On the Idea of Transforming the Stage Model: The Theatrical Potential of the Contemporary G. A. Tovstonogov Drama Theater

Batarshin Roman Raifovich ORCID: 0000-0002-9687-1331 Senior Lecturer; Department of Russian Theater; Russian State Institute of Performing Arts (RGISI) Chief Administrator; Bolshoi Drama Theater named after G. A. Tovstonogov 33-35 Mokhovaya St., Saint Petersburg, Russia, 191028 rbatarshin@gmail.com Other publications by this author

The art of theater – from space to the type of stage

Theatrical space and theater space as terms have long been scientifically and fundamentally established in the research of various theatrical phenomena. They comprehensively examine the specificity of diverse experiences in modern theater. This terminological pair is dialogical in its own way. From the point of view of the author of the article "Essential characteristics of the theatrical space and the theater space", Orlova E. V., "a real enclosed space in which specific practical activities of subjects providing intra-theatrical specifics are formed and implemented is called the theater space. And the "theatrical space" (ontological, ephemeral) is understood as the atmosphere that develops around theatrical art and determines the place of theater in culture" ^{[1, p. 136]}. Theater critic V. I. Maksimov also wrote about the problem of theatrical space in his article on the artistic phenomena of the St. Petersburg stage. In his opinion, "in our time, the traditional theater space is not a condition for a stage work. At least for the reason that there are no clear boundaries between the performance, the performance and the performative situation. Any space can be a theater venue" ^{[2, p. 52]}. Reflecting on the artistic and creative sides of the drama theater, the researchers hypothesized that the modern performance is fundamentally variable in its structure and is able to adapt to any physical territories. One way or another, the complex of judgments aimed at studying the specifics of a modern dramatic performance almost by default touches upon the issue of theatrical space. This problem turns out to be fundamental for studying the subject of theater as an art. Of course, in this regard, today's research base seems to be quite large-scale.

But there is also a second side to this dramatic "coin." To analyze works of theatrical art not only from the perspective of the specifics of the theater space, but also from the perspective of a purely rigorous type of stage. Even today, the idea that the model of the theater stage itself, or the type of stage tablet, dictates the conditions for the game, is still very legitimate. If we study in more detail the question of the mutual influence of the type of play – stage – territory and the nature of the performance, we can come to a more complex problem. The technology of stage stages.

We hypothesize that there is a direct relationship between the model of the stage (i.e., the type of its site) and the way the performance is organized. The role-playing option is dictated not just by the architectural features of the stage stages, but by their technological structure. Literally– the technique and technology of the stage generates the technique and technology of the performance (models of the world here and now). The stage structure is fundamental for theatrical art. The history of the theater is also inclined in favor of this idea.

The historical movement of the development of the laws of the artistic worldview indicates that all types of art, with the exception of one, have "diverged" into two types in diametrically opposite ways: they appear to be either temporal or spatial. Let's say music is a purely temporary art, while painting or sculpture is spatial. The territory of the theater, which clings to its genetic element – drama – implies an exceptional contradiction, which decisively distinguishes it from all other types of art. By its nature, theater is a space-time art. From this perspective, the nature of the drama theater should be considered as a chronotope existing in a special time-spatial continuum. According to the ideas of the thinker M. Bakhtin, the concept of chronotope explains "the essential interrelation of temporal and spatial relations" ^{[3, p. 234]}. And there is already a dramatic contradiction in this. Time moves rapidly, but space does not: it tries to keep itself in a stable spatial form. The drama of such a situation can be noticed if the scenic space, which is formed with the help of an artistic model and creates the volume of the picture of life "here and now", decisively makes a choice in favor of changing itself.

Previously, it was customary to "count off" theater from literature. Drama and role – they were the dominant ones. But a theater based on literature, the so—called literary theater, is an 18th-century theater in a European version. Sometimes it has already become aphoristic to "surrender to the role" — this is a long-standing tradition and today quite rightly argues with the theater of the XXI century. There is a "shift" in favor of today: from "playing a role" to "playing with a role." And this change in the conditional formulation is directly related to the genesis of the drama theater – to develop its own independent. That is, it is becoming more and more a theater.

The German theater researcher, Max Hermann, was the first to become theater-centric. He did not come from literature, but from the theater, its independence. He had to radically rethink the relationship between text and performance. According to the founder of theater studies, the foundation of the art of theater is not literature at all, but performance: "performance is the most important thing" ^{[4, p. 52]}. Herman himself interpreted the concept of a performance as follows: a unique situation arises, the dynamics of which are sometimes difficult to control, when "actors find themselves united by time and space with a certain number of viewers, whose mood, desires, knowledge, ideas, etc. can be very different from each other" ^{[4, p. 63]}. Obviously, Max Herman set the "source code"– the site, not the word.

