CHAPTER TWO. Godunov's activities. - Establishment of the Patriarchate in Russia. - The Shuisky and other boyars are acting in concert with Godunov. - Their fears regarding the accession of Dmitry Uglichsky. - Killing Dmitry. - Godunov's desire for the throne. - Fire in Moscow. - Invasion

Current page: 64 (total book has 68 pages)

Font:

100% +

The daughter of the "stars" in the bullpen
(Kristina Orbakaite)

IN November 1985 the heroine of a scandalous story was the 14-year-old daughter of Alla Pugacheva, Kristina Orbakaite: she ended up in a bullpen (pretrial detention cell). It happened at the Cosmos Hotel, where Christina, along with her friend Marina (she lived with her while her mother was on tour in Baku, and her grandmother was in the hospital), came to have fun in the Solaris night bar there. Since some time ago, Christina, along with her mother, starred there in a television program, she had no idea that this trip could end in tears. And that's exactly what happened. Here is how the culprit herself recalls the incident:

“There was a pretty strict pass system, but since I recently filmed there, I thought there would be no problems. But no one recognized me, and in general we were suspected that we, such bright young girls, were looking for some kind of adventure in the hotel beyond our years. In short, we were tied up and put in a hotel bullpen. We didn’t have passports, my relatives were all absent, the Marinkins left the city, there was no one to confirm our identities, and therefore we spent the whole night in the police station. We were rescued by a mutual friend of our parents, who worked as a doctor in the hotel. She vouched for us…”

1986

How the director was hounded
(Anatoly Efros)

After the summer 1984 Soviet authorities deprived the former head of the Taganka Theater Yuri Lyubimov of Soviet citizenship, Anatoly Efros agreed to stand at the head of the theater. What literally caused a wave of rage from the liberal Soviet public, including most of the troupe itself. However, Efros' ill-wishers were afraid to splash out this rage, preferring to take revenge on the "renegade" on the sly: they cut the director's sheepskin coat in the theater wardrobe with a razor, pierced the tires of his car in the theater parking lot, and even propped up the front door of his apartment ... with a stake so that he could not leave the house and arrive in time for rehearsal. In short, they mocked the person as best they could. But he stoically endured everything, continuing to believe that this “clouding of the mind” of his ill-wishers would pass sooner or later. Alas…

At first 1986 the nerves could not stand the three actors of Taganka, who were tired of hiding their dislike for Efros and announced their departure to another team - to Sovremennik. These actors were: Leonid Filatov, Veniamin Smekhov and Vitaly Shapovalov. The Trinity belonged to the very backbone of the Taganka, which continued the buzz around the name of Lyubimov, sincerely believing that by doing so they were doing a holy deed - they were fighting the bureaucratic brethren for their Teacher. They continued to be in the dark about the fact that the Teacher had long ago renounced them and had no particular desire to return to their homeland. However, even if they knew about it, this, apparently, would have little effect on them: after all, they considered themselves revolutionaries, fighters against the system. To remain under the command of Efros meant for them to become conformists, traitors to the goals and ideas that they had been preaching for so many years, being actors of Lyubov's Taganka.

Efros himself responded to the departure of the three actors in the pages of Literaturnaya Gazeta. He stated the following: “Three actors left the theater. I think that they were afraid of painstaking, everyday work. Although, of course, the words they say are completely different. It's one thing to talk about the theater, it's another thing to rehearse every day. Unfortunately, not everyone is capable of this ... "

It is worth noting that the authorities did their best to prevent the actors from leaving Taganka and even issued a special order on this occasion, where they forbade the directors of the capital's theaters to take Tagankovites to themselves. However, Galina Volchek ignored this order. She received no punishment for this. As well as rebel actors.

Meanwhile, having moved to Sovremennik, the three Tagankovites continued to be in the Taganka Theater with all their thoughts, where they had numerous friends, and Leonid Filatov also had his wife Nina Shatskaya. Thanks to the latter, they could be aware of all the affairs and events in their native theater. And they frankly did not like these things. I didn’t like that Efros was firmly established within the walls of Taganka, I didn’t like that his new performances were enthusiastically received by critics, the audience went to see them. In addition, Lyubimov's performances are also on the Taganka stage, and at the beginning 1986 Efros announced the imminent restoration of two more: "The Master and Margarita" and "House on the Embankment." Those who left the theater were literally consumed by resentment: they left, and their performances will go on, increasing the glory of the now Efrosovsky theater.

Meanwhile, the pressure on Efros did not weaken. At the end April 1986 three former Tagankovites also wove their voices into this process. At the anniversary evening dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Sovremennik Theater, they performed couplets, where they spoke about Efros in a very unflattering way. So, Filatov read a poem of his own composition, where there were the following lines: “Our children are wise, they cannot be kept from asking why everything happened not like that, but exactly like this, why such a question mark will forever burn near the name of, say, the same Efros ". Thus, the coupletists wanted to show their comrades from the Taganka that they are in solidarity with them, they remember them, they are with them in their difficult and difficult struggle ... with whom: the Soviet authorities? officials? Ephros?

By the way, Smekhov himself writes in his memoirs that many Sovremennik actors laughed at them: they say, “guys, life is wide, stop buzzing about the same thing, you’ll go crazy, you already look like crazy.” That anniversary evening really confirmed that they were "crazy": they spoiled the holiday of the troupe that warmed them. After all, they performed these verses without any warning, at their own peril and risk. As a result, several people (playwright Viktor Rozov, critic Yevgeny Surkov and several others) defiantly got up from their seats and left the hall. A little later, V. Smekhov describes his act as follows:

“Now many have forgotten what it meant in March - April 1986 to tell the truth about Efros, to admit sarcasm and bitterness towards the political experiment of the city committee of the party ... We were attracted by respect for the civil past of Sovremennik and the impossibility of hiding and lying. Our presentation is very short. In poems and songs - gratitude to the house on Chistye Prudy, witticisms on the theme of the repertoire and the fresh premiere of "Twin" (with our participation). Nearby are the words about "Taganka", about the fire from which we came to this stage. The humor is strongly suppressed by grief, resentment, caustic maximalism - to the enemies of our Tagankov homeland ... Let the one who knows how to forgive the destroyers of his native hearth be the first to throw a stone. The deplorability of the finale - both in the very genre of lamentation, with which we confused the general major of the evening without asking, but also in the consequences ... The authorities did not want to know about the heartfelt background that explains the overkill in both songs and bitterly pathetic verses. The authorities were not occupied with the traditions of the home theatrical skit, where parody, pathos, laughter, and tears, hyperbole and satire always coexist. Actions of intimidation followed - reprimands, calls "on the carpet", the abolition of titles, benefits, orders ... About Filatov, Shapovalov and about me, a hasty and unique document hung on the wall of orders. The fury of a high-ranking bureaucrat with the insolence of grassroots pygmies, translated into the language of penalties, sounded something like this: “For humor and attacks on an official, on a unit of the city nomenclature - to all sisters in earrings! Insect theater! About glavrezhe hang the question! Kill the director! Troupe - scare! And these (sorry, our time has flown by) ... These "humorists" will no longer be allowed to play roles! .. "

As you can see, in these words there is not a single gram of remorse for what they have done. And in fact, eka is unseen - rhymes on a skit! But after all, their authors probably knew that the hero of these rhymes is an unhealthy person, who just a year ago was in the hospital with a heart attack. That just six months ago he buried his mother and the same fate hung over his father-heart, who literally does not get out of hospitals. That this kind of scandal can either once again send the director to a hospital bed, or straight to the grave (which, by the way, will happen soon). However, for them he is “the destroyer of the native hearth”, “the henchman of the city party committee”. By the way, about the last one.

Smekhov is cunning when he says that they risked a lot by performing verses, since they could incur the strong wrath of party officials. The times in the yard were no longer the same as under Andropov and Chernenko - the "democrat" Gorbachev was in power. Six months before that, he removed Viktor Grishin, a long-time ill-wisher of Taganka, from the post of leader of the Moscow City Conservatory (Boris Yeltsin came to his place), and in February 1986 and completely removed him from the Politburo and sent him into retirement. So, if the coupletists risked anything, it was the smallest - some kind of "strict warning" reprimand.

In general, it was then that it became fashionable to attack the former "masters of life." In the creative environment, the 5th Congress of Cinematographers of the USSR gave an impetus to this ( May 13-15, 1986), where the cinema brethren made a bloodless "revolution": they overthrew a whole cohort of masters in the person of Lev Kulidzhanov, Sergei Bondarchuk, Yuri Ozerov, Vladimir Naumov, Evgeny Matveev and other luminaries of Soviet cinema from the pedestal. This coup was directed entirely from the Kremlin (the operation was personally led by the main ideologist of the party Alexander Yakovlev) and was aimed at bringing to power in the NC a new generation of leaders who were supposed to put such an important propaganda medium as cinema at the service of perestroika. The question arises: why the masters could not cope with this? Then many did not understand this, but now everything fell into place: it would be much more difficult to destroy the state with the masters. And with the young revolutionaries, whose hands itched to steer the entire Soviet cinema, it was quite easy to do.

