Daniil Strakhov's interview for "Collection of Words" on radio "Mayak" 20.03.2015 (Poems are not translated)
We thank Uuuhshiny for the translation
A. M. – Hello, on air of Mayak Andrey Maximov. Daniil Strakhov's today with us and I want to read the following: "The extraordinary musical and drama project of Natalya Semyonova "Magic of music. Magic of word" will take place on March 22 in the Moscow International House of Music". Dmitry Nazarov (who sat in your place not so long ago), Sergey Shnyryov and you are involved in that project. What is that?
D. S. – Not only those above-mentioned actors are participating in it, but also Alexei Aigi with his beautiful music and his remarkable orchestra. Music performed there is original, and written especially for this project. There are verses of different poets, respectively performed by three different actors, which are interwoven with Aigi's original music and with organ music, also live. It's such a… well, for me in general it's a new experience.
A. M. – Which poets?
D.S. – Poets are very different, beginning from Brodsky, from Blok … finishing with Ryzhii, Gandlevski, Kenjeev. Actually, each of us has favourites, and from time to time these favourites change, and when I read a scenario of this project, it seemed to me that it's impossible to connect Blok and Ryzhii. It somehow seemed absolute... well, profanity. As it turned out – absolutely on the contrary! Natalya Semenova somehow managed to unite us, and we wonderfully all clinked. And if we ask "what about" - well it's difficult to tell, because when three actors read verses – what is it about? About everything.
A.M. – And whose verses do you read?
D. S. – I read Ryzhii, Samoylov, Kenjeev, Gandlevski … I've forgotten someone, I'm sure …
A.M. – Let me point out that it's as hard to unite Ryzhii and Samoylov, as …
D. S. – Yes …
A. M. Was it your choice?
D. S. – Yes. It was my choice.
A.M. – Because they were your favourite?
D. S. – You know, no, not only on that principle. These verses were somehow filtered by themselves, because Samoylov is also very diverse. And, besides a certain internal development of the play itself, there's still a development of the poets, the readers and actors. And somehow it ended up with my own personal internal development. If I begin with Samoylov – young Samoylov: "Два мальчика, два тихих обормотика…" - and finish with some quite serious, tragic verses by Ryzhii, everything falls into some kind of story.
A.M. – You understand that in my place any person now would ask you: "Would you read us something?..
(Daniil laughs)
A.M. – It's not necessary to be so very clever to offer that …
D. S. – Well, I'm not sure, let me…
A.M – Since it’s radio and not TV to avoid a pause, I’ll tell you that now Daniil takes out a printed text on a piece of paper. And it's quite particular because…
D.S – Printed on a piece of paper because, of course, there's no wish to falter. Because there's an excitement, and…
A.M. – … no, I meant not on a pad or any other gadget, just a printed text.
D.S – Well at least not a hand-written one. Probably, it's difficult to begin with both Ryzhii and Samoylov. So I'll begin with the one who is even more difficult to begin with: from Gandlevski. Actually not so famous now…
A.M. – (laughs) - If a poet can be famous nowadays, Gandlevski is the one of the most well-known!
D. S. – (a poem)
- Среди фанерных переборок
И дачных скрипов чердака
Я сам себе далек и дорог,
Как музыка издалека.
Давно, сырым и нежным летом,
Когда звенел велосипед,
Жил мальчик - я по всем приметам,
А, впрочем, может быть, и нет.
- Курить нельзя и некрасиво...
Все выше старая крапива
Несет зловещие листы.
Марина, если б знала ты,
Как горестно и терпеливо
Душа искала двойника!
Как музыка издалека,
Лишь сроки осени подходят,
И по участкам жгут листву,
Во мне звенит и колобродит
Второе детство наяву.
Чай, лампа, затеррасный сумрак,
Сверчок за тонкою стеной
Хранили бережный рисунок
Меня, не познанного мной.
С утра, опешивший спросонок,
Покрыв рубашкой худобу,
Под сосны выходил ребенок
И продолжал свою судьбу.
На ветке воробей чирикал -
Господь его благослови!
И было до конца каникул
Сто лет свободы и любви!
A.M – Would you … Would you read us more?
D. S. – More? In a row?
A.M. – Well, let it be in a row, and then we'll talk about it … it's just, it was so good …
D. S. – Oh…
A.M. – If it’s OK with you?
