Moscow Theatre Research Articles

OPIATE ENDS HOSTAGE CRISIS

RESPONDING TO A REQUEST for clarification by Rogelio Pfirter, director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Russian Health Minister Yuri Shevchenko revealed that an aerosolized opiate based on fentanyl was used to end the recent hostage crisis. The narcotic, normally used as an anesthetic, killed at least 115 of the 750 people taken hostage by Chechen terrorists in a Moscow theater on Oct. 23. Although Shevchenko didn't mention use of any other agent, German doctors reported finding the anesthetic halothane in body fluid samples taken from two surviving German hostages soon after rescue. Halothane is often used with fentanyl in medical situations. Arms control experts say the use of fentanyl for law enforcement purposes probably doesn't violate the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which Russia has ratified. Its use, however, may widen existing loopholes in the 1997 treaty, which bans the use of chemical weapons in warfare. Russian officials initially refused to ...

The Moscow Hostage Crisis in the Light of the Armed Conflict in Chechnya

On 23 October 2002, a group of about 50 Chechens seized a Moscow theatre and held hundreds of people hostage, threatening to shoot their captives and blow up the building if Russian security amassed outside the theatre attacked. Their demand, that the operations mounted by the Russian army in Chechnya cease, was not taken into account by the authorities who, from the outset, declared that they would not negotiate. The crisis was brought to an end when special troops stormed the theatre, using gas in order to incapacitate the hostage-takers, and averted the detonation of a massive explosion that might have killed all the hostages. Up to 40 Chechens were killed as well as 129 theatregoers.

Commercial enterprise on the stage: Changes in Russian theatre management between 1986 and 1996

THE INFLUENCE OF ECONOMIC factors on the cultural sector is undisputed, if controversial, in capitalist societies. It is a particularly interesting phenomenon, however, in a country undergoing substantial changes in terms of both political and economic transition towards capitalism in a very short period of time. We therefore need to examine the impact of market economy and commercial structures on the Russian theatre, which for over 70 years has been controlled, managed, and used for ideological purposes by the state. Since Gorbachev's perestroika began first and foremost in the arts, it is reasonable to expect changes in this area as early as 1986. These changes were most obvious and most effective in the capital, Moscow, and to a lesser extent in the second major city, Leningrad. The provinces had benefited ideologically from their distance from the capital, where control had always been much tighter (e.g. during the XXIII Congress in 1966 controversial productions were removed from the repertoires of Moscow theatres; during the Olympic Games Moscow was cleared of any 'disreputable' elements; and during anniversaries of the revolution editorial control was intensified and theatres in the capital were ordered to include revolutionary plays in their repertoires and to perform them frequently). The provinces suffered, though, from the delay with which administrative reforms and financial benefits were implemented, and provincial theatres were often neglected by sponsors and investors. In order to assess the implications of the reforms for the theatre, three aspects should be considered: first, the structural reforms and their implications for theatre administration; second, the new function of the theatre; and third, the effects of the reforms on artistic developments in recent years.

The National Theatre of the Deaf and the Teatr mimiki i zhesta: Two Views on Theatre of the Deaf

