M Congratulations to you, dear visitors of the Orthodox island “Family and Faith”!

TO How does Orthodoxy relate to the theater? In ancient times, actors were not even buried in a cemetery. How now?

D Is the very principle of the game, the acting itself, worthy of condemnation?

TO This is the moral assessment of the acting itself: isn’t this a kind of lie?

E If duplicity is a sin, then doesn’t the actor sin when he gets used to the role, doesn’t he lose his sincerity, and over time, doesn’t he cease to be himself?

Archpriest Alexander Lebedev answers:

"IN the survey is not simple. Yes, among the church rules there are condemnations of acting and visiting the theater. For example, a person engaged in this kind of activity, if he wants to become a priest, will have an obstacle to this. Not an absolute one, but still an obstacle. Even someone married to an actress has this obstacle.

But you need to understand that at the time when these rules were established, theater was a specific phenomenon and far from coinciding with the theater of Shakespeare and Moliere, Chekhov and Ostrovsky, which we now perceive as classical.

The fact is that in late antiquity (the rules mentioned above date back to this time), acting was almost synonymous with debauchery: such were the theaters, such were the productions, and such was the lifestyle of the actors. The name of the profession of an actress found in the rules eloquently speaks about this: “Whoever takes into marriage a widow or an outcast from marriage, or a harlot, or a slave, or a disgraceful person cannot be a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon.” The “disgraceful” one here is the actress. The context in which this “disgraceful” thing is mentioned suggests that virginity and chastity in such persons public opinion didn't expect it. That is why acting and theater were condemned.

But does this mean that the very principle of the game, the acting itself, is worthy of condemnation? There is no certainty here. It seems that if the theater is cleansed of its pagan heritage, it will cease to be condemned. If Shakespeare and Chekhov are staged on stage, if the productions raise moral themes, if actors are acting on stage and not doing striptease, is there a sin in this or not? More likely no than yes.

However, doubt remains about the moral assessment of the acting itself: is this not a kind of lie? If duplicity is a sin, then doesn’t the actor sin when he gets used to the role, doesn’t he lose his sincerity, and over time, doesn’t he cease to be himself? Of course, there is such a danger, and the danger is serious. It requires special moral sensitivity from the actor. And understanding the purpose of your work.

The goal of an architect is to construct a building, the goal of factory workers is to create a product, the goal of an actor is to create an artistic image. The Savior showed by His example that it is possible to create such images. Many such images are contained in the Gospel parables, where all the characters and situations are fictitious, however, with the help fictional characters, a true image is created: after all, undoubtedly, everything that Christ says is the truth.

So, it is possible to create artistic images (I include stage images here). But they are created for a specific purpose, and it is the moral assessment of the purpose of creativity that shows which theater is acceptable and which is disgusting.

Taking this opportunity, it is necessary to say about the actor’s responsibility for his work. Artistic image can be extremely durable, have a huge impact on a person, and the actor is responsible for the souls of those who perceive the images he creates. How many souls have been and will still be ruined by actors who create the image of “good bandits” and show the attractiveness of vice!

By the way, it should be mentioned that the actor who creates a negative image does not himself avoid the influence of this image. A person is not a pipe, he cannot simply pass through himself a portion of information and sensations and remain the same, he absorbs part of what passes. Therefore, they say, after each of his performances in the role of Mephistopheles, Chaliapin went to church for confession. He was inveigled and buried according to the Orthodox rite.”

On September 10, at the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, director Vladimir Khotinenko began filming the film “Heirs,” which is dedicated to St. Sergius of Radonezh.

The film has a modern plot - after the celebration of the 700th anniversary St. Sergius One of the TV channels is putting together a talk show dedicated to the reverend.
People from the church, politics, etc. are invited to film. And then the plot unfolds in an unusual way.
It is noteworthy that students from the Moscow Theological Academy took part in the filming of the new film.

Any entry into a role is defined by the Holy Fathers as demonic hypocrisy, prohibited to members of the Church of Christ.

In interpretations of the rules Bishop Nicodemus (Milash) it is said: “The 24th rule<...>Cathedral<Трулльского>clergy are prohibited, under threat of deposition, from visiting theaters and watching theatrical performances; and by this rule<51-м>Comic, circus and ballet performances are generally prohibited for Christians; for sinning against this rule, a cleric is threatened with eruption, and a layman is threatened with excommunication.” “Actors and comedians are equal in<...>rule<45-м пр. Карфагенского Собора>to apostates from the Christian faith."

The Holy Fathers of the Church unanimously condemned hypocrisy.
“The theater is the school of this world and the prince of this world - the devil; and sometimes he transforms himself into an angel of light, in order to more conveniently seduce the short-sighted, sometimes he will, apparently, put on a moral play, so that they repeat and trumpet about the theater that it is a very educational thing, and it is worth visiting it no less, and perhaps even more churches: because in the church it is the same, but in the theater there is a variety of plays, scenery, costumes, and characters,” writes St. right John of Kronstadt.

«<Театр>- a school of immorality that can kill the last remnants of morality in a person’s soul, if he has any. That’s why people now appear - argumentative, stubborn, irritable - because they learn morality in theaters, says Rev. Ambrose Optinsky.

Sixth Ecumenical Council strictly prohibits Christians and clergy from participating in spectacles, both as actors and as spectators. In case of violation of this rule, the laity are excommunicated from the Church, and the clergy are expelled from the priesthood.
These strict measures also apply to spectators.

Orthodox Christians who care about their salvation cannot ignore this teaching of the Holy Fathers. Everything that concerns the theater fully applies to feature films and film actors. For feature cinema is a technically improved theater.

I don’t want to condemn anyone, especially perhaps future clergy, but we cannot remain silent in such cases. The students of the theological seminary, apparently, do not see a sin in this performance, since it is associated with the name of St. Sergius, and do not attach any importance to it.
But acting cannot be divided into good and bad, just as theft cannot be divided into good and bad. Sin is sin.

Mikhail Grigorievich Shchepenko was born in 1945 in Novokuznetsk. Graduated Theater school them. B.V. Shchukin and St. Tikhon's Theological Institute. Since 1987, he has headed the Russian Drama Theater “Chamber Stage”, where he has staged over thirty performances. Honored Artist of Russia, laureate of the Moscow Prize in the field of literature and art (1998) for staging the play “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich”. Associate Professor at the Yaroslavl Theater Institute.