D. S. – Sure!
A.M. – It's just, so good, I liked it so much, to just simply sit here, listen to good verses, very nice…
D. S. – (a poem)
– В Свердловске живущий,
но русскоязычный поэт,
четвёртый день пьющий,
сидит и глядит на рассвет.
Промышленной зоны
красивый и первый певец
сидит на газоне,
традиции новой отец.
Он курит неспешно,
он не говорит ничего
(прижались к коленям его
печально и нежно
козлёнок с барашком),
и слёз его очи полны.
Венок из ромашек,
спортивные, в общем, штаны,
кроссовки и майка —
короче, одет без затей,
чтоб было не жалко
отдать эти вещи в музей.
Следит за погрузкой
песка на раздолбанный ЗИЛ —
приёмный, но любящий сын
поэзии русской.
A.M. – Whose verses were these?
D.S. – By Rizhii.
A.M – Tell me... it’s always interested me… Is reading a poem the same for you as a performance on stage? Same as acting for the audience, right? Are you acting out as "yourself"? Or are there people that direct your reading?
D.S – Well, of course, all of us were united by Natasha Semenova. But if we speak about some inner works here, of course, I read from myself, from the first person, … I took some of her directions, feelings and appeals, but after all made it my own way. In a sense of some kind of internal structure of how I do it …
A.M. – It means that in this case it's possible to say, that you treat it not like a role. When there's a role and there's a director and so on?
D.S – Well, it is, of course … any role anyway is a broadcast of yourself, it's a very thin line here, and … and it's not always visible. In particular, for example Dmitri Nazarov performs in a suit, Seryozha (Sergey) Shnyryov appears in a jacket, (laughs) and I come on stage in … well not exactly in tatters, but my suit is of an absolutely different kind. It tunes us into more informal communication. There's nothing formal in it, there is no feeling of being before the footlights. I try to be closer in this sense to the audience also because my verses are like this, they're absolutely without " façade".
A.M. Explain to me a phrase: "Any role is a broadcast of yourself". Let's take your, probably, one of the most known roles, if not the most known, of young Isaev. Is it too a broadcast of yourself?
D.S – Of course.
A. M. This demands an explanation.
D.S. – The actor is a conductor. Or the semiconductor if you want. Of some ideas, certainly, director's, scenary's. Some ideas are certainly the director’s as well as from the primary source – dramaturgic. But, in addition, actor also translates everything through himself. One and the same role, and there's no doubt about it, could be played in millions different ways.
A. M.– But isn't it the director who tells you a way?
D.S – But it's me who plays it. Besides, as it seemed to me, there're different ways of collaboration: there's an "autocratic" way, of for example Lars von Trier, when generally this person with some strong art will and understanding of that is necessary … then it's probably more correct and better to obey and completely entrust yourself in him. But there is also a coauthorship.
A.M. – And Ursulyak?. If you don’t know, Ursulyak is a director of the movie "Isaev"…
D.S – I in many ways followed him, in many ways. But, in addition this role of "young Stirlitz" itself, it spoke to me on many levels, touched many personal strings. Parting with a father, feeling that he didn't belong in that time … with those people … loneliness … a conscious choice of this loneliness – in some sense, metaphysical sense of this word. Therefore, of course, (laughs) submitting to Ursulyak, I, nevertheless, broadcasted myself.
A.M. You've mentioned those things. You told: lost in time. But for me you're the person who feels perfectly, wonderfully and remarkably at this time.
D.S – I feel perfectly and remarkably because I am alive, healthy, because I have work.
A.M. – And why do you believe you’re lost in time? Is this a theme that’s close to you?
D.S – Because I consciously distant myself from this time.
A.M. – For example?
D.S – Public gatherings have long since stopped holding my interest. Glamorous or simple, actor’s parties and get-togethers are not interesting and I’ve stopped going to them. It’s up to the point that they feel alien to me, unfamiliar. I don’t participate in today’s society, this modern space – it’s as if I’m lost to it, a certainly allegory if you wish.
A.M. – Well, so this, this and this aren't interesting to you. But what is?
D.S – Good question … My world is interesting to me.
A.M. – So, you're focused on yourself?
