Tag Archives: Mikhail Bulgakov

Alexander Vertinsky plaque, Moscow

Click on photos to enlarge.

dscn0873

Few individuals in the history of Russian culture have lived more dramatic lives than the great singer and songwriter Alexander Vertinsky (1889-1957). It all began before he was born.
Vertinsky was the second child born scandalously in Kiev to Nikolai Vertinsky, a lawyer, and Yevgenia Skolatskaya, the daughter of the head of Kiev’s assembly of nobility. Vertinsky, Sr., was married and nothing he could do would convince his wife to agree to a divorce. The situation – this was the end of the 19th century, after all – was, indeed, dramatic. Alexander’s sister Nadezhda was separated from her brother and given to an aunt in the father’s family. Alexander was turned over to his maternal aunt, a severe woman who hated Alexander’s father, was extremely strict in her dealings with the young boy, and who told him that his sister was dead. His mother died when he was three; his father, who apparently spent much of his last years sitting by his lover’s grave, died when Alexander was five. Not the easiest start in life far a young boy, although this was just a prelude.
The story that follows is packed with details that I could never have collected without the help of a few good websites, Know EverythingPeoples.ru, and Russian Wikipedia. I doff my cap to them all. (Although I should point out that the sources differ on dates occasionally, with some claiming he moved to Moscow and began his film career either in 1912 or 1913. In unclear instances, I tend to side with Wikipedia, rightly or wrongly.)
Vertinsky received a good education, at least at first, studying at the No. 1 Gymnasium for aristocrats. His classmates included the future writers Konstantin Paustovsky and Mikhail Bulgakov. But Vertinsky’s independent nature was not to be tamed. For kicks he began stealing money that pilgrims left as honors on the graves holding the remains of saints at the Kiev-Pechersky monastery. He was caught and kicked out of school, and, when he refused to quit doing it, his aunt kicked him out of her home. His saving grace was a love for theater and music. He tried out his acting chops first and, when that failed, he took up singing. A chance meeting with an old friend of his mother gave him another “in” to high society. She took him under her wing, inviting him to her house where he met such individuals as Marc Chagall, the philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev, the poet Mikhail Kuzmin,  and the painters Kazimir Malevich and Natan Altman. This, apparently was an environment that began to serve and feed Vertinsky’s talent. His new benefactress helped him get a job as a theater critic and he turned out to be very good at it. He became well-known in Kiev with his notices about performances by Fyodor Chaliapin and others. He also began publishing short stories. When he had saved up enough money by the age of 24, he set out for the bright lights of the big city of Moscow. His primary goal was to make a career in literature, but first he made an astonishing discovery – his sister Nadya was not only still alive, she was an actress in the theater! Alexander began performing and directing, all the while continuing to write stories, poems and short plays, often under the influence of Alexander Blok and the Symbolists. An attempt to enter the Moscow Art Theater school ended in failure when the auditioning master Konstantin Stanislavsky complained that Vertinsky could not properly pronounce the letter “r.” This hardly stopped him. He made his debut in silent film in 1913 and, when World War I began, he volunteered as a medic. There he applied some 35,000 bandages to wounded soldiers before he was wounded slightly himself and sent back to Moscow where he learned that his beloved sister had died of an overdose of cocaine. Nevertheless, Alexander wasted little time getting his career going again, continuing to act in films and making his Moscow debut as a singer in 1915 at the Miniature Theater. A crucial choice was made to dress and make Vertinsky up as Pierrot, and it stuck, becoming his own personal image forever after. His early repertoire was based on the poetry of others, but he also began slipping in a few of his own songs, too. Before long he had become a star in his own right.

