sign in sign up
<<
Home , Mikhail Bulgakov, The Days of the Turbins

on the American Stage

Michael Yurieff*

The success of Bulgakov's plays in America depends on the actors, the directors, and on the quality of the translation and adaptation. At issue are the central questions: will the actors succeed.in conveying Bulgakov's world and the director's concept? Does the translation or adaptation hurt this process? And, even under the most favorable conditions, can the spirit of Bulgakov be conveyed to an American audience? From the brief history of Bulgakov on the American stage presented here, it will become clear that American audiences know only Bulgakov the novelist and have not yet been acquainted with Bulgakov the playwright. First, I would like to outline the reception Bulgakov's dramas have received in the American press—a topic impossible to exhaust here—and then focus on four Bulgakov productions in America: Andrei Serban's New York production of The Master and Margarita4, 's rehearsals of with American actors in Boston; Boris Morozov's New York production of Zoya's Apartment; and my production of Zoya's Apartment at the Russian School of Norwich University. On November 7, 1926 the first review of a Bulgakov play, Days of the Turbins at the Art Theater, appeared in the New York Times. In this review, entitled "Red Intelligentsia Is Stirred by Play," correspondent Walter Duranty described the play's content and the reaction of one young commu- nist: at the beginning of the performance he sneered audibly, but at the end he wept.1

* Michael Yurieff is Assistant Professor of Russian and Russian Theater at Norwich University in Vermont. He has taught twentieth-century and civilization at the University of Vermont. 1 Walter Duranty, "Red Intelligentsia Stirred by Play," New York Times, 7 Nov. 1926, p. 20, col. 1.

133 On December 16, 1928, also in the New York Times, a review of the premiere of Bulgakov's The Crimson Island at the Kamerny Theater came out. In it, the correspondent noted the difference between an opening night in the Soviet theater and one in the American theater. In Moscow, he wrote, the premiere of a play by the most popular playwright was announced in small print and without any advance notice.2 The American premiere of a Bulgakov play occurred at Yale University in March 1934. This production ran under the title In and was staged by the Dramatic Association of Yale University. The reviewer, a staff correspondent for the New York Times? found the play weak in its construction and "hopelessly dull" in places. In general he praised the actors, but noted the misfortune of casting students in much older roles. The famous impresario Sol Hurok produced Bulgakov's in Russian at the Majestic Theater on Broadway in March 1935. Former Moscow Art Theater actors performed in the play, including Andrias Jilinsky. The New York Times reviewer, who had described the Yale production of the previous year, liked the acting on Broadway better, but he repeated his criticism of the play, adding that it was wooden.4 Thirty years later, in February 1965, Hurok brought the Moscow Art Theater production of , Bulgakov's adaptation of Gogol's novel, to New York. With the help of simultaneous translation on transistors, American audiences were reacquainted with the Moscow Art Theater.5 The tour was a success. In 1967, after The Master and Margarita was published in Moscow, two English language translations of the novel appeared. One was more precise, but based on the censored version, which had some seventy pages cut. The other was of the full text, but with many errors. For example, "deep galoshes" were translated as "blue galoshes," and the phrase, "It dawned on me," became "The autumn drew on." In spite of this, Bulgakov's popularity in America grew after the release of his novel. In February 1978, Zoya's Apartment was staged at the Gene Frankel Workshop Theater in New York. In his opening night review, Richard Eder of the New York Times praised Bulgakov, but criticized the poor training of some actors. "A number of the actors do not have the training or the discipline to carry out the expressionist tableaux," he wrote. "An initial pantomime in which these denizens of the lower depths writhe about and end up silently screaming is effortful rather than Suggestive." "On the other hand," he

1 "Revolutionary Drama Burlesqued," New York Times, 16 Dec. 1928, III, p. 3, col. 5. 3 "Yale Group Gives New Russian Play," New York Times, 7 Mar. 1934, p. 22, col. 5. 4 "The Play: The White Guard," New York Times, 7 Mar. 1935, p. 27, col. 5. 5 Howard Taubman, "The Theater: Visitors from ," New York Times, 6 Feb. 1965, p. 34, col. 1.

