Job Description for Artistic Director. Job description of the artistic director of the theater What does the artistic director of the theater do

Artistic director

I have been heading the Vakhtangov Theater for twenty years, but it is difficult to talk about myself as an artistic director. Therefore, I would like to dwell only on some general aspects of my activities.

When I was offered to take this position, I thought about it for a long time, it was not easy for me, because I imagined the responsibility that this post imposes, and I experienced a completely understandable feeling of fear: can I cope? But he still agreed, because he knew that the Vakhtangovites would not accept the “Varangian”. Also, and this was shown by the experience of the Moscow Art Theater at that time, it is impossible to run a theater collectively. It can only be led by one person. Only one person can lift it. And, having weighed all the pros and cons, I hoped that I would still be able to maintain the prestige and level of our theater. Therefore, I took office with the main task before me - to preserve the Vakhtangov Theater and not allow its staff to disintegrate into groups.

To do this, he formulated three points of his program. Firstly, attracting famous directors to the theater to stage individual performances. Secondly, reliance on talented dramaturgy. And thirdly, already having experience in theater and film directing, I promised not to stage the plays myself, because I knew: as soon as the artistic director begins to stage plays, they immediately become the dominant feature of the repertoire. But I don’t have a real director’s gift. If I understand anything, it’s only in acting.

Over these twenty years our theater has been judged differently. In the difficult decade after perestroika, some said that the theater was ruined, others only complained that its former glory had faded. However, at first we survived when, along with the collapse

The USSR lost a lot of what was Soviet, and then the theater came to life and is now actively developing, and in this I partly see my merit.

There was a time when we, to some extent, shared the fate of all theaters: with a sharp decline in the ideological press, it was as if we were struck by a disease like a caisson. Indeed, for decades everything was strictly regulated, sometimes they just loosened the valve a little and suddenly they declared complete freedom! Wasn’t it a sharp change in pressure?.. And we had to live in a new way in conditions of a market economy that were unusual for us.

The destruction of the aesthetics of associative art turned out to be a big disaster for the theater. Aesopian language suddenly turned out to be unnecessary in our country. And Shatrov’s “Peace of Brest-Litovsk,” which was shown to sold-out audiences even abroad, began to be shown in our theaters to half-empty halls, and had to be removed from the repertoire. The audience also reacted coolly to the highly relevant play “The Ides of March” based on Wilder.

What can we say if even in Taganka, where fierce, civil performances were staged, everything also became “normal and cool” due to the suddenly decreased attention of the audience. And the theater-wrestler Yuri Lyubimov seemed to pause in bewilderment: who should he fight with? For some period he also lost his voice. This strange time of change required new colors and words from theaters. And it became increasingly difficult to find them.

People visited theaters much less often, not least because ticket prices were unaffordable for an impoverished society. Of course, people lost a lot, but the theater suffered no less, deprived of thoughts, experiences, and feelings in common with the audience. He simply could not keep up with life when events fell like rockfalls on the confused citizens of Russia. Was it possible to shock them with a theatrical performance when life itself surprised and shocked every hour? Therefore, more than one of our theaters is stuck at a crossroads: what direction to choose now in their work, where to look for points of contact with the audience? But I didn’t want to go to any lengths in pursuit of him, lose face, sinking to the level of the service sector, or even outright connivance with incivility. But there was a great desire to preserve the eternal values ​​of art in the theater under new conditions!

And many commercial theaters were created around, which lived and live, essentially, for the sake of the ruble. By and large, not a single significant performance has been staged there, not a single actor has been trained. Because it is profitable to take already recognized professionals there, and they go because they pay well! Humanly speaking, you can understand them: who doesn’t want to earn more money and faster. But famous actors cannot stay in one place for long; they are expected everywhere. Hence the hackwork, the decline in the level of acting, the surprise of the peripheral viewer: where did the talented actor of the name go? And he labored in some French trinket. In the end, this was, is and will be. And let it be, at least so that a gray background is preserved for a sharp depiction of real theatrical discoveries in the foreground!

