Magical Subversions: The Master and Margarita in Performance

Magical Subversions: The Master and Margarita in Performance NICHOLAS RZHEVSKY Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita is infonned by a number of familiar modem conceits of magic. The novel includes social-political nuances reminiscent of Thomas Mann's Mario and the mountain, ethnographic and mythological ones appropriate to Garcia-Marquez's and Carpentier's realismo magico, and meta-literary elements which appear in Tzvetan Todorov's study of the fantastic. Out of this broad range of meanings, two in particular are of interest to Bulgakov. The fust is the modem literary condition in which, as noted by Todorov (following Sartrel, "the fantastic becomes the rule, not the exception."! In the texts of Gogol and Kafka, we have come to appreciate, the traditional hesitation authors create for readers between "reality" and the supernatural is absent. Instead of even vaguely possible explanations we are offered fictions in which noses jump off faces and protagonists become insects as a matter of course (without benefit, moreover, of the saving explanation that could be provided by allegory). The Master and Margarita, it seems to me, follows a similar pattern in making magic and the supernatural not titillating possibility but the rules of the literary game itself. The second sense of magic important for Bulgakov is its primary theatrical mode. Woland is the leader ofa talented group of actors, indeed of a superb vaudeville troupe complete with trained cat, and it is their supernatural talents and powers of persuasion which act as narrative catalysts and create the fictional rules at issue.2 The history of the text's creation is also marked by what Bulgakov calls the "magic chamber" of theater.' The novel was written and introduced to the public in blatant contradiction of nonnative cultural patterns, of standards of logic and common sense, and of the crushing realities of Soviet society. What made this work possible, finally was the theater, Bulgakov's major source of livelihood (in addition to some film scripts and opera librettos) during the 1920s and 1930s. As could be expected, such generic conjunctions of literature and the stage have been made explicit by perfonnances of the text, most notably in the NICHOLAS RZHEVSKY Tagaoka Theater's 1979 production of Yuri Liubimov's and V. Dyiachin's adaptation.4 The Tagaoka adaptation was originally planned to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the theater's beginnings in 1964. The 1974 premiere did not come about in large part because ofobjections raised by cultural functionaries. 5 The most damaging product of this interference was that Liubimov was forbidden to use state funds from the theater's annual budget. Nevertheless, the fact ofpublication in 1966-67 and thus the official imprimatur already granted Bulgakov's novel made it difficult to shutdown the performance by evoking the usual standards of Soviet censorship. The production could be hindered, but it could not be declared totally out of bounds since to do so would undermine the bureaucrats who originally granted permission for publication. The theater could and in fact did question the inconsistency of allowing texts to be published but not performed, and, of course, this strategy was already familiar to it by way of socially subversive adaptations ofGogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and other classical writers. Such tactics were not enough to overcome practical financial constraints created by the absence of budgeted funds, however, and Liubimov, moreover, decided to begin work "outside of the plan," that is, without using government subsidy but with the hope of recouping the theater's financial obligation by the saleoflickets. Working outside ofthe plan allowed a greater degree of freedom than the normal production process, but it also created the double risk of a financial fiasco if the performances were poorly attended, and of sudden government intervention rendering useless the theater's extra work and heavy financial commitment. Liubimov's decision carried immediate implications for stage design. Without funds it was impossible to create and construct a stage or to purchase props, costumes, and lights. The director turned this apparently impossible situation into a strong creative gesture - expressing, in part, the commemorative nature of the project - by taking major props and organizing stage signs from his other productions. A huge wooden cross and the...