Foreign drama of the 20th century. Five major post-war plays and their best productions

The leading genre in the drama of the 20s was the heroic-romantic play. “Storm” by V. Bill-Belotserkovsky, “Yarovaya Love” by K. Trenev, “Fracture” by B. Lavrenev - these plays are united by their epic breadth, the desire to reflect the mood of the masses as a whole. These works are based on a deep socio-political conflict, the theme of the “break” of the old and the birth of a new world. Compositionally, these plays are characterized by a wide coverage of what is happening over time, the presence of many side lines not related to the main plot, and the free transfer of action from one place to another.

For example, in the play “Storm” by V. Bill-Belotserkovsky there are many crowd scenes. It includes Red Army soldiers, security officers, a sailor, an editor, a lecturer, a military commissar, Komsomol members, a secretary, a military instructor, and a supply manager. There are many other persons who have neither names nor positions. Neither human relationships, but history is the main source of plot development in the play. The main thing in it is the depiction of a historical battle. This is due to the lack of purposefully developing intrigue, the fragmentation and independence of individual scenes. The central character of the play is the Chairman of the Ukom, a person who is more symbolic than real. But he actively intervenes in life: he organizes the fight against typhus, exposes the rogue from the center, punishes Savandeev for his irresponsible attitude towards women, etc. Thus, “Storm” was openly propaganda in nature. But in those years, the significance of such plays and the power of their impact were stronger than those of plays of an in-depth psychological nature.

In the drama of the 20s, Boris Andreevich Lavrenev’s play “The Fault” occupies a prominent place. Its plot was based on the historical events of October 1917. However, the play is not a chronicle; social and everyday conflicts occupy a large place in it. In “Razlom” there are no battle scenes typical of the heroic-romantic genre: events on the cruiser “Zarya” are interspersed with everyday scenes in the Bersenevs’ apartment. The social and everyday are inseparable from one another, but the class principle predominates: Tatyana Berseneva and her husband, Lieutenant Stube, are at different poles of the social worldview, and this is reflected in their personal relationships, leading to a final break. The personal relationships of the characters do not play a leading role in the plot: the chairman of the ship committee of the cruiser "Zarya" Godun is in love with Tatyana Berseneva, but Tatyana's sympathy for Godun is largely due to the similarity of ideological positions.

“The Rift” is a combination of two genres: it is a socio-psychological drama with an in-depth development of a limited circle of characters, with a distinct everyday flavor, and a heroic-romantic play that characterizes the mood of the people as a whole, mass psychology.

The tragedy of the civil war is also conveyed in K. Trenev’s play “Yarovaya Love”. In the center is the image of Lyubov Yarovaya and her husband. Which ended up on opposite sides of the barricades. The characters in it are portrayed authentically and believably and differ markedly from the unambiguous characteristics of the heroes in many plays of those years. Trenev managed to step over the schematic, exaggerated, primitive ideas.

A special place in the drama of the 20s is occupied by M. Bulgakov’s play “The Days of the Trubins” - one of the best plays about the civil war, about the fate of people in a turning point. Bulgakov's play "Days of the Turbins", written in the footsteps of the "White Guard", becomes the "second "Seagull" of the Art Theater. Lunacharsky called it "the first political play of the Soviet theater." The premiere, which took place on October 5, 1926, made Bulgakov famous. The story told by the playwright shocked the audience with its life-like truth of the disastrous events that many of them had recently experienced. The images of white officers that Bulgakov fearlessly brought onto the stage of the best theater in the country, against the backdrop of a new audience, a new way of life, acquired an expanded meaning for the intelligentsia, no matter whether military or civilian. The performance, met with hostility by official criticism, was soon filmed, but was restored in 1932.

The action of the drama fits within the Turbins’ house, where “the revolution bursts in like a terrible whirlwind.” Alexey and Nikolay Turbins, Elena, Lariosik, Myshlaevsky are kind and noble people. They cannot understand the complex elements of events, understand their place in them, or determine their civic duty to their homeland. All this gives rise to an alarming, internally tense atmosphere in the Turbins’ house. They are worried about the destruction of the old familiar way of life. That is why the very image of the house, the stove, which brings warmth and comfort, in contrast to the surrounding world, plays such a large role in the play.

In the 1920s, a number of comedy theaters were created. In the field of comedy, M. Gorky and L. Leonov, A. Tolstoy and V. Mayakovsky honed their satirical skills. The subject of merciless exposure was philistinism. The well-known comedies of those years “Mandate” and “Suicide” by N. Erdman, “Air Pie” by B. Romashov, “Zoykina’s Apartment” and “Ivan Vasilyevich” by M. Bulgakov, “Embezzlers” and “Squaring the Circle” by V. Kataev were dedicated to exactly this topic.

Almost simultaneously with “Days of the Turbins,” Bulgakov wrote the tragic farce “Zoyka’s Apartment” (1926). The plot of the play was very relevant for those years. Enterprising Zoika Peltz is trying to save money to buy foreign visas for herself and her lover by organizing an underground brothel in her own apartment. The play captures the abrupt breakdown of social reality, expressed in a change in linguistic forms. Count Obolyaninov refuses to understand what a “former count” is: “Where did I go? Here I am, standing in front of you.” With demonstrative simplicity, he does not accept not so much “new words” as new values. The brilliant chameleonism of the charming rogue Ametistov, the administrator in Zoykin’s “atelier”, forms a striking contrast to the count, who does not know how to adapt to circumstances. In the counterpoint of the two central images, Amethystov and Count Obolyaninov, the deep theme of the play emerges: the theme of historical memory, the impossibility of forgetting the past.

A special place in the drama of the 20s belongs to Mayakovsky’s comedies “The Bedbug” and “Bathhouse”; they are a satire (with dystopian elements) on an embourgeois society that has forgotten about the revolutionary values for which it was created. The internal conflict with the surrounding reality of the approaching “bronze” Soviet age, undoubtedly, was among the most important incentives that pushed the poet to the last rebellion against the laws of the world order - suicide.

In the final part of the autobiographical essay “I Myself,” he mentions working on the poem “Bad.” True, he did not write a poem with that title, but this idea was partly realized in two satirical comedies “The Bedbug” (1928-1929) and “Bathhouse” (1929), where the manifestations of philistinism and administrative -bureaucratic morals. In this sense, both comedies are comparable to the poem “Good!” just as the above-mentioned satirical poem of 1921 “On Rubbish” picked up the slogan-toast ending in honor of the heroes of the “Last Page of the Civil War” written at the same time, but translated it into a different, opposite register (“Glory, Glory, Glory to the heroes! !! / However, / they / were given enough tribute. / Now / let’s talk / about rubbish”).

In “The Bedbug” and “Bath”, the “grimaces of NEP” do not obscure the main ridiculed evil - two exponents of socially dangerous tendencies: the former proletarian Prisypkin, seduced by bourgeois-philistine comfort, and the militant bureaucrat Pobedonosikov, who confidently feels like a “hegemon”, the sovereign master of life. The model of public administration introduced by the hero of “Bath” “in the brilliant footsteps of Karl Marx and in accordance with the instructions of the center” came into discord with the majorly colored illusions of the poem “Good!”: according to the conviction of “Chief Leader” Pobedonosikov, the clerical institution he led had long ago turned into a “corner of socialism” , he himself, without false modesty, identifies his interests with the true interests of the state. He poses for the artist because it is “necessary for the completeness of the story”; Having forgotten his briefcase at home, he delays the departure of the time machine, assuring that this is being done “out of state necessity, and not because of trifles.”

Today it is clear that the satire of “Baths” actually turned into a parody of the very socialist values that were glorified in “Good!” and poetic journalism of the poet. The discrepancy between the two levels of perception of the Soviet present - “good” and “bad” - is obvious: the second side disavows the first, although this, of course, was not the author’s intention. It is not without reason that in “Bath” Mayakovsky tried to contrast the nomenklatura bureaucracy and its minions with positive heroes: the inventor Chudakov, the worker-activist Velosipedkin, who promises to “eat officials and spit out buttons,” and others. But these figures are faceless, schematic and artistically unconvincing.

Realizing the vulnerability of unambiguous assessments of the new reality, Mayakovsky again appeals to the future, where only the conflicts generated by modern life can be resolved. In the second part of “The Bedbug,” the action moves forward 50 years - Prisypkin, buried in the “musty mattresses of time,” is revived and put on public display as a unique museum exhibit. True, in “Bath” Mayakovsky did not encroach on a direct image of the future: the Phosphoric Woman appears in modern times - the “delegate of 2030”, ready to use a “time machine” to transfer today’s working enthusiasts to the “communist age”. But in both plays, Mayakovsky does not go beyond the framework of abstract futuristic utopias: the future is presented as an artificially constructed space, where it is not real people who act, but their mechanical similarities, and where there is no life in the comprehensive sense of the word. Surrounded by soulless walking robots, defrosted and caged, Prisypkin looks like the only living person.

Literature of the 30s: the formation of a new ideological and artistic consciousness.

Any phenomenon of “mature” Soviet literature cannot be adequately understood outside of a very specific context, whose name is Soviet civilization. Art, already in the era of the Silver Age, so intoxicated with its ontological possibilities, primogeniture, autonomy, is undergoing a deep transformation in the Soviet era - it becomes the most important, but strictly regulated part (as Lenin dreamed in the article “Party organization and party literature”) of a single state propaganda mechanism, performs propaganda, organizational and educational tasks determined outside of art (“from above”); The “blood composition” of the creator also changes - the Soviet writer sees the purpose of art, its connection with reality, and himself differently than the creator of previous eras. And this difference finally took shape in the 30s.

The literature of the 30s developed in a different socio-historical situation than the literature of the 20s. The NEP was eliminated, industrialization and collectivization began, and most importantly, the methods of the civil war began to return to the management of the internal life of the country. In 1929, at the Plenum of the Central Committee, dedicated to the “right deviation,” Stalin proclaimed the thesis of “intensifying the class struggle” as socialism successfully advanced. This was, in essence, ideological preparation for the “Great Terror.”

The transformation of the country into an industrial and military power began through political terror, state enslavement of the peasantry and the creation of the Gulag labor army. For the fate of many writers, this turned into moral breakdown and death. In 1929, Varlam Shalamov was sentenced to three years in camp imprisonment for distributing the so-called “Lenin’s testament.” In 1931, persecution began against Andrei Platonov for publishing the story “For Future Use.” In August 1931, Andrei Platonov went on a business trip to the state farms of the Middle Volga region. He saw a disgusting labor organization, a shortage of building materials, workers without wages and milkmaids fleeing harsh working conditions and being forcibly returned to their place of work. In some state farms, the number of livestock was lost by 85-90%. There could be no place for this reality in Soviet literature of the 1930s.

In the same year, Evgeny Zamyatin was forced to leave abroad. In March 1934, Nikolai Klyuev was exiled to Western Siberia, and in May Osip Mandelstam was arrested. Nevertheless, Stalin's policy regarding literature was quite complex.

He understood well that since in Russia the writer traditionally has public authority, literature must be made a conductor of state ideology. The Rappites, trying to put forceful pressure on literature, turned out to be too primitive to solve such a problem. To control human consciousness through literature, a more flexible policy was required. Stalin began with the resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations,” abolishing the RAPP, which was greeted with enthusiasm by writers and caused a surge of confidence in the authorities. The resolution included a clause about the unification of all creative forces “into a single union of Soviet writers with the communist faction in it.”

In terms of the abundance and diversity of talent, the 1930s were not inferior to the previous decade. Of course, one cannot ignore that poets of the caliber of Mayakovsky and Yesenin do not appear every decade. However, Mayakovsky’s popularity and his influence on poetry especially increased in the 30s. In turn, the increased need for lyrics in these years encourages a number of poets to comprehend Yesenin more deeply, which M. Isakovsky, A. Prokofiev, S. Shchipachev, P. Vasiliev successfully do. There is a certain convergence of the traditions of Mayakovsky and Yesenin.

Works of the lyric-epic genre acquire new qualities and are enriched. The hyperbolic, universal scale of depicting the era, characteristic of the poetry of the 20s, gave way to a deeper psychological study of life processes. If we compare in this regard “The Country of Ant” by A. Tvardovsky, “The Poem of Care” and “Four Desires” by M. Isakovsky, “The Death of a Pioneer” by E. Bagritsky, then one cannot help but notice how differently modern material is mastered. A. Tvardovsky has a more pronounced epic beginning, the poems of M. Isakovsky and E. Bagritsky are more lyrical. Poetry of the 30s was enriched with such genre finds as lyrical and dramatic poems (A. Bezymensky “The Tragic Night”), epic short stories (D. Kedrin “Horse”, “Architects”). New forms were found that were at the intersection of a lyric poem and an essay, a diary, and a report. Cycles of historical poems were created (“Land of the Fathers” by N. Rylenkov).

The relationship between the lyrical and epic principles in the poem of the 1930s manifests itself in a unique way. On the one hand, there is an increase in the interest of poets in the epic in mastering reality, on the other - a variety of lyrical solutions. Expanding the problematic, enriching the genre of the poem through a combination of a variety of elements: epic, lyrical, satirical, coming from folk song traditions, deepening psychologism, increased attention to the fate of the hero-contemporary - these are the general patterns of the internal evolution of the poem.

The main trends of the poetic epic of the 30s were manifested in the work of P.N. Vasiliev. Focusing on the complex processes of the formation of a new personality, he creates a chronicle (10 poems) about the people's destinies in this era. Vasiliev - and this is a characteristic feature of the poets of the 30s - gravitated towards creating a poetic epic of his era. Turning to life in the village, he talked about the brutal struggle of the people (“Fists”, “Sinitsyn and Co.”, “Song about the death of the Cossack army”). The poet knew perfectly well the life and way of life of the Irtysh and Semirechensk Cossacks and vividly depicted all this in his poems. Vasiliev used folk poetic traditions, folk images, forms of lyrical folk songs, ditties with all their characteristic features of vocabulary and syntax. However, modern criticism did not accept or properly appreciate the bright creative individuality of P. Vasiliev. Moreover, he was accused of poetizing kulak life and idealizing patriarchal village life. The poems “Sinitsyn and K*”, “Salt Riot”, “Song about the Death of the Cossack Army” are deeply truthful in showing how the social protest of the masses gradually matured. In his poems and verses, the poet managed to convey the turbulent era of the 30s, all its contradictions.

The 1930s also saw the heyday of creative talent for M. Isakovsky, who published the collections “Wires in the Straw” and “Masters of the Earth.” His poems included new heroes born of this time (tractor driver, agronomist, etc.) Folk poetic traditions, deep comprehension of Russian folklore, its ethical and aesthetic riches (not external stylization) are an integral quality of M. Isakovsky’s poetry. He had an amazingly kind and bright poetic gift as a lyricist. Gentle humor, jokes, semi-irony, often hidden in the subtext, naturally and unobtrusively enter into Isakovsky’s poems. It is impossible to define clear genre boundaries between Isakovsky’s lyrical poems and songs - one of the peaks of his poetry. They are all melodious and lyrical.

The work of A. Tvardovsky becomes a significant phenomenon in the poetry of this period. The collections “The Road” (1938) and “Rural Chronicle” (1939) were published one after another. The theme of peasant life and changes in the life of the village form the content of Tvardovsky’s poems. The heroes of his poems are Smolensk residents. The poems about Grandfather Danila “How Danila was dying”, “About Danila”, “Grandfather Danila in the bathhouse”, “Grandfather Danila goes to the forest” are colored with humor. A real event in the poetry of the 30s was the poem “The Country of Ant”, in the center of which is the image of Nikita Morgunka, a peasant who went to seek peasant happiness.

In the early 30s, the work of B.L. Pasternak was widely known. There is an obvious desire in him to comprehend the core problems of our time. Pasternak's literary activity was varied. He wrote prose, was engaged in translations, was the author of poems, a novel in verse “Spektorsky”. But the most significant is still his lyrics. Pasternak had the ability to express deep and subtle human feelings and thoughts through heartfelt pictures of nature.