There is a fairly stable concept of creating a stage image. I'm talking about the Russian, "heart" school theatrical arts. Let me remind you of some of her premises. You need to “get into the skin” of your role, Shchepkin said. We need to reincarnate. “I am” - according to Stanislavsky - is a stage state of identifying oneself and a character. Duality is a characteristic of the acting profession. “I,” a specific person, have a second “I” in me - an image, and on stage I exist simultaneously in two forms. “Becoming different while remaining yourself” is a comprehensive formula for acting. “Go from yourself to the image! Go!"
I think that the school of representation, to which Coquelin and Brecht can be attributed, has the same foundations (if it is art!) as the school of experience. Here we are faced with different distances of the actor’s detachment from the image, but the fact of reincarnation, that is, the existence of a second personality in the depths of the first, is undeniable.
This duality is the sin of acting that turned the theater into social phenomenon, categorically unacceptable by the holy fathers. Let's try to consider what is the problem with acting. I’m not talking now about the side of the theater of new art, which exorbitantly stimulates pride and vanity, from which grows a huge bouquet consisting of arrogance, servility, envy, condemnation, anger, deceit, etc. I’m not talking now about the hypertrophy of one’s “I” , about turning yourself into an idol. I’m also not talking about turning art and creativity itself into an “idol,” when even Stanislavsky’s grateful words “love the art in yourself, and not yourself in art” have a connotation of treating art as the highest value in the world, the one that replaces God, means - to the idol. This is a huge temptation for every artist. But, I repeat, this is not what we are talking about now.
What is the problem with acting? Firstly, in ambivalence: in duality, confusion, disunity of personality. Secondly, in the undoubted penetration of the personality of the image into the innermost environment of the actor’s personality and its deformation. The influence of negative characters is especially dangerous. Thirdly, in the passionate nature of all secular art, and especially theater. Fourthly, in existing in a fictional world, when life on stage becomes more real than life in real life. Fifthly, in involving the audience in this unreal, false world, leading away from the main reality - the existence of the soul and the problem of its agreement with God.
Problem one: the ambivalence of the actor’s personality. Creating one, tenth, hundredth image, the actor (if he is a real actor and not a craftsman) must become the personality that he embodies in the image and which the image itself carries. There is a loss of chastity - the integrity of the individual. This is a sin, a misfortune, and a disease. Chastity is one of the unconditional spiritual virtues that humanity has practically lost. This is a recent tragedy. “A double-minded man is unsettled in all his ways,” says the Apostle James. Jesus Christ teaches: “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate one and love the other, or he will be zealous for one and not care for the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24). Adultery is prohibited immediately after the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” for it is murderous for the soul to love a wife and mistress. Deadly because it's impossible. You cannot serve God and mammon. Chastity, integrity, unity of personality are consonance with God, who is One. Lack of integrity leads to decay and chaos - to extinction and death. The loss of personal integrity, without any exaggeration, is the death of the soul. It turns out that the actors are these suicide bombers. It is unimaginably difficult for all of us in our corrupt world to maintain chastity, and for actors it is probably catastrophically impossible. And he is not settled “in his ways,” and there is no salvation for him, and there is no place for him in the Kingdom of God... And indeed, how many actors and actresses do we know who all the time (and in life) play, portray and They cannot understand one thing: where they themselves are. Who, in this case, will appear before God? Nobody? Nothing? Nonentity? So it will be judged as a nonentity.
Problem two. Penetration of personality, especially negative, into the actor’s personality. This problem is in some way a variation of the first and its consequence. But let’s take the extreme and most dangerous case: the penetration of a negative personality into the actor’s personality. The Psalm begins with the words: “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, and does not walk in the path of sinners, and does not lead into the seats of destroyers.” We, alas, beings of weak spirit, should avoid bad society. Every mother knows this: whoever her son gets involved with is who he will be. "Tell me who your friend is and I will tell you who you are." We all know cases when, for example, a nice young man who has kind heart and other undoubted virtues, turned into a selfish creature after marriage and several years of living with an envious and unkind wife.
What can we say about an actor who comes into deep, intimate contact with the personality of, say, Richard III - with the wicked, the sinful, the destroyer? This intimacy is comparable in some ways to a very deep friendship or marriage. It is especially dangerous for talented, sensitive people. How can one “become different while remaining oneself”? How to reconcile this voluntary acceptance into your soul of evil, often very evil, qualities, this appropriation of the lowest sins of others with the existence of your soul, which is by nature a Christian (according to the holy fathers)? With a soul that immanently rejects evil, but here deliberately absorbs it into itself? I know actors who, feeling themselves to be Christians and fearing for their souls, refuse to play negative characters. Whether they act correctly and in a comradely manner is another question.
But also positive images not as safe as they seem. The fact is that we all have a fallen nature; there are no completely positive people. And since the world of God is full of diversity, then we, creating an image positive person, we inevitably internalize his individual sins. And we should deal with our own. Here Stanislavsky’s very recipe is dangerous: “when playing the evil one, look for where he is good; when playing good, look for where he is evil.” Well, let’s assume that the first part of the phrase does not raise objections, but the second... By focusing on the evil in a good person, we perceive the very fallen beginning of his nature and unite with it. We all know well that evil is much easier to instill than good. And this move itself, proposed by Stanislavsky, is correct in aesthetically, pushes the actor to some kind of corruption of his soul. And is creativity possible without this damage?
Problem three. The passionate nature of art. In relation to performing arts this problem is especially dangerous due, again, to the inseparability of the image and the artist. The Church teaches us to overcome passions and free ourselves from them. Passion is a synonym for sin that has taken possession of the soul. Passion is the service of “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the hair and the pride of life.” Passion is service to the non-God in the world. Another synonym for passion is suffering. The Church rejected the theater for the reason that it is a “school of the passions.” However, the “truth of passions” is declared by Stanislavsky, following Pushkin, to be one of the main goals of dramatic art. Something harmful to the soul is the goal of our creativity! And indeed, if we try to create a dispassionate theater, we, as sellers, will lose buyers - spectators. Our product will cease to be a commodity; there will be no demand for it. A fallen world requires passions. Without conflict there is no drama. Without active action and a passionate desire to overcome obstacles on the path to the desired goal, there is no conflict. If an actor does not have “extreme sensitivity,” he is not suitable for creativity. One can compare the state of prayer, peace in the soul, reverent standing in church with the experiences of a stage character (both comedic and tragic), and the deep qualitative difference between the spiritual and mental-physical existence of a person will become obvious. To be with God, one must sacrifice all earthly attachments - passions. And the poor actor, by the very specifics of his work, is chained, as if by chains, only to the mental and physical. And for this reason the path of salvation is closed to him?
Problem four. Existence in a fictional world. I think that creativity, which is impossible without the stimulation of fantasy and imagination, is a gift of God, and man, as the image of God, differs from all other created beings in this quality. Fiction is necessary for a person as a moral program, as a process of mastering the foundations of his spiritual and mental existence. However, the stage, unlike other arts, is so similar to ordinary life that in the actor’s consciousness (and most importantly, in the subconscious) the boundaries of the real and the fictional are blurred. Moreover, the stage gives a person those sweets that he does not have in everyday life: on stage you can be born and die many times, passionately love, cheat, kill, be an executioner and a victim, a king and an outcast, etc., etc. And all this - with crowded attention to you and admiration for your person . Isn’t all this more attractive than what happens in ordinary life, in which you have to be yourself - and that’s all?! And there is no applause from the crowd about this. Yes, illusory life turns out to be more attractive and sweeter than real life. What's wrong with that? After all, no one is either cold or hot from this.