D.S – I take interest in myself, yes quite right. That is, I'm, speaking in psychological terms, more of an introvert than an extrovert. I look for universe in myself, in inner, very narrow circle of people who surround me. In my home. I ceased to look out for it. And I try very hard to preserve my privacy. And following many circumstances – a lot's happened – I many times doubted this my choice of course. But even now with surprise, through some third hands, I hear people talk that I'm still an expert party-goer. And it's so ridiculous for me because I've never been to any for... say fifteen years already, since... I don't know (laughs) "Poor Nastya". I like other things more, for example to read poems…
A.M. – And what fuels a person, who…
D.S. - … to walk a dog…
A.M. – What kind of dog?
D.S. – Labrador.
A.M. – Oh … what a wonderful …
D.S – White, white labrador.
A.M. – Tell me, when a person says – and I very much respect this attitude – "I am interesting to myself. I'm my own Cosmos". But then there is a question: where to fuel from, how not to close within oneself …
D.S – Yes, yes, it’s a problem. It’s a big problem.
A.M. – And how you do it?
D.S – God knows. I have no right answer for that. Of course, not to grow indifferent, you need to go out to meet people. Work does that for me. Whether I like it or not. I go out, learn new material, meet new people, new directors, and new partners. In this informal communication I find for myself that necessary emotional feed that we talk about. I'm not so focused on myself (laughs) that I don't see, don't want to see people around! But I don't let myself to be lulled into some kind of illusion that I can learn this world, giving myself to and vanities of Moscow.
A.M. – And there was such an illusion?
D.S – I think many actors believe it.
A.M. – And you too?
D.S – I think yes, I had it too.
A.M. – And why … what happened in your life, that you stopped believing in it?
D.S – There were several personal events that changed something in me…
A.M. – Things that we won't mention?
D.S – Yes.
A.M. – OK.
D.S – And then … probably, some personal defense mechanisms , they worked and started some kind of a reverse process, and here the main thing was to listen to myself only. (laughs) Listen, you know, Andrey, I really wouldn't want our conversation to go into some monastic path, perhaps … (laughs) I begin to sound like a skhimnik … that's not true …
A.M. – No, you understand, Danya, that I … a task of my programs here on Mayak, and the one I do on the channel Culture – is to understand the person. That’s actually what I'm trying to do, because, for me there's nothing more interesting, than people, and I will continue our talk, but after a small pause.
……………………….
A.M. – Daniil Strakhov's here with us today and I'm Andrey Maximov. And why are you frightened by those words? You've just asked us not to consider you a monk … are you afraid of the term?..
D.S. (laughs) – That doesn't frighten me at all …
A.M. – A monk actor, it's just so cool.
Daniil laughs.
A.M. - … so very interesting. Young Stierlitz's being a monk …
D.S. - … I don't want any of our listeners to think that I'm trying to mark myself in any way – it's not true at all. As you in the first part of our conversation touched upon a subject of how not to get too into myself. On one hand, I say work helps. On the other, I take myself up on those words, as for the last three or, maybe, even more – four – years I haven't done in theater anything new. Except for this poetic project which will be out on twenty second … And this's a problem too. It's a serious problem not to close within myself because…
A.M. – Why haven't you done anything new? You work in theater on Malaya Bronnaya (Moscow Drama Theatre on Malaya Bronnaya)?
D.S – Let me be honest with you: I work in the theater on the contract.
A.M. – On the contract – it means that you're not on the salary there, and are paid from job to job? That's what you mean?
D.S – I don't even know how it's called now, I have a contract… that is, to put it briefly, I'm not in the company at present time. I'm an expert on leaving theater on Malaya Bronnaya, and then coming back. For now formally my labor book (employment record book) lies at home.
A.M. – Why's that?
D.S. – Because when the well-known events started in the theater, when the artistic director – yet another, so to say, – disagreed with the actors. And when bickerfests, troubles and squabbles started, I as the person who has another opinion on this question (my opinion doesn't coincide with any of the parties), decided that most honest for me would be to legally leave the theater on Malaya Bronnaya and to take an independent position…
A.M. – So there’s a director who believes that the theatre needs to develop in one direction, and there're actors who believe in other direction of future development for the theatre. What third opinion is there?
D.S – I think they all wrong (laughs).
A.M. - Then how? It's either here or there...