Despite all the difficulties that we had to endure in the past, we still did not fully experience what a spiritual crisis is. You can sneer at this as much as you like, but we still have a lot of educated people, although there was a time when education was not in fashion. How much was this little phrase worth: “Why are you so poor if you’re so smart?” But our public - and this is noted by everyone - has remained the most sophisticated when it comes to art, be it theater, music or painting. And I don’t want this level to drop at all. But there are reasons for concern.

Look what's happening on our stage. Who is the idol of youth, the hero, so to speak, of our time? Philip Kirkorov. He has a sea of ​​fans and admirers. He is highly praised. They imitate him and envy him. Yes, he is not devoid of talent and beauty. But they envy not so much this as his wealth. In fact: he practically flies on his own plane, and his Lincoln is loaded into it, because only in the Lincoln can the idol enter Krasnoyarsk or some other city. But even this is not so bad, because Kirkorov is at least recognizable, he has an individuality. However, new fads from mass culture have been fooled by some kind of “star factories” that churn out faceless performers, and they change in batches in the composition of precocious vocal groups without harm to their commercial program. However, there is nothing particularly harmful there, if we consider the issue from the perspective of culture.

I understand that all this is advertising, shocking. However, if our Vakhtangov Theater wanted to advertise any of its performances, it would not have found even a hundredth of the funds spent by show business on promoting its favorites. In addition, it seems to me that the theater will not learn to advertise itself at all. He is old-fashioned, as if he is dressed in ancient clothes that restrict movement. He is embarrassed to talk about himself and maintains his dignity.

It seems that through the joint efforts of public and private structures the country can be brought out of the general economic crisis. But each theater is looking for a way out of its problems almost alone. This is a difficult path, but the one who walks can master the road.

When Evgeny Rubenovich Simonov left us, he did not break ties with the Vakhtangov Theater. The name of this director went down in the history of the theater, which I, like all Vakhtangovites, sacredly honor - with all our victories, defeats, gains and losses. And we will not rewrite it, “tailoring” the past to the favorable alignment of the present. Evgeny Simonov devoted his last years to the creation of the Theater named after his father, considering it his filial duty to perpetuate his memory. And the theater has existed for many years. It is located in the Arbat lanes very close to us, and today it is directed by one of the leading actors of the Vakhtangov Theater, Vyacheslav Shalevich. And we solve many problems of our current existence together: the Vakhtangov Theater, the Shchukin Theater School, the Ruben Simonov Theater, actors and directors of all generations of Vakhtangov students.

We're still looking. We are looking in the precious storehouses of Russian classics, in modern drama. Our goal is to defend the theater as a temple of culture. Capturing the viewer’s emotional pull is the key to success. And all theaters today are in search of that, perhaps, very simple stage action that will bring people into the auditoriums who are eager to understand who we are today, what we need in order to feel our human height, our necessity in life. I think that literature, theater, and art in general are needed in themselves in order to increase, add to the amount of kindness in the world. So that people can draw from this source of truth and justice, faith and love as much as they can.

When you think about what is most important in the art of theater, you understand that it is skill, professionalism, an ear that hears today's times, a voice that can tell about the times.

First of all, the director must have this skill. By creating a performance, he becomes everything: an actor, an artist, a musical designer, a wizard, a creator, a liar, a dreamer - everything! Finally, he releases the play, and it lives on its own, regardless of its creator.

Today's problem with directing is that a certain “hammock” has arisen, a sagging between the cohort of great theater experts of the 20-30s of the last century - Stanislavsky, Nemirovich-Danchenko, Vakhtangov, Meyerhold, Tairov, their students Ruben Simonov, Zavadsky, Okhlopkov , Akimov, Lobanov, Tovstonogov - and modern directors.