The National Theatre of the Deaf and the Teatr mimiki i zhesta: Two Views on Theatre of the Deaf Samuel J. Zachary In the past twenty or so years the term "deaf theatre" has somewhat generically denoted theatre events which in one way or another feature deaf actors, appeal primarily to deaf audiences, or focus on deaf issues.1 All of these applications are acceptable. However, the formation and subsequent evolution of America's National Theatre of the Deaf and Russia's Teatr mimiki i zhesta, Moscow Theatre of Sign and Gesture, have rather sharply defined that branch of deaf theatre known as "theatre of the deaf."2 Simply stated, "theatre of the deaf" identifies play production made more or less equally accessible to hearing and hearing impaired audiences through collaborative efforts of signing deaf actors and speaking hearing actors. Beyond this cursory explanation, a multitude of unique characteristics have established the National Theatre of the Deaf and the Moscow Theatre of Sign and Gesture among the world's most accomplished and reputable theatres of the deaf. The purpose of this article is twofold: 1) to acquaint readers with particular characteristics of the National Theatre of the Deaf and the Moscow Theatre of Sign and Gesture (identified throughout the balance of the article as NTD and MTSG respectively) by comparing the companies' origins and artistic philosophies; their use of visual language and vocal interpretation of that language; their actor training programs, repertoires, and touring policies; and their social and artistic influences, and 2) to alert readers by example to the sometimes diverse.ways in which theatres of the deaf may be structured. Origins and Artistic Philosophies Before becoming instituted, neither the NTD nor the MTSG were intended to fulfill artistic missions. Social service agencies imagined each as a means by which society's awareness of deafness could be expanded and deaf people's talents could be exercised. Yet once initiated, each company matured quickly into a professional troupe with decidedly artistic goals designed to meet the needs of both deaf and hearing audiences. 53 54 Samuel J. Zachary The impetus for a deaf theatre in America came in 1961 when Dr. Edna Levine and members of the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration sought ways to deter the "abysmal ignorance of Americans about their country's deaf population and deafness in general" (Seism 1). At the Administration's invitation , Arthur Penn and Anne Bancroft, director and star of The Miracle Worker, along with Penn's associate David Hays, journeyed to Washington, D.C, to explore the proposition of developing a deaf theatre. While there, Bancroft visited Gallaudet College (America's only liberal arts college for the deaf) to study facets of sign language and deafness for her role as Annie Sullivan. She and her associates first witnessed the compelling intricacies of deaf theatre when they attended Gallaudet's production of Our Town. Although all three became immediately entranced by the artistic potentials of visual language, only Hays found opportunity to pursue the establishment of a professional theatre of the deaf. George C. White's creation of the O'Neill Foundation in 1965 supplied Hays with the long sought after financial and artistic base he needed. With the assistance of George Detmold, then Dean of Gallaudet College, the school's 1966 production of Iphigenia in Aulis was produced at the Foundation's summer playwright's conference. One year later, with the economic support of the Social and Rehabilitative Services, the NTD was formally instituted with Hays as Managing Director. A renovated two-story barn in the O'Neill Theatre complex in Connecticut became the company's first home. Currently, the NTD operates out of the Hazel E. Stark Center in Chester, Connecticut, and in the past twenty-six years has grown steadily in prestige and, as a result of many international tours, has become the most recognized theatre of the deaf in the world. Within the past year, it has become necessary for the NTD to add two additional artistic directors to assist Hays in the burgeoning task of administering the thriving organization. The genesis of the MTSG also was sparked by the interest of a nontheatre group, this time the All-Russia Society...

Dimensions of Institutional Participation: Who Uses the Courts, and How?

Previous articleNext article No AccessArticlesDimensions of Institutional Participation: Who Uses the Courts, and How?Joel B. Grossman, Herbert M. Kritzer, Kristin Bumiller, Austin Sarat, and Stephen McDougalJoel B. Grossman Search for more articles by this author , Herbert M. Kritzer Search for more articles by this author , Kristin Bumiller Search for more articles by this author , Austin Sarat Search for more articles by this author , and Stephen McDougal Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 44, Number 1Feb., 1982 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2130285 Views: 12Total views on this site Citations: 14Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1982 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Herbert M. Kritzer Lawyers at Work: Theories and Methods, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2015).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2579200Matthew Reid Krell What You Bring to the Courthouse: The Interaction between Racial Context and Jury Awards, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2015).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2590253Linn Hammergren Reforming the Reformers: A Different Approach to Access Issues, (May 2014): 349–379.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54660-0_14Jeff Yates, Holley Tankersley, Paul Brace Assessing the Impact of State Judicial Structures on Citizen Litigiousness, Political Research Quarterly 63, no.44 (Dec 2010): 796–810.https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912909336271Herbert M. Kritzer The Antecedents of Disputes: Complaining and Claiming, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2010).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1631796Jennifer Earl The Process Is the Punishment : Thirty Years Later, Law & Social Inquiry 33, no.33 (Sep 2008): 735–778.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2008.00120.xDebra Javeline, Vanessa Baird Who Sues Government?: Evidence From the Moscow Theater Hostage Case, Comparative Political Studies 40, no.77 (Jul 2007): 858–885.https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006292116 Karen O'Connor Presidential Address: The Supreme Court and the South, The Journal of Politics 63, no.33 (Oct 2015): 701–716.https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00084Jeff Yates, Belinda Creel Davis, Henry R. Glick The Politics of Torts: Explaining Litigation Rates in the American States, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 1, no.22 (Jan 2021): 127–143.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000100100201Patricia L. Jackson, H. Harvey Cohen Choosing to Sue: Who Does so and Why?, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 37, no.88 (Nov 2016): 506–510.https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129303700803Micheal W. Giles, Thomas D. Lancaster Political Transition, Social Development, and Legal Mobilization in Spain, American Political Science Review 83, no.33 (Aug 2014): 817–833.https://doi.org/10.2307/1962062CHRISTINE B. HARRINGTON Regulatory Reform: Creating Gaps and Making Markets, Law & Policy 10, no.44 (Oct 1988): 293–316.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1988.tb00014.x Bibliography, Current Sociology 33, no.11 (Mar 1985): 137–267.https://doi.org/10.1177/001139285033001009Samuel Long Abstracts of Documents in this Supplement, (Jan 1983): 1–590.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-5956-0_1

Moscow Theatre, 1920s

Moscow Theatre, 1920s

Yuri Slonimsky (1902–1978)