D.S. - No. There're a lot of ways. Where to go – I don't know, I'm not saying that I'm Moses that I know the way... (laughs)
A.M. – Not Moses, well. One thing we’ve discovered in our interview… (laughs)
D.S. – so here…
A.M. – … we found out that you're not Moses.
D.S. – … everything that is now happening there, all the processes... from my point of view, I made this legal step exactly not to discuss them.
A.M. – Why do you think this's such a "damned" theater? Why all of this has happened there? For example, the talented, it seems to me, Trushkin came to the theater and staged, in my opinion, the worst play, seriously off scale, and then left. People come and go, not staying in, Lev Konstantinovich Durov took change, and then left the post, so did Zhenovach. Why is this happening?
D.S. – Well, I don't know why, I personally to some extent was lucky with the theater on Malaya Bronnaya. I gave to this theater many efforts and a lot of time, and in different years, beginning with "The Picture of Dorian Gray" - one can differently think about an art component of this play – but the fact that for me this performance was very good, correct, so to say, serious start if to speak about a certain theatrical popularity (besides, certainly, "Petersburg" in other absolutely remarkable Gogol's Theater on the Small stage), and finishing again in the theatre on Malaya Bronnaya with "The Warsaw Melody" and "The Government Inspector". The Theater on Malaya Bronnaya and I are connected by the cordial, remarkable relations. With people who work there, with shops, with scene-men, make-up artists, property men … it's an absolutely remarkable team of people there. As for
…
A.M. – Then why?
D.S – God knows! I don't. I can't answer this question. You understand, that the reason I left was not to answer this question (laughs)
A.M. – So you left…
D.S – Not exactly left, just legally cut myself out. To have some, how is it called?.. Immunity.
A.M. – And why haven't you played anything for four years? Can't you ask, or there're no offers, or it's improper? Can't you come to Golomazov and say: "I want to play … this and that".
D.S – I want him to offer me to play "this and that". And he doesn't. Or offers something that, from my point of view … (grins) not very "this and that". (laughs)
A.M. – So now... what are you doing now?…
D.S – Since Anton Yakovlev offered me to play in "A Hunting Accident" (Drama at the Hunt) by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov in Et Cetera theater, generally, so far I'm not doing anything new. There're offers of course but they're enterprise, which don't satisfy me. Again I'm not amusing myself with some illusions as many actors do to organize the company, to be engaged in self-direction – I don't want that. I’m waiting for something different.
A.M. – And what should be in a role to make actor Daniil Strakhov say, "Yes"?
D.S – Well, something has to click inside – that's all. It doesn't even really depend on the material. Sometimes it’s a combination of material, director, studio, alleged partners, and, maybe, even without all of the above, just two human eye opposite and a pile of sheets with some material. And I suddenly will feel that this's what I need now.
A.M. – Is it the same as love – it's just impossible to explain?
D.S – Yes, as you can't explain why you agree to some film offers and refuse others. It's an intuition, a combination of some absolutely strange things.
A.M. – Do money matter?
D.S – Yes, but not a lot.
A.M. – This should be explained.
D.S – Well, let's just say there're moments when you need money very much, like you need them a lot. But you understand that even for money you can't participate in certain projects.
A.M. – And are there times when money are not really necessary?
D.S – There're moments when they're not much of a problem. When you’re not in debts, when you aren't having anything built, when you exist, well, thank God, in some kind of a relative wellbeing.
A.M. – Do actors live financially well?
D.S – It depends.
A.M. – You?
D.S – I'm OK. I don't complain.
A.M. – Everyone says that they have problems.
D.S – Really?
A.M. – All actors complain about their wellbeing.
D.S – Well… This’s some fantastic misconception (laughs). But at the same time when I come to the theater on Malaya Bronnaya, and I see young people there, and already not so young, and absolutely not young, my partners who – so far! – were not yet invited to your studio, but I do believe it'll happen to them sooner or later … and I understand that their financial wellbeing could very differ, and this question, should you ask them, I think the answer would be, completely different.
A.M. – Tell me, you play "The Warsaw melody". It's a very famous play by Zorin, and there was a very well-known performance by Ulyanov and Borisova, you know, of course …
D.S. – And not only them.
A. M. – True, and it's such a famous play … The play about a serious past. I know this play very well and that time plays there a vital role. Why did you agree to take part in this in such a retrohistory?
