2. "Young Guard" In November 1968, I already worked in the editorial office of the magazine. A week or two later, he gathered a meeting of critics, prose writers, art historians to discuss perspective plan editions for the future, 1969. The meeting was attended by Oleg Mikhailov, Viktor Chalmaev,

The play was allowed to be staged.

Since then, it has been revised several times. Three editions of the play are currently known; the first two have the same title as the novel, but due to censorship issues it had to be changed. The title "Days of the Turbins" was also used for the novel. In particular, its first edition (1927 and 1929, Concorde Publishing House, Paris) was entitled Days of the Turbins (White Guard). There is no consensus among researchers as to which edition should be considered the last. Some point out that the third appeared as a result of the prohibition of the second and therefore cannot be considered the final manifestation of the author's will. Others argue that it is The Days of the Turbins that should be recognized as the main text, since performances have been staged on them for many decades. No manuscripts of the play have survived. The third edition was first published by E. S. Bulgakova in 1955. The second edition first saw the light in Munich.

Characters

• Turbin Aleksey Vasilievich - colonel-artilleryman, 30 years old.
• Turbin Nikolay - his brother, 18 years old.
• Talberg Elena Vasilievna - their sister, 24 years old.
• Talberg Vladimir Robertovich - Colonel of the General Staff, her husband, 38 years old.
• Myshlaevsky Viktor Viktorovich - staff captain, artilleryman, 38 years old.
• Shervinsky Leonid Yurievich - lieutenant, personal adjutant of the hetman.
• Studzinsky Alexander Bronislavovich - captain, 29 years old.
• Lariosik is a cousin from Zhytomyr, aged 21.
• Hetman of All Ukraine (Pavel Skoropadsky).
• Bolbotun - commander of the 1st Petliura Cavalry Division (prototype - Bolbochan).
• Galanba is a Petliurist centurion, a former lancer captain.
• Hurricane.
• Kirpaty.
• Von Schratt is a German general.
• Von Doust is a German major.
• German army doctor.
• Deserter-Sich.
• Man with a basket.
• Camera lackey.
• Maxim - former gymnasium pedel, 60 years old.
• Gaydamak is a telephonist.
• First officer.
• Second officer.
• Third officer.
• First Junker.
• Second Junker.
• Third Junker.
• Junkers and Haidamaks.

Plot

The events described in the play take place in late 1918 and early 1919 in Kyiv and cover the fall of the regime of Hetman Skoropadsky, the arrival of Petliura and his expulsion from the city by the Bolsheviks. Against the backdrop of a constant change of power, the personal tragedy of the Turbin family takes place, the foundations of the old life are broken.

The first edition had 5 acts, while the second and third had only 4.

Criticism

We are ready to agree with some of our friends that the "Days of the Turbins" is a cynical attempt to idealize the White Guard, but we have no doubt that it is the "Days of the Turbins" that is the aspen stake in its coffin. Why? Because for a healthy Soviet spectator, the most ideal slush cannot present a temptation, but for dying active enemies and for passive, flabby, indifferent townsfolk, the same slush cannot give either an emphasis or a charge against us. It's like a funeral hymn can't serve as a military march.

However, Stalin himself, in a letter to the playwright V. Bill-Belotserkovsky, indicated that he liked the play on the contrary, due to the fact that it shows the defeat of the Whites:

Why are Bulgakov's plays so often staged on stage? Because, it must be, that there are not enough of their own plays suitable for staging. In the absence of fish, even "Days of the Turbins" is a fish. (...) As for the actual play "Days of the Turbins", it is not so bad, because it gives more benefit than harm. Do not forget that the main impression left by the viewer from this play is an impression favorable to the Bolsheviks: “even if people like Turbins are forced to lay down their arms and submit to the will of the people, recognizing their cause as completely lost, then the Bolsheviks are invincible, nothing can be done about them, the Bolsheviks”, “Days of the Turbins” is a demonstration of the all-destroying power of Bolshevism.

Well, we watched "Days of the Turbins"<…>Tiny, from officer meetings, with the smell of "drink and snack" passions, loves, deeds. Melodramatic patterns, a little bit of Russian feelings, a little bit of music. I hear: What the hell!<…>What has been achieved? The fact that everyone is watching the play, shaking their heads and remembering the Ramzin case ...

