Alexander Domogarov spoke in a recent interview about his work and relationships within the Moscow City Council Theater. He addressed rumors about his conduct on stage and off, making clear that there has been no choking or obstruction during performances. He clarified that he is not a full member of the ensemble in the traditional sense, and his stance toward colleagues at the theater remains distant. Despite tension, Domogarov emphasized that he has no plans to leave the institution, choosing to stay until a broader change occurs within the troupe.
In his own words, the actor suggested he would continue at the theater for as long as he perceives a turning point, even if he contends that those around him might live longer or benefit from the theater’s evolving dynamics. He also expressed a belief that recognition or rewards will eventually come to those who deserve them, even if he does not currently see clear signs of it among his peers. This measured view hints at a longer arc of accountability and reward within a storied theatrical environment.
Domogarov admitted that his knowledge of some colleagues and of the theater as an institution has diminished over time. He described a communication gap, saying that conversations with other artists have faded, though he did not intend to sever ties. The actor indicated that changes in leadership and in the theater’s administrative atmosphere may have contributed to a shift in how colleagues perceive him, rather than any deliberate distancing on his part.
He recalled a period when casual chats on the third floor and informal exchanges helped sustain a sense of community. Those interactions have largely ceased, he noted, and he attributed this change to a new direction within the theater and to the new leadership that arrived with it. He suggested that a new government or administration altered the prevailing climate, leading people to view him differently and reducing the natural lines of communication he previously enjoyed with certain colleagues.
The actor also referenced past public statements about a broader conflict with the artistic director of the Moscow City Council Theater, Yevgeny Marchelli. In discussions from 2022, he criticized what he saw as a decline in the artistic value of productions following Marchelli’s arrival. This critique painted a picture of a theater wrestling with leadership changes and the implications those changes have on creative direction and performance quality.
Beyond the internal tensions, Domogarov has previously spoken about his stance on national residence, indicating that he has no intention of leaving Russia. This sentiment reflects a personal commitment to his homeland and to continuing his career within its cultural institutions, despite internal disagreements and shifts in the theater’s management or artistic philosophy. His statements reveal a wrestler-like patience, a willingness to endure a difficult period while awaiting the point at which the theater might realign with his artistic sensibilities.
In essence, the actor presents a portrait of a seasoned performer navigating a complex professional landscape. He acknowledges diminished interactions with colleagues, the impact of organizational changes, and the questions those developments raise about mutual recognition, respect, and the future trajectory of a venerable Moscow institution. While he preserves his own professional role, his commentary underscores the human side of theater life—the way leadership, culture, and personal history intertwine to shape working relationships on and off stage. The situation invites observers to consider how institutions evolve under new leadership, how veteran performers respond to shifting atmospheres, and how the broader theatre community might reconcile differing artistic visions while honoring the shared goal of high-caliber performances.
As the narrative around the Moscow City Council Theater continues to unfold, Domogarov remains a central figure whose actions and words spark discussion about loyalty, artistic integrity, and the responsibilities of long-standing actors within a changing cultural landscape. His public statements communicate a sense of perseverance and a cautious optimism, balanced by a candid assessment of how the theater’s internal dynamics influence daily collaboration and the sense of belonging among its members. Whether this veteran actor will witness a meaningful convergence of his professional priorities with the theater’s evolving mission remains an open question that fans and critics alike will watch closely.