By the will of fate, Anatoly Efros also fell into the number of objectionable to the new "masters of life." Which was quite understandable, since Efros among theatrical “Gorbachevites” had been perceived as a traitor for two years now: for coming to Taganka on the instructions of the city party committee. Therefore, they hit him with the same frenzy as they did against Sergei Bondarchuk or Anatoly Sofronov (there was such a Soviet writer who headed the Ogonyok magazine for many years). All these blows will eventually affect Efros in the most tragic way: in January 1987 he is dying.

Scandalous "ring"
("Music Ring")

IN May 1986 another loud scandal broke out around the name of Alla Pugacheva. Its epicenter was the "cradle of the revolution" city of Leningrad. 12 May the program "Musical Ring" with the participation of the group "Bravo" was shown on local TV (this program will be recorded on the Central Television later). The recording of this program took place at the beginning Martha, but she couldn’t go on the air in any way - censorship required significant changes to be made. However, as the course of further events showed, even with these edits, the detractors of the number one star found something to complain about. Outcome: May 17 a letter from a group of comrades appeared in Leningradskaya Pravda (the authors of the letter were: A. Nesterova, D. Sergeeva, M. Vodopyanova, and others) entitled “That's it, Bravo!”. It reported:

“The other day, the new rock band Bravo was shown in the Ring music program. She was represented by People's Artist of the RSFSR Alla Pugacheva.

I must say that we were surprised and outraged by some cheeky, even vulgar manner with which the actress kept herself on the screen. It was embarrassing for her, for other performers. Strictly speaking, all this is offensive to viewers ...

Leningrad has always been a city of high culture, with the audience brought up on the best traditions of Russian and Soviet art... We must preserve and continue the traditions of our wonderful city, instill in young people a sense of beauty. And such behavior on the screen seems unacceptable to us, indicating the obvious undemandingness of the popular artist to her work. Television, apparently, followed her lead, showing neither exactingness nor taste.

The very next day after the publication of this letter, a flood of letters poured in to the editorial office of the newspaper, to LenTV, to the city department of culture and even to the Leningrad regional committee of the CPSU. Or rather, two streams. Some letters expressed support for the detractors of Alla Pugacheva, others contained their obstruction. Under other letters there were up to a hundred (!) Signatures: people wrote in whole groups, in whole entrances. I will quote one of these letters, which was sent to the "Leningradskaya Pravda" (the author is a candidate of philological sciences Ya. Vasilkov):

“Unlike the authors of the article “That's so“ Bravo! ”it seemed to our family that the performance of the People's Artist of the RSFSR Alla Borisovna Pugacheva at the“ Musical Ring ”was quite consistent with the stage image created by the actress over the years, and to condemn her for“ swagger ” and “vulgarity” means to condemn all her work as a whole. And this would be meaningless in view of her indisputable recognition. Those who wrote to the newspaper, unfortunately, did not indicate their occupation or age. I have little doubt that they are all middle-aged people and a specific social environment, who have long lost their understanding of the cultural needs of young people (I myself flatter myself that, thanks to communication with my own children, I retain this understanding to some extent). I do not understand one thing: what a habit of public denunciations! If you do not like a TV show, if you are not prepared for its perception by your aesthetic education, does this mean that you should immediately scribble in a newspaper? If something in the program seems “offensive” to you, is it worth watching it to the end, fixing all the “vulgarities”? After all, there is a simple way out in this case: without injuring yourself, switch the TV to another program, which shows a concert of classical music or a fascinating detective story. Personally, when a broadcast seems boring or false to me, I always do so, without any thought of imposing my own, perhaps subjective opinion on television professionals responsible for the artistic and ideological quality of their work ... "

If this story had happened two or three years ago, the reaction of the authorities could have been the most severe: Pugacheva could have been banned from appearing on LenTV, they would have been wary of showing her on Central Television. However, times were already somewhat different back then. For a year now, Mikhail Gorbachev has been in power and announced perestroika in the country. Therefore, the scandal was limited only to the borders of Leningrad, without gaining all-Union proportions. Although the "Rosconcert", where Pugacheva worked, the slander from the city on the Neva still came. The answer of the Muscovites, signed by the general director of Rosconcert, was later published in the same Leningradskaya Pravda:

"Rosconcert" cannot but agree with the opinion of the authors of the letter that any performance on television must meet modern requirements for performers, for the quality of the material selected for transmission. From this point of view, certain claims can be made against the participation of A. B. Pugacheva in the program “Ring”.

On this issue, a serious conversation took place with all the leading artists of the Rosconcert. Their television appearances will continue to be strictly controlled by the management and artistic council of the Rosconcert.

1987

Killing a legend
(MKhAT)

One of the biggest scandals 1987 was the division of the legendary Moscow Art Academic Theater (MKhAT). The illustrious troupe then split into two theaters: one remained in a historic building in Kamergersky Lane (Moscow Art Theater named after A. Chekhov under the direction of Oleg Efremov), the other moved to a new building on Tverskoy Boulevard (Moscow Art Theater named after M. Gorky under the direction of Tatyana Doronina). This disengagement was inevitable and took its origins in the events of 50 years ago, which were discussed at the very beginning of this book. Remember, then the cosmopolitan Bolsheviks tried to throw the founder of the Moscow Art Theater, Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky, from the “ship of modernity” (the head of the theater department of the People’s Commissariat of Education, the former Moscow Art Theater student Vsevolod Meyerhold himself called this theater “aesthetic rubbish”), however, the Bolsheviks-sovereigns managed to protect the Master, although he himself that troubled time did not believe in the future bright prospects of his theatre. In his letter to V. Nemirovich-Danchenko from America, where Stanislavsky was on tour (autumn 1923), the Master wrote the following:

“We need to get used to the idea that the Art Theater is no more. You seem to have understood this before me, but all these years I have flattered myself with hope and saved the rotten remains. During the journey, everything and everyone became clear with complete accuracy and certainty. No one has any thought, idea, big goal - no. And without this, an ideological cause cannot exist.

The master was wrong. For about ten years in the USSR there was a struggle between cosmopolitans and sovereigns, and all this time the Moscow Art Theater was indeed on the verge of collapse. However, it withstood all the blows of fate and revived in the second half of the 1930s, when the power group finally won the power. The “Meyerholdism” was over, and socialist realism was established in Soviet art for a long time, the basis of which was reliance on traditional art, understandable to millions of ordinary citizens, and not just to the aesthetic minority. From that moment on, the Moscow Art Theater was declared the main state theater, and October 27, 1938 a solemn celebration of his 40th birthday. The theater received after the Order of Lenin (in 1937. – F. R.) the second award - the Order of the Red Banner of Labor. In addition, many artists and theater workers were generously presented with orders and titles.

Meanwhile, the Moscow Art Theater was advancing along with the country towards its future collapse. After Stalin's death in 1953 the number of cosmopolitans grew in the highest Soviet elite, and under their active influence, a gradual Westernization of Soviet society began. Under the guise of progressive trends, regressive innovations began to penetrate into Soviet art, which implicitly destroyed the foundations of traditional Russian theater. The turning point in this process was the 1970s, when, after the suppression of the counter-revolution in Czechoslovakia and the ideological crisis in the West, the Soviet leadership faced a dilemma: to take a course on a frontal offensive against imperialism, or to go for rapprochement with it and reconciliation. As a result, the second option was chosen, which eventually led the USSR to defeat in the Cold War.

It was at the beginning of that decade (in the summer 1970) the fate of the Moscow Art Theater was also decided - as we remember, a new leader, Oleg Efremov, came there. He was a prominent representative of the Western liberals, and his victory over the sovereign Boris Livanov, who had no less chance of taking the helm of the famous theater, was natural and stemmed from the general strategy of the highest Soviet elite. When the liberal Mikhail Gorbachev came to the leadership of this elite in the mid-80s, Efremov was given the final carte blanche to destroy traditional art, the basis of which was socialist realism (the same carte blanche was then given to Elem Klimov to destroy traditional Soviet cinema art) .

Thus, the collapse of the Moscow Art Theater was ordered to Efremov by the highest Soviet elite, which took a kind of revenge from the sovereigns for the events of 50 years ago. That is, Gorbachev and K° were followers of the cosmopolitan Bolsheviks of the 1920s, who also dreamed of defeating Russian traditionalism and entering the world elite (what is now called globalization). However, the director in this case relied not only on the authorities, but also on his colleagues from among the same Western liberals as he was. One of them was Anatoly Smelyansky, the current rector of the Moscow Art Theater School. Once he directed the literary part in the Gorky Youth Theater, then in the adult theater. It was there that Moscow liberals noticed him and soon invited him to work in Moscow - in the Theater of the Soviet Army. From there, he soon moved to the Moscow Art Theater to Efremov and quickly enough became his like-minded and faithful squire - a sort of political officer at the commander-in-chief. It was with his help that Efremov 1986 and began the process of destroying the old Moscow Art Theater. This process was not easy, like the whole of Gorbachev's perestroika, since the opposite side (the sovereigns) desperately resisted destructive processes. As the director of the Moscow Art Theater V. Shilovsky recalls:

“To be honest to the end, Oleg Nikolayevich could well have created a new theater in another place. But the title, salary and position of the court theater did not allow Efremov to change geographical coordinates. Moreover, enthusiastic groans of critics were constantly heard around Oleg Nikolaevich. Each of his performances, despite the failures in front of the audience, was considered a new bright victory for Soviet art. And Anatoly Mironovich Smelyansky greatly contributed to this.

