Types of conflicts in drama. Side conflict in dramaturgy

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 again 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 conflict 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.

The conflict of a play, as a rule, is not identical to some kind of life conflict in its everyday form. He generalizes and typifies the contradiction that the artist, in this case the playwright, observes in life. The depiction of a particular conflict in a dramatic work is a way of revealing a social contradiction in an effective struggle.

While remaining typical, the conflict is at the same time personified in the dramatic work in specific characters and is “obvious.”

Social conflicts depicted in dramatic works, naturally, are not subject to any unification in content - their number and variety are limitless. However, the methods of compositionally building a dramatic conflict are typical. Reviewing the existing dramatic experience, we can talk about the typology of the structure of dramatic conflict, about three main types of its construction.

Hero - Hero. Conflicts are built according to this type - Lyubov Yarovaya and her husband, Othello and Iago. In this case, the author and the viewer sympathize with one of the parties to the conflict, one of the heroes (or one group of heroes) and together with him they experience the circumstances of the struggle with the opposite side.

The author of a dramatic work and the viewer are always on the same side, since the author’s task is to agree with the viewer, to convince the viewer of what he wants to convince him of. Is it necessary to emphasize that the author does not always reveal to the viewer his likes and dislikes in relation to his heroes. Moreover, a frontal statement of one's positions has little in common with artistic work, especially drama. There is no need to rush around with ideas on stage. It is necessary for the viewer to leave the theater with them - Mayakovsky rightly said.

Another type of conflict construction: Hero - Auditorium. Satirical works are usually based on such a conflict. The audience laughs at the behavior and morality of the satirical characters acting on stage. The positive hero in this performance, as its author N.V. Gogol said about The Inspector General, is in the audience.

The third type of construction of the main conflict is the Hero (or heroes) and the Environment with which they are opposed. In this case, the author and the viewer are, as it were, in a third position, observing both the hero and the environment, following the vicissitudes of this struggle, without necessarily joining one side or the other. A classic example of such a construction is “The Living Corpse” by L. N. Tolstoy. The hero of the drama, Fyodor Protasov, is in conflict with the environment, whose sanctimonious morality forces him to first “leave” it into revelry and drunkenness, then to depict a fictitious death, and then to actually commit suicide.

The viewer will by no means consider Fyodor Protasov a positive hero worthy of imitation. But he will sympathize with him and, accordingly, will condemn the environment opposing Protasov - the so-called “color of society” - which forced him to die.

Vivid examples of constructing a conflict of the Hero-Wednesday type are Shakespeare's Hamlet, Woe from Wit by A. S. Griboedov, and The Thunderstorm by A. N. Ostrovsky.

The division of dramatic conflicts according to the type of their construction is not absolute. In many works one can observe a combination of two types of conflict construction. So, for example, if in a satirical play, along with negative characters, there are also positive heroes, in addition to the main conflict Hero - Auditorium, we will also observe another conflict Hero - Hero, a conflict between positive and negative heroes on stage.

In addition, the Hero-Environment conflict ultimately contains the Hero-Hero conflict. After all, the environment in a dramatic work is not faceless. It also consists of heroes, sometimes very bright, whose names have become household names. Let us remember Famusov and Molchalin in “Woe from Wit”, or Kabanikha in “The Thunderstorm”. In the general concept of “Environment” we unite them on the principle of the commonality of their views, a common attitude towards the hero opposing them.

Action in a dramatic work is nothing more than a conflict in development. It develops from the initial conflict situation that arose in the beginning. It develops not just sequentially - one event after another - but through the birth of a subsequent event from the previous one, thanks to the previous one, according to the laws of the cause-and-effect series. The action of the play at any given moment must be fraught with the development of further action.

The theory of dramaturgy at one time considered it necessary to observe three unities in a dramatic work: the unity of time, the unity of place and the unity of action. Practice, however, has shown that dramaturgy easily dispenses with the unity of place and time, but unity of action is a truly necessary condition for the existence of a dramatic work as a work of art.

Maintaining unity of action is essentially maintaining a single picture of the development of the main conflict. It is thus a condition for creating a holistic image of the conflict event that is depicted in this work. Unity of action - a picture of the development of a continuous and not replaced main conflict during the play - is a criterion for the artistic integrity of the work. Violation of the unity of action - the substitution of a conflict tied in the beginning - undermines the possibility of creating a holistic artistic image of a conflict event and inevitably seriously reduces the artistic level of a dramatic work.

