The writing

Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov is a complex writer, but at the same time he clearly and simply sets out the highest philosophical questions in his works. His novel The White Guard tells about the dramatic events unfolding in Kyiv in the winter of 1918-1919. The writer speaks dialectically about the deeds of human hands: about war and peace, about human enmity and wonderful unity - "the family, where you can only hide from the horrors of the surrounding chaos." The beginning of the novel tells about the events preceding those described in the novel. In the center of the work is the Turbin family, left without a mother, the keeper of the hearth. But she passed this tradition on to her daughter, Elena Talberg. Young Turbins, stunned by the death of their mother, nevertheless managed not to get lost in this terrible world, were able to remain true to themselves, preserve patriotism, officer honor, comradeship and brotherhood. That is why their home attracts close friends and acquaintances. Talberg's sister sends her son, Lariosik, from Zhytomyr to them.

And it’s interesting that there is no Talberg himself, Elena’s husband, who escaped and left his wife in a front-line city, but the Turbins, Nikolka and Alexei are only glad that their house was cleared of a person alien to them. No need to lie and adapt. Now there are only relatives and kindred spirits around.

All those who are thirsty and suffering are welcomed in house 13 on Alekseevsky Spusk.
Myshlaevsky, Shervinsky, Karas, childhood friends of Alexei Turbin, arrive here, as if to a saving pier, and Larion Surzhansky, who timidly approached Lariosik, was also received here.

Elena, the sister of the Turbins, is the keeper of the traditions of the house, in which they will always be accepted and helped, warmed up and seated at the table. And this house is not only hospitable, but also very cozy, in which “furniture of old and red velvet, and beds with shiny knobs, worn carpets, colorful and crimson, with a falcon on the hand of Alexei Mikhailovich, with Louis XV, basking on the shore of silk lakes in the Garden of Eden, Turkish carpets with wonderful curls in the eastern field ... a bronze lamp under a shade, the best bookcases in the world, gilded cups, silver, curtains - all seven magnificent rooms that brought up the young Turbins ... ".
Overnight, this world can crumble, as Petlyura attacks the city, and then captures it, but there is no malice in the Turbin family, unaccountable hostility to everything indiscriminately.

Comparing M. A. Bulgakov’s novel The White Guard with his play Days of the Turbins, one cannot but pay attention to one strange circumstance. The hero of the play Alexei Turbin consistently absorbs three characters from the novel. At first, at home, his image clearly echoes Alexei Turbin from the novel; in the scene of the dissolution of the Turbin division from the play "coincides" with Colonel Malyshev; finally, the hero of the play dies like another colonel from the novel - Nai-Tours. But if the monologues of both Turbins before the battle with Petlyura are approximately the same, then Turbin’s speech in front of the division differs significantly from Malyshev’s speech: Malyshev calls on the best of the officers and cadets to make their way to the Don to General Denikin, and Colonel Turbin, on the contrary, dissuades them from this.

On the eve of the dissolution of the division, Colonel Turbin says that Petlyura, who is approaching Kyiv, will occupy the city, but will quickly leave. Only the Bolsheviks represent the real enemy force: “We will meet again. I see more terrible times ... That's because of this I'm going! I drink to the meeting...” At the same time, Turbin does not hide his contempt for Hetman Skoropadsky. Nevertheless, the next act of this Skoropadsky, once again proving that he is worthy of contempt, makes Turbin completely change his view of the civil war that is still unfolding in the vastness of Russia: “The White movement in Ukraine is over. He is finished everywhere! The people are not with us. He is against us. So it's over! Coffin! Lid!" Turbin does not specify who exactly the people are with - with Petliura, with the Bolsheviks, or with both. But it is surprising that all these thoughts about the hopelessness and even immorality of the fight against the Bolsheviks (“... you will be forced to fight with your own people”), thoughts that are completely opposite to everything that Turbin said just a few hours before, arise under the influence of shameful flight of a man whom Turbin called nothing but a scoundrel and a rascal!

