Magazine room. Probably, for the first time in the history of this religious meeting, the President of the Russian Federation was required to attend it, which in a sense explains the increased security measures during the church event

The book by Kenneth Slavenski. J.D. SALINGER: A LIFE RAISED HICH, a conscientious researcher of the work of Jerome David Salinger, was published in the original version in 2010. The text was published in Russian in an excellent translation several years later by Kenneth Slavensky. J.D. Salinger. A man walking through the rye. Transl. from English A. Doroshevich, D. Karelsky. – St. Petersburg: Azbuka, Azbuka-Atticus, 2014. (ABC-classics, Non-fiction).

Five hundred pages of incredibly clean font are read with constant interest, because the book is informative, fascinating and reliable.

Obviously, this is not the first, nor probably the last, biography of the classic of American and world literature.

However, it has, as can be seen from the author's introduction to it, that Kenneth Slavensky's approach is obviously different from what, most often, biographers, interviewers and reporters of newspapers and magazines in the New World, as well as in the Old World, wrote about Salinger .

Secondly, the book is a collection of verified, documented documents (by Salinger, editors, lawyers who collaborated with him for decades - correspondence with the writer, evidence about him without scandal and cheap sensationalism.)

Thirdly, Slavenski wrote not just a biography, but a literary biography, showing how the real circumstances of the life of a writer named Salinger continued, developed, and manifested themselves in his stories, novellas and the novel “The Catcher in the Rye.”

That is, before us is an honestly and carefully executed work about Jerome Salinger, written with reverence, responsibility and kindness. Let us note that in the book there is no idealization of the writer’s personality, no uncritical, purely admiring perception of his works.

This is an honest and intelligent book, essentially a purely American book, where the main thing is outwardly given only to facts and facts, but in the subtext there is obvious respect for Salinger’s personality and books.

Kenneth Slavensky calmly, almost epically, to the extent of the biography, describes the author of books that influenced the fate of different people, describes the vicissitudes of his not very happy life, except for literary pursuits. In the whole description there is such a measure, there are no extremes when talking about some eccentricity when viewed from the outside in the behavior of the legendary author.

The book is a wonderful, worthy story about what he was like from birth until his death - a genius who merged with the word until he dissolved in it and subordinated himself completely to the word.

When information about Salinger’s death at the age of 91 came out at the beginning of 2010, it surprised me how he was still with us all this time. It seemed that the writer had not been among the living for a long time, which was also due to his conscious seclusion, the fact that for decades he did not release new works, practically closing his communication with the world, finding joy in solitude in his own home in Corniche, in the American outback .

His father, a native of the Russian Empire, made a brilliant financial career for himself in America, selling non-kosher products - ham. He tried to get away from the faith and traditions of his parents, so it’s quite difficult to talk about Salinger’s son’s religion in the first decades of his life. Unlike the second half of his earthly existence, when he became a zealous neophyte of Zen Buddhism, which irrevocably influenced his everyday life and his work.

Author Ilya Abel

Slavensky describes the not very remarkable years of the writer’s studies in a military educational institution, a business trip to Europe to slaughterhouses, a meeting with the Jewish family in which he then lived (after the end of the war, Salinger specially went to Vienna to find that family, but was unable to do so - all its members, like other Jews in the city, in the country, in Europe, died in a concentration camp.) The Jewish theme, one way or another, at the early stage of his literary career was reflected in the stories of Salinger, who during his years of study experienced some discomfort due to impartial attitudes others to his origin, which for him, a sensitive, introverted and somewhat autistic person, was an additional and clearly unpleasant test.

We are also talking about how he began writing for the magazine during his years at the university at an acting and literary seminar. The relationship with Professor Burnett continued in one form or another for many years, going through periods of acceptance and hostility. Be that as it may, it was Burnett who truly discovered Salinger’s talent and published his first works. Which does not mean that he published everything that the young and arrogant writer by nature sent him. Often stories were returned or simply not published at all. But even when Salinger became world famous, Burnett more than once offered to send him something for publication. But the further, the more unequivocally the writer responded to such requests with refusal.

The leitmotif throughout the entire biography, written by a true connoisseur and connoisseur of his work as a writer, is the theme of Salinger’s amazing relationship with his mother. She unconditionally loved her son, the second child in the family after her daughter Doris, believed in his success, in his talent, always supported her favorite in his search for himself, defended her son’s position in front of her husband, who did not accept her son’s activities and did not understand them for various reasons.

The writer’s personal life did not work out either. The further, the more.

Following Una O'Neill, the daughter of a famous playwright, he went to Hollywood, dreaming of improving his financial situation in order to meet the needs of a girl accustomed to a different standard of living than Salinger was familiar with. Despite the fact that his father’s business was getting better and better, the family lived in an expensive apartment in an elite quarter of New York, which still did not give the writer a complete sense of freedom, since it was more important for him to count on himself, proving to his loved ones and himself that his literary pursuits are not a whim, but a recognition. (Then he began to perceive them as service to the Almighty, as merging with the Supreme to the point of prophecy and self-denial.)