Preparations for this went on, as I understood, for a long time. Various options for activities were discussed, so the theater was shaking from reorganizations. But all the reorganizations were aimed at only one thing - the physical destruction of representatives of the real Moscow Art Theater. Only those whom Efremov personally invited, and those who arranged for him, had a chance to survive.

At one of the meetings, Alexander Gelman (playwright. - F. R.) took a sheet of paper and said:

- What are you so afraid of? Section of the Moscow Art Theater! Section of the Moscow Art Theater! Gelman tore the paper in half. - Well, here you have two Moscow Art Theater ...

Once Efremov called me ... He was slightly drunk.

“Baby,” he turned to me, “that we are all around the bush. Reorganization… Everyone is nervous. Let's untie this knot. Let's split up. I'll take my artists, you'll take the rest...

According to the white face of Anurov (director of the Moscow Art Theater. - F. R.) I realized that this is serious. The pause dragged on, and Efremov was confused:

- Well, what are you silent?

Some strange thoughts raced through my head ... With difficulty, I pulled myself together.

“I don’t sell my Motherland,” I said through gritted teeth. - I know that I will lose, but I will damage your nerves a lot.

And left the office…

The scandalous division began at the end of the 86th. Here is how the famous Moscow Art Theater actor Vladlen Davydov recalls this:

“In the midst of disputes, there was a party meeting of the creative workshop. I wasn't on it but in the morning November 21, 1986 S. S. Pilyavskaya called me (she wasn’t there either: she was sick, her blood pressure had risen, she was lying) and told me about yesterday’s party meeting, and Marisa Liepa’s wife told her, and that one - Yuri Leonidov ... The meeting was very stormy, Stepanova, Kalinovskaya, Leonidov spoke ... The voting results are as follows: 12 - "for" the division, and 30 - "against". But they said: “That's not all, tomorrow there will be a general meeting of the entire troupe, there will be young people, and they are all for separation ...” The result of the voting at the meeting of the troupe: 50 - “for” and 158 “against”.

Then a stormy meeting again took place, this time in the presence of the Minister of Culture of the RSFSR, E. A. Zaitsev. And only when it was officially announced that instead of a branch the theater on Tverskoy Boulevard would be transferred during the division, it seemed that passions subsided ... But by what principle and who could decide the fate of the actors without talking to each of them? .. "

As a result, Efremov failed to divide the Moscow Art Theater in 1986 due to strong opposition in the theater itself, and also because of the desperate resistance of the sovereigns in power. To wait for a pause, Efremov left his homeland for a while and went to stage performances in Bulgaria and the GDR. And when he returned, Gorbachev had already started a new campaign - he announced glasnost, which was designed to allow Western liberals, who by that time had made their way into almost all Soviet media, to strike at the most important bonds of state ideology. And the Moscow Art Theater, like the whole society, cracked at the seams. As the same V. Shilovsky writes:

“Friends of Efremov - Gelman, Smelyansky, Svobodin, Rozov - actively created public opinion. They wrote long articles in his defense that Efremov was being prevented from creating the Moscow Art Theater. Not divide as it really was, create…»

Also in January 1987 at the next meeting of the troupe, supporters of maintaining the unity of the theater won. The secretary of the theater party committee, Angelina Stepanova, then stated: “There cannot be two Saint Basils. The Moscow Art Theater should be one.

However, already a few months later, when the liberals in power had already begun to bend the sovereigns in all directions, the supporters of the division of the Moscow Art Theater went on the attack. It was headed by Oleg Tabakov. Note that for a long time he was at odds with Efremov, but during the perestroika years their common interests converged again. IN 1983 Efremov accepted Tabakov into his theater, three years later helped him become the rector of the V. Nemirovich-Danchenko School-Studio, and in the 88th he struck him at the top (for his help in dividing the Moscow Art Theater) the title of People's Artist of the USSR. It was Tabakov who at the next meeting of the troupe said:

- Who is for Oleg Nikolaevich, please get up and leave. We will choose our artistic council. Finish this bullshit.

As a result, almost half of the troupe left for Tabakov, including former active opponents of separation like Angelina Stepanova (Efremov promised her that he would take her son Alexander Fadeev to the troupe) and Mark Prudkin (Efremov promised to take his son Vladimir to the theater as director). As V. Shilovsky recalls:

“After that, a nightmare began in the life of all the people of the theater. Nerves were exposed to the limit. People got strokes. The management called everyone personally, gave instructions for whom to vote. At night they went from house to house and campaigned. Actress Lena Koroleva tried to commit suicide. They also came to her from Oleg Nikolaevich and said:

- Lenochka, say that not because of what is happening at the Moscow Art Theater, but because of your personal experiences.

“Go away, scoundrels,” Lena replied.

Outsiders from the Union of Theater Workers voted for the division of the Moscow Art Theater. Mikhail Ulyanov and Kirill Lavrov led that meeting ... "

The episode with the unsuccessful suicide of the actress E. Koroleva was not a single one. IN May 1987 it was precisely because of the events at the Moscow Art Theater that his actor Leonid Kharitonov (who played the role of Ivan Brovkin in the films “Soldier Ivan Brovkin” and “Ivan Brovkin on virgin soil”) suddenly died. At the time of his death he was 57 years old. The day after the funeral, some bastards set fire to the wreaths on his grave. Apparently, this was the revenge of the Efremovites to the deceased for the fact that he actively advocated the preservation of the unity of the Moscow Art Theater.

V. Davydov recalls:

“The division was mechanical and extremely cruel. It was just the destruction (not the reduction of the same!) Half of the troupe. At the same time, the secretary of the party committee A. I. Stepanova and the “old Bolshevik underground worker” M. I. Prudkin actively or passively participated in this.

I do not want to remember, let alone write in detail about this immoral action. No, both theaters remained, the performances went on, the actors played, but nothing of the Art Theater was left, and even the entire backstage atmosphere was destroyed in the historic building after a 10-year reconstruction ...

Such legendary performances by K. S. Stanislavsky and Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, like "The Blue Bird", "At the Bottom", "Dead Souls", "Three Sisters", had to be preserved on the historical stage of the Moscow Art Theater in Kamergersky Lane. But Efremov decided to get rid of them ...

What gave rise to this division? Don't know. The best performances of Efremov were created by him before the separation, and a large troupe did not interfere with this. And after the separation, apart from the annual tour, nothing interesting happened, and even how the 100th anniversary of the Moscow Art Theater was celebrated (in 1998. - F. R.), caused bewilderment - there was mass drunkenness on the historical stage ... "

Note that that collective booze was the logical result of the reign of O. Efremov and K ° in the Moscow Art Theater. It was a statement of the triumph of anti-art over real art, the victory of cosmopolitan Westerners over Russian sovereigns. This victory continues to this day, and whether revenge will ever be taken, only God knows.

The conflict at the Gorky Moscow Art Theater has not yet been resolved. Now the troupe is on vacation, the announced tour has not started, the theater management is preparing for the new season. The gathering of the troupe is scheduled for August 30. The conflict that started so defiantly on the steps of the theater (when the artists turned to the president with a request to “return Doronin” instead of Eduard Boyakov, who was appointed artistic director in December 2018), seems to be turning into a positional war.

In the video message of the artists posted on YouTube, it is said that the long-term leader (she headed the theater after the division of the Moscow Art Theater in 1987 into the Gorky Moscow Art Theater and the Chekhov Moscow Art Theater), people's artist, theater president Tatyana Doronina is deprived of all powers, including influence on the repertoire and artistic policy of the theater, and "the Moscow Art Theater is purposefully turning into a rental platform, where the classical repertoire is replaced by performances of a low artistic level."

Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, in response to a video message, said that the appointment of artistic directors of theaters is not the prerogative of the head of state. And the new artistic director, Eduard Boyakov, assured in his statement that: “It is a pity for the management and staff of our theater that several people, guided by motives that are not obvious to everyone, have attempted to turn the place where we serve into a platform for popularizing ourselves with not the most worthy methods” . And yet, the dissenting artists of the troupe are ready for a long confrontation. As the Honored Artist of Russia Lidia Matasova told Forbes Life: “We will sit until he leaves! He doesn't belong here. Boyakov never had anything to do with Russian realist theatre.”

Why the Moscow Art Theater did not suit Eduard Boyakov

According to the logic of the Ministry of Culture, which in December 2018 appointed Eduard Boyakov as artistic director of the Moscow Art Theater, moving Tatyana Doronina (who celebrated her 85th birthday) to the presidential position (they also moved the long-term director of the Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts Irina Antonova, appointing Marina Loshak as director of the museum), Boyakov in the theater, which defines its mission as "spirituality", had every chance of success. An outstanding theatrical manager, creator and first director of the Golden Mask, creator of the Praktika theater, founder of the New Drama, Big Break, Moscow Easter Festival festivals, Boyakov is distinguished by his phenomenal ability to capture the demands of society and create an opportunistic product. In 2010, Eduard Boyakov created an experimental documentary project "Chelovek.doc" about the heroes of our time, in 2012, together with the Polytechnic Museum, he opened the "Polytheatre", whose first production was the play "Waves" based on the stories of Vladimir Sorokin. Boyakov brought back the fashion for reading poetry, Boyakov discovered the director and playwright Ivan Vyrypaev, Boyakov worked in Voronezh and Perm. In 2015, Boyakov went to Optina Pustyn, where he was literally reborn. A series of patriotic projects has begun, such as the "Prisoner of the Caucasus" at the Rosa Khutor resort, producing concerts by the Sretensky Monastery Choir. The peak of the manager's Orthodox theatrical career was the leadership of the Gorky Moscow Art Theater, a team that considers itself an Orthodox realist theater.