Having thus declared surrender to the forces, for the meeting with which he drank the day before, Turbin dies. His death is not much different from suicide, which his younger brother says directly to his face: “I know that you are waiting for death from shame ...” And this is also a sharp difference from the novel, with the death of Colonel Nai-Thurs: although the circumstances of their deaths are similar, as are the last words addressed to Nikolka Turbin, but Nai-Turs dies as a military officer, covering the retreat of his subordinate junkers, but by no means striving for death.

Somewhat less surprising, although at first glance even more striking, is the change in the views of another character in the play, Turbin's closest friend, Staff Captain Myshlaevsky. In the novel, there is no question of his going over to the side of the Reds. In the play, he announces this decision when the Red Army is driving the Petliurists out of Kyiv. And at the beginning of the play, Myshlaevsky does not hide his fierce hatred of the Bolsheviks. And yet the upheaval in Myshlaevsky's soul, which took two months to mature, is more understandable than the instantaneous change in the views of his friend and commander. Myshlaevsky cannot imagine himself outside of Russia, and it is to this - to emigration - that the continuation of the struggle against the Bolsheviks dooms him. He does not want to fight them also because he gradually begins to see in them the force that is capable of restoring Russia, destroyed by the revolution. Myshlaevsky expresses a position characteristic (albeit much later) of some representatives of the conservative-monarchist emigration. Unlike the liberal-revolutionary part of the emigration, they saw the main crime of the Bolsheviks not in the suppression of freedom, but in the destruction of the old foundations of the empire. So when they made sure
the Bolsheviks actually began to restore these foundations, they began to move to a more conciliatory position. This is how the movement "Change of milestones" arose, with which Bulgakov, by the way, at one time kept in touch. And it was in the spirit of Smekhovekhov that the then intelligentsia perceived Myshlaevsky's speech in the last act of the play.

In addition, Myshlaevsky does not hide the fact that he, a professional military man, does not want to be in the camp of the defeated. The relatively easy victory of the Reds over the Petliurists makes a strong impression on him: “These two hundred thousand heels have been smeared with lard and blow at the very word “Bolsheviks”. And the conclusion: “Let them mobilize! At least I will know that I will serve in the Russian army.” At the same time, Myshlaevsky does not even think about the fact that he will have to fight with his yesterday's friends and comrades in arms - for example, with Captain Studzinsky!

These are the positions of the two characters in the play. In some ways, they seem to "superpose" one on another, despite the difference in the characters of Turbin and Myshlaevsky. But what was the position of the author of the play himself? Let's not forget that the play was written under the conditions of growing Soviet censorship, so it was difficult for Bulgakov to speak out to the end. But the novel The White Guard ends with the words: “Everything will pass. Suffering, torment, blood, hunger and pestilence. The sword will disappear, but the stars will remain, when the shadow of our bodies and deeds will not remain on earth. There is not a single person who does not know this. So why don't we want to turn our eyes to them? Why?" There are eternal values ​​that do not depend on the outcome of the civil war. Stars are a symbol of such values. It was in serving these eternal values ​​that the writer Mikhail Bulgakov saw his duty.

Other writings on this work

Year and place of first publication: 1955, Moscow

Publisher: " Art"

Literary form: drama

In 1925, Bulgakov received two offers to stage the novel The White Guard: from the Art Theater and the Vakhtangov Theatre. Bulgakov preferred the Moscow Art Theater.

As the author's remark testifies, “the first, second and third acts take place in the winter of 1918, the fourth act - at the beginning of 1919. The place of action is the city of Kyiv. The power of the hetman still holds in the city, but Petlyura is rapidly advancing.