134 continued, "the first rate performances by several of the leading actors help immensely."6 The play closed after 12 performances. The same year, at the Public Theater in New York, the Rumanian director Andrei Serban staged his adaptation of The Master and Margarita for Joseph Papp. Also in the '78-'79 season, Anatoli Efros staged Monsieur de Moliere based on Bulgakov's A Cabal of Hypocrites at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis. And David Morgan's adaptation of Bulgakov's A Cabal of Hypocrites was produced at the Colonnades Theatre Lab in New York, where it was renamed Moliere In Spite of Himself. No reviews were available, but two years later, in March 1981, the same adaptation—but a different production altogether—was shown in Stamford, Connecticut by the Hartman Theater Company. Though Mel Gussow, the New York Times theater critic, praised some of the actors, he criticized the adaptation. First, the adaptation included a large number of other works, including a film biography about Bulgakov directed by Ariane Mnouchkine. In addition, Bulgakov's name as the play's author was almost left out. His name only appeared in "tiny print at the bottom of the title page of the program"7 where it said that the adaptation was "based in part" on Bulgakov's play. This was perhaps a fortuitous omission. If Gussow's critique of the adaptation was accurate, Bulgakov's name was at least distanced from the production. Three years later, in the '84-'85 season, another adaptation of a Bul- gakov work appeared. This time The was chosen, and by all accounts Frank Galati's production, which premiered at the Northlight Theater in Illinois, was a success. The next season saw Frank Galati's adaptation staged at the Detroit Repertory Theater in Michigan, and in February 1988 it ran in New York at the Alchemy Theater Company. This time the New York Times reviewer praised the play, but criticized the direction and the weak acting of some performers.8 Here, the adaptation was a plus, but the director and the actors apparently failed to convey Bulgakov's world to their audience. While The Heart of a Dog was taking its circuitous route to New York, The Royal Comedians, yet another work based on Bulgakov's A Cabal of Hypocrites, was staged at the Actors Theater in Louisville, Kentucky as part of the "Classics in Context" festival during the '85-'86 season. The following season saw a production of The Black Cross at the Milwaukee Repertory Theater in Wisconsin, billing Bulgakov as the author, with Barbara Field as

' Richard Eder, "Stage: 'Zoya' Set in Russia of 1926," New York Times, 15 Feb. 1978, Sec. C, p. 23. 7 Mel Gussow, "Stage: Kiley in Revision of Bulgakov's 'Moliere'," New York Times, 20 Mar. 1981, Sec. C, p. 9. 8 Wilborn Hampton, "Stage: 'Heart of a Dog'," New York Times, 1 Feb. 1988, Sec. C, p. 28.

135 translator. It is unclear on which of Bulgakov's works this production was based. At this time, Lyubimov was rehearsing The Master and Margarita at the American Repertory Theatre in Boston. In 1990, the second American adaptation of The Heart of a Dog was staged in New York at the Classic Stage Company. Mel Gussow was again the reviewer, and in spite of the loose adaptation, he found that the work preserved the character of Bulgakov's novel. To him the direction resembled French farce, "reminding one that one of the Russian author's best-known plays is Moliere In Spite of Himself. "9 Here Gussow confused the title of Bulgakov's A Cabal of Hypocrites with the title of the Stamford production Moliere In Spite of Himself, which he reviewed in 1981. Again, a situation was created where the adaptation may have left something to be desired, but the actors and director succeeded in conveying the spirit of Bulgakov to an American audience. What follows is a study of four Bulgakov productions in America, showing in more specific terms the range and quality of American stagings of Bulgakov's works: a student production, a workshop production Off-Broadway, rehearsals at a regional theater, and a full produc- tion on Broadway. In the mid-seventies, Joseph Papp, the founder of the Public Theater and the Shakespeare Festival in New York, invited the young director Andrei Serban to work for him. Serban staged Chekhov's at Lincoln Center for Papp and was preparing several projects. He became acquainted with Bulgakov's creative work in Rumania where he was given a Rumanian translation of The Master and Margarita as a gift. He read the novel and was delighted. Papp agreed to a low budget production. The show was billed as a workshop production. Tickets were free. The audience sat on chairs placed along the wall. The theater was turned into a sports arena. The action took place on ramps above and below the spectators. Ramps were used to connect opposite ends of the auditorium. At certain moments the action took place among the spectators. In this way, Serban achieved the two-pronged action in quick tempo. Unfortunately, the reviews do not present a clear picture of the performances, making them hard to evaluate.10 Yet Serban did choose his actors well, which contributed to the production's success. was played by Jan Triska, a leading actor at the

