The question of the nature of conflict in a dramatic work is also controversial. The problem of conflict (collision) as a source of action was carefully developed by Hegel. He explained a lot about the plot of the drama. But in the concept of the German philosopher there is a certain one-sidedness, which became clear with the strengthening of realism in literature.
Without denying the existence of constant, substantial conflicts that have become “as if nature,” Hegel at the same time emphasized that truly free art “should not bow” to such “sad, unhappy collisions.” Separating artistic creativity from the deepest contradictions in life, the philosopher proceeded from the conviction of the need for reconciliation with the presence of evil. He saw the calling of the individual not in improving the world or even in its self-preservation in the face of hostile circumstances, but in bringing itself into a state of harmony with reality.
From here follows Hegel’s thought that the most important thing for an artist is collision, “the true basis of which lies in spiritual forces and their divergence from each other, since this opposition is caused by the act of man himself.” In collisions favorable to art, according to the philosopher, “the main thing is that a person enters into a struggle with something moral, true, holy in himself and for himself, incurring retribution on his part.”
Ideas about this kind of conflict, which can be controlled by a rational will, determined Hegel’s teaching on dramatic action: “At the heart of the conflict is a violation that cannot be maintained as a violation, but must be eliminated. Collision is such a change in the harmonic state, which in turn must be changed."
Collision, Hegel persistently emphasizes, is something constantly developing, seeking and finding ways to overcome its own; it “needs a resolution following the struggle of opposites,” that is, the conflict revealed in the work must exhaust itself with the denouement of the action. The conflict underlying a work of art, according to Hegel, is always, as it were, on the eve of its own disappearance. In other words, the conflict is understood by the author of “Aesthetics” as something transitory and fundamentally solvable (eliminable) within the limits of a given individual situation.
Hegel's concept of collision is preceded by ancient teachings about plots: Aristotle's judgment on the need for beginnings and endings in tragedies, as well as the ancient Indian treatise on dramatic art called “Natyashastra”. It summarizes a rich and varied artistic experience. In myths and epics, fairy tales and early novels, as well as dramatic works of eras distant from us, events invariably lined up in strictly ordered series, fully consistent with Hegel’s ideas about the movement from disharmony to harmony.
This was the case in late Greek comedy, where “every smallest shift in the action is completely random, but on the whole this endless chain of accidents suddenly for some reason forms a certain pattern,” and in Sanskrit drama, where there are no catastrophes: here “misfortunes and failures are overcome and the harmonious relationship is restored. The drama moves from peace through discord back to peace,” “the confrontation of passions and desires, conflicts and antinomies are superficial phenomena of an inherently harmonious reality.”
A similar pattern in the organization of a series of events is not difficult to discern in ancient tragedies, where the conflict is eventually resolved: the heroes receive retribution for pride or outright guilt, and the course of events ends with the triumph of order and the reign of justice. The “disastrous side of events” here “inevitably turns to the side of revival and creation,” everything “ends with the founding of new cities, houses, clans.”
The mentioned features of artistic conflict are also present in Shakespeare’s tragedies, the plot of which is based on the scheme: “order - chaos - order.” The plot structure in question is threefold. Here are its main components: 1) initial order (balance, harmony); 2) its violation; 3) its restoration, and sometimes strengthening.
This stable event scheme embodies the idea of the world as orderly and harmonious, free from persistent conflict situations, and in no way in need of significant changes; it expresses the idea that everything that happens, no matter how whimsical and changeable it may be, is guided by positive forces of order.
The three-part plot scheme has the deepest cultural and historical roots, it is predetermined and given by archaic mythology (primarily cosmogonic myths about the emergence of order from chaos) and ancient teachings about the undivided harmony reigning in the world, be it the Indian “rita” (designation of the principle of universal orderliness in cosmology of the era of “Rigveda” and “Upapishads”) or “cosmos” of ancient Greek philosophy.
In terms of its initial worldview orientation, the long-standing three-part plot structure is conservative: it affirms, defends, and sanctifies the existing order of things. Archetypal plots in historically early versions express unreflective trust in the world order. In these stories there is no place for any supra-personal forces that would be denied. Consciousness, imprinted by this kind of plot, still “does not know any fixed, stable background.”
Conflicts here are not only removable in principle, but also urgently require resolution within the framework of individual human destinies, within the framework of individual circumstances and their combinations. Calming and reconciling endings or epilogues, marking the triumph of a perfect and good world order over any deviations from the norm, are as necessary in traditional plotting as a constant and a rhythmic pause in poetic speech.
Early literary literature seems to know only one type of catastrophic ending to an action: fair retribution for some individual or family guilt - for an initiative (albeit not always conscious) violation of the world order.
But no matter how deep Hegel’s thoughts about collision and action are, they contradict very many facts of artistic culture, especially of modern times. The general basis of the collision is the unattained spiritual good of man, or, to put it in the manner of Hegel, the beginning of rejection of “existing existence.” In the historical life of mankind, the deepest conflicts appear as stable and sustainable, as a natural and irremovable discord between people with their needs and the surrounding existence: social institutions, and sometimes even the forces of nature. If these conflicts are resolved, it is not by isolated acts of will of individuals, but by the movement of history as such.
Hegel, as can be seen, “allowed” the contradictions of existence into the world of dramatic art in a restrictive manner. His theory of collision and action is fully consistent with the work of those writers and poets who thought of reality as harmonious. The artistic experience of realistic literature of the 19th-20th centuries, which focused on socially determined conflicts in people’s lives, comes into sharp conflict with the concept of collision and action proposed by Hegel.
Therefore, another, broader view than Hegel’s on dramaturgical conflicts, a view first expressed by Bernard Shaw, is also legitimate, even urgent. In his work “The Quintessence of Ibsenism,” which, unfortunately, remained outside the field of view of our drama theorists, the classical concept of collision and action, coming from Hegel, is decisively rejected.
In his characteristic polemical manner, Shaw writes about the “hopelessly outdated” dramatic technique of a “well-made play”, which has become obsolete in the plays of Scribe and Sardou, where there is a local conflict based on chance between the characters and, most importantly, its resolution. In relation to such canonically constructed plays, the playwright speaks of “foolishness called action.”
Shaw contrasted traditional drama, which corresponds to the Hegelian concept, with modern drama, based not on the vicissitudes of external action, but on discussions between characters, and ultimately on conflicts arising from the clash of different ideals. Reflecting on Ibsen’s experience, B. Shaw emphasized the stability and constancy of the conflicts he recreated and regarded this as the natural norm of modern drama: if the playwright takes “layers of life” and not accidents, then “he thereby undertakes to write plays that have no denouement.” .
Conflicts, which are a constant feature of recreated life, are very important in the drama of the 20th century. After Ibsen and Chekhov, the action, steadily striving towards a denouement, was increasingly replaced by plots that unfolded some kind of stable collision.
Therefore, in the drama of our century, as D. Priestley noted, “the revelation of the plot occurs gradually, in a soft, slowly changing light, as if we were examining a dark room with an electric flashlight.” And the fact that artistically recreated collisions become less dynamic and are studied slowly and scrupulously does not at all indicate a crisis in dramatic art, but, on the contrary, its seriousness and strength.
As writers deepen into the multilateral connections of characters with the circumstances of surrounding existence, the form of conflicts and incidents becomes more and more close for them. Life invades the literature of the 20th century with a wide stream of experiences, thoughts, actions, events that are difficult to reconcile with the “laws” of Hegelian collision and traditional external action.
There are, therefore, two types of conflicts embodied in works of art. The first are incidental conflicts: local and transitory contradictions, confined within a single set of circumstances and, in principle, solvable by the will of individual people. The second are substantial conflicts, which are either universal and in their essence, unchangeable, or arise and disappear according to the transpersonal will of nature and history.
In other words, the conflict has two forms. The first is conflict as a fact that marks a violation of the world order, which is basically harmonious and perfect. The second is conflict as a feature of the world order itself, evidence of its imperfection or disharmony. These two types of conflicts often coexist and interact within the same work. And the task of a literary critic who turns to dramatic creativity is to understand the “dialectics” of local conflicts and stable, stable contradictions in the composition of artistically mastered existence.
Dramatic works, with more energy and relief than any other type of literature, bring to the fore the forms of human behavior in their spiritual and aesthetic significance. This term, unfortunately, has not taken root in literary criticism, denotes the originality of the embodiment of the “personality makeup” and inner world of a person - his intentions and attitudes, in actions, in the manner of speaking and gesticulating.
The forms of human behavior are marked not only by individual uniqueness, but also by socio-historical and national differences. In the “behavioral sphere”, forms of a person’s action among the public (or “in public”) are distinguishable - and in his private, everyday life; theatrically spectacular - and unpretentiously everyday; etiquette-set, ritual - and initiative, free-personal; certainly serious - and playful, coupled with fun and laughter.