In two ways, his collaboration with Hollywood was a disastrous failure. Based on one of his stories, supplementing it with sugary dialogues and simplifying the intrigue, they made a film that caused Salinger heartache. After his novel “The Catcher in the Rye” received full and widespread recognition in both the USA and Europe, producers offered to make a film based on the book, but were once again refused. The writer did not accept the offer of the great Laurence Olivier to make a radio play based on his prose, because he no longer wanted any fame, that is, what was around the books. He was only interested in the texts themselves. And he literally tormented editors and publishing houses, forbidding them to print his photograph on the covers of books, strictly, until the breakdown of relations and legal proceedings, he made sure that the editions of his works in composition, in presentation - right down to the color and font on the cover - corresponded to what he wanted seems right. But that was later, while visiting Hollywood, Salinger experienced a personal drama that left a mark on his soul for a long time, perhaps forever.

The one he loved sincerely and strongly, Una O'Neill, unexpectedly for him, as for many, became interested in Charlie Chaplin, married him, gave birth to children in marriage with him, living for decades in love and harmony.

After the breakup with Una, Salinger had random meetings with girls, three post-war marriages - a short first, a long second with the birth of a son and daughter, and the final third, unexpected for outsiders, but so understandable for those who accepted the writer for who he was - an introvert, a recluse, in some ways an eccentric and out of this world, a classic, vulnerable, in some ways a naive and straightforward person.

He was destined to survive months of brutal fighting in France and Germany during the opening of the Second Front at the end of World War II. Participation in hostilities, undoubtedly, also left an imprint on his mind, which was expressed not only in the fact that later his stories about the everyday life of the war appeared, unpatriotic, devoid of propaganda agitation, tough and truthful, as a memory of those with whom he served and who died before his eyes, who fought the Nazis in incredible conditions, both weather and purely tactical.

After the war, he did not return to literary creativity, because even in a tent between hostilities, he typed stories on his favorite typewriter, then to send them to America. Salinger continued what he was doing before the war. But this was no longer a boy who dreamed of fame and fortune for their own sake. He increasingly viewed writing as a ministry, as evidenced by the novel The Catcher in the Rye.

Kenneth Slavenski describes how, after the writer's death, videos of readers of the novel began to appear on the Internet, the characters of which said how much Holden Caulfield meant to them. And this revealed the pure truth of the interaction of literature with readers, their response to what they read.

Then Salinger conceived a saga about the Glass family. And in his own way he ended it with “The Sixteenth Day of Hepworth 1924”, after which he fell silent until the last days of his earthly existence.

He treated everything connected with his works with care. Then, when books and articles began to appear in which his letters were quoted, the writer asked the confidentialists to destroy them, which was done. He carefully protected the private life of his family and avoided any publicity, considering it an unnecessary waste of time and effort. Loneliness, an independent withdrawal from everything except the bunker, the annex in the house, where he was engaged exclusively in literary affairs, was becoming closer and closer to him.

The more noticeably Salinger avoided communication with the outside world, the more persistent, demonstrative, cynical and cheeky journalists tried to find out at least something about him for the sake of publications in newspapers and magazines, which caused irreparable psychological damage to the writer.

There was even a book published that seemed to continue his great novel. He had to prove in court that the image of the main character of “The Catcher in the Rye” is an object of copyright, and therefore cannot be used by anyone else without the author’s permission. It is clear that no one received such permission, except for the New Yorker magazine, with which Salinger had an agreement for the first presentation of what he had written, and several publishers - in the USA and Great Britain. And for all that, he often came into conflict with the magazine and with publishing houses if it seemed to him that his prose was not being published in the way he thought was the most acceptable way (it must be said that with the growing popularity of Salinger, publications of his stories and novellas often appeared, as well as the novel not in the form he wanted. Behind such a pedantic attitude towards how the writer’s texts came to the reader lies not the mannerism of the famous author, but precisely reverence for the written word, how it should be reproduced in books and in magazines publications).

To summarize, we can definitely say that in literary terms, Salinger was, without a doubt, a happy man, since he was destined to experience well-deserved fame, to see his texts published and in demand by readers.

While it cannot be said, on the other hand, that Salinger was lucky outside of his literary searches and works.

In the end, the loneliness to which he doomed himself of his own free will was perceived both as an oddity and as some kind of anomaly of behavior, which it probably was in reality.

But following the intonation of Kenneth Slawinski's biographical narrative, one should not judge another by the laws of the majority. Salinger lived for almost a century, practically the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century, in accordance with his inner attitude, with devotion to his calling, with a sense of the mission that was entrusted to him from above, which requires renunciation of the vain and external, be it well-being and financial solvency. He became increasingly confident in the correctness of his chosen attitude towards literature in its personal embodiment, consistently developing the position of the non-commercial existence of books in society (although he did not refuse to republish works written by him, but absolutely in order to have the opportunity to devote himself only to writing and support family, to create decent living conditions for its members.)

It is clear that contact with the biography of a person of such a type as Jerome David Salinger may seem exceptional due to the dissimilarity of his fate from what we know about American writers of at least the last century (at the same time, some points of contact with the lives of other writers in There are biographies of Salinger, which, for example, are worth his ambiguous friendly attachment to Hemingway). However, in all circumstances, everywhere and always, Salinger remained only himself, a lonely and self-sufficient person by vocation, who wrote as he saw fit and in no other way, made compromises difficultly, if at all, for the sake of publishing the works he wrote, lived in the context of what he established for himself, to which he subordinated his time, strength, will, to which he devoted decades of worthy literary presence in the culture of the United States and Europe, at a minimum, what was his joy, cross, test, faith and merit.