dscn0874 dscn0877 dscn0879

dscn0971Vertinsky’s songs reflected the age in which they were written – one of violence, uncertainty and fear. The usual characters that he wrote about found themselves alone and vulnerable before a hostile world. There was a note of fatalism in Vertinsky’s voice that, together with his unique, personal sound of deep regret and profound understanding, gave his songs enormous emotional impact. It is not surprising (I say as I leap-frog over all kinds of interesting biographical details) that Vertinsky would increasingly feel himself an outcast in Moscow in the years after the Revolution. Even though the rhetoric was not even close to what it would become in the next decade/decade and a half, it was plenty to alienate Vertinsky almost immediately. Here’s a little story worth repeating from Peoples.ru:
Following the Bolshevik Revolution Vertinsky came to the conclusion that he would never get along with the new government. His romance titled ‘What I Must Say,’ written under the impression of the deaths of three hundred cadets in Moscow, aroused the interest of the Cheka [secret police], which summoned the actor to explain his sympathy for enemies of the Revolution. Legend has it that Vertinsky responded to the Chekists indignantly: ‘It’s just a song, and anyway, you cannot forbid me to pity them!’ He received a clear and concise answer: ‘If necessary, we can forbid you to breathe!‘”
Shortly thereafter Vertinsky – who was now a nationally famous singer – set out on a protracted tour through the southern regions of the new Soviet Union, as far from Moscow as he could get. In 1920 he slipped out of the country on the good ship Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, and set foot in the safety of Constantinople. He began performing there with success for the growing emigre population, but, being a restless soul, he kept moving, visiting in coming years Romania, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Libya and Germany. When in Poland he made an attempt to return to the Soviet Union but was refused a visa. He settled in France from 1925 to 1934, where he, once again, became an enormous star. Yes, he was supported by the huge Russian emigre community, but the French, with their love of style, art and literature, took him in as well. He continued writing his beautiful, sad songs of longing, regret and stoicism, creating one of the greatest oeuvre of popular songs in the world.
In 1934 Alexander set sail for New York on the good ship Lafayette. He never felt comfortable in America’s financial capital and set off on tours that took him to Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles. There was an attempt to get him started in Hollywood as an actor, but his lack of knowledge and deep dislike of the English language were a barrier that could not be breached. There is a tale that Marlene Dietrich, seeing how Vertinsky struggled with English, suggested that he just “get a grip on himself” and learn the language. He couldn’t, however, and ended up turning down the offer to act.
Disillusioned with the States, Vertinsky set sail for China in October 1935. It was a decision that would change his life, and the history of Russian/Soviet performing arts.
He set up base in Shanghai where he continued to perform, and, even, for a short while was the owner of a cabaret. But life was getting more and more difficult, and when he unexpectedly received an invitation from the Soviet consulate in Shanghai to return home, he was intrigued. He even began writing for a Soviet newspaper. Still, the road home was not easy. His final papers from Moscow were delayed, in large part because of the beginning of World War II, and so, when he married his second wife Lidia Tsirgvava in 1942, he was still in Shanghai. Vertinsky was then 53; Tsirgvava, the daughter of a Soviet official in China, was 20. Their first daughter Marianna was born several months later. When Japan invaded China Vertinsky made still another, now desperate, attempt to return home. He wrote Stalin’s right-hand man Vyacheslav Molotov, who immediately made arrangements for Vertinsky and his family to receive traveling papers. They were given an apartment in a prestigious building on Tverskaya Street (occasionally and exaggeratedly called Moscow’s Fifth Avenue or Champs Elysses) in building No. 12. You see that building here, as photographed in the fall of 2016.
Just a few months after arriving here in Moscow in 1943, the couple’s second daughter Anastasia was born. Both Marianna and Anastasia would become successful actors themselves, Anastasia, especially, becoming one of the Soviet Union’s most popular actresses in the 1960s and 1970s.
Vertinsky himself found an uncomfortable mix of success and alienation upon his return to a nation that had nothing to do with the country he left in 1920. He was allowed to act in films and to give concerts, and yet, he was kept on the outside of mainstream Soviet cultural life. His songwriting muse pretty much dried up in this period. One source claims he wrote barely two dozen songs over the last 14 years of his life.
In 1956, the year after Nikita Khrushchev launched his de-Stalinization campaign, Vertinsky wrote to his wife:
Look at this whole story with Stalin. It’s false, base and disingenuous, At the convention Khrushchev said: ‘Let’s stand in honor of the 17 million people who were martyred in the camps.’ How do you like that?! Who, when and how will the ‘mistakes’ made by these scums ever be repaid? How long will they continue to  mock our Motherland? How long?

dscn0878 dscn0876 dscn0875

dscn0970

 

Advertisements

Grisha Gurvich’s Bat Cabaret No. 2, Moscow

Click on photos to enlarge.

img_5742 img_5753 img_5754

One could write a book about this building. In fact, I used to own a small book about it in one of those libraries I collected along my way before jettisoning as I moved on in life. The way some people are with umbrellas, sunglasses, gloves and the like, I am with libraries. They come of their own, but when I go, they go. Be that as it may, I don’t need any book to write about his distinctive building at 10 Bolshoi Gnezdikovsky Lane in the center of Moscow. My memories are full without books.
Still, let me begin with some acquired information because this really is an extraordinary location. Two plaques hanging on the exterior wall are of interest to us here. One (the first above) reads as such: “Memorial of history and culture. This is the first ‘skyscraper’ in the capital, engineered by E[rnst] K. Nirnzee in 1912. Beginning in 1915 Nikita Baliev’s the Bat Cabaret began working in the basement, as did the Romen Gypsy Theater and the F[yodor] Kaverin Theater-Studio and others. A winter film pavilion of the V. Vengerov and V[ladimir] Gardin Film Partnership was located on the roof of the building. This building is associated with the names of M. Bulgakov, K. Paustovsky, Yu. Burliuk, V. Mayakovsky and others.”
(The reference to “Yu. Burlyuk” appears to be an error. The avant-garde poet, painter and all-around artistic hooligan David Burliuk was a close associate of Vladimir Mayakovsky’s, while his brothers Vladimir and Nikolai were of some note, too. I suspect it is David that is meant here. I don’t know of a “Yu. Burliuk.”)
The second plaque is significantly more economical in terms of facts, but it tells a similar story: “Apartment House 1912-1923. Engineer E.K. Nirnzee. This building is associated with the history of the development of Russian theater and film.”
This is all very impressive, and I am sure there are plenty of facts and stories out there waiting to be tracked down and retold about all those mentioned here. But I only have room in my mind today for one person and his work and vision. He is not mentioned on either of the plaques from the past, and who knows what eras overseen by what kind of people we have yet to go through in the future? Does anyone today care about Grigory Gurvich? Obviously, many do. He touched the lives of thousands. But does anyone in a position of power and authority remember him? That’s a harder question to answer. Who knows what folks like that are thinking these days.
Grigory Gurvich (1957-1999) was utterly unlike anyone else. He came into prominence during the hard, harsh, ugly era of the death of the Soviet experiment, and he greeted it with humor, style and elegance. It was not a particularly friendly time, but Grisha – as I will allow myself to call him – was everybody’s friend. He had a smile, a good word, a handshake or a twinkle in his eye for everyone who ever came through the doors of his theater located in this building. The idea for his theater was a small stroke of genius. It was not so much a resurrection of the famed Bat Cabaret opened here on the same stage by Nikita Baliev in 1915, as it was an attempt to do that famous enterprise honor in a new age. It was better than a resurrection. It was a whole new theater, with a new idea and a new plan, but one that took inspiration from Baliev and his company which, soon enough, disbanded and headed for world-famous tours of Europe and then a fairly long residency in New York under the name of La Chauve-Souris. (I should mention that Baliev’s name became Balieff in the transition from the Soviet Union to Europe and the States.) Baliev’s theater was a true cabaret, with actors coming in late nights after performing in the “legit theater” to sing songs and improvise skits with other famous actors, who mingled with the performers from Baliev’s troupe. Opening its doors late at night, when actors and audiences got out of other performances, it would run into the wee hours of the morn.