D.S – Well, let's start with the end here. It's not a retrohistory at all. And that's what absolutely amazing…
What is a difference between a talented dramaturgy and just dramaturgy? – always relevant, it perpetually sounds like it speaks to us today. We together with Yulya Peresild from time to time, well not really shudder; it’s not the right word… We feel uneasy how those lines we perform in already eighty ninth – and on the first of April there will be ninetieth time – get today, facing the modern world, some very distinctive up-to-date sounding. It's amazingly dreadful!
A. M. – Could you give some examples?
D.S. – No, I don't want to give examples. it's about nazism, in particular. About charm of nazism. About how we never hear each other. I mean not only people, I mean countries too. This is why for me it's not retrohistory, absolutely not at all. Besides, throughout these five years We’ve staged it, the story has a tremendous inner elasticity. It exists continuously changing.
А. М. And we’ll continue after a small break
……………………………………..
A.M. – Daniil Strakhov here in our studio now and it's Andrey Maximov, we’re talking about "The Warsaw Melody". You said that it's a very modern play, and it has some kind of inner elasticity. What is that, what you do think?
D.S – It constantly changes. It lives together with us. We aren’t getting any younger in these five years and the play, well, it’s not getting any older (laughs) it, together with us grows wiser, gets some understanding of life, that nothing is just black and white; it loses the so called condemnation veil – as Victor's character himself. Well, and it's my opinion on this matter too as you can guess, I know this play very well. I initially understand, and even found some conformation to that, that the playwright wrote this history, internally condemning Victor as a character. It's all in the play. And I for all those five years tried to free him from that written in condemnation. And, as it seems to me, now this initial offense of female part of the audience who comes to this play – and, of course, women audience is much bigger here – this offense becomes less and less, and instead there is an understanding that when two people part, no one is to blame.
A.M. – Did Leonid Genrikhovich Zorin see your performance?
D.S – Yes he saw, long time ago.
A.M. – What did he tell? To you.
D.S – Personally he didn’t tell me anything.
A.M. – Why?
D. S – Well … could be because I didn't ask him…
A.M. – But he did say something right?
D.S – Just some general, encouraging words, well, words meant for a premiere. But we didn't talk that much at that time. I didn't take it upon myself to, because he actually wrote this play not yesterday and how could it be interesting to him to talk on this subject, I didn't know. And, realizing that when there was just a premiere, and this is too a very sensitive subject – most of our colleagues and, critics, directors, actors …
A.M. – … go to a premiere.
D.S – All come to a premiere, and even worse, to some pre-premiere screening. … And, of course, actually … I apologize for a tautology – there's here simply nothing to speak about. Nothing at all. Premiers are always "raw". Or even worse. So to seriously talk to a playwright about what he wrote, and how I’ve been playing it for many years, it’s necessary for him to come to the play another time.
A.M. - Let us hear once again some verses that you perform at "Magic of music. Magic of word" on March 22nd in the Moscow House of music.
D.S – And you know what, I will dare to read to you a poem which won't be performed on 22nd.
A.M. – Oh as always... I so beautifully brought you to the subject and you... ОК, why do you want to read another one?
D.S - Because it's a poem by my father. His new book came out called "Eight times eight", and somehow father asked me why hadn’t I ever read his verses? Well, when he asked me this question, I hadn't had this poetic performance yet and even when it started... verses written by my father, they, generally, differ from the ones used in the performance, that I read from the stage, but I can't refuse myself the pleasure to seize the opportunity and to read one of his poems. If you allow.
A.M. - Tell us his name.
D.S - His name is Alexander Strakhov.
Я вслушиваюсь в отгремевший гром,
Сажусь на только что ушедший поезд.
Пропишут бром – я принимаю ром
И, переев, затягиваю пояс.
Я делаю не то, не так, наоборот,
Назло уставам жизни и устоям.
Кто вам сказал, что их не побороть,
Что вечно послушание? - Пустое.
Щедры? Копите прошлогодний снег.
Скупы? Счета доверьте секретарше.
Гоните сон с отяжелевших век
И никогда не становитесь старше.
A.M. - It's the remarkable poem of your father. Tell me have you thought of the nature of… about popularity, about the nature of fame? You're very popular actor, and your father writes very good verses, but he's much less popular, than he deserves. Why does it happen? What do you think?