But there are bad things. An illusion is almost equivalent to a lie. And lying is always punishable, because the Lord is Truth. Living in an illusory world, a person ceases to be any citizen - of the world, the Fatherland, the clan, the family. Nekrasov’s complaint “even we have enough poets, but we have few, not enough citizens” is relevant at all times. And now, when television has enslaved humanity, turning it into a herd of biorobots, the relevance of the problem is extremely obvious. However, this is not even the worst thing. Being in a false, illusory world that brings vivid emotions and pleasure, the actor does not hear the Word of God. Let us remember the parable of Christ. “...The sower went out to sow; and when he sowed, it happened that... some fell among the thorns, and the thorns grew and choked the seed, and it did not bear fruit” (Mark 4:3-8). The Lord further explains: “What was sown among thorns means those who hear the word, but in whom the cares of this world, the deceitfulness of wealth and other desires, entering into them, choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful” (Mark 4: 18-19).
Existence in the illusory world is existence in which the Word of God is completely drowned out by the “cares of this age.” What is the conclusion? The saddest one.
Problem five. Involving the audience in this unreal, fake world. This problem is akin to the fourth, but here you need to realize how great the guilt is, how deep the artist’s sin is, for he tempts other people. “Woe to the world because of temptations, for temptations must come; but woe to that man through whom temptation comes” (Matthew 18:7). “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the sea” (Matthew 18:16).
This is how great is the guilt of the artist who leads “these little ones” into the world of illusions and lies.
Yes, a soul-horrifying picture appears before the inner gaze if, as a Christian, you try to honestly look at the subject. What to do? Run! To escape from this hell, to which the famous democrat called to come and die in it. Some believing artists do just that, some of them become priests, some are ready to play only certain roles, some simply leave - and that’s all. Someone returns, realizing that theater is some inevitable form of human communication. And someone stays and tries (often slyly) to justify their tender and passionate love for the theater by serving a great idea...
Truly, only great idea, a great super task, which can, by and large, only be the implementation of God’s commandments, gives the right to theatrical creativity.
Yes, that's true. But it is extremely important for me to find (without lying!) a way to solve those five problems that are associated with the phenomenon of acting. Find or at least outline guidelines, because the soul freezes at the thought that perhaps our cause is unpleasing and disastrous for the soul. But for some reason I want to defend the theater’s right to exist. It’s as if there is a subconscious confidence that the theater is very necessary, that it is impossible to live without it. But what theater? I will try to think according to the same scheme, in the same sequence as before.
Again, the first problem: fragmentation of personality due to the creation of images, loss of integrity, voluntary schizophrenia.
Is it possible to avoid this danger? And if possible, how?
First, let's ask a series of questions.
Don't we, wanting to understand another person, identify ourselves to a certain extent with him? Aren't we capable of feeling someone else's pain as if it were our own? Are we not capable, putting ourselves in the place of another person, not only to deeply sympathize, but also to understand and forgive? And is it possible to love your neighbor as yourself without possessing the qualities of understanding and sympathy?
The answers to these questions are obvious. Yes, we have been given by the Lord the great ability to be not an isolated person, but a person interacting and interpenetrating in relation to other individuals, given the great ability to understand another person who is “the same pancake, only on a different platter,” as Gogol put it.
Thus, the ability to penetrate into other personalities is not sinful, but, on the contrary, it contains the seed of getting rid of selfishness and implementing the great commandment of love for one’s neighbor. What is sinful? Where is the root of the danger in this case?
I think that the criterion is maintaining the integrity of one’s personality. You must not lose yourself. Penetration into another personality is necessary both in life and in art, as we understand. But to what extent? It is clear that there is no complete identity. Otherwise, the doctor helping the patient must fall ill and will no longer be able to help. It is obvious that complete identification of the actor and the image is professional incompetence; otherwise the actor playing Othello must strangle the actress playing Desdemona. Diderot, as we know, solved this problem radically: lack of sensitivity with complete self-control, he argued, makes a brilliant actor. A.P. Lensky, opposing Diderot, gave a wonderful formula: extreme sensitivity in the absence of self-control, like complete self-control in the absence of sensitivity, testifies to the artist’s mediocrity; average sensitivity with average self-control produces an average actor, but a brilliant actor is possible with extreme sensitivity and complete self-control. Considering this problem from our perspective, you can already hear the answer in the very word “self-control.” Self-possession, non-loss of self, preservation of personality. If we talk about creating an image, then we need to question the formulation: “become different while remaining yourself.” The goal is objectionable: to become different. Is this necessary?
I think it is now appropriate to remember the nature of stage experiences. It is obvious that they are not equivalent to life. B. E. Zakhava (as far as I know, not only him) pointed out that stage experiences are a special kind of feeling, similar to the emotions of memories. This wonderful idea already makes it possible to maintain distance between yourself and the image. However, what does an actor need to remember about a past that belongs to another being? Yes, all these moments - “what has passed has become sweet”, “fascination with what is not, but what was” - are very good guidelines for the right stage emotion. But how can we remember something that didn’t happen?
M. S. Shchepkin has an epithet referring to an actor, which somehow sounds fleetingly in our schools acting. Shchepkin calls a true artist a sympathetic artist. Note, not an artist of the “school of experience,” but a sympathizer, that is, an empathizer. It would seem close. But not really. There is a significant difference between “I worry” and “I sympathize.” I'm worried about myself. I sympathize with the stranger. The vectors of these emotions can be said to be qualitatively different. We were taught in theater school, that, striving to “become different while remaining yourself,” you need to understand that the first part of the formula is most important, since mediocrity also remains itself. And creating an image from oneself is an act of art. I dare say that you need not to recreate yourself, but to create “him.” Not “I”, but “he”. Intrusion into a person to the extent of sameness and identity is a mental shift, and encouraging such aspirations (precisely them) is undoubtedly harmful to the soul.
I will turn to my personal acting practice and compare two images created by me, but created according to two different principles. Not for self-affirmation, but for the sake of confirming the weight of my reasoning, I will say that both performances (“The Black Horse” and “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich”) were highly appreciated by the audience, both “ordinary” and specialists. For the production and performance of Tsar Fyodor leading role In the performance I received the title of Moscow laureate. By this I emphasize a certain objective significance of the images I created, and not just the subjective (personally important for me).
Two images. Two antipodes. Colonel Yuri Nikolaevich - self-portrait of Boris Savinkov. A man of powerful will, an ardent revolutionary, deeply concerned about Russia, who personally committed a number of murders and pushed the people to mass bloodshed. A person who lives according to his own will, and not according to the will of the Lord.
Tsar Fedor is a locally revered Moscow saint on the throne, a man of prayer who does not need earthly royal power, whose heart belongs to another world. He is alien to earthly passions, the consequences of which are murder, betrayal and unrest. He is not suitable for the royal mission, but for some reason it was the years of Fyodor’s reign that were marked by external and internal prosperity for Russia...
When I was working on the image of Yuri Nikolaevich, I simply did not think about the danger that threatened me. Honestly, following the Stanislavsky school, I strived to become my own character. This was probably greatly facilitated by the theme of the play, which hurt me painfully. It also helped that our era and Savinkov’s era are directly adjacent to each other, and the first follows from the second...
In any case, in the process of my work this happy, according to Stanislavsky, state of “I am” arose. The boundaries between me and the image disappeared; moreover, the image became dominant in me, obscured me, crushed me. His pride, strength, ability to shed blood for the sake of an idea, undoubted superiority over those around him, deep love for Olga, who carries within her a certain symbol of the Russia for which Yuri Nikolaevich is fighting, and a carnal feeling for the village Grusha - all this entered into me. Those demonic qualities that Savinkov had in himself were also here. I was pleased with myself. I did not understand then in my heart how terrible the invisible warfare of the forces of evil and good is, how real the main liar is the devil, who, as the Apostle Paul said, walks like a roaring lion and is looking for whom to devour.
