Philosophical debates in I.A. Goncharov’s novel “An Ordinary Story.” Composition

One of the main roles was played not by a professional actor, but by a prominent businessman

The wonderful Russian writer Goncharov, who was included in the curriculum of the Soviet school with just one novel, has come to our time like no one else. A dramatization of his outstanding novel “An Ordinary Story” (created in 1847) was presented by Kirill Serebrennikov at his Gogol Center. To the heated question - how to stage classics today, so as not to offend the memory of the creators and the feelings of believers - the director answers with his premiere - to stage them firmly and well.

In Serebrennikov’s dramatization, the storyline is not changed at all - from point “A” (one village in the Russian province), the boy Sasha Aduev (with a guitar, ideals and dreams) went to point “B” - the Russian capital with pure intentions to conquer the impregnable one with his talent. His uncle Pyotr Ivanovich Aduev lives there, a efficient, respectable, but very cynical gentleman who showers his overheated nephew with his sobriety, like a cold shower. The clash of youthful idealism and experienced cynicism is the main conflict of Goncharov’s novel, unchanged at all times. Only our time has given it a special sharpness and cruelty.

MK Help

From the MK dossier: Ivan Goncharov wrote his first novel, An Ordinary Story, at the age of 35 and was published in the Sovremennik magazine. It was often compared to the novel Fathers and Sons. Has a successful stage fate: “An Ordinary Story” in 1970, directed by Galina Volchek, received a state prize, and Oleg Tabakov (Aduev Jr.) and Mikhail Kazakov (Aduev Sr.) were considered standard performers of these roles. It is to Tabakov, who celebrates his anniversary this year, that Kirill Serebrennikov dedicates his performance.

On the stage there is only light and shadow in the literal sense of the word: the successful and rich Aduev Sr. turned out to be a monopolist on the lighting equipment market. It also becomes a decoration: three giant letters “O” hit the hall with cold neon and, in various combinations, break up the gloomy space. That rare case when the scenographic solution becomes the most expressive metaphor (light and shadow, black and white), continuing in the costumes (the author is Serebrennikov himself). The monochrome is a bit boring, but Serebrennikov’s stylish one is so rich in shades of meaning (more than 50?) that allow one to avoid flat answers to flat questions: who is good/bad? who is right/wrong? and what values are in use today?

In “Ordinary History,” the director did not answer, as it turns out, ordinary questions: with the help of Goncharov, he examined the time and generations that lived or were born in New Russia. One has gone through the difficult circles of Russian business (from crimson jackets to expensive ones from Francesco Smalto or Patrick Helman), without lyrics, cynical, effective, smart as hell, but for some reason the mind brings its share of grief. His antipode is a sweet, lip-smacking poet, impetuous, but childish and with an attrited sense of responsibility. The director does not hide his sympathies - they are on the side of Aduev Sr. A serious study, similar to a duel with a sad ending - no one is killed, but the living, like corpses, uncle and nephew sit on a cemetery bench and look into the hall with dead eyes.

Interest in the almost three-hour duel (the hall is not breathing) is due to the performance of the actors. The role of Aduev Jr. is played by Philip Avdeev, but in the role of his uncle, quite unexpectedly for everyone, was Alexey Agranovich, who in Moscow is known primarily as the owner of his own company, producer, director of the opening ceremonies of the Moscow Film Festival. Surprisingly, it is Agranovich and his performance that give the action a special authenticity, and as a result make Serebrennikov’s performance more than successful. Not a picture painted in black and white, but a deep portrait of generations against the backdrop of time. It seems that Agranovich does not even play in the proposed circumstances, but exists in them, since they are familiar to him. Having lived and cooked in the post-perestroika meat grinder, it seems that he is ready to subscribe to many of Goncharov’s texts. Interview with the actor after the performance.

— Alexey, is it just me or do you really know the business environment that is discussed in the play so well?

“I know this drama in myself. Money is an important thing, yes, but I know the drama of a man who convinced himself that he was not given unique abilities by God, and he began to replace nature with common sense and efficiency. Life is a cruel thing, you are constantly faced with choices that apply not only to work, but also to your personal life.

- Still, be clear: do you have an acting education? You have a wonderful stage speech, you feel so at ease on stage.

— I was expelled from my third year at VGIK, I studied with Albert Filozov. I played in the play “The Seagull”, worked a little with Trushkin, but that was 20 years ago, and since then I haven’t played in a drama.