Our domestic experience in theater science has actualized this idea of the independence of theatrical art, which was set by Herman. Theater thinker A. A. Gvozdev developed Herman's historical and theatrical thought, calling it a change of theater systems. Based on the two types of stage platforms, he established as a dichotomy two different theater systems as such. It is the stage platforms: the box stage and the arena stage. The sequence of such a movement of the theater turned out to be categorically indicative. A. A. Gvozdev wrote that it is "space that determines the way an actor plays and, consequently, the repertoire performed by the actor" ^{[5, p. 35]}. It turned out that in many ways it is the principle of the stage design that dictates the actor's defining feature – acting technique. In one case, this is a histrionic actor who needs to work with literally his whole body from all sides, in the other case, we are talking about a performer who finds himself in the conditions of his stage existence outside the fourth wall, where technically a single angle of the actor's body is required. The pattern thus formed is as follows: platform – actor – acting technique. This is also where a circumstance arises that is directly related to the principle of the actor's relationship with who his character is "here and now."

In contrast to the situation in which the principle of the fourth wall is involved, where the actor-role-spectator that constitutes the theater is always "playing a role," a completely different behavioral position comes into play, dictated by the principle of space, where the viewer is around the actor. In this situation, there is no integrity as such. The opposite arises – by no means role–playing, but, as is customary to follow the logic of "breaking" the fourth wall, openly artistic. Considering this circumstance, we define such a definition as literature as the last link. The type of role is dictated by the absolute conditions of the scene. The stage is able to involve the viewer in an open theatrical game and is already reluctant to tell him, for example, everyday stories from its stage. The radical nature of spatial changes in the movement of theatrical history was set initially. In this way, the idea of the theater became theater-centered.

The device model of the Main BDT stage. Reconstruction experience

In the context of the analyzed topic, the example of the St. Petersburg Drama Theater named after G. A. Tovstonogov turned out to be indicative. During the three-year period (2011-2014), the complex of the Fontanka Theater building was subject to "Reconstruction, restoration and technical re-equipment of the building." For the first time, a large-scale renovation of all rooms and decorations was organized in the theater space, designed by architect Ludwig Fontana in 1876-1877.

Fig. 1 Facade of the BDT building. 2011.

The main thing is that during it, a technological reconstruction of the type of scenic design of the tablet of the Main Stage was carried out. This was the first time in the history of the theater building that this change had occurred. As a result of the conducted constructions, the key was realized for any theater of the XXI century. The model of the stage with a rotating "circle" and "ring", which provided the spaces for theater performances in the 20th century, was replaced by a completely different principle of the stage tablet device – plungers (lifting and lowering platforms). Instead of horizontal movement, the opposite direction of the moves was set – "vertical-like". Literally horizontal, replaced by vertical. The new stage model has been adapted to fundamentally different directions, speeds, and configurations. Both capable of being technologically exploited and theatrically setting the parameters of the artistic worldview of the 21st century.

Fig. 2 Dismantling of the lower machinery of the stage – the turning circle and the ring. The year is 2011.

Fig. 3 Installation of plungers (lifting and lowering platforms) The main stage of the BDT. 2013.

The chief artist of the BDT, E. S. Kochergin, who has served this theater for more than half a century, stated in an interview that the project for the reconstruction of the BDT's main stage was not developed on the eve of the reconstruction of the theater building in 2011-2014. Back in the early 2000s, three figures stood at the origins of the development of a plan for the reorganization of the "rethought" stage model: E. S. Kochergin, head of the artistic and staging department V. P. Kuvarin, as well as the artistic director of the theater (1989-2007) K. Y. Lavrov. In those years, in response to the demands of the post-perestroika country, a "modern project with plungers was prepared for implementation, that is, the stage is divided into modules that can rise and fall in any combination. Everything is as it should be for the present directing" ^[6]. The mechanization of the stage with a lifting and lowering system "created a tempting prospect for the directors of the new formation" ^[7]. The theater has the opportunity to "break" the flat plane of the stage and change its relief in various ways. As evidenced by the Western European history of the theater, the plunger system originated in the second half of the 19th century. In 1870, for the first time, lifting and lowering platforms were tested by the French engineer Keruel at the Gethe Theater in Paris. And then it became clear that the principle of the stage design is not so much a matter of technique as technology. The theatrical 20th century seriously realized that the technology of the theater's stage platform is the technology of the performance itself. His creation, his composition, his search for linguistic means of expression. This turned out to be directly related to the profession of directing. The physical sensation of the stage space through the vertical category became a priority in the search for a new stage language. "The biggest problem is the stage floor, its flatness," wrote the director of the Sun. Meyerhold. – As a sculptor crushes clay, let the floor of the stage be crumpled and transformed from a wide-spread field into a compactly assembled series of planes of various heights" ^{[8, p. 155]}. The modernist Meyerhold did not artistically strive for the ideas of introducing plungers. History is an indicator of that.

