Alexey Smirnov's blog

After watching the performance of Idiot in Espoo theater and concluding that actors do not understand the great Russian writer Dostoevsky I decided to try to explain how I understand Dostoevsky myself. To start with, I think that Espoo theater has done a great job because they at least tried to interpret Dostoevsky even though I think that their interpretation was not correct. With the following explanation I would only like to deepen their interest in studying our culture and Dostoevsky in particular. Basically, they need to read other works that Dostoevsky has written even though they are probably not translated into Finnish.

Dostoevsky is one of the most controversial writers in Russian literature. The following saying of Annensky characterizes him:

Read Dostoevsky. Love Dostoevsky if you can, if you cannot – curse him, but READ and only him if possible.

I got to know Dostoevsky not through his books but through a movie Idiot by Bortko which I saw in 2004 or 2005. At that time my interpretation of Idiot was also limited to the relationship between Myshkin and Nastasya Filipovna. Such a love story with a tragic end. But after reading other works of Dostoevsky, in particular his diary I think there is a deeper interpretation of Idiot.

Dostoevsky saw a deep division between noble Russians and ordinary people. These were opposite classes of our society in the end of 19th century. They were not able to tolerate each other, thus Dostoevsky was predicting revolution long before it happened in 1917. Of course, he blamed noble people for their betrayal of traditional Russian values in favor of modern European values. This has occurred because in the 19th century it became obvious that Russia was far behind Europe in its industrial development. Noble Russians did not want to identify themselves as such because Russian became a synonym of barbarian.

But Dostoevsky was saying that traditional Russian values were good. Those were the values of kindness, love to every human, Christianity. According to Dostoevsky, only ordinary Russian people possessed those qualities because educated Russians were trying to follow Europeans in every aspect of life and despised everything that looked like Russian.

The main point of Dostoevsky Idiot is that there were noble Russians who also admired traditional Russian values which in this case is Prince Myshkin. This is very unusual and controversial, this is why nobody likes him. If you read the complete version of Idiot, not the abbreviated one that was sold in the theater before the performance you will see lots of Idiot’s monologues in which he shares his values. With relation to people he says that everybody is worth forgiveness. During the performance Idiot often talks to Jesus Christ. But Dostoevsky did not mean that. Idiot doesn’t admire Jesus, he probably does not know all this theological stuff because he is an idiot. But he admires every ordinary human, a fallen woman for example, every sinner. He is the bearer of Christian values even though he cannot explain this.

The actor who plays Prince Myshkin should show that he represents Jesus during this performance. He should convey this message to the audience but do not show the image of Christ! Make the audience think of Idiot’s role in this drama. This actor will succeed only if the audience becomes convinced that he is Christ.

With relation to Europe Prince Myshkin says that Russia will surprise Europe. But not with aggression which there was a lot in this performance, but again with love to every human. He thinks of Russia as a more Christian country than Europe. Russian people who have adopted European views do not have those good qualities such as mercy and ability to forgive.

To summarize, the Epanchin family is visually very respectable. They are Europeans in the best sense of this word, very noble people. They would not shout at each other as they did during this performance. They do not drink vodka or smoke. They are very polite. But they despise traditional Russian values. And here comes Idiot, the true bearer of traditional Russian values and Christian values. He brings the joy with him, the universal love to human beings. He is ready to forgive everybody despite that he is a Prince. He behaves like ordinary people – he is joyful and sincere. And this is why Epanchin family hates him. He reminds them of traditional Russian life that they have betrayed.

This Saturday I went to see Dostoevsky’s Idiot in Espoo theater. Even though I don’t understand what the actors are saying because the performance is in Finnish I am always trying to check out Russian authors performed in Finland because this allow us to understand how Finns perceive us, the Russians.

I should say that Dostoevsky’s Idiot is no different from Gogol’s Revizor which I saw one year ago in Tampere Workers theatre. Russians are presented as wild barbarians. They are drinking vodka all the time, smoking cigarettes and punching each other. It reminds me of a Hollywood gangster movie when cowboys of the Wild West are trying to decide who is the best to represent the nascent United States of America. The movies are different but the play is the same. But this time the music made me laugh. Most of the time it was Tchaikovsky’s Illness of a Doll. So I guess Nastasya Filipovna was that doll. And she was sick and eventually died because prince Myshkin the Idiot did not marry her. Or she has actually died because she was waiting for too long. She thought that she would get too old before Idiot would drag her to bed. So the moral is that if there is a pretty girl it is your responsibility to sleep with her otherwise she will get sick and die. I wonder whether the great thinker, the theorist of Russian greatness Dostoevsky ever had this in his mind.