— How did you get into this unusual story for you?

— I met Kirill Serebrennikov in different companies. And he once asked me if I knew an artist of such and such age, with such qualities - in general, he described me. I told him a few, he said he knew, but something wasn’t working out. “Don’t you want to try it yourself?” - he asked. I thought, I wasn't confident in myself and he wasn't confident in me. But then I decided that such offers cannot be refused. I still feel like I'm in a good/bad American drama.

— Have you seen the recordings of that legendary performance with Kazakov and Tabakov?

- No, I’ll say more, I haven’t even read the novel before. I was afraid to watch, now that they’ve already played, watch...

— How do you solve the dilemma for yourself: murderous cynicism or irresponsible idealism?

- There is no truth here. There are two Aduevs living in each of us, and to remain one of them in its pure form means to be either an idiot or a complete cynic. You have to trust God, fate - do what you have to, and come what may. For me, the ending that Kirill came up with is very important in this performance - it’s a requiem for an endangered human species. New people came, but... we raised them ourselves. Everything turns into nothing - this is the main merit and statement of Kirill.

In “An Ordinary Story”, as is often the case with Serebrennikov, the new generation (the wonderful Philip Avdeev, Ekaterina Steblina) and the actors of the former troupe of the Gogol Theater are occupied - Svetlana Bragarnik (she has two roles) and Olga Naumenko (the bride of Zhenya Lukashin from “The Irony of Fate” "). It must be said that the latter essentially has one exit (not counting the singing in a trio in the background), but one exit is worth a lot.

Premiere theater

The Moscow Gogol Center presented the first premiere on the big stage after several months of renovation - "An Ordinary Story" based on Goncharov's novel, directed by the theater's artistic director Kirill Serebrennikov. Narrated by ROMAN DOLZHANSKY.

Goncharov's classic novel about the formation and maturation of the provincial romantic Alexander Aduev in the Gogol Center has been recoded for the modern viewer. Instead of the century before last - today's Russia. Instead of St. Petersburg - present-day Moscow. Instead of school literature from the bookshelf - the language that is spoken now. The theme of a provincial who has settled in the capital is not alien to the artistic director Kirill Serebrennikov himself, and in the performances of the Gogol Center it arises from time to time - there are a lot of young people both in the hall and on the stage, so the problem is “how to use your ideals” , is unlikely to seem too academic within these walls.

If we remember the previous performances of Kirill Serebrennikov, then, in my opinion, a direct path leads to “Ordinary History” from “Near Zero” based on the acclaimed novel by Nathan Dubovitsky. Here, as there, the most important is the image of the capital's Moscow society as a black hole, bending and devouring everyone who falls into its zone of attraction. Even literal analogies come to mind - the main design elements of “An Ordinary Story” (the stage design here was invented by the director himself) are huge luminous holes-zeros, around which events unfold. And all around was blackness, only a couple of red letters “M”, indicating the entrance to the Moscow subway. So that there is no doubt, at some point the details add up to the word MOSCOW: for this, the second “M” is turned over, the section in one of the zeros goes out, and the role of S is played by the related dollar icon on the currency exchange rate board that appears from the street exchanger.

Aduev Jr.’s uncle Peter operates in this city, apparently, with really big zeros. A mid-level oligarch, he claims to produce light, but looks more like the prince of darkness, even reminiscent of Bulgakov’s Woland: all in black, speaks from somewhere in a darkened corner, limps, and at first it even seems that his eyes are different colors. The dry, calculating businessman from Goncharov’s novel is turned by Alexei Agranovich into a cynical and cruel functionary, into some kind of living dead. Accurate in detail, confident, imbued with invisible, but more than appropriate humor here, Agranovich’s work condenses the image of the uncle to some kind of mystical concentration. If Goncharov's Aduev Sr. simply accurately predicts all the disappointments awaiting Aduev Jr., then the hero of the new play seems to have the secret power to independently send trials to people.