I did not see that it was within me that this battle was taking place, that my soul could be trampled, I self-confidently relied on my own strength: I’ll swim out! I didn’t understand then that creativity is a process that takes place in the subtle world, and which entities take over - angelic ones? demonic? - It’s far from easy to understand...
In fact, this image resonated strangely with me. I am convinced that we, each of us, carry within ourselves an ideal of personality inspired and implanted into the subconscious, developed by the Renaissance and Enlightenment, which contrasted Christian asceticism with a different understanding of freedom. The freedom of the individual was deified. Western society has become liberal (and still remains so). We are aligned with Western humanity, and at the present time, it seems, we have almost agreed that the Western system of values ​​is almost the only correct one.
Liberalism, equating freedom with happiness, developed the concept of a free individual. Truly free man- this is a man of boiling passions, realizing the principle of his freedom - without boundaries, over the edge; bold, liberated, achieving everything he wants, understanding self-restraint as a type of spiritual slavery. This romantic image the liberal person was a certain ideal of Pushkin, Lermontov, Herzen, democrats, socialists and other revolutionaries. Rebel. Petrel. This image, satanic at its core, is opposed to the Christian ideal, based on humility and awareness of freedom as voluntary submission to the will of God.
Unfortunately, this ideal of a liberal personality has been appropriated by our subconscious. This is an anti-God ideal. And since distance from God is perceived by the soul as misfortune, a person who has this ideal within himself is fatally unhappy. All romantic heroes (Werther, Demon, Don Juan, Yuri Nikolaevich) are lonely, disappointed, indifferent to life, but for some reason they are so attractive! They will be in tune with satanic pride and that individual pride that sits in each of our individual hearts...
These are the impulses generated by my personal pride that were stirred up by the image of Yuri Nikolaevich. I became him, he became me. It seems to me that I only needed to remove a number of moral prohibitions (in the name of art!) - and here it is, the image. And a convincing image!
However, in creating it, I fell morally. I brought into life, without realizing it, what I gave birth to on stage. I lived for a long time, maintaining my hero’s view of the world, I sinned like him. And this is scary, because I brought a lot of harm to my soul and the souls of those around me...
“Tsar Fedor is not like that.” Yes, this personality evokes tenderness, bright love, trust, admiration and, in some ways, regret - and the more terrible is the social tragedy in which Fyodor finds himself drawn.
And the first impulse for the performer of this role may be a joyful desire to merge with the image, to become one. This, one might say, is a miracle - to become a holy king in your sinful life! Is there any negative point here?
Let's take a step to the side. Why does the Church protest or, in any case, be tense about the stage embodiment of images of saints and categorically deny the creation of images of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ?
It is not possible for us to comprehend Christ and the Mother of God - this is beyond human capabilities. Therefore, any attempt to embody their image will be a fake, a distortion, a lie. A lie in relation to the most sacred thing is a fact that destroys the very phenomenon of art.
To comprehend a saint? Perhaps this task is somewhat within the capacity of the artist, because the holiness of a holy person is the result of a vigilant struggle against his sinful nature. It is not for nothing that every saint considered himself to be the greatest sinner. To rise to the level of a saint, to become one, is beyond our strength. But to reach out, touch and understand - I think it’s possible. And there is only one way: compassion. Not “I”, but “he”.
If you follow the path of reincarnation and ultimately say: “I am he,” then you will inevitably fall into delusion. Prelest, according to Orthodox norms, is a lie (flattery is a synonym for lie) in the superlative degree (prefix pre-). You can experience a kind of almost narcotic pleasure from the state of identity, but this will be nothing more than a hymn to your vanity and pride. And can a superlative lie (prelest) become the basis of art, the main criterion of which is truth?
When creating the image of Tsar Fyodor, I, thank God, did not take the path of reincarnation. Communication with this image is joyful. His deep Orthodoxy is perceived by me as a wonderful, unattainable ideal.
After all, there is no contact with the negative, but, on the contrary, we fall under the influence of the super-positive. Fedor is very near and dear to me. But he always remained for me what can be called “he” and not “I”. And the principle of interaction with him was precisely sympathy, and not worrying about him and instead of him. I don't fully know how this happens. I sincerely perceive all the trials that fell on the weak shoulders of the king, I cry with him, I am perplexed, I make discoveries, I do everything that my image does. I feel how the audience freezes, how they trust me, how they cry and are shocked with me, but I never (neither in the process of creating the image, nor in the process of its stage existence) became it. So, am I a pretender, an imitator? But, according to Stanislavsky, the actor of the performance school must experience in the process of rehearsals everything that the character experienced. This didn't happen to me. And the image - I see, I know - is convincing.
How can I determine what I'm doing? I can say that through some signs I show what I think and feel about my hero. This process cannot be called insensitive, because I am moved by the image, admire it, support it, defend it - in a word, I sympathize with it. My relationship with him can be likened to the relationship between a puppeteer and a doll. The puppeteer animates the doll, but remains at a distance with it, he plays with it (that’s why it’s a doll) and can do the most incredible things. An actor who identifies himself with an image is one quality. But a different quality is that of a puppeteer. Look how attentive he is to the doll, how he supports it, how he loves it. He is both a spectator and an artist at the same time. He lives in her, just as a mother lives in a child and helps him walk, eat, and study. Something similar happens to the director in relation to the artist. It can be much more interesting to look not at the stage, but at the director looking at the stage: how he helps, how he sympathizes with everything that is happening. This phenomenon can be called the effect of a fan, who reveals his feelings much more clearly than a football player...
An actor who identifies himself with an image must tear himself apart, unravel his psyche, pour out this torn psyche onto the viewer and, with his energy (which is now fashionable to talk about), bring him to ecstasy. When an actor writhes with passion, it's impressive, but how impressive? Isn't this akin to the ecstasy that we feel in stadiums or at rock music concerts? Ask the viewer after this collapse of emotions: why do you need this, what did you get? What will he answer? “I was crazy.” Or: “I was shocked.” But for what? For the sake of venting emotions? This may be somewhat necessary physiologically. But what does art have to do with it? One of my colleague-directors once said the following: “The most important task of the theater is that, as Stanislavsky said, a locomotive of feelings rolls along the rails of action.” But where is he going? And it can be extremely difficult for an actor to answer this “where”, because there is no really significant super-task, except for the super-task to please, to assert oneself, to bathe in emotions.
Yes, stage (actor's and audience) passions, unfortunately, probably fulfill the role of a laxative, which Aristotle assigned to the theater. But, you have to understand, they attract like a drug, and the theater turns into a very sinful institution - into a “school of passions,” as defined by the holy fathers.
When I played Yuri Nikolaevich, I lost myself in the character, which was mentally harmful.
When I play Tsar Fyodor, I experience a lot of bright emotions towards him. I love him not as myself, but as a neighbor. This is a different principle, the principle of sympathy, not experience, and it, in my opinion, not only does not contradict the Christian attitude towards the world, but affirms it, because at its core is love for another being.
Again the problem is the penetration of a negative personality.
This problem, as I already said, follows from the first. And I have already partially tried to solve it. If we are able to treat the image as “him” and not as “ourselves,” then the danger of the penetration of primarily negative properties of the character decreases. However, you must understand that you are still in close interaction with another person, and not only you have a strong influence on her, but she also has a strong influence on you.