Together with the new artistic director, the new chief director Sergey Puskepalis came to the theater (they refused to comment on the situation in the theater) and the new director, writer Zakhar Prilepin (did not respond to Forbes Life's letter).

After six months of new management, the actors demanded that Tatyana Vasilievna Doronina be returned to them, who, according to them, was tricked into signing papers and, in fact, removed from the leadership of the theater. As Honored Artist Alexander Titarenko told Forbes Life: “Dissatisfaction with Boyakov began after the release of Andron Konchalovsky’s private performance Scenes from Married Life, where two artists from not our theater sort things out with the help of alcohol, and at the end the hero wants to rape the heroine, red ones fly around the stage panties, and then kicks her. And, especially, after the premiere of "The Last Hero" directed by Ruslan Malikov, where the play begins with a choice mat, one of the heroines periodically says that she has her period. To make it clear our, to put it mildly, bewilderment - Tatyana Vasilyevna Doronina at one time fired the actor because he buttoned up his unbuttoned fly during the action on stage. The mat, thank God, was removed, and the actress now says that her stomach hurts. In general, after Chekhov, Ostrovsky, Shakespeare, all this hurts the ear and the eye both to us and to the audience. At the premiere of The Last Hero, the audience left during the intermission, and at the bows, those who remained whistled and shouted "shame." This has never happened in the Moscow Art Theater. Boyakov, on the other hand, claims that such a new dramaturgy will be at the heart of the repertoire of the Moscow Art Theater. From September, the theater will turn into a kind of cultural and leisure center, open from 9 am, where yoga, dance, a philosophical club will take place, modern poetry will be read, kiosks will open. That is, it will turn into a kind of house.

“The repertoire policy of our theater is based on the search, the manifestation of the gene code of the national culture - feelings of patriotism, honor, conscience, family, Christian values, creative freedom,” says Eduard Boyakov in his official address.

What does Boyakov do at the Moscow Art Theater

The Gorky Moscow Art Theater has a reputation as the most conservative theater in the country, the theater of the Soviet era, the theater that does not change, demonstratively old-fashioned. It is not known how the innovations of Eduard Boyakov and his team were perceived by Tatyana Doronina. Her leg has not been in the theater since December 2018. Actors of the Moscow Art Theater say that they are protecting Tatyana Vasilievna from unnecessary hassle. As Alexander Zamyslov, Boyakov's deputy for external communications, told Forbes Life: “The theater management is conducting a dialogue with Doronina in line with business and work processes. We are not distracted by the events taking place on the stairs of the theater.”

In his official response to the situation in the theater, Eduard Boyakov said: “There is nothing to talk about. Five illiquid, unhealthy actors made a scandal. And the fact that 20-30 people who allegedly signed this video message are not happy is a lie.”

For six months of managing the theater, Boyakov's team released four premieres. The first of them - Andrei Konchalovsky's performance based on Bergman's "Scenes from a Married Life" - immediately aroused the troupe's dissatisfaction. Guest artists are playing (Alexander Domogarov and Yulia Vysotskaya), the Moscow Art Theater members are out of work. The premiere of Sergei Puskepalis' "Deadline" based on Valentin Rasputin frankly failed. "The Last Hero" by Ivan Krepostnoy staged by Ruslan Malikov was not accepted by the Mkhatov audience. The pompous historical costume melodrama Lady Hamilton directed by Alexander Dmitriev can hardly be called a hit either. But even in the pre-boyakov period, not a single performance of the Moscow Art Theater was the highlight of the season. In principle, only fans of the actress and her theater knew about the productions. But the Doronin Moscow Art Theater still has its audience, but Boyakovsky doesn’t yet.

It is obvious that the main reform - the rejuvenation and purge of the troupe - is yet to come for Boyakov's team. It is not officially announced. But for the first time, the artists of the Moscow Art Theater were offered to conclude for the new season not open-ended employment contracts, but fixed-term ones. The theater management is ready to sign termless contracts only with folk artists and socially unprotected employees. With honored artists, the contract is signed for three years, with all the rest - for a year. Now, according to Alexander Zamyslov, 26 people out of 88 artists of the troupe have signed contracts. “The process is still going on. Zamyslov says. “In order for artists to earn more, we proposed to abandon this “crooked socialism” (there are two actors in the troupe who have not played a single role in 30 years) and switch to contracts.”

“We see what the transition to contracts leads to. - says the honored artist Lydia Matasova. - Workshops, light workers, sound workers, props were transferred to the contract and began to be fired. The dressing room has a new manager. They fired our entire ticket service, the service on duty.

Artists note that those who refuse to switch to fixed-term contracts are removed from their roles. “They called us and warned us that if we didn't sign new contracts, we would be removed from our roles and created such conditions that we ourselves would leave the theatre,” says Alexander Titorenko.

In his official response, Eduard Boyakov cites the official results of the first half of 2019. “We are proud to announce that during this period: the number of viewers (compared to the same period in 2018) increased by 24%. Ticket revenue increased by more than a third, by 32 million rubles. The number of donations reached almost 8 million rubles (compared to 600,000 rubles in 2018). Income from renting the stage on days free from repertoire performances amounted to more than 6 million rubles, which is more than 5 million rubles more than a year earlier. That is, in these indicators, the growth is by thousands of percent.”

About the new repertoire, Boyakov writes as follows: “For every sober and professional expert, it is obvious that our premieres are aimed at solving non-trivial tasks and activating the creative potential of the troupe, from folk artists to talented youth.”

No matter what financial heights the new artistic director reached at the Moscow Art Theater, the situation went beyond the boundaries of an internal workshop conflict. The absence of social guarantees in the theater is not new, a similar situation could be observed with the change of leadership in other large Moscow cultural institutions, including those mentioned above, which were very successful under their current leadership. Whether the new management manages to strike a balance between legal compliance and evidence of financial performance, time will probably tell.

One of the biggest scandals 1987 was the division of the legendary Moscow Art Academic Theater (MKhAT). The illustrious troupe then split into two theaters: one remained in a historic building in Kamergersky Lane (Moscow Art Theater named after A. Chekhov under the direction of Oleg Efremov), the other moved to a new building on Tverskoy Boulevard (Moscow Art Theater named after M. Gorky under the direction of Tatyana Doronina). This disengagement was inevitable and took its origins in the events of 50 years ago, which were discussed at the very beginning of this book. Remember, then the cosmopolitan Bolsheviks tried to throw the founder of the Moscow Art Theater, Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky, from the “ship of modernity” (the head of the theater department of the People’s Commissariat of Education, the former Moscow Art Theater student Vsevolod Meyerhold himself called this theater “aesthetic rubbish”), however, the Bolsheviks-sovereigns managed to protect the Master, although he himself that troubled time did not believe in the future bright prospects of his theatre. In his letter to V. Nemirovich-Danchenko from America, where Stanislavsky was on tour (autumn 1923), the Master wrote the following:

“We need to get used to the idea that the Art Theater is no more. You seem to have understood this before me, but all these years I have flattered myself with hope and saved the rotten remains. During the journey, everything and everyone became clear with complete accuracy and certainty. No one has any thought, idea, big goal - no. And without this, an ideological cause cannot exist.

The master was wrong. For about ten years in the USSR there was a struggle between cosmopolitans and sovereigns, and all this time the Moscow Art Theater was indeed on the verge of collapse. However, it withstood all the blows of fate and revived in the second half of the 1930s, when the power group finally won the power. The “Meyerholdism” was over, and socialist realism was established in Soviet art for a long time, the basis of which was reliance on traditional art, understandable to millions of ordinary citizens, and not just to the aesthetic minority. From that moment on, the Moscow Art Theater was declared the main state theater, and October 27, 1938 a solemn celebration of his 40th birthday. The theater received after the Order of Lenin (in 1937. – F. R.) the second award - the Order of the Red Banner of Labor. In addition, many artists and theater workers were generously presented with orders and titles.

Meanwhile, the Moscow Art Theater was advancing along with the country towards its future collapse. After Stalin's death in 1953 the number of cosmopolitans grew in the highest Soviet elite, and under their active influence, a gradual Westernization of Soviet society began. Under the guise of progressive trends, regressive innovations began to penetrate into Soviet art, which implicitly destroyed the foundations of traditional Russian theater. The turning point in this process was the 1970s, when, after the suppression of the counter-revolution in Czechoslovakia and the ideological crisis in the West, the Soviet leadership faced a dilemma: to take a course on a frontal offensive against imperialism, or to go for rapprochement with it and reconciliation. As a result, the second option was chosen, which eventually led the USSR to defeat in the Cold War.