As for Aduev Jr., in the work of the young actor Philip Avdeev, reference points are still more important than the continuity of the process. The difference in potential between the prologue and the finale is, of course, striking. In the beginning, there is a handsome provincial rocker with an open smile and spontaneous reactions, who leaves his busy mother (Svetlana Bragarnik) for the capital: the plywood nest room falls apart, and the hero finds himself among the blackness of Moscow. In the finale, Alexander is a self-confident, favorably married careerist, still young, but already the “master of life,” ready, out of old memory, to benefit his wilted and aged uncle. By the end of the performance, Kirill Serebrennikov seems to change places between the two main characters. Alexander Aduev, having killed all living things in himself, becomes a calculating schemer. Pyotr Aduev, who a few years ago taught his nephew not to give in and not to trust feelings, is having a hard time with the death of his wife, whom he, as we now understand, deeply and sincerely loved. And in the end he even manages to grab a pinch of the audience’s sympathies - perhaps even more valuable than those in which the character of the charming Avdeev should literally bathe in the first part.

The genre that Kirill Serebrennikov chose when paving the way for Ordinary History ingeniously balances between modern mystery and satirical comedy. Intertwined with the action, Alexander Manotskov’s vocal cycle “Five Short Revelations” based on the text of “The Revelations of John the Theologian” seems to separate what is happening from reality, turning the plot into a sublimely detached edification. But the caustic, merciless observation of the director brings the performance back - as in the scene of Alexander Aduev’s arrival in his hometown, where he meets his first love: a young woman pregnant with her third child sells flowers, and her husband steals goods from cemeteries and returns them to sale.

It seems that in the very title “Ordinary History” one can hear the writer’s call for humility before the law of life - every “nephew” is destined to turn into an “uncle”, and this rule should be accepted without anger. Kirill Serebrennikov also does not intend to rebel. He peers into the darkness with interest and curiosity, but still with fear too - in any case, he himself is not in danger of becoming a theatrical “uncle”.

Goncharov’s novel “Ordinary History” was published in 1847. It was written relatively quickly and much easier than the novel included with it in a kind of trilogy - “The Cliff” and “Oblomov”.

In the center are two heroes - an uncle and a nephew. The young romantic Sasha Aduev and his uncle Pyotr Ivanovich are the complete opposite of him. But for some reason he attracts many readers even more than his nephew.

So, Sasha Aduev is the only son of a wealthy landowner. The father is not seen in the novel - apparently, he died. For mother Sasha is the center of the Universe. She can't imagine anyone not wanting to pamper him as much as she does. Even if it is her uncle Pyotr Ivanovich Aduev, her husband’s brother.

Sasha, as mentioned above, is an enthusiastic romantic and idealist. He longs for high goals, high feelings - and to be a writer. He arrives in St. Petersburg, and his mother writes a letter to Pyotr Ivanovich asking him to take care of him.

Now let's move on to the character of Pyotr Ivanovich. This is truly the complete opposite of Sasha. He is used to relying on Reason in everything. He considers Business to be the main thing in life, and feelings are just a pleasant addition, but nothing more. Once upon a time he also came to St. Petersburg. What he had to go through to become what he became - a civil servant and owner of several factories - remains behind the scenes. But as a result, we have before us a person who is extremely closed, rational, but...kind.

The main feature of Pyotr Ivanovich can be considered that he has already realized that people are not angels. But not demons either. And besides high feelings, everyone also has low feelings. And he accepted it. Recognized that people are people.

Sasha, with his characteristic youthful maximalism and, what can we say, the selfishness of a spoiled child, cannot come to terms with this. Having experienced the betrayal of his girlfriend and the “betrayal” of a friend (we’ll talk about this below), he decides to hate all people. When he meets his uncle and his young wife Lisa, he makes fun of everyone he knows, comparing them to animals. By the way, Pyotr Ivanovich, in a conversation with Sasha, never allows himself to slander, apparently considering this a waste of time. Although he can even be cruel to Sasha himself, ridiculing what is dear to him. It can be assumed that Pyotr Ivanovich simply wants to protect his young nephew from the pain that invariably accompanies the clash of illusions and reality. But to no avail, as always happens. Everyone should have their own bumps - this is the law of life.

And although Pyotr Ivanovich may indeed seem like a cracker and a cynic, wise thoughts slip into his words. When Sasha accuses Nadenka, who cheated on him, of ingratitude, his uncle tells him: “Why should she be grateful to you? For love? So did you love her for her sake? Did you want to please? He also tries to bring him back to reality regarding the “betrayal” of his friend Pospelov. That when he met Sasha after several years of separation, he did not rush to hug him. For Sasha, this is a betrayal, after which he becomes completely disappointed in people.