The 1930s were a significant stage for N. Zabolotsky, whose work was marked by an in-depth philosophical view of the world. Eternal philosophical themes acquire a social connotation in Zabolotsky’s work. It increasingly connects being and everyday life - being in the traditional philosophical sense and everyday life - modernity. He turns to the specific cases of his contemporaries: researchers, scientists, builders. Michurin (“Wedding with Fruits”) and the heroic explorers of the North Pole (“North”, “Sedov”) become the heroes of his works of those years. He solves the theme of man and nature not as a confrontation between two forces hostile to each other, but as an affirmation of the feat of the mind and human hands. At the beginning of 1932, Zabolotsky became acquainted with the works of Tsiolkovsky, close to his idea of the universe as a single system, where living and nonliving things are in constant mutual transformation. The elegy “Yesterday, Reflecting on Death...” (1936), polemically developing the tradition of Baratynsky, starting with the theme of the “unbearable melancholy of separation” of man and nature, goes back to the apotheosis of reason as the highest stage of evolution: “And I myself was not a child of nature, But her thought! But her mind is unsteady! Zabolotsky cherishes the idea of immortality. In “Metamorphoses” (1937), as well as in “Testament” (1947), which goes back to Goethe’s “Testament”: “Whoever lived will not turn into nothing,” the circle of development is completed through death, and eternal renewal is shown as the guarantee of life spirit.

One of the achievements of poetry in the 1930s was mass song. This phenomenon can be considered as natural. Both in folk art and in Russian classical poetry, songs as an indicator and exponent of the state of the soul of the people have always occupied a prominent place. But the mass song of this era is a special poetic genre. The inner world of a person, his achievements and dreams were expressed in the songs of V. Lebedev-Kumach, V. Gusev, M. Isakovsky, A. Surkov, M. Golodny, Y. Shvedov. Songs created in the 30s gained wide popularity. “Katyusha” by M. Isakovsky, “Kakhovka” by M. Svetlov, “Song of the Motherland” by V. Lebedev-Kumach, “Eaglet” by Y. Shvedov, “Dark Mounds Are Sleeping...” by B. Laskin, “Polyushko-Field” by V. Gusev – lyrical and solemnly pathetic, they convey the atmosphere of the era, emotionally revealing the image of the homeland. The creative collaboration of V. Lebedev-Kumach and I. Dunaevsky produced many wonderful songs. “Song of the Motherland” (“Wide is my native country...”), “March of the Cheerful Children,” and “Sports March” became extremely popular. The solemnity of the march, optimism, energy, and youthful enthusiasm impressed the listeners and immediately won their hearts. True, the songs of these years were characterized by one-sidedness. They reflected only one side of life - the festive one. It was as if the difficulties did not exist. Nevertheless, the rich folklore heritage and traditions of poetic classics helped songwriters develop previously known song genres, expand their range, and deepen their content.

Significant changes took place in the literature of the thirties associated with the general historical process. The leading genre of the 1930s was the novel. A new artistic method is being established in literature - socialist realism. The goals and objectives of literature were determined at the First Congress of Writers, where M. Gorky made the main report. He named the theme of labor as the main theme of literature. Literature was given the task of helping to form a new Soviet man. Literature was supposed to show achievements and educate a new generation.

A unique chronicle of this time consists of the works of M. Shaginyan “Hydrocentral”, I. Ehrenburg “The Second Day”, L. Leonov “Sot”, M. Sholokhov “Virgin Soil Upturned”, F. Panferov “Whetstones”. The historical genre developed (“Peter I” by A. Tolstoy, “Tsushima” by Novikov-Priboy, “Emelyan Pugachev” by V. Shishkov). The problem of educating people is acutely raised in literature. She found her resolution in the works “People from the Outback” by A. Malyshkin, “Pedagogical Poem” by A. Makarenko.

In the 1930s, a new type of plot became increasingly widespread. The era is revealed through the history of any business at a plant, power plant, collective farm, etc. And therefore, the author’s attention is drawn to the fates of a large number of people, and none of the heroes no longer occupies a central position.

In “Hydrocentral” by M. Shaginyan, the “idea of planning” of economic management not only became the leading thematic center of the book, but also subordinated the main components of its structure. The plot in the novel corresponds to the stages of construction of a hydroelectric power station. The fates of the heroes associated with the construction of Mezinges are analyzed in detail in relation to the construction (the images of Arno Arevyan, Glavinge, teacher Malkhazyan).

In “Soti” by L. Leonov, the silence of silent nature, the ancient monastery from where sand and gravel were taken for construction, are destroyed. The construction of a paper mill in Soti is presented as part of the systematic reconstruction of the country.

In the new novel “Energy” F. Gladkov depicts labor processes in incomparably more detail and detail than was the case in “Cement”. When recreating pictures of industrial labor, the author implements new techniques and develops old ones that were present in the outlines in “Cement” (extensive industrial landscapes created by the panning technique).

The affirmation of labor as creativity, the sublime depiction of production processes - all this changed the nature of conflicts and led to the formation of new types of novels. In the 30s, among the works, the type of social and philosophical novel (“Sot”), journalistic (“The Second Day”), and socio-psychological (“Energy”) stood out. The poeticization of labor, combined with a passionate feeling of love for the native land, found its classic expression in the book of the Ural writer P. Bazhov “The Malachite Box”. In those years, there was also a line of socio-psychological (lyrical) novel, represented by “The Last of Udege” by A. Fadeev and the works of K. Paustovsky and M. Prishvin.

Significant works about the transformation of nature and the life of the national outskirts were the essay stories by K. Paustovsky “Kara-Bugaz”, “Colchis”, “Black Sea”. They showed a unique talent as a landscape writer. The story “Kara-Bugaz” is about the development of deposits of Glauber’s salt in the bay of the Caspian Sea - romance is transformed into a struggle with the desert: a person, conquering the earth, strives to outgrow himself. The writer combines in the story an artistic and visual element with an action-packed plot, scientific and popularization goals with an artistic understanding of different human destinies that collided in the struggle to revive a barren, parched land, history and modernity, fiction and document, for the first time achieving a multifaceted narrative. For Paustovsky, the desert is the personification of the destructive principles of existence, a symbol of entropy. For the first time, the writer touches with such certainty on environmental issues, one of the main ones in his work. The writer is increasingly attracted to everyday life in its simplest manifestations.

Social optimism predetermined the pathos of M. Prishvin’s works created during these years. It is the ideological, philosophical and ethical quest of the protagonist Kurymushka-Alpatov that is at the center of Prishvin’s autobiographical novel “Kashcheev’s Chain,” work on which began in 1922 and continued until the end of his life. Specific images here also carry a second, mythological, fairy-tale plan (Adam, Marya Morevna, etc.). Man, according to the author, must break Kashcheev’s chain of evil and death, alienation and misunderstanding, free himself from the fetters that fetter life and consciousness. Boring everyday life needs to be turned into a daily celebration of life's fullness and harmony, into constant creativity. The writer contrasts the romantic rejection of the world with wise agreement with it, intense life-affirming work of thought and feeling, and the creation of joy.

In the story “Zhen-Shen,” where the autobiographical subtext is also strong, nature is recognized as a part of social existence. The chronological framework of the story is conditional. Its lyrical hero, unable to withstand the horrors of war, goes into the Manchurian forests. The plot of the story develops, as it were, on two levels - concrete and symbolic. The first is dedicated to the hero’s wanderings through the Manchurian taiga, his meeting with the Chinese Louvain, and their joint efforts to create a deer nursery. The second symbolically talks about the search for the meaning of life. The symbolic plane grows out of the real - with the help of various comparisons, allegories, and reinterpretations. A socio-philosophical interpretation of the meaning of life appears in descriptions of the activities of Louvain, a ginseng seeker. Delicate and mysterious in the eyes of people, the relict plant becomes a symbol of human self-determination in life.

The romantic concept of man and nature in Prishvin’s work enriched the romantic movement of literature in its own way. In the cycle of romantic miniatures “Phacelia”, analogies from human life and nature help to express the outburst of human vitality, the longing for lost happiness that separated the hero from the world (“River under the clouds”), and the awareness of the outcome of a life lived (“Forest Stream”, “Rivers of Flowers”), and the unexpected return of youth (“Late Spring”). Phacelia (melliferous grass) becomes a symbol of love and joy of life. “Phacelia” testified to Prishvin’s refusal to depict external plot action. Movement in a work is the movement of the narrator’s thoughts and feelings.

In the 1930s he worked on a major work - the novel “The Master and Margarita” by M. Bulgakov. This is a multi-faceted philosophical novel. It merged several creative trends characteristic of Bulgakov’s works of the 20s. The central place in the novel is occupied by the drama of a master artist who came into conflict with his time. The novel was originally conceived as an apocryphal “gospel of the devil,” and the future title characters were absent from the first editions of the text. Over the years, the original plan became more complex and transformed, incorporating the fate of the writer himself.

Throughout the 1930s, the range of topics developed by masters of historical fiction expanded significantly. This enrichment of topics occurs not only due to a chronologically greater coverage of various topics and moments in history. What is significant and important is that literature’s very approach to historical reality is changing, gradually becoming more mature, in-depth and versatile. New aspects appear in the artistic coverage of the past. The creative aspirations of novelists of the 20s were almost entirely confined to one main theme - depicting the struggle of various social groups. Now in the historical novel, in addition to this previous line, a new, fruitful and important ideological and thematic line is emerging: writers are increasingly turning to the heroic history of the people’s struggle for their independence, taking on the task of covering the formation of the most important stages of national statehood, their books embody themes of military glory , history of national culture.

In many ways, literature now solves the problem of a positive hero in a historical novel in a new way. The pathos of denial of the old world, which permeated the historical novel of the 20s, determined the predominance of a critical tendency in relation to the past. Along with overcoming such one-sidedness, new heroes enter the historical novel: outstanding statesmen, generals, scientists and artists.

In the form of a small genre, the art of observing life and the skills of concise and precise writing are honed. The story and essay become an effective means of learning new things in fast-moving modernity, a laboratory of artistic and journalistic skill. The abundance and efficiency of small genres make it possible to widely cover all aspects of life. The moral and philosophical content of the short story, the social and journalistic movement of thought in the essay, the sociological generalizations in the feuilleton - this is what marked the small genres of prose of the 30s. An outstanding short story writer of the 30s is A. Platonov. As an artist-philosopher who focuses on themes of moral and humanistic sound, A. Platonov gravitates towards the genre of story-parable. The eventual moment in such a story is sharply weakened, as is the geographical flavor. The artist's attention is focused on the spiritual evolution of the character, depicted with subtle psychological skill (“Fro”, “Immortality”, “In a Beautiful and Furious World”).

The 30s were the time of summing up significant socio-historical, philosophical and ethical results in prose. It is no coincidence that all the major epics that began in the 20s (“Quiet Don”, “The Life of Klim Samgin”, “Walking Through Torment”) were completed during this period.

Dramaturgy

The 20th century in Russian drama began with the plays of A.P. Chekhov. Chekhov's plays from the turn of the century - "Ivanov", and "The Seagull", and "Uncle Vanya", and "Three Sisters", and "The Cherry Orchard" - to this day hide a certain secret and promise a sublime revelation. That is why the stage history of Chekhov's drama is so rich, and in the world theater of the last decade of the 20th century, Chekhov became, of course, the most repertoire of the classics, leaving even Shakespeare behind. Perhaps there is not a single famous director in modern theatrical practice who has not made his contribution to the stage history of Chekhov's plays: these are Brook, and Ronconi, and Strehler, and Krejcha, and Stein, and Palitch, and Shero, and many others.

Chekhov's hero is a free person who leaves his mark on the world by the very fact that he lives, regardless of more or less successful compliance with generally accepted formalities associated with his occupation, social status or degree of personal talent. Essentially, each of his characters is a “thing in itself,” a closed, closed and completely self-sufficient system. Here everyone is their own victim, executioner, judge, accuser, and defender. Everyone is right and everyone is to blame, everyone is unhappy in their own way. Chekhov's heroes do not hear each other, so in his plays we find not dialogues and polylogues, but long monologues of some characters, every now and then inappropriately interrupted by other monologues. Everyone talks about their own painful issues, being no longer able to feel and share someone else’s pain.

Chekhov was a contemporary of the “poet of world disharmony” I.F. Annensky, a contemporary of the older symbolists and “almost contemporaries” A. Blok and A. Bely. Therefore, symbols as signs of world disharmony are also important in Chekhov’s plays, especially in his last drama, “The Cherry Orchard.”

Chekhov is for the dramaturgy of the 20th century what Pushkin is for Russian literature as a whole - “our everything.” In his work one can find the origins of almost all any serious trends in the future world theater. He is a kind of forerunner of the symbolist theater of Maeterlinck, and the psychological drama of Ibsen and Shaw, and the intellectual drama of Brecht, Anouilh, Sartre, and the drama of the absurd, and modern postmodern drama. In a certain sense, all Russian drama of the last century and its largest representatives (E.L. Schwartz, A.N. Arbuzov, A.V. Vampilov, A.M. Volodin) can be called post-Chekhov drama. This fact must always be kept in mind when we discuss the development of Russian drama and Russian theater of the 20th century.

A unique phenomenon of Russian drama at the beginning of the 20th century, also directly related to the Moscow Art Theater, were the works of L.N. Andreeva. During his generally not so long creative life, he created about two dozen plays, and his artistic method was defined by critics and literary scholars in a wide variety of terms: neorealism, fantastic realism, real mysticism, expressionism, panpsychism. One thing is obvious - Leonid Andreev was one of the authors who “overcame realism”, tirelessly looking for ways to update dramatic art beyond the framework of traditional everyday theater.

How a conversation about Russian poetry of the turn of the century now most often begins with the personality and creativity of I.F. Annensky, and I would like to start the conversation about Russian modernist drama of this period with his dramatic works. All four plays written by Annensky - “Melanippe the Philosopher”, “King Ixion”, “Laodamia” and “Thamira the Kifared” - are connected by the unity of the author’s concept, the playwright’s original dialogue with the tradition of Hellenistic drama, the choice of the hero - lonely, suffering, but bright, talented, capable of challenging fate.

Along with the appeal to the traditions of ancient drama, another striking feature of the development of Russian drama of the Silver Age is the revival of interest in medieval mystery and folk square performance, “booth”. It is characteristic that it was at the beginning of the 20th century that the fundamental theoretical works on the mystery theater of A. Veselovsky, A. Gvozdev, P. Morozov and other domestic and foreign scientists were created. A special place among them is occupied by the works of N.

Evreinov, director, stage reformer and scientist, dedicated to the formation and development of Russian theater and its ritual forms, which the author considered in the context of the world theatrical tradition.

The lyrical dramaturgy of A.A. was of fundamental importance for the development of the mystery and farce form in Russian drama at the beginning of the 20th century. Blok. Masquerade and “harlequinade” genetically go back to Western European and Old Russian laughter culture, and such genres of early Russian drama as interlude, interlude, interaction transformed the Western European and Russian origins of laughter and passed them on to subsequent generations of playwrights.

An approach to understanding the culture and theater of past eras through “style”, akin to the “miriskusniks”, is found in the dramaturgy of M.A. Kuzmina. Since the mid-1900s, he has been active as a playwright and composer in St. Petersburg miniature theaters and cabarets. His numerous and, as a rule, one-act plays reflected the aesthetics of a folk farce in a unique way. Thus, in the play “The Madmen of Venice” (1912), the action moves to the era of the 18th century. Here the author managed to capture and skillfully convey the atmosphere of the Venetian carnival, a mixture of illusion and reality. This atmosphere is created by alternating short scenes that twist the acute intrigue of several love triangles at once, skillfully connected by songs, dances and pantomimes. Venetian aristocrats, languishing in search of amusing entertainment, and the actors of the traveling troupe of commedia dell'arte change roles and masks so often throughout the play that the boundary between reality and convention is completely blurred.

A slightly different approach to mastering the traditions of folk farce theater was proposed by A.M. Remizov. Unlike F.K. Sologuba and M.A. Kuzmin, he did not strive, using medieval theatrical forms, to establish live contact with his contemporary audience. Remizov tried to resurrect in his dramatic works the very religious consciousness of the Russian people, characteristic of the Middle Ages, in which Christian and pagan components were intricately combined.

Thus, I.F. Annensky, F.K. Sologub, A.M. Remizov, V.I. Ivanov and some other representatives of unrealistic drama made an attempt to revive the ancient forms of ancient and medieval theater on a new, modern basis, to harmonize the image of the restless soul of modern man, torn by contradictions, in the strict, clear form of ancient tragedy or medieval mystery. It was on this path that they saw the key to the progress and development of world theater of the 20th century. Now, at the turn of the twenty-first century, it has become obvious that both the realistic and modernist drama of the Silver Age have proven their viability and fruitfulness and have become the main, main directions in the development of Russian drama of the 20th century.

The increased interest in the Middle Ages is leading to the restoration of ancient theatrical forms in Russia as well. Two legendary figures of Russian theater of the Silver Age - innovative directors Vsevolod Meyerhold and Nikolai Evreinov - each in their own way sought to revive the medieval mystery play. N.N. Evreinov fundamentally did not want to change anything in the medieval spectacle. The Ancient Theater, which he created in St. Petersburg and lasted for two seasons, set itself the goal of showing as accurately as possible the development of the mystery scene from liturgical drama to the games themselves. V.E. Meyerhold was interested not so much in the mystery itself in its pure form, but in some of its aspects necessary for the director to create his own original theatrical system.