- “When I will soon die ...” Correspondence of M. A. Bulgakov with P. S. Popov (1928-1940). - M.: EKSMO, 2003. - S. 123-125

For Mikhail Bulgakov, who was doing odd jobs, staging at the Moscow Art Theater was perhaps the only way to support his family.

Productions

• - Moscow Art Theater. Director Ilya Sudakov, artist Nikolai Ulyanov, artistic director of the production K. S. Stanislavsky. Roles played: Alexey Turbin- Nikolai Khmelev, Nikolka- Ivan Kudryavtsev, Elena- Vera Sokolova, Shervinsky— Mark Prudkin, Studzinsky- Evgeny Kaluga, Myshlaevsky- Boris Dobronravov, Thalberg- Vsevolod Verbitsky, Lariosik- Mikhail Yanshin, Von Schratt- Viktor Stanitsyn, von Dust— Robert Schilling, Hetman- Vladimir Ershov, deserter- Nikolai Titushin, Bolbotun— Alexander Anders, Maksim- Mikhail Kedrov, also Sergey Blinnikov, Vladimir Istrin, Boris Maloletkov, Vasily Novikov. The premiere took place on October 5, 1926.

In the excluded scenes (with a Jew caught by the Petliurists, Vasilisa and Wanda), Iosif Raevsky and Mikhail Tarkhanov were supposed to play with Anastasia Zueva, respectively.

The typist I. S. Raaben (daughter of General Kamensky), who printed the novel The White Guard and whom Bulgakov invited to the performance, recalled: “The performance was amazing, because everything was vivid in people’s memory. There were hysterics, fainting spells, seven people were taken away by an ambulance, because among the spectators there were people who survived both Petlyura and these Kiev horrors, and in general the difficulties of the civil war ... "

The publicist I. L. Solonevich subsequently described the extraordinary events associated with the production:

... It seems that in 1929 the Moscow Art Theater staged Bulgakov's well-known play Days of the Turbins. It was a story about deceived White Guard officers stuck in Kyiv. The audience of the Moscow Art Theater was not an average audience. It was a selection. Theater tickets were distributed by the trade unions, and the top of the intelligentsia, the bureaucracy and the party, of course, received the best seats in the best theatres. I was also among this bureaucracy: I worked in the very department of the trade union that distributed these tickets. As the play progresses, the White Guard officers drink vodka and sing “God save the Tsar! ". This was best theater in the world, and the best artists of the world performed on its stage. And now - it begins - a little randomly, as befits a drunken company:

"God Save the King"...

And here comes the inexplicable: the hall begins get up. The voices of the artists are getting stronger. The artists sing standing up and the audience listens standing up: sitting next to me was my chief for cultural and educational activities - a communist from the workers. He got up too. People stood, listened and cried. Then my communist, confused and nervous, tried to explain something to me, something completely helpless. I helped him: this is a mass suggestion. But it was not only a suggestion.

For this demonstration, the play was removed from the repertoire. Then they tried to stage it again - moreover, they demanded from the director that "God Save the Tsar" was sung like a drunken mockery. Nothing came of it - I don't know why exactly - and the play was finally cancelled. At one time, “all of Moscow” knew about this incident.

- Solonevich I. L. Mystery and solution of Russia. M .: Publishing house "FondIV", 2008. P. 451

After being removed from the repertoire in 1929, the performance was resumed on February 18, 1932 and remained on the stage of the Art Theater until June 1941. In total, in 1926-1941, the play ran 987 times.

M. A. Bulgakov wrote in a letter to P. S. Popov on April 24, 1932 about the resumption of the performance:

From Tverskaya to the Theater, male figures stood and muttered mechanically: “Is there an extra ticket?” The same was true of Dmitrovka.
I was not in the hall. I was backstage and the actors were so excited that they infected me. I began to move from place to place, my arms and legs became empty. There are bells at all ends, then the light will strike in the spotlights, then suddenly, as in a mine, darkness, and<…>it seems that the performance is going on with head-turning speed ... Toporkov plays Myshlaevsky first-class ... The actors were so excited that they turned pale under makeup,<…>and the eyes were tortured, wary, inquiring ...
The curtain was given 20 times.

