Natalia Lapina
Artistic Director of Urban Theatre St. Petersburg-Berlin
Modern Russia and Theater: Boundaries of Expression
When you talk about the heritage of Jura Soyfer, you realize how, after almost 90 years, the spiral of history brings us back to the times in which the author lived and wrote.
It is no secret about the processes taking place in contemporary theatrical Russia, but still I would like to talk about them in connection with Soyfer’s plays in Russian. The word „censorship“, which used to be not so acutely touched the theatrical art of Russia, has come to the forefront. Practically everything is censored. A play can be removed from the repertoire by denunciation, by order of the authorities. A play may simply not be allowed to go out into the world, because theater managers are „instructed“ and know what people can and cannot talk about from the stage. So far, very gradually, but at an increasing rate, entertainment or propaganda plays are favored. Of course, there are people who try to resist the system. But it ends almost everywhere the same way.
Now in the theatrical world of Russia, both metropolitan and provincial, there are personnel reshuffles, change of management of major theaters. Most often they remove artistically worthy managers who opposed the Special Military Operation, as the war against Ukraine is called in Russia, and replace them with those who are tolerant of the authorities, most often not very convincing from an artistic point of view. This is what happens with state theaters, of which there are a huge number in Russia.
Therefore, non-state theaters, which do not depend on state money, are coming to the forefront of freedom of expression.
So, the times repeat themselves, and now Yura Soyfer’s plays would be more relevant in Russia than ever. But the censors are likely to regard them with suspicion, even if there are no direct political allusions to what is happening in the country.
Nevertheless, creatively I would be very interested in working with Soyfer’s dramaturgy, and that’s why the stage designer Arina Slobodyanik and I have composed a show that doesn’t exist yet, but which is already possible. Let’s go to the idea and its details.
A non-existent play that I would love to stage
It seemed to me a logical idea to combine two of Soyfer’s one-acts and make the
first act one of his first plays „The End of the World“ and the second act one of his
last plays „Vineta“, which translated to Russian as „Vineta, the city of the
Dead“ („Винета, город мертвых“).
When you say „one of the first“ and „one of the last“ there is a feeling that decades
have passed between them, but in the meantime the difference in the writing of the
plays is a year. Nevertheless, the plays are really different – in style, mood, even the kind of theater to which they belong: „The End of the World“ is a political cabaret (or used to be described as this type), while „Vineta“ is more of a poetic theater, with echoes of the theater of the absurd.
And yet in my opinion these two plays fit into the same idea of a doomed world, a dying world, a dead world.
And the stage designer Arina Slobodyanik and I even found a single scenographic solution for these two plays – that is, two acts of one performance.
What else unites the plays within?
Of course, the personality of the main character. Both characters are trying to fight, trying to escape from their circumstances. Professor Hooke in „The End of the World“ knocks on all doors, trying to find salvation through any country. And Johnny tries to escape from the world of the dead, where he got there not by his own will, and also makes countless attempts.
The plays are also united by the entire environment of the main characters, that is, the secondary characters. In the doomed world of „The End of the World“, these are both governments and ordinary people – Soyfer has tried to capture a crosssection of society – who do not want to hear anything about the end of the world, do not believe in it, avoid even the thought of it. In the world of Vineta are dead people who just as surely do not accept, deny the fact of their death; and the mere knowledge that they are dead can destroy them. Because even the world of the dead is still at least some form of life.
How else to unite these two plays?
A common frame, a common outsider. The prologue of the play is beautifully set in „The End of the World“ by the planets watching the Earth. Planets whose world order is being disrupted. And I would suggest moving the finale of „The End of the World“ to the epilogue of the show, i.e. after „Vineta“, thus creating a frame for the two plays. So that the comet changes its decision already after Johnny has broken out of Vineta. Perhaps I would have taken some of Soyfer’s poems for the epilogue, too, in order to connect the sound of the play more precisely with the author’s message to us.
Scenography
The scenography is a mix of an interrogation room and a star orbit. This image was born from the idea that all of us, earthlings, are under glass, that the planets are watching us. And we want to keep the same principle in the show: the planets will always remain observers on stage; perhaps they will change each other, as (similarly) the duty officers change each other, but there is always someone on duty.
The interrogation room is semi-circular, shaped like an orbit. And the center of the composition is a large luminous circle, which works both as a table for the first act (i.e. the End of the World) at the bottom, and as an unreachable exit, the divine beginning – at the top – for the second act.
The circle rises to the top at the beginning of the second act – the diver descends and the circle rises in reverse, creating a flooding effect.
The broken mirror on the back side of the light circle in certain light will give the space the effect of underwater reflections. This is how we will create the space of Vineta – the space of the second act.
What would this play be about today in Russia, in Russian? It would be very relevant. If you suddenly see so-called „official polls“ in which Russians support war, the national idea, imperial ambitions or the government – don’t believe it. Because the pessimistic mood of most Russians and most theatergoers prevails. Because, like Professor Hooke, many people have a feeling that it is pointless to search for a way out, a feeling that all doors are closed or deaf. Because part of the country feels hostage to the current regime, and the other part of the country is afraid to even think about change – what if it gets worse. And this is the same feeling of a doomed world, a dying world, a dead world. It completely rhymes with today. For Russia, Yura Soyfer’s years ’36 and ’37 are now.