img_5737 img_5743 img_5740 img_5739

Grisha Gurvich’s Bat Cabaret Theater (note the addition of “theater”) was an actual theater company. It put on plays and performed them in a repertory schedule like most other Russian theaters might do. What distinguished Gurvich’s work (he wrote or, at least, compiled most of the plays he directed) from other theaters was that each piece was put together from the kinds of skits you might see in a cabaret variety show. But he tied them together, put them into a connected, winding string that created a narrative story. His first show, which opened right here on May 26, 1989, on the basement stage at what has been known over the decades as the GITIS student theater, was called The Reading of a New Play. It was a mystification of sorts that mixed the characters of Baliev’s troupe on the verge of breaking up, with the individuals of Gurvich’s company, which was on the verge of a great beginning. It was nostalgic, sweet, painful, intelligent and always funny. Gurvich, as was his wont, moved through the piece as a narrator or an emcee, tying loose ends together, or, sometimes just leaving them to hang and dangle. The first performances of The Reading of a New Play were wildly successful, as few things can be wildly successful in our days. News of the fabulous new show and theater traveled like wildfire. The next night (when I attended) there may have been two people crashing the door for every seat in the house. The audience was electrified. It exploded into fiery bursts of laughter and applause constantly throughout the evening.
Originally, Gurvich had rented the space for six performances. But because this was right where Baliev’s Bat Cabaret had performed, he very much wanted to stay right here. And the success of that first short run did guarantee a residency that lasted for nearly half a decade. As a resident company in this space, Gurvich’s Bat Cabaret Theater opened its next four shows here, including: I Tap Dance about Moscow (at the turn of 1991/92)and 100 Years of Cabaret (November 1994). It was the latter show that caused me to write a few paragraphs that I have treasured throughout the decades. 100 Years of Cabaret was not Gurvich’s best show. It was slicker than the deeper, more successful first outings. But it lacked none of the excitement, energy and humor that Gurvich always put into everything he did. So, in a review for The Moscow Times that acknowledged a few flat spots and sour notes throughout evening, here is how I wrapped up what I had witnessed:
But Gurvich has the ultimate trump card up his sleeve: his own personality.
Call him the sultan of suave, the wizard of wit, or the king of charisma, but when he takes the stage to the slinky accompaniment of Roman Berchenko at the piano, he soothes everything over. He isn’t just the show’s author, he is its heart and soul.
Meanwhile, amidst the uneven collection of sketches, some are as good as ever. The best include a wildly energetic medley of American pop from Elvis Presley to Chubby Checker; some thunderous, top-flight tap-dancing; and a beautifully-done interactive film skit that has actors climbing onto and off of the screen a la Federico Fellini or Woody Allen.
But the star is Gurvich. Were there such a thing, he would be Mr. Moscow, the man who brings warmth and respect to the town he loves. And a few slips notwithstanding, it is always a pleasure to watch him do it.”
Pleasure, hell. It was an honor. It was the opportunity of a lifetime. It all ended much too fast. After Gurvich directed five shows in the wonderful old space of the basement stage at 10 Bolshoi Gnizdikovsky Lane, the landlords at the theater – GITIS – kicked Gurvich out. He had become too big a star and, for some reason, they couldn’t handle the competition. Grisha took his company elsewhere; they performed on rented stages around town, but it was never the same. Then around 1996 he became the host of a hit TV show called This Old Apartment. That took most of the air out of what was left of the Bat Cabaret Theater. Moreover, what most of us did not know was that Grisha Gurvich was deathly ill. He died of leukemia in Israel before the century could run out.
One very visible trace of Grigory Gurvich’s short tenure in this famed building remains for us to see. That is the art nouveau front door and awning that Gurivch had put in before he was asked to vacate the premises. It was his little gift to history – a door erected in the 1990s to honor an era gone by, the last few years before the Russian Revolution. Had Baliev put in a fancy front door to his Bat Cabaret, it might well have looked something like this door that Gurvich had designed and built 80 years later.
These days, frankly, it looks forlorn and out of place. Without the crowds storming the door to get in for the night’s performance, without Gurvich there to greet you, without any rhyme or reason for its being there, the beautiful, well-illuminated entrance strikes one now as a heavy reproach. It seems to frown on those fools who kicked Gurvich out of here 20 years ago. It seems to mock those who walk past or even enter the premises now – as if to say, “Who are you and what are you doing here? You have no idea what my purpose was!” For me personally, it stands as a small cluster of light amidst the darkness that has descended on Bolshoi Gnezdikovsky Lane ever since Grisha Gurvich last left it. Every time I pass it by it seems to say, “Grisha was here and you and I remember that. Can’t speak for the rest of the folk around here.”