These types of behavior are assessed in a certain way by society. In different countries and in different eras they relate differently to cultural norms. At the same time, forms of behavior evolve. Thus, if in ancient and medieval societies the etiquette “prescribed” behavior, its patheticism and theatrical showiness dominated and were influential, then in recent centuries, on the contrary, personal freedom of behavior, its non-patheticism, lack of effect and everyday simplicity prevailed.
There is hardly any need to prove that drama, with its inherent “unbreakable line” of characters’ statements, to a greater extent than other groups of works of art, turns out to be a mirror of the forms of human behavior in their richness and diversity. Forms of behavior as reflected by theatrical and dramatic art undoubtedly require systematic study, which has barely begun. And analyzes of dramatic works, undoubtedly, can and even should contribute to the solution of this scientific problem.
At the same time, drama naturally emphasizes a person’s verbal actions (indications in it of the character’s movements, postures, and gestures are, as a rule, few and sparing). In this regard, it is a relief and concentrated refraction of the forms of people’s speech activity.
Consideration of the connections between dialogue and monologue in the drama of recent centuries with colloquial speech seems to be a very pressing prospect for its study. At the same time, the connection between dramaturgical dialogue and conversation (conversation) as a form of culture cannot be understood in any broad and complete manner without a scientific examination of conversational communication itself, which still remains outside the attention of our scientists: colloquial speech is considered more as a phenomenon of language than culture and her stories.
Khalizev V.E. Dramatic work and some problems of its study / Analysis of a dramatic work - L., 1988.
4.1. Defining the boundaries of the concept “nature of conflict”.
The term "nature of conflict" is often used in writings on drama, but there is no clear terminological clarity in its functioning. A. Anikst, for example, characterizing Hegel’s reasoning about conflict, writes: “In essence, everything that Hegel says about “action” and the general state of the world is a reasoning about the nature of dramatic conflict” (9; 52). Presenting the various types of collisions identified by the philosopher, Anikst notes that “this place of his aesthetics is of exceptionally great interest, because here questions about the nature, ideological and aesthetic qualities of the dramatic conflict are resolved” (9; 56). The nature and character of the conflict are reduced by the researcher to an unambiguous concept. V. Khalizev, in his work “Drama as a Kind of Literature,” also resorts to the formulation “nature of conflict,” although, highlighting the same issues in the preface to the collection “Analysis of a Dramatic Work,” the scientist also uses the concept of “nature of conflict,” and notes that “ Among the controversial is the question of the nature of the conflict in a dramatic work" (267; 10).
In reference books, this conceptual formula is not allocated to a special paragraph at all. Only in the translated “Dictionary of the Theater” by P. Pavi does such an explanation exist in the “Conflict” section. It says: “The nature of various conflicts is extremely diverse. If a scientific typology were possible, it would be possible to draw a theoretical model of all conceivable dramatic situations and thereby determine the dramatic nature of theatrical action, the following conflicts would emerge:
Rivalry between two characters for economic, love, moral, political and other reasons;
The conflict of two worldviews, two irreconcilable moralities (for example, Antigone and Creon);
The moral struggle between the subjective and the objective, attachment and duty, passion and reason. This struggle can take place in the soul of the individual or between two “worlds” that are trying to win over the hero;
Conflict of interests between the individual and society, private and general considerations;
The moral or metaphysical struggle of a person against any principle or desire that exceeds his capabilities (God, absurdity, ideal, overcoming oneself, etc.)" (181; 162).
The nature of the conflict in this case refers to the forces entering into struggle among themselves. In works on drama one can also find references to the tragic, comedic, melodramatic nature of the conflict, i.e., reducing the concept to a genre characteristic. The very meaning of the word “nature” in relation not to the sphere of the physical existence of the world, but to the field of metaphysical reflection, is multifunctional, it can be used with various logical series. In V. Dahl’s dictionary this is explained as follows: “Referring nature to personality, they say: born this way. In this meaning, nature, as a property, quality, accessory or essence, is transferred to abstract and spiritual objects” (89; III, 439). Hence the completely justified application of the concept of “nature” to any other concepts and phenomena that require an explanation of their characteristics.
For a systematic analysis of a dramatic work, it is necessary to establish clear boundaries of such a definition as “the nature of a dramatic conflict” and separate it from the concept of “the nature of the conflict”, to reveal their interdependence, interconnection, but not identity.
Since the concept of “nature,” according to Dahl, when applied to abstract categories of logical constructions, correlates with different semantic groups, then, speaking about the nature of a dramatic conflict, one can mean both its genre essence, and the characteristics of the forces entering into a duel, and the belonging of these forces to that or other sphere of human activity. However, in these cases, the definition of “the nature of the conflict” does not claim categorical status. If we introduce the term as a theoretical unit, then it is necessary to find a more generalizing and universal meaning.
In this study, the nature of the conflict will be understood as a meta-category, i.e. the broadest and most fundamental category of the poetics of drama, which is a system-forming beginning in the process of the author’s modeling of the world order. The introduction of this category will allow us to more clearly and substantively trace how the ontological views of the artist determine the specifics of his artistic principles.
If we use the distinction between the concepts of “collision” and “conflict”, keeping in mind that the first is a designation of potential contradictions, and the second is the process of their complex collision - a struggle organized into a single artistic process, then a collision is defined as the basis of the conflict, the impetus for its development . In turn, the source of the conflict determines the nature of the conflict.
“Mediation” of the collision between the source of contradictions and the holistic model of their representation (conflict) seems fundamentally important. In this triad - source (nature of conflict) - collision - conflict - the cognitive-modeling function of art is clearly visible. Collision acts as a really existing contradiction, conflict is its artistic image (collision is the signified, conflict is the signifier). The material carrier of the artistic sign (conflict) in drama is the objective world, which includes man. Here, it seems to us, lies the core of the generic specificity of drama.
The objective world and man in lyric poetry and epic remain a depicted word; in drama, the reproduction of a verbal description in an effective series is initially programmed. The focus on material materialization is manifested through a special concentration of the crisis conditions of the character’s existence for the maximum manifestation of his personal qualities and the essence of the events taking place. Only in drama does conflict become not just a way of depicting the world, but the very texture of the image; only in drama does conflict turn from a means, a principle (a logical-abstract concept) into a carrier of artistic imagery. Comprehension of the depth and specificity of the conflict is impossible without turning to the source, the fundamental basis for the creation of contradictions, i.e. the structure of the conflict is determined by the nature of its occurrence.
The supporters of the “new drama” rebelled against the established forms of dramatic skill because they saw completely different sources for creating conflicts than their predecessors. According to A. Bely, the “drama in life” was replaced by the “drama of life.”
Without resorting to theoretical calculations, it is through the concept of “the nature of conflict” that V. Yarkho, who talks about the work of ancient Greek authors, and A. Skaftymov, who reveals the specifics of Chekhov’s plays, analyze the features of different dramaturgical systems. Here is what Yarkho writes about the essence of the differences between the dramaturgy of Aeschylus and his younger contemporaries: “when analyzing the post-Aeschylus tragedy, we will try to get an answer to the following questions already inherent in the dramaturgy of Aeschylus: How does she see the world - does it retain its finite rationality in the eyes of Sophocles and Euripides” ? What is the essence of a tragic conflict - is it limited to the tragedy of the situation, or is the conflict rooted in the tragic inconsistency of the world as a whole? conflict? Who and what is the source of suffering?" (215; 419).
Let us note that in the first case we are talking about dramas created at the dawn of the formation of the literary genre itself; but even then, as a modern researcher noted, the different nature of the conflict distinguished the works of playwrights, determining the features of their artistic principles. Consequently, at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. supporters of the “new drama” only aggravated and placed at the center of discussion the issue inherent in drama at all stages of its historical development.
4.2. Casual and substantial nature of the conflict.
V. Khalizev turned to a theoretical understanding of this problem, proposing to classify conflicts according to the sources of their occurrence. Exploring Hegel’s theory of conflict, V. Khalizev writes: “Hegel allowed contradictions into the world of dramatic art in a restrictive way. His theory of conflict and action is completely consistent with the work of those writers and poets who thought of reality as harmonious.” In this regard, Khalizev proposes to call this kind of conflicts “incident conflicts,” i.e., “local, transitory, confined within a single set of circumstances and fundamentally solvable by the will of individual people.” He also distinguishes “substantial conflicts,” that is, “states of life marked by contradictions that are either universal and unchangeable in their essence, or arise and disappear according to the transpersonal will of nature and history, but not thanks to individual actions and accomplishments of people and their groups.” (266; 134).
Hegel did not deny the presence of such conflicts, calling them “sad,” but he denied art the right to depict them, while the philosopher applied the concept of “substantial” to the sphere of human spiritual aspirations. Hegel did not question the return to the original harmony of the world; the constant (“substantial”) in his theory is a person’s comprehension of this truth through a chain of trials and deprivations.