The center of the play is the apartment of the Turbins: thirty-year-old artillery colonel Alexei, his brother, eighteen-year-old Nikolai, and their sister Elena (married Talberg). On a winter evening in 1918, Elena, anxiously, is waiting for her husband Vladimir Talberg, a thirty-eight-year-old colonel of the General Staff; he was supposed to arrive in the morning. Instead of the latter, staff captain Viktor Myshlaevsky, a colleague of Alexei, appears from duty with frostbitten legs. The second, even more unexpected guest is Lariosik, the Turbins' cousin from Zhytomyr, who came to enter Kyiv University.

Finally, Thalberg also appears - straight from the German headquarters, with the news that "the Germans are leaving the hetman to his fate." He informs his wife that he must immediately leave for Berlin with the Germans for two months. His flight plays into the hands of lieutenant Leonid Shervinsky, the hetman's personal adjutant, who has been courting Elena for a long time. He also comes to the Turbins, with a huge bouquet, and cannot hide his joy at Thalberg's hasty departure. Shervinsky, a handsome man and a wonderful singer, seems to be able to count on reciprocity.

The second act opens with extraordinary events that unfold in the hetman's office in the palace. Shervinsky, who came there on duty, first finds out that his colleague, another personal adjutant of the hetman, left the palace, and then that the entire headquarters of the Russian command fled. To top it off, in his presence, the hetman of all Ukraine, having learned that the Germans are leaving the country, agrees to their proposal to go with them to Germany.

The second picture of the second act takes place in Petlyura's "headquarters of the 1st Cavalry Division" near Kyiv and, on the whole, falls out of the general action. The soldiers caught a Jew with a basket and, with the permission of their commander Bolbotun, took away his boots, which he carried in this basket to sell.

In the third act, the cadets, stationed at the gymnasium, learn from Alexei Turbin, their commander, that the division is disbanding: “I tell you: the white movement in Ukraine is over. He will end in Rostov-on-Don, everywhere! The people are not with us. He is against us. So it's over! Coffin! Lid!" Alexey orders - in connection with the flight of the hetman and command - to tear off shoulder straps and scatter to their homes, which, after a short excitement among junior officers, is carried out. Alexei himself remains at the gymnasium to wait for the junkers returning from the outpost. Nikolka stays with him. Covering the cadets, Alexei dies, and Nikolka is crippled by throwing himself into a flight of stairs.

Shervinsky, Myshlaevsky and Captain Studzinsky, a friend of the latter and a colleague of Alexei, are gathering in the Turbins' apartment. They are impatiently waiting for the Turbins, but they are destined to wait only for the wounded Nikolai.

The fourth act takes place two months later, on Epiphany Christmas Eve 1919. Kyiv has long been occupied by Petlyura, Lariosik managed to fall in love with Elena, and Shervinsky proposes to her. Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks approached Kyiv, and a dispute flared up in the Turbins' house, where to go. There are few options: the white army, emigration, the Bolsheviks. While the officers are discussing these alternatives, and Elena and Shervinsky are accepting congratulations as a bride and groom, Thalberg unexpectedly returns. He came for Elena to immediately leave with her to the Don, to the army of General Krasnov. Elena informs him that she is divorcing him and marries Shervinsky. Thalberg is being kicked in the neck.

The “Days of the Turbins” ends with the approaching sounds of the “Internationale” and meaningful dialogue:

Nikolka. Gentlemen, tonight is the great prologue to a new historical play.

Studzinsky. To whom - a prologue, and to whom - an epilogue.

CENSORED HISTORY

In September 1925, the first reading of the play took place at the Moscow Art Theater. However, preparations for the production were interrupted by the recall of the People's Commissar of Education A. V. Lunacharsky. In a letter to the theater actor V. V. Luzhsky, he evaluates the play as follows:

I don’t find anything in it that is unacceptable from a political point of view... I consider Bulgakov a very talented person, but this play of his is exceptionally mediocre, with the exception of the more or less lively scene of the hetman being taken away. Everything else is either military vanity, or unusually ordinary, dull, dull pictures of useless philistine. […] No average theater would accept this play precisely because of its dullness...