It was at the beginning of that decade (in the summer 1970) the fate of the Moscow Art Theater was also decided - as we remember, a new leader, Oleg Efremov, came there. He was a prominent representative of the Western liberals, and his victory over the sovereign Boris Livanov, who had no less chance of taking the helm of the famous theater, was natural and stemmed from the general strategy of the highest Soviet elite. When the liberal Mikhail Gorbachev came to the leadership of this elite in the mid-80s, Efremov was given the final carte blanche to destroy traditional art, the basis of which was socialist realism (the same carte blanche was then given to Elem Klimov to destroy traditional Soviet cinema art) .

Thus, the collapse of the Moscow Art Theater was ordered to Efremov by the highest Soviet elite, which took a kind of revenge from the sovereigns for the events of 50 years ago. That is, Gorbachev and K° were followers of the cosmopolitan Bolsheviks of the 1920s, who also dreamed of defeating Russian traditionalism and entering the world elite (what is now called globalization). However, the director in this case relied not only on the authorities, but also on his colleagues from among the same Western liberals as he was. One of them was Anatoly Smelyansky, the current rector of the Moscow Art Theater School. Once he directed the literary part in the Gorky Youth Theater, then in the adult theater. It was there that Moscow liberals noticed him and soon invited him to work in Moscow - in the Theater of the Soviet Army. From there, he soon moved to the Moscow Art Theater to Efremov and quickly enough became his like-minded and faithful squire - a sort of political officer at the commander-in-chief. It was with his help that Efremov 1986 and began the process of destroying the old Moscow Art Theater. This process was not easy, like the whole of Gorbachev's perestroika, since the opposite side (the sovereigns) desperately resisted destructive processes. As the director of the Moscow Art Theater V. Shilovsky recalls:

“To be honest to the end, Oleg Nikolayevich could well have created a new theater in another place. But the title, salary and position of the court theater did not allow Efremov to change geographical coordinates. Moreover, enthusiastic groans of critics were constantly heard around Oleg Nikolaevich. Each of his performances, despite the failures in front of the audience, was considered a new bright victory for Soviet art. And Anatoly Mironovich Smelyansky greatly contributed to this.

Preparations for this went on, as I understood, for a long time. Various options for activities were discussed, so the theater was shaking from reorganizations. But all the reorganizations were aimed at only one thing - the physical destruction of representatives of the real Moscow Art Theater. Only those whom Efremov personally invited, and those who arranged for him, had a chance to survive.

At one of the meetings, Alexander Gelman (playwright. - F. R.) took a sheet of paper and said:

- What are you so afraid of? Section of the Moscow Art Theater! Section of the Moscow Art Theater! Gelman tore the paper in half. - Well, here you have two Moscow Art Theater ...

Once Efremov called me ... He was slightly drunk.

“Baby,” he turned to me, “that we are all around the bush. Reorganization… Everyone is nervous. Let's untie this knot. Let's split up. I'll take my artists, you'll take the rest...

According to the white face of Anurov (director of the Moscow Art Theater. - F. R.) I realized that this is serious. The pause dragged on, and Efremov was confused:

- Well, what are you silent?

Some strange thoughts raced through my head ... With difficulty, I pulled myself together.

“I don’t sell my Motherland,” I said through gritted teeth. - I know that I will lose, but I will damage your nerves a lot.

And left the office…

The scandalous division began at the end of the 86th. Here is how the famous Moscow Art Theater actor Vladlen Davydov recalls this:

“In the midst of disputes, there was a party meeting of the creative workshop. I wasn't on it but in the morning November 21, 1986 S. S. Pilyavskaya called me (she wasn’t there either: she was sick, her blood pressure had risen, she was lying) and told me about yesterday’s party meeting, and Marisa Liepa’s wife told her, and that one - Yuri Leonidov ... The meeting was very stormy, Stepanova, Kalinovskaya, Leonidov spoke ... The voting results are as follows: 12 - "for" the division, and 30 - "against". But they said: “That's not all, tomorrow there will be a general meeting of the entire troupe, there will be young people, and they are all for separation ...” The result of the voting at the meeting of the troupe: 50 - “for” and 158 “against”.

Then a stormy meeting again took place, this time in the presence of the Minister of Culture of the RSFSR, E. A. Zaitsev. And only when it was officially announced that instead of a branch the theater on Tverskoy Boulevard would be transferred during the division, it seemed that passions subsided ... But by what principle and who could decide the fate of the actors without talking to each of them? .. "

As a result, Efremov failed to divide the Moscow Art Theater in 1986 due to strong opposition in the theater itself, and also because of the desperate resistance of the sovereigns in power. To wait for a pause, Efremov left his homeland for a while and went to stage performances in Bulgaria and the GDR. And when he returned, Gorbachev had already started a new campaign - he announced glasnost, which was designed to allow Western liberals, who by that time had made their way into almost all Soviet media, to strike at the most important bonds of state ideology. And the Moscow Art Theater, like the whole society, cracked at the seams. As the same V. Shilovsky writes:

“Friends of Efremov - Gelman, Smelyansky, Svobodin, Rozov - actively created public opinion. They wrote long articles in his defense that Efremov was being prevented from creating the Moscow Art Theater. Not divide as it really was, create…»

Also in January 1987 at the next meeting of the troupe, supporters of maintaining the unity of the theater won. The secretary of the theater party committee, Angelina Stepanova, then stated: “There cannot be two Saint Basils. The Moscow Art Theater should be one.

However, already a few months later, when the liberals in power had already begun to bend the sovereigns in all directions, the supporters of the division of the Moscow Art Theater went on the attack. It was headed by Oleg Tabakov. Note that for a long time he was at odds with Efremov, but during the perestroika years their common interests converged again. IN 1983 Efremov accepted Tabakov into his theater, three years later helped him become the rector of the V. Nemirovich-Danchenko School-Studio, and in the 88th he struck him at the top (for his help in dividing the Moscow Art Theater) the title of People's Artist of the USSR. It was Tabakov who at the next meeting of the troupe said:

- Who is for Oleg Nikolaevich, please get up and leave. We will choose our artistic council. Finish this bullshit.

As a result, almost half of the troupe left for Tabakov, including former active opponents of separation like Angelina Stepanova (Efremov promised her that he would take her son Alexander Fadeev to the troupe) and Mark Prudkin (Efremov promised to take his son Vladimir to the theater as director). As V. Shilovsky recalls:

“After that, a nightmare began in the life of all the people of the theater. Nerves were exposed to the limit. People got strokes. The management called everyone personally, gave instructions for whom to vote. At night they went from house to house and campaigned. Actress Lena Koroleva tried to commit suicide. They also came to her from Oleg Nikolaevich and said:

- Lenochka, say that not because of what is happening at the Moscow Art Theater, but because of your personal experiences.

“Go away, scoundrels,” Lena replied.

Outsiders from the Union of Theater Workers voted for the division of the Moscow Art Theater. Mikhail Ulyanov and Kirill Lavrov led that meeting ... "

The episode with the unsuccessful suicide of the actress E. Koroleva was not a single one. IN May 1987 it was precisely because of the events at the Moscow Art Theater that his actor Leonid Kharitonov (who played the role of Ivan Brovkin in the films “Soldier Ivan Brovkin” and “Ivan Brovkin on virgin soil”) suddenly died. At the time of his death he was 57 years old. The day after the funeral, some bastards set fire to the wreaths on his grave. Apparently, this was the revenge of the Efremovites to the deceased for the fact that he actively advocated the preservation of the unity of the Moscow Art Theater.

V. Davydov recalls:

“The division was mechanical and extremely cruel. It was just the destruction (not the reduction of the same!) Half of the troupe. At the same time, the secretary of the party committee A. I. Stepanova and the “old Bolshevik underground worker” M. I. Prudkin actively or passively participated in this.

I do not want to remember, let alone write in detail about this immoral action. No, both theaters remained, the performances went on, the actors played, but nothing of the Art Theater was left, and even the entire backstage atmosphere was destroyed in the historic building after a 10-year reconstruction ...

Such legendary performances by K. S. Stanislavsky and Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, like "The Blue Bird", "At the Bottom", "Dead Souls", "Three Sisters", had to be preserved on the historical stage of the Moscow Art Theater in Kamergersky Lane. But Efremov decided to get rid of them ...

What gave rise to this division? Don't know. The best performances of Efremov were created by him before the separation, and a large troupe did not interfere with this. And after the separation, apart from the annual tour, nothing interesting happened, and even how the 100th anniversary of the Moscow Art Theater was celebrated (in 1998. - F. R.), caused bewilderment - there was mass drunkenness on the historical stage ... "

Note that that collective booze was the logical result of the reign of O. Efremov and K ° in the Moscow Art Theater. It was a statement of the triumph of anti-art over real art, the victory of cosmopolitan Westerners over Russian sovereigns. This victory continues to this day, and whether revenge will ever be taken, only God knows.

The all-Union fame of the composer Yuri Antonov began in the early 70s, when he played in the VIA "Good fellows" and wrote a number of unconditional hits that were performed by different groups: "About the good fellows" ( 1970 , “Good fellows”), “You are not more beautiful” ( 1971 , "Singing guitars"), "Why" ( 1974 , "Funny guys"), etc.