It was all this that was described wonderfully, without embellishment or exaggeration, by the American researcher of his work, Kenneth Slavinsky, in an absolutely magnificent book in all respects, “J. D. Salinger. A man walking through the rye." There is no doubt that, based on its merits, it can be considered as an example of a literary biography of Salinger specifically, as well as works of such a genre that has always been in demand and now, now, in different historical realities, opportunities for obtaining material and working with it.

Echo of Moscow 12/09/2011

For a year now, the production “The Killer” has been playing as a premiere on the stage of the Moscow Theater for Young Spectators, which rightfully became an event of the last theater season, something that is a must-see, because otherwise you will miss a breakthrough exercise on a youth theme.

The Killer" is the fourth performance shown at the Moscow Youth Theater as part of an introduction to the works of young theater directors. In past years, every autumn a new performance appeared in a unique series of directorial debuts. All of them turned out to be extremely successful. But “The Killer” at MTYUZ is an extraordinary and special phenomenon in this fairly representative series of successful premieres.

A play for four characters (five performers) is performed in the “White Room”, where from time to time there are performances that require special spectator concentration, experimental, staged by young directors.

At the Moscow Youth Theater, the performances of young directors were not just shown several times, as in Sovremennik, but were included in the repertoire, since they turned out to be successful theatrical results.

But even at a fairly high level of working with dramatic text, the performance staged by Dmitry Egorov based on the play by A. Molchanov is perfect in its simplicity and clarity.

It is natural that a few months after the premiere of “The Killer” at the end of last year, the performance was named the best according to the jury of the Triumph Award in the youth category. First of all, because the merits of the performance are obvious from the first phrases of the main character’s monologue to the final monologues and dialogues.

Having lost a large sum to a local gambler, a young man is forced to go to another city to collect money from another debtor of the same gambler and bring it back as compensation for his debt. Or, as a last resort, kill the indebted provincial. To keep an eye on him and for some other reasons, they send a girl with him, a local nymphet in the field of love. On the way, the young people stop by the debtor’s mother and meet with someone from whom he must take the money or kill in its absence. That is, the plot, unfortunately, is ordinary and quite real.

In a small room with white walls, four characters alternately appear - separately or together: a gambler, his young debtor, a girl and the debtor's mother. The only decorations are the frames of metal beds (artist Themistocles Atmadzas). In the course of the action, banal metal structures are either a modest interior of a dorm room, or almost a family bed in the house of the debtor’s mother, or something else, even a hint of a prison cell.

The young man is a student. He clearly doesn’t want to go anywhere and kill anyone (an allusion to the hero of Dostoevsky’s famous novel). He tries to find strength and salvation in faith (a reference to Leo Tolstoy's search for God). But the sharper, like fate in the ancient Greek tragedy, is cruel and unforgiving.

And therefore the hero experiences almost Hamlet’s suffering - to be or not to be? At the same time, not in the philosophical, but in the most everyday, literal meaning of the word. Gradually, his thoughts slide from high to low - to be or not to be? - turn into - to kill or not to kill? During the course of the action, the potential murderer thinks about whether he could kill another, what it is to kill another, how to kill and how to live with it, and how much he will be given for murder if he is caught. And he has no doubt at all that he will definitely be caught and convicted.

Somewhere in the depths of his soul, his consciousness, resistance to the need to kill someone else is growing, and because it is obvious that he himself in another city, among people unfamiliar to him, could easily be killed. Which would have happened if not for an unexpected turn of events and a trick in behavior, based on the young man’s small but tenacious everyday experience and the recklessness of the girl who was sent with him, as it turned out, for happiness and salvation.

It turns out that there is not only the story of a journey - both real and mental. And also the story of the birth of love.

The girl who went with the student was attractive to him, but obeyed the sharper, and then the circumstances were such that they had to pretend to be the bride and groom (to the student’s mother), and become companions in misfortune, since the rapidly changing introductions forced them to act decisively and quickly.

In fact, in this play, each of its characters is a murderer, so its title can be correlated not only with the student, but also with his mother, as well as the girl and the sharper.

This is a romantic gambler who constantly takes risks and has turned himself into a hostage of the game. This is the student’s mother, a shop assistant in their home village, who saves money and sees no rest either in work or in life. This is also a girl who dreams of real feelings, but for now turns out to be public and therefore is almost no longer a person, but something like a thing, furniture. And, of course, the killer is the student himself, who lost to smithereens, although he understood who he was playing with. But like Hermann from Pushkin’s “The Queen of Spades” (another hint at the school literature curriculum), he did not find out the secrets of the card game, but entered it as a beginner and stopped shocked when the amount of debt became critical for him, unbearably large (In fact, by today's standards it is not that great, but for a guy from the provinces who lives in a hostel and can only count on himself, it turns out to be prohibitive).

The actors in “The Killer” speak their lines like monologues; here, internal monologues, not intended for others, become part of the dialogues. Everything rests on the exact word found, on the incredibly relaxed acting and the jewelry in the details and structure of the whole directing.

