, and you will see how many people in it are devoted to Ilya Ilyich and even adore him ...” After all, this is no accident!
“Oblomov is a child, not a lecherous lecher, he is a sleepyhead, not an immoral egoist or epicurean ...” To emphasize moral value hero, Druzhinin asks the question: who is ultimately more useful for humanity? A naive child or a zealous official, "signing paper after paper"? And he answers: “A child by nature and by the conditions of his development, Ilya Ilyich ... left behind the purity and simplicity of a child - qualities that are precious in an adult.” People "not of this world" are also necessary, because "in the midst of the greatest practical confusion, they often reveal to us the realm of truth and at times put an inexperienced, dreamy eccentric and above ... a whole crowd of businessmen who surround him." The critic is sure that Oblomov - type universal, and exclaims: “It’s not good for that land where there are no good and incapable of evil eccentrics like Oblomov!”
Unlike Dobrolyubov, he does not forget about Agafya Matveevna either. Druzhinin made a subtle observation about the place of Pshenitsyna in the fate of Oblomov: she unwittingly was " evil genius” Ilya Ilyich, “but this woman will be forgiven everything because she loved a lot.” The critic is captivated by the subtle lyricism of the scenes depicting the woeful experiences of the widow. In contrast to her, the critic shows the selfishness of the Stoltsev couple in relation to Oblomov in scenes where "neither worldly order, nor worldly truth ... were violated."
At the same time, a number of controversial judgments can be found in his review. The critic avoids talking about why Ilya Ilyich is dying. Stolz's despair at the sight of a fallen friend is caused, in his opinion, only by the fact that Oblomov married a commoner.
Like Dobrolyubov, Druzhinin goes beyond the scope of the novel. He discusses the peculiarities of Goncharov's talent, compares it with the Dutch painters. Like the Dutch landscape painters and creators of genre scenes, the details of life under his pen acquire an existential scale and “his creative spirit was reflected in every detail ... like the sun is reflected in a small drop of water ...”
We saw that two critics in their judgments about Oblomov and the novel as a whole argue and deny each other. So which one to trust? I. Annensky answered this question, noting that it was a mistake “to dwell on the question of what type of Oblomov. Negative or positive? This question generally belongs to the school-market ones ... "And he suggests that" the most natural way in each analysis of the type - to begin with an analysis of your impressions, deepening them as much as possible. For this "deepening" and need criticism. To convey the reaction of contemporaries, to supplement independent conclusions, and not to replace their own impressions. In fact, Goncharov believed in his reader, and to remarks that his hero was incomprehensible, he retorted: “What is the reader for? Is he some kind of oaf that his imagination will not be able to complete the rest according to the idea given by the author? Are the Pechorins, Onegins ... told to the smallest detail? The task of the author is the dominant element of character, and the rest is up to the reader.
"The Life of Ilya Ilyich". The performance is based on the novel by I. A. Goncharov "Oblomov" and the play by M. Ugarov "The Death of Ilya Ilyich".
Theater-festival "Baltic House".
Director Igor Konyaev, artist Alexey Porai-Koshits
A year ago, at the reading of modern drama, held at the festival "Baltic House", Igor Konyaev and his comrades read aloud excerpts from M. Ugarov's play "The Death of Ilya Ilyich". A year later, on small stage Theater "Baltic House" appeared a performance staged by I. Konyaev "The Life of Ilya Ilch", created based on the novel by I. Goncharov "Oblomov" and the play by M. Ugarov. There is nothing surprising in the fact that in Konyaev's performance about ten percent of the text is from Ugarov's Play, and ninety percent belongs to Goncharov. (If, of course, we take into account the fact that M. Ugarov is actually our contemporary, and it is not entirely correct and ethical to do this with a contemporary play - he may be offended). Igor Konyaev is a student of Lev Dodin's school, and it is clear that the flesh of Goncharov's novel for a director of a traditional psychological theater is fraught with more temptations and secrets than any modern play, even if it is thrice as good. As a result, a dramatization was born, where story line does not go beyond the limits indicated by the playwright, but the text inside these plot moves is replaced by the text of similar scenes from the novel Oblomov. Separate remarks and episodes remained from the play, mainly dialogues between Ilya Ilyich and his servant Zakhar. This is all to the fact that neither the language, nor the ideas, nor the philosophy of the play penetrate the performance. talk about the conceptual connection of two original texts also not necessary. It can be seen that the creators of the performance worked according to the “school”, using the etude method, reading the novel as in the old good times- page after page, looking for the right lines and key monologues. The scenes left from the play willy-nilly organize the comic space of the performance. Among Goncharov's text, the replicas of the play look like reprises, and they are played out by the actors like light gags.
