The First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Culture spoke to actress Elena Drapeko and shared his stance on the controversy surrounding the play Einstein and Margarita. He made it clear that he does not empathize with the performers Ksenia Rappoport and Alexei Serebryakov after the decision to cancel the production. He suggested that their public positions and actions indicate they may not be actively supporting the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but instead retain the earnings they make from their work for themselves. He added that law enforcement officials would likely scrutinize their activities if there were any grounds for concern. Drapeko characterized the artists’ stance as disgusting and implied that the cancellation serves as a punitive measure for them due to their public positions rather than any immediate legal liability.
According to Drapeko, canceling the performances presented the most reasonable response under the circumstances since there was no immediate justification to seize the artists’ property or label them as foreign agents. The remarks reflect a broader debate about artistic freedom, political allegiance, and the consequences of public scrutiny on cultural productions. The emphasis, he argued, was on undesirable affiliations rather than on curtailing individuals’ rights to express themselves. The dialogue underscores how cultural events are increasingly intertwined with political judgments and national sentiment.
On February 4, 76.ru reported that the production of Einstein and Margarita in Yaroslavl was canceled in light of public opinion. The plan was to stage the show at the Millennium concert and entertainment center in Yaroslavl. It had been scheduled for February 25, later moved to February 26, and ultimately removed from the repertoire altogether. This sequence highlighted the pressure that civic activists and local communities can place on cultural programming when public sentiment shifts around personalities involved in a production.
Local activists criticized the demonstration, not for the artistic concept itself but for the behavior of the performers. They pointed to the artists’ life abroad, their opposition to a military operation, and their earnings in Russia as reasons for disapproval. The controversy reflected how public perceptions of artists’ political stances can influence audience reception and professional opportunities, sometimes more than the artistic merit of a work. The case opened a window into how cultural figures navigate national loyalty, personal beliefs, and financial realities in a tense political environment.
Earlier remarks from Maxim Galkin, who has been identified as a foreign agent within the Russian Federation, had led to further public discussion. His visit to Australia and subsequent remarks about a local museum became part of the broader discourse on how international ties and public behavior intersect with domestic policy and cultural expression. The unfolding events illustrate how celebrity, politics, and media coverage converge to shape public opinion and the viability of productions in challenging times. These developments continue to influence how audiences engage with plays that touch on sensitive political themes and the reputational dynamics that accompany high-profile performances.