img_5750 img_5738 img_5755 img_5746

 

 

Bulgakov-inspired bas relief, Moscow

Click on photos to enlarge.IMG_9119

 

Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940) again. He is as ubiquitous in Moscow as Pushkin. This time we’re looking at another in the series of illustrations of characters from BB’s writings that showed up on city walls and archways as part of the Best City in the World Festival in 2014. This particular bas relief, etched out in a thin layer of cement, is of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, from BB’s play Ivan Vasilyevich. Like the others, it was created by Novatek Art. Unlike most of the others, this image is not in a readily visible position. In fact, it occupies a fairly forlorn spot behind a wayward post not far from some junk gathering behind a tiny, leftover wall, and squeezed on all sides by a rough paint job. If you’re looking for it, go to 36 Starokonyushenny Lane in the Arbat district and peek around the right corner of the building from the street.
Ivan Vasilyevich is simultaneously an obscure Bulgakov play and one of his most popular. How does that work? Easy. It was made into a film called Ivan Vasilyevich Changes his Profession by the great Soviet comic film director Leonid Gaidai in 1973. The film – the top grossing Soviet film for that year (it was seen by over 60 million spectators) – became an instant classic and still maintains its cult popularity today.
The play itself – a comedy about two Soviet citizens being carried back into the 16th century by a time machine which also tosses Ivan the Terrible into the 20th century – has lived a much quieter life. It was written in the mid-1930s for the Satire Theater, but it didn’t see the light of day until it was published in a small collection of Bulgakov’s plays in 1965. Even then it was not until Gaidai got hold of it that anyone really paid it any attention. And, truth to be told, even following that wildly popular film, theaters did not clamor to stage it. In my nearly 30 years of theater-going in Russia I have never seen a production of it.
In fact, Ivan Vasilyevich began life as a play called Bliss. That early variant was written roughly between spring and fall of 1934 but the Satire Theater declined to stage it. Director Nikolai Gorchakov and actors at the theater encouraged Bulgakov to keep working on the play. He did just that and it is considered that he finished it on Sept. 30, 1935, giving a reading of the play in his home for the Gorchakov crew on Oct. 2. The play was proverbially received enthusiastically by the company, although that did not stop them or Bulgakov from believing that it needed to be reworked severely. That mutual agreement was reached on Oct. 29. Bulgakov went back to the drawing board, changing the comedy drastically – the new version was no longer a science-fiction tale of time travel, but now became an unreal tale of a man having a strange dream. This version was completed in April 1936. I haven’t found when the play went into rehearsals (it was  probably before April), but a dress rehearsal was held on May 13 and was promptly banned after that.
Gaidai’s film of the play introduced a large number of changes and innovations. Not surprisingly, in it the characters travel back and forth between the 16th century and the 1970s, rather than the 1930s of Bulgakov’s original.

IMG_9120 IMG_9123 IMG_9124

Gaidai (1923-1993) was one of the most beloved makers of comedies in the Soviet era. I think we would be safe in calling them screwball comedies. He made approximately 20 films between 1955 and 1992. Ivan Vasilyevich Changes his Profession was the last in a fivesome of unsurpassed successes. The run began in 1965 with Operation Y, and Shurik’s Other Adventures, hitting stride with The Captive Girl of the Caucausus (1966, aka Kidnapping, Caucasian Style), The Diamond Hand (1968) and The Twelve Chairs (1971, not to be mistaken, of course, for Mel Brooks’ Hollywood version of this classic comic novel by Ilf and Petrov). Every one of these films is spoken of with the greatest love and reverence by virtually anyone who has grown up in the Soviet Union or Russia since the 1960s. The films are wacky, off the wall and fast-paced, and Ivan Vasilyevich is no different.
What is interesting about Ivan Vasilyevich Changes his Profession is that Gaidai – despite the wave of success he was enjoying at the time – apparently had a difficult time casting it. He wrote the script with the great clown and actor Yury Nikulin in mind, but Nikulin – who had starred with such success in The Diamond Hand – curiously wanted nothing to do with the project. According to Russian Wikipedia, the reason for Nikulin’s reticence was that he didn’t expect this film featuring a satirical vision of Ivan the Terrible ever to pass the censor, and he had no desire to waste his time making a film no one would see. Frankly, that sounds a little simplistic to me, but I have no reason to buck Wikipedia’s received wisdom.
Another eight actors – most of them big stars – auditioned for the lead, which was a dual role of Ivan the Terrible and one of the hapless Soviet citizens being sent back into the past. They included Yevgeny Yevstigneev, Georgy Vitsin and Yevgeny Lebedev – all of them legends in their own right. However, the part eventually fell to Yury Yakovlev, who emerged in the 1970s as one of Soviet cinema’s finest lyrical/comic actors.
Of course, it is Gaidai’s film, and not Bulgakov’s original play, that made the Novatek artists want to memorialize the character of Ivan the Terrible in the series of Bulgakov-inspired bas reliefs that still dot the city of Moscow today. Bulgakov only returned to Russian readers in the 1960s when the unofficial ban on his works was lifted. As such, Gaidai’s film of the obscure Ivan Vasilyevich Changes his Profession was the first successful film adaptation of the writer’s works. It helped cement the writer’s fast-growing reputation as the people’s favorite.