Let us again take an extreme case - the process of creating negative image. What are the challenges? You need to understand the logic of the image’s aspirations, treating it as positive and seeing in it the image of God. Understand that no one (including him) does evil on purpose, because evil is harm, first of all, to oneself, to one’s soul, which is the greatest reality in a human being. Understand what resulted from miscalculations, moral inaccuracies, weaknesses, little (or no) trust in the Lord this person came to crime. Understand, but not accept. Understand what led a person to villainy, condemn the villainy, but continue to love this person and feel great sympathy for him: the lower a person falls morally, the more terrible the state of his soul, the more terrible its fate after leaving for another world. No, do not become Godunov, Pechorin, Macbeth, but sympathize with their torment associated with distance from God, hate sin and love heroes. It is clear that this process is not accessible to everyone. Ordinary consciousness What pushes one to hate is not the sin, but the scoundrel. The ordinary actor's consciousness pushes towards complete justification of the scoundrel. Both are wrong.
I still have a silent argument with the actor, who completely justified his negative hero and became convinced that it was impossible to act otherwise than he did. The actor understands his character well, acts logically on stage, but... for some reason, there is a moment of inferiority in the image. I think this is due to the inaccurate position of the artist. An actor should never justify evil and always love a person. Actually, love for one’s neighbor (for everyone, including the bad) is the key that can be used to unlock the secret of comprehending any image.
Such a (very Christian!) approach is possible, of course, only if the actor has the spiritual maturity. And where is it, spiritual maturity, in people floundering in a world that has fallen away from God?
However, if you understand your activities as serving for the glory of God, then this is possible. Christian life is a feat. And service to the stage requires heroism from a Christian actor. Individual overcoming these difficulties is unlikely. We need an acting school other than the established one. I am increasingly convinced of this.
Again about the passionate nature of art. Let's look at this problem from a slightly different angle. What does the dispassion of Christian ascetics mean? What is this, relaxation? Is hatred of sin a sinful passion? What do the words of the psalm mean: “Be angry, but do not sin”? Is apostolic, prophetic, even missionary service possible outside of passion?
What's the answer here? The word “passion” does not only mean “service to sin” or “suffering.” Passion is a powerful, almost irresistible feeling. And if we passionately, strongly, irresistibly love God, passionately strive to bring good to our neighbor, passionately hate sin, then, I think, such passion pleases God and serves for the salvation of the soul.
The dispassion of a Christian ascetic, of course, is not relaxation, but is peace in tension, peace and constancy in passionate striving for God.
And who will be convinced, who will be converted by a prophet or an apostle, if he does not passionately serve God and people? I. A. Ilyin wrote: “...we know well that every movement on earth raises “dust”; that nothing great on earth is possible without passion; that only the Lord is holy and perfect; and that one of the greatest joys in life is to find the imprint of genius in the dust of the earth and to see and recognize in the flame of human passion the purifying fire of divine inspiration.”
Thus, no human service can be carried out dispassionately. It is important that, firstly, the positive emotion is as constant as possible and that, secondly, passion is not slavery to sin. The profession of a Christian actor should ideally strive to transform itself into an apostolic, prophetic ministry. Ideally, I emphasize. It is impossible to achieve the ideal, but striving for it is necessary.
In a world whose content is determined by passions, it is impossible to be heard not in the language of passion. Passions rule humanity. As Herzen wrote, “if reason reigned in the world, nothing would happen in it.”
However, passions of a different, higher order are needed. How to reach them?
Most people have a rather indifferent attitude towards faith. Until thunder strikes, that is, until a person feels unhappy, robbed, sick, wretched. The Holy Fathers say that when a person does not come to his senses, the Lord leads him to himself through sorrows, that is, suffering, that is, passions. What's the matter? I think that the greatest danger to the soul is to remain in a state of lukewarmness. It is known that the Lord condemns to death those who are “neither cold nor hot.” Why, one might ask, does the shepherd leave the flock and go looking for the lost sheep? Why does the father greet the returning prodigal son so magnificently?
I think that all this happens for the reason that the lost sheep, the prodigal son, the one who is cold (and not warm) are much closer to God than those who, without deviating from the laws of the herd, do not have “poverty of spirit.” The average state is much more dangerous than the extreme, even negative. Christ says that he came to call sinners to repentance, not the righteous. The general path (average) is to destruction. Few will be saved, so says the Lord, those who choose the narrow path. The poet's revolt against the crowd, against the mob, is to a great extent heard by the poet's prophetic ear and subjectively reinterpreted the Word of God.
Graze, peaceful peoples!
The cry of honor will not wake you up.
Why do the herds need the gifts of freedom?
They should be cut or trimmed...
(A. Pushkin)
But half measures are hated...
There is chewing gum - and you are happy...
(V. Bryusov)
What follows from all this? And the fact that staying in a dispassionate swamp of relaxation is the most the right way to destruction. A person must fight passions, and it is in this struggle that he must choose with his heart, mind, “with all his strength” a passionate striving for God. Art here can be a very powerful tool, calling lost sheep, prodigal sons, sinners to repentance and union in Christ.
It is important that the goal of reproducing passions and their vibrations is not the desire to revel in these passions, to enjoy, for example, murder, that is, something that you cannot experience in real life. The purpose of reproducing the passions should be to eliminate sinful passions and establish a passionate commitment to God and people.
In art, a person is given a happy opportunity to overcome and overcome those passions that in real life would entail irreparable losses and incorrigible sins - sorrows with which the Lord leads a person to Himself. Art here has amazing opportunities to give grief without irreparable losses and to arouse in the human soul a passionate protest against evil and a passionate desire for good. I think this is the divine purpose of art. The Apostle Paul said: “Woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.” Woe to the artist if he does not preach the gospel: it means he does not realize his destiny.
However, what about an actor who, in order to be convincing, must experience these passions? I have already written about this, discussing the first problem: you need not to worry, but to sympathize, to treat the image not as “yourself”, but as “him”.
Again about the illusory world.
I have already said that fantasy and imagination are God’s gift to man. There is a known difference in the approach to construction between bees and humans. The bee does not think about how to build a honeycomb: she has a program for this construction, and she acts according to it from generation to generation. Before starting construction, a person needs to create an image of a future home, which cannot be done without turning on fantasy and imagination. I think that those clerics who brand these qualities of the human psyche mean “sinful dreams.” Fantasy and imagination that create the temple of God are pleasing to God, but those that create a program of corruption on television are repugnant to God. They are not harmful in themselves. What makes them harmful is their goal, that for which they act.
Fiction is akin to design. So we plan to live hedonistically, striving to seize the maximum of earthly pleasures - and a world of fiction arises, that is, that spiritual program that our lust longs to realize. But here we are planning to live according to our conscience, in a Christian way, and we inevitably imagine and fantasize how this should be done. The fiction factor increases when we want to teach someone else, such as a child. We must find a convincing form of expression. The human soul does not respond if we speak correctly, but flatly. It is known that an actor must speak “not to the ear, but to the partner’s eye,” that is, to convey his “visions.” He must see for himself and make sure his partner sees. However, this rule applies not only to the actor, to the artist, but also to every speaking person, and especially to the preacher.
Art, fictional world is necessary for a person, necessary as a complex, deep and subtle program of his mental and spiritual existence. This fictional world is bad if the goal of the program is bad, and, on the contrary, it is good if the goal is good. Let me make a reservation right away that, in addition to high goal and content pleasing to God, there must be aesthetic persuasiveness of the artist’s statement. An unconvincing statement works against a good purpose; We, having good intentions, can pave the road to hell with them.
And of course, there is no sin for an actor who immerses the viewer in the world of his fiction in the name of serving God and his neighbor, since - on the contrary! - he thus helps turn the viewer not to illusion and lies, but to a higher reality.
Yes, I think that Christian existence in the theater is possible - through overcoming hypocrisy and through consistent and ascetic service to a great goal.
“Love the art in yourself.” But before art, love God and your neighbor. This commandment for a Christian actor should be the main criterion in deciding the question “Do I have the right to go on stage?”
Only a sincere, unwavering desire to fulfill this commandment gives a person the right to go to the theater and die in it, the right to use weapons of colossal power, transforming them from a weapon of murder into a weapon of defense of our Heavenly Fatherland.