The birth of the Moscow Art Theater at the very end of the 19th century gave an unconditional impetus to the development of Russian realistic drama. Young talented playwrights S. A. Naydenov, E. N. Chirikov and, of course, M. Gorky - natives of the Russian province, who came to literature through Teleshov’s “Wednesdays”, each in their own way sought to combine in their work the tradition of the everyday theater of A.N. Ostrovsky, updated realism by A.P. Chekhov and his own vision of acute moral and social problems of our time.

K.S. Stanislavsky and V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, V.E. Meyerhold, E.B. Vakhtangov, A.Ya. Tairov, M.A. Chekhov, N.N. Evreinov - behind each of these great director names is not just its own aesthetics, a special artistic world, but a whole powerful direction in the development of world theater. In addition, each of these theaters represented a special, unique world, even in picturesque and scenographic design: such masters as M. Dobuzhinsky, A. Golovin, V. Dmitriev worked at the Art Theater; in the Moscow Art Theater 2nd - B. Kustodiev, V. Libakov, M. Nivinsky, V. Favorsky; at the Chamber Theater - A. Ekster, P. Kuznetsov, G. Yakulov, V. Ryndin; at the Jewish Theater - M. Chagall and A. Tyshler.

In the Russian theater of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Along with the decline of reactionary art, there is a powerful rise of the democratic trend, associated with the growth of the revolutionary movement.

The Maly Theater in Moscow and the Alexandrinsky Theater in St. Petersburg were essentially saved only by the high skill of the actors. The best of them, enriching the traditions of the older generation, introduced new progressive features into theatrical art. The heroic-romantic work of the great Russian actress M. N. Ermolova takes on a revolutionary sound. The soulful art of other luminaries of the Maly Theater - G.N. Fedotova, A.P. Lensky, M.P. - maintains a close connection with public sentiment. and O.O. Sadovskikh, A.I. Yuzhin, as well as outstanding actors of the Alexandrinsky Theater - V.N. Davydov, M.G. Savina, K.A. Varlamov and others.

Dissatisfaction with the direction and activities of the official stage, the desire to clear away routine and renew theatrical art gave rise to the Moscow Art Theater, created in 1898 by K. S. Stanislavsky and V. I. Nemirovich-Datschenko. Born in the turbulent period on the eve of the first Russian revolution, this theater quickly won the love of democratic circles. Its founders, creatively applying their aesthetic and ethical ideas, introduced innovative principles of in-depth psychological disclosure of the image, stage ensemble, and ideological and artistic integrity of the performance into acting, directing and production skills.

In an effort to give an answer to the burning problems of our time, the Moscow Art Theater turns to the dramaturgy of A.P. Chekhov, M. Gorky, G. Ibsen. In the performances “The Seagull” (1898), “Uncle Vanya” (1899), “Three Sisters” (1901), “The Cherry Orchard” (1904), the audience saw a call to overcome philistinism, faith in the value person, longing for a better life.

Of particular importance was the production of Gorky’s play “At the Depths” (1902), which awakened a sense of high humanism and an angry protest against the blatant injustices of the bourgeois system. The productions of Ibsen’s plays “Doctor Shtokman” (1900) and “Brand” (1906) received a great public response. During these same years, the restless, passionate talent of the outstanding actress V.F. Komissarzhevskaya blossomed. Revealing in a number of images she created the tragedy of a woman enslaved by bourgeois society, Komissarzhevskaya called with her creativity to fight against everything that cripples a person’s soul and interferes with his happiness. During the period of reaction that came after the defeat of the revolution of 1905-1907, symbolist trends intensified in the Russian theater, and a campaign against realism began.

Invited to the Alexandrinsky Theater in 1908, the talented, but imbued with contradictory sentiments, director V. E. Meyerhold led the movement of so-called theatrical traditionalism. Meyerhold and his supporters proclaimed a return to the traditions of those eras when, in their opinion, “pure theatricality” and “naked acting,” free from the influence of drama, dominated the stage. In the spirit of traditionalism, Meyerhold staged several festive and spectacular performances at the Alexandrinsky Theater: “Don Juan” by Moliere (1910), “Masquerade” by M. Yu. Lermontov (1917), etc. At one time, V. also fell under the influence of the Symbolists. F. Komissarzhevskaya.

Russian acting skills continued to improve steadily. At the Moscow Art Theater, the foundations of Stanislavsky’s system are laid, aimed at deeply revealing the psychology of the image - “the life of the human spirit.” Unique creative individuals are formed here, the greatest masters of stage art - I. M. Moskvin, V. I. Kachalov, L. M. Leonidov, O. L. Knipper-Chekhova, M. P. Lilina and many others. Actors of this school are characterized by the art of living in character on stage, vivid artistic expressiveness, breadth of creative range, and high general and stage culture.

Russian ballet has firmly taken first place in the world and has a great influence on the choreographic art of many countries. Outstanding successes are achieved by choreographers A. A. Gorsky and M. M. Fokin, ballet dancers A. P. Pavlova, E. V. Geltser, T. P. Karsavina, V. F. Nijinsky and others. Their tours on the stages of the largest foreign theaters become a triumph of Russian ballet art.

Opera performing art has also risen to enormous heights in Russia. Wonderful singers performed at the St. Petersburg and Moscow opera houses - F. I. Shalyapin, L. V. Sobinov, A. V. Nezhdanova, I. V. Ershov, who created exceptionally bright and deep images. The conducting work of S. V. Rachmaninov at the Moscow Bolshoi Theater (1904-1906) played a major role in raising the general artistic level of opera performance.

The so-called Russian seasons organized abroad by art historian S. P. Diaghilev - in Paris (1907-1914) and London (1912-1914) - were of great importance for the promotion of Russian theatrical art. The best Russian singers (F. Chaliapin, D. Smirnov) and ballet artists (A. Pavlova, V. Nijinsky) took part in these productions. Prominent artists were involved in the design of the performances.

During the First World War, some Russian theaters paid tribute to chauvinistic and decadent influences. Adultery is becoming a fashionable theme in bourgeois drama. Responding to the tastes of the jaded nouveau riche, dozens of “light genre” theaters are springing up like mushrooms after rain, cultivating tabloid-pornographic drama.

In December 1915 - January 1916, the All-Russian Congress of People's Theater Workers took place in Moscow. He showed the urgent need to make theatrical art the property of the working people and the impossibility of achieving this under the conditions of Tsarist Russia.

Theater L.N. Andreev became a bright innovative phenomenon in Russian and European dramaturgy of the 20th century, but at the same time, his desire to free drama from the oppression of everyday life and return to the stage the breath of high tragedy - all this was the general main direction of development of the Russian theater of that time, in the mainstream of which they conducted their artistic search by representatives of the modernist wing in Russian literature of the Silver Age.

The leading genre in the drama of the 20s was the heroic-romantic play. “Storm” by V. Bill-Belotserkovsky, “Yarovaya Love” by K. Trenev, “Fracture” by B. Lavrenev - these plays are united by epic breadth, the desire to reflect the mood of the masses as a whole. These works are based on a deep socio-political conflict, the theme of the “break” of the old and the birth of a new world. Compositionally, these plays are characterized by a wide coverage of what is happening over time, the presence of many side lines not related to the main plot, free transfer of action from one places to another.

For example, in the play “Storm” by V. Bill-Belotserkovsky there are many crowd scenes. It includes Red Army soldiers, security officers, a sailor, an editor, a lecturer, a military commissar, Komsomol members, a secretary, a military instructor, and a supply manager. There are many other persons who have neither names nor positions. Neither human relationships, but history is the main source of plot development in the play. The main thing in it is the depiction of a historical battle. This is due to the lack of purposefully developing intrigue, the fragmentation and independence of individual scenes. The central character of the play is the Chairman of Ukom, a person who is more symbolic than real. But he actively intervenes in life: he organizes the fight against typhus, exposes the rogue from the center, punishes Savandeev for his irresponsible attitude towards women, etc. Thus, “Storm” was openly propaganda in nature. But in those years, the significance of such plays and the power of their impact were stronger than plays of a deeply psychological nature.

A special place in the drama of the 20s is occupied by M. Bulgakov’s play “Days of the Trubins” - one of the best plays about the civil war, about the fate of people in a turning point. Bulgakov's play "Days of the Turbins", written in the footsteps of the "White Guard", becomes the "second "Seagull" of the Art Theater. Lunacharsky called it "the first political play of the Soviet theater." The premiere, which took place on October 5, 1926, made Bulgakov famous. The story told by the playwright shocked the audience with its life-like truth of the disastrous events that many of them had recently experienced. The images of white officers that Bulgakov fearlessly brought onto the stage of the best theater in the country, against the backdrop of a new audience, a new way of life, acquired an expanded meaning for the intelligentsia, no matter whether military or civilian. The performance, met with hostility by official criticism, was soon withdrawn, but was restored in 1932

The action of the drama fits within the Turbins’ house, where “the revolution bursts in like a terrible whirlwind.”

Alexey and Nikolay Turbins, Elena, Lariosik, Myshlaevsky are kind and noble people. They cannot understand the complex elements of events, understand their place in them, or determine their civic duty to their homeland. All this gives rise to an alarming, internally tense atmosphere in the Turbins’ house. They are worried about the destruction of the old familiar way of life. That is why the very image of the house, the stove, which brings warmth and comfort, in contrast to the surrounding world, plays such a large role in the play.

In the 1920s, a number of comedy theaters were created. In the field of comedy, M. Gorky and L. Leonov, A. Tolstoy and V. Mayakovsky honed their satirical skills. It was bureaucrats, careerists, and hypocrites who fell in the satirical sights.

The subject of merciless exposure was philistinism. The well-known comedies of those years “Mandate” and “Suicide” by N. Erdman, “Air Pie” by B. Romashov, “Zoykina’s Apartment” and “Ivan Vasilyevich” by M. Bulgakov, “Embezzlers” and “Squaring the Circle” by V. Kataev were dedicated to exactly this topic.

A special place in the drama of the 20s belongs to Mayakovsky’s comedies “The Bedbug” and “Bathhouse”; they are a satire (with dystopian elements) on an embourgeois society that has forgotten about the revolutionary values for which it was created. The internal conflict with the surrounding reality of the coming “bronze” Soviet age, undoubtedly, was among the most important incentives that pushed the poet to the last rebellion against the laws of the world order - suicide.

Let us consider the main trends in the development of domestic drama in the 1950-1990s.

1950-1960s

In the 1950s and 1960s, the genre range of dramaturgy significantly diversified. Comedy, socio-psychological and historical-documentary dramas are being developed. To a greater extent than in prose and poetry, interest in the young contemporary, in real life in its most acute contradictions, intensifies.
Social and psychological plays by V. Rozov, such as “Good Hour!” were especially popular. (1954) and In Search of Joy (1956). “Good morning!” and is currently being staged on the theater stage.

Increasingly, dramaturgy drew attention to the everyday problems of ordinary people. Exploring the psychology of human relationships, playwrights place characters in recognizable life circumstances. The dramas of A. Volodin and E. Radzinsky are dedicated to love.

Turning to the theme of war, playwrights of the 1950s and 1960s moved away from journalism; they viewed problems such as duty and conscience, heroism and betrayal, honor and dishonor through the prism of moral values. One of the best plays in the repertoire of those years was A. Salynsky’s play “The Drummer” (1958).

Drama of the Thaw period

During the "thaw" period, theatrical art developed in close cooperation with poetry. On the stage of the Taganka Drama and Comedy Theater, poetic performances were performed, the dramatic basis of which was the poems of the classics V. Mayakovsky and S. Yesenin, and the works of contemporaries - A. Voznesensky and E. Yevtushenko. The theater under the direction of Yu. Lyubimov gravitated towards expressive forms of imagery, and thanks to the “Iron Curtain” that was slightly opened at that time, the country’s artistic culture partly came into contact with Western European and American art. In particular, Y. Lyubimov’s direction was influenced by the creativity and theoretical concepts of B. Brecht.

The work of M. Shatrov, who showed the image of Lenin from an unusual perspective, is associated with the “thaw”. In Shatrov’s documentary-historical, political dramaturgy, a documentary fact is subject to analytical research, and not a myth about the leader created by political ideologists. His most successful play of the Thaw period is “The Sixth of July” (first edition - 1964, second - 1973). In it, the playwright explores the problem of the relationship between a goal, even a high one, and the means to achieve it. M. Shatrov turned to the image of Lenin in subsequent decades. He himself defined the genre uniqueness of his plays as “publicistic drama” and “publicistic tragedy.” There is every reason for this: open journalisticism is inherent in such highly controversial plays by M. Shatrov of the 1970s and 1980s as “Blue Horses on Red Grass” (1977) and “So Let’s Whiten It!” (1981).

Dramaturgy in the late 1960s - 1980s.

The end of the “thaw” required other heroes and an adequate assessment of reality and the moral state of society, which was far from the supposed ideal. At the end of the 1960s, there was a decline in the development of drama. Obviously, this was the reason for the active appeal of theaters in the 1970s to the works of domestic prose writers F. Abramov, V. Tendryakov, Yu. Bondarev, V. Bykov, B. Vasiliev, D. Granin, V. Rasputin, Yu. Trifonov, B Mozhaeva, V. Shukshina, Ch. Aitmatova.

In the same 1970s, research into the most pressing problems of socio-economic. moral and psychological nature was dealt with by journalistically focused production. or sociological, drama by I. Dvoretsky, G. Bokarev, A. Grebnev, V. Chernykh, etc. The “production” plays of A. Gelman were especially popular.

Over time, the tone of social, everyday and socio-psychological drama also changed. V. Rozov, A. Volodin, A. Arbuzov. A. Vampilov and other authors tried to understand the causes of the moral crisis of society, the changes that occur in the inner world of a person living according to the laws of double morality of “stagnant time”.

The turning point in V. Rozov’s dramaturgy was reflected in the play “Traditional Gathering” (1966), dedicated to the theme of summing up life’s results, which contrast with the romantic aspirations of the heroes of his dramas of the 1950s. In the plays of the 1970s and 1980s, “The Wood Grouse's Nest” (1978), “The Master” (1982), “The Boar” (1987) and others, Rozov turned to the theme of the gradual destruction of an initially promising personality. Universal human values became the subject of reflection in the plays of L. Volodin and E. Radzinsky. Both authors used parable forms for the purpose of philosophical comprehension of timeless situations, problems, and characters.

A. Arbuzov’s plays of the 1970s and 1980s are devoted to the problem of internal degradation of an outwardly successful personality. The pathos of denial of “cruel games” in which both adults and children are involved, deprived of parental love at one time, is marked by his dramas dedicated to the topic of mutual responsibility of people for what happens to them. The playwright created the "Dramatic Opus" cycle, which includes three dramas - "Evening Light" (1974), "Cruel Intentions" (1978) and "Memoirs" (1980).

The mental and spiritual infantilism of a contemporary is the key theme of A. Vampilov’s dramaturgy, which appeared on the theater stage in the 1970s. In the words of the critic L. Anninsky, the playwright created a type of “average moral” hero, whose character is so dependent on the proposed circumstances that it is impossible to understand what he really is. This is the hero of Vampilov’s play “Duck Hunt” (1970), Viktor Zilov. The name of A. Vampilov is associated with the strengthening of the role of symbolism and the grotesque in Russian drama.

Drama of the 1980s - 1990s

The discovery of the “heroless” hero A. Vampilov is perceived as a milestone in the development of Russian drama in the second half of the 20th century. The work of the “new wave” authors who came to drama at the turn of the 1980s and adopted Vampilov’s experience was called “post-Vampilov drama.”
This concept of dramaturgy unites the work of playwrights L. Petrushevskaya, V. Arro, V. Slavkin,

A. Galin, L. Razumovskaya and others, differing in style, but united by the pathos of addressing the negativity that has accumulated in the everyday, private life of people who have lost from the value field the concept of home, the image of which has long been key in Russian literature. Thus, the “post-vampire theater” loudly declared that the human personality is not reducible to just one socio-professional function. And a contemptuous attitude towards personal everyday and family problems is ultimately fraught with serious moral vices.