Before us is not just a dramatic performance in the literal sense of the word, but also a unique oratorio on modern themes with nervous, rigid rhythms, with a premonition of a terrible denouement and the expectation of harmony, with horror and hope at the same time.

Tickets for performances in the White Room are sold for less than fifty seats, and on the last row next to me there were two sound engineers. It is precisely because there is a small room here, a hall with two high windows facing directly onto a quiet Moscow side street, that an amazing atmosphere of inclusion in what is seen in front of the rows of spectators is created. This atmosphere is so captivating that it is unthinkable to miss a word, intonation, or gesture. It is necessary to follow the action as it is shown here and now - in a harmonious chorus of roles and parts, sounding in tragic unison. Which is especially important in this case, since each character’s remark has not one and not only a direct meaning, but also a subtext, with nuances and overtones. Each remark is always with doubt, with a question, even if something is stated in a monologue or in dialogue with another.

And the essence of what is shown is not just about money, as each of the characters in “The Killer” found out, which for each character became a turning point in everyday life in their own way. So far, optimistically resolved by chance and luck. But only for now. On the day when, by coincidence, I managed to watch “The Assassin” (the performance is not performed very often, and the entire hall can be purchased by a school class or organization), high school students and their teacher were sitting downstairs in front of me. Among them there was only one young man, and next to him were six or eight girls.

The teacher sat through the entire performance with her back straight, looking intently from her top row down to where a seemingly banal story was unfolding - a tragedy and a mystery at the same time. Probably, looking at the artists, she was constantly thinking about what and how to say to her students after the end of the performance. And when the performance ended, she abruptly, as if on command, rose from her seat and began to applaud too loudly. She was supported by the entire audience, and the well-deserved applause that day sounded for a long time in the White Room of the Moscow Youth Theater.

The high school girls behaved unnoticed and quite well-mannered. And only when, quite simply, without embellishment, but with tact, the student and the girl began to discuss how they could have sex, the girls on the bottom row became somehow especially quiet, squeezed into their seats and giggled a little, making it clear that they everything shown in front of them is not scary, not new, but just curious.

After the performance ended, the teacher and her students discussed what they had seen, so to speak, without delay. She did most of the talking, the girls politely agreed, and the young man, apparently from a different circle than the characters in the play, remained silent with a thoughtful expression on his face.

Be that as it may, “The Killer” at the Moscow Youth Theater makes a strong and holistic impression. The fact that only a small number of spectators see the performance every month is a matter of sincere regret. Obviously, under great psychological stress, playing such a text is difficult and difficult. Therefore, with more frequent performances of “The Assassin”, that ephemeral and organic quality may disappear from it, which makes it a phenomenon, a phenomenon of the capital’s theatrical life.

There is no doubt that it is vital for as many viewers as possible to watch this theatrical, tragic and farcical story about life and death. With its authenticity and vitality, it will touch anyone's heartstrings. In its own way, of course, but it will definitely hook you, because everything here is like in life. But still, a little more optimistic.

It is impossible to play it on the main stage or take it around the assembly halls of schools, since the very compactness of the “White Hall” is not just a background or surroundings, but a condition of the game, the most acceptable and authentic place for action. When passions and experiences unfold in close proximity to the viewer and the same effect of incredible complicity with the player is achieved. And this is priceless in terms of the power of its impact on the viewer.

There's probably only one way out. Record “The Killer” on camera from the middle of the top row and show it not only on the “Culture” TV channel, which in itself would be nice, but on large city screens, like the “Country Duty” program with the participation of Zhvanetsky and Maksimov on the “Killer” TV channel. Russia 1".

Or as an ordinary movie, which probably could have been a commercial success. Because everything here is the absolute truth. And because almost everyone needs to see this story with their own eyes.

Channel One, “Russia”, NTV, while observing certain boundaries of what is permissible, most often declared by the presenters, work on the edge of the norm or already beyond the limit.

This is not a rhetorical question, and not a slogan, but the program of our television, if we talk about prime-time programs, so to speak, in the talk show genre, as they understand it. Neither political correctness, nor correctness at all - they turn out their dirty underwear almost in the literal sense of the word and rinse it in front of tens of millions of television viewers.

Dmitry Bykov, a great lover of colorful words, who loves himself immensely and feels like something of a guru of literature and life, spoke a few months ago about lies on Russian television. In order to avoid being brought to justice for reputational damage, he did not name the TV channel that he had in mind and to which he rather transparently hinted, saying that his employees should wear brown suits. Well, in the sense that what they broadcast is complemented by their dress code.

However, with the start of the new television season of domestic television, it is no longer so obvious that such a characteristic belongs to one of the federal television channels, which the poet and publicist most likely had in mind. Because of them, only TVC is still within the bounds of decency, and Channel One, Rossiya, NTV, while observing certain boundaries of what is permissible, most often declared by the presenters, work on the edge of the norm or already beyond the bounds.

A little background. In its original version, the program that made Andrei Malakhov popular was called “The Big Wash.” And her visual calling card was a video with a washing machine. Then, claiming some respectability, they called it “Five Evenings”, well, and after that - “Let them talk.” But even in the final chosen format, the program until recently retained the idea of ​​some kind of ethical standards. The breakthrough was first the talk about the infidelities of husbands, famous and ordinary, and then the constant, almost on-the-fly, DNA tests. They were accepted as the ultimate truth, although they can only be so by a court decision. And not otherwise. (Note that to the releases of the “Let’s Get Divorced” programs on the “Domashny” channel, programs from the “Paternity Test” series have been added, where, at least in television format, the idea of ​​the legality of recognizing paternity only by a court decision is preserved.)

