Vlashchenko: Today our guest is a legend of a man, famous, famous Ukrainian Director – mark Nestantiner.
Good evening. One of the media clichés that you are involved with – is connected with the performance that was banned and that the government perceived as a Manifesto against the government. You then decided to leave?
Nestantiner: No. After that, I worked in Lviv. I put a few plays in the Lviv youth Theater. One of them, “Native lamp”, was the winner of the national festival and the performance “Sorochinskaya fair” in five performances represented the Soviet Union at the world festival of youth and students in Moscow. Then I worked in the theatre “Actor”, and then I put the play “Memory” by B. Oliynyk at Ivan Franko theatre. This performance also represented Ukraine at the all-Union festival in Tbilisi. Then at the Russian drama theatre – “the ideas of the master of the House”, at the Kharkiv theater. Shevchenko put “one flew over the cuckoo’s nest”, and then, in 1994, I left.
– What was the main inducement for leaving?
– The creative person has a need for self-realization. So off I went. The time was such that I was never really allowed to work. I went to College in 27 years – came 7 times. And then just not really allowed to work. “The steadfast Prince” was not the only spectacle that was closed, and I realized that I no longer have the right to waste time.
– And you found there what you were supposed to find fulfillment, the opportunity to speak on the topics which you are not allowed to speak?
– Here the question is not in the themes. I generally keep away from politics. As said albert Camus: “the Most urgent problem is the eternal problem.” But when you are interested in eternal issues – they are relevant. And it is alarming. Although you relevance is not think. They do not allow to shape our minds in primitive, narrow direction. They make a person free in his choice. This is rather dangerous.
– When you came back in 2006, acclaimed one of your performances was the play “diary of a madman” Linetsky. Why would you put this show, and who was he?
– First of all, I want to say that for me it was a great blessing to work with Vitaly Linetskiy. I feel an incredible sense of gratitude as to the artist, as a person, because only with this artist and man can be done this way. My creative task was concluded that interesting to me, do not cut a single word in the text of Gogol, translated this story into the language of theatre.
Related news: Theater critic Oleg Vergelis – guest talk show “People. Hard Talk”. Release from 20.10.2016
– And you yourself did?
– Yes, of course. With Vitaly, we did it together for a long time. Everything was to be found a theatrical equivalent. Once Brooke asked, what is written Shakespeare play, I forget which. He said that if we knew about what is written in this piece, we would not need to raise the performance. I.e., the setting of the play is the attempt to understand the author. I had a desire to understand Gogol is in the process of staging the play. Because sitting and thinking, to penetrate the essence of things was simply impossible. I sometimes felt like I was just going crazy.
– Vitaly went to the launch of his talent. It was really similar to their colleagues. This phenomenon Linetsky, who was unfortunately not very visible in the movie, but was visible in the theatre – how does it differ from other actors?
– Linetsky as a person, as a person – an unbelievable phenomenon. I think he was on the verge of some amazing things. In our work, we could not have hoped for years to find the beginning of the play. And this beginning was laid the whole point. I opened it after Vitali is gone. Vitali – human-seeker. His talent was akin to talent Giulietta Masina, and Charlie Chaplin. It is impossible to play – so you have to be. He was – as a person and as an actor. It was an artist of incredible range.
His leaving is inevitable or accidental?
– I think that he was not the man for this time. At this time, left three people who were akin to each other – it was one and the same artistic and human nature. He left a great artist Zoya Lerman, in which Vitaly was friendly and Lviv left a great Director – Boris Ozerov. It’s the people of another nature. Every time chooses his nature. Vitali couldn’t go through this time and time Vitali was not fit – if in global terms. People like Vitaly, this time is not needed.
– I think that Sergei Paradjanov, whom you knew, could fit into any time.
Very well said about Parajanov photographer Mechitov – “dangerously free man”. In Parajanov’s fate all depended on the context in which this freedom existed. This man lived permanently on the brink. It could break at any moment.
