At the beginning of 2020, the circles around the theater in St. Petersburg began to seethe: in the Theater. The Leningrad City Council analyzed the repertoire and divided the performances into two folders – green and red. Both folders were displayed in the theater foyer. In green there were productions of the classical sense, especially for an audience with established moral and aesthetic principles. Works “created in accordance with modern trends in directing” got into the red. In such an ingenuous way, the theater decided to help the public not to waste time and money in vain – daddies clearly hinted who should watch it.
However, in our torn time, the public understood everything in its own way. After the artistic director Yuri Butusov left the Leningrad City Council, the St. Petersburg public was inclined to see the stifling of free art in everything. As a result, the administration of the theater was almost reproached for denunciation – they saw in the red daddy a specific proposal from the FSB to take a closer look.
Against this background, the premiere of “Duck Hunt”, apparently, was supposed to reconcile the warring clans. The fact is that the fresh Lensoviet duck did not get into the green, vegetarian, folder, but into the red, hot and “meat” one. However, while it is more like a children’s menu. Not only for the audience, but also for the director.
Continuous calls
In the case of this premiere, the epidemic played into the hands of the creators: the first show was scheduled for March, but for obvious reasons moved to September – the best season for the presentation of “Duck Hunt”. Peter himself, without any exaggeration at this time, most of all resembles a romantic swamp, where there is no time and you can forget yourself, either at a crossroads or at a dead end. But that’s where the benefit for the team of creators ends. Everything else is a challenge.
Roman Kocherzhevsky, of course, has several directorial works. But Petersburg theater-goers know him precisely as an actor of a wide range: from Carlson to Treplev. And a wide audience remembers from “Secrets of the investigation – 13”, “Streets of broken lamps – 14” and the like. Against this background, “Duck Hunt” seems somewhat unexpected.
The actors involved in the play also had a hard time. The film “Vacation in September” (dir. Vitaly Melnikov), based on the play by Alexander Vampilov in 1979 and which became almost a manifesto of the intelligentsia of the late USSR, has long been a classic of Soviet cinema. First of all, thanks to the participation of the stars – Dahl, Kupchenko, Leonov, Gundareva, Bogatyrev. Getting on stage after them is not so easy. This situation has driven the actors of the Leningrad City Council into a double trap: the old people will inevitably compare their performance with the work of Soviet legends, and for the new generation of viewers, Duck Hunt is not so much a morally complex thing as a fantastic one.
Here it is worth forgetting about the usual clichés of critics, they say, the hero of Vampilov is a modern Pechorin, who has absorbed all the vices of the generation, protesting against routine, etc. Young people can be confused not so much by problems as by Zilov’s age. The poor guy is about thirty. He is tormented by mental disorder, unsettled family life, is deprived of foundations, cannot find an answer to his questions that torment him. But in our era of progressive infantilism, Zilov cannot possibly be thirty years old, he is 45+ at best. Add to this such archaisms of the pre-digital era as the “technical information bureau”, “in-line method” and “plan” – and we have before us not so much a reality as a museum archaism.
How the show was staged
The scenery of the performance is budget and concise. A black background, beams of spotlights, chairs, a couple of panels imitating Khrushchev’s five-story buildings, several bundles of reeds – the same swamp. It turned out graphically and spectacularly – this is a plus for Kocherzhevsky, an artist and lighting master Gidal Shugaev. Stylistically, the performance hit the mark – here is the minimalism of the sixties, and the aesthetics of the then flourishing cinematic new wave, and at the same time a soft and torn atmosphere that successfully emphasized the development of the plot.
There is a lot of water in the play. The rain, at which Zilov is so angry, is not represented by a global flood, as in Vampilov’s, but by a dispersed suspension that uncomfortably permeates space. Aggressive percussion adds dynamics. She plays a big role in the performance, either highlighting the culminations, or frankly encouraging the audience, who could suddenly get bored.
And to be honest, there is something to get bored. It’s bad when the rhythm of the performance sags, and subtle lyrical moments turn into lengths. Exactly this happened in the scenes of the tragic explanations of the hero and his wife. Vitaly Kulikov (Zilov) and Laura Pitskhelauri (Galina), no matter how hard they tried, could not correct the director’s flaws. Neither bent postures, nor tears, nor artistic whispers accompanied by a soundtrack with an organ came to the rescue. Suffering and nervous by design, Kulikov’s character gives the impression of a noisy brawler even in the finale, when his eyes should be moistened. But no. The spirit, as you know, blows where it wants. Didn’t want to here.
Why is the show worth watching?
Still, “Duck Hunt” is worth seeing. In their places were Anastasia Dyukova in the image of the imperious Valeria and Fedor Pshenichny in the role of Zilov’s colleague Sayapin. Alexander Novikov showed excellent work. His Sash – Zilov’s boss – is funny and tragic, vicious and vulnerable. Novikov plays with intonations, gestures, pauses, revealing the true skill of a real actor.
It is difficult to talk about Vitaly Kulikov in the role of Viktor Zilov. The actor graduated from the Vaganova Ballet Academy and is incredibly plastic. The scenography of the performance favorably emphasizes this peculiarity of it – what is worth one daguerreotype picture of the protagonist preparing to shoot himself. But it seems that the main problem of modern Zilov is not at all in acting, but precisely in that small time gap from the point of view of eternity that separates the 2020 era from the era of the late USSR with its “Flights in a dream and in reality” (Roman Balayan, 1982 ) and “Mirror” (Andrey Tarkovsky, 1974). Perhaps the whole point is in the moral imperative that was formed in the 70s. last century.
Now, after the lapse of time, it becomes clear that the main driving force of the man of that era was the acutely felt need to complicate the personality. The crisis of the thirtieth year turned out to be a door to another life, where yesterday’s gouging found new meanings, slightly opening the veil of maya. Not everyone was allowed in, it was difficult to get there. But the reward was high. This moment of the biochemical rebirth of the personality became the ethical culmination of the era that most attracted artists. It seems that human life is perceived differently these days. Modern Zilov enthusiastically tramples in his life labyrinth. He does not need any exit to a new mental space.
However, there is hope. The scene of the final revelry, in which the drunken Zilov denounces everyone and gets punched in the face, looks like all is not lost yet. Here, perhaps, for the only time in the entire three hours of the performance, it is clear that a person is ill.