IMG_9125 IMG_9126 IMG_9121 IMG_9122

 

 

Mikhail Bulgakov plaque, Moscow

Click on photos to enlarge.

IMG_0514

It’s not much of a plaque, and, frankly, it’s not much of a reason for one: A “house where M.A. Bulgakov spent time.” Russian cultural bureaucrats haven’t honored many others with memorial plaques for such a skimpy reason. I would hazard to guess that only Pushkin and Lenin get similar treatment. As for the plaque, it’s not one of those nice ones done by some artist getting a cushy commission; just one of those functional things that lets you look the place up on that cool Know Moscow website.  (The Russian page is here.) But if you happen upon it – as I did a few months back – you have to take notice, don’t you?
Bulgakov met and befriended the attorney David Kiselgof in 1922 and that is why he occasionally hung out in this house at 25 Skatertny Lane. Kiselgof lived here in Apt. No. 2. It’s possible that Bulgakov would have come here, at least on occasion, with his wife Tatyana Lappa. (She was the first of three.) In September 1922 the couple was reunited in Moscow after a good deal of journeying which had taken them to Tiflis (now Tbilisi), Batumi, Odessa and Kiev. Bulgakov at the time was a military doctor and was being sent wherever he was needed most. Tatyana, whom everyone usually called Tasya, would follow him as best as she could, sometimes falling behind, sometimes catching up. In any case, the couple mostly remained in Moscow after the autumn of 1921 (divorcing in April 1924), so we can imagine the two approaching the door you see in some of the pictures below.
I should add that some sources say Kiselgof and Lappa first met only in 1923 at the home of another lawyer friend of Bulgakov’s, Vladimir Komorsky. But even if that’s true, there would still have been plenty of time for Lappa to visit this location before her break with Bulgakov.
Why is this of particular interest? Because some 25 years later, around 1947, Lappa would marry Kiselgof (he would be her third husband). It is quite obvious that this is not a case of the lawyer and the writer’s wife falling into a passionate affair that they hid until they could hide it no longer. I am guessing it was more a case of two aging people attempting to recapture some special moment from their younger days. Consider it something like Bob Dylan fan Steve Jobs falling in love with Joan Baez, an occurrence that Jobs himself described as “a serious relationship between two accidental friends who became lovers.” Rolling Stone magazine adds that some of Job’s friends “believed that one thing that drew Jobs to Baez was the fact that she used to date Bob Dylan.” Well, I’m thinking the Lappa-Kiselgof relationship had similarities. I’m not saying at all that it wasn’t serious – I have no idea about that one way or the other. I’m just saying it probably grew out of the mutual affection both continued to feel for someone – Bulgakov – who had gone out of their lives long ago, and who died in 1940.