Meanwhile in 1979 the glory of Yuri Antonov as a singer began. He then released two EPs with the Araks group at the Melodiya recording company, on which he sang his own songs, which instantly became all-Union hits: Anastasia, Golden Stairs, Don't Forget (A Dream Comes True), etc. From that moment on, Antonov became one of the leaders of the Soviet "disco wave" and remained in this field for almost a decade, being considered one of the highest paid Soviet composers and singers. He had a concert rate of 30 rubles, but the administrators paid him another 400 rubles unofficially - precisely as a "cash register". Plus, 15 thousand rubles were transferred monthly to his account in the VAAP (with taxes - 12-13 thousand). Where does such money come from? For example, Melodiya released a LP with his songs with a circulation of several million copies, and the entire circulation was instantly sold out.

Yu. Antonov recalls: “I took a thousand rubles a month for my expenses. Where more? Going to a restaurant with a girl then cost thirty rubles, including cognac and sturgeon. Well, you can buy jeans for yourself, well, an expensive suit, well, one more, well, four, five. But you won't wear them out in a month. So I left the rest of the money in Sberbank ... "

IN 1985 Antonov finally stopped being restricted to travel abroad and got the opportunity to go to Finland, where he was offered to record a record at a large recording company. They say that Antonov then turned around and brought his wife two suitcases of the most fashionable clothes (Antonov was married three times: two of his wives were Russians, the third was from Yugoslavia).

Antonov's popularity with listeners in those years grew by leaps and bounds. His new records were released (in 1985 a giant disc “Believe in a Dream” was released), television played his songs, many pop venues in the largest cities of the Union were considered lucky to have him perform on them. And here in March 1987 scandal suddenly broke out.

Newspaper "Soviet Russia" from March 14, 1987, article by correspondent N. Senchev “Spoiled the song”:

“The tour of the popular singer and composer Yuri Antonov was interrupted in Kuibyshev. What happened in the Kuibyshev Palace of Sports, where the artist performed?

Already in the first concerts, Yu. Antonov began to establish a kind of contact with the audience, now and then addressing caustic remarks to the stalls and “democratically” flirting with the gallery. His appeals to older viewers were offensive.

All this could be understood as not entirely successful jokes, if the artist did not pump them up from performance to performance, clearly demonstrating a dismissive, arrogant attitude towards the audience.

So what about the concert itself? Antonov's repertoire was frankly poor. And only once, when the song “Bullfinches” sounded from the stage, the audience saw that in front of them was the former Antonov - a singer of a soft mental disposition, lyrical, confidential. But it was a moment that, unfortunately, the artist himself did not feel and did not pick up.

This is the end of the tour. In a quiet burst of liquid applause, Yu. Antonov heard an irritated phrase thrown by someone: “This is a hack!” He demanded that the audience immediately leave the hall. And then he himself left the stage and did not appear again.

In the stalls, by the way, were mostly workers from Kuibyshev enterprises, residents of suburban areas who bought tickets on collective requests. Their hopes, as well as other spectators, to see the pop song festival were not justified.”

Newspaper "Soviet Culture" from March 19, article by correspondent A. Prazdnikov “What the audience was offended by”:

“First, an alarm signal came from Togliatti - in the five thousandth hall of the Volgar Sports Palace, where Yuri Antonov performed, the singer allowed himself inappropriate, rude remarks about the audience. The people of Togliatti, who were so looking forward to the tour of the popular artist, were offended.

Following this signal, another came from Kuibyshev - Yuri Antonov disrupted the concert at the local Sports Palace.

... The huge hall was overcrowded. The audience warmly received the artist, gave him flowers. Suddenly there was a loud shout.

Since this all started. The shout seemed insulting to the artist, he, interrupting the song in mid-sentence, demanded that the author of the remark apologize, and he himself went backstage. The musicians followed him. Then they again went on stage, performed several instrumental pieces, and the performance ended there. Antonov no longer deigned to sing. Designed for an hour and a half, the concert lasted about an hour. The outraged public was indignant, and local cultural authorities decided to prematurely interrupt Antonov's tour. In Kuibyshev, with its rather active concert life, an event like this is not remembered. But since this happened, it is necessary to understand the reasons for the misbehavior of both sides ...

I don’t know what an artist should do in such a situation, in which Yuri Antonov found himself. Rather, I believe that different actors would behave differently. One would have pretended that nothing had happened, would have collected his will and brought the performance to the end, perhaps even stronger than he started. Another would laugh it off. The third ... But you never know what the response could be. And there should never be only disrespectful actions towards a huge audience among the ministers of art. After all, by balking, Antonov insulted and punished not only the tactless spectator who shouted out rudeness, but also those others who filled the five-thousand-seat hall and respectfully greeted the artist ...

Everything speaks for the fact that Antonov’s “own goal” has been brewing for a long time. He clearly does not stand the test of glory. Premiere manners are noticed behind him not for the first time. Going on tour, he requires increased attention to himself: a personally assigned car of a popular model, hotel apartments are more luxurious. But what is even worse is that he allows tactless statements from the stage to the audience.

For some reason, Antonov is especially annoyed by the age of the audience. Concerts with his participation gather a lot of people who are already over 30 and even over 40. I would be glad that mature people also like your art. But, apparently, Antonov is consumed by longing for a young, overexcited and enthusiastic crowd of fans. And therefore, he considers it normal to loudly, through a microphone, extort from the audience: where are the youth, are they among those present, and why are there so many people who “they bring tickets to the offices” ...

In the editorial mail, there are often letters telling about the unworthy behavior of Yu. Antonov. Readers from Nikopol sent an issue of Nikopolskaya Pravda, which talked about how the artist forbade the newspaper’s photojournalist to take pictures of him, citing the fact that the portraits would be “launched” for sale among the population. The newspaper “Soviet Youth” wrote about the more than strange performance of Yu. Antonov in Riga ( October 11, 1986.). G. Pankov, a reader from the Moscow region, cites in his letter the remarks with which the artist flavored his numbers during the concert at the Sports Palace in Luzhniki and in the Central Concert Hall. “The situation when Yuri Antonov also allowed himself to spit on stage is completely incomprehensible,” writes A. Zubkova, a reader from Kuibyshev.

Capriciously disrupting concerts is not the first time for Antonov. Here, in Kuibyshev, they have not yet forgotten how in 1983, also on the March pre-holiday days, through his fault, the already announced concert did not take place ... "

The only print organ that stood up for the artist in those days was the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper. Correspondent A. Roslyakov in the article “They punished the viewer” wrote: “The singer blundered. After a loud cry from the audience, he left and could not return to the stage, did not finish exactly 18 minutes from his one and a half hour program ... Parterre behaved sedately, did not want to react to his performance. And those who really needed him, Yuri Antonov, who stood in line for tickets, sat far away.

And the singer allowed himself to reproach half-jokingly that it is not easy to perform when in the forefront those who have concert tickets are carried directly to the office. And the punishment was not long in coming - at the next concert from the stalls it is heard loudly:

- Scammer!

Antonov asks to remove the screamers from the hall, but no one responds to this. And then he leaves on his own.

He was interrupted by the tour and offered to clean the hotel.

But Antonov did not immediately give up. March 7, the next day after the incident, he came with the ensemble to the Sports Palace, on which there was already an announcement about the cancellation of concerts "due to the unworthy behavior of Yu. Antonov." We have a contract, the singer said, no one has terminated it, the audience is waiting for us, we will perform. But the spectators were already waiting for reliable barriers with orders not to let anyone in. Antonov with the ensemble still managed to break into the hall. Get dressed and go on stage. The administrator of the ensemble announced on the street through a megaphone: the concert will take place. But someone, for greater insurance, cut off the electricity in the palace. Through the friendly efforts of the security guards, the concert was disrupted. Antonov flew away, the ensemble remained to guard the equipment ...

Seamstress Galina Baranova, who was at the ill-fated concert, says:

- I felt how difficult it was for him to sing. All front rows - no reaction. But then still managed to somehow revive the hall. Performed great. And suddenly, this scream. He left, I felt so sorry for him, I ran backstage. He was alone there, no one approached him. Then he leaves the room, then he enters, I see: he is worried. I almost cried myself. I say: you excuse them, please! But it seems to me that if he had left after that, since the screamers were not besieged, he would somehow have dropped himself. And most of all, it’s a shame that thousands of people were deprived of pleasure ... "

However, the article in Komsomolskaya Pravda turned out to be a voice crying in the wilderness. AND April 16 in the "Soviet Culture" appeared the official response of the director of the Mosconcert K. Bulgakov to the article "What the audience was offended by." It reported: “For unethical behavior at a concert at the Palace of Sports in the city of Kuibyshev March 6, 1987 comrade Antonov Yu.M. issued a severe reprimand, he was suspended from participation in foreign trips for a period of six months.