During the years of perestroika, at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, artistic journalism of “sociological” drama gave way to journalism proper, and dramatic works themselves were replaced by dramatizations of memoir literature. In productions of works by V. Shalamov, E. Ginzburg, A. Solzhenitsyn, the theme of totalitarianism was explored in a psychological key. Using the same material in the late 1980s, A. Kazantsev wrote the dramatic dystopia “Great Buddha, help them!” (1988), the action of which takes place in the "exemplary Commune of Great Ideas." The playwright examines the theme of a totalitarian regime in terms of the problem of the individual and the state.

In Russian dramaturgy of the second half of the 20th century, the postmodernist feeling did not manifest itself as early as in other literary genres. This is not least due to the fact that theater as a public phenomenon was primarily under the close attention of censorship.

The most clearly postmodern way of understanding reality was manifested in Wen's unfinished play. Erofeev "Walpurgis Night, or Commander's Steps!" (1985). The content of the play is based on a comparison of life with a madhouse: the reasonable in this life turns out to be abnormal, and the abnormal turns out to be reasonable. Thus, in the postmodern drama “Walpurgis Night...” there is no pronounced conflict, the plot is fragmented, the system of characters is devoid of hierarchy, and gender and genre boundaries are blurred.

The postmodernist dramas of the last decade of the 20th century by N. Sadur, D. Lipskerova and others are associated with the traditions of the theater of the absurd. The ideas of postmodern consciousness about the world and man are expressed in modern drama by such means as the absence of cause-and-effect relationships, interdependence of characters and circumstances, plotlessness, spatial -temporal deformations, isolation and alienation of characters.

On the other hand, in the 1990s, an opposite trend emerged in the development of domestic drama. The plays of M. Ugarov, E. Gremina, O. Mikhailov and others are dominated by a nostalgically bright pathos for the distant, idyllically beautiful past. Playwrights create a poetically sublime image of the lives of characters whose speech is literary standardized and replete with quotes from Chekhov's comedies. This creates the effect of different eras reflecting each other, which has at least a double meaning. Either the playwrights want to point out that the desired harmony is achievable only in artistic reality, or they remind us of the “sound of a breaking string,” which, in the words of Chekhov’s Firs, foreshadows “misfortune” from “will.”

Book materials used: Literature: textbook. for students avg. prof. textbook institutions / ed. G.A. Obernikhina. M.: "Academy", 2010

XIV
WESTERN DRAMATURGY OF THE XX CENTURY

General characteristics. — Theater of German Expressionism. The “I-drama” phenomenon. Kaiser's play "Coral". — Drama by Pirandello. “Six characters in search of an author”: new relationships between the stage and the hall. — Garcia Lorca: poetic theater. The tragedy "Bloody Wedding": the interaction of the language of literature and theater. — Brecht’s “Epic Theater”: a dispute with the Aristotelian doctrine of catharsis; awakening the viewer's socially critical activity. “Mother Courage and her children”: the genre of historical chronicle. “The Life of Galileo”: the image of a scientist. Wilder's search: one of the options for “non-Aristotelian” dramaturgy. — O'Neill: “Long Day's Journey into Night” (a tragedy based on autobiographical material). — Existentialist dramaturgy. “Theater of Situations.” “Flies” by Sartre: interpretation of an ancient plot. — “Theater of the Absurd”: tragedy and farce in Beckett and Ionesco "Waiting for Todo": dramatization of "nothing" "Angry Young Men" - "Don Juan, or the Love of Geometry" by Frisch and "Rosenkranz and Tildenstern are Dead" by Stoppard: variations on traditional themes - Schaeffer's dramaturgy "King's Hunt" beyond the sun": a synthesis of "epic theater" and "theater of cruelty" by Artaud. - Bernhard's dramaturgy. "The Force of Habit": the "order" of art and the chaos of the world. "Ithaca" by Strauss and "Arcadia" by Stoppard: two understandings of modernity.

The evolution of Western theater went in two main directions in the 20th century. Firstly, this is the transformation of the theater from the inside, associated either with the presentation of new themes and motives, or with the rethinking of tradition. Secondly, these are fundamental changes in the sphere of interaction between the stage and the viewer, the idea of using theater to activate the viewer, be it participation in public life (“epic theater” by B. Brecht) or in ritual (“play of the demon” by F. García Lorca, “ theater of cruelty" by A. Artaud). Let us add that in the 20th century, theatrical art, in the ways of enriching expressiveness, absorbs the possibilities of such seemingly different arts as cinematography and photography.

It is important to note that the theater of the 20th century is primarily a director's theater. Instead of the dictate of the author (or actor), the dictate of the professional director is firmly established in the theater as the main intermediary between the play and the performance, the play and the actor, the play and the audience. The distance between the text and its stage embodiment increases endlessly. Nevertheless, there are many examples of fruitful collaboration between playwrights and theater groups. A rare combination of dramaturgical and directing practice represents the work of Brecht, who created both an influential theory of theatrical art and his own theater (Berliner Ensemble, 1949). The creators of the theaters were also L. Pirandello (Teatro d'Arte, 1925), F. Garcia Lorca (La Baracca, 1931); T. Wilder, J. Anouilh, S. Beckett staged their plays.

The 20th century was marked by a fairly rapid change in various directions in drama and directing. Among the theatrical concepts that have proven to be the most stable over the course of a century, one should name “realism” by K. S. Stanislavsky, “theater of cruelty” by A. Artaud (“Theater of Cruelty. First Manifesto”, 1932; “Second Manifesto”, 1933), “epic theater" by B. Brecht. Being in conflict with each other in the middle of the century, in the 1990s they became material for stylizations and parodies. or, more often, they coexist as heterogeneous elements of one performance.

In the theater of the 20th century, the conventionally metaphorical tradition (the intellectual drama of the existentialists and Brecht, the “theater of the absurd”) coexists with the desire for naturalistic life-likeness (the dramaturgy of the English and German “angry ones”) and the aesthetics of the document (German docudrama of the 1960s). The requirement for a shock effect on the viewer (A. Artaud) is opposed by the rejection of emotions in favor of critical judgment (B. Brecht). Despite the monopoly of the prose element in drama, verse drama does not disappear (T. S. Eliot). Preference is given either to the theatrical performance itself (Dadaist and surrealistic performances), or to the text of the play, in which the monologue word prevails over the stage action (the dramaturgy of the Germans P. Handke and H. Müller, the French J.-P. Wenzel and B.-M. Coltes ).

The most important question that theater at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries (H. Ibsen, M. Maeterlinck) posed to the playwrights of the 20th century was the question of the hidden resources of the prosaic word in drama. By bringing to the stage the burning problems of modern society and the peculiarities of modern consciousness, playwrights of the turn of the century opened up new possibilities for dramatic dialogue. The theater was enriched with “discussion” (H. Ibsen, B. Shaw), “background dialogue” and “silence” (M. Maeterlinck). The tradition of “discussion” is followed by intellectual drama, which includes French drama of the 1930s (J. Giraudoux, J. Anouilh), existentialist drama of the 1940s (J.-P. Sartre, A. Camus), and the drama of Brecht. If Giraudoux's dramaturgy is based on a witty play of thought that compromises common sense in paradoxes and puns, then Brecht is alien to the spirit of French intellectualism. For him, dispute and paradox are by no means a game, but a means to teach the viewer to think.

Maeterlinck’s “Supporting Dialogue”, as well as the famous Chekhovian subtext, were perceived in the 20th century as an opportunity to convey several parallel meanings with one remark, to gradually instill a hidden truth or, conversely, to obscure and hide the truth behind a stream of banal dialogue. Poetic subtext and the charm of lyricism are palpable in the dramas of P. Claudel and F. Garcia Lorca. In expressionist plays (G. Kaiser, early Yu. O'Neil), the confused speeches of the characters sometimes conceal their fears and doubts; in S. Beckett, the paradoxical dialogue hides the emptiness of existence and the horror of it. If in the plays of many absurdists (Beckett, V. Hildesheimer) play on words indicates the impossibility of communication, while in H. Pinter, conversations “around the bush" illustrate not the impossibility, but the fear of speaking directly. In modern drama, the speech of characters, filled with cliches of the media, often allows one to remain silent about what is truly significant.

The desire to reveal the meaning of modernity through metaphor pushed playwrights to use mythological imagery. The possibilities of myth already attracted the surrealists: G. Apollinaire turns to the figure of the soothsayer Tiresias “The Tears of Tiresias”, 1917), J. Cocteau sends the modern Orpheus to Hades to win the new Eurydice from death (“Orpheus”, 1928). The focus on seeing modern reality through the prism of past eras and myth was characteristic of intellectual drama in the 1930s. For both Giraudoux and Anouilh, the extravagance of the dramatic situation in this period is important, allowing one to show the contradictions of modernity: “Amphitryon 38” (1929), “There will be no Trojan War” (1935), “Electra” (1937) by J. Giraudoux, “Eurydice” "(1942) J. Anouya.

During the German occupation, mythology in the plays of French existentialists became a kind of “Aesopian language” (“The Flies” by Sartre, post. 1943; “Antigone” by Anouilh, post. 1943), making it possible to evaluate modernity, moving away from it. Interest in mythological subjects has not waned throughout the 20th century. One should also mention here “Mourning - the Fate of Electra” (1931) by Y. O’Neill, “Orpheus Descends into Hell” (1957) by T. Williams, and among later versions - “Medea-Material” (1981) by H. Muller, “Ithaca” "(1996) B. Strauss.

No less popular are dramas from the lives of historical figures, as well as interpretations of the most important historical events: “The Book of Christopher Columbus” (1927; post. 1953) by P. Claudel, “The Life of Galileo” (1953; post, in an early edition - 1943; post. English version - 1947) B. Brecht, “Becket, or the Honor of God” (1959) J. Anouya, “Luther” (1961) J. Osborne, “A Man for Every Time” (1961) R. Bolt, “Persecution and murder of Marat... (1964; post. 1965) P. Weiss. Brecht proposed a special approach to history: close-ups in his plays are intended for everyday trifles, and skillful editing allows one to avoid depicting “heroic” episodes. The main thing for Brecht is to deprive the viewer of illusions about history, and therefore about modernity.

Directly (bypassing myth and history) modern reality is addressed, although in very different ways, by absurdists and the English “angry” (1950s). Another feature of the dramaturgy of the 20th century is a large number of paraphrases on the themes of the works of the old theater. For example, there are very diverse variations on Shakespearean themes: “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead” (first ed. - 1966; second ed. - 1967) by T. Stoppard, “Hamlet the Machine” (1977; post. 1990) and “Macbeth” (1971; post. 1972) by H. Muller, “McBegg” (1972) by E-Ionesco, “The Merchant” (1977) by A. Wesker.

One of the most striking theatrical movements of the 20th century is German expressionism, which took off in the 1910s and the first half of the 1920s. Expressionists made a name for themselves in drama, directing, acting, scenography, and in the field of musical theater (operas by A. Berg).

The history of expressionist drama can be traced back to 1912, when Reinhard Sorge (1892-1916) published the lyrical-dramatic poem “The Beggar” (Der Bettler, post. 1917). Its main character, the Beggar-Poet, is full of strong passions and impulses. Wanting to assert his creative independence, he becomes the murderer of his own parents (the conflict between fathers and children in expressionism is symbolic) in order to ultimately create a play “for the people” (but at the same time he feels unworthy to devote his life to the masses).

The first expressionist play staged on stage was Walter Hasenclever's drama The Son (Der Sohn, 1914, post. 1916). The clash between fathers and sons, often ending in parricide (A. Bronnen “Parricide”, Vatermord, 1922), the desire for freedom and the denial of conformity - these are the main themes of early expressionist drama. Later, anti-war pathos, as well as social criticism, grew in it, for example, in Ernst Toller (Ernst Toller, 1893-1939).

Conventionally, the dramaturgy of expressionism can be divided into two directions. The first includes plays with socio-philosophical content, in which a person is presented as a representative of a certain class, as a social mask. The second includes dramas on philosophical and mystical themes, in which a lonely, desperate character approaches an abstract Man, a representative not of a people or a class, but of the entire human race. But the most famous expressionist plays combine both layers of content: “Antigone” (Antigone, 1917, post.. 1920) by V. Hasenclever; “The Citizens of Calais” (Die Bürger von Calais, 1914, post. 1917), “From Morning to Midnight” (Von morgens bis mitternachts, 1916, post. 1917), “Coral” (Die Koralle, 1917), “Gas- I" (Gasi, 1918), "Gas-II" (Gasił, 1920) by GeorgKaiser (1878-1945); “Mass Man” (Masse-Mensch, 1921), “Eugen the Unfortunate” (Hinkemann, 1923) by E. Toller.

The expressionist is interested not so much in the subject of the image as in the release of his own creative energies, in what he can add to the play “on his own.” Associated with this is the phenomenon of “I-drama” (“Ich-Drama”), “drama-scream” - a play built around one central character striving for maximum self-expression, which is suppressed in every possible way by the civilization of cities, banks, and factories. He, like the expressionist artist himself, sees himself as a prophet and seer. His task is to deform the framework of everyday life, to break through the “case” of stereotypes by any means and thereby prepare for the “ascent” of a person (this motif was often duplicated on stage with a staircase).

The other characters in the “I-drama” and the plot outline itself play only a service role. Everything is subordinated to the revelation of one consciousness and is presented through its prism. The scene of action and the characters of the play exist exclusively in the perception of the central character (“I”) and seem to be called out of oblivion by his ecstatic monologues. Space is deprived of any specific social signs, because, on the one hand, it is a visionary continuation of the “I”, and on the other hand, it is conceived not as a specific place of action, but as space, the universe. Such duality is natural, because the expressionist felt like a lone dreamer, thrown into universal chaos.

The word in an expressionist play prevails over action. Ecstatic language violates the laws of grammar and is built on deliberately irregular, confusing rhythms. Monologue is the only way of self-disclosure known to the heroes of expressionist plays. The interlocutors are actually conducting two parallel developing monologues; they listen only to themselves. A discovery for the theater of the 20th century was that the dramatic person speaks not in order to be heard, but in order to speak his horror, overcome the fear of loneliness, and give a universal scale to the imagery of his consciousness. If the expressionist drama is full of the Idea’s struggle for its rights, then it is difficult to call it “disputable”, since the central character looks more like a madman waving a sword in the dark than a duelist ready to cross swords with a real opponent.

The innovation of the Expressionists manifested itself not only in the sphere of language. Playwrights move away from the naturalistic understanding of the character and approach the late symbolists (especially A. Strindberg) in their interpretation. The expressionist character is devoid of individual traits, comparable to a puppet driven by some mysterious forces. Hence the elements of gothic and fantasy. Expressionism diverges from symbolism in that it operates with stereotypical, and at times even caricatured, imagery. The lack of individuality turns the expressionist character not into a “name”, but into a grotesque mask.

The motif of duality, extremely important for expressionists, is central to Georg Kaiser’s drama “Coral”. The absolute resemblance of the Billionaire and his Secretary (the coral on the Secretary's watch chain is the only way to distinguish them) leads to a tragic outcome. Having shot his double, the Billionaire is not recognized and is convicted of murdering his “employer.” But he is glad to at least die like the Secretary: he possessed the main, in his opinion, value, “life - which is bright - from the very first day.” The coral removed from the Secretary's chain marks the belated acquisition of inner harmony.

The bright memories of his youth are the priceless capital that the Billionaire wants to leave as an inheritance to his son. But the young man does not want to turn a blind eye to the hardships of existence, and becomes a fireman on a coal ship. Contradicting his father, he repeats his fate in his own way.

The Billionaire's final monologue gives the image of coral a new dimension. People appear in his vision as “scattered fragments of a dying coral tree.” They are doomed to loneliness, dreaming of lost unity.

The emphasized subjectivity of the “I-drama” has a double effect. The viewer can identify himself with the character, succumb to the expression, even the magic of the image. At the same time, he is able to distance himself from it, to see the grotesque in the “mask,” as a result of which it becomes possible to look at what is happening on stage “from the outside.” The problem of “distance,” the boundary between the stage and the auditorium, the world of the play and the world beyond, becomes material for philosophizing in the theater of the 20th century. Of course, this topic is not new for the theater, but it was in the 20th century that apologists of the “fourth wall” (the border between the audience and the stage is impassable) and organizers of “happenings” (there seems to be no border at all) coexist in theatrical art. The game “on the edge” became relevant and acquired a variety of forms, receiving an original solution in the dramaturgy of JI in the 1920s. Pirandello.

Luigi Pirandello (Luigi Pirandello, 1867-1936), Italian playwright, prose writer, poet and critic, was born in Sicily, received a philological education at the University of Rome and Bonn. In 1889 he published his first collection of poems, Joyful Pain.

Turning to prose, Pirandello made his debut as a short story writer, and in 1904 he published his most famous novel, The Late Mattia Pascal. He began writing for the theater shortly before the First World War: the drama “The Vise” (La morsa) was staged in Rome (Metastasio Theater) in 1910.