The generation of “teachers” has not grown up, which has a significant impact on the director’s field. I feel that this reproach of mine is unfair: raising a director from a person who has no natural gift for it is the same as trying to teach someone to become a great writer. Georgy Aleksandrovich Tovstonogov stated bluntly: “The director cannot raise a successor, because this is artistically impossible.” Shouldn’t he know all the directions of directing?

Modern directors, for the most part, did not grow up naturally through “gradual maturation”, but rather pumped up their muscles. The “jocks” stage a lot, they are energetic, skilled, you can’t blame them for not knowing their job, but the lack of school affects their work. The philosophical understanding of the theme, spirituality and convincing life “equipment”, which was present in the performances of famous directors of the recent past, who proceeded in their work from the deep essence of theatrical art, is sorely lacking in current productions.

I can’t judge everyone, I’m speaking based on my own observations as the artistic director of the theater. From what young directors bring to us, I see: they are “cerebral”, coldly calculating professionals. This is not their fault: they live in an era when old concepts and familiar categories have been broken in the theater, and in everyday life a person does not always feel solid ground under his feet. Here, as they say, there is no time for spiritual comprehension and looking into the heavens, here many are thinking about how to get along in this extravagant world, what to cling to in this “Brownian movement”, in the chaos that is going on. And directors bring exactly this chaos to the theater. And spiritual comprehension of beauty requires peace and creative leisure. But in pursuit of material things, neither one nor the other exists for anyone today. Unfortunately, the needs of the audience have also changed: having run errands, the modern public mostly wants one thing from any staged action - the opportunity to let off steam. Here is the talk show “To the Barrier” on television. It is led by the most talented journalist Vladimir Solovyov, he skillfully manipulates the actions of the most influential politicians in the country and simply famous people. They are his actors. But what does its transfer decide? Nothing! This is all empty talk, cries of stage puppets insisting that they are right, but none of them listens to anyone. To some extent, this is beneficial for talk show participants - this way they attract public attention. What does the viewer get? Fatigue, a tiresome bedtime story, a dose of a kind of sleeping pill and - at the same time - a slow-acting doping, which, after taking a few hours of rest, can again rush headlong into the hustle and bustle of business. So now talk about the fact that directors are priests of beauty...

The picture is the same in modern drama: there seem to be a lot of plays, but they all talk about the same thing - how bad we feel today and how good it will be if we do this and that. This is something that won’t surprise the viewer!

In this regard, for some reason I remembered the play “Oginsky’s Polonaise” by Roman Vikgyuk. It showed general collapse. And what did this performance reveal to me? That the world has gone crazy? I already know that. That people turn into beasts through temptation? I have often seen this happen in my life. That they don't know where to go? I sometimes feel this myself. So why such a performance if they don’t tell me a way out? If there is not even a gap in it? But they keep pouring salt into my wounds! For what?

Real theater is not a sedative drug, but it is also not a psychotropic drug to stir up warped souls. I would say that he is an example of a more normal, smarter and more complete world than the one that often remains outside the threshold of the auditorium. An ideal world? It is quite possible, since art is almost always a striving for the ideal.

Yes, theater should be modern, but the viewer, and the actor, need more figures and collisions that contain timeless values. And they remain values ​​because they always have something in common with what is happening today. But also a reminder that life is not only about the dollar exchange rate and operational police reports. However, being in the seething cauldron of everyday life, we are not always able to grasp the essence of what is happening, and therefore cannot ourselves answer the questions that reality poses to us. Then the classics come to the rescue. It contains eternal spiritual riches - answers to the questions of human existence, which means it provides support for all those living today.

It is impossible to imagine what we would do today without Ostrovsky, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Shakespeare! But you can’t just play classics today. It must be read anew in every new era, at every new turn of time. After all, everything is constantly changing. Something dies and is born in society. A person, his attitude and tastes change. The aesthetics are updated. And the performance should fit organically into our “crazy, crazy, crazy world.” You can’t be complacent over a cup of tea with jam, against the backdrop of a painted wooden Zamoskvorechye from the 19th century, when skyscrapers made of glass and concrete are being built behind the wall.