The theater assembly decides that "in order to be staged ... the play must be radically remade." In response to this and several decisions of the technical plan, Bulgakov draws up an ultimatum letter in which he demands that the play be staged on the big stage in the current season, as well as changes, and not a total reworking of the play. The Moscow Art Theater agrees, and the writer, meanwhile, creates a new edition of the play The White Guard.

Rehearsals are held in a calm atmosphere until, in March 1926, the theater concludes an agreement with Bulgakov to stage "The Heart of a Dog" - a forbidden unpublished story. From that moment on, the OGPU and the organs of ideological control began to interfere in the process of creating the play. Bulgakov is recognized as politically dangerous. On May 7, 1926, in the absence of the owner, employees of the OGPU visit the writer’s apartment and, as a result of a search, seize the manuscripts of “Heart of a Dog” and the writer’s diary (with the title “Under the heel”). Naturally, the staging of Bulgakov's play in these circumstances seemed undesirable to "art critics in civilian clothes". The writer is put under pressure with the help of a search, surveillance, denunciations, and the theater - through the Repert Committee. At meetings of the repertory and art board of the Moscow Art Theater, they again began to discuss the conditions for staging the play. Bulgakov reacted extremely sharply this time too - in a letter dated June 4, 1926 to the Council and Directorate of the Art Theater:

“I have the honor to inform you that I do not agree to the removal of the Petliura scene from my play The White Guard.

[…] I also do not agree that when the title is changed, the play should be called “Before the End”. I also do not agree with the transformation of a 4-act play into a 3-act one.

I agree, together with the Theater Council, to discuss a different title for the play The White Guard.

If the Theater does not agree with what is stated in this letter, I ask you to remove the play “The White Guard” as a matter of urgency.”

Bulgakov was reassured, but on June 24, after the first closed dress rehearsal, the head of the theatrical section of the Repert Committee, V. Blum, and the editor of the section, A. Orlinsky, announced that it would be possible to stage it "in five years." The next day, the representatives of the theater at the Repertoire Committee announced that the play "is a complete apology for the White Guards, from the scene in the gymnasium to the scene of Alexei's death, inclusive," that is, "it is completely unacceptable, and in the interpretation given by the theater, it cannot go." Officials demanded an increase in the number of episodes humiliating the Whites (special emphasis was placed on the stage in the gymnasium), and director I. Sudakov promised to more clearly depict the "turn to Bolshevism" that was emerging in the ranks of the Whites. At the end of August, K. S. Stanislavsky arrived, who took part in the rehearsals: amendments were made to the play, it was called "Days of the Turbins", rehearsals resumed. However, on September 17, after another “run” for the Repert Committee, the latter’s management insisted: “The play cannot be released in this form. The issue of permission remains open. An outraged Stanislavsky at a meeting with the actors threatened to leave the theater if the play was banned.

The day of the dress rehearsal was pushed back. The OGPU and the Repertoire Committee insisted on removing the play. And yet, on September 23, the dress rehearsal took place; True, in order to please Lunacharsky, the scene of the Petliurists' bullying of a Jew was filmed.

On the 24th, the play was approved by the collegium of the People's Commissariat for Education. This fact, however, did not prevent the GPU from banning the play the next day. Lunacharsky had to turn to A. I. Rykov and remark that "the repeal of the decision of the collegium of the People's Commissariat of Education of the GPU is extremely undesirable and even scandalous." At a meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on September 30, it was decided not to cancel the decision of the People's Commissariat of Education of the GPU.

However, this decision did not prevent Lunacharsky from declaring on the pages of Izvestia on October 8, 1926 that “the shortcomings of Bulgakov’s play stem from the deep philistinism of their author. This is where political mistakes come from. He himself is a political idiot…”

Salvation for the play was the unexpected love of Stalin, who watched it in the theater at least fifteen times.

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 watching, 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 on the actual literary basis of the film.