By proposing to divide conflicts, based on the nature of their occurrence, into causal and substantial, the modern theorist means the manifestation of different worldviews on which the authors rely. In this regard, the conflict “either marks a violation of the world order, which is basically harmonious and perfect, or acts as a feature of the world order itself, evidence of its imperfection or disharmony” (266; 134).
Thus, a conflict can be an artistic embodiment of harmony or disharmony, cosmos or chaos (if we keep in mind the archetypal nature of these concepts, which developed at the level of mythological consciousness).
The materialization of conflict through the behavior of a human actor, the focus on which we highlight as a specific feature of drama, can manifest itself through different spheres of human activity: social, intellectual, psychological, moral, and also in various combinations of them with each other. The sphere of manifestation of contradictions will be referred to in this study as the nature of the conflict. The nature of the conflict can equally reflect both its causal and substantial nature.
But, given the fact that drama is obliged not to tell about the conflict, but to show it, the question arises about the boundaries and possibilities of the visible manifestation of the conflict, especially when it comes to such subtle areas as spiritual activity associated with a person’s ideological aspirations, and mental life, associated with the characteristics of his psyche. It is no coincidence that V. Khalizev has doubts about the completeness of the artistic powers of the drama, since it “is not able to use the internal monologues of the characters in combination with the accompanying comments of the narrator, which significantly limits its capabilities in the field of psychologism” (269; 44). P. Pavi talks about the same thing: “drama, which sets out the internal struggle of a person, or the struggle of universal principles, faces great difficulties in dramatic depiction.” Preference given to too particular or too universal human conflicts leads to the disintegration of dramatic elements..." (181; 163).
Nevertheless, K. Stanislavsky, the director who was one of the first to discover the principles of the stage embodiment of the “new drama,” saw the main task of the actor in recreating the “life of the human spirit.” And he built his famous system of acting creativity on appealing to the internal impulses of human behavior. The director introduced the concept of “internal action” into theatrical criticism, distinguishing it from “external action.” This distinction was firmly entrenched in the theory of drama of the twentieth century, largely influencing the renewal of its provisions as a whole.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru
The whole world is a theater,
And the people in it are actors.
This idea from Shakespeare can be the impetus for analyzing everyday life using the metaphor of theater. Its use allows us to see stable logic where we usually do not see it.
Socio-cultural activity is the activity of social subjects, the essence and content of which are the processes of preservation, transmission, mastery and development of traditions, values, norms in the field of artistic, historical, spiritual, moral, environmental and political culture
Dramatic conflict is one of the main types of artistic conflict. Unlike the clashes between people depicted in epic literature, dramatic conflict has clearly defined characteristics. Drama shows people in actions, in actions in which an acute struggle of opposing forces is manifested with the most concentrated expression of the characters and the entire spiritual make-up of the heroes. An indispensable property of character in drama is its conflict potential - the potential ability to put forward and defend one’s life position and aspirations in the struggle. This ability arises not from psychological sources (firmness, determination, conviction, etc. - the hero of the drama may not possess all of this), but precisely from the aesthetic laws of the drama, where character and conflict appear in unity, in fusion.
An approach to social analysis associated primarily with Erwin Goffman in which theater is the basis of the analogy with everyday life. Social activity is viewed as a “performance” in which actors both perform and direct their actions, seeking to manage the impressions conveyed to others (impression management). The goal of actors is to present themselves generally in a favorable light in ways consistent with specific roles and social "attitudes" - the latter term coined by Hoffmann for physical external attributes reflecting specific roles or status. In a similar way, social actors act as members of “troupes”, trying to maintain “facade” and hide “backstage” social relations from view. Since they will have to play different roles in different situations, they also, on occasion, find it necessary to practice audience segregation by hiding other roles performed which, if made visible, would threaten the impression being created at the moment (for example, problems that might arise for homosexual if his inclinations are revealed). The interaction model included in dramaturgy assumes the inevitability of action, which is partially implied. According to Goffman, social order is a random result, always threatening complications and failures
The essence and structure-forming function of conflict as the basis for the artistic unity of drama
The study of dramatic conflict seems promising and fruitful: it is in it, in our opinion, that the generic specificity of drama is revealed especially clearly. The hero, the action, and its organization in time and space are determined precisely by the uniqueness of the type of conflict. It also determines both the genre and the originality of the entire dramatic work as a single whole. Being the organizing principle for all levels of a dramatic work, from speech to ideological and thematic, it at the same time appears as a kind of mediator between extra-aesthetic and aesthetic reality. The evolution of drama from antiquity to the drama of the 20th century. is largely determined not so much by the internal laws of its development as by the historically changing type of conflict. Not only the dominant worldview of the era is directly related to its material life, but also. the subtlest nuances and minor changes in the spiritual life of people. As stated in The German Ideology, “even the vague formations in the brains of people are necessary products, a kind of evaporation of their material life process, which can be established empirically and which is connected with material preconditions, reflecting the social contradictions of their time, the dramatic conflict changes in parallel with the change in types of historical conflict, its essence and character. Drama combines the stability of the structure and the historically determined variability of the worldview plan. The study of a dramatic conflict, accordingly, should combine both typological and specific historical aspects of analysis. At the present stage of development theoretical thought has done a lot to create a historical typology of conflict, but, nevertheless, its creation is still a matter of the future.
At first glance, it seems that the problem of conflict has received sufficient scientific elaboration. Numerous works in the past have been devoted to the theory of drama in general and the problem of conflict in particular. Despite this, even today interest in it does not wane; it is enough to name the monographs by V. Khalizev, Y. Yavchunovsky, M. Polyakov, A. Pogribny, published over the past two years. The researchers come to the conclusion that “... the problem of artistic conflict has now been put on the agenda,” due, firstly, to the relevance of the problem being studied, and secondly, to its insufficient knowledge. Almost everyone who has dealt with this problem has not escaped the temptation to propose a typology of conflict in order to establish a kind of foundation for the constantly changing poetics of drama.
Arising in times of turbulent social upheaval, drama “absorbs” the atmosphere of a transitional time, reflecting, as a rule, a newly emerging worldview. As a result, it seems especially important to us to trace the influence of philosophy on drama, its structure, hero, composition and, of course, conflict. A change in the ideological zone itself naturally entails a transformation of all art and drama as well.
The creation of a “moving typology” is complicated by the ambiguity of the term “conflict”. In modern literary criticism, three main functional meanings of the term “conflict” can be distinguished:
1) the aesthetic equivalent of real life contradictions;
2) a special form of character disclosure;
3) constructive, the principle that determines the internal form of the work, the structure of the drama.
The theoretical solution to the problem is complicated by the existence of duplicate terms collision-conflict, which in the vast majority of cases are used as synonyms. By emphasizing any one aspect of the meaning of the concept and term conflict, they thereby do not reveal the essence of this complex concept, which combines historical and aesthetic parameters.
It often turns out that one historical period, a certain dominant worldview of the era, conditioned by a certain socio-economic structure that forms a special type of one or another type of conflict, is elevated to the determining factor of the entire structure of the drama, whereas only the stage community determines a stable typological community.
Theoretical aspects and sources of the formation of artistic dramaturgical conflict
“Drama is in a hurry...” - Goethe.
The issue of drama is the object of close attention not only by literary critics, but also by literature teachers, psychologists, methodologists, and theater scholars.
Art critic I. Vishnevskaya believes that “it is drama that will help to deeply analyze time and destinies, historical events and human characters.” Emphasizing the deep connection between drama and theatre, Vishnevskaya states that “the drama of theatre, cinema, television, radio is the life of a modern schoolchild.” This fact is probably the reason that many students often know the content of dramatic (and sometimes epic) works only from television plays or film adaptations.
Researcher of the poetics of dramatic works M. Gromova, who has created a number of textbooks on dramaturgy containing interesting literary material, believes that undeservedly little attention is paid to the study of dramatic works.
The textbook of the famous scientist of the Moscow methodological school Z.S. is also known. Smelkova, which presents extensive material on dramaturgy. Considering dramaturgy as an interspecies art form, Z. Smelkova emphasizes the stage purpose of drama, which “lives in the theater and takes on a complete form only when implemented on stage.”
As for methodological aids and developments, there are very few of them today. It is enough to name the works “Literature of the 20th Century” in two parts by V. Agenosov, “Russian Literature” by R.I. Albetkova, “Russian literature. 9th grade”, “Russian literature grades 10-11” by A.I. Gorshkova and many others.
The history of the development of drama gives us many examples when dramatic works never saw the stage during the author’s lifetime (remember “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboedov, “Masquerade” by M.Yu. Lermontov), or were distorted by censorship, or were staged in in a truncated form. Many of A.P. Chekhov's plays were incomprehensible to modern theaters and were interpreted opportunistically, in the spirit of the requirements of the time.