But there is something that unites both settings - the recognition of human passions and the immutability of moral values, which in all centuries allows the theater to draw and draw from a truly bottomless well of dramaturgy of all times and peoples.

Love... No matter how much we talk or write about it, no matter how deeply we experience it ourselves, it remains a mysterious, intimate, incomprehensible feeling. There is no definition of love that fits all occasions. She is always a discovery. It is difficult to predict what action it will inspire or push a person to do. Yes, almost all the classics are love stories. And none of them are like the other. To paraphrase the poet, we can say: love is the only news that is always new...

Classics are always new too. But it doesn’t always happen that you scoop it up - and here it is, the goldfish of success! And we argue until we are hoarse in the theater about what to include in the current repertoire. The director suggests The Inspector General or Chekhov's The Seagull. It seems to me that it has become a kind of obsessive fashion to always interpret Chekhov and Gogol in your own way. It’s as if every theater is trying to find something in Chekhov that no one has found before. Yes, both Chekhov and Gogol are great experts on man, but I am afraid of fashion, which in the theatrical repertoire is becoming as compulsorily indispensable as jeans.

Once upon a time, when I became artistic director, I set myself the task of opening the doors of the Vakhtangov Theater wide to new, relevant drama and sharp, modern-sounding classics. To do this, it was necessary to invite both serious, well-known directors and young, but already interesting directors who promised to reveal themselves in their own way. This is what I worked on, and there were successes along the way, although no one gave me insurance against failure. Only successes and failures are normal for creative search. It’s impossible to list everyone I invited. However, I will mention that Robert Sturua, Pyotr Fomenko, Arkady Kats, Roman Viktyuk, Vladimir Mirzoev, Vyacheslav Shalevich, Sergei Yashin, Alexander Gorban revealed their directorial plans to us. Under their leadership, such performances as “The Peace of Brest-Litovsk”, “Lessons of the Master”, “Ides of March”, “Guilty Without Guilt”, “Alibaba and the Forty Thieves”, “Chasing Two Hares”, “Dedication to Eve” were staged. “Cyrano de Bergerac”, “For the Iguana” and many others. But, of course, not everything that was done was crowned with laurels of great audience success. Nevertheless, these performances are stages in the formation of our theater in difficult years, when in Russia all our compatriots were looking for their own, often new, place in the sun.

But this, so to speak, is the creative part of the artistic director’s concerns, and it is based on an economic foundation and partly depends on interpersonal relationships in the troupe - and you also have to think about this. Such problems were extremely aggravated in the 90s of the last century, and, probably, the easiest way for me would be to brush them aside and take some convenient and somewhat detached position. But, I must admit, to this day I feel responsible for the cause that I have served all my life - for the theater.

At one time, the euphoria of perestroika ended, and it turned out that, along with some administrative independence, theaters acquired a bunch of problems, but did not master the mechanisms for solving them. And I had to do a lot of things myself.

Our props were worn out, the stage equipment was outdated, and in a disastrous financial situation (it is well known what was happening in the economy in that era), the theater did not have the means to eliminate this hole. This means that we must go to the officials, the bosses, whose names have always been legion. We still have more bosses than workers. There was a lot, but it became even more. Everywhere you go, there are a lot of committees, parliaments and departments. It would be nice to introduce uniforms for officials - then we would absolutely become like Nikolaev’s “stick” Russia, as it was described in Soviet times. Only then we never dreamed of what we have now! Walking through high offices is akin to Dante’s circles of hell: it’s not a fact that they will allocate what you need, but you will definitely suffer humiliation. But you need to go so that your work is not stopped, so that the best traditions of theatrical art and national culture in general, which in many ways are already dying out, are not given up for a long time.