Despite the fact that I did not manage to find full information about how Bulgakov worked on The White Guard, I nevertheless got the strong impression that the end of the novel was deliberately rewritten, and the author was not satisfied with the early edition quite consciously. 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 manner of the early edition of the end of the novel is not yet mature 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 unacceptable, 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, while 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 midst of evening fun, Elena openly sympathizes with Shervinsky, but in the end, Don Thalberg, who is going to visit, returns for her (oh, what a discrepancy with the novel too!)

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, and even more so 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, even 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.

Two works by Mikhail Bulgakov, dedicated to Kyiv, 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 shot 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 it may be the other way around - 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 ideally fit 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 the 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 was lost against the backdrop of beautiful male roles ... But it is Elena who is the main character in both the White Guard and Turbin Days.

"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 that it leads to the slogan "Muscovites to 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 come to 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 under 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 that very normal life, which Turbin tells officers about the need to protect ...

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 life - 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, chopping up 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 Semenovich Shpolyansky, unrecognized by anyone, at the hour of an unprecedentedly hot sunset, will meet two writers at the Patriarch's Ponds ...

Lesson on comparing the novel "The White Guard" and the play "Days of the Turbins" by M. Bulgakov in grade 11

Annotation: The article describes how, with the help of M.M. Bakhtin’s serious literary studies on the nature of literary genres (the article “Epos and the Novel”), it is easy and convincing to show the 11th grade students the difference between the novel “The White Guard” and the play “Days of the Turbins” by M. Bulgakov . Pupils are more deeply aware of the generic affiliation of the works of Russian literature in general and will be able to compare the new knowledge gained with the works already known to them. Also, this form of lesson teaches schoolchildren how to work with a scientific text and develops communicative, regulatory and educational competencies.

Keywords Literature: M. Bulgakov, The White Guard, Days of the Turbins, novel, play, type of literature, M.M. Bakhtin, scientific activity.

Lesson Objectives:
1) identify the common and different in the plot of the novel and the play;
2) identify the fundamental differences between epic and dramatic work;
3) comparing the protagonist of the novel and the play, observing his evolution;
4) generalize the knowledge of students about the epic and the novel as a kind of literature;
5) check the knowledge of the text.
Equipment:
1) abstracts of M.M. Bakhtin's article "Epos and Novel";
2) presentation.

Lesson topic:
Alexei Turbin in the novel and Alexei Turbin in the play: is it a double?

During the classes.
1. The word of the teacher.
In the past lessons, we studied the history of the creation of M. Bulgakov's novel "The White Guard", considered the composition and system of images, the ideological level of the work. We also talked a little about the play "Days of the Turbins": the history of creation, the system of images, the features of the plot. But before this lesson, we have considered the play and the novel separately. Today our task is becoming more complicated - we need to make another attempt to penetrate into the depths of the author's intention and compare the novel with the play, consider them in unity and opposition at the same time. And also find out whether the concept of the work and the image of the protagonist depend on the genres of literature.

2. Work with the class (setting problem questions).
Alexei Turbin is the central character of the novel The White Guard and the drama Days of the Turbins.
But is the character of this hero the same? Is his image the same? Be sure to justify your answer.

(Students need to reflect on the image of the main character and express their point of view.)
Which Alexey do you like best and why? And is it possible to unequivocally answer this question?
Let's see how the image changed during the processing of the novel into a drama, what new features Turbin acquired in the play, and we will try to answer the question about the reason for these changes.
To do this, I propose to make a comparative plate of the two "Alekseev":
(One student works at the blackboard, the rest write in a notebook.)

When filling out the table, the teacher puts questions, the students answer. If the students have difficulty, the teacher can ask leading questions. Each item in the table needs to be briefly commented on by the teacher (30 years old - approaching the “age of Christ”, that is, a man who is mature and formed as a person, features of the profession, which is more difficult and dangerous, etc.). After filling, the teacher makes a small conclusion about significant changes, focusing the attention of students on the antinomy "rag - leader".