IMG_0518 IMG_0517 IMG_0516

A nice biography of Lappa on the internet Bulgakov encyclopedia contains several observations that suggest my hunch is correct. It gives voice to the general belief that Lappa continued to love Bulgakov to the end of her days, and that, after they parted, Bulgakov occasionally turned to her in difficult moments (such as when he had just asked Stalin in person to let him emigrate, and received a refusal). Much is made of the jealousy of Lappa’s second husband (their marriage was common-law), a certain Alexander Kreshkov. He, too, might have been another Bulgakov substitute for Lappa, since he was the brother of one of Bulgakov’s best friends from his youth. Kreshkov would rifle through Lappa’s possessions, tossing Bulgakov mementos around and accusing her of still loving her first husband. He finally destroyed everything – photos, letters, other items – that Lappa had kept and cherished.
In any case, the connection between the former husband and wife was strong. We are told that, when he lay dying, Bulgakov called out for Lappa.
Indeed, Lappa had saved Bulgakov’s skin more than once. When he was a raging morphine addict in the ‘teens, she is the one who pulled him out of the tailspin – even though he chased her with a gun and threatened to kill her if she didn’t get him more of the drug. (She is the prototype of Anna Kirillovna in his famous story, “Morphine.”)  In 1920, when he fell deathly ill with typhus,  Lappa stood by him until he recovered.
Many years later, in the 1970s, Lappa reminisced about her third husband, Kiselgof, at precisely the time she might have been visiting him as Bulgakov’s wife: “Davy loved writers very much,” she said. “He had a marvelous room with beautiful easy chairs. He worked as an attorney, but he loved literature, was interested in it, and he would invite various writers to visit him.”
As for Kiselgof, he told the Bulgakov scholar Marietta Chudakova in 1970: ” You see, he [Bulgakov] was never able to make sense of Soviet reality, that’s the thing. That was his tragedy. He wrote like Ilf and Petrov, they were also comic writers, they also saw our deficiencies, but they also could see positive sides! He couldn’t do that. He looked on it all from a remove. I think that tormented him. Even now they’re afraid to publish him. If he had been able to make sense of our reality, his entire life would have been different.”
(See the Bulgakov Museum website for my source for these quotes.)
I’m not so sure we need to take Kiselgof’s conclusion seriously, and I’m not so sure the comparison with Ilf and Petrov is quite right. But, hey, today we’re looking at photos of the home in which Kiselgof received Bulgakov and (perhaps) his wife Tatyana as guests. I think that gives him the right to be heard.
But to wrap things up, let’s go back to Bulgakov and Lappa’s break in 1924. Here is what a Master and Margarita site has to say:
Bulgakov became famous in Moscow’s literary circles. One day he came home with a champagne bottle and said, ‘What do you say we part?’ These words came down, as if from heaven, breaking over her like a crystal vase. What could Tasya say? ‘All I did was wash and prepare meals and sell things at the market. He went everywhere, I stayed at home.’ They separated in April 1924. Mikhail said, ‘You know, it’s easy for me to say I’m married. Don’t worry. Everything will be as before. We’ll just separate formally.’ ‘You mean I’m Lappa again?’ Tasya asked. ‘Yes. And I’m Bulgakov.’ They continued to live on Bolshaya Sadovaya Street. But in November Mikhail moved out on Tasya.”
P.S. Despite Lappa’s comment that she usually “stayed at home” while Bulgakov was out on the town, I’m not convinced she never visited Kiselgof’s apartment. After all, she did go visiting with Bulgakov to Komorsky’s apartment in 1923, and, in that 1970 interview, she describes the interior of Kiselgof’s “marvelous room with beautiful easy chairs” as she would had she seen it with her own eyes. I think that nice room and lovely chairs were right here, behind these walls.

IMG_0519 IMG_0520 IMG_0522

 

 

Mikhail Bulgakov mural, Moscow

Click on photos to enlarge.

Bulgakov_Wall1 Bulgakov_Wall7

I wish there were more of these around Moscow. The city is laid out in such a way that there could be many more full-building murals. There are countless blank and open building walls just waiting to have cool pictures painted on them. Street art, mural art is a wonderful way of personalizing a city. Look how cool this Bob Dylan mural looked in Minneapolis even before it was completed. I have written about several murals in Moscow – including ones depicting Stravinsky and Alexander Pushkin. The one I post today is of Mikhail Bulgakov. It was the first in a series of murals painted in the Heritage project. It was created jointly by the two main (and overlapping, as far as I can tell) “graffiti-advertising” organizations in Moscow – Novotekart and Zuk Club. It is painted on the north-looking wall of the apartment house located at 33 Afanasyevsky Lane in the Arbat district, and it appeared in September 2014. Showing a playful sense of humor, the artists depict Woland’s cat Begemot hanging out up on two stray balconies at the top of the wall. (Woland, of course, being the devilish character in Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita who comes to Moscow to do evil, but can do only good….)
Much of the action in The Master and Margarita takes place in this general Arbat region, so the choice of this location for the portrait was not random. Although I read and enjoyed the novel when I first encountered it a couple of decades ago, it has never been an obsession with me like it is with many. The cult of Bulgakov, his novel and his characters is one of the strongest in all of Russian culture. For this reason it is arguably the source for more public art in Moscow than any other artistic work. I ran a net check on the topic on Yandex (the Russian Google) and came up with a huge gallery of photos.
However, people far more impressive than I have been influenced by Bulgakov’s Master, Margarita, Woland, Berlioz, Begemot, Azazello, Pontius Pilate and the rest.

Bulgakov_Wall6 Bulgakov_Wall5 Bulgakov_Wall8

Arguably the biggest splash that The Master and Margarita had outside of Russia was in the Mick Jagger tune “Sympathy for the Devil.” The first stanzas are pretty much built on Jagger’s reading of the novel:

Please allow me to introduce myself,
I’m a man of wealth and taste.
I’ve been around for a long, long year,
Stole many a man’s soul and faith.

And I was round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain,
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate.

Pleased to meet you,
Hope you guess my name.
But what’s puzzling you
Is the nature of my game.

The song then departs from the novel, but maintains the Russian context by adding:

I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change,
Killed the czar and his ministers;
Anastasia screamed in vain.