So I went. For example, near our theater on Arbat for a long time there was a dilapidated house that could not be restored and did not belong to anyone. We, like air, needed a second stage for experimental activities in the theater, to expand the repertoire, and finally, to provide work for the entire troupe. But it was not possible to obtain land in the neighborhood with the wording “for full management” in order to attract investors and builders. There was only one answer to our requests and reasons: “no funds, no opportunities.” And it could all end with the fact that some smart businessman or the ubiquitous mafia would lay their paw on these ruins and another casino would appear in the middle of the Arbat. After all, in post-Soviet Russia it happened that even under the theatrical sign, dubious shops were opened for the sake of profit, and for this, newly minted businessmen easily forgot about the true significance of performing arts for society. However, the Vakhtangov Theater still managed to prove that it was right, and the land was allocated to us.

There were also difficulties with touring. It even so happened that due to economic troubles, for two or three summer off-seasons, Moscow was left without invited theater groups - there was simply nothing to invite them to. Back then, even traveling from St. Petersburg to Moscow was fraught with considerable problems. Moreover, the country was really threatened by the loss of a single cultural theatrical space. Moreover, the capital's troupes also found themselves in serious difficulty when organizing their creative trips to the periphery. We got out of the situation as best we could. And we got out! At the beginning of 2002, the Vakhtangov members went on tour in full force to Kyiv and gave performances at the Lesya Ukrainka Theater. This means that the troupe’s employment in the productions was full.

How to keep all the actors occupied in plays, provide them with opportunities for creative growth and decent earnings - this is a special conversation. The problem is not unique to Vakhtangov theaters; it is universal for all theaters. While there was no money, until we learned how to earn it, theater troupes that had been created over the years began to resemble huge, clumsy dreadnoughts. On the one hand, young actors came - they had not yet gained enough experience to carry the repertoire, but they already needed to be given a perspective. On the other hand, there were a lot of pensioners who played less and less due to health reasons, but they could not be fired under any circumstances - the pensions were meager, and to take away a role in another production from an honored person, your long-time stage comrade, means to stage him to the brink of half-starvation. Therefore, as much as I could, I fought to maintain the precarious balance between the older generation of actors and the youth, so to speak, creatively supported the old people, while still orienting the theater towards young, fresh blood. And here is the result: over the past twenty years, real masters have grown up on the Vakhtangov stage - A. Dubrovskaya, M. Aronova, E. Sotnikova, N. Grishaeva, S. Makovetsky, M. Sukhanov, V. Simonov, E. Knyazev, A. .Zavyalov, you can list more names. Many of them are known abroad as excellent professionals, they are invited to collaborate on various theater and film sets, and they constantly appear in our troupe. But my old actor friends are still honored - through the example of many, many wonderfully played roles, they have raised worthy replacements for themselves, that is their merit. And then, gradually, very young guys, recent graduates of theater school, begin to make themselves known... And all the actors in our theater have their own creative voice, they have the right to tell the viewer something important from the stage.

One of the greats has a wonderful statement about the difference between the oratory skills of Cicero and Demosthenes. When Marcus Tullius Cicero delivered a speech, the Roman Senate was overcome with delight: “God, how he speaks!” And when Demosthenes gave a speech to the Greeks, the Athenians shouted: “War to Philip the Great!”

The same can be said about the differences in the art of both directing and acting. Art in general has many faces - and that’s what makes it interesting. Art is limitless - and that's what makes it beautiful. Art is omniscient - and that’s what’s wonderful about it.

Today, art is still looking for ways, as in a blocked mine, to people, to light, and often finds them with the help of classics. And also a classic - a staff in the hand of a tired traveler wandering through life.

If necessary, in difficult years we relied on it, but we also included works by contemporary authors in our repertoire. Both plays could be sold out or not.

But it is important that with their help the Vakhtangov Theater survived. He also survived thanks to his amazing, sparkling acting school. For twenty years I preserved our traditions as best I could, and now, looking back, I can state with satisfaction: on my part of the path I succeeded. Perhaps because I perceived the success of any director, any actor in our theater as my own. And I didn’t see any benefit for myself other than the success of the theater.