The innovation was welcomed by television people. And DNA tests became arguments there on Channel One in certain programs of the “Male/Female” line.

However, tests soon turned out to be insufficient. As in Vysotsky’s song about citizen Paramonova: “and everyone is shouting from the audience - give me the details!”

And so, like a dirty wave, a powerful stream, these details came from the screen.

So, literally, only a few days ago in “Let Them Talk,” expert opinions confirmed that the artist of the Satire Theater had an illegitimate son, also now an artist. Of course, Karina Mishulina did not have to file a lawsuit against a man claiming paternity of a famous artist and release all this to the general public. And because the interview to which she referred is not a legal document, but a journalist’s account of an interview with a young man, so there is still a clear difference between what was actually said and what was published on the magazine pages. It would be better to sort things out without publicizing the claims, between ourselves. And then, fighting for her father’s honor, his legitimate daughter learned so many unpleasant things about him that she even felt sorry for her, like her mother, the wife of Spartak Mishulin. But television viewers learned the same thing, for whom the family drama became something of a flavorful delicacy, an expected event that was stretched out as far as possible and turned into a detective story. Also with the history of divorce and will of Armen Dzhigarkhanyan and his so far last wife. They have squeezed everything they can out of this private story, like out of a lemon, but they continue to squeeze more and more.

They even have their own clackers and newsmakers who tell the public that they are waiting for news. For example, this is Mark Rudinshtein, now a producer of the Kinotavr film festival, and at one time a businessman with an unpleasant experience of meeting with a Soviet court and a prison term. Another colorful figure here - according to the reference - is the art critic-academician and artist Sergei Zagraevsky (he was Volfovich, like Zhirinovsky, and that’s probably why he changed his middle name to Wolfgangovich.) They go from program to program, from one studio to another, managing to participate in the current -shows both on Channel One and, sometimes, on Rossiya. (In any case, this can confidently be said about Rudinshtein, and Zagraevsky is loyal to Channel One, it seems.)

They always have something to say, and the fact that the scientist and the producer look unpresentable on the screen, discussing obscenities of the same kind - who slept with whom and gave birth to whom - this does not bother them much. The main thing is drive, participation, not victory, to be heard all the time. And so on.

Now in our talk shows they are not shy about anything. Unless they're swearing. And if this happens, then according to the law adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation, obscene language is bleeped out, although in such a way that the audience hears something and understands perfectly what is being said.

Dmitry Borisov, who back in the spring hosted the important program “Time” on Channel One, now, maintaining the appearance of a metrosexual, an intelligent young man, without passion, but also without Malakhov’s pathos of denunciation, discusses everything related to a given topic in such detail that it is obvious that a lot is sucked out of thin air so that there is then a new and new continuation of the same theme.

And no one is ashamed of anything anymore. As musician and producer Stas Namin once said, when after the premiere of the rock opera “Hair” he was asked about naked artists on stage at its finale - Why be shy? Bearing in mind, who hasn’t seen naked women and what is something shameful about this, if this was the case in the original when this work was performed in the West.

And, really, why should one be shy when everything is in plain sight and no one is afraid to call a spade a spade, as in life. Or rather, to characterize people, especially women.

For example, a program called “Woman’s Riot” could have found its place on some American television channel, and Channel One launched episodes with that name. And no one cares about harassment or anything like that. Another thing is that yet another attempt to present a female perspective on current moments in Russian life turned out to be boring and is unlikely to remain on television for long. But precedent is important. Here - as a definition - womanish - he appeared. And a continuation will undoubtedly follow.

So, it’s not that there’s nothing to be ashamed of, but no one seems to be embarrassed anymore, because you need to be closer to life, closer to the viewer, who seems to be interested in such exposure and evokes a response.

Let's do without rhetoric - the viewer is to blame. I am for the viewer - what is shown on air is what he watches. So, brown suits are symbolically a challenge prize or an acceptable dress code. Not yet completely, not yet fully. Who then, almost in Soviet times, could have imagined that “The Big Wash” would turn into “Dirty Laundry” (sorry, into “Let Them Talk” and other hits in the same spirit, quite specific and far from culture and self-esteem .). But now - a metamorphosis has occurred. And it became a given, no matter what channel you look at. So there is only the Internet, until the innovation of Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerberg in a mirror response was turned off. At worst, there will be books left, paper or audio. And theaters, where nudes are still strictly and classically puritanical. Again, everything is changing quickly in terms of fashion, but the theater is still holding on. But what do hundreds of viewers mean if TV people count in the millions? A drop in the ocean, a statistical error, which, in principle, is not worth paying attention to. It seems that this is the choice of Russian television people - sharper, hotter, more scandalous. Well, continue in the same aspect, as long as it is possible and they are not punished for it according to the law and conscience.

about the author | Abel Ilya Viktorovich - philologist, graduated from Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, was published in the magazines “Literary Review”, “Friendship of Peoples”, “Theatre”, “Children’s Literature”, the newspaper “Culture”, the almanac “Parallels”, and in “Academic Notebooks”. Lives in Moscow.