In the Middle Ages, acting was considered a demonic art; artists were not even buried on the consecrated ground of cemeteries. Today they say about people in this profession: “Gift of God!” Perhaps because the art of actors combines the devilish and the divine, mysticism relentlessly accompanies their work...

Anyone who is at least a little interested in mysticism knows that our thoughts have the ability to materialize, not to mention our actions. Any action brings with it a series of events and not always good ones. The most imprudent people in these matters are actors. In the race for glory, they often forget about caution. Theater workers have many superstitions. For example, Friday is considered a terribly unlucky day for any kind of premiere. You should always enter the locker room with your left foot.

You should never hang any pictures on the dressing room door. Soap cannot be taken out of the dressing room. Melodies from Macbeth should not be hummed during rehearsals. The number 13 brings terrible disasters (you will not find dressing room number 13 in any theater). Under no circumstances should you wear fresh flowers on stage - only artificial ones! Stumbling and falling on stage (if not required by the script) is a sure sign that the actor has nothing to do in the theater that day.

It is also believed that if an actor's shoes squeak when he first appears on stage in a role, then good luck awaits him in that role. However, if he gets his debut costume caught on a nail, he must, despite any protests from the administration, return backstage and go on stage again, otherwise he will fail. Yellow considered unlucky in the theater. But the worst thing that can happen to an actor or actress is if someone looks over his shoulder in the mirror.

