This scene from a stage adaptation of “The Bronze Horseman” underlines Pushkin’s attack on the tyranny of Peter the Great.
Tyranny of Peter the Great
Previous post: Peter’s Dance
Next post: A Visit to St. Petersburg School No. 171
This scene from a stage adaptation of “The Bronze Horseman” underlines Pushkin’s attack on the tyranny of Peter the Great.
Previous post: Peter’s Dance
Next post: A Visit to St. Petersburg School No. 171
Copyright © 2008–2013
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Michael, I understood “откуда дует ветер” with this interpretation of the “Медный Всадник”. It has nothing to do with Pushkin. When I first read “Prof Filshtinsky” I did not pay much attention at his name, “Prof” was what I paid attention at. Later I thought that the name Filshtinsky sounds kind of familiar. But Google knows all. I found that Prof is not only (I would say, is not exactly) a professor even if he has such a degree (position? Whatever!). He is actually a theater director, “еуфекфдьный режиссер”. Then the whole story looks different. This production of “BH” is his production. He is SP director, and the production is always related to SP – святое дело. In the best case, he was going to hint at the signs of tyranny from Putin. Theater directors often use classics to present the contemporary problems (ideas). Sometimes they change a lot in the original. It’s OK with the directors, it’s OK with everyone. I have a close friend a theater director Naum Panovsky; he often stages Russian classics and only God knows how he transforms it for sake of his theater-related ideas. And it’s OK with everyone. I think it was like this. Filshtinsky was going to make a production about tyranny and its devastating nature. Either he has a natural inclination for the classics or he wanted to take the theme that would be the closest to the hearts of his spectators. Pushkin is the best. Where is the tyranny condemned in Pushkin’s creations (not short poems, of course, in something that could be staged)? BH is a great candidate! Than all happened like it goes in the theater. It’s all completely understandable and right.
But what I am not comfortable with is that you say in your comment, “The tyranny in the poem is symbolized by the madness and death of Evgeniy after losing his lover and being chased through the streets by the statue of Peter”. No, Michael, not in the poem, only in Professor’s (director’s) interpretation. This is not Pushkin making a point against the tyranny, it’s the director who makes this point using the poem and Pushkin’s sacred name. I do not see anything wrong in this. On the contrary, Pushkin can still helps us, in 21th century to fight the tyranny, at least in Russia. “His story is an interesting portrayal of how Pushkin’s literature can still be used to make a point.” Yes, but the professor’s story, not the BH itself, not Pushkin. And this is not the common interpretation, as you state in another comment.
By the way, speaking of “The professor in the film reacts quite forcefully to the fact that Peter the Great is on postcards and candy wrappers. “ I would not argue with this point but what the heck is wrong with that I also do not understand. Peter , even the Great, is not Jesus Christ or Prophet Muhammad or Buddha. But it really does not matter, just a little astonishing. Since when Russians are so sensitive to things like that with respect to their tsars?
As my friend wrote, “полифоничность of the Russian language and of the Pushkin’s poetry”,
Well, this explanation lies on the very surface but I, personally, cannot buy it. Not even because it reminds me that every Pushkin’s poem was explained to me in school as a revolt against tyranny, especially Медный Всадник, yes, poor little man etc, very touching! I see the reason of Eugeny’s horror and his death in powerful forces of the nature, the flood that often occurred in SP that was not protected against the reversal of the Neva flow in those times. The statue impressed everyone, and it is indeed very impressive (isn’t it?), that’s why Evgeny saw the Emperor chasing him at the moment of an extreme fear. Peter did not help him, on the contrary, he was hostile because by the nature, Peter despised weakness and fear. I don’t think that Pushkin was ever critical to Peter, I don’t think there ever was any Russian aristocrat who was. Pushkin was very serious about his nobility, with pride he once said that his family is 600 years aristocratic. He wrote poems mocking Alexander and Nikolay but they were incomparable to the Peter. Pushkin never participated in the Decembrists movement. There are several explanations, nobody knows which is correct. Hundreds of aristocrats were involved, it was very difficult to stay aside, not to know, I guess. The movement was not against the tyranny and monarchy. All they wanted was a constitution but with the monarchy. You know more about it and you are supposed to respect professor’s opinion but I do not believe it for two reasons; (1) all I read in Russian “pushkinovedenie” looks very much like what was written in Soviet times; the freedom of speech did not add anything to their studies, still Soviet methodology, I don’t see the independence in their opinions; (2) with my heart, reading the poem I see Pushkin’s admiration of Peter, his amazement with accomplishing the mission impossible – building this city, so important for development of Russia, and I do not see any protest against the tyranny. He saw around too many people to despise, including tsars, to turn against Peter. Michael, I am not a specialist. I am not arguing with you, I am just telling you what I think as a “commoner”, as a reader.
Twice I re-read Медный Всадник but have not found any traces of “Pushkin’s attack on the tyranny of Peter the Great”. Of course, it was a tyranny but every potentate was a tyranny. Yes, Saint Petersburg was built on the bones. What about Paris? London? New York? What these cities are standing on? Only cities? Once one really wise historian said about some other historian, “He judges King Arthur using the moral standards of the XX century”. In those times the moral standards were different. Of course, the theater can use the poem as a basis to express their ideas but there is nothing about the tyranny of the Peter the Great in the original. And Peter pushed Russia very hard ahead, it would be still developing country otherwise. In Russia, Peter’s statue is regarded rather as a strong defense of the country. In 1812 when French were approaching, the Senate was considering to hide the statue. But one of them came and said that Peter came to him in his night dream and said, “Do not remove my statue. No enemy can capture the city while my hand is extended over the city”. They did not move the statue. Same during the 900 days of the siege during the WWII.
Luda, it’s very interesting how Peter the Great is regarded as an important symbol of the city. I think even those who agree that St. Petersburg was built on bones are proud of the fact that such a strong leader raised the city (and now protects it!). The professor in the film reacts quite forcefully to the fact that Peter the Great is on postcards and candy wrappers. His story is an interesting portrayal of how Pushkin’s literature can still be used to make a point. The tyranny in the poem is symbolized by the madness and death of Evgeniy after losing his lover and being chased through the streets by the statue of Peter. Pushkin was very interested in the history of Peter I (who of course was responsible for the Pushkin family’s existence on Russian soil) and was writing a history of the great leader. Professor Filshtinsky believes that by the time Pushkin wrote The Bronze Horseman, his opinion of Peter the Great had soured, culminating with the portrayal of the death of the little man in the face of tyranny.