Connecting two centuries, actualizing the past in the present, comprehending the experience of the theater of the XX century in modern realities, the main artist of the BDT Kochergin defined the historical circumstance of the accomplished change in his own way. In a conversation about the difference in the meanings of the two types of stage platforms, he argued that the principle of introducing the turning "circle" and "ring" into the tablet stage of drama theaters is "the theatrical philosophy of the early twentieth century, ideas of that time that have nothing to do with us" ^[6]. Theaters of the Soviet years were almost tendentiously equipped with similar devices. It was a trend of the times. However, the tradition of the "circle" and "ring" scenes unwittingly passed into the practice of the theater of the XXI century. Of course, the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries required its own rethinking: ideological, ideological, technological. The change of eras was equal to the change of tasks facing theaters in the early 2000s. Quite a few institutions were ready for this challenge of the time. And the BDT was at the forefront.

Fig. 4 Technical plan of the lower machinery of the Main stage of the BDT. 1980.

History decreed that in 2007, due to the passing of K. Y. Lavrov, the powerful staff of the Bolshoi Drama Theater temporarily lost its bearings for the further path: both organizational and administrative, and organizational and artistic. In the same year, the successor of K. Y. Lavrov, the creative heir of the theater of the era of G. A. Tovstonogov, director T. N. Chkheidze, did not make the changes that Lavrov was very radically ready for. Instead of the expected transformations of the stage structures, the tablet of the Main Stage still retained the inset "circle" and "ring". According to this technological "principle", performances were staged until 2011, i.e. before the start of reconstruction work.

It was only in 2014, by the time the renovation of the theater building complex was completed, that the theater managed to implement a project to develop a tablet device for the Main Stage, which "returned the idea of the first one, with modules, but in a slightly different way. Because of this, the opening of the theater was postponed for six months" ^[6].

As a result of the reconstruction, in addition to the reconstruction of the organization of the stage, the sound, lighting, and video equipment were thoroughly updated. The updated technology of the space was obviously adapted in favor of the "artistic" – to generate and broadcast new meanings of theatrical forces. Without exception, all the stage workshops and production workshops remained in the same premises, but with new equipment. "This is great," said E. S. Kochergin, "because we had very ancient machines, you wouldn't believe it, since the 30s. And in the picturesque hall there were homemade lamps with reflectors made of aluminum basins... Now everything will be new" ^[9]. The changes also affected the auditorium of the Main Stage. By increasing the distances between the rows of seats, the developers of the hall, which was "reformed" with new ideas, had to reduce the number of seats by almost half. Instead of 1,200, the modern BDT hall accommodates 750 seats. Kochergin, in one of his interviews, very humorously argued that "you will not see such wide aisles in any theater in the city - you can walk calmly without fear of stepping on a lady's foot! But the viewer is more comfortable" ^[6]. Obviously, this change worked in favor of the audience, because it is, as before, for the modern theater "an obligatory part of the performance system" ^{[10, p. 238]}.

A theater like BDT, which is faithful to the precepts of its history, strives to actualize the accumulated experience of the rich past of the 20th century in the present day. As usual on the territory of the theater, there is always a reverse side of the dramatic "coin". It means that the reconstruction of the theater, which was so large-scale in terms of the range of works, in addition to the charge of new impulses (the latest technologies and equipment), launched something else. The desire to preserve the image of BDT as a cultural code and the genius of the place was conceptualized quite significantly. The point is that the theater managed to intentionally and strategically preserve the legacy of its categorically perfect history of the 20th century. Particular importance should be given to the transformation of the BDT museum space. It is noteworthy that exactly one week after the premiere of the very first performance of the BDT "Don Carlos" - on February 22, 1919 – the artistic council of the theater appealed to Gubpolitprosvet with a request to purchase 25 sketches by the artist Shchuko for the performance. The management realized and foresaw that the BDT was "not a momentary enterprise, but a real theater, and from the very first days it was necessary to preserve and "collect" its history" ^[11]. Almost immediately, along with the theater itself, its museum appeared. From then to the present, the exposition of the BDT museum begins with two authentic sketches for the play "Don Carlos". And if earlier, before the reconstruction of the theater, a large museum space was dedicated to the theater of the Tovstonogov era, "now the exposition is largely different, reflecting the entire history of the theater" ^[11]. The legendary spaces of the academic theater also turned out to be artifacts that fulfill the role of actualizing the past in the present. The office of G. A. Tovstonogov, the makeup room of K. Y. Lavrov, as well as the famous dressing room with a painted ceiling, which in previous years housed actors S. Yursky, A. Garichev, O. Basilashvili — all this attempted to organize itself as a historical authentic art object, but actualized for the modern reality of life. The ignition of drama between tradition and innovation was manifested with all its strategic might.