Having studied the dialect of his native Sicily at the University of Bonn, Pirandello wrote several everyday comedies in it, one of which, the play “Liolä” (Liolä, 1916), was called by theater critic E. Bentley “the last Sicilian pastoral.” Philosophical and psychological dramas brought European fame to the Italian playwright. These are, first of all, tragedies: “Henry IV” (Enrico IV, 1922), which raises the question of the reasons for a person’s flight from the real world to the illusory one; “The Nudes Dress” (Vestire gli ignudi, 1922), which reveals the tragic contradiction between “face” and “mask”; “Six Characters in Search of an Author” (Sei personaggi in cerca d'autore, 1921; second ed. - 1925), dedicated to the problem of the relationship between “art” and “life”. The latter forms, together with the plays “Each in his own way” (Ciascuno a suo modo, 1924) and “Today we improvise” (Questra sera si recita a soggetto, 1930) a trilogy on the theme of “theatricality of life”, which emerges especially clearly against the backdrop of the artistic truth of the theater. In the dramas “It is so (if it seems so to you) "(Cosi e (se vi pare), 1917) and "The life that I give to you" (La vita che ti diedi, 1923) Pirandello reflects on the relativity of truth. In 1925, he opens his Teatro d'arte in Rome "(Art Theatre). In 1934, the Italian writer was awarded the Nobel Prize.

The plays of the “trilogy” are united by the use of the “stage on stage” technique, known to the playwrights of the Renaissance; Pirandello uses it to destroy stage illusion and, at the same time, to realize the belief that the whole world is a theater. This faith is far from the joyful conviction in the unlimited possibilities of the game, the beginning of the game. The world as a theater is a world of disguises, not faces and true feelings, because modern people, according to Pirandello, have forgotten how to have their own faces. In such a world, theater is “out of place.” Showing it in the form of wheels and cogs of a certain mechanism (actors, stage, characters, text of the play, prompter's booth, author), Pirandello deprives the theater of any mystery. True, this demystification turns into an exciting game in its own way.

In the play “Six Characters in Search of an Author” we witness a rehearsal of Pirandello’s own play “The Game of Interests” (I giuoco delie parti, 1918). Suddenly, six “spectators” appear on the stage, claiming that they are six Characters (Father, Mother, Stepdaughter, Son, Boy and Girl) looking for the author to ask him about the idea of the play in which they are the characters. With the Director's permission, they half-tell and half-act an "unwritten comedy" consisting of a prologue and two acts. The climax of Act I is a chance meeting between Father and Stepdaughter in a visiting house. The climax of Act II is a quarrel between Mother and Son, leading to a tragic outcome - the death of a little Girl and the suicide of a fourteen-year-old Boy. The Director and Actors are discouraged by the spectacle. Three Characters - Father, Mother and Son - remain on stage, as if limiting the world of their lives to her. The stepdaughter, denying the boundary between fiction and reality, runs away into the “unknown” through the auditorium.

By starting the play with the curtain raised, Pirandello seems to make us believe in the identity of reality on stage and in the auditorium. So, the Actors run from the stage to the stalls, sharing with the audience the bewilderment about the “ghost” of Madame Pace that appeared to them. However, the Characters cannot do this; their existence is limited precisely to the stage, which does not prevent them, however, from appearing not from behind the scenes, but from the side of the auditorium, as if “from the street.”

Pirandello specifically stipulates the need not to confuse the Actors and the six Characters. The difference between these groups of characters is emphasized by their respective location on the stage, as well as by lighting effects, special masks and costumes of the Characters. In the famous production by J. Pitoev (Parisian Théâtre de Champs-à-Elisay, 1923), at the beginning of the performance the actors, dressed in casual costumes, walked onto the stage through the auditorium. But the Characters did not at all follow the theater usher “down the aisle between the chairs to the stage,” “embarrassed and confused, constantly looking around” (according to the author’s remarks). All six were effectively lowered onto the stage in a special cradle, illuminating the event with a bright green light.

The play masterfully interweaves a melodramatic plot and a discussion of the problems of creativity, which receive either an ironic or paradoxical interpretation. What is the relationship between reality, truth and verisimilitude? What is more truthful—life or art, and how relevant are the criteria of verisimilitude to life? In the essay “On the scrupulous considerations of creative fantasy” (Ąwertenza sugli scrupoli delia fantasia, 1921), Pirandello notes that life, even if it is full of absurdities, is so true that it does not need any verisimilitude. Art that deals with fiction strives to be similar to truth. But here lies the paradox: the fictional Characters of the play insist that their story has nothing to do with fiction, but happened “for real.” Replacing the question with a counter-question, Pirandello builds a complex Socratic dialogue on the topic of truth.

Accordingly, the viewer is faced with the need to decide who is more real, truer—the character, a “real living character,” or a living person? The reality of a person is constantly changing, the reality of a character is unchanged. “We don’t change,” Father shouts to the Director, “we cannot change, become “different”; we are who we are (it's scary, isn't it, Mr. Director?). And we will always remain like that!” In other words, if a person’s life has three dimensions (past, present and future), the boundary between which is constantly being recreated, then the character is locked in the present, as if within four walls, for him everything happens “now”, and at the same time, as states Mother, “always happens.” Thus, in a person’s life, which knows no constants, the illusory manifests itself much more strongly than in the once and for all determined reality of the character.

While the performance lasts, Pirandello claims, the Character is more alive and real than the actors and spectators. The stage is his element, the very guarantee of “existence.” Just as “you can be born as a tree or a cobblestone, water, a moth or... a woman,” so you can be born as a theatrical character. However, all these “incarnations” are equally illusory. Man and character, nature and art are therefore not equally real, but equally fictional. The character is endowed with one mask, while the person has to manipulate several.

So, theatricality in the drama “Six Characters in Search of an Author” is both the highest type of illusion, a triumph of creativity, and the tragedy of life, in which a person is doomed to play a role unknown to him. The Director’s exclamation “Light! Light! Give me light!”, the contrasting change of light and darkness, the bluish glow that fills the stage - all this conveys the idea of the need to become spiritually sighted, to overcome the border of deceptive appearances.

Representatives of the poetic theater of the 20th century (F. Garcia Lorca, J. Cocteau, early J. Anouilh, early T. Williams) understand theatricality differently. They see its quintessence in “poetry” contained in theatrical means of expression - scenography, plastic, sound design of the performance.

According to J. Cocteau, the author of the famous play about Orpheus (Orpheus, 1928), traditional “theatrical poetry” (poesie de theatre), dramas in verse, should be contrasted with the poetry of theater as such, and the emphasis should be shifted from the text of the play to its stage embodiment. This point of view is characteristic of representatives of the surrealist theater, for whom the word, an element of rational order, had to be subordinated to the spectacular and sound elements of the performance.

The Spanish poet and playwright Federico Garcia Lorca (Federico Garcia Lorca, 1898-1936) has a slightly different view of things, striving to establish harmony between the poetic word and theatrical ingenuity. Lorca was born in an Andalusian village, near Granada. He began his literary activity while still studying at the University of Granada (collection of travel notes “Impressions and Landscapes”, Impresiones y paisajes, 1918). After graduating from university, he moved to Madrid, where he made his debut both as a playwright (fairy tale play “The Magic of the Butterfly”, El maleficio de la mariposa, 1920; music by C. Debussy) and as a poet (“Book of Poems”, Libro de poemas, 1921) . His plays testify to a careful acquaintance with Spanish theater of the 17th century and folk theater tradition. By his own admission, Lorca spent ten years studying Spanish folklore “not as a scientist, but as a poet.” In 1933, he staged a musical performance based on Spanish folk songs, and from 1931 to 1933 he headed the student theater "La Barraca" (Spanish - "Balagan").

Lorca defined the genre of the heroic-romantic drama “Mariana Pineda” (1927) as “a folk romance in three prints,” thus emphasizing the combination of the lyrical musicality of the drama, its “songability,” with the special nature of entertainment. The fabric of Lorca's dramas is organically woven into the poetic and musical elements, as well as symbolically conventional scenography.

Lorca's other plays are extremely diverse in genre. The “cruel farce” “The Wonderful Shoemaker” (La zapatera prodigiosa, 1930) is in the spirit of an Andalusian folk comic performance. “The play “The Love of Don Perlimplin” (Amor de don Perlimplin con Beiisa en su jardin, 1931, post. 1933) is written in the tradition of folk tragedy, and “Don Cristobal’s Showcase” (Retablillo de don Cristobal, 1931) is in the genre of farce for puppetry theater; The play “When Five Years Pass” (Asi que pasen cinco ańos, 1938) is a “legend of time”, or, according to the author’s definition, “a mystery in prose and verse.”

Poetic theater, according to Lorca, involves the combination of lyrical and dramatic principles in one work. In an interview in 1935, he admitted that the dramatic element certainly predominates in him: “I am more interested in people than in the landscape in which they are embedded. I, of course, am capable of contemplating a mountain range for a quarter of an hour, but still I will definitely go down to the valley to talk with a shepherd or a woodcutter.” Poetry is a contemplative and “ideal” principle, theater is active and consisting of “flesh and blood.” “Theater is poetry that has risen from the pages of a book and taken on flesh. And then she speaks, screams, sobs if despair sets in. The characters entering the stage must be filled with poetry, but at the same time they must be alive - made of flesh and blood. The theater requires this." On the one hand, poetry is literally present in Lorca’s plays: his characters sing and speak in verse. On the other hand, poetry is the spirit of the performance, its rhythm. Theater gives poetry a voice, a form of expression of emotions, and gives life to mysterious and illogical poetic imagery.

Feeling the connection of his drama with the traditions of Spanish theater, Lorca spoke about the need to return tragedy to the modern stage. “Bloody Wedding” (Bodas de sangre, 1933), “Yerma” (1934) and “The House of Bernarda Alba” (La casa de Bernarda Alba, 1936, published 1945) are among the most striking examples of this genre in the XX theater century-. Blood Wedding takes place in a village in southern Spain. On her wedding day, the Bride runs away with her former lover, Leonardo Felix, the only character in the play who has a name. The Groom with his relatives and the Bride's relatives rush into pursuit, ending in the death of both Leonardo and the Groom.

The play begins with a tense, deliberately laconic dialogue between Mother and Groom. The author's remark (“a room painted yellow”) is equally laconic. Nothing more is said about the situation. Unlike the stage directions of a naturalistic play, which scrupulously describe the characters’ habitat, the stage directions for “Bloody Wedding” are focused not on the life-like appearance of the scene, but on creating the atmosphere and mood of a particular scene. Thus, the colors begin to acquire an allegorical meaning (white - wedding, red - blood). Hinting at the symbolic dimension of what is happening, they also interact with other stage effects (light, sound). The darkness of night enveloping the meeting of the Bride and Leonardo in the 1st scene of Act II; gives way to the dawn of the upcoming wedding day, but the 2nd scene (ending with the escape of the Bride and Leonardo) is done in cold gray, blue and silver tones, as if foreshadowing the ominous blue glow of the Moon in the fateful III act.

The scene in the yellow room is full of foreboding and omens. Having lost her husband and son, Mother anxiously asks why her last son takes a knife with him. She angrily takes up arms against all weapons - “everything that can kill a man.” The main oppositions of the play are quickly outlined. On one side are vineyards, olive trees, earth, motherhood, the world of women; on the other - guns and pistols, pride and family honor, the world of men. And between these worlds there is blood, both inextricably and forever connecting (kinship), and forever, “until the grave,” separating (blood feud).

The mental state of the characters is echoed by natural phenomena: heat, “the blood of dawn in the sky,” a rapid stream, dark groves, the moon taking the form of a young woodcutter with a pale face (one of the characters in the play). Also, Death, in the guise of a Beggar Woman, takes part in what is happening. Nature not only corresponds to the experiences and actions of the characters, but controls them. The death of Leonardo and the Groom is the result of a conspiracy between the Moon and Death. Having responded to the call of blood, the Bride and Leonardo inevitably find themselves at the mercy of inexorable cosmic forces.

The pattern of their death is obvious for the three woodcutters who appear in the 1st scene of Act III to the sounds of violins and play the role of an ancient choir. On the one hand, they defend the laws of the clan, on the other, they put the law of nature, blood above human laws (“We must follow the command of blood”) and, sympathizing with the lovers, they conjure death: “Sad death! Leave them / For love a green shelter.” But the frequent mention of death is also a call for its appearance. “The moon is rising,” says the third woodcutter, and then, as if responding to his calls, the moonlight gradually floods the stage. The role of woodcutters is paradoxical. They attract trouble and cry over it.

The quality of lullabies in the play is similar. They are imbued with a premonition of impending trouble and grief about it, inevitable in the life of every person. Thus, what happens in the tragedy, in addition to its specific side, also has a universal character (love, death, the irreversible passage of time, loneliness). Therefore, the characters in “Bloody Wedding” (with the exception of Leonardo) are deprived of individual names - Mother, Groom, Bride. They are “poetic versions of human souls” (Lorca). And although the language and tunes of Andalusia give these “souls” a national identity, the local flavor is secondary for the playwright. “I could embody this myth of the human soul,” Lorca said about “The Wonderful Shoemaker,” in Eskimo flavor.”

At the end of his life, Lorca (he was shot during the Spanish Civil War) came up with the idea of a “theater of social action” that could point out both the decline of the nation and the path to the revival of the country.

In the 1930s, the position on the public purpose of theater was most consistently defended by Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956). If Lorca believed that a performance is capable of changing the “way of feeling” of the audience, forcing the audience and actors to unite in a single emotional impulse, then Brecht relies not on feeling, but on reason, the work of thought awakened by the theater.

B. Brecht, a German playwright, poet, publicist and theater figure, was born in Augsburg, studied medicine at the University of Munich, and worked as a nurse in a military hospital. Having established himself as a poet, he turned to the theater: “Baal” (Baal, 1918, post. 1923), “Drums in the Night” (Trommeln in der Nacht, 1919, post. 1922), “In the Jungle of Cities” (Im Dickicht der Städte, 1921 - 1924). In 1924, Brecht moved to Berlin and worked for two years at the Deutsches Theater under the direction of Max Reinhardt. Collaboration (1927) with Erwin Piscator (1893-1966), one of the outstanding directors, influenced further dramatic searches: “The Threepenny Opera” (Die Dreigroschenoper, 1928), “St. Joan of the Slaughterhouses” (Die heilige Johanna der Schlachthöfe, 1929 -1930).

The name of Brecht is traditionally associated with the concept of “epic theater”. In the 1920s, Piscator contrasted modern theater with “Aristotelian” theater, or in other words, with dramaturgy based on dramatic tension, the creation of stage illusion and audience empathy for the feelings and actions of the hero. Brecht reinforces this thesis of Piscator. He denies the Aristotelian doctrine of catharsis. As is known, tragedy, according to Aristotle’s Poetics, should arouse alternately fear and compassion in the viewer, leading to the highest emotional tension, in order to be resolved in the finale by the harmonious reconciliation of these passions. This, according to Brecht, gave ancient Greek tragedy its scenic appeal. The tragedy began to seem “beautiful” to the viewer, aesthetically justified. Accordingly, misfortune, suffering, defeat were mythologized by the theater and, in this “gilded” form, were presented as a force ennobling the public. “Do you know how pearls are created in the Margaritifera shell? - Brecht's Galileo comments on this situation. “This oyster becomes fatally ill when some foreign body, such as a grain of sand, penetrates it. She locks this grain of sand into a ball of mucus. She almost dies in the process. To hell with pearls, I prefer healthy oysters.”

Such an observation by Brecht was not isolated.

For example, the German existentialist philosopher K. Jaspers in his work “On Truth” (Von der Wahrheit, 1947) draws attention to the fact that spectator empathy for a character leads to a dual feeling - involvement in what is happening and detachment from it. This detachment gives rise to a pleasant feeling of security and turns the viewer not into a participant, but only into a witness to a tragedy that, by and large, “doesn’t concern” him.

Brecht strives to return a kind of educational function to the theater. The theater should become a school for the viewer, awakening his social and critical activity. The audience is called upon not to enjoy illusory joys or suffering, but through the performance to determine their attitude to current events in social and political life. "Epic" in this sense means covering extensive socio-historical material. Not content with a fragment of reality, “epic theater” strives to show it comprehensively, “philosophically.” The author's thought should provoke the viewer's thought. Brecht's goal is to transform the viewer from a “consumer” of the performance into its co-creator. To do this, he introduces a technique called “alienation” (Verfremdungseffekt). The meaning of this technique is to present a phenomenon well known to the viewer from an unexpected side. Brecht achieves the debunking of “capital” or “convenient” truths in various ways.