But what about Antonov himself? Here is how he explained what happened in an interview with the Golos newspaper: “The case in Kuibyshev is simply unique. And typical at the same time. At one of the concerts, the audience did not like my performance. But it was not a simple spectator, but the party-bureaucratic elite. At that time, I was most upset by the behavior of some journalists. The staff correspondent of the "Soviet Culture" for the Volga region Prazdnikov, having learned about the directive of the first secretary of the regional committee of the CPSU Muravyov, wrote a devastating article about me. By the way, he was not even at the concert, as well as Muravyov, who was presented with my performance in an appropriate way. Sovetskaya Rossiya took advantage of the opportunity and made up nonsense about me. After that, I was forbidden to appear on Central Television, my songs stopped being played on the radio. There were tours in Finland, but they did not let me out of the country. The firm that invited me suffered a big loss, because it reserved the halls for performances, and, naturally, it had to pay a penalty. Why I was not allowed to leave was not explained. Here the Mosconcert was especially zealous - the organization is disgusting. She had had a grudge against me for a long time, and now an opportunity presented itself to settle the score. In the Mosconcert, they are used to the fact that artists give large bribes for providing equipment. I didn't give them anything...

The massive attack on Antonov from the pages of the central press ended only after the singer himself took decisive action. Together with the poet Oleg Vilenkin, they wrote a letter addressed to Mikhail Gorbachev and took it to Staraya Square - to the Central Committee of the CPSU. It got to the main ideologist Alexander Yakovlev, and he ordered newspaper editors: “Stop mocking a person!” The bullying has stopped. And four years later, Yuri Antonov was finally admitted to the Union of Composers of the USSR.

One of the most high-profile scandals in the creative biography of Alla Pugacheva occurred in late summer 1987 in Leningrad. The singer arrived there from Moscow as part of a tour (in the capital she performed at the Central Park of Culture and Culture) and was going to stay in the city on the Neva for several days. As a result, these days were remembered by her for the rest of her life.

Concerts in Leningrad were supposed to start 25-th of August. This happened a couple of days before leaving. Oleg Nepomniachtchi went to Pugacheva's house - to the house on Gorky Street. The singer was watching TV, and in the corridor, in a cloth newspaper case, the press was still untouched by anyone. The guest mechanically looked through them and, not finding anything interesting, put them back in their place. Hearing this noise, Pugacheva asked: “Well, nothing again?” “Nothing,” Nepomniachtchi confirmed. “It is clear that everyone needs a scandal,” Pugacheva uttered a phrase that would turn out to be prophetic.

Then he and the guest discussed the upcoming tour in St. Petersburg. Nepomniachtchi said that he ordered her favorite number for the singer at Pribaltiyskaya, but immediately offered to play it safe and order another number at Astoria. Pugacheva agreed with this option. On that they parted.

Late at night August 23 When Nepomniachtchi was already in Leningrad, a phone rang in his room. One of Pugacheva's fans called, who reported the latest news from the life of her idol: they say that she left Moscow in red Zhiguli, accompanied by two unknown men. And her then boyfriend Vladimir Kuzmin went to St. Petersburg by train in splendid isolation. Nepomniachtchi took this information into account and in the morning went in search of Pugacheva. Rather, it was difficult to call it a search, since Nepomniachtchi guessed where the singer could be - with his friend Valdemar, the owner of the Troika variety restaurant. So it was.

Nepomniachtchi found Pugacheva in a bad mood. Trying to somehow distract her from her gloomy thoughts, the director suggested that she immediately go to the Astoria.

- What "Astoria"? – the singer started up. - We're going to the "Pribaltiyskaya". I have already told everyone that I will stop there. I will be called.

Pugacheva had a favorite number in Pribaltiyskaya - 10,000, located on the eleventh floor. There were only two such rooms in the hotel: comfortable, two-level, with additional rooms for security and personnel. Next, let's listen to the story of O. Nepomniachtchi himself:

“We safely reached the Pribaltiyskaya and entered the lobby, which was full of schoolchildren who, at the sight of Pugacheva, began to poke their fingers at her and clamor in every way. Childish spontaneity is good only when it is balanced by good breeding, in all other cases it can enrage even a jerboa. Approaching the counter, behind which a slow receptionist girl toiled, I immediately asked to give us the key to the room and added that I would arrange everything later.

– Yes, please, your number is twelve three zero.

“Nothing like that, our number is ten three zero.” That's what I ordered. A chill of foreboding ran down my spine.

- Here is your application. Here Nina Ivanovna pointed out the number on it: 12,000. And not 10,000, which is already taken.

– This cannot be. I ordered ten three zero.

The girl began to get annoyed, a dense crowd of people had already formed around us, and this got on everyone's nerves - to me, and to her, and to Alla.

- I tell you in Russian: ten three zero is busy, a foreigner lives there. (In fact, a citizen of the USSR Dzhendayan lived in the room, who later admits that he would be happy to give up his number to Pugacheva, whom he respects very much. - F. R.)

Alla entered the conversation, calmly, without raising her voice.

- I ask you to give us this particular number - they should call me there. Maybe a foreigner will agree to trade with me?

The girl looked at us somehow sadly and, turning her back to us, yelled out:

– Ning Wanna!

A woman appeared in the lobby with a traditional laced robe on her head and an innate squeamish expression on her face. Naturally, I had run into Nina Ivanovna Baikova before. We didn’t feel special tenderness for each other, but it didn’t even come to a scandal.

- Well, what - again this Pugacheva is ruined?

Alla's eyes became bright, bright, she turned pale, I was even scared - I had never seen her in such a rage.

- So. I don't care about your foreigners, I want my number! Is there anything this country can do for me? What I ask!

Baykova looked at her with ill-concealed pleasure: scandal was her native element, here she felt like a fish in water.

- We will not relocate anyone because of the whim of some singer. You will live in the room you have been assigned.

Alla did not seem to believe her ears.

- What? Repeat what you said?

- What did you hear. The state pays me for you, when you pay yourself, then download your rights.

This was already unmeasured rudeness, and Alla lost control of herself.

- Yes, you are nobody, and there is no way to call you! If I myself paid and gave you bribes, you would talk differently.

Baikova immediately retorted:

“And you don’t talk to me like that, otherwise I’ll quickly find justice for you.”

Alla found the strength not to break into a cry and said in an icy voice:

“I didn't mean to talk to you at all. Went out of here.

The dense ring of people around us was clearly divided into two hostile camps, and in some places discussions began to flare up about which of the two arguers was right. Baikova turned around in insult and retired to her office.

We also went up to the room, and as soon as the door slammed behind us, Alla suddenly changed her face and, rubbing her hands, looked triumphantly at me. I would be glad that everything was over, but my mood was rotten: I really don’t like to be fools and be extreme - and here I was threatened with both of these roles. I could not understand why Pugacheva's rage suddenly disappeared, but as an administrator who had seen much, if not everything, on his way, I had a presentiment that the story would not end there. And how he looked into the water.

At about six or seven o'clock in the evening there was a knock on our room and a police major came in, introduced himself as an employee of the sixty-fourth department, smiled sweetly - black slicked hair, boots shining with polish.

“We have been alerted to the incident. Need to figure it out. I've already interviewed all the witnesses. It would be better if you testify yourself, in writing.

Alla listened to him quite friendly and, without going into questions, set out her version of what happened on paper, I did the same. The major bowed, assuring us that they would not disturb us again ... "

The poet Ilya Reznik also witnessed these events, and he preferred ... not to support Pugacheva. For which she was very offended by him. According to the poet: “Alla sat down on the stone floor in the room and said: “That's it, I protest! Ilyushka, sit down next to me. I said that I would not sit down, I do not need this prostatitis. I knew that she was wrong and provoked everything with her character ... "

Based on the words of O. Nepomniachtchi, it turns out that Pugacheva almost deliberately provoked the incident in order to once again remind the public of herself. If this is true, then the singer clearly did not calculate her capabilities: the scandal would cost her too much blood. I think if Pugachev had known about the consequences of this incident, she would have thought a hundred times whether she should have started this ridiculous quarrel at all.

Meanwhile, Pugacheva knows nothing about what is coming. 25 Aug Mouth she performed at the Lenin SCC in a concert with Udo Lindenberg. Immediately after the presentation in the company of friends, she went to the already familiar Troika. In the midst of dinner, the owner of the establishment, Valdemar, was called to the telephone. After listening to someone on the other end of the wire, he hung up and turned to Pugacheva with a very preoccupied look.

- Alla, bad things are being started here, - he said after a short pause.

- What kind of business? Pugacheva asked playfully.

- I just got a call from "Vecherniy Leningrad" and was informed that proofs of an article about you had already been typed.

- Well, great! Pugacheva laughed.

- No, the article is not about the concert, but about the scandal that happened in the hotel. Devastating article.

The noise at the table instantly died down, everyone turned to Pugacheva. She paused spectacularly, after which she said:

- Devastating, you say? So that's great. Haven't had any scandals with me. Let them print.

In those days, perestroika was in full swing in the country, one of the main weapons of which was glasnost. The media competed with each other in the publication of sharp materials on a variety of topics, various feuilletons and articles of a revealing nature were in great honor. If a case turned up, they applied almost everyone in a row, regardless of ranks and titles. Alla Pugacheva also fell under this "distribution".