9 Mel Gussow, " 'Heart of a Dog,' a Parable on the Ills of Soviet Society, New York Times, 16 Mar. 1990, Sec. C, p. 3. 101 am referring to the following reviews: Mel Gussow, "Serban Conjures the Devil at Public," New York Times, 10 Nov. 1978, Sec. C, p. 4. Richard Eder, "Theater: Serban's Workshop 'Master and Margarita'," New York Times, 21 Nov. 1978, Sec. C, p. 13. Jack Kroll, "The Devil in Moscow," Newsweek, 11 Dec. 1978, pp. 102-104.

136 National Theater in Prague. His foreign accent made Woland all the more distinct. F. Murray Abraham, the film and stage actor who played the Master, was later awarded an Oscar for Best Actor for his portrayal of Salieri in Milos Forman's film Amadeus. The clever adaptation and staging, the international diversity of the cast, Serban's understanding of both totalitarian regimes and American audiences as well as his directing strategies proved to be a winning combination. On March 27, 1987 at the American Repertory Theatre in Cambridge Massachusetts, the rehearsals of another Master and Margarita were called off by Yuri Lyubimov. These rehearsals documented the disparity in the approaches and attitudes towards theater between Lyubimov and the actors and management of the ART." The first three rehearsals were held in a dance studio without windows, located in the ART's basement. Lyubimov, who had just returned from Europe sick, was unable to attend these rehearsals. Though sick he was working on the production at home, gave instructions for rehearsals, and approved cuts in the adaptation. In his absence, Alexander Gelman, Lyubimov's assistant and simultaneous translator, Michael Heim, the literary translator, and Abbie Katz, the stage manager, ran the readings. The atmosphere was that of a classroom where the teacher is absent, but work still had to be done. The actors had difficulty in understanding the text they were reading; they were not concentrating on the script, and therefore had to have almost every line explained. Heim and Gelman had to explain everything down to the smallest detail to the actors. In particular, they discussed everyday realia and Bulgakov's use of puns, which are understandable to Russian speakers, but often inaccessible to Americans. The actors gave the impression that they were less interested in trying to understand the script, than in entertaining themselves and performing the material for laughs. The resistance or laziness toward working on the script stemmed perhaps from the absence of the director. Lyubimov finally joined rehearsals on March 25th. This time they were held in the west lobby of the theater, another ad hoc rehearsal space. A cardboard model of The Master and Margarita was brought up from the basement. Lyubimov monopolized the rehearsals, taking control away from the actors and curbing the lax atmosphere of the previous readings. He proceeded to give the cast background material on Bulgakov, the novel, on himself and his theater, his method of work, and on the production. He made a special effort to concentrate the actors' attention, particularly on the formal aspects of the production. He began by speaking about his conception:

11 The first hand account of Lyubimov's rehearsals at the ART is condensed from: Michael Yurieff, "Lyubimov's Theatrical Synthesis: Directing The Master and Margarita and Crime and Punishment in the US and USSR," (Unpubl. dissertation, New York U, 1989).

