This year is the 150th anniversary of the birth of the great Russian painter Fyodor Ivanovich Chaliapin. In February, his homeland is Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kazan, exhibitions, festivals, solemn ceremonies, performances and conferences were held.
However, it is known that a single exhibition, a single festival, and television will not succeed in attracting the attention of the public. On his birthday, February 13, the series “Chaliapin” began to show the channel “Russia”. Of course, any biography is always an oversimplification. And this, while demanding from the film reliability, dynamics, brilliance and conformity to the reality of life, is often dissatisfied with educated audiences who want to see in the cinema the embodiment of the best of a famous person.
Now, the series, which was released last week, has been the subject of criticism. Spectators and critics literally attacked him, blaming him for all sins at once. However, a large number of responses and such passionate attacks testify to the interest in the figure of the hero, whose reputation has reached our days.
My childhood was spent reading aloud the two-volume Memoirs of my grandmother, Chaliapin, published in 1959. He read it for his grandfather who lost his sight. Grandfather adored Chaliapin, and not because he liked to sing, but because of the similarity of fate. Chaliapin was for him the incarnation of a national hero who, thanks to his talent, rose to the heights of glory. For my grandfather, who as a child left the countryside for the city, was self-educated and eventually became an aircraft designer after graduating from the Higher Technical School, Chaliapin “acted as a kind of model for a Russian man. (as Chaliapin wrote in his memoirs), but with great difficulty though it swam to the surface from the dirty bottom of life.
Whether the “dirty bottom of life” was so terrible, or whether the author of this memoir is an exaggeration, let biographers doubt, but for Chaliapin his peasant origin remained a problem for a very long time.
Recognized from the court in 1911, she complained that she could not send her children to Pushkin High School because of her inappropriate social status, because “my children continued to be considered peasants, that is, second-class citizens. ” and “The sin with which I was born of a Russian peasant has not yet been erased by His Majesty’s high rank of soloist.
Of course, Chaliapin’s reputation was of a special kind. His outstanding voice, acting skills, strong temperament and dedication to excellence were of paramount importance. But nothing else was less important.
Chaliapin was one of the first “media stars” in Russia, because the golden age of his work came at a time when photography and the gramophone had already appeared, and as a result, images and sound could be copied. Not everyone can attend a performance with the participation of Chaliapin, but any schoolgirl can get access to her photo, and a person with an average income can buy a record with aria. Numerous newspapers are interested in the actor, publishing details of his life, and the public reads news about the artist’s new house in Moscow, his guests and parties with the same attention, if not more, than the new opera. fame expands.
There was enough detail about scandals with the conductors, the artist’s behavior behind the scenes, grand gestures and bouts of stinginess. The artist himself loved to embellish stories about himself, his poor youth, with so many details that biographers doubted their veracity. Life is not a myth.
Chaliapin was a true folk hero surrounded by a halo of the most controversial myths, and anyone could choose the one that was relevant to him. In the national culture, their assessment was contradictory. Honored by the mercy of the Emperor, he was the first person in the Soviet Republic to receive the title of People’s Artist. However, ten years did not pass as he was deprived of this title along with citizenship. In 1927, Soviet citizens curse Chaliapin as a traitor who came into contact with white immigrants. After the publication of his book “The Mask and the Spirit” in the West, Mikhail Koltsov, with his cynicism, characterizes him as terrible, and his close friend and co-author of the first chapters of his memoirs Maxim Gorky switches to a cold “you”. , and he complains, “Oh, Chaliapin, you finished badly…”.
But already in the thirties they were talking with Chaliapin about returning to their homeland. Nemirovich-Danchenko tries to meet him on behalf of Stalin, but despite the homesickness, the artist will not return. “NO! Frightened. They will be sent to Solovki.” He died in 1938, was buried in France, and an obituary appeared in Izvestia in the USSR saying that Chaliapin had exchanged his homeland for a long ruble. His daughter Irina, who lived in the USSR, was not allowed to attend his father’s funeral.
But after the war, the memory of Chaliapin gradually returns to Russia, although some stages of his life are hidden. In 1953, his eightieth birthday was even celebrated with a concert at the Bolshoi Theater, where the artist was declared a national treasure. In 1984, his ashes were returned to their homeland, but without much fuss, at the request of his sons, semi-officially, under the patronage of Yuri Andropov. In 1991, the title of People’s Artist was restored to Chaliapin.
The idea to make a movie about him first came from Mark Donskoy, the famous author of the Maxim Trilogy, in the late 1980s. Scripts were written for three films and they were already preparing to shoot. But the author of the script was Alexander Galich, who at that time was convicted of unreliability and emigrated to France and was closed before the shooting began … Surprisingly, the first film adaptation of Chaliapin’s life coincided with the 150th anniversary. .
The film, directed by Yegor Anashkin, is based on a script originally written by Natalia Nazarova but heavily revised by Timur Ezgubaya, and it would be very interesting to know what exactly changed in the final version. Eight episodes were shown to the audience, which fit everything that connects Chaliapin to his homeland, from his birth to his departure abroad. It is still unknown whether the second season will be filmed, but under the current circumstances, at a time when relations with Europe and the United States have ceased to be friendly, continuing his life story, although interesting, would be difficult. Fedor Ivanovich, who declared himself a citizen of the world.
The famous actor Alexander Gorbatov plays Chaliapin in the movie shown on the Rossiya channel. Besides being almost two meters tall, there is little resemblance to the original in it, but the actor tried to embrace plasticity, gestures and was successful in places, but it seems like he put most of his energy into it. There is no complete freedom in the role, and therefore the hero has no scope, freedom and restraint, but a lot of irritation and melancholy. Most of all, in the life of this Chaliapin, one yearns for the lack of freedom both in the theater and in personal life, and in relations with the ruling powers. And outside the stage he cannot really flourish, he cannot live as he wishes, as his soul demands.
The quarrels between the two families, with the wishes of the authors, almost become the symbol of the quarrel between the country and abroad. And besides, there is no longer a ban between the ideal people shown on the almost Christmas stage of a charity show in a circus full of grateful workers, and the victorious revolutionary people who spit on the ground and roar for “Dubinushka”. but on the contrary it is recommended by the authorities. However, Chaliapin sings them an Italian aria and tames the crowd. He also pacifies the crowd of baggage at the station by singing, tries to leave for Petrograd, and can’t get a train ticket at all. This completely fictional episode in the series finale completes the contemporary, modern-day legend about Chaliapin, helplessly crucified at the crossroads of his life, in the hustle and bustle of the station, forever deprived of stability and harmony.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.