Firstly, through the projection of various photographs and inscriptions, as well as changing the scenery in front of the audience, he destroys the illusion of the events depicted on stage. “Documentaryization” of the theater is a response to the challenge of modernity with its cult of cinema and newspaper news. Secondly, Brecht reduces dramatic tension by introducing special functional scenes into the play. Playwrights even before Brecht resorted to effects to create a distance between the story of events and their “showing”. Such are the messenger, herald, “theater director” in Goethe, “announcing” P. Claudel. Brecht especially emphasizes the author's intervention in the development of action, that is, he focuses on a certain point of view. To fix the viewer’s attention on the thoughts that are most important to him, Brecht introduces “zongs” into the play (as in political cabarets of the contemporary playwright), choirs, and direct addresses of the actors to the audience.

The play “Mother Courage and Her Children” (Mutter Courage und ihre Kinder, 1941) can be considered as a striking example of the aesthetics of “epic theater”. Success came to her after a production on stage at the Deutsches Theater (1949); it increased even more after the 1951 production, carried out by Brecht in the Berliner Ensemble theater he created. The play chronicles the travels of sutler Anna Vierling, nicknamed Mother Courage, and her three children (Catherine, Eilif, Schweitzerkas) during the Thirty Years' War (1616-1648). To feed her family, she travels first with the Protestant army and then with the Catholics. The setting of the play, written by Brecht in exile, is especially significant for the German audience: the Thirty Years' War was one of the most destructive for Germany. The twelve scenes of Mother Courage represent a kind of free composition, a discordant choir of voices. The main action in it, although visible, does not reach a climax anywhere, which corresponds to the author’s intention. It is illustrated, for example, by scene 3. The “honest son” Courage Schweitzerkas is shot by Catholics. When his corpse is brought out for identification by his mother and sister, in order to save their lives, they are forced to abandon their son and brother. The scene ends with the Sergeant Major saying, “Throw him in the dump. Nobody knows him." However, already in the next, 4th scene, Mother Courage appears in a somewhat comic form. Outraged by the illegal fine of five thalers, she demands a meeting with the captain. In the same scene, in “Song of Great Humility,” she sings of the tolerance and ability to compromise that life has taught her. So the death of a son turns into just one of the practical lessons of war.

Courage is both a heroine and a pseudo-heroine. This is revealed in the play both through the clash of characters (talkative Courage / silent Catherine) and through “zongs” - the main weapon of Brechtian irony. The philosophy of Courage, based on the wise acceptance of life as it is (the song “Song of Great Humility” in the 4th scene), is brought by the playwright to the grotesque, to the understanding of the vulnerability and fatality of compromises. In other words, thanks to “The Song,” Brecht manages to reveal the falsity of those values that, at first glance, are presented in the play as positive. Mother Courage, emphasizes the Russian researcher A. A. Fedorov, “does not see the light, having survived the shock, she learns “no more about its nature than a guinea pig about the law of biology.” The tragic (personal and historical) experience, while enriching the viewer, taught her nothing ... The catharsis she experienced turned out to be completely fruitless.” Courage's wisdom is her ignorance. True knowledge of the tragedy of war and the tragedy of life in general, according to Brecht, requires not emotional reactions (they are relative), not reliance on generally accepted norms, not religious faith, but the work of the intellect, free thought. This stage solution also has a theatrical aspect. Brecht, creating and destroying the illusion, fights precisely with the uncontrollable emotion of the audience, just as G. Craig and A. Ya. Tairov fought with the uncontrollable emotion of the actor in their concepts of “super-puppet” and “super-actor”.

So, the viewer in some episodes can sympathize with Courage, but never identifies himself with her. The heroine of the play is unpredictable: she either curses the war, or again takes part in it. However, what is ultimately important is not what Courage takes away from the experience of war, but the viewer’s reaction to its metamorphoses. Examples of Brecht's “epic theater” include the parabolic play “The Good Man from Sezuan” (Der gute Mensch von Sezuan, 1939-1941, post. 1943), the drama “The Life of Galileo” (Leben des Galilei, 1938-1939; post. early edition - 1943; final English version - 1947), parable play "The Caucasian Chalk Circle" (Der Kaukasische Kreidekreis, 1943-1944, final 1948). According to his aesthetic program, Brecht revised Antigone by Sophocles (Antigone, 1948), The Beaver Coat by G. Hauptmann (Der Biberpelz, 1951), and Coriolanus by W. Shakespeare (Coriolanus, 1952).

The play "The Life of Galileo" consists of 15 scenes and covers the years 1609-1637. Reflecting on the genius of the Renaissance, who renounced his discovery, Brecht also reflects on matters relevant in the 20th century - the contradiction between high theoretical knowledge and its often criminal practical application, between scientific and technical discoveries and philosophical conclusions from them. The thematic layer of the play is therefore extremely rich: knowledge and faith, “vigilance” and “blindness”, duty and temptation, truth and renunciation of it collide in it.

From scene I, the main virtue of a thinking person is the ability to see. In a world in which the path to knowledge lies through mastering a dead language (this is an important detail: it is repeatedly emphasized that the lens grinder, “practitioner” Federzoni does not know Latin), in which a new discovery is looked at through the prism of the teachings of the “divine” Aristotle and the Holy Scriptures , - in this world you can only believe your eyes. In scene IV, the Florentine courtiers, doubting the existence of the satellites of Jupiter, invite Galileo to hold a debate on whether such satellites can exist. To this Galileo replies: “I suppose you just look into the pipe and see.” Stars, according to Galileo, cannot be necessary and unnecessary, existing and non-existent, if they actually exist. If new discoveries violate Aristotle's picture of the universe, this does not mean that they bring disharmony. On the contrary, they give this picture genuine, not fictitious, outlines. This desire for a more subtle understanding of the universe is associated in Galileo’s mind with poetic creativity. Just as in the eighth satire of his favorite poet Horace (the court poet) not a word can be changed, so in his Galilean picture of the universe it is impossible to change the phases of Venus. Against this, Galileo claims, his “sense of beauty” rebels.

The image of the scientist is subject to the usual “alienation” for Brecht. The fighter for the triumph of truth is completely devoid of heroic qualities. Galileo, the playwright recalls the metaphor of one of the scientist’s contemporaries, is not a lion, but a fox. He's a little bit of a gourmand, a little bit selfish and a little bit of a coward. “Suffering people bore me”; “When you are dealing with obstacles, the shortest distance between two points may be a curve” - these are the maxims of the teacher that Andrea remembers.

Considering renunciation of the truth a crime, Galileo nevertheless abandoned his discovery, fearing torture. He himself strictly judges himself for this - for giving the state the opportunity to manipulate scientific truth. The tragedy of Galileo is that his knowledge, being alienated from him, became inhuman. Brecht himself dreamed of the harmony of science and progress, high knowledge and morality.

But the condemnation of Galileo in Brecht's portrayal has exactly the same artistic persuasiveness as his justification. At the end of scene XIII there is a quote from Galileo’s “Conversations”: “Isn’t it clear that a horse, falling from a height of three or four cubits, can break its legs, while for a dog it is completely harmless...<...>The conventional wisdom that large and small machines are equally strong is obviously a fallacy.”

Brecht's theory of “epic theater,” which had a significant impact on playwrights of the 20th century, was not the only concept of “non-Aristotelian” dramaturgy. Its original interpretation was proposed by the American playwright and prose writer Thornton Wilder (1897-1975). The aesthetics of his work were influenced, on the one hand, by the tradition of Chinese theater, on the other, by the experiments of Pirandello - the play “Six Characters in Search of an Author” that he saw in Rome in 1921. Wilder’s most important technique is the use of the ramp, the presence in the play of a Presenter (or “assistant director”) commenting on the action. This figure belongs to two worlds at the same time: a “fictional” play and a real performance. Wilder resorts to the technique of editing, a free handling of stage time, the course of which is indicated not by the development of intrigue, but by repetitions. Thus, the one-act play “Long Christmas Dinner” (1931) presents ninety Christmas dinners of the Bayard family, replacing one another at an accelerated pace. Based on the same situations and speech patterns, the play, which spans ninety years, begins with the first Christmas dinner in a new house and ends with the purchase of another new house by the younger generation of the family.

The very idea of time is alienated. If “The Long Christmas Dinner” plays on the idea that time “does not stand still,” then “Our Town” (1938), on the contrary, questions the irreversibility of time, the impossibility of returning the past. On the one hand, this is a polemic with the traditional structure of the play, which involves development from the beginning to the ending. On the other hand, a look at the human destiny from the position of a mysterious observer who knows the outcome of any events.

For Brecht, alienation contained a way of artistic comprehension of social contradictions. Wilder's goal is different - to comprehend the eternal laws of the universe. At the same time, Wilder follows this path using comic effects.

The play Skin of Our Teeth (1942) plays on the absurdity of the conventional wisdom about history that is ingrained in the modern American consciousness.

T. Wilder's quest comes at the time of the heyday of American theater, represented primarily by the names of Eugene O'Neill (Eugene O'Neill, 1888-1953) and Tennessee Williams (Tennessee Williams, present, name - Thomas Lanier, 1911- - 1983), author of many dramas, including A Streetcar Named Desire (1947), Orpheus Descending (1957).

O'Neill made his debut as a playwright back in the 1910s; the first was his one-act play “Bound East for Cardiff” (Bound East for Cardiff, 1916), performed by the Provincetown Players troupe, which fundamentally opposed itself to Broadway. “Neil turned out to be sensitive to European theatrical trends, he was especially influenced by H. Ibsen, J. A. Strindberg, whom he considered “the harbinger of everything modern in our theater,” as well as G. Kaiser. O'Neill is attentive to specific details, to the “environment,” to the psychological development of characters in the tradition of the “new drama.” At the same time, in the 1920s, the American playwright was captured by expressionism (“The Emperor Jones,” The Emperor Jones, 1921, post. 1920; “The Shaggy Monkey”, The Hairy Are, 1922) and the poetics of the grotesque, symbolic generalization. In the late period of creativity (1930-1940s), O'Neill achieves a synthesis of specificity and convention, rare in the theater of the 20th century, which. affected his taste preferences (Aeschylus, Sophocles, Elizabethans) and the experience of processing the ancient myth - “Mourning is the fate of Electra” (Mourning Becomes Electra, 1931). However, O'Neill's main material is the reality of his native America, which, in his interpretation, is as rich in truly tragic collisions (guilt, redemption) as ancient Greek drama.

The play “Long Day's Journey into Night” (1940, publ. 1956) was published and staged only after the death of the playwright: this “family drama” was written on autobiographical material. The Tyrone family depicted in it is named after the Irish royal family.However, this circumstance emphasizes not the glory of the Tyrones, but the tragedy they are experiencing.

On an August day in 1912, while the area outside the windows of the house is gradually covered in fog, each of the four Tyrones (James, his wife Mary, their sons Jamie and Edmund) is faced with new knowledge about themselves and their loved ones. James Tyrone admits he wasted his acting talent by acting in commercial productions; Mary begins taking morphine again, depriving her husband and sons of hope for her recovery.

The eldest son, a failed actor, tries to alleviate his disappointment in life with alcohol. The younger one, an aspiring poet, learns that he is sick with tuberculosis.

O'Neill focuses on the gradual revelation of the characters' characters, gripped by hatred and love, offended and forgiving, living in the present and unable to get rid of obsessions, "legends" of the past. Detailed, with a verbal personality, the Tyrones are unique. But their hidden grievances, quarrels and reconciliations are understandable to every family.Children and parents who did not live up to each other's expectations, mutual jealousy, unfulfilled expectations (a brilliant career, their own home) - such is the cross of family idealism.

The play consists of four acts, each of which is a clearly defined phase in the “blurring of contours”, bringing the tragedy to the forefront. Her anticipation is emphasized by various details: conversations about a certain mysterious uninhabited room, about the possible diagnosis of Dr. Hardy. The fragility and even ephemerality of family harmony in the first act is hinted at by the fussy movements of Mary’s hands, Edmund’s cough, and the sound of footsteps in an empty room. All these hints become reality in the second act, and the Tyrons have no choice but to take a long journey into the night - to look into themselves and the souls of their loved ones.

Each of the Tyrones has a special outlook on life. Mary does not skimp on reproaches to her husband, but nevertheless believes that a person has no complete control over himself, that life gradually “distorts” everyone, “until there is no difference between what we are and what we would like to be.” an insurmountable wall grows up, and we forever lose our true self.” Jamie, by contrast, does not believe in anything: he hoped for his mother’s recovery, but was again deceived. His fatalism encounters the unexpected rejection of Edmund, who finds the strength to “swim against the tide”, despite his illness, to fight with fate. Of the whole family, it is the youngest Tyrone, marked with the mark of a poet, who has a future. However, he is also vulnerable in his own way, since he has a guilt complex associated with the past. Mary was given morphine for the first time after a difficult birth, so Edmund holds himself responsible for his mother's drug addiction. As “guilty without guilt,” Edmund, according to O’Neill, is similar to the heroes of ancient Greek tragedies.

What do the Tyrones oppose to the inexorable approach of “night”? — Illusions, dreams, creativity. At the end of the play, Mary Tyrone's drug-induced hallucinations take her back to her days as a convent girl. Her final monologue is dedicated to meeting James, her first love. Mary refuses to remember what happened next in her fate. Only in the past, in her opinion, can one discover what the present has forever lost - innocence, happiness, faith.

One August day - the Tyrone's whole life in miniature. It balances on the edge of reality and sleep and threatens to turn into absurdity. And yet the long day does not pass without leaving a trace for the four characters. Love and hatred, which do not allow them to part, force the Tyrones to meet each other halfway anew every day in an almost hopeless attempt at mutual understanding.

In comparison with the dramas of O'Neill, the theater of Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Albert Camus (1913-1960) appears primarily as a theater of ideas, as well as a kind of commentary on prosaic and philosophical creativity - the expression of these writers. Despite the emphasized intellectualism of Sartre’s plays (“Behind a Closed Door”, Huisclos, 1944; “The Dead Without Burial”, Morts sans sépulture, 1946; “The Devil and the Lord God”, Le Diable et le Bon Dieu, 1951; “The Hermits of Altona”, Les séquestrés d "Altone, 1959) and Camus (“Caligula”, Caligula, 1938, post. 1945; “Misunderstanding”, Le Malentendu, 1944; “State of Siege”, LÉtat de siège, 1948) , their themes are very diverse, associated with the use of both mythological subjects and modern imagery.

At its emergence, existentialist dramaturgy encounters a predominantly political interpretation. Staged in occupied Paris, Les Mouches (1943) by Sartre and Antigone (1943) by Jean Anouilh (1910–1987) were perceived as manifestos of the Resistance. Indeed, Sartre saw theatrical performance as a means of pronounced moral and political influence. Anouilh was first and foremost a playwright who never forgot about the specifics of the theater. In turn, Camus sought a synthesis of philosophical and artistic ideas on stage. “The Myth of Sisyphus” (Le Mythe de Sisyphe, 1942) became a kind of manifesto of existentialist drama, and later of “drama of the absurd.”

“Theatre of situations” - this is how Sartre designated the type of his dramaturgy, emphasizing the importance of the exceptional circumstances in which he places the characters. It is these circumstances (mortal danger, crime) that give an idea of what “free choice” is. In other words, the “situation” is not a gradually emerging psychological dimension, but a certain initially existing platform. On its stage, existentialist heroes struggle primarily with themselves. Charged with action, they seem to have no soul.

“Flies” Sartre refers to the ancient story of Orestes. The play begins with his return to his native Argos. Together with his sister Electra, he takes revenge on his mother and uncle for the murder of his father. Electra repents of what she did. Orestes takes responsibility for the bloodshed upon himself, but, according to Sartre, freeing his subjects from guilt in the death of Agamemnon, he renounces the throne and leaves Argos.

His action is a reproach to his compatriots. The inhabitants of Argos resigned to their fate. They repented of their crimes (as Aegisthus and Clytemnestra repented of the murder of Agamemnon) and thereby shifted their blame onto the gods. Such a denial of responsibility is tantamount to a denial of personal freedom. This repentance pleases the Olympians, as Jupiter informs King Aegisthus: “The painful secret of gods and kings: they know that people are free. People are free, Aegisthus. You know this, but they don’t.”

