Review: Stalinin suloinen ruoska
Stalin, the Whip and the Years of Danger at the City Theatre
Stalin’s sweet whip is certainly one of the landmark plays of the spring. The play, written and directed by Kari Heiskanen, is theatre with a capital letter. Why? Because it is actually brave to seize the bitter knife-edge time of Finnish history, and because at the centre of the play rises to the stage a gallery of characters who decided and negotiated the times of the Control Commission. And because this story is tightly written and directed, and the stage is alive.
They are all involved: Kekkonen, Paasikivi, Mannerheim, Kuusinen, Leino, Zdanov, Orlov, Savonenko, Malenkov, Kuznetsov… We know how it all ended, but putting it all into words on stage has been a huge read, as a lot of books and views have been printed. Kari Heiskanen has made a piece of theatre history by building an ensemble with sharpness, vision and historical finishing – without tendencies. Or if there is, it deals with the complexity of time and the clash of perspectives.
When you observe Stalin’s whip, your attention is drawn to the intense dialogue and verbal incense. Heiskanen knows his stuff, that is, how the stage as a whole is real at the moment. Verbal incense also includes a clever and juicy swear word. Russians are known to know how to use charm words, and this is also the case here. Heiskanen has written a delicious exorcism, if it is appropriate to praise such a thing, that is, the smoothness of exorcism.
The existence of the Control Commission began after the end of the war in 1944 and ended with the Paris Peace Treaty in 1947. The time called the Years of Danger (Lauri Hyvämäki) fits into Stalin’s sweet whip. I wonder if I picked the title of the play correctly, i.e. that it comes from Stalin’s idea that the Finnish parliament does as it is told, i.e. ignores legitimacy? There were plenty of rubbing surfaces.
Fascism and communism smelled strongly. The basic question was whether Finland should be freed from fascism. Maybe not easily, as the noose could not be used. Zdanov asked how Helsinki is still standing and criticized it as a rat hole. The tower was not enough for the head of the Commission, who only went to do big things. In the background, there was a question about how popular the head of the Control Commission responsible for the defense of Leningrad actually was.
Things progressed. The question of war guilt, war reparations, socialization, the election victory of the SKDL, the triumphal march of Kuusinen and Leino, the assessment of the rowing ability of Finland’s leaders in the waves of a large neighbor. This is what the time of the Control Commission was like. However, Heiskanen has planted delicious perspectives on the progress of events (including farcical ones). We must remember how the key persons of the Control Commission continued in Finland as ambassadors and thus as trainees of affairs.
The most interesting thing about Stalin’s sweet whip is the choice of subject. Perhaps you don’t immediately think that the time of the Control Commission would be an interesting topic on the scene right now. But it is different. Kari Heiskanen strikes straight into the vein and reminds us of what Finland is made of. It is also interesting how many facts can fit into one play. It is also still interesting how the mass of information flows smoothly in speech.
Heated by an interesting topic, it is easy to forget the role of the actors, which was great. That is, everyone. Somehow, good acting is part of this play! Thank you also for using the videos in the right way. The videos served the whole well and brought a genuine wind of war from the dozens of people. The costumes, set design and use of the stage space ensured that there were no cracks in the whole.
Stalin’s sweet whip is a fine whole, worthy of praise.