On stage, you can only whistle during the action (“whistle”), but under no circumstances should you whistle in the dressing room, behind the scenes, standing at the exit, or anywhere else. It is believed that because of the whistling, the play will fail, some kind of emergency will happen on stage, or there will be no spectators in the theater. Unlike their English colleagues, Russian actors believe that a cat should not appear on stage, since by walking across the stage it will “carry away” the actor’s luck. Although they keep cats in theaters.

If an actor is told: “Well, good luck to you!” - then he must spit three times over his left shoulder. The old actors crossed themselves when they came on stage. If an actor accidentally drops the text of a role, then you must sit on it. You can't lift it until you sit down - otherwise you'll fail the role. God forbid, when you change clothes, you put something on your left side - you will fail the role or forget something. There are roles that actors do not like to play; they are considered “unlucky”. When there was a contract system in Russia, the actor had the right to stipulate which roles he did not play: for example, Boris in “The Thunderstorm” by A.N. Ostrovsky or Nelkin in “Krechinsky’s Wedding” by A. V. Sukhovo-Kobylin. These roles were considered failures.

The most sinister play, the one that brings the most misfortune to the theater, is Macbeth. This one has wonderful work such a bad reputation that those actors and directors who, having crossed themselves, nevertheless begin to rehearse the play, call it nothing more than “that play” or “one play.” God forbid you say its loud name out loud! It's even worse if diligent actor rehearses the words of the play not on stage, but somewhere on the street or at home: Catastrophe is guaranteed.

There is a legend according to which the curses of “Macbeth” came from three witches, who brewed a potion during the spell. Their prophecies evoked fatal intentions in the protagonist. According to the same legend, Shakespeare took the dialogues of witches from real life and thereby doomed the play to eternal misfortune.

Gogolevsky's Viy has no better reputation. Natalya Varley, who played the role of the lady, believes that this film changed her whole life. While filming, she fell out of a flying coffin and suffered a concussion. This was followed by a serious illness of the actress, the death of her husband, and a not-so-stellar period creatively, as if dark forces took revenge for her invading their territory. Now Varley is a deeply religious person and is firmly convinced that getting involved with devilry, even at film set, not worth it.

But this is not the only cruel joke of the first domestic “horror film”. On one of the sea cruises, where Varley was invited, the film “Viy” was prepared as a cultural program. But it was never possible to show the picture: every time the session began, the sea responded with a strong storm that threatened to sink the ship. Later, Natalya will say: “I have already repented for this role, received forgiveness in the church and am firmly convinced that one should not look into places where mortals are forbidden to enter.” This film turned out to be an even greater tragedy for the cameraman and director of the film - it became the last in their lives.

The undisputed record holder for “gathering souls,” of course, is Bulgakov’s “The Master and Margarita.” Woland himself predicted to the Master: “This novel will still bring you surprises.” But the more fatal the work, the more attractive it is to filmmakers. Who hasn’t dreamed of filming this novel: A. Tarkovsky, G. Danelia, R. Bykov, and E. Ryazanov, but Woland is probably not destined to speak to the audience from the screen. Another attempt to overcome Bulgakov's curse was made by director Yuri Kara. How many difficulties and tragedies there were on the set are worthy of a separate discussion, but the film has been “collecting dust on the shelf” for seven years.

The performer of the role of Margarita, Anastasia Vertinskaya, still refrains from any filming. Valentin Gaft, who took it upon himself to embody Woland, says: “After filming the film, I felt disgusting. What can I say, some participants film crew and completely died." Initially, the biblical episodes of the film were planned to be filmed in Sudak, on the territory of the Genoese fortress. The work began, and then in June (!) it started snowing in Crimea. The director recognized this as a sign from above and, having curtailed filming in Crimea, reached an agreement with the government Israel about filming Holy History scenes on location real events, in Jerusalem.

The film was shot and: disappeared. For a long time no one heard about it, then the tape was found, it was scheduled to be shown on television in October 2003 and: it sank into oblivion. It is not clear where the film is, why it, filmed in 1994, has not yet been seen by the public. In addition to fatal films, there are fatal roles. Tsar Ivan the Terrible has a very bad reputation. He takes serious revenge on the daredevils who touched his image.

Back in 1945 famous actor N.P. Khmelev died on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater in the makeup and costume of Grozny. In 1992, the same role, but in the film “Ermak”, turned out to be the last for Evgeny Evstigneev - he died, missing only two episodes. A few years before his death, Igor Talkov became seriously interested in working in cinema. He managed to star in two films: “Tsar Ivan the Terrible” and “Operation Lucifer”. The name of the first film speaks for itself, as does the second one too, in the finale of which the hero Talkov, the leader of a gang of racketeers, is killed by pistol shots in chest. The scene was filmed in Leningrad on October 6, 1990. Exactly a year later, to the day, the singer was overtaken by a real bullet.

“Dying” on stage or on set is generally a very bad omen, and many actors refuse even very significant roles if the character is to die. The statistics here are disappointing. Just a few months later, in the summer of 1974, after his “on-screen death” in the film “Kalina Krasnaya,” Vasily Shukshin dies. Leonid Bykov died in a car accident in 1979, two years after filming the film “Aty-Bati, the Soldiers Came”, where his hero dies under the tracks of a tank. Only instead of a tank there was an asphalt roller - Leonid Fedorovich crashed into it, dodging a collision with a KAMAZ.

In July 1980, Vladimir Vysotsky died, precisely at the time when the premiere of the film “Little Tragedies” was being shown, in which his character - Don Juan - dies from the Commander’s handshake. This role is generally considered one of the most dangerous in world drama: Don Juan challenges higher powers. Vladimir Vysotsky briefly outlived his on-screen hero. In June 1980, the premiere of “Little Tragedies” took place on television, and on July 25, Vladimir Semenovich passed away.