A comprehensive Master and Margarita site has this to say about the Stones meeting Bulgakov:
“‘Sympathy for the Devil’ is one of the few Stones songs which Mick Jagger wrote alone, without the help of his buddy Keith Richard. At first, he said it was based on a poem of Baudelaire. But later he said it was inspired by The Master and Margarita, which Marianne Faithfull would have offered to him as a present. Faithfull, who was Jagger’s girlfriend at that time, said during an interview with Sylvie Simmons from the magazine Mojo in 2005: “I got Mick to read The Master and Margarita and out of that, after discussing it at length with me, he wrote that song.”
More recently, Patti Smith tossed a nod in the direction of Bulgakov by naming an album Banga. In a blog for The Moscow Times I pointed out that, “…as any net search will tell you, the mysterious title was drawn from a very minor figure in Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel, The Master and Margarita. Banga in Bulgakov’s creation is Pontius Pilate’s dog, a creature so loyal he is willing to wait for his master virtually forever.”
But Patti didn’t stop there in her plumbing of Bulgakov’s writings, for, as I wrote in the same article, “Smith references another Bulgakovian dog without naming him: Sharik from the novella Heart of a Dog. She name-checks the full title to kick off her narrative, which explores the dark side of loyalty. ‘You can lick it twice, but it won’t lick you,’ she sneers, later adding, ‘Loyal he lives and we don’t know why.'”

Bulgakov_Wall4 Bulgakov_Wall2 Bulgakov_Wall3

 

Mikhail Bulgakov street art, Moscow

Click on photos to enlarge.

IMG_4938.jpg2 IMG_4941.jpg2

This street portrait of Professor Preobrazhensky and the dog Sharikov from Mikhail Bulgakov’s popular novella The Heart of a Dog is one of many Bulgakov-related works of street art that were done in Moscow in 2014 by the 33 Plus 1 project as part of the Best City in the World festival. At least nine portraits were created in thin layers of plaster slapped on regular city walls. The plaster “canvas” was then inscribed, if you will, with an image, usually using the edge of a spatula-type instrument. To the fullest I can determine, the series was created by two artists, Pavel Shugurov and Pavel Zyumkin. Also, to the best I can determine, the entire series included images of Begemot, Azazelo, Margarita, Annushka and Korolyov from The Master and Margarita; Preobrazhensky, Shvonder and Sharikov from The Heart of a Dog; and Ivan the Terrible from the play Ivan Vasilievich. Many of the works are located in courtyards or archways tucked away from view. Many, like this one, are in the Arbat region, but some are in other places in the old, historic city center.  At least one of them (Annushka) was vandalized; I don’t know how many remain intact now. This one of Professor Preobrazhensky, in excellent shape, is located on a long, open wall at 3 Krivoarbatsky Lane, in front of building or corpus No. 2. You can see photos and read background stories about them (if you have Russian) on several websites, including  Live Journal and the 33+1 website.  Somebody named Valera who apparently was carrying around a very big black magic marker, or even a thin brush and paint, sort of claimed authorship of the work. Don’t believe him or her. It isn’t true.

IMG_4939.jpg2 IMG_4940.jpg2 IMG_4937.jpg2

While The Master and Margarita is, hands-down, Bulgakov’s most beloved work, The Heart of a Dog does not lag far behind it. A film of huge cult popularity was made in 1988 by Vladimir Bortko. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this film, to this day, runs 2 or 3 times a month on some Russian TV channel. Probably even more than that if we were to include all the regional Russian TV channels that show films. I run across it constantly as I channel surf, trying to avoid the bile and lies that dominate Russian TV these days. If you want to watch that film online, you can do so through several online cinema sites, including ivi.ru. The film is shot in a kind of sepia two-tone and it stars some very good actors, including Yevgeny Yevstigneev (as Preobrazhensky) and Boris Plotnikov.
Before the film was made, the novella debuted in performance at the Moscow Young Spectator Theater, where Henrietta Yanovskaya unveiled her dramatization in 1987. It was a monstrously successful production that toured the world and drew audiences for decades. Shortly thereafter a second dramatization showed up on the stage of the Stanislavsky Theater, right around the corner from the Young Spectator Theater. So for years and years there were two popular productions of the same work playing side-by-side in theaters located essentially in the same city block.
It’s probably worth explaining a thing or two about the work for Russian literature neophytes. It tells the story of a professor during the Russian Civil War who ignores the mayhem around him while continuing with his scientific experiments. He turns a dog, Sharik (or Ball), into a human, Sharikov. In step, if not in agreement, with the new Soviet state whose goal is to remake mankind and raise it to new levels, Preobrazhensky wants to show that animals can become human. Ultimately all he proves is that a human created out of a kind stray dog is a beast, indeed. Bulgakov’s tale, originally written in 1925 (though not published), seemed to predict early on that nothing would come of the Soviet experiment. For that reason it was banned for decades, and Yanovskaya’s production was the first to bring it to a wide audience simultaneous to the first-ever official publication in 1987.
In a book called What Was That? a fabulous dual memoir published by Yanovskaya and her husband Kama Ginkas in 2014, Yanovskaya wrote how “Bulgakov lived inside that time, while I staged it 60 years after it was written. I was older than he was at that moment and I knew more than he did. I also knew more about the further fate of Preobrazhensky and poor Shvonder. Rage and hatred boiled inside Bulgakov. I had no hatred. I believed all of us were the children who came of the union of Preobrazhensky, Sharikov and Shvonder. They were our parents; I was not about to judge them. When you talk about parents you speak only in terms of sorrow and tenderness. There are degrees of Sharikov, Preobrazhensky and the idealistic Shvonder living in every one of us in this country.”

IMG_4943.jpg2 IMG_4944.jpg2 IMG_4942.jpg2

 

Konstantin Balmont plaque, Moscow

Click on photos to enlarge.