Pyotr Ivanovich gives the impression of an integral and strong personality. But it is not so. Pyotr Ivanovich is an extremely reserved person. Sasha believes that his uncle values money too highly. But, judge for yourself, can a person who values money more than anything in the world, every time Sasha comes to him for advice, ask: “Should I give you some money?”

But the fact of the matter is that Sasha and Pyotr Ivanovich’s wife, Lisa, need something completely different from him. A kind word and sincere participation. Just what he is unable to give. It’s easier for him to pay off than to let loved ones into his soul. Denying stupid sensitivity, he himself is not able to show feeling. For which he had to pay in the end. But I think if any of the characters can be reborn, it will be him.

The novel, first published in Sovremennik in 1847, is autobiographical: Sasha Aduev is easily recognizable as Ivan Goncharov at the time when he devoted all his free time from service to writing poetry and prose. “I then stoked the stoves with piles of written paper,” the writer recalled. “An Ordinary Story” is the first work with which Goncharov decided to go public. In the poems attributed to Sasha, literary scholars recognize the author's original poems (remaining in drafts). Sasha’s poems rehash the “commonplaces” of romanticism: both melancholy and joy are causeless, are in no way connected with reality, “swoop in like a sudden cloud,” etc., etc.

Literary direction

Goncharov is a bright representative of that literary generation which, in the words of modern researcher V.G. Shchukin, “tried with all his might to emphasize their hostility to the romantic worldview they had overcome (of which they constantly convinced themselves and those around them)”: for him “anti-romantic realism was around in the 1840s. something like self-rehabilitation, reckoning with the romantic past.”

Genre

“An Ordinary Story” is a typical novel of education, depicting fundamental changes in the worldview and character of the main character - a typical young man of his generation - under the influence of changes in society and everyday vicissitudes.

Issues

The problem of the inevitability of changes in a person under the influence of changes in society is the main one in the novel, but the attitude towards it is by no means unambiguous: the title itself contains a grain of bitter irony, regret about the naive but pure ideals of youth. And hence the second important problem, which is that an individual, perfectly adapted socially, is by no means capable of guaranteeing simple universal values (physical health, moral satisfaction, family happiness) either to himself or to his loved ones.

Main characters

Aduev Jr. (Alexander) is a beautiful-hearted young man, with whom, in the course of the novel, an “ordinary story” of maturation and hardening occurs.

Aduev Sr. (Peter Ivanovich), Alexander’s uncle, is a “man of action.”

Lizaveta Aleksandrovna is the young wife of Pyotr Ivanovich, she loves and respects her husband, but she sincerely sympathizes with her nephew.

Style, plot and composition

Goncharov’s novel is an exceptional case of stylistic maturity and true mastery of a debut work. The irony that permeates the author's presentation is subtle, sometimes elusive, and appears in retrospect, when the simple but elegant composition of the novel forces the reader to return to some plot collisions. Like a conductor, the author controls the tempo and rhythm of reading, forcing you to read into this or that phrase, or even go back.

At the beginning of the novel, Sasha, having completed a course in science, lives in his village. His mother and servants pray for him, his neighbor Sophia is in love with him, his best friend Pospelov writes long letters and receives the same answers. Sasha is firmly convinced that the capital is looking forward to him, and there is a brilliant career in it.

In St. Petersburg, Sasha lives in the apartment next to his uncle, forgets Sonechka and falls in love with Nadenka, to whom he dedicates romantic poems. Nadya, soon forgetting her vows, becomes interested in an older and more interesting person. This is how life teaches Sasha the first lesson, which is not as easy to dismiss as failures in poetry or in the service. However, Alexander’s “negative” love experience was waiting in the wings and was in demand when he himself had the opportunity to recapture the young widow Yulia Tafaeva from her uncle’s companion who was in love with her. Subconsciously, Alexander longed for “revenge”: Julia, soon abandoned by him, had to suffer in Nadya’s place.

And now, when Sasha is gradually beginning to understand life, he is disgusted with her. Work - whether in the service or in literature - requires work, and not just “inspiration.” And love is work, and it has its own laws, everyday life, and tests. Sasha confesses to Lisa: “I have known all the emptiness and all the insignificance of life - and I deeply despise it.”