It so happened that one of the last poems that Joseph Brodsky prepared for publication was this - “Clowns are destroying the circus. The elephants fled to India...” It is part of the selection “The Screams of Dublin Seagulls! The End of Grammar”, was intended by the author for “New World”, and was transmitted, as follows from the editorial commentary, a few days before the poet’s death. And all this was published four months later, in the month of the poet’s birth - as a verbal monument to his life and his work.

As a matter of fact, the content of the said poem is indicated by its first line. Indeed, here it is described quite specifically and outwardly artlessly how the circus building is being destroyed, and the circus, as a kind of entertainment given, as a memory of childhood, about something touching and distant, moreover, irrevocable both due to age and because the severity of the human experience associated with the experience. But in poetry, the content, as a rule, is quite significant than what is said, especially if we have in mind a poet of the caliber that Brodsky was for the twentieth century.

We will return to the lines of Brodsky’s last poem later, but for now we will say a few words about what preceded it; in other words, we will make a short excursion into the “circus cues” in Brodsky’s life.

It is known that when he was convicted (and the trial of his guilt itself was like a custom-made farce, like a circus performance with clearly written roles and lines rehearsed by someone), the brilliant Anna Akhmatova said something to the effect that an amazing fate, an extraordinary biography, was a trial the authorities are doing to the young man. Moreover, she called him not by name, but by a characteristic sign - red-haired. And here we can and should talk not only about an everyday sign - hair color (which can be learned from Brodsky’s self-portrait), but about such a significant detail that only an attentive, sensitive person could notice. The question is not whether Anna Akhmatova loved or not, whether she knew the Russian circus or not, but it is quite obvious that she simply could not, living in Russia, not know about the masks of the White and Red clowns, which in this case she meant. In the book by Z. Gurevich “On the Genres of the Soviet Circus” (M., Iskusstvo, 1984), there are interesting arguments by the author on this subject in the chapter devoted to clownery. But even without suspecting the professional aspects of the above-mentioned clown duo, it is not difficult to remember something from childhood impressions in order to understand that what happened to Brodsky - the conviction of a talented poet for parasitism for five years - was very reminiscent of a clown reprise, where he, in some way sense (without detracting from his courage and what he did in just over three decades after that), he performed in a mask, in the role of the circus Red, while the prosecution - in the mask of a White clown, however, with a footnote to Soviet ideology and political overtones of the process. Joseph Brodsky was ironic when he sometimes spoke about his work. Undoubtedly, he had a sufficient supply of optimism, having experienced so many different ordeals and betrayals during one life. Inevitably, he also had a sufficient sense of humor, so that in this case his comparison with Red should not seem either forced or offensive. At the trial, he sincerely and honestly proved that he was right, but they didn’t listen to him, they didn’t want to hear him. To public opinion, he seemed like a troublemaker, someone who does everything differently from what is customary, how he was taught, how it should be, so as not to seem ridiculous and alien. Obviously, during the trial and after it, before his release, the poet clearly had no time to laugh, but remembering those events of his tragic and happy life, he spoke about them with a smile, as if something could never happen again.

It cannot be said that Brodsky was an expert and lover of the circus, although it is obvious that once upon a time he must have been at a performance of the Leningrad Circus, which had a legendary history since the beginning of the nineteenth century, which Brodsky could not help but know about, being a Petersburger by birth and vocation. And even in adulthood, living after expulsion from the USSR in Europe and America, he hardly ever attended a local circus performance. It is no coincidence that the circus theme so naturally and reliably entered the high note of his poetry.

On his fortieth birthday, May 24, 1980, he writes one of his most famous poems, which, based on the first line, is called “I entered a cage instead of a wild beast.” It contains a short biography of a person who has had to endure some rather difficult trials. But again - the cage that is mentioned at the very beginning of the poem is probably not only a hint of a fence in the courtroom, a psychiatric hospital and a prison, but also a memory of the film “Circus”, which was released four years before Brodsky’s birth , but which, undoubtedly, he could see, look in order to understand what art is and what propaganda is. In that film there is a hilariously funny episode at first glance: an unlucky lover who came to the circus on a date ends up in a cage when a tiger is about to enter the circus arena. And this man from the crowd fights off the tiger with a bouquet of simple flowers, which is funny to the point of tears - scary, since an idealist can counteract animal strength with flowers, as thirty years later, in the sixties, hippies would do, protesting against war and all kinds of violence with flowers.

In some ways, the poet was similar to that unlucky hero of the musical comedy Grigory Alexandrov. And in Don Quixote, however, both the cage and the predators were not fictional, but natural. And it took enough courage not to succumb to their pressure, in order to remain a decent and unbroken person even in the cage.

At the age of forty-seven, the poet won the Nobel Prize for achievements in literature. He went on stage to receive his prize not to the Soviet anthem, which would have been strange for him, not to the American one, although he was a US citizen, but to his favorite music by Haydn, which in some way is similar to a musical eccentricity, since it seems nothing like this has ever happened before - usually national anthems are played on such occasions, not classical music.