The main instigator of the next anti-Pugachev campaign was the newspaper "Soviet Russia". When the news of the incident reached Moscow and TASS received the task of cutting the number one star “under the nut”, the first of the all-Union publications (“Vecherniy Leningrad” was read only in St. Petersburg) agreed to do this precisely this newspaper. 25-th of August there was placed a replica of one of the perpetrators of the incident - Nina Baikova (the signature said that she works as the head of the hotel accommodation service, an excellent student of Intourist). The note was called bitingly - "Star" unbelted. Here is her text:

“Almost a day I waited at the Pribaltiyskaya Hotel for a luxury apartment ordered by Lenconcert for Alla Borisovna Pugacheva. The singer was delayed. And when she arrived, a story happened that was least expected.

Firstly, the singer, in an ultimatum form, demanded that instead of the number 12,000 she be given a similar number 10,000. The explanation that other people live in it did not affect her.

- Get them out!

Other very polite words addressed to her did not find a response either. She brought down on the reception staff (I'm not exaggerating) obscene abuse.

I'm not going to describe everything that happened. For many years of work at Pribaltiyskaya, neither I nor other employees have seen or heard anything like this.

The square abuse that was heard in the hall was forced to listen to numerous guests, foreign tourists, bus drivers. “Got” at the same time from the singer, who screamed that she was suffering for “penny earnings”, both to our country and Leningrad ...

One of the tourists directly asked me:

“Will she get away with it?”

Maybe it will come down. We are to blame: we were so confused that we did not realize to invite the police. But who could have imagined that when meeting with Pugacheva, her help would be needed?

The concerts of Pugacheva and Lindenberg lasted until August, 26th, after which the number one star returned to Moscow. The departure coincided with a telegram that came to the State Concert from Leningrad. It contained only a few lines: “Recall Pugacheva from our city. Outraged by her hooliganism (I quote from the original. - F. R.) behavior and ugliness. We read an article in Leningradskaya Pravda. We hand over tickets, we do not want to go to her concert. A group of Leningraders.

August 28 one of the country's most influential publications, Sovietskaya Kultura, joined the chorus of indignant voices. On its pages, a note was published by the Leningrad correspondent L. Sidorovsky, entitled "Concert" in the hotel lobby. It briefly described the incident at the "Pribaltiyskaya" and talked about Pugacheva's "unworthy behavior" before the last concert at the SKK - she did not appear at the press conference. I quote:

"A. Pugacheva walked proudly through the crowd of journalists, not even nodding in response to the greetings.

“Well, let's talk at a press conference,” we decided, heading to a specially designated room for this at the sports and concert complex. However, of the two main participants of the press conference announced in the invitation card, only Udo Lindenberg, a popular rock singer from Germany, showed up for a meeting with representatives of local and national newspapers, radio and television. Slightly with a cold, without taking off his black cap and black glasses, puffing on a cigarette, he waited for some time for his capricious colleague in performances in Moscow and Leningrad, and then was forced to act, so to speak, alone.

Well, we were not very surprised by this demarche by A. Pugacheva, since we had already heard about what happened the day before at the Pribaltiyskaya Hotel ...

Well, at the concert, after the meeting with journalists was ignored, the “star” vilified on the stage those who were responsible for order in the hall, not allowing frantic fans to repair the coven.

Maybe this audience would also like the “concert” arranged by their idol in the lobby of the “Pribaltiyskaya”?

All end august Pugacheva spent in Moscow, almost without leaving home. Every day letters and telegrams came to her in piles, the authors of which either supported her or scolded her mercilessly. Many of the letters included clippings from newspapers, from which it could be judged that all publications relating to the incident at Pribaltiyskaya were completely devastating. Not a single publication tried to defend the number one star, although it was not difficult to do this: it was enough to at least give her the floor on their pages. However, in those days the game was still played in one goal.

September 2 Alla Pugacheva left the country. Fortunately, this was not an irrevocable departure from despair (although the singer had such an idea), but just another tour: Pugacheva flew to Switzerland to take part in the Swiss Music Week festival. From there she went to Germany.

Pugacheva was still abroad when one of the first publications in her support appeared in the media. The article was called “Near-Star Disease”, it was written by the journalist Shota Mulajanov, who visited Pugacheva before her departure to Germany in her apartment, and was published in the Moskovskaya Pravda newspaper. In it, finally, the floor was given to the very culprit of the scandal. Pugacheva said the following:

“This publication (about the scandal in the hotel. - F. R.) not only angered me, but surprised me a lot. I was waiting for an apology from the workers of the "Pribaltiyskaya" themselves. Firstly, I do not agree with the accusation of foul language. This was not the case - and many of those present can testify to this. And then - somehow strangely "forgotten" the cause of the conflict. Many times, when I came to Leningrad, I stayed in the same room of this hotel. I believe in omens... And my purely personal emotions are connected with this number, which on the eve of an important concert have, you see, not the last value. When I was about to leave Moscow, I received confirmation that I would stay there again. The road turned out to be difficult, the equipment broke down, I was very tired from the trip. And, of course, I was upset when, without explanation, instead of the usual number, they gave me another one. She asked if it was possible to somehow solve this problem, to talk to the tenants. And I heard a lot of reproaches, "denunciations". Who will like this?

But look at another, more lengthy publication - Alla Borisovna shows me a clipping from the newspaper "Evening Leningrad". - Here they reproach me for not wanting to participate in a press conference, they scold my songs ...

I learned about the time of the press conference when I had already come to prepare for the concert. I have a habit: I start preparing two or even three hours before the performance. And just two hours before the start, we decided to organize a meeting with journalists. For me it was an impossible option. Well, Udo Lindenberg and concert organizer Michel Geismeyer participated in the press conference. Isn't that enough?..

Finally, I was also very surprised by the lines related to combatants. The fact is that, just like at the Moscow concerts, I offered the last song - about peace, friendship - to be sung by the whole audience. Enthusiasts were invited to come up to the stage. And then a chain of vigilantes rose up, blocking the way for the spectators who had responded to the call. The old disease had an effect - “no matter how something happened” ...

I know very well that some people are annoyed by my manner on stage, - with these words, Alla Borisovna goes to the table where the letters lie in a pile. - Here they praise me - this is trivial. I'd rather show you others where they scold me ...

- You read, read, - says Pugacheva. “Here you will find out that I live in incredible luxury. You can compare with "nature". This is what my friends made from a screen bought at a thrift store, and this is from the headboard of an old bed. Everyone can arrange such a luxury for themselves.

There was absolutely nothing to argue about - everything was in front of our eyes, obviously. And here's what I thought about: after all, the wrong ideas are largely dictated by the beauty of the film shots. They are judged from afar about the personality, and someone pours the oil of ordinary envy into this fire ...

No, not in relation to the songs of Pugacheva or the works of other "controversial" masters. We are talking about respect for the personality of the "star", her right to self-expression, her personal life, which is by no means intended for unceremonious advertising. How did a celebrity not deserve these rights? For an ordinary person, they do not seem exceptional today ...

“Faced with a “star”, “Star” unbelted”, “Meeting with a “star” - these are the headlines of the publications of the mentioned series. By themselves, they suggest the emergence of some kind of “circumstellar” disease, the symptoms of which are unhealthy excitement, “bone washing”, falsely understood courage: how, they say, we carved a celebrity! ..

Perhaps some will be indignant reading these lines: “Look, the defender has been found!” Or maybe they really need to be somehow protected from the philistine - not only Pugachev, but also other "stars", whose brilliance unnerves the untalented? Then, probably, true talents would not disappear from the TV screen and from concert posters, from exhibition catalogs and publishing plans for years, only to return later in the rank of undeservedly offended. You just need to be more careful, more delicate when it comes to a creative person. And the taste ... Everyone has his own.

This was the first sign of a rollback - the campaign in defense of Pugacheva. This became possible only after Alexander Yakovlev, the main ideologist of perestroika, intervened in the situation. In his own words: “Then I got really angry. I just felt sorry for Pugachev. I called Leningrad, shamed people. I explained to them that I didn’t care whether she cursed there or maybe fought - but you can’t poison like that. On my initiative, then answers began to appear in the newspapers.

Meanwhile 12-th of September Soviet Culture made a backdoor in the Pugachev scandal. In the article "Rising ... to Scandal?" M. Ignatieva wrote:

“I saw Alla Borisovna Pugacheva in a variety of programs, in different halls, I talked with her a lot - at home, backstage, in hotels. It can be different, I don’t speak in relation to me, but to other people, to others, to colleagues, to journalists. Yes, it happens that she lacks endurance, tact, there are ambitions, and whims, and rudeness. But one concert, one performance on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater was enough to make sure: this singer has the deepest spiritual generosity, spiritual beauty - everything is hidden so far under the habitual appearance of a freed from conventions, cheeky woman. At that concert, nobility was in her, and rigor, and the amazing talent of the tragic actress, which Angelina Stepanova, Irina Miroshnichenko, Oleg Efremov enthusiastically spoke about, congratulating Alla Borisovna after the concert ... "

Meanwhile, almost immediately after returning from Germany, Pugacheva went on tour in Sochi. She did not really want to go there because of the same newspaper pandemonium, but it was a matter of honor - these concerts were announced in advance, and tickets for them were already sold out. Concerts were held in the "Festivalny" hall with crowded halls. Pugacheva continued to be the number one star, despite the titanic efforts of ill-wishers to push her off the pedestal. According to Rosconcert, for the first half of the year 1987 Pugacheva brought a profit in the amount of 232 thousand rubles.