The Only Remaining Images Of The Moscow Art Theatre’s 1908 Stage Production of ‘The Blue Bird’
“It must be naive, simple, easy, cheerful, merry, and as illusory and beautiful as a child’s daydream…”
– Konstantin Stanislavsky on The Blue Bird by Maurice Maeterlinck
The Moscow Art Theatre’s 1908 production of The Blue Bird holds an extraordinary place in theatrical history. Directed by the legendary Konstantin Stanislavski, this adaptation of Belgian playwright and poet Maurice Maeterlinck’s L’Oiseau bleu (The Blue Bird) dazzled audiences with its dreamlike atmosphere and symbolic depth. Though the production is largely lost to time, a few precious photographs remain, offering a tantalising glimpse into this historic staging.
The Story Behind The Blue Bird
Maeterlinck’s The Blue Bird is a magical fable that begins on a mysterious night, when two children, Tyltyl (played by Alexander Tairov) and Mytyl (portrayed by Alisa Koonen), are visited by the good fairy Berylune. Berylune tells them that her granddaughter is ill, and only the elusive Blue Bird can bring her happiness. The children embark on a fantastical journey to find the magical bird, accompanied by a host of anthropomorphised beings.
Along their way, the children encounter transformed elements from everyday life. Water, fire, milk, bread, sugar, and night take on human characteristics, showing the children that the mundane world around them possesses a hidden beauty and spirit. This symbolic element of The Blue Bird reflected Maeterlinck's broader philosophical musings on life and happiness, which align with the Symbolist movement—a movement that sought to explore the hidden spiritual essence of reality.
“… For me as a director, the most important aspect is the stage direction, but it doesn’t have to be implemented verbatim. He [Maeterlinck] may be a brilliant writer, but he’s no good at costumes, set design, and stage mechanics.”
Konstantin Stanislavsky
Maeterlinck noted what each character should look like:
TYLTYL wears the dress of Hop o’ my Thumb in Perrault’s Tales. Scarlet knickerbockers, pale-blue jacket, white stockings, tan shoes.
MYTYL is dressed like Gretel or Little Red Riding-hood.
LIGHT.—The “moon-coloured” dress in Perrault’s Peau d’âne; that is to say, pale gold shot with silver, shimmering gauzes, forming a sort of rays, etc. Neo-Grecian or Anglo-Grecian (à la Walter Crane) or even more or less Empire style: a high waist, bare arms, etc. Head-dress: a sort of diadem or even a light crown.
THE FAIRY BÉRYLUNE and NEIGHBOUR BERLINGOT.—The traditional dress of the poor women in fairy-tales. If desired, the transformation of the Fairy into a princess in Act I may be omitted.
DADDY TYL, MUMMY TYL, GAFFER TYL and GRANNY TYL.—The traditional costume of the German wood-cutters and peasants in Grimm’s Tales.
TYLTYL’S BROTHERS AND SISTERS.—Different forms of the Hop-o’-my-Thumb costume. TIME.—Traditional dress of Time: a wide black or dark-blue cloak, a streaming white beard, scythe and hour-glass.
NIGHT.—Ample black garments, covered with mysterious stars and “shot” with reddish-brown reflections. Veils, dark poppies, etc.
THE NEIGHBOUR’S LITTLE GIRL.—Bright fair hair; a long white frock.
THE DOG,—Red dress-coat, white breeches, top-boots, a shiny hat. The costume suggests that of John Bull.
THE CAT.—The costume of Puss In Boots: powdered wig, three-cornered hat, violet or sky-blue coat, dress-sword, etc.
N.B.—The heads of the DOG and the CAT should be only discreetly animalised.
THE LUXURIES.—Before the transformation: wide, heavy mantles in red and yellow brocade; enormous fat jewels, etc. After the transformation: chocolate or coffee-coloured tights, giving the impression of unadorned dancing-jacks.
THE HAPPINESSES OF THE HOME.—Dresses of various colours, or, if preferred, costumes of peasants, shepherds, wood-cutters and so on, but idealised and interpreted fairy-fashion.
THE GREAT JOYS.—As stated in the text, shimmering dresses in soft and subtle shades: rose-awakening, water’s-smile, amber-dew, blue-of-dawn, etc.
MATERNAL LOVE.—Dress very similar to the dress worn by Light, that is to say, supple and almost transparent veils, as of a Greek statue, and, in so far as possible, white. Pearls and other stones as rich and numerous as may be desired, provided that they do not break the pure and candid harmony of the whole.
BREAD.—A rich pasha’s dress. An ample crimson silk or velvet gown. A huge turban. A scimitar. An enormous stomach, red and puffed-out cheeks.
SUGAR.—A silk gown, cut like that of a eunuch in a seraglio, half blue and half white, to suggest the paper wrapper of a sugar-loaf. Eunuch’s headdress.
