Eduard Boyakov, the influential director and producer behind the “Golden Mask” and the “Fresh Drama” movement, has spent the last six months attempting to redefine the purpose of one of Moscow’s oldest stages. Now serving as the artistic director of the Theatre on Malaya Ordynka, Boyakov is attempting to pivot the institution away from being a mere venue for leisure and toward becoming a site of existential inquiry.
The transition comes at a time when Boyakov believes the city is suffering from a profound spiritual vacuum. Despite the rapid modernization of the capital’s infrastructure, he argues that Москве сегодня не хватает культурной элиты—that Moscow today lacks a true cultural elite capable of guiding the nation’s artistic trajectory.
Boyakov’s tenure at Malaya Ordynka is not merely a change in leadership but an attempt to rebuild the theater on what he describes as an “aesthetic, ideological, ethical, and anthropological” foundation. His goal is to rescue the theater from the trend of “serving” the audience, which he claims has turned many venues into extensions of the city’s hospitality industry.
The Battle Between Art and Leisure
For Boyakov, the modern theater is in a precarious position, fighting for the attention of a public that views a night at the play as a component of a larger social itinerary. He observes that the three-hour duration of a typical performance mirrors the timing of a dinner at a high-end restaurant, placing the two in direct competition for the consumer’s time.
Even as a restaurant provides comfort and entertainment, Boyakov believes the theater’s true function is to challenge the viewer. He asserts that a real theater should “seize the viewer by the scruff of the neck” and force them to confront fundamental questions about their existence and purpose on earth.
This philosophy extends to the physical space of the Theatre on Malaya Ordynka. Boyakov is overseeing a reconstruction aimed at stripping away what he calls “Luzhkov trash”—the architectural remnants of the late Mayor Yuri Luzhkov’s era—to reveal the original Art Nouveau elements of the early 20th-century mansion. He views the surrounding Zamoskvorechye district as a living museum of Moscow’s Eurasian identity, blending Slavic, Turkic, and Khazar influences, which provides the ideal “topology” for existential theater.
A ‘Colonial’ Cultural Crisis
Boyakov’s critique of Moscow’s current state is rooted in a broader historical analysis. He suggests that Russia is enduring a crisis of meaning and hierarchy that began during the Khrushchev era, when a trend of imitating Western cultural patterns began to dominate. This, he argues, led to a sluggish erosion of the native creative spark that had previously allowed Russia to dictate global artistic trends for two centuries.
He points to the early 20th century as a peak of Russian influence, citing the “four evangelists” of poetry—Marina Tsvetaeva, Anna Akhmatova, Boris Pasternak, and Osip Mandelstam—and musical titans like Stravinsky and Shostakovich. In contrast, he views the 21st century as a period where Russia has become a “cultural province.”
This “colonial dependence,” as Boyakov describes it, is evident in the heroes of the younger generation. He notes that young Russians often look to global figures like Rihanna or Kanye West for inspiration, rather than domestic artists. He laments the absence of new “Tatlins, Melnikovs, or Meyerholds”—visionaries who could create a globally recognized, sovereign Russian aesthetic.
The Displacement of the Intelligentsia
The crisis is exacerbated, Boyakov argues, by the exodus and alienation of the country’s leading intellectual voices. He speaks with visible pain about figures such as Ivan Vyrypaev (recognized as a foreign agent in Russia) and Vladimir Sorokin, who now find themselves on the “other side” of the current political and cultural divide.
Boyakov emphasizes that the tragedy is not just the departure of these individuals, but the fact that their places as cultural leaders remain vacant. He dismisses contemporary pop figures like Shaman or Instasamka as insufficient replacements for a true cultural vanguard, calling for the construction of a “new mainstream” that can provide genuine leadership.
Institutional Shifts and the Legacy of MKhAT
The director’s current project is informed by his previous experience leading the Gorky MKhAT. His departure from that institution followed a conflict with director Vladimir Kekhman, whom Boyakov accuses of attempting to “wipe clean” the work he had done alongside Zakhar Prilepin and Sergey Puskepalis.
With the recent appointment of actor Sergey Bezrukov to lead the Gorky MKhAT, Boyakov remains critical. While acknowledging Bezrukov as a talented actor, he characterizes the appointment as “situational”—placing a famous face in a high-ranking position rather than appointing a thinker or producer capable of building a cohesive creative organism.
Despite these frictions, Boyakov maintains that his work continues the legacy of the founders of Russian psychological theater. He views the Theatre on Malaya Ordynka as a continuation of the “fire” he helped ignite through the “Golden Mask” and “New Drama” festivals, and the establishment of the “Praktika” and Teatr.doc stages.
Boyakov concludes that while Moscow has perfected its “horizontal space”—the parks, cafes, and museums that make it one of the most comfortable cities in the world—it has neglected its verticality. Without a cultural elite to provide depth and direction, the city’s impressive infrastructure remains a shell without a soul.
The next phase of Boyakov’s mission involves the completion of the physical reconstruction of the Theatre on Malaya Ordynka and the rollout of a new repertoire designed to challenge the “leisure-class” expectations of the Moscow public.
We invite readers to share their thoughts on the role of the theater in the digital age and whether Moscow can cultivate a new generation of global artistic leaders in the comments below.
