The genius William Shakespeare is credited with the saying: "The whole world is a theater, and people are actors in it."
It was noticed, of course, very subtly.
But even the most accurate and profound statements turn into their opposite, if you try to bring them to the point of absurdity.
This, unfortunately, is what the magnificent modern Russian actor Mikhail Efremov did.
It hurts me to write these lines.
However, Efremov clearly confused the Presnensky District Court with a theatrical stage.
And when sentencing, this will definitely not play in his favor.
In his last word in court, Mikhail Efremov said, commenting on the prosecutor's demand to sentence him to 11 years in prison: “I think if there was a simple person here, there would not have been 11 years, it would have been seven or eight.
Well 11 years old, well.
Very bloodthirsty, of course, because I'm afraid I won't live to see my release.
That is, it is a death sentence. "
Efremov, of course, is insanely sorry.
But this feeling of pity disappears somewhere when you remember the deceased and innocent driver Sergei Zakharov.
Mikhail Efremov had a choice that fateful evening.
He had the opportunity not to get behind the wheel of his car.
The death (and in fact, not death) sentence, which the actor will soon be sentenced to, will be a direct result of his personal decision.
One can, of course, argue about whether this decision was conscious or unconscious.
But in any case, Efremov himself received him.
Sergei Zakharov did not make any fateful decision.
He had no choice.
Even in theory, he could not imagine that if he finds himself in a specific point of the Garden Ring at a specific moment in time, then a fatal blow of fate will fall on him in the form of a drunken great actor to smithereens.
When you think about it, Mikhail Efremov's very talented rhetoric instantly loses a significant part of its credibility.
And when you realize that any of us could easily have been in Sergei Zakharov's place, Efremov's rhetoric is devalued even more.
Before starting to write this text, I promised myself to try to avoid broad generalizations and "deduction of morality" in it.
“A spoken thought is a lie” - in relation to the Efremov case, this brilliant saying of Fyodor Tyutchev sounds especially sharp and piercing.
I don’t know to what extent I have managed to keep my word so far.
Perhaps not very significant.
But in the future I will definitely try to add something "from myself" to a minimum.
In the future, I plan to confine myself to "notes in the margins" of the last word of Mikhail Efremov.
“I have never experienced any negative, as it was said in the court, in relation to the victims, I do not and will not experience” - an insanely strange way of posing the question.
The great Russian actor, it seems to me, does not quite understand the meaning of the word "victim".
And if he understands, then on some subconscious level he sincerely considers himself the main victim not of the deceased Sergei Zakharov and his family, but himself.
“I have a different attitude towards the lawyers of the victims ... Everyone says that this is not a process, but a circus and a show.
But let's figure it out little by little who arranged this circus and show.
Sergei Zakharov died early in the morning of the ninth.
Already on the day of the ninth, his family and relatives were on the TV show together with the lawyer of the victims Dobrovinsky, who volunteered to defend them free of charge.
If at your age, Aleksandr Andreevich, you consider it normal to come to court on a scooter, then this is probably not a show ”- in no case am I going to defend the lawyer Dobrovinsky and his methods.
But even if you look at the situation from the point of view of the interests of Mikhail Efremov, then it would be much more useful for the great actor to closely analyze the methods of his own defender.
“I really said right away that I wouldn’t excuse myself.
And that's why I'm here.
If I would have excused myself, if I would have used the telephone law that lives in our country, this court would not have happened. "
- Mikhail Efremov clearly believes that by refusing to "smear himself out", he performed a magnificent civil feat.
His train of thought is understandable in principle.
But is the great actor really "refused to be smeared"?
If so, how then to understand how he behaved in court?
How to understand that he was constantly changing his position to the exact opposite?
If the case took place on the theatrical stage, and not in a real court itself, then the action that we all saw, thanks to Efremov, would deservedly be called a magnificent spectacle and a wonderful performance.
What brilliant and unexpected plot twists!
What realism!
What a combination and contrast between high principles and base instincts!
What edification!
But for all its similarity to real life, the theater is still not quite real life.
Everything is pretend in the theater, but not in real life.
Mikhail Efremov could not understand this in time and did very much harm to himself already during the trial.
I will return to his words about a “common man” who, they say, would receive a much less severe punishment for the same act.
“Simple man” is a polysemy concept.
"An ordinary person" can be called a person who has no fame and popularity.
Or it is possible - a person who, having committed an unforgivable offense, does not try to dodge, does not try to play a theatrical role.
If we start from this interpretation, then in a sense, Mikhail Efremov is right.
He has every chance to receive a harsher punishment due to the fact that he failed to become such a "common man."
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.