It is not surprising that the interpretation of Oblomov's story in this case does not go beyond the usual, stereotyped, sociological. If for Goncharov and Ugarov Ilya Ilyich is, first of all, a rare type of person that is disappearing today, in which the integrity of nature and peace of mind are combined with a childish pure worldview, then the director gives Oblomov a completely textbook diagnosis, known to everyone school bench as "Oblomovism". Due to the danger of the disease, the patient was admitted to the clinic. The space of the performance is a hospital ward with five beds (for all the characters in this story, by the way). The main colors are gray and white. Metal beds are fenced off with white curtains, the back wall is white medical racks with neatly lined bottles and folders, in the center, in a glass cabinet, a skeleton is comfortably located. The director's view of the whole story is the view of a German doctor, sober, outsider. Therefore, the doctor among all the characters is the only one who is deprived of a bed and comes here to visit the patient. For I. Konyaev, inactivity, Oblomov's apathy is a disease of the soul, weakness is unnatural, dangerous, having no right to exist. It is not surprising that in the finale, Ilya Ilyich himself will take the place of the skeleton in the closet as visual material on the topic "You can't live like this." But the general concept of the director leaves more and more questions and doubts in the course of the performance, it seems more and more formal. What, then, is the story that we have witnessed? The fruit of a sick imagination, or perhaps a performance played out by bored patients in one of the wards?
At the very beginning of the performance, all the characters, the future Zakhar, Stolz, Olga, Agafya Matveevna, in gray hospital gowns, surround the sleeping Oblomov and start waking him up in a loud whisper: “Ilya Ilyich, Ilya Ilyich”, after which they quietly disappear from the ward. They appear already in the course of the plot as characters themselves. Only Oblomov and Zakhar, who is sleeping behind a curtain, remain in the ward. In the finale, after the death of Oblomov, the mattress on his bed will be rolled up, and all the participants in the drama that has taken place will again put on hospital gowns and lie down on their beds. Who is next? What did they do wrong? Who is this lying on gray hospital beds? Something does not grow together in the "case history" and, above all, the figure of the protagonist breaks out of it.
The stage tradition of Oblomov does not exist as such. For everything about everything - one screen version, where little Ilyusha runs across the field to his mother, and Oleg Tabakov is almost an authentic image of Oblomov in the mass consciousness. The choice of MDT actor Peter Semak for this role is primarily useful for breaking stereotypes. This decision is truly amazing and non-trivial, because to imagine P. Semak playing a swimmer, apathetic Oblomov lying on the couch for days on end - consciousness coped with this task with difficulty. The actor had to play the role of "resistance", to overcome own strength, turn it into weakness, play apathy, painful indifference, the inner extinction of a person endowed with a soul, feelings, talent. It was the actor-role relationship that became the main intrigue of the play. This game of "resistance" was a success. Throughout the performance, the actor not only develops the theme of "Oblomovism", but plays two different states of his hero - before the break with Olga and after.