The formation of modern BDT. Opportunities and ways of implementation

It is typical for researchers of the modern theatrical process to consider the activities of the BDT under the artistic direction of director A. Moguchy from the point of view of the artistic results of stage statements. The subject of their analysis are the performances staged by the artistic director at the BDT in the period from 2013 to 2023. The creative life of the legendary theater came to the professional attention of the theatrical community on the occasion of the arrival of the new artistic director, director Andrei Moguchy, in 2013. A fairly large-scale volume of theatrical and critical thought is devoted to the stage works in the BDT authorship of Moguchy. The productions he performed on the stage of the academic theater attracted by no means immodest theatrical attention. Of course, the request to form a completely different image of the collective, while preserving traditions and simultaneously updating the brand of the institution, is a very significant conversation in favor of initiating a new theater. New names, new performances, trends. Categorically, all these vectors of movement were set at the very beginning of the implementation of the programmed strategic ideas for the development of the theater. It is worth considering that having a creative team and its corresponding resources is quite sufficient for a rapid start. In the case of BDT, these opportunities turned out to be exemplary, literally historical.

Theatrical opinion very stereotypically calls for "counting down" the start of the "new BDT" under the leadership of Andrei the Mighty from the appearance of his first author's performances in it. This circle includes "Alice" starring Alice Freundlich (2013) on the stage of the Kamennoostrovsky Theater, and the play "What to Do" based on the novel by N. Chernyshevsky (2014) – the first work of the Mighty on the Main stage of the BDT after reconstruction. Of course, theatrical critical thought largely sets the "starting points" of the historical movement of the "new BDT", the BDT authored by Andrei the Mighty. This idea of the theatrical community is very significant and has all the reserves to be decisive in the analysis of the creative and organizational activities of the BDT of the last decade.

Our research hypothesis is based on the fact that today the last decade of the Bolshoi Drama Theater's life is already history. And in many volumes, the accumulated material can turn into all sorts of scientific and theatrical discoveries in the historical perspective. From the point of view of today, it is essential to consider the activities of the BDT 2013-2023 as a theatrical and cultural capital formed by modern history. With the absolute authorship of the A. Mighty Theater, the last pages of his chronicle deserve separate independent studies. Based on this, we propose to consider the author's period of the BDT of the Mighty, which has become meaningful, from a special theatrical and essential angle of the research view.

The novelty of this study is determined by the idea that the genesis of the "new BDT" was laid down by the premieres of the first productions of the Mighty that knowingly ascended to the stage. Its historical beginnings and root origins are the result of the reconstruction of the theater building complex. It was she who, actualized by the architectonics of the great historical heritage of the theater, gave birth to the opportunity to "build" an author's theater in her space.

There is reason to believe that the substantive changes that affected the principle of the stage tablet device directly responded to the direction of the Mighty, as well as the way to "see" the world, including the stage.

The changes that were very decisive for the academic theater, related to the reconstruction of the main building complex, namely, the technological transformation of the tablet device of the stage stages, set the trajectory for a new path of BDT. Deliberate synchronicity and asynchrony spark drama between each other. There are obviously many ways to develop the "new" theater, and the palette of its cultural and creative alternatives is intentionally diverse. Here, in fact, there is a special multiplicity and multifunctionality in choosing a strategy for the development of modern BDT. The principle of technological stage design has become consistent with the principle of organizing the stage space of a modern performance.

Developing an up–to-date stage language that allows to create a new author's theater, A. Moguchy felt the need for the main thing - the nature of the theater: "For me, theater is always primary. And a play or a literary text is the motivation and the basis to push off and jump towards a performance that is primary and self—sufficient" ^[12]. Continuing the thought, the director stated: "we proposed a construction stage that can be partially or completely modified, which can gradually be equipped with any modern mobile equipment, any number of lifting and lowering mechanisms located at any point on the stage" ^[13].