Therefore, today the question is ripe to talk not only about drama, but also about theater, about staging plays on the theater stage.
From this it becomes quite obvious that drama:
Firstly, one of the genera (along with epic and lyric poetry) and one of the main genres of literature (along with tragedy and comedy), requiring special study;
Secondly, drama should be studied in two aspects: literary criticism and theatrical art (the main task of our book).
The study of drama is determined by the requirements of standard literature curricula intended for students in schools, academic lyceums and vocational colleges. The objectives of the training programs are aimed at developing knowledge, skills and abilities to analyze a work of art and at educating true connoisseurs of art.
It is quite natural that students can glean interesting, scientific and educational information from Hegel’s “Aesthetics” (in the work of V. G. Belinsky “On Drama and Theater”, in the studies of A. Anikst “The Theory of Drama in Russia from Pushkin to Chekhov”, A.A. Karyagin Karyagin A. “Drama - as an aesthetic problem”, V.A. Sakhnovsky-Pankeev “Drama. Conflict. Composition. Stage life”, V.V. Khalizeva “Drama - as a phenomenon of art”, “Drama as kind of literature" (and many others.
It is also quite natural that today there are few textbooks that raise the problem of students’ perception of dramatic works in the aspect of theatrical art.
To some extent, the deficiency is compensated by modern textbooks and teaching aids on the theory of literature by V.V. Agenosova, E.Ya. Fesenko, V.E. Khalizeva and others, who rightly believe that without theater a play cannot have a full life. Just as a play cannot “live” without a performance, so a performance gives an “open” life to the play.
Literary critic E.Ya. Fesenko considers the distinctive feature of drama to be the reflection of the essential content of life “through systems of contradictory, conflicting relationships between subjects directly realizing their interests and goals,” which are expressed and realized in action. The main means of its implementation in dramatic works, according to the author, is the speech of the characters, their monologues and dialogues, stimulating the action, organizing the action itself, through the opposition of the characters.
I would also like to note the book by V. Khalizev “Drama as a Phenomenon of Art,” which discusses issues of plot construction.
In the works of E. Bentley, T.S. Zepalova, N.O. Korst, A. Karyagin, M. Polyakov and others also touch upon issues related to the study of artistic integrity and poetics of drama.
Modern methodological researchers M.G. Kachurin, O.Yu. Bogdanova and others) talk about the difficulties that arise when studying dramatic works that require a special psychological and pedagogical approach to the learning process.
“The study of dramatic poetry is, so to speak, the crown of the theory of literature... This kind of poetry not only contributes to the serious mental development of youth, but with its keen interest and special effect on the soul instills the noblest love for the theater, in its great educational significance for society” - V .P. Ostrogorsky.
The specific features of the drama are determined by:
Aesthetic properties of drama (an important feature of drama).
The size of the dramatic text (a small volume of drama imposes certain restrictions on the type of construction of plot, character, space).
The position of the author in a dramatic work is more hidden than in works of other types, and its identification requires special attention and reflection from the reader. Based on monologues, dialogues, replicas and stage directions, the reader must imagine the time of action, the stop in which the characters live, imagine their appearance, manner of speaking and listening, catch gestures, feel what is hidden behind the words and actions of each of them.
The presence of characters (sometimes called a poster). The author precedes the appearance of the characters by giving a brief description of each of them (this is a remark). Another type of remark is possible in the poster - the author's indication of the place and time of events.
Dividing the text into acts (or actions) and phenomena
Each action (act) of drama, and often a picture, scene, phenomenon, are relatively complete parts of a harmonious whole, subordinated to a specific plan of the playwright. There may be paintings or scenes within the action. Each arrival or departure of an actor gives rise to a new action.
The author's stage directions precede each act of the play and mark the character's appearance on stage and his departure. The remarque also accompanies the speech of the characters. When reading a play, they are addressed to the reader, when staged on stage - to the director and actor. The author's remark gives a certain support to the “recreating imagination” of the reader (Karyagin), suggests the setting, the atmosphere of the action, the nature of the characters’ communication.
Remarque reports:
How is the hero’s line pronounced (“restrained”, “with tears”, “with delight”, “quietly”, “out loud”, etc.);
What gestures accompany him (“bowing respectfully,” “courteously smiling”);
What actions of the hero influence the course of the event (“Bobchinsky looks out the door and hides in fear”).
The stage directions describe the characters, indicate their age, describe their appearance, what kind of family relationships they are connected to, indicate the location of the action (“a room in the mayor’s house,” the city), “actions” and gestures of the characters (for example: “peers out the window and screams” ; "brave")
Dialogue form of text construction
Dialogue in drama is a multi-valued concept. In the broadest sense of the word, dialogue is a form of oral speech, a conversation between two or more persons. In this case, part of the dialogue can also be a monologue (the speech of the character addressed to himself or to other characters, but the speech is isolated, independent of the interlocutors’ remarks). This may be a form of oral speech, close to the author's description in epic works.
In connection with this issue, theater expert V.S. Vladimirov writes: “Dramatic works allow portrait and landscape characteristics, designations of the external world, and reproduction of internal speech only to the extent that all this “fits” into the word spoken by the hero during the action.” Dialogue in a drama is particularly emotional and rich in intonation (in turn, the absence of these qualities in a character’s speech is an essential means of characterizing him). The dialogue clearly reveals the “subtext” of the character’s speech (request, demand, conviction, etc.). Particularly important for characterizing a character are monologues in which the characters express their intentions. Dialogue in drama performs two functions: it characterizes the characters and serves as a means of developing dramatic action. Understanding the second function of dialogue is associated with the peculiarity of the development of conflict in drama.
Features of the construction of a dramatic conflict
The dramatic conflict determines all the plot elements of the dramatic action; it “illuminates the logic of the development of the “individual”, the relationships of the heroes living and acting in his dramatic field.”
Conflict is the “dialectic of drama” (E. Gorbunova), the unity and struggle of opposites. A very crude, primitive and limited understanding of the conflict as the opposition of two characters with different life positions. The conflict expresses the shift of times, the clash of historical eras and manifests itself at every point in the dramatic text. The hero, before making a certain decision or making the appropriate choice, goes through an internal struggle of hesitations, doubts, and experiences of his inner self. The conflict is dissolved in the action itself and is expressed through the transformation of characters, which occurs throughout the play and is found in the context of the entire system of relationships between the characters . In this regard, V.G. Belinsky states: “Conflict is the spring that drives an action that should be directed towards one goal, one intention of the author.”
Dramatic twists and turns
The deepening of the dramatic conflict is facilitated by peripeteia (an important feature of the dramatic text), which has a certain function in the play. Peripeteia is an unexpected circumstance that causes complications, an unexpected change in some matter in the hero’s life. Its function is connected with the general artistic concept of the play, with its conflict, problematics and poetics. In a variety of cases, peripeteia appears as a special moment in the development of dramatic relationships when they, one way or another, are stimulated by some new force invading the conflict from the outside.
Dual construction of the plot, working to reveal the subtext
Famous director and founder of the Moscow Art Theater K.S. Stanislavski divided the play into a “plane of external structure” and a “plane of internal structure.” For a great director, these two plans correspond to the categories “plot” and “outline”. According to the director, the plot of a drama is an event chain in spatio-temporal sequence, and the outline is a supra-plot, supra-character, supra-verbal phenomenon. If in theatrical practice this corresponds to the concept of text and subtext, then in a dramatic work - text and “undercurrent”.
“The dual structure of the text “plot-outline” determines the logic of the action of events, the behavior of the characters, their gestures, the logic of the functioning of symbolic sounds, the mixture of feelings that accompany the characters in everyday situations, pauses and remarks of the characters.” The characters of a dramatic work are included in the spatio-temporal environment, therefore the movement of the plot, the disclosure of the internal meaning (outline) of the play is inextricably linked with the images of the characters.
Each word in drama (context) has two layers: the direct meaning is associated with the external - life and action, figurative - with thought and state. The role of context in drama is more complex than in other literary genres. Since it is the context that creates a system of means for identifying subtext and outline. This is the only opportunity to penetrate through the externally depicted events into the true content of the drama. The difficulty of analyzing a dramatic work lies in revealing this paradoxical connection between the outline and the plot, the subtext and the “undercurrent”.
For example, in the drama “Dowry” by A.N. Ostrovsky, the subtext is palpable in the conversation between merchants Knurov and Vozhevatov about the purchase and sale of a steamship, which imperceptibly moves on to the second possible “purchase” (this scene must be read in class). The conversation is about an “expensive diamond” (Larissa) and a “good jeweler.” The subtext of the dialogue is obvious: Larisa is a thing, an expensive diamond, which should only be owned by a rich merchant (Vozhevatov or Knurov).