D.S - I think about it, probably, if not every day of course but with a fair regularity. Fame is a fickle lady, and today she's with you, tomorrow she will pass by, and you watching her go, won't see her turning around. It happened that, generally, beginning from 24-year-old approximately, I don't remember, I suddenly felt what it's like to sign autographs... But of course, fame is – if we imagine fame as a diagram – it's a broken line, a sinusoid, it's anything but just a straight ascending line, certainly.
AM. Do you need it?
DS. It's a part of a profession, it can’t be helped.
AM. But, do you need it?
DS. In a relation to a bread on the table, doing that I want, from the point of view of the choice - definitely. Of course.
If I am not recognized if I am not successful... no matter how my words may sound, success in art is a thing very conditional, very strange, and doesn’t always go hand in hand with anything good, with the art itself. More often than not the success is equivalent to immediacy/momentariness that will disappear as last year snow. But nevertheless, an actor's profession as such is that you're eager to be recognizable, you need to be known and there's no escape from it.
A.M. - Well not everyone does. Or everyone?
DS. Difficult question, everyone or not. For example my first performance in Gogol's theater was "Petersburg", a novel by Andrey Bely. I played Nikolenka Ableukhov, Ableukhov Jr. My father was played by a remarkable actor Evgeny Krasnitsky, he isn't with us anymore. His performance was ingenious. By a certain default we in general never discussed it neither with him, certainly, or with the director of this play Golomazov, but somehow it was already clear to me then and now becomes obvious after many years that this was his major role in life, the last role in life. For this role he received "A Golden Mask" Award and Stanislavsky's Award that year, the play was nominated for all of those awards too. He beat out such renowned actors as Kalyagin, Raikin, and after they all sent him very year telegrams, wishing happy birthdays. He was and... He was and remained till the day he died the unknown actor. He played this role ingeniously. Weather he needed fame or not, I don't know. But nevertheless, it happened so that in his life there was one this role that he waited and embodied it as an actor as a talented person. What has fame to do with it? It's difficult for me to judge.
A.M. As I understood glory for you is just a tool. Not the purpose, but the tool to normally exist in a profession.
DS. As I was saying. It's a basis, it's a part of the profession - whether we like it or not.
AM. Should an actor work for the fame, or should he just work well, and the fame will come?
DS. Another difficult question, I don't know. Everybody has their own ways. I for example in some sense have got pretty brazen because I seldom do interview, go out... but we've started our conversation from this, right? In this sense I constantly tempt this making of the profession - recognition, fame, being in demand because all of those halt me. It prevents me to concentrate on myself, on what I'm doing. If I'm to give interviews every day, there won't be anything to speak about. It will become of an illusion of communication, instead of an actual communication. I will be just a white noise in the air in order not to be forgotten. But my personal belief is that no matter how often you do TV show's (talk-shows) if you had your innings, you can't change that. Fame isn't as important as ability hold this some kind of strange balance. To make a pause, to be able to hold it not only on a scene, but also in life.
AM. What is that "to hold a pause"?
DS. To keep silent. To be able to refuse. Not to go out to all parties, you are invited. Not to turn from an actor into a showman. To understand that the more you participate in some TV programs which don't correspond to your inner purpose, your internal contents, the more you will lose with each show, with each empty pronounced word. It's an inevitable thing.
AM. Judging by your words now it's obvious that you're very serious about acting as a profession. You know that some people don’t treat it very seriously. And it means that this profession seems to you very important and necessary, time you are engaged in it so seriously. Why is it an important and necessary profession?
DS. Not quite following the question.
A.M. You know, Georgy Aleksandrovich Tovstonogov told me - Tovstonogov himself (renouned Russian theatrical director) - he told that actors can't be normal people because they come out every evening on the stage and lie. It was told by Tovstonogov, I was absolutely struck that those were his own words. It's a strange profession when the person pretends to be someone else all the time. But, probably, in it there's some serious depth for you. And I want to understand it.