By exposing this lie of the gods, Orestes gradually learns who he is and what he is capable of. Skeptically assessing his previous life, the hero says to his mentor: you gave me freedom of threads, torn by the wind from the web and floating high above the ground: I weigh no more than a web and float through the air.<...>Oh, how free I am. My soul is a magnificent emptiness." The meeting with Electra, her dance at the festival of the dead, the recognition of her as a sister - all this leads Orestes to the understanding of what he must do. Faced with the impossibility of submitting to divine providence (Jupiter), Orestes is forced to create his own, deeply personal, scale of values. And these values, according to the logic of the play, are truer the less they correspond to the ideas about good and evil familiar to the inhabitants of Argos. “I must shoulder a serious crime that will drag me to the bottom - into the very depths of Argos,” Orestes says to his sister. He intends to bear personal responsibility for all the sins of Argos, but this does not mean that Orestes desires to be the atonement of other people's sins. Accordingly, having committed a crime, brother and sister behave differently. “I have done my job,” Orestes admits, “... in it is my freedom... There is only one path left for me, and God knows where it leads, but this is my path.” Orestes the exile was deprived of his homeland, mother, sister, memories; Orestes the killer immediately acquires all this. Surrounded by Erinyes flies, he finally feels like the king of his people. Electra doesn't feel free. Unlike Orestes, she cannot help but repent of what she has done, which turns her into a murderer.

The culmination of the third act is the dispute between Orestes and Jupiter, during which the Thunderer discovers in Orestes the mortal who came “to herald his twilight.” “I will not return to your natural world: thousands of paths are laid there, and all lead to you, but I can only go my own way,” says the creation to the creator. Sartre's God and free man no longer need each other. And so Orestes calls his sister to leave Argos - to know the true price of life. However, she is not ready to follow him and remains to devote her life to atonement for sin.

Like Brecht, existentialists require the viewer to be able to think. But the characters themselves often answer the questions they pose in lengthy monologues, while Brecht prefers to only ask questions through discussion and not divide the characters into clearly positive and negative ones. In this regard, it should be noted that the actions of the existentialist hero are more likely explainable not on a rational, but on an emotional level. An act that often leads to tragedy (in Anui, the voluntary death of Antigone becomes the cause of the death of Haemon and Queen Eurydice), is committed by the hero selflessly, because tragedy, as it is ironically said in “Antigone,” is “for kings.” Brecht is not interested in heroic impulses. His characters face a long series of everyday life, forcing them to use common sense. In Sartre, such common sense receives a clearly negative interpretation.

European theater of the 1950s was a meeting point of various trends. Again, in connection with the productions of previously written plays and the tour in London of the Berliner Ensemble troupe (1956), Brecht attracted attention. His plays are contrasted with a fundamentally “unbiased” drama of the absurd. At the same time, Brecht is very significant for a new generation of playwrights, the so-called “angry young people.”

The absurdity of human existence was an indispensable background for the action of the plays and novels of Sartre and Camus. It received a new understanding from Eugene Ionesco (1909-1994), Arthur Adamov (1908-1970) and Samuel Beckett (1906-1990). In 1947, “Parody” (La Parodie, post. 1952) by Adamov and “Waiting for Godot” (En attendant Godot, 1952, post. 1953) by Beckett were written, and in 1948, “The Bald Singer” (La Cantatrice chauve, 1954) Ionesco. The last of these plays was staged in 1950 at the Parisian theater Noctambul. The term “theater of the absurd” was proposed in 1961 by the English critic M. Eslin. However, it was not accepted by the “absurdists” themselves. For example, Ionesco preferred to call his theater either “theater of ridicule” or “theater of paradox.”

This emphasis is very significant. Absurdists not only reproduce a number of provisions of existentialism, but also parody them and make them the object of theatrical pranks. Therefore, Sartre’s tragedy in their interpretation becomes a tragicomedy, something specifically theatrical.

Hence the role played in the drama of the absurd by the effects of circus performances (tricks, acrobatics, clowning), as well as the manner of playing comedic roles in films. Summing up the paradoxical combination of farce, black humor and philosophical reflections in Beckett's play Waiting for Godot, J. Anouilh described it as “a sketch of Pascal's Pensées performed on a music hall stage by Fratellini's clowns.” Also noteworthy is the connection between the language of absurdist plays and English and German “nonsense poetry” (E. Lear, K. Morgenstern).

In the essay “There Will Always Be a Theater of the Absurd” (1989), Ionesco makes it clear that his theater opposed itself to both the pulp plays and the theater of Brecht. The Boulevard Theater, according to Ionesco, deals with everything trivial - the representation of everyday worries and adultery. Brecht is too politicized. Ionesco does not accept the limitations of this kind of life-likeness, which passes by our most important realities and obsessions - love, death, horror.

The development of absurdist drama was influenced by surreal theatricality (the use of fancy costumes and masks, deliberately meaningless rhymes, provocative appeals to the audience). Among A. Jarry, G. Apollinaire, and A. Artaud, absurdists were especially attracted by the poetics of breaking the logical connections between the signified and the signifier.

At the same time, their style is quite original. The “absurd” is presented in the form of a game, a crude farce, and meaningless situations. The plot of the play and the behavior of the characters are incomprehensible, illogical and are sometimes intended to shock the audience. Reflecting the absurdity of mutual understanding, communication, dialogue, the play in every possible way emphasizes the lack of meaning in language, which, in the form of a kind of game without rules, becomes the main carrier of chaos.

Ionesco admitted that he owed the idea of his play “The Bald Singer” to an English language self-teacher. Accordingly, his characters mechanically repeat stilted cliché phrases reminiscent of bilingual phrase books, and thereby place themselves in a world of banality taken to the extreme. According to the author, these are all the bourgeoisie, “confused by slogans, unable to think independently, but repeating ready-made, that is, dead, truths imposed by others” (“Talk about my theater and other people’s conversations”, Propos sur mon théâtre et sur les propos des autres, 1962). Ionesco’s characters do not so much play with words as they are manipulated by other people’s words.

For some playwrights, absurdity was a philosophical credo: the “dark” plays of S. Beckett and W. Hildesheimer (1916-1991) demonstrate how nightmarish human existence is in universal chaos. For Ionesco, the absurdity of existence is not a tragedy, but a farce, containing inexhaustible possibilities for stage experimentation. In the dramas of Max Frisch and Friedrich Dürrenmatt (1921–1990) one can find elements of what critics have defined as satirical absurdity.

One of the most original absurdist playwrights, Samuel Beckett was born in Foxrock (near Dublin), into a family of Irish Protestants. In 1927 he graduated from Trinity College, where he studied French and Italian literature. In 1929, he met Joyce in Paris, became his literary secretary, and participated in the translation into French of a fragment of Finnegans Wake. In 1934, Beckett's first collection of short stories, More Pricks than Kicks, was published, and in 1938, the novel Murphy was published. From his French-language prose, the trilogy should be mentioned: “Molloy” (Molloy, 1951), “Malone dies” (Malone meurt, 1951), “Nameless” (L"Innommable, 1953). From Beckett’s dramatic works let’s call “The End of the Game” (Fin de partie, 1957), radio play “All that Fall” (1957), “Krapp’s Last Tape” (1958), “Happy Days” (1961). In 1969, Beckett was awarded the Nobel Prize.

The play “Waiting for Godot” is one of those works that influenced the appearance of the 20th century theater as a whole. Beckett fundamentally refuses any dramatic conflict, the plot familiar to the viewer, advises P. Hall, who directed the first English-language production of the play, to prolong the pauses as much as possible and literally make the viewer bored. Estragon’s complaint “nothing happens, no one comes, no one leaves, terrible!” is both the quintessence of the characters’ worldview and a formula that marks a break with the previous theatrical tradition.

The characters of the play - Vladimir (Didi) and Estragon (Togo) - are like two clowns, out of nothing to do, entertaining each other and at the same time the audience. Didi and Togo do not act, but imitate some action. This performance is not aimed at revealing the psychology of the characters. The action does not develop linearly, but moves in a circle, clinging to refrains (“we are waiting for Godot”, “what are we going to do now?”, “let’s get out of here”), which are generated by one randomly dropped remark. Here is a typical sample of dialogue: “What should I say?/Say: I’m glad./I’m glad./Me too. / Me too./ We are glad./ We are glad. (Pause.) And now that everyone is happy, what will we do?/ Let’s wait for Godot.” Not only the lines are repeated, but also the situations: Estragon asks Vladimir for carrots, Vladimir and Estragon decide to separate and stay together (“It’s so hard with you, Gogo./ So we have to separate./ You always say that. And you always come back”). At the end of both acts, the Boy sent by the mythical Godot appears and reports that Monsieur will come not today, but tomorrow. As a result, the characters decide to leave, but do not move.

The fundamental difference between Beckett's play and previous dramas that broke with the tradition of psychological theater is that no one had previously set as their goal to dramatize “nothing.” Beckett allows the play to develop “word by word”, despite the fact that the conversation begins “out of the blue” and comes to nothing, as if the characters initially know that they will not be able to agree on anything, that play on words is the only option for communication and rapprochement. Thus, dialogue becomes an end in itself: “For now, let’s talk calmly, since we cannot remain silent.”

Nevertheless, there is a certain dynamics in the play. Everything is repeated, changing just enough to involuntarily “fuel” the audience’s impatient expectation of some significant changes. At the beginning of Act II, the tree, the only attribute of the landscape, is covered with leaves, but the essence of this event eludes the characters and the audience. This is clearly not a sign of the onset of spring, the forward movement of time. If, after all, a tree symbolizes the change of seasons, it is only to emphasize its meaninglessness, the falsity of any expectations.

In Beckett's later plays, the lyrical element begins to predominate and at the same time the actual dramatic elements decrease. The hero of the monodrama “Krapp's Last Tape” was used to summing up the past year on his birthday and recording his monologue on a tape recorder. Listening to a thirty-year-old tape, old man Krapp begins a conversation with his former self. What distinguishes him from the characters in the programmatic drama of the absurd is the desire to somehow structure the time of his life. On the one hand, Krapp, an infinitely lonely man, needs recordings of his own voice to confirm that the past is not a chimera. On the other hand, the film, which can be rewinded and forwarded, allows Krapp to direct the play of his own life, repeating one episode and skipping another. Thus, separating, in his own words, “the grain from the chaff,” he intuitively looks for meaning where it may have been absent at first.

The Theater of the Absurd builds its mythology on metaphors. They are based on everyday little things, shown large and in detail, and repeated banal phrases. Absurdists play up the situation of a family dinner, waiting, meeting, communicating between two people in such a way that the characters in their plays acquire the properties of individuals without individuality - a kind of walking caricature, which at the same time contains something inherently human, both funny and sad.

Young English playwrights, the so-called “angry” ones, John Osborne (1929-1994), Robert Bolt (p. 1924), Arnold Wesker (p. 1932), who first loudly declared themselves by staging the play Osborne's Look Back in Anger (post. 1956), on the contrary, is interested in individual human character, and not in a universal symbolic generalization, an intellectual drama. Wesker's neo-naturalistic experiments were called "kitchen sink drama". Everyday life and everyday life became such important motives for the “angry” because they decided to oppose “real” life to the bankrupt ideals of the older generation. The kitchen seemed to them in every respect more authentic than the salons and living rooms. Returning to the experience of the “new drama” (especially German), young English playwrights are looking for extreme, in their own expressive, manifestations of everyday life: instead of colloquial speech, professional jargon and regional dialects are heard in their plays, and the action often takes place in slums, prisons, public houses.

Not only the “angry” and absurdists (elements of the symbolist puppet theater) turned to the experience of the past. The dramaturgy of the Swiss Max Frisch (Mach Frisch, 1911 - 1991) was influenced by expressionist drama, the “epic theater” of B. Brecht, and the philosophy of existentialism (especially in the interpretation given to it by K. Jaspers). Frisch’s expressionism is related to the poetics of his “model plays” (“Count Ederland”, Graf Öderland, 1951, ed. 1961; “Biederman and the Arsonists”, Biedermann und die Brandstifter, 1958; “Andorra”, Andorra, 1961), the purpose of which is to present the essence of the phenomenon, abstracting from everything random. This is supported by the montage of various time layers (“Santa Cruz”, Santa Cruz, 1944), free transitions from external events to the inner world of the characters. Using the Brechtian method of alienation, Frisch sets himself different tasks than his predecessor. It is necessary to distance oneself from reality in order to comprehend not so much socio-political paradoxes as the tragic paradoxes of the consciousness of modern man, the main one of which is the loss of self-identity. Frisch's hero is forced to try on various masks, but he is uncomfortable in each of them.

In the comedy “Don Juan, or the Love of Geometry” (Don Juan, oder Die Liebe zur Geometrie, 1953, second edition 1962), the problem of “mask” and “face” is connected with the very element of the theater: the scene is “theatrical Seville”, the time of action is “the era of beautiful costumes.” At the center of the play is Don Juan, a captive of a theatrical tradition dating back to Tirso de Molina.

It is in a dispute with traditional audience expectations that Frisch’s image of Don Juan is built. He doesn’t want to know women, his beloved is geometry, so Frishev’s hero plays chess in a brothel. For him, hypertrophied sensuality is a role imposed by society. Love for geometry is the formula he found for a purely rational, emphatically ironic opposition to it. “I believe, Sganarelle,” says Molière’s Don Juan to his servant, “that twice two is four, and twice four is eight.” Then Sganarelle proclaims arithmetic as the religion of his master. Continuing Moliere’s thought in his own way (Don Juan confesses to his friend Don Roderigo: “I am sober and cheerful and completely overwhelmed by the only feeling worthy of a man - the love of geometry.<...>I am a fan of perfection, my friend, sober calculation, precision. I am afraid of the quagmire of our moods"), Frisch transformed the image of the “Sevillian mischief maker” into a “geometrician”, a reflective skeptic and an aesthetician. A rationalist and “aesthetic man” - such is Don Juan and in “Either - Or” (1843) by S. Kierkegaard - Frisch’s hero runs away from any restrictions on his freedom.

The theme of an unwilling role is also central to Englishman Tom Stoppard's (b. 1937) play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, originally written as a one-act farce and performed in 1966. at the Edinburgh Festival.

The main characters, Ros and Gil, amuse themselves at the beginning of the play by playing toss, as if parodying the Beckett couple Didi and Togo. Unlike Beckett's characters, they do not languish in anticipation of the unknown, but, like actors, are busy in the production of Hamlet. Ros and Gil have found their author and are forced to submit to his literary will, not knowing where it will lead them. It would seem that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who are confused by the king and the queen and who themselves become confused as a result, are just ridiculous. But by the end of the play, their fate takes on the character of a parable about the tragedy of the unknown and punishment without guilt. Didi and Togo did not think about the question “to be or not to be,” but Stoppard’s characters suddenly realize with all clarity that “not to be” is scary. “We didn’t do anything wrong, did we?” No one! Is it true?" - Rosencrantz shouts. “I don’t remember,” Guildenstern answers him. Their disappearance-death does not change anything: the last scene of Hamlet was successfully played without them.

Stoppard's play clearly indicates that a mask or a role has long ceased to be a refuge from a crazy world. Pirandello's characters gravitated to the stage to “live.” Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have not left the stage for several centuries and have long forgotten “what it all was about,” “when it began.”

Of the playwright’s later plays, we can name the following: “The Real Inspector Hound” (1968), “Night and Day” (1978), “The Real Thing” (1982), “Arcadia” ( Arcadia, 1993), “The Coast of Utopia” (2002).

Despite its flourishing in the second half of the 20th century. political theater (the dramaturgy of the Frenchman A. Gatti, the Englishman H. Brenton, the experiments of the American theater "Living Theater", the late plays of E. Albee), addressed to the pressing problems of today, many playwrights continue to be interested in timeless themes. The characters in their plays try to contrast the feeling of chaos and absurdity of the world around them with a search for the absolute.

This issue occupies, in particular, the English playwright Peter Levin Shaffer (p. 1926). He became famous for staging his first play, Five Finger Exercise (1958), which was on stage for two years, first in London, then in New York and later filmed.

A significant phenomenon in the world theater of the 1970s was Schaeffer’s play “Equus” (Equus, 1973), which captured the tossing and duality of young Helen Strang. An unusual collision is at the center of the play Lettice and Datura (Lettice and Lovage, 1988), where illusion and reality, play and life are intertwined into one indissoluble whole, both inspiredly theatrical and psychologically authentic. In the play “The Gift if the Gorgon” (post. 1992), Schaeffer turns to the style of ritual theater, which, according to the playwright, should lead the viewer through the experience of horror to truth and unity. A similar perception of theater as a kind of religious cult was already latently felt in the early Schaeffer.