Subtext appears in colloquial speech as a means of concealing “back thoughts”: the characters feel and think something other than what they say. It is often created by means of “dispersed repetition” (T. Silman), all links of which act with each other in complex relationships, from which their deep meaning is born.
The law of “tightness of the event series”
The dynamism of the action, the coherence of the characters’ remarks, pauses, and author’s remarks constitute the law of “crowded event series.” The tightness of the plot affects the rhythm of the drama and determines the artistic intent of the work. Events in the drama take place as if before the eyes of the reader (the viewer directly sees them), who becomes, as it were, an accomplice in what is happening. The reader creates his own imaginary action, which can sometimes coincide with the moment of reading the play.
Today, even the most unlimited capabilities of a computer cannot replace human-human communication, because as long as humanity exists, it will be interested in art, which helps to understand and solve moral and aesthetic problems that arise in life and are reflected in works of art.
A.V. Chekhov wrote about the fact that drama occupies a special place not only in literature, but also in the theater: “Drama has attracted, is attracting and will attract the attention of many theater and literary critics.” In the writer’s recognition, the dual purpose of dramaturgy is also noticeable: it is addressed to both the reader and the viewer. This makes clear the impossibility of complete isolation in the study of a dramatic work from the study of the conditions of its theatrical implementation, “the constant dependence of its forms on the forms of stage production” (Tomashevsky).
The famous critic V.G. Belinsky rightly sought a path to a synthetic understanding of a theatrical work as the result of an organic change in the functions and structure of individual types of art. It becomes clear to him the need to take into account the functional significance of the various structural elements of the play (as a dramatic work) and the performance. A theatrical work, for Belinsky, is not a result, but a process, and therefore each performance is “an individual and almost unique process that creates a number of specifications of a dramatic work, possessing both unity and difference.”
Everyone knows Gogol’s words: “A play lives only on stage... Take a long look at the entire length and breadth of the vital population of our free homeland, how many good people we have, but how many chaff there are, from which the good ones cannot live and for whom they cannot live.” follow no law. Take them to the stage: let all the people see them.”
A.N. also wrote in his time that only through stage execution “dramatic fiction receives a completely finished form.” Ostrovsky.
K.S. Stanislavsky repeatedly emphasized: “Only on the stage of the theater can you recognize dramatic works in their entirety and essence,” and further, “if it were otherwise, the viewer would not rush to the theater, but would sit at home and read the play.”
The question of the dual orientation of drama and theater also worried art critic A.A. Karyagin. In his book “Drama as an Aesthetic Problem” he wrote: “For a playwright, drama is more a performance created by the power of creative imagination and recorded in a play that can be read if desired, than a literary work that can also be performed on stage. But this is not the same thing at all.”
Questions of the relationship between the two functions of drama (reading and presentation) are at the center of two studies: “Reading and seeing the game. A Study of Simultaneity in Drama” by Dutch theater critic V. Hoogendoorn and “In the World of Ideas and Images” by literary critic M. Polyakov.
In his book, V. Hoogendoorn strives to give an accurate terminological description of each of the concepts he uses. Considering the concept of “drama”, V. Hoogendoorn notes that this term, with all the diversity of its meanings, has three main ones: 1) drama as a real linguistic work created in accordance with the laws of a given genre; 2) drama as the basis for creating a work of stage art, a kind of literary fabrication; 3) drama as a product of staging, a work recreated from a dramatic text by a certain team (director, actor, etc.) by refracting the information contained in the text and the emotional and artistic charge through the individual consciousness of each participant in its production.
The basis of V. Hoogendoorn's research is the assertion that the process of theatrical representation of drama differs from its mastery by the reader, since the perception of a theatrical production of a drama is both auditory and visual perception at the same time.
The concept of the Dutch theater scholar contains an important methodological idea: drama must be studied using the techniques of theatrical pedagogy. Visual and auditory perception of the text (when watching a performance and when acting out improvisational scenes) contribute to the activation of individual creative activity of students and the development of techniques for creative reading of a dramatic work.
M. Polyakov in the book “In the World of Ideas and Images” writes: “The starting point for describing such a complex phenomenon as a theatrical performance remains the dramatic text…. The verbal (verbal) structure of drama imposes a certain type of stage behavior, type of action, structural connections of gesture and linguistic signs.” The specificity of the reader's perception of a dramatic work “is determined by the intermediate nature of its status: the reader is both an actor and a spectator; he, as it were, stages the play for himself. And this determines the duality of his understanding of the play,” says the literary critic. The process of perception of a dramatic work by the viewer, actor and reader is homogeneous, according to the author, only in the sense that each of them, as it were, passes the drama through his individual consciousness, his own world of ideas and feelings.
Dramatic conflict as the basis for organizing and conducting social and cultural events
Game and spectacle are two types of entertainment, the difference between which is obvious not only to a specialist, but also to the most inexperienced participant. In the first case, you are an actor - you sing, dance, climb a pole to get your boots, and indulge in other childish activities. In the second, you just observe others, strongly empathize with them or remain cold, but do not make any attempts to somehow influence their existence. A playful theatrical performance brings together play and spectacle. The viewer gets the opportunity to directly participate in the action and influence what is happening on stage. However, what should happen "playfully" is a big headache for the writers. How to call the audience onto the stage and involve them in the action according to the outline of the script? How to make sure that the amateur performance of the audience does not destroy, but develops the plot within the framework intended by the author? Each specific case requires search and endless ingenuity.
So, having written the test paper, we will draw the following conclusions:
1. The script of the game program is a detailed literary and dramatic development of a theme or conflict. It clearly defines game episodes, their sequence, form and time of refereeing, and the inclusion of spectacular screensavers.
2. The screenwriting and director's move is a figurative movement of the author's concept, aimed at achieving the goal of artistic and pedagogical influence.
3. Drawing up a game program involves skillfully creating a game conflict situation.
4. A theatrical, plot-based game is a kind of story told in the language of quizzes, auctions, relay races, intellectual and artistic competitions, jokes, dances and songs.
5. The idea of the script is an artistic and figurative design of the set pedagogical goal in a concretely tangible temporal and spatial-plastic resolution.
6. Plot composition is a construction based on the semantic relationship of “facts of life” and “facts of art.” The plot is the author’s ideological and artistic concept, in which he reflects life’s patterns and connections.
7. There are traditionally two ways of interaction between the screenwriter and the material. In the first case, the screenwriter examines the facts associated with a certain event (or series of events), forms his own concept of what happened or is happening and writes a script, creating his own text based on what he has studied. In the second, the screenwriter selects documents (texts, audio-video materials), works of art or fragments from them (poems, excerpts from prose, vocal, instrumental and choreographic concert numbers) and, in accordance with his plan, connects them using the so-called effect installation A scenario arises that is called compilation.
8. The design of the game program includes: scenery, theatrical costume, makeup, props, light and noise design, as well as musical design. No event scenario will be successful without the use of these expressive means. There is even such a thing as decorative art - the art of creating a visual image of an event through scenery and costumes, lighting and staging techniques. Decorative art helps to reveal the content and style of a performance and enhances its impact on the viewer. And the costumes, masks. decorations, etc. are elements of decorative art.
dramatic conflict artistic
Conclusion
Dramaturgy is characterized by acute contradictions, conflicts and collisions. Conflict serves to identify ideas, images, actions in struggle and clashes. The interaction of typical and individual traits of the characters is a reflection of the dialogic structure of the works.
In the dramaturgical concept, the starting point is the metaphor of the social teamwork of people: society is a huge theater. When communicating, people try to impress each other. As a rule, this happens unconsciously. At the same time, the roles that people play and the poses they take can be considered as typical social representations, i.e. symbolic designations of agreements between people about a way of behavior. The teamwork of members of a society manifests itself as one large symbolic joint action, and society as a series of situations in which people interact, make impressions, and explain their behavior to themselves and others. He imagined social interaction as a continuous series of small dramas that happen to each of us and in which we, as actors, play ourselves. Not only everyday quarrels, squabbles or conflicts can manifest themselves as drama, where a surge of emotions and passions seems to reach its climax. Any everyday event is inherently already a dramatic performance, since we, even among loved ones, constantly put on and take off social masks, we ourselves create scenarios for each next situation and play it out according to unwritten social rules created by traditions and customs or our imagination and fantasy. Having entered into a conflict, a husband, wife, child or mother-in-law stubbornly adheres to the social roles prescribed for them, which often contradict their own interests. Responding to his wife’s accusations that the husband has almost stopped being at home and seeing his children, he defends himself by presenting himself as a good performer of the role of father or husband, and by attacking his wife, he tries to discover the same role deficiencies in her: she is bad housewife or uncaring mother.