And here, in the midst of Sasha’s “suffering,” a true sufferer appears: an uncle enters, unbearably suffering from pain in the lower back. And the ruthless nephew also accuses him of the fact that his life did not work out. The reader now has a second reason to feel sorry for Aduev Sr. - in the form of a suspicion that things didn’t work out not only with his lower back, but also with his wife. But it would seem that he has achieved success: he will soon receive the position of director of the chancellery, the title of actual state councilor; he is a rich capitalist, a “breeder,” while Aduev Jr. is at the very bottom of the everyday abyss. 8 years have passed since his arrival in the capital. 28-year-old Alexander returns to the village in disgrace. “It was worth coming! You have disgraced the Aduev family!” - Pyotr Ivanovich concludes their argument.

Having lived in the village for a year and a half and buried his mother, Sasha writes smart, affectionate letters to his uncle and aunt, informing them of his desire to return to the capital and asking for friendship, advice and protection. These letters end the dispute, and the plot of the novel itself. That seems to be the whole “ordinary story”: the uncle turned out to be right, the nephew came to his senses... However, the epilogue of the novel turns out to be unexpected.

...4 years after Alexander’s second visit to St. Petersburg, he appears again, 34 years old, plump, bald, but with dignity wearing “his cross” - an order around his neck. In the posture of his uncle, who has already “celebrated his 50th anniversary,” dignity and self-confidence have diminished: his wife Lisa is ill, and perhaps dangerously. The husband tells her that he has decided to quit his service, sells the plant and takes her to Italy to devote “the rest of his life” to her.

The nephew comes to his uncle with good news: he has his eye on a young and rich bride, and her father has already given him his consent: “Go, he says, only in the footsteps of your uncle!”

“Do you remember what letter you wrote to me from the village? – Lisa tells him. “There you understood, explained life to yourself...” And the reader involuntarily has to go back: “Not to be involved in suffering means not to be involved in the fullness of life.” Why did Alexander consciously abandon the found correspondence between life and his own character? What made him cynically prefer a career for the sake of a career and marriage for the sake of wealth and without any interest in the feelings of not only a rich, but young and, apparently, beautiful bride, who, after all, like Liza, “needs a little something else besides common sense” meaning!

“I declare a vendetta on the soulless, dumb, voiceless, / To everyone who fights for a place on the rack, for life in shackles, / I declare a vendetta on sad thieves and their bosses / and silent crowds with a barn lock on their lips” - rock, anguish, maximalism, beginning performance: almost a teenager with eyes glowing with a blue flame throws a protest song into the audience. This is Sasha Aduev, the hero of “An Ordinary Story”, in the novel by Ivan Goncharov, published in 1847, - a nobleman, the son of a poor provincial landowner, moving to his uncle in the capital Petersburg, in the play by Kirill Serebrennikov - our contemporary, deprived, of course, of the noble rank and moving to another capital, Moscow, but otherwise the same enthusiastic romantic to the point of extravagance. And Uncle Pyotr Ivanovich Aduev, almost like Goncharov, is a bel homme who knows how to control himself and not let his face be a mirror of the soul. Almost - because he is tougher and more independent: the one who in the 19th century “served under some important person as an official on special assignments and wore several ribbons in the buttonhole of his tailcoat”, in the 21st century is not the largest, but still an oligarch who made a fortune in trade light. The change of era does not contradict the main motive of the original source: Serebrennikov stages a play about the clash of youthful idealism with a sober, or rather “icy to the point of bitterness,” worldview that has survived the loss of illusions. But not only about that.