But probably I am too strict. I have watched Idiot movie by Bortko. Many great actors were playing there. Of course, it is impossible to avoid comparing them to this small theater. Also I guess Bortko has read every work of Dostoevsky, at least most of them whereas the young actors of this theater probably did not read Idiot completely because it is quite a big piece of literature.

But the fact that Finns are thinking of us as of wild people is actually our problem, not theirs. There is a certain well established cliche that Finns are using whenever they think of us. Despite the proximity of Helsinki to Saint Petersburgh we were unable to change their mind, even though Saint Petersburgh is the cultural capital of Russia. How is it possible that Finns think of us as barbarians when our capital of culture is a 5-hour ride from their capital? What do they think of the remaining parts of Russia? I guess people of Stone Age are inhibiting those areas. How can we change their perception of us? It is big problem. For example, I wonder whether Russian literature has been translated to Finnish language at all.

In the theater an abbreviated version of Idiot was sold in Finnish. It was a small 50-page book. Is it possible to understand Dostoevsky using a small book? Even reading the whole Idiot is not enough. Dostoevsky had his own school of thought with relation to Russian nation. It is not explained in one of his book but rather has been developed through his lifetime. In his diary Dostoevsky explains that Russian noble people have separated from the ordinary people because they admired Europe too much. Then Dostoevsky says that ordinary people have better values, the true values of humanity, kindness than rich people that adopted false idols. But in his other novel Brothers Karamazov Dostoevsky shows that ordinary people are not always right. They actually cannot appreciate the high spirit of noble people, they are narrow-minded.

But understanding Dostoevsky is a different topic which I would not dwelve in right now. I guess I should summarize how I understand Dostoevsky myself in one of the later posts.

I was in theater watching Gogol’s Revizor. Of course, it was in Finnish but this was a Russian novel so I felt obliged to check it out. Another reason was Gogol’s 200-year anniversary this year.

The theater is Tampereen Työväen Teatteri which is located next to Lenin museum. I guess this is why there was so much connection with October revolution of 1917 which happened almost a century after what Gogol describes in his novel.

It is always funny to watch how foreigners perceive Russians. The American movies often portrait Russians as wild people from cold Siberia with balalaika and vodka. The former was not present this time, but vodka was definitely there. But can you imagine how Finns thought Russians drink vodka? With such a care as if they were drinking a precious wine!

Next, in which type of houses do people live in Russia? Of course, in multi-storied castles! This construction was definitely nice, I really appreciate the effort of the theater to build a three-storied building resembling Turku castle, but what does it have to do with Russia? To make it more realistic they could have added a roof, instead the castle was going to the skies without any roof at all.

I learned that Russians take special care of their hair. Those guys had really fancy stuff on their head. People in Europe might have had it but I doubt that Russians wore artificial hair at that time.

Last but not least, the music was very unusual. Here is a list of what was played along with a 19-th century novel:

• Marsh, marsh vpered, rabochij narod – Go ahead, fight working people a song from October Revolution of 1917
• Prokofiev’s Romeo and Juliet – Prokofiev is 20-th century Soviet composer
• Vysotsky. Friend’s song – Vysotsky was a popular writer and singer in 1970s.

I don’t know if there was any special meaning in using modern music with a 200-year old novel, but that looked funny.

But Finnish actors were really good. Also, the spirit of the novel was preserved – very ironic. For example, they were smoking cigarettes all the time so the spectators were able to smell the spirit of Russia. In addition, there was an imitation of love, also one actor got almost totally naked. This is how they wanted to show the corrupt nature of the Russian people that the novel describes. So it was very satirical indeed. Russians look like total barbarians.

I wonder if Gogol had that in mind when he was writing the novel. Were any good qualities of people described in his novel? This makes me want to read the novel again.

In the Finnish interpretation there were no good people in Russia, I guess this is the tough memories of Soviet Union – a mighty dangerous neighbor. But was Tzar Russia any different? Those people were naive, so their bad deeds were funny. In this novel the people were trying to outsmart themselves.

The Finnish audience was a good one. Surprisingly, there were no students. In theaters in Russia and in the US there are lots of young people. However, such an older audience is very calm, they listen and watch very carefully. But they rarely laugh.

Overall, very interesting attempt at interpreting Russian life with a bit of European formality.