And now let’s return to the poem, which became in every sense the final one in the work of Joseph Brodsky. Most likely, its action takes place in a circus tent, since a stationary circus is difficult to destroy even with sledgehammers. And here they break it down to the ground, which in some ways is a paraphrase of “The Internationale,” the party anthem of the country that drove it beyond its borders. But here we are talking about the fact that the circus is only destroyed, and nothing arises in its place, since this is precisely the end of the comedy. And here again a cinematic coincidence arises. This refers to “Orchestra Rehearsal” - Fellini’s brilliant film, which tells how a building is destroyed both from the inside - in the relationship between the musicians and the orchestra with the conductor, and from the outside. True, there are no longer sledgehammers here, but a huge ball attached to the crane boom. His monotonous blows on the wall eventually break it, which leads to tragedy, to a violation of harmony. In Brodsky everything is even more harsh, although outwardly it is almost reportage described. Clowns, those who are the soul of the circus, those without whom a traditional circus performance cannot do, break what is their destiny, their life, prosaically speaking, their place of work, what they devoted time and energy to, for which there were sacrifices and instability . This means that something system-forming has been disrupted, something has been erased from memory, while remaining dear and necessary. The purposeful efforts of the clowns are an unplanned, somewhat logical finale of the performance, something that imitates a parade alley, and what became a funeral.

Fourteen lines of this masterpiece show that Brodsky had an idea of ​​what a circus is and what its main genres are. It talks about clowning, training - tigers, elephants, horses, a dog, an illusion act. All this disappears into oblivion just like the circus building itself. Consider the italicized phrase about a disappointed illusionist, whose tailcoat dangles on a trapeze under the dome, a metaphor, a part instead of the whole, like the smile of the Cheshire cat in the adventures of the girl Alice. But who does the poet mean? Perhaps Igor Kyo or David Copperfield, whom he could see at different times, and perhaps himself, since it happens that poetry, as a form of creativity and a way of understanding life, is disappointing. After all, the title poem of the collection (New World, No. 5, 1996) says that at some point you need to “start your monologue anew - on a pure inhuman note.” And we are not talking about a crisis of creativity, but about a premonition of the outcome, that the prophecy should come true, because the poet wrote that the century will end later than he passes away. And, like other prophecies, this one was destined to come true so sadly.

A few words should be said about the last lines of this sad and at the same time optimistic poem, since it is not only about death, but about the fact that something still remains, even if it is the ruins of a circus, in this case an analogue of the empire, Rome or something -something else like that, which the poet was not indifferent to, since he lived in Russia, and felt like a citizen of the Roman Empire with its passions and the triumph of strength and classics. This is how this amazing and instructive story ends:

Only a well-trained lapdog

barks continuously, feeling that it is getting closer

to sugar: what's about to happen

one thousand nine hundred ninety five.

If we consider that this poem is dated from the same year and it was the last full year in the life of Joseph Brodsky, then with sadness we can say that the circus dog was not mistaken. It is clear that although she does not understand anything about chronology and was simply taught to open and show exactly these numbers, this is not just a coincidence, but a farewell gesture. (By the way, the very image of a circus dog is also interesting: in different years, Brodsky, as a sign, introduces dogs and dogs into his poems, which, by their presence in the events he describes, give his poetry a certain authenticity and specificity. However, even to himself, as a joke, the poet sometimes he spoke as if he were talking about a dog that remembers some tricks. And even, confirming his own cheerful comparison, he once took a photo with his arms outstretched, like a dog’s paws when it finds itself in a stance.) Of course, here, too, the point is not in a literal reading, but to show a sad situation not as tragic as it could be. For example, in a poem dedicated to his daughter, the poet compares himself to a closet in her room, which is a reference to Chekhov with his “The Cherry Orchard” and conversations about the closet, and an attempt to talk about his absence - later - in the life of a dear and desired person with with courage and therefore with a smile. Leonid Engibarov, who would have turned seventy last year, also a contemporary of Brodsky, a unique clown, a poet by vocation and skill to be himself, also left the arena into the void. So Brodsky arranged his farewell in this poem like a circus: everyday, simply, without unnecessary emotions and tears, because the circus is not melodrama, but hard, wear-and-tear work, where experience does not matter, but only the ability to be in demand or the need to become a pensioner. And this is something a real artist, a real poet can hardly survive. Brodsky’s poem “Clowns are destroying the circus” is about this. The elephants ran away to India…”, because in the very described event, with all its drama, there is something truly circus-like, the opportunity to play even in a sad situation, the opportunity to leave beautifully and effectively, without blaming anyone and not considering others obligated to do something for you himself. Brodsky once wrote that a truly strong person sees only his own failures in his failures and looks for a way out of the impasse. Joseph Brodsky was a strong man both in his poetry and in life. And he said goodbye beautifully, delicately and touchingly, because he had achieved a lot in his skill and realized that he would soon have to leave completely - from creativity and from life. This is most likely how this amazing poem about the circus, about saying goodbye to everything that is dear, about what never ends, arose.

I read a one-sentence joke on Facebook about the Icebergs and the Titanic as a response to the beginning of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. And I thought that we were laughing for now, although in reality it was sad and certainly not funny at all.

Probably, for the first time in the history of this religious meeting, the President of the Russian Federation was required to attend it, which in a sense explains the increased security measures during the church event. As well as the fact that anyone’s access to it is sharply limited, and its status is a closed meeting.