Let's see the film interpretation of the play (3-part film of 1976 "Days of the Turbins"). As an example of comparing the image of Alexei in the novel and in the play, the teacher can offer the scene of Alexei Turbin's farewell to Talberg (27 minutes of the film). The scene is the same in terms of plot, but Turbine's behavior represents 2 opposite facets of characters.
(See excerpt.)

After watching, the teacher needs to cause students to reflect on the watched excerpt of the film, help them to compare this scene in the film with the same scene in the novel and draw conclusions.
How does Alexei behave in the "White Guard"? What is he thinking about? What does he want to say and what does he do? Does his behavior change as the story progresses? Remember, what is Alexei's reaction to Thalberg at the end of the novel? (Tears up card.)

And how does Alexei behave in the film and in the play? Does he express his point of view on Thalberg's "business trip" escape? Do his words match his actions? How does this characterize the character? Do you see the development of his image, the evolution in the play? But has the image of the hero changed from novel to play?

(Students reflect on how the image has changed, they can give their own examples from the text).
We saw that both the fate and the character of one character - Alexei Turbin - change depending on the work, that is, depending on the genre.
Let us now try to answer the question, what is the reason for such a sharp change in the image of Turbine.
The answer lies in the very generic specificity of the work. From the difference between the epic and dramatic genres of literature follows the fundamental difference between epic and dramatic characters.

Let us turn to excerpts from the work of the literary critic M. M. Bakhtin, already known to us, “Epos and the Novel”.
Look, M.M. Bakhtin believes that the hero of the novel "should be shown not as ready-made and unchanging, but as becoming, changing, nurtured by life." (Students may read this quote or find it themselves in the text if this is a "strong" class.)
I propose to arrange the key points of the article in a notebook in the form of a diagram. (The teacher displays a sample on the projector.)
1 slide.

Try to remember and give examples from the text that reflect this idea (pay attention to the change in moral character, views on historical events).
Evolution of behavior: in the scene of farewell to Thalberg, at first he was silent, then he tears up the card.
Evolution of views: White Bolsheviks.

Let's look at the play now. Turbin's character is shown as settled, devoted to one, hotly defended idea. Compare our plot elements from the novel to the play.
Why do you think Alexei Turbin dies in the play? With what it can be connected? A scene from the film can serve as a clue to you, when Alexei Turbin lets the soldiers go home and says his parting word to them. Let's see.

(Students watch. After watching, they think, say various options. The teacher focuses the attention of students on why Alexei dismisses the soldiers (he didn’t get scared, but doesn’t want them to die), draws a parallel with M.I. Kutuzov in “War and Peace” by L. N. Tolstoy, discussion of the common features of these heroes. It is also worth keeping the students' attention on the words of Turbine "This is a coffin. Lid.")
Of course, your guesses are correct. Indeed, for Alexei Turbina in the play, the collapse of his ideals means a collapse, he will not betray and will not accept the new. This is the end of life. Not a prologue, but an epilogue, as Studzinsky says at the end. The unsolvability of the internal conflict leads to the death of the hero.
Let's turn again to M. M. Bakhtin's article "Epos and Novel". He says that the conflict of the novel can be resolved, but not in the drama. Hence the death of the protagonist.

As we can see, the hero of the drama does not tolerate internal contradictions of character. He has only one solution. Are there any contradictions in the character of Turbine in the novel? Give examples. (Turbin, soft-bodied and not scandalous, is rude to the newsboy.)
And this is another key difference between the novel and the play according to M.M. Bakhtin: “the hero of the novel must combine both positive and negative traits, both low and high<…>Drama, on the other hand, requires clarity, the utmost clarity.