DS. Well I'm trying not to lie. If to answer Tovstonogov, I try not to lie. This’s why I don't really understand - not condemn - but don't understand actors that - well, I do understand them (laughs), but this isn't for me - actors who step on the stage every day. For me it's impossible. I will just die (laughs). It's just physically impossible to play "The Drama on Hunt" or "The Warsaw melody" every day. I can-not-do that, won't be able! It doesn't mean that I'm such so very deep actor: you know, I need to save up... I need to gather in myself something to give away and therefore I come up on stage once a week, no more... I do not want to generalize here. Besides, I suspect what people are all arranged differently, and if to take any inner workings of actors, the profession: all actors play in different tones. Someone here gives out something of himself, someone puts on a mask - it's a different theater, different material, different directions, after all. So here I can speak only for myself.
A.M. Is it possible in today's theater to play, without giving out something from one's soul? Is it possible in general if we speak about any serious works?
D.S. If to speak about serious works, then, of course, it's not.
A.M. If we speak about the recreational enterprise...
D.S. Enterprises can be so very different too. Well of course, with some less dramatical material one can play respectively with much less efforts, of course. On the other hand, I know actors for whom it turned into some king of drug, and they need to perform on stage every day. God knows how they do it, it's not for me to judge.
A.M. Daniil Strakhov's here with us and we'll continue after a small pause...
----------------------------------
A.M. Andrey Maximov on air, Daniil Strakhov's with us today. You’re telling totally unusual things and it seems to me that it’s unexpected for the major part of our audience. That’s why I’m asking you: Does your appearance hinder you?
D.S. (laughs) It’s a good question!
A.M. Well I want to explain, the thing’s that you’re such a young handsome man and it suddenly turns out that you’re … Well not suddenly, it’s clear for anyone in the know that you’re a deep person… That’s … You should be like a kind of Alain Delon, you should…
D.S. Is Alain Delon not deep? I’ve never talked to him (laughs).
DS. Well I'm trying not to lie. If to answer Tovstonogov, I try not to lie. This’s why I don't really understand - not condemn - but don't understand actors that - well, I do understand them (laughs), but this isn't for me - actors who step on the stage every day. For me it's impossible. I will just die (laughs). It's just physically impossible to play "The Drama on Hunt" or "The Warsaw melody" every day. I can-not-do that, won't be able! It doesn't mean that I'm such so very deep actor: you know, I need to save up... I need to gather in myself something to give away and therefore I come up on stage once a week, no more... I do not want to generalize here. Besides, I suspect what people are all arranged differently, and if to take any inner workings of actors, the profession: all actors play in different tones. Someone here gives out something of himself, someone puts on a mask - it's a different theater, different material, different directions, after all. So here I can speak only for myself.
A.M. Is it possible in today's theater to play, without giving out something from one's soul? Is it possible in general if we speak about any serious works?
D.S. If to speak about serious works, then, of course, it's not.
A.M. If we speak about the recreational enterprise...
D.S. Enterprises can be so very different too. Well of course, with some less dramatical material one can play respectively with much less efforts, of course. On the other hand, I know actors for whom it turned into some king of drug, and they need to perform on stage every day. God knows how they do it, it's not for me to judge.
A.M. Daniil Strakhov's here with us and we'll continue after a small pause...
----------------------------------
A.M. Andrey Maximov on air, Daniil Strakhov's with us today. You’re telling totally unusual things and it seems to me that it’s unexpected for the major part of our audience. That’s why I’m asking you: Does your appearance hinder you?
D.S. (laughs) It’s a good question!
A.M. Well I want to explain, the thing’s that you’re such a young handsome man and it suddenly turns out that you’re … Well not suddenly, it’s clear for anyone in the know that you’re a deep person… That’s … You should be like a kind of Alain Delon, you should…
D.S. Is Alain Delon not deep? I’ve never talked to him (laughs).
A.M. I don’t know well … such a man… you might be offered conformable parts … So does your appearance, your, excuse me for saying, handsomeness, hinder you?
D.S. Every age’s calling for its parts. Soo... Right now I’m in such a wonderful, amazing condition or status when I start being offered totally different parts. In the part answering your question honestly I’d say yes, it does hinder me.
Moreover there’d once been a period when I was trying to get rid of that impress – yes – handsome actor, Adonis, what else – jeune premier if we take some old theatre jargon. Now it’s not, say my advantage. It’s my tool. It’s my tool which, I hope, I use more and more sophisticated, differently each time, each play, each year, each part.
And there’s no boundary.