The central character of the drama “The Royal Hunt of the Sun” (1964) is the Spanish general Francisco Pissaro. He is obsessed with the search for a this-worldly earthly god who can restore meaning and harmony to the world. The motive of the search for God is woven by the author into the historical plot - the conquest of the Inca Empire by the Spaniards at the beginning of the 16th century. In Act I of the play (“The Hunt”), Pissaro, who went with his army for gold, learns about King Atahualpa, whom the Incas worship as a sun deity. The conquistadors take him prisoner, having dealt with three thousand Indians. In Act II (“The Murder”), the Incas collect a ransom for their king, and Pissaro, for whom Christian values have long become empty words, is ready to believe in the immortality of the “son of the sun,” Atahualpa. However, this faith is dashed. Exposing pagan superstitions, the Spaniards kill Atahualpa, and Pissaro is deprived of his personal god.

Beginning as a historical play, The Royal Hunt for the Sun turns out to be extremely multifaceted. Its most important collision is the collision of European culture with the world of the Incas, who did not forget how to sacredly honor the laws of nature and retained a poetic view of existence. Most of all, the European Pissarro fears merciless time, which inexorably brings him closer to death. He is obsessed with the idea of stopping time and thus gaining “eternal” earthly life. Pissaro saw the promise of a stable, unchanging order in the very way of life of the Incas, whose existence was in harmony with the majestic natural rhythms. For the Incas, everything is on time: harvest, wedding, death. The Franciscan priest who accompanies the army and converts the pagans to Christianity sees in this ritualized world a “pathetic copy of eternity.” He points out to Pissaro that a once and for all established routine deprives a person of the right to choose, and therefore to love. The Franciscan does not believe that Pissarro is ready to liken himself to a “corn shoot.” For the general, the need for choice, inherent in Christianity, is associated with dissatisfaction with oneself, hunger, and concern for the future.

In Europe, he is constantly tempted by hope, the other side of which for him is despair. If the Franciscan shrewdly discerns a devilish skill in the “order” and collectivism of the Incas, then Pissarro is the last hope for happiness.

Coming from the bottom of society, growing up without a father, Pissarro learned from childhood what it meant to be an outcast. He can neither read nor write. Deprived of mentors, he nevertheless grew up as a dreamer, whose dreams, as it turned out later, were close to the pantheism of the pagans. That is why, finding himself in the New World, he reached out to the “son of the sun.”

Schaeffer's play was made in the motley style that dominated European drama by the end of the 20th century. An element of epic theater can be considered the presence in “The Royal Hunt for the Sun” of the host, the old soldier Martin (in his youth he was Pissaro’s translator). More precisely, the viewer gets to know two Martins: the old man comments on the action, and the young man participates in it. Martin is an example of another fate associated with the loss of hopes, the overthrow of idols.

In Schaeffer, the tradition associated with Artaud's theater asserts itself more powerfully. The playwright achieves a strong emotional impact of the play by resorting to a variety of theatrical means. The soundtrack includes Indian songs, Catholic prayers, bird calls, and the ringing of bells. The organ coexists with a variety of drums, songs with instrumental music. The basis of the scenographic solution, the symbolic object, is a huge ring with twelve petals, placed in the center of the backdrop. When the petals are closed, the ring is a medallion with the emblem of the conquistadors; when they are open, a giant golden sun, the emblem of the Incas. The sack of Peru ends when the Spaniards take away the gold plates and the sun “sets” and turns into a nondescript dark frame. The symbolism of what is happening is also emphasized through pantomime (gestures and movements of the Incas; the scene of the “Great Ascension”, during which Pissaro’s army overcomes one of the Andes ridges), an integral element of Latin American theater.

“The Royal Hunt for the Sun” is a striking example of the interaction of different theatrical cultures. In the second half of the 20th century, interest in the traditional theaters of the East, Africa, and Latin America was reflected in the work of directors (A. Mnouchkine, P. Brook), who sometimes imparted an exotic flavor to both Shakespeare’s comedies and Greek tragedies. In Schaeffer's play, exoticism is a consequence of the chosen plot and a way to captivate the viewer with the expression of the ritual action.

The search for the absolute is connected in “The Royal Hunt for the Sun” with the search for God and ethical issues. The plays of the Austrian playwright Thomas Bernhard (Thomas Bernhard, 1931 -1989) proposed a different direction of this search (and a different stage language): the chaos of the world is contrasted with the “order” of art, the classicizing efforts of creativity.

This theme is most expressively presented in the play “The Power of Habit” (Die Macht der Gewohnheit, 1974), the characters of which are circus performers traveling around Europe in a van. Circus director Caribaldi rehearses F. Schubert's Trout Quintet with his Granddaughter, Juggler, Clown, and nephew (Lion Tamer). Caribaldi was imbued with the idea of artistic perfectionism. “I only want perfection / and nothing else,” he says to the Juggler and the Tamer, “precision must become a habit.” But his dusty van, slowly moving towards his unloved Augsburg (Brecht’s hometown), hardly serves as a “platform” for the implementation of his daring plan. The phrase “tomorrow in Augsburg,” which is the leitmotif of the play, is indicative of a situation that turns the quintet’s flawless performance into a pipe dream. Rehearsals are disrupted every now and then.

The Germanic and Romanesque spirits in the play are clearly opposed to each other. Caribaldi despises Germany, extolling Italian musical instruments and the Spanish cellist and conductor Pablo Casals. He is echoed by the gallomaniac Juggler, who received an invitation to Bordeaux, to the Sarazan circus. The atmosphere of modern Germany, the play argues, is detrimental to art: Caribaldi's cellos sound completely different north of the Alps.

The “slaves” of art themselves endanger creativity. It is the rehearsal scene (it resembles a play within a play) that suggests an image of disorder and disharmony. In their daily lives, the four artists depend entirely on Caribaldi. But during the rehearsal, the power is on their side. Because of capricious and undisciplined performers, for twenty-two years now there has been no end in sight to “orchestra rehearsals” (familiar to the European public from F. Fellini’s film). The Juggler argues with the director, the Granddaughter constantly laughs, the Tamer is late, and when the artists are finally ready to play, Caribaldi himself begins to suffer from rheumatism. He always reminds himself of himself in the German world, when he finds himself in it, the director is invariably “upset,” just as his instruments, with which he has become close, are also upset. The episode at the end of scene I is indicative: secretly from the Juggler, Caribaldi moves the cello bow along his wooden leg. And just as the sound of Italian instruments changes in the northern climate, so, probably, the sonorous Italian name “Garibaldi” is deafened in German speech.

Caribaldi fears his artists no less than the Tamer fears lions. None of them like the quintet or their instruments. But Caribaldi's selection is limited. And trying to make musicians out of circus performers, he remains faithful to his dream of a concert. But the same dream makes Caribaldi unhappy and even causes him to hate music. ... we don’t even accept life / but we have to live / We hate the Trout quintet / but we have to play,” he mumbles. These words about love-hate for creativity are echoed by one of the epigraphs to the play, taken from Artaud: ... but the tribe of prophets has faded away... In other words, Bernhard doubts the possibilities of classical art. Doesn't it contrast the lies of the modern world with another, much more subtle lie? Then why does Caribaldi, in spite of everything, quote (and therefore read) Novalis and play Schubert? On the one hand, he gives in to the “force of habit”, the craving for perfection, and touches beauty, if not as a creator, then at least as a virtuoso performer. On the other hand, Caribaldi is quite capable of elevating the rehearsals themselves to the rank of art, that merciless struggle with oneself, which one fine day will be rewarded.

The playwright owns a number of plays centered on Austrian social and political life: “The President” (Der Präsident, 1975), “To Rest” (Vor dem Ruhestand, 1979), “Heroes Square” (Heldenplatz, 1988). Modernity is not a subject of philosophical reflection or criticism; it is a material subject to deformation and caricature by Bernhard.

The fate of art in the modern world is viewed from a slightly different angle in the dramaturgy of the German Botho Strauss (Botho Strauss, p. 1944). The characters in his plays suffer from loneliness, fears, and hypochondria. Their attempts to break out of their own “I” and find ways to communicate with others either turn out to be an ordinary failure, or take on grotesque and ugly shapes. The heroine of the play “So big - and so small” (Groß und klein, 1978), having surpassed her acquaintances, “from young to old,” remains a stranger to everyone, unnecessary and, moreover, a rather absurd person. She doesn’t know that everyone lives their life alone. Strauss provides the drama “Park” (Der Park, 1983) with a very eloquent author’s introduction, clarifying the intent of the play: “Let’s imagine: a diligent modern society, almost equally far from both holy ideals and the imperishable beauties of poetry (and, moreover, quite a bit tired), instead of another myth or ideology, it suddenly fell under the magic of a great work of art. ... the characters and the very action of this play are inspired and possessed, exalted and fooled by the spirit of A Midsummer Night's Dream. Thus, by the will of Strauss, Shakespearean material becomes the frame of a modern plot. Shakespeare's Oberon and Titania are thrown out of the forest into a modern park, almost like Bernhard's Schubert Quintet - in reality, the second half of the 20th century. However, this park turns out to be much more cruel and inhumane than the “wild nature” of the old comedy...

The play Ithaka (1996) is based on the last Twelve Cantos of Homer's Odyssey. German theater critics called it one of the modern “dramas about kings.” According to the stage directions introducing the play, “Ithaca is a ‘translation of a reading of the classics into dramatic form’.” Accordingly, the material for theatrical decisions is the thoughts and associations that arise when meeting Homer. Hence the inclusion in the text of passages from Homer translated into German. Strauss entrusted the role of the ancient chorus to three “fragmentary” women (Knee, Clavicle, Wrist). Thus, the bloody reprisal of Odysseus with the suitors is presented mainly in the retelling of this discordant ensemble, which indirectly casts doubt on the justice of the royal act.

Based on the ancient epic, Strauss creates a modern utopia. The return of Homer's Odysseus becomes a metaphor for the restoration of lost unity. The state, having survived a period of anarchy, is reborn by a legitimate monarch. But “Ithaca” is not a state utopia, it is a poetic utopia. Modernity can be transformed like Ithaca. Penelope, in love, rejuvenated, is poetry itself, contrasting the chaos of the universe with the law of harmony. Strauss again, as in “The Park,” tries to captivate his contemporaries with the magic of a work of art.

At the end of the play, peace is restored to Ithaca thanks to the divine intervention of Athena. The use of the deus ex machina technique seems somewhat anachronistic. However, when applied to the topic under discussion, it is not without effectiveness. At the command of the goddess, “the death and crimes of the king will be erased from the memory of the people.” Athena, depriving the inhabitants of Ithaca of memory, abolishes history and establishes peace. This, according to Strauss, is the only possibility of harmony.

It is appropriate to contrast the pessimistic paintings of Strauss, which are very indicative of the dramaturgy of the 1990s, with a different perception of modernity. It is, for example, presented in Tom Stoppard's play Arcadia (Arcadia, 1993). The action in it takes place either at the beginning of the 19th or at the end of the 20th century. This, on the one hand, is dictated by the plot: our contemporaries are trying to discover unknown pages from Byron’s life. On the other hand, it indicates a certain author’s intention: the limited historical horizons of the characters are compensated by the “all-seeing” viewer. Accordingly, the characters in Arcadia talk about the impossibility of returning to the past, but the composition of the play (time “jumps”) allows one to doubt this. Thanks to the author’s “arbitrariness,” the past can be repeated, and both time layers of the play turn out to be closely interconnected.

This relationship is, at first glance, illogical. Thomasina (“Byron’s” line), having learned in Latin class that the Library of Alexandria burned down, laments the loss of the tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles. Teacher Septimus reassures her by comparing humanity to travelers who are forced to carry their belongings with them. What is lost on the road alone will be picked up by those following. His words are confirmed when, already in the 20th century, Thomasina’s own notebook is found, in which she anticipates modern mathematical discoveries.

This episode is an illustration of the paradoxical nature of human fate and an important thought for the playwright: the inevitability of loss is not a reason for sadness, because it is knowledge about it that gives value to every moment. Herzen reflects on this after the death of his son from Stoppard’s dramatic trilogy “The Coast of Utopia” (2002): “Because children grow up, we think that the child’s task is to become an adult. But a child must be a child. Nature does not neglect the fact that it lives only for a day. It is reflected entirely, without a trace, in every moment. We would not value the lily more if it were made of flint and therefore durable. The generosity of life in its flow... The charm of fleeting life - this is one of the leitmotifs of Stoppard's last plays.

"Arcadia" is replete with biblical and literary allusions, allowing for ambiguous interpretations. Thus, the image of the forbidden fruit from the Garden of Eden is hardly intended to recall the Fall, the loss of idyllic Arcadia. The content of the play, far from moralizing, allows us to see in eating an apple from the tree of knowledge a symbol of the beginning of a new life, and not of a lost paradise. The image of fire bringing destruction is also ambiguous. When a 20th-century scientist (Bernard) reconstructs Byron's burnt letter, the viewer unfolds a plot about the possibility of recreating the “irretrievably” lost past. However, Thomasina dies in the fire. But the viewer is prepared for this event. Therefore, that scene of the play in which two couples, from the past (19th century) and the present (20th century), dance without noticing each other, is artistically justified. The rhythm of the waltz, according to Stoppard’s logic, is timeless; in the dance, death and life, the end and the beginning are reconciled.

Summarize. In the dramaturgy of the late 20th century, a variety of trends interact. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was necessary to defend the autonomy of the play from its theatrical embodiment (the French M. Vinaver, M. Deutsch, J.-P. Wenzel). In recent decades, drama has again strengthened its position. In the newest plays, the role of the monologue is great; many of them (the late dramaturgy of the German H. Müller) cannot be comprehended in traditional categories (character, conflict, development of action). A peculiar sign of the 20th century was the genre of “adaptations”, that is, free author’s translations of foreign language plays (T. Wilder writes “The Matchmaker” based on the play by the 19th century Austrian playwright I. Nestroy, J. Co. who translates “A Streetcar Named Desire” by T. Williams , J.-C. Grumbert - “Death of a Salesman” by A. Miller).

Literature

Zingerman B.I. Essays on the history of drama of the 20th century: Chekhov, Strindberg, Ibsen, Maeterlinck, Pirandello, Brecht, Hauptmann, Lorca, Anouilh. - M. 1979.

Molodtsova M. M. Luigi Pirandello. - L., 1982.

Silyunas V. Yu. Federico Garcia Lorca: The Drama of the Poet. - M. 1989.

Koreneva M. M. The work of Yu. O'Neil and the paths of American drama. - M., 1990.

Makarova G.V. Scene of prophecies come true // Western art: 20th century. Between Picasso and Bergman. - St. Petersburg, 1997.

Rudnitsky M. On the other side of appearances / / Bernhard T. “Appearances are deceptive” and other plays: Trans. with him. - M., 1999.

Proskurnikova T. B. Theater of France: Fates and Images. - St. Petersburg, 2002.

Diebold V. Der Denkspieler Georg Kaiser. — Frankfurt a. M., 1924.

Ferrante L. Pirandello. - Firenze, 1958.

Esslin M. The Theater of the Absurd. - L., 1961.

Lima R. The Theater of Garcia Lorca. - N.Y., 1963.

Raleigh J. H. The Plays of Eugene O'Neill. - Carbondale (IL), 1965.

Serreau G. Histoire du "nouveau théâtre". - P., 1966.

Dumur G. Le Théâtre de Pirandello. - P., 1967.

Denkler H. Drama des Expressionismus. Programm, Spieltext, Theatre. — Munich, 19.67.

Hecht W.u. a. Bertolt Brecht. Sein Leben und Werk. — Berlin, 1969.

Lugnani L. Pirandello. Letteratura e teatro. — Firenze, 1973.

Styan J. L. Modern Drama in Theory and Practice. V. 1 - 3. - Cambridge, 1981.

Mignon P. -L. Le Théâtre au XX siècle. - P., 1986.

Petersen J. H. Max Frisch. — Stuttgart, 1989.

KlugC. Thomas Bernhards Theaterstücke. — Stuttgart, 1991.

The Cambridge Companion to Samuel Beckett / Ed. by J. Pilling. Cambridge, 1994.

The Cambridge Companion to Tennessee Williams/Ed. by M. Roudan. - Cambridge, 1997.

The Cambridge Companion to Eugene O'Neill / Ed. by M. Manheim. Cambridge, 1998.

Worth K. Samuel Beckett's Theatre: Life Journeys. - Oxford, 1999.

Bigsby C. W. E. Modern American Drama. 1945-2000. - Cambridge, 2000.

Deutsche Dramatiker des 20. Jahrhunderts / Hrsg. von Alo Allkemper u. Norbert Otto Eke. — Berlin, 2000.

The Cambridge Companion to Tom Stoppard/Ed. by K. Kelly. — Cambridge, 2001.