Action in a dramatic work should be considered only what happens directly on stage or on screen. The so-called “pre-stage”, “non-stage”, “off-stage” actions - all this is information that can contribute to the understanding of the action, but in no case can replace it. Abusing the amount of such information to the detriment of the action greatly reduces the emotional impact of the play (performance) on the viewer, and sometimes reduces it to nothing.

In the literature one can sometimes find an insufficiently clear explanation of the relationship between the concepts of “conflict” and “action”. E. G. Kholodov writes about it this way: “The specific subject of depiction in drama is, as is known, life in motion, or in other words, action.” This is not accurate. Life in motion is any flow of life. It can, of course, be called action. Although, in relation to real life, it would be more accurate to talk not about action, but about actions. Life is endlessly active.

The subject of depiction in drama is not life in general, but one or another specific social conflict, personified in the heroes of a given play. Action, therefore, is not the ebullience of life in general, but a given conflict in its specific development.

Further, E. G. Kholodov clarifies his formulation to some extent, but the definition of action remains imprecise: “Drama reproduces action in the form of a dramatic struggle,” he writes, “that is, in the form of a conflict.” We cannot agree with this. Drama does not reproduce action in the form of conflict, but, on the contrary, conflict in the form of action. And this is by no means a game words, but the restoration of the true essence of the concepts under consideration. Conflict is the source of action. Action is the form of its movement, its existence in a work.

The source of drama is life itself. The playwright takes the conflict from the real contradictions in the development of society to depict in his work. He subjectivizes it in specific characters, he organizes it in space and time, gives, in other words, his own picture of the development of the conflict, and creates dramatic action. Drama is an imitation of life - as Aristotle spoke about - only in the most general sense of these words. In each given work of drama, the action is not copied from any specific situation, but created, organized, sculpted by the author. The movement, therefore, proceeds in this way: the contradiction of the development of society; a typical conflict that objectively exists on the basis of a given contradiction; its author's concretization is personification in the heroes of the work, in their clashes, in their contradiction and opposition to each other; development of the conflict (from the beginning to the denouement, to the ending), that is, building the action.

Elsewhere, E. G. Kholodov, relying on Hegel’s thought, comes to a correct understanding of the relationship between the concepts of “conflict” and “action”.

Hegel writes: “Action presupposes antecedent circumstances leading to collisions, to action and reaction.”

The plot of the action, according to Hegel, lies where in the work appear, “given” by the author, “only those (and not any at all - D. A.) circumstances that, picked up by the individual disposition of the soul (the hero of this work - - D.A.) and its needs, give rise to precisely that specific collision, the development and resolution of which constitutes the special action of a given work of art.”

So, action is the initiation, “unfolding” and “resolution” of the conflict.

The hero in a dramatic work must fight, be a participant in a social conflict. This, of course, does not mean that the heroes of other literary works of poetry or prose do not participate in social struggle. But there may be other heroes. In a work of drama there should not be heroes who stand outside the depicted social conflict.

The author depicting a social conflict is always on one side of it. His sympathies and, accordingly, the sympathies of the readers are given to some heroes, and antipathies to others. At the same time, the concepts of “positive” and “negative” heroes are relative concepts and not very accurate.In each specific case, we can talk about positive and negative characters from the point of view of the author of a given work.

In our general understanding of modern life, a positive hero is one who fights for the establishment of social justice, for progress, for the ideals of socialism. A negative hero, respectively, is one who contradicts him in ideology, in politics, in behavior, in attitude to work.

The hero of a dramatic work is always a son of his time, and from this point of view, the choice of a hero for a dramatic work is also of a historical nature, determined by historical and social circumstances. At the dawn of Soviet drama, finding a positive and negative character was easy for authors. A negative hero was anyone who clung to yesterday - representatives of the tsarist apparatus, nobles, landowners, merchants, White Guard generals, officers, sometimes even soldiers, but in any case, everyone who fought against the young Soviet government. Accordingly, it was easy to find a positive hero in the ranks of revolutionaries, activists, parties, heroes of the civil war, etc. Today, in a period of comparative peacetime, the task of finding a hero is much more difficult, because social clashes are not expressed as clearly as they were expressed during the years of revolution and civil war, or later, during the Great Patriotic War.