- “When I will soon die ...” Correspondence of M. A. Bulgakov with P. S. Popov (1928-1940). - M.: EKSMO, 2003. - S. 117-118

Despite Balashev's habit of court solemnity, the luxury and splendor of the court of Emperor Napoleon struck him.
Count Turen led him into a large waiting room, where many generals, chamberlains and Polish magnates were waiting, many of whom Balashev had seen at the court of the Russian emperor. Duroc said that Emperor Napoleon would receive the Russian general before his walk.
After several minutes of waiting, the chamberlain on duty went out into the large reception room and, bowing politely to Balashev, invited him to follow him.
Balashev entered a small reception room, from which there was one door leading to an office, the same office from which the Russian emperor sent him. Balashev stood for one minute or two, waiting. Hasty footsteps sounded outside the door. Both halves of the door quickly opened, the chamberlain who had opened it respectfully stopped, waiting, everything was quiet, and other, firm, resolute steps sounded from the office: it was Napoleon. He has just finished his riding toilet. He was in a blue uniform, open over a white waistcoat, descending on a round stomach, in white leggings, tight-fitting fat thighs of short legs, and in over the knee boots. His short hair, obviously, had just been combed, but one strand of hair went down over the middle of his wide forehead. His plump white neck protruded sharply from behind the black collar of his uniform; he smelled of cologne. On his youthful full face with a protruding chin was an expression of gracious and majestic imperial greeting.
He went out, trembling rapidly at every step, and throwing back his head a little. His whole stout, short figure, with broad, thick shoulders and an involuntarily protruding belly and chest, had that representative, portly appearance that people of forty years of age who live in the hall have. In addition, it was evident that he was in the best mood that day.
He nodded his head in response to Balashev's low and respectful bow, and, going up to him, immediately began to speak like a man who values ​​every minute of his time and does not condescend to prepare his speeches, but is confident that he will always say well and what to say.
Hello, general! - he said. - I received the letter from Emperor Alexander, which you delivered, and I am very glad to see you. He looked into Balashev's face with his large eyes and immediately began to look ahead past him.
It was obvious that he was not at all interested in the personality of Balashev. It was evident that only what was going on in his soul was of interest to him. Everything that was outside of him did not matter to him, because everything in the world, as it seemed to him, depended only on his will.
“I don’t want and didn’t want war,” he said, “but I was forced into it. Even now (he said this word with emphasis) I am ready to accept all the explanations that you can give me. - And he clearly and briefly began to state the reasons for his displeasure against the Russian government.
Judging by the moderately calm and friendly tone with which the French emperor spoke, Balashev was firmly convinced that he wanted peace and intended to enter into negotiations.
– Sir! L "Empereur, mon maitre, [Your Majesty! The Emperor, my lord,] - Balashev began a long-prepared speech, when Napoleon, having finished his speech, looked inquiringly at the Russian ambassador; but the look of the emperor's eyes fixed on him confused him. "You are embarrassed "Recover," Napoleon seemed to say, glancing at Balashev's uniform and sword with a barely perceptible smile. Balashev recovered and began to speak. He said that Emperor Alexander did not consider Kurakin's demand for passports to be a sufficient reason for the war, that Kurakin acted like that of his own arbitrariness and without the consent of the sovereign, that the emperor Alexander does not want war and that there are no relations with England.
“Not yet,” Napoleon put in, and, as if afraid to give in to his feelings, he frowned and slightly nodded his head, thus letting Balashev feel that he could continue.
Having said everything that he was ordered, Balashev said that Emperor Alexander wanted peace, but would not start negotiations except on the condition that ... Here Balashev hesitated: he remembered those words that Emperor Alexander did not write in a letter, but which he certainly ordered Saltykov to insert them into the rescript and which he ordered Balashev to hand over to Napoleon. Balashev remembered these words: “until not a single armed enemy remains on Russian soil,” but some kind of complex feeling held him back. He couldn't say those words even though he wanted to. He hesitated and said: on the condition that the French troops retreat beyond the Neman.
Napoleon noticed Balashev's embarrassment when uttering his last words; his face trembled, the left calf of his leg began to tremble measuredly. Without moving from his seat, he began to speak in a voice higher and more hasty than before. During the subsequent speech, Balashev, more than once lowering his eyes, involuntarily observed the trembling of the calf in Napoleon's left leg, which intensified the more he raised his voice.
“I wish peace no less than Emperor Alexander,” he began. “Haven't I been doing everything for eighteen months to get it? I've been waiting eighteen months for an explanation. But in order to start negotiations, what is required of me? he said, frowning and making an energetic questioning gesture with his small white and plump hand.
- The retreat of the troops for the Neman, sovereign, - said Balashev.
- For the Neman? repeated Napoleon. - So now you want to retreat behind the Neman - only for the Neman? repeated Napoleon, looking directly at Balashev.
Balashev bowed his head respectfully.
Instead of demanding four months ago to retreat from Numberania, now they demanded to retreat only beyond the Neman. Napoleon quickly turned and began to pace the room.
- You say that I am required to retreat beyond the Neman to start negotiations; but they demanded of me in exactly the same way two months ago a retreat beyond the Oder and the Vistula, and in spite of that, you agree to negotiate.
He silently walked from one corner of the room to the other and again stopped in front of Balashev. His face seemed to be petrified in its stern expression, and his left leg trembled even faster than before. Napoleon knew this trembling of his left calf. La vibration de mon mollet gauche est un grand signe chez moi, [The trembling of my left calf is a great sign,] he later said.
“Such proposals as to clear the Oder and the Vistula can be made to the Prince of Baden, and not to me,” Napoleon almost cried out quite unexpectedly. - If you gave me Petersburg and Moscow, I would not accept these conditions. Are you saying I started a war? And who came to the army first? - Emperor Alexander, not me. And you offer me negotiations when I have spent millions, while you are in alliance with England and when your position is bad - you offer me negotiations! And what is the purpose of your alliance with England? What did she give you? he said hastily, obviously already directing his speech not in order to express the benefits of concluding peace and discuss its possibility, but only in order to prove both his rightness and his strength, and to prove the wrongness and mistakes of Alexander.
The introduction of his speech was made, obviously, to show the advantage of his position and to show that, despite the fact, he accepts the opening of negotiations. But he had already begun to speak, and the more he spoke, the less able he was to control his speech.
The whole purpose of his speech now, obviously, was only to exalt himself and insult Alexander, that is, to do exactly the very thing that he least of all wanted at the beginning of the meeting.
- They say you made peace with the Turks?
Balashev nodded his head affirmatively.
“The world is closed…” he began. But Napoleon did not let him speak. He apparently needed to speak on his own, alone, and he continued to speak with that eloquence and intemperance of irritability to which spoiled people are so prone.
– Yes, I know you made peace with the Turks without getting Moldavia and Wallachia. And I would give your sovereign these provinces just as I gave him Finland. Yes,” he continued, “I promised and would give Emperor Alexander Moldavia and Wallachia, and now he will not have these beautiful provinces. He could, however, have annexed them to his empire, and in one reign he would have extended Russia from the Gulf of Bothnia to the mouths of the Danube. Catherine the Great could not have done more,” said Napoleon, flaring up more and more, walking around the room and repeating to Balashev almost the same words that he had said to Alexander himself in Tilsit. - Tout cela il l "aurait du a mon amitie ... Ah! quel beau regne, quel beau regne!" he repeated several times, stopped, took a golden snuffbox from his pocket and greedily pulled it out of his nose.
- Quel beau regne aurait pu etre celui de l "Empereur Alexandre! [He would owe all this to my friendship ... Oh, what a wonderful reign, what a wonderful reign! Oh, what a wonderful reign the reign of Emperor Alexander could be!]
He glanced at Balashev with regret, and Balashev had just wanted to notice something, as he again hastily interrupted him.
“What could he desire and look for that he would not find in my friendship?” Napoleon said, shrugging his shoulders in bewilderment. - No, he found it best to surround himself with my enemies, and with whom? he continued. - He called the Steins, Armfelds, Wintzingerode, Benigsen, Stein - a traitor expelled from his fatherland, Armfeld - a libertine and intriguer, Wintzingerode - a fugitive subject of France, Benigsen is somewhat more military than others, but still incapable, who could not do anything done in 1807 and which should arouse terrible memories in Emperor Alexander ... Suppose, if they were capable, we could use them, ”continued Napoleon, barely managing to keep up with the incessantly arising considerations showing him his rightness or strength (which in his concept was one and the same) - but even that is not: they are not suitable either for war or for peace. Barclay, they say, is more efficient than all of them; but I won't say that, judging by his first movements. What are they doing? What are all these courtiers doing! Pfuel proposes, Armfeld argues, Bennigsen considers, and Barclay, called to act, does not know what to decide on, and time passes. One Bagration is a military man. He is stupid, but he has experience, eye and determination ... And what role does your young sovereign play in this ugly crowd. They compromise him and blame everything that happens on him. Un souverain ne doit etre al "armee que quand il est general, [The sovereign should be with the army only when he is a commander,] - he said, obviously sending these words directly as a challenge to the face of the sovereign. Napoleon knew how the emperor wanted Alexander to be a commander.
“It's been a week since the campaign started and you haven't been able to defend Vilna. You are cut in two and driven out of the Polish provinces. Your army murmurs...
“On the contrary, Your Majesty,” said Balashev, who barely had time to memorize what was said to him, and with difficulty following this firework of words, “the troops are burning with desire ...
“I know everything,” Napoleon interrupted him, “I know everything, and I know the number of your battalions as surely as mine. You do not have two hundred thousand troops, but I have three times as many. I give you my word of honor, ”said Napoleon, forgetting that his word of honor could not matter in any way,“ I give you ma parole d "honneur que j" ai cinq cent trente mille hommes de ce cote de la Vistule. [on my word that I have five hundred and thirty thousand people on this side of the Vistula.] The Turks are no help to you: they are no good and have proved it by making peace with you. The Swedes are predestined to be ruled by crazy kings. Their king was mad; they changed him and took another - Bernadotte, who immediately went mad, because a madman only, being a Swede, can make alliances with Russia. Napoleon grinned wickedly and raised the snuffbox to his nose again.

Two works by Mikhail Bulgakov, dedicated to Kiev, arouse great interest among readers. And it would be strange if they did not try to film them.

"Days of the Turbins"

The classic production by Vladimir Basov in 1976 is essentially a film performance. Not many scenes were filmed outdoors. The role of the Turbins' house was played by house 20b on Andreevsky Descent, which seemed to Basov more cinematic (now this house has a roof built on, and the administration and living room of the Theater on Podol are located in it).

"Days of the Turbins" was filmed very close to the text of the play, there are only a few innovations, such as Basov-Myshlaevsky's phrase "how are you going to eat herring without vodka?" (this was his improvisation).

What's interesting about a bass film is the unexpected casting.

No, some, of course, like a stencil.

Basilashvili traditionally played Merzlyaev (however, he played Merzlyaev later, so maybe the opposite is true - he always played Talbergs ...).

Ivanov got what he was supposed to get with his appearance and voice (although M.A. himself saw a fat and clumsy actor in the role of Lariosik, but this did not work out even in the lifetime production of the Moscow Art Theater).

Rostotsky played a boy. Well, although not quite - in the "White Guard" Nikolka is generally a boy-boy, and in the "Days of the Turbins" he is somewhat more meaningful. There the situation is specific - he does not personally act as a hero, but covers his brother.

But the three main male roles, of course, are mind-blowing.

Myagkov is completely unexpected, from the point of view of his acting role. He would fit perfectly into Dr. Turbin, but Colonel Turbin is a combination of a doctor (and, at a very minimum), Malyshev and Nai-Turs. And ... And who will say that Myagkov is bad in this role?

Lanovoy - hero-lover? Are you joking? I don’t know if Basov was joking, but if this is a joke, then it’s more than successful. Lanovoy in this role is great!

Basov himself seems to fit right in. Who is he in our memory? Comedy villain from children's films. Duremar, and only.

It must be understood that the role of Myshlaevsky in Bulgakov is belittled, and even comical (in the sense that only he has the strength to joke in this nightmare). But this is clearly a second or even third plan. In the "White Guard" his main feat is Anyuta's sudden pregnancy. In the "Days of the Turbins" this role "ate" Karas and somewhat "thumped". But still, she was far from the main one.

But in the performance of Basov, Myshlaevsky, after the death of Turbin, somehow becomes the center of this whole company by itself. He doesn’t just joke - he pronounces the most important phrases (by the way, these “most important phrases” are both Turbin and Myshlaevsky, they are not Bulgakov’s - they were inserted by the wise K.S. Stanislavsky, reasonably believing that without “the people are not with us” and "for the Council of People's Commissars" the play will simply not be staged). In general, the bass character turned out to be much larger than Bulgakov's idea. I wouldn't say it hurt the movie though.

What is really sad is that Valentina Titova got lost against the backdrop of beautiful male roles ... But it was Elena - main character and in the "White Guard", and in the "Days of the Turbins".

"White Guard"

The play is a play, but the novel is much larger and, in many respects, more interesting (although the play is, of course, more dynamic). However, it is more difficult to make a film based on it, because even the film adaptation of the play turned out to be three-episode. The result - Sergei Snezhkin made an eight-episode film, quite significantly different from both the play and the novel, with a number of various author's innovations (not always logical and justified). I, however, am ready to forgive the director for a completely enchanting end to the tape.

Perhaps Mikhail Porechenkov in the role of Myshlaevsky can be considered a failure. Actually, there is nothing particularly bad in Porechenkov, but we compare his Myshlaevsky with the bass role. Well, what can I say? I have no other performer of this role for you, who graduated from the Great Patriotic War as assistant chief of the operational department of the headquarters of the artillery division of the breakthrough of the Reserve of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command ...

The director managed to send two very peculiar roles to the cat, very significant both for the novel and for the play.

Lariosik was simply killed. Most likely, they did not find a suitable actor, but ... In general, all the interesting scenes associated with this character turned out to be “slaughtered”. To be honest, if the director was going to do this to him from the very beginning, then why was he even introduced into the picture? There is enough furniture there.

Shervinsky was dealt with literally with sadistic cruelty. The fact is that the name of Shervinsky in the film is some kind of impostor - not Shervinsky. Yes, he sings and wears a Circassian coat, and then a tailcoat. But he is not "cute as a cherub" at all. And he practically does not lie (in any case, he does not lie in the way that Shervinsky, obviously related to Khlestakov, would lie). This is generally a man of honor who is ready to go to a duel with Thalberg.

But everyone communicates with this non-Shervinsky as if Shervinsky is in front of them! His objections look quite natural - “who do you take me for”, but no one wants to talk to him! They speak with Shervinsky, who simply does not exist. Some theater of the absurd. For what? Gods, poison me, poison ...

As a result, by the way, the scene of the declaration of love, which worked so well for Lanovoy and Titova, turned out to be a complete failure for Dyatlov and Rappoport.

Actually, the director had much more luck.

Stychkin turned out to be very organic in the role of Karas. Serebryakov is wonderful in the role of Nai-Tours.

Sergey Garmash is incomparable in the role of Kozyr-Leshko. By the way, the role is almost entirely fictional. Bulgakov's Kozyr has no rich inner world from the word "in general". So - a couple of biographical facts. And here - what a scope, and even with ideology. The ideology, by the way, is spelled out rather strange (apparently due to illiteracy), but it can be forgiven. The main thing is to lead to the slogan "Muscovites on knives." And she leads.

Studilina looked good in the role of Anyuta. The actress may have a great future if she meets an unintelligent director who will beat her when she needs to cry on camera.

But the main success, of course, is the two main roles.

The first success of the director was an invitation to the role of Alexei Turbin Konstantin Khabensky. Firstly, it's just a strong actor, and secondly, he is perfect for this role. Khabensky did not blunder, his role turned out to be one of the most successful in the picture.

Perhaps the only exception is the scene with the murder of Kozyr-Leshko. She, by the way, is quite Bulgakov's - M.A. for a long time he recalled the scene with the murder of a Jew (by the way, the director’s flaw - in the off-screen text the Jew is mentioned, but he is not in the film ...), which he witnessed in Kyiv. And, ultimately, wrote the story "I killed." None of this worked. Both Bulgakov and Turbin killed only in their dreams. The book took revenge - the episode did not work out.

The second success is Ksenia Rappoport in the role of Elena Turbina-Talberg. I'm not going to argue with anyone, my opinion is that Ksenia perfectly entered the role and outplayed everyone, except maybe Khabensky. And, by the way, she did what Titova failed to do - she remained at the center of the story. I think she is the perfect performer for this role.

And, oh, yes ... Ekaterina Vilkova got a very interesting role. I didn’t even understand if she succeeded in the role of Julia Reiss (rather, it turned out, since I paid attention not to her flaws, but to directorial ones).

The role is controversial. At the beginning, she appears as literally a slave of Shpolyansky, but then ... Actually, according to the book, Reiss is a very brave and strong-willed nature. She stays with Shpolyansky of her own free will, forcing Bulgakov to quit in their hearts that she, they say, is a “bad woman”.

By the way, no one thought, but how did it happen that Turbine saved Reiss? What was she doing near the gate, behind which the Petliurists run and shoot? Yes, she was waiting for Shpolyansky there ... But she waited - Turbine. And she began to act not according to the program, starting to actively save an officer completely unfamiliar to her. The enemy, in fact (although it does not directly follow from the book that she is a Bolshevik).

Gospel of Shpolyansky

And now we have reached the character, which, in fact, shows us the director's intention. Bolshevik and futurist Mikhail Shpolyansky, played by Fyodor Bondarchuk. Very well done, by the way.

In the book, Shpolyansky is a demonic person, but, in fact, he is just a swindler, who is in a certain relationship with the notorious Ostap Suleimanovich (who does not know - Bulgakov worked in the Gudok newspaper together with Yechiel-Leib Fainzilberg and Yevgeny Kataev). By the way, the bookish Shpolyansky does not kill anyone, and not only does he not expose his own agitator to the Petliura saber, but on the contrary, he saves (this scene was also included in Basov's film). By the way, this is important, but the director, for some reason, neglected this importance.

In the film, Shpolyansky's demonic nature (to a large extent thanks to Bondarchuk's acting) is extolled to the skies. This is generally the personification of an evil force that destroys the very normal life, about the need to protect which Turbin tells the officers ...

It was for his sake that the scene in the square was crippled (by the way, I saw how it was filmed). After all, Bulgakov, as they say, painted the scene of the parade and rally from nature - he, for sure, was in the crowd himself. It would seem that you don’t touch the living artifact of the era with your crazy hands, but no - the director needs to push the demonic Shpolyansky against another demon - Kozyr-Leshko, who is also consistently destroying “normal life” ...

Those who are interested in the history of Bulgakov's work probably know about Stalin's letter to the playwright Bill-Belotserkovsky, in which the Great Leader and Teacher subtly hinted that Bulgakov should have inserted several episodes into The Run showing the revolutionary creativity of the masses. By the way, the filmmakers of "Running" then did just that, crumbling episodes from Bulgakov's libretto of the opera "Black Sea" into the film and thus fulfilling the wish of the leader. Bulgakov himself, being infinitely far from the people, did nothing of the sort. But (thinks for the master Snezhkin), why not insert the demonic intellectual Shpolyansky, who, in fact, personifies this element that breaks the usual course of life?

It is impossible to cope with this element, but it also retreats, faced with real feelings ... More precisely, Shpolyansky retreats, giving Turbina life and Yulia, who chose Turbine. But this is a romantic assumption quite in the spirit of Bulgakov.

Because 10 years later, Mikhail Semyonovich Shpolyansky, unrecognized by anyone, at the hour of an unprecedentedly hot sunset, will meet two writers at the Patriarch's Ponds ...

Trying to figure out what Sergei Snezhkin had filmed and shown us on the Rossiya channel, I re-read The White Guard itself, and also read an early version of the end of the novel and the play Days of the Turbins. Some of the fragments that, as it seemed to me when viewing, are knocked out of the style of the novel and are present in the film, I found either in an early edition or in the play, but some were not found anywhere: for example, the scene where Thalberg hints to the German leadership about the presence in the palace of valuable paintings, the insane scene with the rooster that Myshlaevsky hacked to death, the pathetic scene of Shervinsky singing farewell to the fleeing hetman Skoropadsky, and some others. But the main thing is, of course, the finale, blatant in its distortion, invented by Snezhkin and not only not fitting into any of the texts I have indicated, but also generally unthinkable for Bulgakov.

(I never get tired of being amazed at what self-conceit, what impudence, what impudence you need to have in order not only to add, but to rewrite Bulgakov! However, this will be discussed in one of the following posts, actually about the film).

In the meantime, a few important notes about literary basis movie.

Despite the fact that I did not manage to find full information about how Bulgakov worked on The White Guard, I still got the strong impression that the end of the novel was deliberately rewritten, and the author was completely consciously not satisfied with the early edition. Indeed, there is much more pathos in it, banal and out of the style of the novel plot moves, the language is more weighty, “large” and therefore less elegant. The artistic style of the early edition of the end of the novel is that of the still immature Bulgakov, and I think he fully felt it himself. That is why, despite the fact that some fragments from the early version ended up in the final one, he still rewrote most of the final. I rewrote it in such a way that not a single word makes you shudder: everything is extremely concise and exactly just enough to be understood by the reader, but not to give the impression of spoken vulgarity. In artistic terms, in my opinion, The White Guard is simply flawless.

Talberg is no doubt a scoundrel, but this is written and read only between the lines, and the absence of gross accusations in the text of the novel is very important for understanding the level of Bulgakov's artistic talent. Shervinsky, of course, calls everything, except music, nonsense, but not in a direct speech addressed to other guests, but in the author's text, i.e. as if to himself, which characterizes him in a completely different way.

In the early version, Elena has undisguised sympathy for Shervinsky, and their relationship develops into a novel. In the final version, Bulgakov refuses this move and introduces a letter from Thalberg, who is leaving for Europe from Poland and is about to get married, but Elena keeps her distance from Shervinsky.

In the early version, after Turbin's recovery, the family arranges a traditional Christmas festive evening: in the final version, Turbin simply returns to medical practice without excessive pomp.

Finally, Turbina's novel with Yulia Reiss and the figure of Shpolyansky are spelled out in the early version: in the final version, only silent trips to Malo-Provalnaya remain (just like Nikolka, while in the early version his romance with Irina Nai-Tours was written out more).

The scene with the identification of Nai-Tours in the morgue was also thrown out of the final version - it turned out to be quite Balabanov's in the film, but unthinkable in the aesthetics of the final "White Guard".

In general, the final version is more harmonious, elegant, but at the same time definite: there are no “intelligent” throwings in the characters, they clearly know how and when to act, and they perfectly understand what is happening, and scold the Germans rather out of habit. They are courageous and do not try to hide in the fumes of their own evenings (as in Days of the Turbins). And in the end, they do not even come to the realization of peace and tranquility as the highest good (as in the early edition), but to something even more absolute and important.

A number of differences in the early and final editions are quite convincing that their mixing is impossible, because Bulgakov deliberately abandoned the early edition in favor of the later one, realizing that the early one sinned with a number of impermissible, from his point of view, primarily artistic weaknesses.

If we talk about the play “Days of the Turbins” in connection with the novel, then one thing can be briefly said: these are two completely different works both in content and in artistic expression, and therefore mixing them means demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of what a novel is and what is a play.

Firstly, completely different characters are written out and brought out in the play, both in character and in formal terms (which is worth one Aleksey Turbin: a colonel and a doctor are completely, not at all the same, even in a sense, opposites).

Secondly, when preparing the play, Bulgakov could not but understand that in order to stage it, certain concessions to censorship were necessary: ​​from here, in particular, Myshlaevsky's sympathy for the Bolsheviks, expressed clearly and categorically, appears. And the whole eccentric atmosphere of the Turbins' house is also from here.

The heroes of the “Days of the Turbins” are really just trying to forget themselves in their narrow circle in the fumes of evening fun, Elena openly sympathizes with Shervinsky, but in the end, Don Thalberg, who is going to visit, returns for her (also, oh, what a discrepancy with the novel!)

In a sense, the decaying company of White Guards in Days of the Turbins has nothing to do with the circle of people shown in the novel (by the way, the author does not call them White Guards either). There is a strong feeling that the heroes of the final edition of The White Guard are in fact not White Guards, their spiritual and spiritual height is already enough to rise “above the fight”: we do not meet this either in the early edition of the novel, let alone in play. And it is precisely this height that must be realized when filming The White Guard. It is by no means reduced to the “Days of the Turbins” or, all the more so, to self-invented and unnatural for Bulgakov finals. This is undisguised literary blasphemy and a mockery of - I will not be afraid of this epithet! - a brilliant novel.