Yuri Slonimsky, who died in Leningrad on April 23, played a manyfaceted role in the development of Soviet ballet. A spokesman for Socialist Realism, and as such frequently called upon by his government to present the approved point of view to the West, he was also a historian with a deep respect for the classical foundations of the art of ballet. He was, according to Natalia Roslavleva, one of the founders of Soviet ballet criticism, analytical in style and scientific in its approach,1 but he also took an active role in the theatre, providing librettos for a number of ballets. In the 1920s, he helped to organize the experimental programs, Evenings of Young Ballet, that were choreographed by the young George Balanchine; he also wrote monographs on the nineteenth-century masterpieces Giselle and La Sylphide. Though some of his works have been translated into English, still more should be done, for Slonimsky made contributions of value to us in a number of ways; most important, for the insight they provide into the Soviet aesthetic rationale and for the archival material they bring to light. Slonimsky was born in St. Petersburg on March 12, 1902, and was educated at the Law School of the University of (by then) Petrograd and the Theatre Division of its Institute of History of Arts. An early interest in ballet led to his beginning to write reviews at the age of seventeen, at which time he also put in his share of time at the barre in order to understand the technical aspect of his subject matter. A number of essays and books followed, but almost always the writing was complemented by teaching activities, as he lectured on the history of ballet at the Choreographers' Faculty of the Moscow Theatre Institute and the Ballet Tuition Faculty of the

The Moscow Theatre of Mime and Sign

The Moscow Theatre of Mime and Sign

Moscow Theatre 1935 and 1970: This Is Where I Came In

In the late spring of 1970 I returned to Russia to look at the theatre after almost a decade's absence. In many ways it seemed that theatrical history was repeating itself: we were back in the 1930's. My last previous visit had been in 1962, but then the scene was in disarray: the Soviet stage had only recently been roused from a troubled and feverish slumber induced by the sleeping pill of socialist realism and Muscovite theatre folk did not really know then where they stood nor quite where they are heading. Today the picture is clearer.

Milestones of Moscow's Past Theater Season

DRAWING THE A'ITENTION of theater-lovers the world over, the Chekhov jubilee, that highlight of the past theatrical season, could not but influence the Soviet stage as a whole and Moscow's theaters in particular. The latter undertook to stage plays by Chekhov that were never before produced on the Moscow stage. Half-forgotten plays, such as The Wood Goblin and Platonov, which had rarely seen the footlights, were brought out of the archives and produced by theaters noted for their fine taste and excellent stage directing, i.e., by the Vakhtangov and Mossoviet Theaters. And still they did not contribute anything especially new to the understanding of Chekhov the playwright, nor did they shatter the opinions long formed about them. Indeed, nothing special could be expected of them, since having rejected Platonov and developed The Wood Goblin into Uncle Vanya Chekhov thus pronounced severe judgment on them. Of course, both Platonov and particularly The Wood Goblin have points highlighting the author's lyricism and keen psychological observation, but these plays were only a presage of Chekhov's great future. The theaters had to exert considerable effort to overcome both plays' definite dramatic shortcomings. It is clear, therefore, that their productions can merely be regarded in the light of a historical and literary experiment. Only two roles, performed by the talented Serafima Birman and Rostislav Plyatt, were at the level generally demanded of Chekhov's plays. There is nothing surprising about this, since the parts they played in The Wood Goblin were akin to those that were later featured in Uncle Vanya.

The Čexov Centennial Productions in the Moscow Theaters

The Čexov Centennial Productions in the Moscow Theaters

Moscow Theater Season

THE THEATERS OF Moscow have presented sixty new productions this season; and it is hardly possible to do full justice in the space of a brief article to the 25 premieres of entirely new shows, each with its own destiny. It would be difficult to forecast the longevity of anyone of them. The Moscow theaters which have always adhered to the repertoire system have been running some shows for 10 and 20 years, to say nothing of such exceptional plays as In the Lower Depths, a work running in its original interpretation at the Moscow Art Theatre for nearly sixty years, though its cast has, of course, been changed several times in that period.

Moscow Theater Season

THE THEATERS OF Moscow have presented sixty new productions this season; and it is hardly possible to do full justice in the space of a brief article to the 25 premieres of entirely new shows, each with its own destiny. It would be difficult to forecast the longevity of anyone of them. The Moscow theaters which have always adhered to the repertoire system have been running some shows for 10 and 20 years, to say nothing of such exceptional plays as In the Lower Depths, a work running in its original interpretation at the Moscow Art Theatre for nearly sixty years, though its cast has, of course, been changed several times in that period.

The 1935 Moscow Theatre Festival

The 1935 Moscow Theatre Festival

The Moscow Theatre for Children

The Moscow Theatre for Children