A summary - may anyone check for me?

Thank you!

In Russian, Bolshoi meant big. In his article “Bolshoi Troubles”, author Kevin O’Flynn has identified two bolshoi factors impeding the progress of the Bolshoi Theater’s reconstruction: embezzlement accusation, and deep divisions within the internal.

Bolshoi was founded in 1776, and has suffered numerous times from fire, bomb, and human mistake. In 2005, Bolshoi moved into restoration. But after four years, the budget of the restoration project has reached $1.5 billion RUB, and its reopening date has been delayed twice. The budget’s inflation was suspicious, and according to O’Flynn, the cost of repairing the Audit Chamber, “was sixteen times the original estimate” (O’Flynn, 2009, p. 49). The public suspected embezzlement, in particular the replacement of a notorious Russian firm, whose works proved to be jerry-built.

Quoting directly from three directors of Bolshoi, O’Flynn showed internal conflict was also bolshoi. Alexander Vedernikov, the resigned musical director, said “Bolshoi [did] not have any of the life signs of a creative organization” (p. 59). He complained the management interfered in his work; and the General Director, Anatoly Iskanov, who has no musical knowledge, was a “career bureaucrat” according to O’Flynn. Even the new musical director, Leonid Desyatnikov, recognized the problem, and said, “I [was] not the real musical chief of the Bolshoi Theater” (p. 50). He made a sarcasm that accepting this new position was “psychotherapy” (p. 50), which hopefully appeased the crisis Bolshoi was facing.

The last page of the article discussed additional issues: the dismal of sound at Bolshoi with concrete during Soviet-era renovation, and the demand of preservation in Moscow. Vedernikov stated, “it [was] far more important how the work [was] done than when it [was] done” (p. 51). This was sarcastic. As far as the sound restoration, the jerry-built Russian firm replaced the well-known German firm, and the work it did was unsatisfied. The Moscow city government was “criticized for getting construction project done quickly by ignoring the demand of preservation” (p. 51). For example, the Manezh Exhibition Hall was rebuilt less than a year after a fire, and the new building was completely different. Assuming time and cost were out of concern, then according to Vedernikov’s sarcasm, doing design and giving contract became subjective, and not from the interest of the project, and the engineering disciplines behind it.

Regardless of whether there was embezzlement, Bolshoi’s case argued that a sound legal system was necessary. According to O’Flynn, in a country where embezzlement was considered a norm in popular perception, both Bolshoi’s management and state government were held accountable. While all the troubles were about the reconstruction project, the greatest lost followed would be the general public.