“An Ordinary Story” is a play about transformations, werewolves, that state when “owls are not what they seem,” as they said in David Lynch’s “Twin Peaks.” By the way, the owl, or rather its urine, appears in the spells whispered by Marya Mikhailovna Lyubetskaya (Svetlana Bragarnik, who also plays Sasha’s mother), the mother of Nadya (Yana Irteneva), the flighty metropolitan passion of Aduev Jr., for whom Sasha easily exchanged his remaining Sonya’s hometown (Maria Selezneva, who came to the Gogol Center with “Awakening of Spring”). In the set design, Goncharov’s three legendary “Os” (“Ordinary History”, “Oblomov”, “Cliff”) turn into three huge neon zeros, a symbol of big money and zero sensuality. The seller of light, Aduev Sr., takes on infernal traits, and it is clear that he is actually selling darkness, which cannot be dispelled by artificial neon. Alexander Manotskov’s vocal cycle based on the text of “The Revelation of John the Theologian” transforms the most everyday scenes into a non-momentary dimension; but this is, rather, a beautiful decorative insurance: the fact that, in his own way, dealing with reality, Serebrennikov almost always talks about eternity, is obvious in silence. An essential theme for Goncharov—the contrast between the half-Asian but soulful Russian province and the cold St. Petersburg (“the offspring of Russia, unlike his mother, pale, thin, Euro-eyed passerby,” Yuri Shevchuk once sang)—mutates in Serebrennikov into an denunciation of the city that is not devoid of moralizing. Here "Ordinary story" rhymes with "Brother" Alexei Balabanov: “You said that the city is strong, but everyone here is weak. “The city is an evil force, the strong come, become weak, the city takes away the power - and so you are lost.” Sasha, who declared war on an endless chain of offices (this is again a quote from the one used in the play songs by Ivan Caprice), begins his career with the service “at the basket”, where visitors to this chain place bribes. “You’re Missing” - is it about both Aduevs?

“An Ordinary Story” is not just a show about transformations, but a show of metamorphosis. The first act deceptively leans towards the poster: here are two extremes, an enthusiastic child and an experienced demon, here is the city - an evil force, watching how the poison of the city and reason will cover the beautiful impulses of the soul with rust is fascinating, but obvious; and there is no doubt about the sad acceptance of the sad postulate, like all common truths, that those who were not liberals at age 16 have no hearts, and those who did not become conservatives by the age of forty have no brains. But then a new heroine appears on the stage, Lisa, the wife of Pyotr Ivanovich Aduev, brilliantly performed by Ekaterina Steblina, and with her a life enters into the conventional structure, breaking out of any framework and escaping maximalist definitions. Behind the poster there arises a bitter nostalgic memory of “that before we had time, now we have things to do,” and two differently antipathetic extremes are almost reconciled by this girl, real, flesh and blood.

The final, most powerful and deepest metamorphosis - the elder Aduev, suddenly showing human traits, and the younger, turning into a monster, almost literally: internal changes even change his appearance, and actor Philip Avdeev heroically disfigures himself with contact lenses and dentures. Vasily Sigarev's play "Plasticine", with the production of which Serebrennikov's Moscow history began, ended with the terrible remark "Dark" - in that old performance, Kirill softened it with a bravura and fantasy theatrical finale. It’s really dark at the end of “An Ordinary History,” when it becomes clear that the overwhelming cynicism of Aduev Sr. is the result of meaningful, stormy, now faded years that befell both the successful and lost generation of today’s forty-year-olds. This strong urban beast turns out to be the “superfluous man” from classical Russian literature, while the future, which, it seems, definitely does not exist, belongs to them, until recently enthusiastic poets who suddenly tried on the guise of scoundrels - without reflection, like a fashionista trying on a new outfit - and discovered that being a bastard is simply more comfortable.

But I am far from representing “Ordinary History” as a pessimistic tragedy - werewolfism, even in this dark world, can be different. So, started for the sake of business, the cynical romance of Sasha, who still retained his human traits, with the lonely and influential official Tafaeva (Olga Naumenko) turns into a story of true love (albeit with a bad ending, but all love stories end in tears). Serebrennikov is a friend of paradoxes, too wise to put a final end to anyone.

And he is one of those few daredevils who are able to take risks and discover something new in the known. The role of Uncle Aduev was started by Fyodor Bondarchuk, as Kirill told me in a summer interview, but in the end he was played by Pyotr Ivanovich, a professional actor (he is a graduate of the acting department of VGIK), but inexperienced; and is known primarily as a director of witty ceremonies for film festivals (in ours you can read about the opening ceremonies of the “Movement” in Omsk). The surprise of “An Ordinary Story” is in the precise, sharp and subtle work of Agranovich, who is convincing both in light caricature, and in ironic detachment, and in the depth of experience.

The fact that “Harlequin” by the young and fashionable Frenchman Thomas Jolly, staged on the Small Stage based on Marivaux’s play, will turn out to be a miniature (it lasts only an hour) addition to “An Ordinary History” was unintentional - but this is what should happen in real life, following a well-thought-out policy theaters During this short carnival hour, the story of Harlequin's upbringing with love flies by - in essence, about the transformation of the all-powerful Fairy into a victim of her own passion, and a timid fool into a tyrant.