On March 28, 1925, Innocent Smoktunovsky was born – one of the most significant artists of the late USSR, who was called a genius during his lifetime. In the material for the cooperative “Coast”, the theater critic Alla Shenderova tells how Smoktunovsky brought a new type of hero to the theater and cinema. “Medusa” publishes this text entirely. In the late 1970s, shooting the film “Moscow does not believe in tears”, Vladimir Menshov included Camoo there: 1955, a week of French cinema. The young heroines of the film are spinning near the cinema, hoping to meet Western stars. They notice a person standing a little. “Are you an artist? – Yes. – What is your last name? – My last name does not tell you anything. -Well, after all? “Smoktunovsky.” Shrugging his shoulders, the girls walked further. The Soviet viewer fell with laughter. In 1979, when the Oscar-winning later the film of Vladimir Menshov was released, he was already recognized as a genius, not only in the USSR, but throughout the world. One example: in 1966, after Grigory Kozintsev, Hamlet with Smoktunovsky in the title role, England and France invited the Leningrad Bolshoi Drama Theater (BDT) with the performance of George Tovstonogov “Idiot”. With one condition: Myshkin was supposed to play Smoktunovsky, who had not worked in the BDT by that time. But in 1955, no one knew with such a surname. Having outplayed half of the world repertoire in Krasnoyarsk, Norilsk, Grozny, Makhachkala and Stalingrad, he moved to Moscow, where he showed almost all theaters. He was not taken. Then they accepted freely in the Moscow “Lenkom”, but they did not give roles. With difficulty, by patronage, he got a job at the film actor. He starred at the Mosfilm in the masses – he was considered “non -mine”, until the Great gave him an episodic role in the film “Murder on Dante Street.” So the scene in Menshov’s film is not only ridiculous, but full of sarcasm: the girls chased for some visiting stars, and the real star was not seen by anyone. “There was no one to play,” wrote Anatoly Smelyansky in the book “Leaving Nature”. -Tall, thin, with transparent blue eyes and light, slightly curly hair, with some kind of bewitching and wretched voice, which he did not manage, frightened, careful “prison” plastic … The artist with such data was hopeless for the plays that determined the repertoire. ”Smoktunovsky began to invite everywhere for several years. Not the actor has changed-the country has changed. In 1947, Stalin began a new wave of repression. If something was alive and was in the Soviet theater before the war, after it was finally spent. By the beginning of the 1950s, the Glavrepertok-the Soviet censorship organ that regulated the repertoire of theaters-practically did not give permission to produce new plays. Formalism (as the avant -garde was called in Soviet criticism) was long destroyed, the concept of “conflict” stood in line – what is the conflict under socialism? It should be replaced with the “good struggle with the best.” Repressions affected the 21-year-old Innocent Smoktunovich. The whole war and received two orders “For Courage”, who fled from the German camp for prisoners, who took Warsaw and Berlin, he returned to Krasnoyarsk, where his childhood passed, and entered the studio under the theater. He studied acting for only a few months, until he was accused of “unreliability” as a captive. Smoktunovich received the “minus 39” mark in the passport: so many cities of the USSR were closed to him. Without waiting for him to come after him, the actor “hid” himself in Zapolyarny Norilsk – in the theater, where the “free” played with the prisoners of the Gulag. In Norilsk, Smoktunovich became Smoktunovsky: it is not clear, and not so important who his father was, Mikhail Petrovich Smoktunovich – a dispossessed Pole, Belarus or Jew, more importantly that in the country that defeated fascism, the “suspicious” end of the surname remained a wolf ticket. Almost the main hobby of Soviet artists was drunkenness. “Cynicism penetrated the cache of the soul, the very source of theatrical creativity,” wrote Anatoly Smelyansky in the same “leaving kind”. “It was only possible to accept this lifestyle and exist in this theater in a state of trouble -free optimism.” Smoktunovsky felt the process of decomposition of the theater on himself. He also tried to drink – from aversion to what he had to do on stage – and changed theaters. From Norilsk in 1951, he was expelled by scurvy, he left Stalingrad, tricked with the main director. In the documentary “Memoirs in the Garden”, shot by Hungarian journalist Anna Gereb less than his death, the actor told how in 1956 he played the intelligent soldier Farber in the “soldiers” of Alexander Ivanov. “There was wonderful material,” he recalled. “I decided that I would not play anything: I will live.” The role turned out to be for Smoktunovsky breakthrough: when he saw the film, George Tovstonogov noticed “Myshkin’s eyes” by Farber. And he sent his assistants to Lenfilm – to look for “Svistunovsky.” Smoktunovsky was terribly tormented with all his roles, and especially rehearsing Myshkin. The impatient colleagues spit him, called the sick. “They offered me ugly things,” he said in the film Gereb, as if it was about something very shameful. After a pause, he added: “Techniques that are worth nothing – theatrical vulgarity.” In the translation into ordinary language: he did not want to “play” Myshkin, existing on stamps – he wanted to be Myshkin. The actor recalled that nothing happened until he saw Lenfilm in the corridors of a strange man with a book – a former camp “Sidel”, who worked in a mass of mass. So his hero was absorbed by the experience of the dark Soviet years. You can argue how much such acting equipment is. In the book of Viktor Dubrovsky “Innocent Smoktunovsky. Life and roles ”is the following recognition:“ I played Myshkin 200 times, and if I had to play the same amount, I would have remained a sick person. ”Vera Shitova, Inna Solovyova, Naum Berkovsky-they talked about Myshkin-Kmoktunovsky with biblical reverence. Completing the success of this role, Smelyansky in the “leaving kind”, following Berkovsky, names the performance of Tovstonogov “Idiot”, and the work of Smoktunovsky “Smoktunovsky’s“ spring ”of the Soviet theater, the point with which the thaw began in the culture. So the external and internal data of the actor Smoktunovsky coincided with time. For the first time since the 1920s, the intellectual and intellectual in the theater and in the cinema was not bred caricatured: in Stalin’s times, it was possible to imagine the “intellectual” perhaps in the grotesque role of a spy. In the era, the thaw on the stage again did not appear a class approach, but an individual one. “What he did on the stage and on the screen was essentially an apology of the Russian intelligentsia – if you like, intelligentsia in general,” journalist Alexander Batchan wrote in a necrogue for Kommersant Smoktunovsky, responding to the questioning of the younger colleague of Alla Demidova, he said easier: after the war, people were interested in everyday life. And I came and said: “Spirit!” ”(In general, in the book of Demidova“ And tell me, Innokenty Mikhailovich … ”One of the most living images of the artist is captured). He defined the theme of Myshkin as “global humanity”; For Smoktunovsky, these were not only words-in 1966, he dared to sign against Stalin’s rehabilitation rehabilitation. Shakespeare Smoktunovsky did not read the tragedy of Shakespeare, he did not read a couple of Soviet productions to hate this play. But in a guy with a heavy hungry childhood, parents who fled from dispossession in Krasnoyarsk, there was still sophistication and thoughtfulness – for Farber, for Myshkin, for Hamlet. On the set, Smoktunovsky argued with Kozintsev himself – he did not like that the director did not have his own vision of the image of the Prince of Danish. For the first time taking the tragedy of Shakespeare, Smoktunovsky realized that she always reflects the time in which he was put; That Hamlet cannot be a “timeless” prince. This was the main complaint of the actor to the film, which has won worldwide glory. Having not received education, the artist made himself; In his profession, he led a difficult personal experience and amazing receptiveness to culture. As a result, he was nicknamed the “intellectual actor.” There were jokes about the immodesty of Smoktunovsky. “You, Oleg, the best artist of the USSR! – He told Oleg Efremov. – And what about you, Kesha? “And I am a space artist.” About modesty, however, too. Having received all the possible bonuses, he insisted that he had one a great role – Myshkin. He believed that he approached this level as Tsar Fedor in the play by Boris Ravensky “Tsar Fedor Ioannovich” (Maly Theater, 1979), but even a year and a half after the premiere; And in the role of Judas in the “gentlemen of the Golovlev” Leo Dodin (Moscow Art Theater, 1984). In the cinema, he distinguished Hamlet – more precisely, only a couple of scenes and his plastic in the role of the prince. In the years of glory, Smoktunovsky appeared in public under the mask of a holy fool or insolent – depending on the proposed circumstances. The same Smelyansky describes as “Kesha”, wearing the orders, went to knock out an apartment to someone. Smoktunovsky came to the Moscow Art Theater in 1976. He was 52nd year, and he was recognized as a genius during his lifetime. He appeared in his sneakers and a training suit to collect the troupe. The essence of this “performance” is another key of his personality: entering the main theater of the USSR, he remained faithful to the guy who unsuccessfully offended the thresholds of theaters in 1955. In sneakers, ski pants and jacket. Are we able to perceive its intellectual sophistication, filigree plasticism and plasticity of the voice, the wealth of emotional and semantic shades today? It is not difficult to check this: turn on any recording of the late roles of Smoktunovsky (fortunately, there are many of them – unlike the early ones). The Moscow Art Theater “Ivanov”, where the one rushed into a corner, cruel to others, but first of all to himself, waves a disproportionate with long hands – as if he still hopes to fly up. Or the “Golovlevov’s gentlemen”, where his insinuatingly vocabulary and honey-free Judas is like a spider that weave a steel network for every next victim. It’s terrible to watch, but you can’t tear yourself away – as if you yourself turned into a rabbit who looked into the black eyes of a suffocating evil. In the seventies and eighties, the voice of Smoktunovsky spoke dozens of film parks. What do you recall the first when they say about Tarkovsky’s “mirror”? To me: a field that bends from the wind a bush and the phrase “The road from the station walked through Ignatievo …” – Smoktunovsky’s voice replaced the hero in Tarkovsky’s confessional film. What a movie is there: turn on the audio recording of Smoktunovsky, reading Pushkin. Or even the “biblical stories” recorded by him for children. It seems that one who could so easily, cleanly and clearly tell about the creation of the world saw everything with his own eyes. * * * The end of the 1990s. Smoktunovsky is gone. I walk past the TV on, I see something alarming with lateral vision. Smoktunovsky plays the old mafiosi, in front of his eyes as if drinking his life from the young characters surrounding him. He is ominous. But the worst of all its dry, bluish -colored ankle, sticking out of silk, also dead, socks. I stick up by the screen. The film was called. Then I found out that in such a movie, Smoktunovsky starred mainly because of the money-in the 90s his family was difficult. Already in a couple of years I had an interview: costume artist told how hard it was for her with artists. For example, with Smoktunovsky. On the set of “Genius” he overtaken the entire group, demanding some special old-fashioned socks. He was told that they have not been released for a long time, that they would not be visible in the frame – he insisted. Finally, socks were found, Smoktunovsky began to act. “And why did he need these socks?” – asked the costume artist. I so wanted to answer her. “Dog heart” – Anton Dolin for a hundred years – about why the popularly beloved film adaptation of the Bulgakov story does not at all convey her spirit to the “dog heart” – Anton Dolin – about why the nationwide adaptation of the Bulgakov’s story does not transmit her spirit at all (Tagstotranslate) News