But that’s not the point, of course. As they say, the “highlight of the program” promises to be a report on the ritual murder of the royal family almost 100 years ago, which will be delivered by the abbot of one of the Russian monasteries, who is called the confessor of the current President of our country.

Note that this topic is not new. And even this story was made into a kind of historical film with a famous Western artist in the role of the Bolshevik Yurovsky, who is credited with the execution of the entire royal family. In that film, the plot was told as a dream-memory, as the delirium of a not very mentally healthy person, which somewhat relieved the severity of the problem.

Now everything is serious: the problems of identifying the remains of the royal family to further determine the status of their belonging to one or another category of persecuted people marked by the church, and also whether their murder was ritual or not.

Even having the most superficial ideas about the 1917 revolution in Russia, one can understand that the execution (without justifying this event, in principle) was not the evil will of an individual, who is credited with expressing revenge for the Jewish pogroms of the beginning of the last century, but planned by the new government initiative in the country.

Of course, it is up to historians, and not clergymen, especially in a secular state, as Russia is constitutionally positioned, to decide the reasons and circumstances of this cruel and unlawful action from any point of view. But historians, too, are partly believers and often quite engaged, so they interpret the same facts and documents not as impersonally as we would like.

There was information that, by decision of the Council of Bishops, an appeal would be prepared to the investigative authorities regarding the investigation into whether or not the murder of the royal family in Russia, which has been described many times, was ritual. The fact that the statute of limitations has passed more than once since that event apparently has no significance, since the paramount principle is to find the culprit and identify him for mass consciousness. One and specific, with its national, as without it, affiliation.

There are several aspects to this.

Firstly, it can be assumed that the investigation, once again resumed in connection with the death of members of the royal family, will last more than one month.

Secondly, it is clear that the international community will perceive an anti-Semitic, quasi-scientific and ahistorical approach to this issue extremely negatively. Which will be interpreted in the right way, as Western intervention. Read, Jewish behind the scenes in Russian affairs. And this will unite the public consciousness in opposition to it, will lead it to search for and find the enemy inside and outside the country.

Thirdly, the very first responses to this trial, both from liberals and from patriots of a certain kind, will constantly draw the attention of citizens to this topic, distracting them from some other, more significant events and situations.

Fourthly, anti-Semitic speeches by individual citizens cannot be ruled out. Consequently, it becomes clear that the struggle of State Duma deputy Poklonskaya with the film “Matilda” could be a preparation for what will be thrown into the mass consciousness of Russians in connection with the question of the likely ritual nature of the execution of the royal family. (It is no coincidence that it was on the very day that the meetings of the church institution began that she came out with a libelous text against the director Uchitel, who directed “Matilda.”)

Fifthly, there is reason to think that it is unlikely that there will be legislative grounds to propose as an unambiguous and correct thesis that Tsar Nicholas II and his relatives were killed because of hatred, the personal enmity of one private person. But, as they say, a sediment will remain. And this can no longer be deduced from the popular perception of this and long-standing event in it.

It’s sad to write about this, but it’s clear that we’re facing a typical multi-step game where the feelings and opinions of Russians will be involved and used in the right direction. That is, the same propaganda, but with some illusion of respectability and spirituality. But only by imitation of both. Unfortunately, with completely predictable consequences and clearly calculated results and reputational losses.

In Moscow, a banner with a quote from Saltykov-Shchedrin was repeatedly hung in the sense that they were talking about patriotism again, which means they were stealing. This was said at the end of the nineteenth century, shortly before the Jewish pogroms and other events in Russian history. You can’t argue with a classic, but still there is something fateful in his words. True, I would not want to experience what he did not live to see, and what the Jews who disappeared in the massacres in Russia did not experience. We can only hope for the best, that common sense will make itself felt in this case too. And the country will not slide into what Russia has already experienced more than once, be it pogroms, riots and revolutions.

P.S. A few facts on this topic.

The mayor of Yekaterinburg, where the royal family was killed, is now Evgeniy Roizman.

Maxim Galkin and Alla Pugacheva recently got married. The comedian explained this by saying that his wife and some relatives are Orthodox by religion, so he decided to consecrate their family union with a church ceremony. (One might think that until recently he knew neither one nor the other.)

You can build different versions about this and remember the joke about Rabinovich and the bathhouse. For example, the fact that Maxim Galkin on the First Channel of Russian TV hosts three programs at once on weekends, and his wedding is the right move, a clear answer to those who consider Russian television to have sold out to the Jews, openly or hidden (which is very clearly reminiscent of facts of the post-war history of the USSR).

There is no doubt that religion is a personal matter for each person. The only fact is that from a wave of rejection, if one arises, switching to the titular faith is unlikely to save you, as we know from another joke about a passport and a fight.

But even in the case when Maxim Galkin simply wanted to remind him of his wife, Alla Pugacheva, in this way, it turned out dubious, strange and stupid, to put it mildly.

But a private matter, in general, will remain such, no matter how you treat it; the same cannot be said about the decisions of the Council of Bishops.

The reaction to them will be obvious, and we will learn about the consequences in the near future, hoping for European values ​​and support for faith and truth.

Ilya Abel

Interesting article?