By the way, ten years earlier, Vysotsky went through clinical death, just after filming three films: “Intervention”, “Two Comrades Served” and “Dangerous Tours”. In all these films, Vysotsky’s heroes died. After playing in the film “A Friend Among Strangers, a Stranger Among Our Own,” which brought real fame to Alexander Kaidanovsky, fate somehow connected him with the topic of passing away. This is the film “Stalker”, and “Ten Little Indians”, and “Confession of a Stranger”: It all ended with a heart attack and the death of the actor in 1995.

There are films and performances that played a tragic role in the lives of actors. Actor Anatoly Papanov died as soon as filming ended famous painting Alexandra Proshkina "Cold Summer of '53". His hero, Kopalych, who joined unequal battle with amnestied criminals, they were killed at the end of the picture. The actor, who returned from filming to Moscow, decided to take a cold shower (by the way, this fact would later be considered a kind of tragic allusion to the title of the film), and Anatoly Dmitrievich’s heart could not stand it. He died on August 5, 1987, and his role in the film was voiced by another actor.

Many inexplicable and even mystical episodes are associated with the death of Vasily Shukshin. He actually died a lot in the movies. Vladimir Vysotsky wrote about him: “Death first catches those of us who died in pretend.” An amazing coincidence, if it really is a coincidence, happened the day before the actor’s death, during the filming of the film “They Fought for the Motherland” - Yuri Nikulin later recalled this. Shukshin sat in the dressing room, waiting for them to start working with him. Suddenly he took a pin, dropped it into a jar of red makeup and began to mechanically draw something on a pack of Shipka cigarettes.

Georgy Burkov, who was sitting next to him, asked: “What are you drawing?” Shukshin replied: “Mountains, sky, rain, well, in general, a funeral...” The next day, in the evening, Vasily Makarovich’s heart sank - there was no validol, and Shukshin drank drops of Zelenin, which Burkov got for him somewhere. After which he went to his cabin (the film crew lived on the ship), and in the morning he was found dead.

There are many versions of Shukshin’s death, including criminal ones, but in Volgograd medical institute After an autopsy, a diagnosis was made: heart failure. Instead of Vasily Makarovich, another actor was filmed in the middle and long shots (if you look closely, this is noticeable), he also voiced this role. The role of Shukshin’s wife, Lydia Fedoseeva, also turned out to be prophetic, all in the same film “They Fought for the Motherland” - she had to play a widow. They say that Vasily Makarovich asked her not to focus on this circumstance. “Just play a woman,” he said.

Viktor Tsoi played the main role in the film "Needle" in 1988. In the finale, his hero died. And on August 15, 1990, Victor himself died in a car accident in the Baltics. By official version, he fell asleep at the wheel...

The famous Vereshchagin from the painting " White sun desert" dies at the end of the film. The actor who played him, Pavel Luspekayev, died in April 1970 (he was only 43 years old), and his death tragically coincided with the release of the film. And the actor Nikolai Godovikov, who played the role of Petrukha, dies in the film from a blow with a bayonet in the chest. Exactly seven years later, this situation repeated itself in the actor’s life: a neighbor hit him in the chest with a fragment of a bottle. communal apartment. The wound was severe, but, fortunately, the actor survived.

The young actor Nikita Mikhailovsky became famous after playing Roman in popular picture"You never dreamed of it." In the finale, Mikhailovsky's hero falls out of the window. And although there was no death scene in the film, the audience understood that Roman would not survive. And a few years later Nikita died of leukemia...

Alexey Saltykov is a kind of record holder: not a single film of this film director was without tragedies, as well as serious, but, fortunately, not fatal injuries. Stuntman and actor Evgeniy Urbansky died on the set of Saltykov's film "Director". Leningrad actor Vladimir Litvinov was also on the verge of death. During the filming of the film "Paid for Everything", which took place during the war in Afghanistan, he was seriously wounded - a pin from the antenna of an armored personnel carrier entered the actor's body 15 centimeters. Several operations brought Litvinov back to life.

The life and work of film director Dinara Asanova are associated with various tragedies - as a rule, the actors who played the main roles in her films died. And she filmed mostly teenagers... So, the boy who played one of the main roles in the film “The Non-Transferable Key”, without visible reasons hanged himself with his own scarf. The lead actor in the film “The Woodpecker Doesn’t Have a Headache” became a drug addict some time after filming, then he was found murdered on the street. Unfortunately, Dinara Asanova herself did not live long. While working on a new painting in Murmansk, in April 1985, she was found dead in her office - her heart had stopped.

Director Larisa Shepitko died tragically. She was only 41 years old, she left behind a child - a six-year-old boy. This happened on the set of the film based on Valentin Rasputin’s story “Farewell to Matera.” They say that the death of film director Shepitko was not accidental: for the sake of a beautiful shot in the new film, she burned a century-old tree, which was always considered terrible sin. The tragedy occurred early in the morning on the 187th kilometer of the Leningradskoye Highway: a film-making Volga pickup truck flew into oncoming traffic at full speed and crashed into a truck.

In addition to Larisa Shepitko, there were six more people in the car, all of them members of the film crew. Later, researchers of Shepitko’s work and her relatives linked the fact of her death with the ending last picture Larisa's "Ascension", which brought her world fame. The film ended with a very emotionally difficult scene of a group execution. Among those executed, as in the crashed Volga, there was one woman...

The whole set mystical cases is also present in the fate of actor Leonid Filatov. For example, in the film "Forgotten Melody for the Flute" he was the first Russian actor to play the role of a man who, being in a state of clinical death, rushes through the “tunnel of the dead.” And this is far from the only film where Filatov’s characters lose their lives. But the “game of death” seemed not enough to him, and in 1993 Filatov decided to film a program on Central Television about deceased actors.

In his words: “Later they began to dissuade me, saying that it was not good for health, wandering around the graves. I was scared, I won’t hide it. But I couldn’t stop.” In August, the first program of the new cycle was released, and already in October Filatov had a stroke, which led to a chain of serious complications, as a result of which the actor died in the fall of 2003. Shortly before his death, Leonid Filatov asserted: “Now I’m kind of out of life, I’m living illegally, like a stowaway.” So, perhaps the work of an actor playing hide and seek with fate on stage is not so attractive after all?

Ekaterina Gurskaya

Materials