In the first act, on the one hand, the patient's apathy is played. Everyone is trying to “wake up” Oblomov in one way or another: Zakhar (V. Anisimov), who comes to the cry, strums the piano, in despair, almost crying, tucks the enema into the master’s collar in order to push Oblomov to five, as ordered. Stolz (V. Solovyov), trying to return his friend in his youth, to those long-standing plans, dreams that connected them. Olga (E. Ushakova), who with her "Casta Diva" makes Ilya Ilyich's heart beat faster. On the other hand, this apathy does not mental illness. This apathy must have its own background - the path that the young Ilya Ilyich went through. But the design of the play, in which the staging is inscribed, was designed for completely different tasks. The actor plays the “childhood of consciousness” much more distinctly. It is no coincidence that the first person we see on the stage at the beginning of the performance is mother, who is already an adult dreaming of Ilyusha, and without waking up he will stretch, put his fingers into a pinch and obediently repeat the prayer. This childishness in behavior will resonate in other episodes. When Oblomov is dressed in a slightly baggy suit, he will look like a forty-year-old boy, rapturously eating cakes at a social event and completely indifferent to classic beauty Olga Ilinskaya. Ilya Ilyich will behave like a boy, throwing a napkin at Stolz until he hears Olga singing, until he freezes, struck by his beauty, until he cries. Here the soul is awakened, but the story of inner rebirth is not written in the play.
All the drama of the relationship will be shown at the moment of the break, when Olga goes out the door and Ilya Ilyich alone remains on the stage. The actor is alone and will play a catastrophe: indecision, an attempt to hide, growing melancholy. There is an obvious miscalculation in the staging - the gap remains unclear. What was that moment of weakness? Conscious act? One thing is clear - a disaster. Semak, after Olga's departure, plays the hero's instant maturation, a piercing awareness of what happened with his whole being, he does not play a disease - a cardiac arrest. “Mom, tell me a story,” Oblomov will say wistfully, stretch out on the bed, shout: “Snow, snow,” and fall on the pillow in a fever.
The actor very accurately changes the manner of performance. He discards the comedy that was present in the first act and plays a heartbreak, an inner death. The actor so poignantly exists on the stage forty minutes of the second act that the obvious miscalculations of the staging, the formal director's decision of the performance fade into the background.
Gradually, Oblomov seems to come back to life. The hospital ward takes on the features of housing: dishes are on the shelves, jars of cucumbers are on the bedside table, there is a napkin, here is an icon. Soft, calm Pshenitsina promises peace with all her appearance, and Oblomov smiles at her - weakly, helplessly. She brings Oblomov's stick, and he pulls his hands towards her, like a child to his mother (Pshenitsyna and mother, who comes to Ilyusha in a dream, are "rhymed" by the director, they are played by one actress). Agafya Matveevna, with maternal care, with an eternal smile on her lips, rubs Ilya Ilyich's numb leg and ties it with a handkerchief, puts on a terrifying pink sweater over Oblomov's dressing gown - and before us is an aged, stooped Ilya Ilyich, with a quiet, even voice and longing in his eyes. This is not apathy, this is the absence of life, the final fall, which is realized by the hero. The arrival of Stolz causes only a shadow of joy. "She's married," Stolz says, and then there's a knock human heart. When Stolz says that he is Olga's husband, the heart will stop. Oblomov dies of love, because the thread that connected him with the Universe was interrupted.
But the quiet death of Ilya Ilyich after the words “I died” is not yet the finale. A doctor's note is required for the medical history. The doctor begins to read the letter sent to him by Oblomov, and Peter Semak picks up the words from the letter. His final monologue about "Oblomovism" is an example of how the masters of the Maly Drama Theater master the word. Five minutes alone with the audience, exposing yourself, your life, your heavy legacy. From a performance standpoint, it's flawless. In relation to the performance, it seems superfluous, since everything has been played before, and the monologue about “Oblomovism” is too visual and mentoring lesson to be believed. And although Oblomov will take the place of a skeleton in a glass case as a warning to all living, he still dies of love. Semak plays not "Oblomovism", but love and death after the betrayal of this love and leads the performance to the eternal drama of the Russian person on "rendes-vous".