FIRE.—Red tights, a vermilion cloak, with changing reflections, lined with gold. An aigrette of iridescent flames.
WATER.—A pale-blue or bluish-green dress, with transparent reflections and effects of rippling or trickling gauze, Neo-Grecian or Anglo-Grecian style. but fuller and more voluminous than that of LIGHT. Head-dress of aquatic flowers and seaweed.
THE ANIMALS.—Popular or peasant costumes.
THE TREES.—Dresses of different shades of green or the colour of the trunks of trees. Distinctive attributes in the shape of leaves or branches by which they can be recognised.
I asked Stanislavsky eagerly for photographs of scenes from “The Blue Bird” or else for the original designs of the scenic artist so that I might have them copied… the photographs, I was told, were not available – except those of the players themselves – for the originals had been made by Fischer, a German, and had been destroyed in the pogrom at the beginning of the war in 1914. And in the difficult times Russia has undergone since then, no others have been made.
When I pressed my point and asked about the original designs, the firm, square but kindly face of my host carried a passing glance of embarrassed modesty and then admitted that there were no designs. He had conceived them himself and had personally directed the artist, V. E. Yevgenoff, in the execution of the settings.
The Russian Theater Under the Revolution by Oliver Sayler, 1920
The 1908 Production and Its Legacy
Stanislavski’s production of The Blue Bird premiered at the Moscow Art Theatre on 30 September 1908, with costume designs by Vladimir Egorov that were crafted a year earlier, in 1907. Egorov's designs played a pivotal role in bringing the play’s mystical world to life. The elaborate costumes, especially those for the personified elements, were instrumental in transforming the actors into symbolic representations of nature’s forces, adding a visual richness that resonated with Maeterlinck’s themes.
This was a moment of experimentation for Stanislavski and the Moscow Art Theatre, known primarily for its dedication to realism. Stanislavski, however, saw The Blue Bird as an opportunity to explore new theatrical possibilities beyond realism. This production was filled with fantastical set designs, sophisticated lighting techniques, and costumes that bordered on the surreal. For Stanislavski, the production was a chance to experiment with blending psychological realism with the more stylised, abstract approach of Symbolist theatre.
The images that survive from this production capture the essence of this bold fusion of styles. In one of the most iconic images, Tyltyl and Mytyl are shown standing in a mysterious, otherworldly forest, their costumes soft and flowing, blending harmoniously with the ethereal environment. The set design, crafted to evoke a sense of the magical and the mysterious, consisted of gnarled trees and faint, misty lighting, creating an atmosphere that transported both the audience and actors into an enchanted world.
Another image reveals the children interacting with the living representations of water, fire, and light. Egorov’s costumes for these characters are intricate, with flowing fabrics that evoke the fluidity of water, and jagged, sharp lines suggesting the untamed nature of fire. These photos also capture the exaggerated gestures and postures of the actors, reflecting Stanislavski’s integration of physicality into the emotional landscape of the play.
The Remaining Photographs and Their Significance
The few surviving images of this production are invaluable artefacts from a vanished era. While the photos are grainy and monochrome, they still convey the extraordinary artistry that defined the performance. These are not just simple costume portraits; they are visual remnants of a production that was groundbreaking in its ambition and execution. The actors are depicted in their full costumes, their expressions captured in mid-performance, and in the background, one can sense the detailed world that Stanislavski and Egorov meticulously created for the stage.
For instance, a photograph of Tyltyl and Mytyl standing amidst the spirits of nature highlights the innocence of the children as they discover the deeper, hidden life of ordinary objects. The children’s costumes are simple but elegant, and the light filtering through the set adds a soft, almost spiritual glow to the scene. The actors playing water, fire, and night wear flowing garments that suggest their elemental powers, with symbolic details such as flames and waves incorporated into the fabric. These costumes by Egorov were essential in conveying the play’s magical realism, blending real-world elements with the fantastical.
Though sparse, these images capture the innovative costume designs, and offer a glimpse into Stanislavski’s vision for The Blue Bird. The production marked a significant shift for the Moscow Art Theatre, signalling a move away from strict realism toward a more symbolic, imaginative approach to storytelling.
The Legacy of The Blue Bird
Stanislavski’s 1908 production of The Blue Bird left a lasting legacy on the world of theatre. While the production itself may have faded, these remaining photographs serve as powerful reminders of the ephemeral nature of theatre. They remind us that theatre, unlike many other art forms, is fleeting—its magic exists in the moment of performance. These images allow us to relive a piece of that magic and inspire those who continue to create theatre today.
The production also remains a testament to the collaboration between theatre disciplines—acting, direction, set and costume design—to create a world that speaks to both the intellect and the imagination.
You can read the play here.
Comments