Actor's riot: why Alexander Domogarov refused to go on stage

Angelica Dean

"The terrible catastrophe that happened with Misha is a litmus test that showed the attitude of the society of "people", and it's terrible what happened", - the actor wrote.

Domogarov emphasized that he considers Yefremov guilty, but the court should judge him. "But you, those who condemn you, didn’t you drink, didn’t you leave your wives, did you always lived with one wife, you didn’t cheat on, didn’t you spend the night with friends, didn’t you sell someone for pennies, didn’t you set up your comrades for your own benefit, didn’t you send angry letters?", - asks the actor. Domogarov accused the subscribers of being “trampled on blood” and demanded that they not come to his performances.

But it makes sense to us, without insults, to try to understand the relationship between the public and the artist.

Domogarov in his post refers to the great English actor, Henry Irving (1838 - 1905), a performer of roles in the Shakespeare tragedies, whose role in the play "Henry and Ellen" once (in January 2019) he played on the general run, and whose last name was spelled incorrectly in his post (he wrote Iwling instead of Irving), and I will turn to the great English poet of the era of English enlightenment, to the author of books about Shakespeare, Alexander Pope. He is the author of two famous Essays - “On Criticism” and “On Man”. Perhaps for Alexander Domogarov, who is currently rehearsing Richard the Third in the performance of the Mossovet Theater, it would be useful to get acquainted with the works of Pope? The poet was merciless to the indiscriminate, unprofessional “criticism” (his term), as well as to the capricious public, that he called “stupid” (“public is stupid” - his quote, or “went into criticism, but went out into fools”). But he clearly separated the moral of a man and the moral of the artist, the criticism of the work and the criticism of man as a member of society. In his work (written in verses), “An Essay on Man”, he uses, alas, the terms unpopular today: “moral duty”, “moral principle”, “moral theory”. Briefly, then each of us, a sinful person, selfish, envious, must have a "moral duty." And then let me turn directly to Alexander Domogarov:

- Yours, Alexander Yuryevich, new hero, Richard the Third, according to Shakespeare’s tragedy (which, of course, is far from factual truth) is the embodiment of immorality. He kills people (not always intentionally), neglects the foundations of morality, lies, rapes both physically and morally, while does not feel remorse and finds excuse for his actions. For some reason, I am sure that you, Alexander Yuryevich, will play this role perfectly. Richard is a specific historical figure, with his own set of qualities, and he was examined under the magnifying glass by the artist Shakespeare. Mikhail Yefremov, Alexander Domogarov, some critic, is also a specific person available for discussion, both society and individual personality. The public is an abstract concept that, if used, only in relation to a performance or a film. The imaginary public is not to blame for the tragedy with Mikhail Yefremov, and perhaps she does not care about her at all, as is the case with you, Alexander Yuryevich? You will probably be surprised, but more than the half of the youth does not even know who Alexander Domogarov is. Of course, young people know Mikhail Yefremov. How is it possible not to know the Citizen-Poet? But if you will come on the street to any person who is automatically ranked among your public, and ask: “What about the morality of the act of Mikhail Yefremov?”, they will will say: “He committed an immoral act”. Why? A drunk driver cannot drive a car. It’s as simple as multiplying two on two. The work of Alexander Pope "An Essay on Man" begins with the words: "The science of Human Nature is, like all other sciences, reduced to a few clear points: there are not many certain truths in this world". It is hardly necessary to prove that “killing a person under the influence of alcohol” is a sin. Yes, the crime has yet to be proven. But society has the right now to take measures to avoid such cases, and you cannot forbid people to do this. You do not have the right to do so.

You also manage a big Jeep, like Mikhail Yefremov. I saw you driving. When you drove up to the service entrance of the Gorky Moscow Art Theater, which you quarreled with in March, and the door of which you "closed yourself", I always wanted to tell you: “Can’t you see that your Jeep filled the entire parking lot of the theater, and because of you no one can pass and no one can drive through?” But I was silent. Drunk driving I haven’t seen you. In the theater, where I interviewed you and where I worked, I also did not see you drunk. I know that the director of the Mossovet theater, where serve for many years repeatedly announced their resignation (as they are now threatening the public), but for some reason remained. About it themselves wrote on social networks. Remember, then you called on the public to support you, and she, your faithful public, of course, supported? Once the audience even demanded that the producer of the play Leonid Roberman “return the role of Henry Irving to you”. But for some reason he did not obey the public. Yes, you are a good artist, and unlike Mikhail Yefremov, do not exploit one image of a drunkard, but play different characters, create images (although not always successfully), but you often use your name, fame the way you want and, excuse me, how at will. And the glory, again according to Alexander Pope, is "an imaginary life through the mouth of others". Glory is not the truth”.

Yes, Alexander Domogarov is right in declaring that "there are no people without a sin and vice” (although it is possible to prove the opposite on a particular person), but he is wrong when confusing the artistic life with the real life of a person in the society. Of course, the artist overreacted with his threat to the public of “not to playing for people and not to go on stage”, and, of course, the audience will forgive him for this emotional explosion, as forgave the other episodes of this kind. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to recall the words of Alexander Pope from the poem "An Essay on Criticism" as well as for the artists, spectators and the so-called "spies":

Avoid extremes; and shun the fault of such,

Who still are pleas'd too little or too much.

At ev'ry trifle scorn to take offence,

That always shows great pride, or little sense;

Those heads, as stomachs, are not sure the best,

Which nauseate all, and nothing can digest.

Yet let not each gay turn thy rapture move,

For fools admire, but men of sense approve;

As things seem large which we through mists descry,

Dulness is ever apt to magnify.

And something else: Alexander Domogarov in that “angry post” after incorrectly spelling the surname of Henry Irving, whom he quotes, openly demonstrates arrogance:

“This (Irving) name doesn’t tell you anything, you need to read books), we understand that only “Bohemia” read them and “ham actors” who should go to WORK. I am ready to TAKE ANYONE OF THOSE READING THIS TEXT AND PUSH HIM ON THE SCENE.

Alexander Yuryevich, wake up, but why should a surgeon or a pilot be "pushed onto the stage"? And what if you would be "pushed" to the surgical table with a person who is dying after an accident?