“Reds!”, “Whites!”, “ours!”, “fascists!” - children shouted in different ways over the years, looking at the movie screens. The reaction of adults was not so immediate, but fundamentally similar. The division of heroes into “ours” and “not ours” in works dedicated to the revolution, civil war, and the Patriotic War was not difficult, either for the authors or for the audience. Unfortunately, the artificial division of Soviet people into “ours” and “not ours”, implanted from above by Stalin and his propaganda apparatus, also provided material for work only with black and white paint, images of “positive” and “negative” heroes from these positions.

An acute social struggle, as we see, is happening now, both in the sphere of ideology, and in the sphere of production, and in the moral sphere, in matters of law, and norms of behavior. The drama of life, of course, never disappears. The struggle between movement and inertia, between indifference and burning, between open-mindedness and limitation, between nobility and baseness, search and complacency, between good and evil in the broad sense of these words, always exists and provides an opportunity for the search for heroes as positive, with whom we sympathize , and negative.

It was already said above that the relativity of the concept of a “positive” hero also lies in the fact that in drama, as in literature in general, in a number of cases the hero with whom we sympathize is not an example to follow, a model of behavior in life position. Difficult to classify as positive With these points of view to the heroes Katerina from “The Thunderstorm” and Larisa from “Dowry” by A. N. Ostrovsky. We sincerely sympathize with them as victims of a society living according to the laws of bestial morality, but we naturally reject their way of struggling with their lack of rights and humiliation. The main thing is that in life there are no absolutely positive or absolutely negative people. If people shared this way in life, and a “positive” person had no reason and opportunity to turn out to be “negative” and vice versa, art would lose its meaning. It would lose one of its most important purposes - to contribute to the improvement of the human person.

Only a lack of understanding of the essence of the impact of a dramatic work on the audience can explain the existence of primitive assessments of the ideological sound of a particular play by calculating the balance between the number of “positive” and “negative” characters. Especially often such calculations are used to evaluate satirical plays.

No one, presumably, would demand that for a correct understanding of I. E. Repin’s painting “Ivan the Terrible Kills His Son,” the artist depicted “positive” courtiers standing around the Tsar and Tsarevich, shaking their heads condemningly. No one will doubt the revolutionary pathos of B.V. Ioganson’s painting “Interrogation of Communists” on the grounds that there are only two communists depicted in it, and several White Guard counterintelligence agents. To works of drama, however, such an approach is considered possible, despite the fact that its history provides no less examples of its inadmissibility than painting, than any other art. The film “Chapaev” helped raise millions of heroes, although Chapaev dies at the end of the film. The famous tragedy of Sun. Vishnevsky is optimistic not only in name, although his heroine - the commissar - dies.

The moral victory or political rightness of the heroes can increase or decrease not depending on their numbers.

The hero of a dramatic work, in contrast to the hero of prose, whom the author usually describes in detail and comprehensively, characterizes himself, in the words of A. M. Gorky, “autonomously,” by his actions, without the help of the author’s description. This does not mean that the stage directions cannot briefly describe the characters. But we must not forget that stage directions are written for the director and performer. The audience in the theater will not hear them.

For example, the American playwright Tennessee Williams gives a devastating characterization of its main character, Stanley Kowalski, in a stage direction at the beginning of the play A Streetcar Named Desire. However, Stanley appears to the viewer as quite respectable and even handsome. Only as a result of his actions does he reveal himself as an egoist, a knight of profit, a rapist, as an evil and cruel person. The author's remark is intended here only for the director and performer. The viewer shouldn't know her.

Modern playwrights sometimes “voice” their stage directions with the help of a presenter, who, on behalf of the author, gives the characters the necessary characteristics. As a rule, the presenter appears in historical-documentary plays. To understand what is happening there, explanations are often necessary, which are impossible to put into the mouths of the characters themselves due to the documentary nature of their text, on the one hand, and most importantly in order to preserve a lively dialogue, not burdened with elements of commentary.

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.

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 “crowdedness of the event sequence.” 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 shows 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.

Types of conflicts in drama. Side conflict in dramaturgy

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents