FILM BINGO BONGO
Arbitral tribunal, held December 20, 1907under the chairmanship of parchment, with secretaries and Gidon download the film Bingo Bongo
and Vilenkin, rejected the claim and found Meyerhold neoskorbitelnoy form that was discontinued Komissarzhevskaya work together with him.In analyzing the case, the arbitral tribunal shall seek the opinion of the Stanislavsky whether, from the point of view of the established theatrical traditions, an entrepreneur of the season to release a director and whether it is offensive.In this matter, Stanislavsky sided Komissarzhevskaya since her break with Meyerhold was download the film Bingo Bongo
and based on the principle of creative differences that make it impossible to further joint work.Draws attention to the requirement of Stanislavsky, to break with such a well respected financial obligations under the contract and the person being removed from the theater, "returning the freedom of action." When in 1905Stanislavsky liquidated he created Studio at Cook, he of his own money paid the salaries of Meyerhold and all participants Teatrastudii end of the season, suffering great damage. The final text of the response Stanislavsky arbitrators in the case Komissarzhevskaya and Meyerhold was not found.The Museum of Art Theatre are two drafts of this response. Published a manuscript spent. The comments are excerpts from another sketch, containing additional material. First published on the manuscript. 1 Stanislavski refers to an episode from Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice."2 In the original version of the manuscript that idea was the following development: "Is there a law or a means to force the director or actor to do that in which he believes. Conventional theater and the real can not merge without compromises. Assignment is not possible, I know of no other means as separate.The question of who should go by the owner or his employee, decided by the practice. It is clear that the owner of the obligor, should remain, since his departure, the whole thing collapses. Require ... businessman, that he not only as an entrepreneur, but also as an artist promoted and carried out the principles of art, which he does not believe it is impossible.Demand that he not only held these principles, but also financially and morally be held accountable, even less fair. If in any case the presence of the person eliminated from the case, is not normal, in the theater, such a presence is intolerable. The moment when the actor feels timid way to rehearsals, he is trusting and naive and timid.One person present at the rehearsal, disagree with his views, confusing and cool creative impulse. To create, one must believe in their creativity. All that cools it is dangerous and harmful. The work of the theater only fruitful when its leaders are united family.The presence of the family of such an important and compelling to the authority of man, as a director, is not consonant with the general work, should bring disharmony or discord, shakes cause. Who rapes ... creative artist, that infringe upon the freedom of our art.