Moreover, knowing the examples of what can happen with an actor during some age, how they can either fall into obscurity or suddenly acquire a new line. So I’ve set my mind in rest on that point. As I’ve already said, actor’s calling is a thing totally out of control.
It seems to you that you guide it but it isn’t so.
It develops absolutely spontaneously. You may try to grasp this fame, this popularity, this state of being relevant but there’s no sense in it, no logic.
What more important for me now is to work on the material I’m given to and to find my own way in it.
In that case everything’s going to keep on being fine.
A.M. Here I want to ask you a question. It’s obvious that you’re a soul-searcher. You’ve told us that before. You’re a man who’s always introspective, aren’t you?
But at the same time you live well as it is. Why would a person with an utterly dependent profession do it?
Because whether you introspect or not it’s not up to you, to be given a part of Hlestakov for example. So why is all that soul-searching?
D.S. By the way the part of Hlestakov I’ve chosen myself. It was I who suggested this play to Golomazov. That was my idea. And it’s necessary to dig in (laughs) cause there’s some digging to do. If my state of mind demands analyzing my fourty legs connecting me to this world then I have to think them all over.
Had my psychological type been different I’d have been a kind of sparrow jumping from a branch to branch. I’d exist in some other register/played by some other tune. It’s important to listen to yourself and to understand that everyone’s got his/her own mechanisms of perceiving the world. This is exactly what it is for me in acting. At some point you just realize that you need to stop overthinking. And it’s also wonderful when you’re digging and digging endlessly but suddenly stop and throw away that shovel and letting go.
A.M. Listen, are you really able to interact with your inner self so effectively?
D.S. Well it’s a goal (laughs). It’s definitely a goal. To get total control over your acting body at some point is definitely a goal and it can be achieved by million ways. That’s for sure.
A.M. Well it’s an important psychological question: what’s dominating – our thoughts or ourselves? Do we think of what we want to think or our thoughts are out of control? It’s truly a problem beyond a joke. But you haven’t got it. You can dig and dig and then as you say … well it sounds good…
D.S. It sounds good.
A.M. Throw away the shovel, wow, stop soul-searching, it’s such a …
D.S. All that I meant within acting. For example you’re thinking over a part, thinking over a part, thinking over a part, digging, digging, digging, discussing something with the director, inventing, peeling layer by layer, understanding something over the text and through the text, applying inner self to the role, but at some moment you should stop thinking and just let go.
A.M. Is it the same referring to contacts with people and world? You can think it over and say…
D.S. It’s more complicated.(laughs) Acting is easier.
A.M. But why?
D.S. Well because … because life is always more complicated than job. And, by the way, it’s a big mistake of many actors and all artists in general who devote themselves to their job completely. They think the job’s even more important than life. For actors in particular it’s a mistake because such person starts to set boundaries for him. He narrows his range of interests and doesn’t see some things which can enrich him as an actor as well. Such person shackles him with some, you know, il sacerdozio dell'arte.
A.M. Is it interesting for you to live?
D.S. Sure
A.M. What are you interested in in life? Except for yourself. We already know that you are interested in yourself a lot.
D.S. Nothing, in the grand scheme of things. In the grand scheme of things. If we talk about…
A.M. The interest to yourself provides…
D.S. It’s immense.
A.M. It gives the answer to the question above – it’s interesting for me to live. You are interested in yourself so much that you can introspect eternally. And you enjoy it.
D.S. Eternally.
A.M. Does it.. Is it ok with you?
D.S. I think, yes.
A.M. So you are interested in yourself more than in the real world.
D.S. Yes. But I hope you understand but you haven’t voiced the word and I’ll do it for you. The word is self-admiration or narcissism. Am I right?
A.M. No I haven’t even… these are not my words. I haven’t ever had such thoughts.
D.S. Thank goodness. Cause, every person, every person, yes, is a born narcissus for sure. Everyone presupposes it about him but almost never shares it with the others that the cosmos inside him is unique and he feels it, knows it. Cause only this micro cosmos he can feel better than anything else. It’s so simple and so interesting.
A.M. And do you feel comfortable with yourself?
D.S. No.
A.M. Why?
D.S. Cause there’s a lot of stuff inside of me that makes me understand that I’m not the easy bit. I’ve got lots of bad stuff inside.
A.M. Well now our time is over and I want to remind you that we hosted Daniil Strahov. I want to say thank you so much for your honesty.