Any person during one day is involved in several “theaters of life” at once - in the family, on the street, in transport, in a store, at work. A change of stage, like a change of roles, introduces dynamics into everyday existence, honing our social professionalism. The more social groups and situations we participate in, the more social roles we perform. But unlike literary theater, in<театре жизни>the end of the play is unknown and cannot be replayed. In life, many dramas involve serious risks, sometimes life-threatening ones, and most of them unfold according to a scenario unknown to the actors.
The theater of life has its own dramaturgy, which is best described by the philosophy of existentialism. Analyzing borderline situations where a person has to accept the challenge of fate, solve such problematic situations that are associated with the choice to live or die, E. Goffman invades the traditional field of existential sociology. Existentialists define an act of social action as the free choice of a person in a borderline situation, i.e. in fatal circumstances, where the individual either defends his right to exist, or this does not happen.
Bibliography
1. Gagin V. Expressive means of club work / V. Gagin - M.: Soviet Russia. - 1983 p.
2. Cultural and leisure activities: Textbook / Scientifically edited by Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences A.D. Zharkov and Professor V.M. Chizhikov. - M.: MGUK. 1998.-461 p.
3. Markov O.I. Script culture of directors of theatrical performances and holidays. Textbook for teachers, graduate students and students of universities of culture and art / O. I. Markov. - Krasnodar, KGUKI, 2004. - 408 p.
4. Sharoev I.G. Directing variety and mass performances: textbook for higher students. theater, schools, institutions / I. G. Sharoev. M.: Education, 1986. - 463 p.
5. Shashina V. P. Methods of playful communication / V. P. Shashina - Rostov n/D: Phoenix, 2005. - 288 p.
6. Shubina I. B. Drama and directing the spectacle: the game that accompanies life: educational method. manual / I. B. Shubina - Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2006. - 288 p.
Marx K. Towards a critique of Hegel's philosophy of law. Introduction.
7. In the book: K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, ed. 2nd, vol. I. M., 1955, p. 219 - 368.
8. Marx K. Editorial No. 179 " --
9. In the book: K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, ed. 2nd, vol. I. M., 1955, p. 93 - 113.
10. Marx K. and Engels F. The Holy Family. In the book: K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, ed. 2nd, vol. 2. - M., 1955, p. 3-230.
11. Marx K. and Engels F. German ideology. In the book: K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, ed. 2nd, vol. 3. - M., 1955, p. 7-544.
12. Marx K. Towards a critique of political economy. In the book: K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, ed. 2nd, t. 13. -M., 1959, p. 489-499.
13. Engels F. Dialectics of nature. In the book: K. Marx, and F. Engels, Works, ed. 2nd, t. 20. - M., 1961, p. 339-626.
14. Engels F. Variant of the introduction to “Anti-Dühring”. In the book: K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, ed. 2nd, t. 20. - M., 1961, p. 16-32.
15. Engels to Lassalle, April 19, 1859 - In the book: K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, ed. 2nd, t. 29. - M., 1962, p. 482-485.
16. Engels to Lassalle, May 18, 1859 - In the book: K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, ed. 2nd, t. 29. - M., 1962, p. 490-496.
17. Marx to Engels, March 25, 1868 - In the book: K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, ed. 2nd, t. 32. - M., 196:4, p. 43-46.
19. Admoni V. Henrik Ibsen. Essay on creativity. M.: State. publishing house of artistic literature, 1956. - 273 p.
20. Admoni V. Strindberg. In the book: History of Western European Theater, vol. 5. M., 1970, p. 400-418.
21. Babicheva Yu.V. Drama by L. Andreev of the era of the first Russian revolution (1905-1907). Vologda: Regional typ., 1971. -183 p.
22. Babicheva Yu.V. The evolution of Russian drama genres in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Textbook for the special course. - Vologda: Region. typ., 1982. - 127s
23. Bazhenova L. On the question of the stylistic nature of P. Corneille’s tragicomedy “Cid”. In the book: Problems of style and genre in theatrical art. M., 1979, p. 69-86.
24. Balashov N.I. Pierre Corneille. M.: Knowledge, 1956. - 32 p.
25. Balenok B.C. Problems of conflict in the art of socialist realism. Dissertation candidate Philol. Sci. - M., 1961. - 343 p.
26. Balukhaty S.D. On the history of the text and composition of Chekhov's dramatic works. JI.: reprint, 1927. - 58 p.
27. Balukhaty S.D. Problems of dramaturgical analysis. Chekhov. -L.: -fvyarft/v"a, 1927. 186 p.
28. Balukhaty S.D. Chekhov the playwright. L.: Goslitizdat, 1936. -319 p.
29. Balukhaty S.D. From "Three Sisters" to "The Cherry Orchard". Literature, 1931, J&I, p. 109-178.
30. Barg M.A. Shakespeare and history. M.: Nauka, 1979. - 215 p.
31. Bartoshevich A. Shakespeare’s comic. M.: State. in-here theater, art-va named after. A.V. Lunacharsky, 1975. - 49 p.
32. Batkin L. Renaissance myth about man. Questions of literature, 1971, No. 9, p. II2-I33.
33. Batyushkov F. Maeterlinck and Chekhov performed by artists of the Moscow Art Theater. God's World, 1905, No. 6, p. 15-27.
54. Bakhtin M.M. Questions of literature and aesthetics. M.: Khudozh.lit., 1975. - 502 p.
35. Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M.: Art, 1979. - 423 p.
36. Bely A. "The Cherry Orchard". Scales, 1904, No. 2, p. 45-48.
37. Bely A. Symbolism. Book of articles. M.: Musaget, 1910. - 633 p. 56". Bely A. Arabeski. M.: Musaget, I9II. - 501 p.
38. Bentley E. Life of Drama. M.: Art, 1978. - 368 p.
39. Bergson A. Laughter in life and on stage. St. Petersburg: XX century, 1900. -181 p.
40. Berdnikov G. Chekhov and the Turgenev Theater. Reports and messages philol. Faculty of Leningrad State University, vol. I. L., 1949, p. 25-49.
41. Berdnikov G.P. Chekhov the playwright. Traditions and innovations in Chekhov's dramaturgy. M-L.: Art, 1957. - 246 p.
42. Berdnikov G.P. Ideological and creative quests. L.: Khudozh.lit., 1970. - 591 p.62
Posted on www.allbest.
...Similar documents
Types, sides, subject, object and conditions of conflict in a fairy tale. Images of its participants and possible alternatives to their actions. The emergence and phases of conflict development. Its solution is through the intervention of a third force. Features of the behavior of heroes.
presentation, added 12/02/2014
Analysis of the uniqueness of the external and internal conflict in B. Pasternak’s novel “Doctor Zhivago”, the confrontation between the hero and society, and the internal spiritual struggle. Features and specificity of the expression of conflict against the background of the historical and literary process of the Soviet period.
thesis, added 01/04/2018
Definition of the concepts of conflict and image in literary criticism. The originality of the interpretation of the image of Antigone in the ancient era. Traditions of experimentation in the genre of new drama. Characteristics of Anouilh's creativity in the context of French literature of the early 20th century.
course work, added 07/03/2011
A study of the artistic content of the romantic drama "Masquerade". Studying the creative history of writing a play. The interweaving of social and psychological conflicts of the tragic destinies of the heroes. Analysis of the hero's struggle with the society opposing him.
abstract, added 08/27/2013
The real basis of the fairy tale by A.N. Ostrovsky's "The Snow Maiden" and its main sources. The path of the kingdom of the Berendeys from cold alienation to their unification in the face of Yarila the sun. Folklore basis of the fairy tale. The causes and essence of the conflict between the main characters in it.
abstract, added 09/13/2009
The artistic originality of the novels by I.S. Shmeleva. Changes in the positive hero in Shmelev’s work. Love conflict in the novel "Nanny from Moscow". “Love Story” is Shmelev’s main novel. Displaying the most typical features of an Orthodox person.
course work, added 04/19/2012
Brief biography of children's writer Arkady Gaidai. First publication of the autobiographical story "The Blue Cup". The relationship between the title of a work and its traditionally identified components. The origin and culmination of the conflict in the protagonist’s family.
abstract, added 12/22/2013
Creative activity of I.A. Goncharov, his acquaintance with I.S. Turgenev. Relationships between writers and the causes of conflict between them. Contents of “An Extraordinary History” by I.A. Goncharov, dedicated to the topic of plagiarism and creative borrowing.
course work, added 01/18/2014
The emergence of a conflict situation and its resolution between Onegin and Lensky: the evolution of their relationship. Root causes and patterns in the development of conflict, psychological nature; confrontation as a consequence of mutually exclusive interests and positions.
presentation, added 05/07/2011
Aspects of the relationship of romanticism to the socio-political consequences of revolutionary changes in Europe at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. Schlegel's theory of "universal" romantic drama. Aesthetic and ideological principles.