137 Everyone will certainly be involved in the carnival-like action, which is not a regular carnival. It's the carnival essence of theater. It has its roots in the ancient theater and it's from these traditions that this production is created.

The director also told how he saw the intertwining of the past and present, the real and the fantastic. His explanations stimulated enthusiasm on the part of the actors in working on the show. They asked questions concerning the motivation and emotions of individual characters. Yet, there were also questions of a philosophical nature, to which the material undoubtedly lent itself. For example, Alvin Epstein, who was to play Pilate, asked if Pilate knew that he was dealing with an immortal when he sentenced \feshua to death. What turned out to be the last rehearsal of The Master and Margarita was held at a warehouse in Somerville, Massachusetts on March 27, 1987. Although only ten mintues from the ART, the neighborhood differed signifi- cantly from Cambridge. The warehouse was located in a back alley, the door opened into what looked like a parking lot. There were two or three cars parked inside. It was dusty, dank, and stuffy. A bit further up there was a large piece of fabric—some kind of sheeting—that sectioned off the rehearsal space. The pendulum and the curtain were rigged. Two curtains were at either side, one indicating Margarita's window and the other Woland's sinister apartment. On the following day, March 28th, rehearsals were cancelled. Having attempted to rehearse in the space provided by the ART, Lyubimov decided that it was not adequate for the demands of his production. He told me in an interview that the ART should have put up a sign: Театр на помойке (Theater on the Garbage Dump), a pun on Театр на Таганке (Theater on Taganka Square). The unfortunate culture clash and misunderstanding at the early stages of rehearsal resulted not only in the cancellation of the produc- tion, but also in a lost opportunity for American audiences to become better acquainted with the theatricality of Bulgakov's work. Similar problems in mixing East and West occurred on Broadway with Boris Morozov and the American actors playing in Zoya's Apartment. I was not present at these rehearsals, but judging from the descriptions and the results on stage, I notice much in common with Lyubimov's experience: the actors' failure in conveying Bulgakov's unique theatrical world to an Ameri- can audience. The result was unfortunate, people left the theater commenting on the adequacy of the performances and the "inadequacy" of the play. The cast included Bronson Pinochet, an American actor from the television series Perfect Strangers in the role of Ametistov, the Canadian actress Linda Thorson in the role of Zoya, and Robert LuPone known for his role in the musical A Chorus Line.

138 An April 16, 1990 New York Times article conveyed the atmosphere and mood in which rehearsals took place:

"Bronson," the director says, beginning a short critique of the actor's moves. Mr. Pinochet smiles and looks expectantly at the director, as well as at ц translator standing nearby... the director saunters across the stage, his arms outstretched, imitating Mr. Pinochet's actions almost precisely, but with just a bit more animation. On the way, without pausing, he turns toward the actress playing Zoya and gives her an exasperated look. When he is finished, he stops and speaks again to Mr. Pinochet, again in Russian. He gesticulates with his hands, his arms; his voice is full of feeling, each syllable demonstrating what he is trying to convey. Then he smiles, and then he laughs. Even before the director has finished, the translator has begun. "You have to with your eyes tell her everything you think about her." Mr. Pinochet nods in understanding, and the next time moves across the stage exactly as the director has shown him. "O.K.," the director says, in English. '.'Very good."12

Unfortunately, the director's work with the actor evaporated quickly. In his May 1990 review, Frank Rich remarked that Pinochet "substitutes a mono- tonous, energetic raising of his voice and arms for comic invention."13 And later that same month, in another review, John Simon wrote: "Worse yet is Bronson Pinochet as Ametistov; he can wave his arms both forward and sideways and, justifiably proud of such an achievement, does very little else."14 And in a third review by John Beaufort of The Christian Science Monitor: "Mr. Pinochet revels in the flamboyance and antic body language of the role."" Because of the language barrier, Pinochet apparently concentrated on the physicality of the role. About the director, Boris Morozov, he noted that:

the irony of it is that hQ is more communicative, even without the English language, than most English-speaking directors we've worked with have been. You see how physical he is, how tonally fluent. The language thing is not really a problem.16