A completely different way of understanding space is an absolute for new beginnings. From the perspective of the transformation of the architectonics of the theater's scenic complex, this article attempts to hypothesize that it was these spatial, particularly meaningful, modifications of the Main Stage that "launched" the modern Tovstonogov BDT. They have become fundamental – prehistory.

Assessing the potential of the BDT theater space more than 10 years ago, it should be noted that the new space (the type of stage) and the new time (the artistic world of the authorship of A. Moguchy) dramatically intersected. In this case, the experience of the reconstruction is not a technical re-equipment of the theater space. On the contrary, the result of the renovation, firstly, made it possible to assess the theatrical potential of the institution, and secondly, to touch upon the conclusion that the artistic mindset of director A. Moguchy was in unison with the opportunities that opened up to the BDT in 2014. In other words, the spatial category (taking into account the technological nature of stage implementations) is fundamental for the author of both the performance and the Mighty Theater.

The vector of artistic searches directed by Andrey Moguchy is a phenomenon that deserves detailed attention. His creative quest as a great artist obviously goes beyond the usual understanding of the drama theater, sending us into the field of interdisciplinary arts, balancing on the edge of theater, performance, and installation. Olga Chepurova, a theater researcher, in an article devoted to the problems of the creative method of director Andrey Moguchy, outlines to us a synthetic model of para-theatrical forms, which combine to create a new artistic phenomenon. "It is obvious that the director's method, which inherits but does not fit into the framework of the traditional understanding of drama theater, forces us to look for a solution where genres, directions, forms merge, rethink and give birth to something new" ^{[14, p. 257]}, O. Chepurova writes. Opportunities are needed to implement what has been identified. And they are fundamentally technological in nature. The arrangement of the Mighty's performances themselves is extremely technological. He staged such performances as "Alice", "What to Do", "Three Fat Men. Episode 1", "Three fat men. Episode 2" artistically and organizationally determine the functionality of plungers (lifting and lowering platforms). In the performances of the Mighty, vertical and vertical movement as such turned out to be meaningful and semantic. This is inherent in the artistic exploration of the modern world, which, from the director's point of view, acquires various heights and speeds – ups and downs. It is obvious that the technological effectiveness of the stage mechanization devices used expresses theatrical meanings, the author of which was Andrey Moguchy. It is obvious to assume that the role function of the actors is also interdependent on the configuration of the positions of the stage stage. The type of performance of a modern hero by a dramatic actor is now dependent on the very configurations of technical and scenic capital. The nature of the "theatrical" is revealed here: a person's place in the world (his role) is directly dependent on the space of life (the model of the scenic world). And the world of modern performance today is determined by the technological capability of the stage and its types.

A special date fell on September 26, 2014, when the band returned to the renovated spaces of the theater. Marking the foreshadowing of the turn of a new era of BDT, I recall the landmark speech of the writer Daniil Granin, who was present that evening in the auditorium of the Bolshoi Drama Theater. The statement "We don't need another theater, we need a BDT" ^[15] turned into a metaphor for the beginning of a new path. The completion of the great theater of the XX century turned out to be obvious, which, obviously, the Bolshoi Drama Theater will not forget.

Based on this, the decisive spatial change that determined the transformation of the tablet device of the Tovstonogov BDT stage as a result of the reconstruction work carried out in the complex of the main theater building (2011-2014) marked the beginning of a new era. As evidenced by the science of theater, the stage space is primary for the theater.

It should be assumed that the stage "field" of the BDT turned out to be "cleared" for writing new pages of its history. The new configuration of the stage equipment and machinery, in fact, became a sign of the beginning of not only a new history of the Bolshoi Drama Theater, but also a sign of the opportunity to launch a new fundamentally original theater. The main change that we have recorded as a result of the three-year reconstruction is related to the "abandonment" of the type of stage tablet with a rotating "circle" and "ring" in favor of structurally integrated lifting and lowering platforms in the mechanization of the Main Stage stage. The story has "rebooted". Modern times have gained a new space, as well as vice versa. Obviously, the reconstruction was not the prehistory of the modern BDT, but a full-fledged history. The story of a theater that is becoming, but remembers its traditions.

The article is published in its final version as approved following the last positive peer review recommending acceptance for publication. It incorporates revisions made by the author in response to prior negative peer review reports that did not recommend publication. All peer review reports, including initial negative reviews, are published in open access alongside the article. All versions of the author’s revisions are archived in the publisher’s repository and may be made available upon reasonable request in accordance with Elsevier’s editorial policies and applicable data availability requirements.
Read all reviews on this article