As we have seen, dramatic action reflects the movement of reality in its contradictions. But we cannot identify this movement with dramatic action - reflection here is specific. That is why a category has appeared in modern theater and literary studies that includes both the concept of “dramatic action” and the specificity of reflecting contradictory reality in this action. The name of this category is dramatic conflict.
The conflict in a dramatic work, reflecting real life contradictions, has not just a plot-constructive purpose, but is also the ideological and aesthetic basis of the drama and serves to reveal its content. In other words, dramatic conflict acts both as a means and as a way of modeling the process of reality at the same time, that is, it is a broader and more voluminous category than action.
In its concrete artistic implementation and development, a dramatic conflict allows one to most deeply reveal the essence of the phenomenon being depicted and create a complete and holistic picture of life. That is why most modern theorists and practitioners of drama and theater definitely assert that dramatic conflict is the basis of drama. It is the conflict of the drama that indicates
Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, unlike vulgar materialist aesthetics, does not identify the fundamentally different concepts of life contradictions and dramatic conflict. Lenin's theory of reflection states the complex, dialectically contradictory nature of the process of reflection itself. Real life contradictions are not directly, “mirrored” projected in the artist’s mind - they are perceived and interpreted by each artist in his own way, in accordance with his worldview, with a whole complex of individual mental characteristics, as well as with previous experience of art. The author's class and ideological position is determined primarily by what life contradictions reflect the dramatic conflicts he depicts and how he resolves them.
Each era, each period in the life of society has its own contradictions. The complex of ideas about these contradictions is determined by the level of public consciousness. Some theorists of the past called this complex of ideas, this view that generalizes important aspects of reality, a dramatic concept or the drama of life.
Of course, in the most direct, immediate form, this concept, this drama of life is reflected in dramatic works. The very emergence of drama as a type of art is evidence that humanity has reached a certain level of historical development and a corresponding understanding of the world. In other words, drama is born in a “civil” society, with a developed division of labor and an established social structure. Only under these conditions can a social and moral conflict arise, forcing the hero to choose one from a number of possibilities.
Ancient drama arises as an artistic model of the genuine, essential, deep contradictions of existence associated with the crisis of the ancient polis based on slavery. The archaic period, with centuries-old customs, with the patriarchal traditions of the heroic age, was ending. “The power of this primitive community,” notes F. Engels, “had to be broken,” and it was broken. But she was broken under influences that directly appear to us as a decline, a fall from grace in comparison with the high moral level of the old tribal society. The basest motives - vulgar greed, crude passion for pleasure, dirty stinginess, selfish desire to plunder the common property - are the successors of the new, civilized, class society.”
Ancient drama gave absolute meaning to the contradictions of that particular historical reality. The dramatic concept of reality, which gradually took shape in ancient Greece, is limited by the idea of a universal “cosmos” (“proper order”). According to the ancient Greeks, the world is governed by a higher necessity, equivalent to truth and justice. But within this “proper order” there is continuous change and development, which is carried out through the struggle of opposites.
The socio-historical prerequisites for Shakespearean tragedy, as well as for ancient theater, are a change of formations, the death of an entire way of life. The class system was replaced by bourgeois order. The individual is freed from feudal prejudices, but is threatened with more subtle forms of enslavement.
The drama of social contradictions was repeated at a new stage. The emergence of a new class society opened, as Engels writes, “that era, which is still ongoing, when all progress at the same time means relative regression, when the well-being and development of some is achieved at the cost of suffering and suppression of others.”
A modern researcher writes about the era of Shakespeare:
“For an entire era in the development of art, the tragic effect of resistance and the death of the old, taken in its ideal and high content, constituted the general source of conflict...
Bourgeois relations were established in the world. And the alienation of the human from man was directly included in the conflicts of Shakespeare's tragedies. But their content is not reduced to this historical subtext; the current of action does not close on it.”
The free will of the Renaissance man comes into tragic conflict with the moral norms of the new, “orderly” society - the absolutist state. In the depths of the absolutist state, the bourgeois order is maturing. This contradiction in various collisions was the basis of many conflicts in Renaissance drama and Shakespeare's tragedies.
The contradictions of historical development become especially acute in bourgeois society, where the alienation of the individual is caused by diverse forces embodied in the state apparatus, reflected in bourgeois norms of law and morality, in the most complex webs of human relationships that are in conflict with social processes. In a bourgeois society that has reached maturity, the principle of “every man for himself, one against all” becomes obvious. History is, as it were, the resultant of multidirectional wills.
Consideration of the essence of this new socio-historical collision helps to understand F. Engels’ instructions regarding the “alienation” of social forces: “Social force, i.e.
the combined productive force that arises due to the joint activity of various individuals due to the division of labor - this social force, due to the fact that the joint activity itself does not arise voluntarily, but spontaneously, appears to these individuals not as their own united force, but as some kind of alien, outside them standing power, about the origin and development trends of which they know nothing...”
The bourgeois reality, hostile to man, reflected in the drama of the 19th and early 20th centuries, does not seem to accept the hero’s challenge to a duel. It is as if there is no one to fight with - the alienation of social power here reaches extreme limits.
And only in Soviet dramaturgy did the powerful progressive course of history and the will of the hero - a man from the people - appear in unity.
Awareness of the movement of history as a result of class struggle made class contradictions the vital fundamental basis of the dramatic conflict in many works of Soviet drama, from the time of “Mystery Bouffe” to the present day.
However, all the richness and diversity of life’s contradictions told by Soviet drama does not come down to this. It also reflected new social contradictions, no longer generated by class struggle, but by differences in levels of social consciousness, differences in understanding the weight and priority of one or another task - political, economic, moral and ethical. These tasks and problems associated with their solution arose and inevitably arise in the process of socialist transformation of reality. Finally, we must not forget the mistakes and misconceptions along the way.
Thus, the dramaturgical concept of reality in indirect form, in dramatic conflict (and even more specifically, through the struggle of individuals or social groups) gives a picture of social struggle, deploying the driving forces of time in action.
Based on the semantics of the word, conflict, Some theorists believe that a dramatic conflict is, first of all, a specific clash of characters, characters, opinions, etc. And they come to the conclusion that drama can consist of two or more conflicts (social and psychological), of main and secondary conflicts and etc. Others identify the contradictions of reality itself with conflict as an aesthetic category, thereby revealing a misunderstanding of the essence of art.
The works of leading modern theater researchers and practitioners refute these erroneous assumptions.
The best plays of Soviet playwrights were never divorced from the most important phenomena of reality. Invariably maintaining a class approach to the phenomena of reality, the party-
With new certainty in their assessment, Soviet playwrights took and continue to take the dominant issues of our time as the basis for their works.
The construction of a communist society proceeds in stages, one stage provides for another, higher one, and this continuity must be understood and recognized by society. Theater, as one of the means of ideological support for the construction of communism, must deeply comprehend the processes occurring in life in order to contribute to the development and movement of society forward.
Thus, dramatic conflict is a broader and more voluminous category than action. This category contains all the specific features of drama as an independent art form. All elements of drama serve the best development of the conflict, which allows the most profound revelation of the depicted phenomenon and the creation of a complete and holistic picture of life. In other words, the dramatic conflict serves to deeper and more clearly reveal the contradictions of reality and plays a major role in conveying the ideological meaning of the work. And the specific artistic specificity of reflecting the contradictions of reality is what is commonly called the nature of the dramatic conflict.
The different life material underlying the plays gives rise to conflicts that are different in nature.
Conflict - from lat. conflictus(“collision”) According to P.'s definition, paviddramatic conflict occurs from the collision of “antagonistic forces of drama.” Wolkenstein writes about this in his “Dramaturgy”: “not only subjectively, from the point of view of the central character, wherever we see complexly intersecting relationships, we observe a tendency to reveal the struggling forces into two camps.” Forces, antagonistic in nature, collide, which we define as original And presenters proposed circumstances (see “Ideological and thematic analysis”). The term “proposed circumstances” seems to us the most acceptable, since it includes not only the main characters, but also the initial situation, the circumstances that influenced the origin and development of the conflict collision.
The main forces in the play are personified in specific characters, so often the conversation about the conflict is conducted primarily from the point of view of analyzing the behavior of a particular character. Among the various theories regarding the emergence and development of dramatic conflict, Hegel’s definition seems to us most accurate: “the dramatic process itself is a constant forward movement to ultimate disaster. This is explained by the fact that collision constitutes the central moment of the whole. Therefore, on the one hand, everyone strives to identify this conflict, and on the other hand, it is precisely the discord and contradiction of opposing mindsets, goals and activities that needs to be resolved and strive for such a result.”
Speaking about the dramatic conflict, we need to especially note it artistic nature. It is always necessary to remember that a conflict in a play cannot be identical to some kind of conflict in life. In this regard, let us briefly note the different approaches to understanding the conflict.