Problems, however, were evident in the performances. "East and West" writes Frank Rich, "do not so much as meet as smash their heads against a

12 Mervyn Rothstein, "A Life in America for a 64-Year-Old Soviet Comedy," New York Times, 16 Apr. 1990, Sec. C, p. 13. 13 Frank Rich, "Marooned in Moscow After the Revolution," New York Times, 11 May 1990, Sec. C, p. 3. 14 John Simon, "Zoya's Apartment," New York, 28 May 1990, p. 75. 15 John Beaufort, "Fine Revival of Satiric Bulgakov Play About 1920s Russia," The Christian Science Monitor, 29 May 1990, p. 15. 16 Cited in Rothstein, op. cit.

139 wall as formidable as Berlin's once was" and "a theatergoer must amuse himself by imagining the director's good intentions rather than by taking seriously the misfires actually occurring on stage."17 Two months after the Broadway premiere of Zoya's Apartment, I mounted a Russian language production of the play at The Russian School of Norwich University in Vermont—an intensive summer language program that attracts students and professionals from all over the United States and Canada. The actors, although starting with little acting experience, achieved striking results by the end of the seven-week long rehearsal process that was supplemented with studio training. The production was very well received by a cross-section of American college students and Soviet guests, including the well-known bard, Bulat Okudzhava; the prominent poet, prose writer, and Deputy to the Soviet Parliament—Fazil Iskander; Moscow playwright Leonid Vinogradov; actor, director and playwright—Sergei Kokovkin; and emigre writer Vasilii Aksio- nov. A review of the play by the Soviet actress and playwright Anna Rodionova appeared in the emigre journal Новый журнал:

А пьеса «Зойкина квартира» и вовсе мало исполнялась как на своей родине, так и в остальном мире. Удач было тоже немного. Пьеса Булгакова неуловима, сложна, она не поддается прямолинейному режиссерскому анализу, особенно нацеленному на социальное реше- ние, под этим грузом она просто рухнет. Эта комедия должна быть созвучна наивности, иронии, искренности. Студенческое исполнение оказалось в данном случае наиболее точным.18

The production was also discussed by Natalia Arkusheva in an October 3, 1990 Новое русское слово article:

Когда стало известно, что именно эта пьеса выбрана для постановки, я решила, что это осуществить невозможно... Но оказалось, что возможно все... Играли «Зойкину квартиру» непосредственно и очень свободно. Наверное, поэтому и возник такой контакт со зри- тельным залом, которому позавидовал бы любой профессиональный театр. Некоторые участники блеснули настоящими актерскими спо- собностями."

In spite of the differences between East and West, theater can often overcome

17 Rich, op. cit. 18 Анна Родионова, «Из жизни бабочек,» Новый журнал, № 181 (дек. 1990), стр. 349-51. " Наталия Аркушева, «О летней русской школе,» Новое русское слово, 3 окт. 1990.

140 cultural, language, and other barriers and bring to the spectator the writer's values, aesthetics, and poetics. This is especially important when it concerns Mikhail Bulgakov, who was not only a playwright, but also a philosopher and psychologist, often penetrating into the depths of the human soul. To stage Bulgakov in America with American actors and in an English language translation or adaptation demands excellence and theatrical precision from directors, actors, and translators alike. The fulfillment of his ethic and aesthetic conceptions can be quite different as evidenced by the productions cited. Yet, the expression of grand forms of spiritual life, and the accentuated significance for Bulgakov of all that is humanistic, demand theatrical preci- sion and the preservation of the playwright's subtlety and virtuosity— something that he insisted on.

141