IMG_4973.jpg2

It happens almost every time: I went out yesterday looking for one thing and ended up finding another. Finding much more, in fact, than I planned or expected. As these things go, I did not find a single thing I was actually looking for. And what I did find turned out not to be what I, or even others, thought it was. Let that sink in.
We have here a plaque claiming that the poet Konstantin Balmont (1867-1942) lived in this building in the Arbat region at 15 Bolshoi Nikolopeskovsky Lane from 1915 to 1920. That would mean he spent his last years in Russia here, between two periods of emigration – one lasting from 1906 to 1913 (obviously precipitated by the failed revolution of 1905), and a second that lasted from 1920  until his death in France.
A bit of research, however, turns up the suggestion that Balmont actually did not live at this address, but rather in the next building over, at 13 Bolshoi Nikolopeskovsky Lane.  You can see No. 13 in the last two photos below. It is the four-story structure to the “left” of the two-story building on which the plaque hangs. I don’t know how or why the plaque was hung in the wrong place, but it’s a nice plaque, rather more creative and atmospheric than most.
Whether or not the plaque belongs where it hangs, it suits Balmont well for, among other things, he was one of the spiffiest members of the Russian literary clan. He sported one of the finest aggregations of facial hair in the field. In the image on the plaque you see a well-trimmed mustache and beard. But at times Balmont went to wonderful extremes, making the beard into a goatee, letting his hair grow shoulder-length, sharpening, straightening, twirling or lengthening the mustache. You can see his admirable hirsutian creativity for yourself by googling his name and clicking on ‘images.’ It’s worth your while.

IMG_4972.jpg2 IMG_4977.jpg2
Balmont was a hard-working writer. Assuming Russian Wikipedia has it correctly, he produced 35 books of poetry and  20 books of prose in his lifetime. He wrote memoirs, philosophy, essays, criticism and literary history. He was a major translator, putting into Russian the works of William Blake, Edgar Allan Poe, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Oscar Wilde, Gerhart Hauptmann and others. In all he translated works from Spanish, Slovakian, Georgian, Bulgarian, Lithuanian and Japanese. While he definitely knew English well – he even lectured at Oxford – he obviously often made use of helper translators who provided him with line-by-lines. Still, his talent for giving foreigners a voice in Russian was one of the finest and most enduring.
He was one of the leading figures of the so-called Silver Age of Russian literature and is routinely described as a Symbolist, although it’s obvious from what little I’ve already written that Balmont was much too heterogeneous to fit perfectly into a simple category like that. As for the label of Silver Age, I add the caveat because of an old, but recently-republished, interview with the respected scholar and historian Nikolai Khardzhiev. In it the learned man, somewhat famously already, poo-pooed the notion of a Silver Age. Following is what Khardzhiev said in an interview with Irina Vrubel-Golubkina in 1996 for the Israel-based journal Zerkalo (Mirror). It was dug up again recently for Moscow’s Afisha (Marquee) magazine and caused a bit of a flurry:
“In any case, there can be no talk of a second flourishing. These days some people try calling the beginning of the [20th] century the Silver Age of Russian poetry. That’s a myth, a fiction, and a very stupid one. This term belonged to the Symbolist poet Pyast, who applied it to poets of the second half of the 19th century – Fofanov and others. This was a period of decline in poetry, before Symbolism, after the 1860s. There were, of course, wonderful phenomena, such as Sluchevsky, but the Pushkin and Nekrasov (that is, the raznochintsy) periods of poetry were stronger. He came up with that term: silver – something that’s not gold. That was picked up by Sergey Makovsky, who published his memoirs in exile. And since he was a second-rate poet himself, he applied the term to the poetry of the 20th century, which was, in fact, a true golden age of Russian poetry including the Symbolists, the Acmeists, the Futurists and the Oberiuty (who came to flourish for inexplicable reasons). It was an unheard of, unprecedented flowering of Russian poetry, which did not exist even in the time of Pushkin.”
The original publication of the interview was also referred to in Omry Ronen’s book, The Fallacy of the Silver Age. That’s for all you folks out there with grudges against those calling Russian poetry in the early 20th century second best. 
So this was kind of a day of missed opportunities and wild goose chases. I went out looking for homes in which a bunch of actors lived in the 1930s and found none, but came upon this house where a plaque says Konstantin Balmont lived, but really didn’t, a poet who was a member of the Russian Silver Age which didn’t actually exist. What a day for discoveries and the overturning of myths!
For the record, as you look up and down the street here in the final photos, you can imagine Mikhail Bulgakov’s Margarita flying in one direction or another. This is one of the streets that Bulgakov described by name in his itinerary of Margarita’s magical flight.
And, just to bring the tale back to Balmont, allow me to provide a translation of a part of one of the poet’s early works, “The Black Year,” written about the famine of 1890. As so often happens these days, I find his words, written in the late 19th century, could easily have been written by my own contemporary:

My native people, you bleed profusely!
O, if only you could find a friend,
Who, leaning to you with affection,
Could shed the burden of wicked torment!
But he does not exist…

And one more thing. For those of you with Russian, there is a very cool website devoted to the study of Balmont’s life and work.  Give it a look.

IMG_4976.jpg2

IMG_4979.jpg2