Conflict in psychology
Conflict, from a psychological point of view, is defined as collision of opposing goals, interests, positions or subjects of interaction. At the heart of this clash is a conflict situation that arises due to conflicting positions on one issue, or opposing methods and means to achieve a goal, or a divergence of interests. A conflict situation contains the subjects of a possible conflict and its object. In order for a conflict to begin to develop, an incident is necessary in which one side begins to infringe on the interests of the other. In psychology, types of conflict development have been developed; this typology is based on determining the differences in goals, actions, and final results. Based on these criteria, they can be: potential, actual, direct, indirect, constructive, stabilizing, non-constructive, destructive.
The subject can be either an individual or several individuals. Depending on the conflict situation, psychologists distinguish interpersonal, intergroup, interorganizational, class, interethnic e conflicts. A special group consists of intrapersonal conflicts (see the theories of Freud, Jung, etc.). It is mainly understood as the generation of ambivalent aspirations of the subject, the awakening of two or more strong motives that cannot be resolved together. Such conflicts are often unconscious, meaning that a person cannot clearly identify the source of his problems.
The most common type of conflict is interpersonal. During it, opponents try to psychologically suppress each other, discredit and humiliate their opponent in public opinion. If it is impossible to resolve this conflict, then interpersonal relationships are destroyed. Conflicts that involve intense threat or fear are not easily resolved and often leave a person simply helpless. Subsequent attitudes, when resolved, may be aimed at alleviating anxiety rather than solving real problems.
In Aesthetics, conflict is largely understood as direct or indirect reflection by art of life’s contradictions(but, as we have already noted, this does not always happen). Artistic conflict has a thematic aspect in its content and is present in all types of art. It is of different quality in its essence and can reflect both the most serious social conflicts, universal antinomies, and simply funny misunderstandings (farces, vaudevilles). A conflict, from an ideological point of view, is a temporary violation of the norm of life, taking place against a conflict-free background, or, on the contrary, it marks the disharmony of the existing life.
The artistic conflict is embodied and consistently revealed in the direct or indirect confrontation of characters. It can also be revealed in the stable background of the events depicted, in thoughts and feelings independent of the specific situation, in the atmosphere (Chekhov, Shaw, Brecht and the so-called “non-Aristotelian” dramaturgy).
Conflict in ethics.
Specific situation of moral choice in which a certain decision is made, and a person at the same time states a contradiction in his consciousness: the choice and implementation (in the form of an act) of one norm leads to the destruction of another norm. At the same time, the destroyed norm represents a certain moral value. Naturally, this choice is expressed in a conflict situation. Conflict in ethics has two types: between the norms of different moral systems and within the same system. In the latter case, different levels of development of a given system collide. Conflict resolution is based on awareness of the hierarchy of moral values and bears personal responsibility for choice.
Nature of the conflict
The nature of the conflict, its underlying causes lie in the area of the character’s worldview, and it is also necessary to take into account social reasons, in general the entire complex that we conventionally call “the hero’s inner world.” Any conflict in the play has its roots deep down, to different worldviews, which, at the moment (the time of the play) or historical (the era in which everything happens), find themselves in a state of conflict. Pavi notes in this regard that “ultimately, the conflict is determined not only by the will of the playwright, but depends on the objective conditions of the described ... reality.”
For a long time it was believed that the nature of the conflict was based on social inequality and class struggle (the so-called method of “socialist realism”). However, the nature of the conflict in many plays is based on certain spiritual quests of the hero, his worldview, the foundations of faith or the tragedy of unbelief, etc. This deep (spiritual) movement of the spirit towards self-awareness manifests itself at the level of action in the form of certain actions. They encounter another will (alien) to them and, accordingly, behavior, and not just externally materialized interests are affected, but the very foundations of a person’s inner existence.
It is not out of resentment or insult that Tybalt kills Mercutio - this is a superficial expression of the conflict - the very existence of this type of world existence is unacceptable to him. This scene is the quintessence of tragedy. The most tragic thing in this play is Romeo's further actions. He suddenly steps over some prohibition lying in his soul. Having killed Tybalt, Romeo accepts the fact of murder as a means of resolving the contradiction; there is no other way out for him. This is how the tragic ending is prepared. In Hamlet, what is undoubtedly unfolding is not a struggle for power and throne, and it is not only revenge that drives Hamlet: the most important questions from the category of “to be / not to be” are resolved by all the characters in the play. But perhaps the most difficult thing in this regard is that if “to be” - how. However, we do not deny the influence of the principles of materialist dialectics on the nature of the dramatic conflict; this is as stupid as denying the existence of matter itself, but one cannot completely subordinate one to the other.
As we have already noted, conflict is not some abstract category, it is “humanized” in the “play” and unfolds in action. One can even define the very concept of action as conflict in development. The action is characterized by dynamism, increasing development, etc. “Dramatic action,” Hegel wrote, “is not limited to the simple and calm achievement of a specific goal; on the contrary, it takes place in an atmosphere of conflicts and clashes and is subject to the pressure of circumstances, the pressure of passions and characters that oppose and resist it. These conflicts and collisions, in turn, give rise to actions and reactions, which at a certain point create the need for reconciliation.”
For Western theater, this understanding of conflict is a distinctive feature, however, like the category of conflict itself, its main characteristic. But for many theaters - in particular Eastern ones - such an understanding is not typical, which accordingly changes the very nature of the theater.
As you know, initially there is a conflict before events presented in the play (in the “proposed circumstances”), or rather, the events of the play are a resolution of an already existing conflict. Then some event occurs that upsets the existing balance and the conflict unfolds, acquiring a visible (visible) form. It is worth noting that it is from this moment that the play itself begins. All further action comes down to the establishment of a new equilibrium, as a result of the victory of one conflicting side over the other.
As we have noted more than once, the exponent of any conflict in a play is a character; the exponent of the main conflict can be considered a hero (a group of heroes), so the analysis largely comes down to the analysis of actions, words (verbal action) and various psychological states experienced by the hero. In addition, the conflict finds its expression in the structure of the main events: in the plot and plot, place of action, time (for example, the “dark kingdom” - the city of Malinov in Ostrovsky’s “The Thunderstorm”). The director has at his disposal a number of additional means of expressing the conflict: music, lighting, scenography, mise-en-scène, etc. The conflict is resolved, traditionally, at the end of the play. We can say that this provision is the main requirement for dramaturgy. But there are a number of plays (for example, in the theater of paradox) in which we can observe the unresolved nature of the main conflict. This is precisely the main idea of such plays. This principle is characteristic of open-form dramaturgy.
According to Aristotle, the resolution of the main conflict sets as its goal not so much external, artistic goals associated with the drama, but primarily related to the impact on the viewer and his experience at the end of the play catharsis and, as a result, healing. In this Aristotle sees the main meaning of theatrical performance, and therefore conflict, as an integral part of this performance.
It should be noted that the resolution of the main conflict in “closed form” dramaturgy occurs at various levels:
· on subjective or at the level of ideas, when the character himself voluntarily abandons his intentions in favor of a higher moral authority;
· on objective when a certain power, usually political (the Duke in Romeo and Juliet), but maybe religious (Ostrovsky’s Snow Maiden) abruptly stops the conflict;
· on artificial , when the playwright resorts to a technique called "deus ex machine".
The topic of the nature of dramatic conflict is so complex and vast that it is almost impossible to give comprehensive definitions of this category in a short essay. This topic requires a special, special study, so we will limit ourselves to what has been said and consider in more detail the typology and evolution of the dramatic conflict in historical and artistic development. For some reason, this question has remained practically unexplored in drama theory, and we propose our own concept. It is not exhaustive, but can be a starting point for research of this type.
Types of conflicts
In our opinion, several types (levels) of conflicts can be distinguished. In a purely theatrical aspect, the conflict takes place on stage either among the characters (closed form dramaturgy) or between the character and the audience (open form dramaturgy).
According to the meaning-forming principles, several levels of conflict can be distinguished. It can take place either on one plane or on several:
· ideological(conflict of ideas, worldviews, etc.);
· social;
· moral;
· religious;
· political;
· household;
· family.
Several more levels can be distinguished. For example, the struggle between subjective and objective; metaphysical struggle of a person (overcoming oneself). In addition, there are several species conflicts, divided into internal And external according to where they occur: in the character’s soul or between characters.
Internal type of conflict.
Conflict within a person (with himself). For example, between reason and feeling; duty and conscience; desire and morality; consciousness and subconscious; personality and individuality; essence and existence, etc.
External types of conflict.
These types of conflicts are present to varying degrees in any dramatic work, but depending on the era, the movement in art, one or another type of conflict comes to the fore as the dominant one. Folding into a specific and original combination, it forms a new type of conflict. Changing trends in art is a constant change in types of conflicts. We can say that when the type of conflict changes, the era in art also changes, each innovator in the art of drama brings a new type of conflict. This can be traced in the history of the evolution of drama.