– As changes man in the process of time?
– I think there is a program, and we’re just implementing this program.
– Who is the author?
– The Almighty. Pasternak said, “You see, the course of the centuries like a parable”. And further: “I like your idea of stubborn and I agree to play this role. But now there is another drama, and this time I got fired”. There is a purpose, we just think that we create something that we create time. We do not realize that time creates us. When they say that a politician has created a time or affected the time – it is just a tool.
– And what then under this idea of freedom and the will of man?
I don’t know what about liberty and freedom, but the freedom of choice is.
Related news: the Virus destroys the political show adequate perception of the world, is a theater critic
– Depends on whether a lot from a person, in General?
– Of course, depends. Having lived much of his life and looking back, everyone realizes: “o Lord, why I didn’t see it? Why I behaved so? Why did I make this choice?”. Or are we just not ready to clash with this situation.
– We have many theatres led by people already for 150 years. Why can’t they make way for Directors who, for 40 years?
– I think that’s not accidental. Theatres are headed by people who are supposed to lead. Not all people who are talented and ambitious, able to lead a theatre. Lead the theatre and to be a good Director is not the same thing. Then, as far as young Directors are satisfied with the situation of the theater and how he wants to do this farm? After all, the ambitious young, full of ideas about the crazy dream productions. But not about the management of the theatre. This is a terrible routine. So the question here and the answer is ambiguous. If there is a talented Director, if he is able to unite the people need to give him the opportunity to open his own theatre. And then the Director will see how it is necessary. I don’t think it is necessary for someone to move. All these shifts in movement to anything good does not.
– But after all, what we have today is the remnants of post-Soviet theatre. This system obsolete. Need to reform, change the content.
– I reforms do not understand, but I know that every occurrence of something or the leaving of something must be completely organic. The process cannot be pushed. For example, the beginning of the 20s: military communism, besprizornye, hunger, cold and a blast of theatre arts, no funding, no nothing. Ie, there is a request of society, within society there is this energy, which generates a huge number of theatres that have become the pride of the world of theatre arts. When we artificially try something new – nothing happens. Society from the inside should be ready. Should be a public inquiry. Then there will be this explosion. Few people know, but the whole Moscow art theatre emigrated and returned, in my opinion, in the 25-26 year.
– What would you like to deliver today?
– “The cherry orchard”. We are at the beginning of time. After “the Cherry orchard” was written in 1904-the year. In the 1905 revolution had started.
– Who would be the hero of your reading?
– Not a man who wants to buy the garden? You think they are the heroes of today?
They are not heroes – they are temporary. They are waiting for the universal fate, and the fate of the garden – we are all, in fact, part of this garden.
– Why all the plays of Chekhov, which he wrote as a Comedy, most Directors fill such pathetic and tragic tone?
– There is the inertia of understanding Chekhov. Is the inertia of tradition. Even Chekhov by Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko debated that “the Cherry orchard” – a Comedy. They saw it as a drama. Chekhov has one phrase which reveals the nature of his feelings: “On the street a group of zombies surrounded dead.” The second phrase: “And maybe we are all in a tooth of some huge animal?”. And this position gave this optics Chekhov: “the Seagull” a wounded Seagull trying to overcome gravity, in the Cherry orchard Ranevskaya tries to overcome dying.
– Will you make me something to ask?
– When I am in Kiev, it confuses me that most of our talking on political topics. In the old days we talked about what I read, went with thick magazines, were talking about the performances, about the seen movie. When the time comes that such issues will begin in the society to prevail?
Related news: Poroshenko compared the war in the Donbass “hybrid Rhino” from the play of the theater of the absurd
Is the time never to come again. But there will come another time – and it will be again that excites the hearts of the people. The forms will be different. After all, about this “Cherry orchard”?
We returned to “the Cherry garden”. I am very grateful.
– Thank you very much.