3. The final word of the teacher. Summary of the lesson.
We have only touched on the tip of the iceberg about the difference between a novel and a play. But the most important thing is the difference in ideas. In the play "Days of the Turbins" the main thing is devotion to the idea, service to the state. According to Leo Tolstoy - "the thought of the people." And in The White Guard, the “people's thought” is combined with the “family thought”. This is a book of path and choice. Book of Insight. Yes, Alexei Turbin renounces the white movement, renounces his past views, but this is not the most important thing for him in life. For him, the most valuable thing is the family: his brother, his sister, their home, books. Having saved himself and his family, the protagonist understands that “Everything will pass. Suffering, torment, blood, hunger, pestilence. We will disappear, but the stars will remain ... ". He understands that there are no values ​​higher than eternal and immutable values ​​at any time, in any situation. And it doesn’t matter if you are “white” or “red”, family is important for everyone. Regardless of political beliefs, material wealth, nationality, the family is something that all people on Earth will value and protect, this is what makes each of us related. After all, family is the highest value.

4. Homework.
Think up and write a diary of the events depicted in the novel on behalf of two characters. Imagine that you are Alexei Turbin from the novel. How will you describe everything that happens around (in the family, in society, in the world)? And then, in another diary on behalf of Alexei Turbin from the play, describe the same events from a new point of view. Each diary should be at least 1.5 pages long.

Bibliography:
1) Analysis of a dramatic work. // Ed. Markovich V.M. - L., 1988.
2) Bakhtin M. Epos and novel // Questions of literature and aesthetics. - M., 1975
3) Berdyaeva, O.S. Tolstoy's tradition in M. Bulgakov's novel "The White Guard" // Writer's work and literary process. - Ivanovo, 1994.
4) Bikkulova, I.A. Problems of the relationship between the novel "The White Guard" and the play "Days of the Turbins" by M. A. Bulgakov // Reflections on the genre. - M., 1992.
5) Marantsman V.G., Bogdanova O.Yu. Methods of teaching literature // Part 2: Perception and study of works in their generic specificity. Textbook for ped. universities. At 2 o'clock - M.: Enlightenment, VLADOS, 1994.
6) Yurkin L.A. Portrait // Introduction to literary criticism. Literary work: basic concepts and terms: Proc. allowance / Ed. L.V. Chernets. - M.: Higher school; Ed. center "Academy", 2000.

Application. Extracts from the work of M. M. Bakhtin
Epic and novel (On the methodology of the study of the novel)

The study of the novel as a genre is particularly difficult. This is due to the uniqueness of the object itself: the novel is the only emerging and still unfinished genre. <…>The genre backbone of the novel is far from solidified, and we still cannot foresee all its plastic possibilities.
<…> We find the epic not only a genre ready for a long time, but already deeply aged. The same can be said, with some reservations, of other major genres, even of tragedy. Their historical life known to us is their life as ready-made genres with a hard and already inflexible backbone. Each of them has a canon that acts as a real historical force in literature.
<…>
... the following requirements for the novel are typical:
1) the novel should not be "poetic" in the sense in which other genres of fiction are poetic;
2) the hero must be shown not as ready-made and unchanging, but as becoming, changing, nurtured by life;
3) the hero of the novel should not be "heroic" either in the epic or tragic sense of the word: he should combine both positive and negative traits, both low and high, both funny and serious;
4) the novel should become for the modern world what the epic was for the ancient world (this idea was expressed with all clarity by Blankenburg and then repeated by Hegel).
<…>
… tragic hero - a hero who perishes by nature. Folk masks, on the contrary, never perish: not a single plot of atellan, Italian and Italianized French comedies does not and cannot provide for actual death Maccus, Pulcinella or Harlequin. But very many provide for their fictitious comic deaths (with subsequent revival). These are heroes of free improvisations, and not heroes of legend, heroes of an indestructible and eternally renewing, always modern life process, and not heroes of the absolute past.

Lesson prepared: Mikhailova Ekaterina Aleksandrovna, 5th year student of the FFPiMK (Faculty of Philology, Translation Studies and Intercultural Communication), specialty: philologist, teacher of Russian language and literature, Far Eastern State University for the Humanities, Khabarovsk.

Scientific adviser: Sysoeva Olga Alekseevna, Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Literature and Cultural Studies of the FFPiMK FESGU, Khabarovsk.