The term " drama"(from Greek " action», « action") is used in several meanings. This concept is used not only to designate one of the three types of literature (epic, lyric, drama), but also in a broader and in a deep sense. We call dramatic works plots, circumstances, destinies that exist in art various kinds and even the view.
Linguistics determines the meaning of words " drama" And " drama“very generally and mainly from the subjective side, as “a difficult event, an experience that causes moral suffering”, “any shocking event in life”, “ certain circle phenomena of reality (“life drama”), and one of the genres of dramatic literature (“bourgeois drama” of the 18th century), the leading type of stage art is dramatic theater.”
And finally, the modern edition of the Theater encyclopedia gives us following definition dramas: "genus literary works written in the form of dialogue and intended to be performed by actors on stage. Drama refers to two arts at the same time: theater and literature. Dramatic conflicts, reflecting specific historical and personal contradictions, are embodied in the behavior and actions of the characters, primarily in dialogues and monologues!
The text of the drama, focused on spectacular expressiveness, is accompanied by facial expressions, gestures, and certain movements. It is consistent with the possibilities of stage time and with the construction of mise-en-scène. Literary drama, realized by an actor and director, has a scenic quality. Leading genres of drama: tragedy, comedy, tragicomedy.
Dramaturgy – a set of dramatic works of a particular writer, people, era. The concept is used to denote the theory of dramatic construction. In a stage performance, dramaturgy is the plot and compositional basis of a separate theatrical work, for example, the dramaturgy of a play.”
As a kind of verbal art intended for the theater, drama has been considered since the time of Plato and Aristotle, who notes in the Poetics that “the writer can take three paths in description - at the same time becoming something of an outsider, as Homer does, or from his own person, without replacing himself with others, or depicting everyone acting and showing their energy.”
Aristotle considers drama on a par with other poetic genres. Expressing an extremely important, fundamental position about action as the main element of drama.
« Action– development of events that forms the basis of the plot(plot)". The concept of action can be deciphered in the comparative-figurative example of V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko: “You can build a wonderful building, install an excellent administration, invite musicians, and still there will be no theater; but three actors will come out onto the square, lay out a rug and start playing a play, even without makeup and furnishings, and the theater already exists.” Whatever the nature of the stage design - emphatically conventional or “illusory”, generalized symbolic or everyday, in all cases the character of a person and the logic of his actions and deeds remain unconditional in dramaturgy. This is where its decisive aesthetic criterion lies. Dramaturgy is an art centered on active person, its action is the primary element, the basis artistic expression dramaturgy.
Where does the action begin? Relying on long historical experience art, Hegel points out that there is a difference between the beginning of action in real world and how the action begins in a work of art. Following the law established already in ancient poetry, Hegel rightly asserts that the action should begin not with individual first premises, which are sometimes prosaic, completely uninteresting, devoid of drama, but with some essential moment. He contrasts the "empirical beginning" and the poetic beginning, showing that "art does not seek to begin with an event that is the external beginning of a certain action."
The depiction of action is most accessible to poetry, one of the types of which is drama. “Action,” writes Hegel, “is the clearest revelation of man, the revelation of both his state of mind and his goals. What man is at his deepest core is realized only through action...”
Based on the fact that an artistic image should be imbued with internal unity, Hegel emphasizes that if in life we are faced with diversity human actions, then “for art the range of actions that are suitable in nature for the image as a whole is always limited.” This limitation is determined by the fact that the work must embody only that range of actions, “the need for which is determined by the idea.”
Dramatic action and the logic of its development receive an aesthetically adequate reflection in dramatic art, just as thought finds it in literature, in fine arts– the external appearance of an object, its structure, color, in music – intonation. It reproduces the action directly in its entirety and cannot be reproduced with the same aesthetic result either by a play or by any other form of art.
But if drama cannot be considered in a universal way the embodiment of drama, all its diversity real manifestations, then at the same time it undoubtedly occupies a special place in this area. This significance of drama is explained by the fact that it reflects the most essential aspect of the dramatic content of life.
V. Wolkenstein views the action of drama solely as a struggle of “equal” human aspirations. He talks about the need in drama for “continuous dramatic struggle” generated by the “contradiction of interests” of characters.
Thus, an action must always be performed according to the laws human life, is an indivisible element of human action, determined by purpose. Action is a means, a “provocateur of inspiration,” a “lever” that leads from the world of reality to the fictional world.
"There are three main ways of development, actions aimed at covering events from their origins to completion. First way, the most common, is to depict events in chronological sequence(dramas by Shakespeare, Moliere, Schiller, Chekhov, Gorky, etc.). Second, inherent in analytical-retrospective drama, consists in depicting the action only at the moment of its approach to the denouement of the event. In such cases, previous events are restored during the action itself through the stories of the characters (“Oedipus the King” by Sophocles, “Providence”). Third the method consists of interrupting the main action with a stage depiction of previous events (“Mother” by Capek, “ Dangerous bend"and "Time and the Conway Family" by Priestley, "Irkutsk History" by Arbuzov)."
So, drama is necessarily an active continuous action that is realized in the plot. Plot(French) means "chain of events". Any dramatic work is based on intrigue, built on events in development that can easily be retold. Ostrovsky called it a plot. " A plot is a short story about some incident, an incident, a story devoid of any color.”
Fable- this is the skeleton of the plot, the core on which the development of events is strung. Thus, the plot seems to convey only the main frame of events, but not their essence; Only the plot can do that. "Under plot often, of course, the content is completely ready-made, that is, a script with all the details.”
The events that make up the plot can be related to each other in different ways. In some cases, they are only in a temporary connection with each other (B happened after A). In other cases, there are cause-and-effect relationships between events in addition to temporary ones (B occurred as a result of A).
Accordingly, there are two types of plots. Plots dominated by purely temporary connections between events are chronicles. Plots with a predominance of cause-and-effect relationships are called plots single action, or concentric. Aristotle spoke about these two types of plots (plots), who noted that there are, firstly, “episodic plots”, which consist of unrelated, disconnected events and actions that occurred over a certain period of time, and, secondly, secondly, plots based on a single and integral action. Each of these two types of organization of a work has its own artistic possibilities, its own merits and advantages in comparison with the other.
So, event follows event, building a storyline and, as Hegel figuratively said, the dramatic process “is a constant movement forward towards the final catastrophe.” And the main specificity of dramatic action is determined, first of all, by conflict (collision).
« Conflict(art) represents a struggle or contradiction active forces described in the work(for example, a conflict between two characters, character and circumstances, or between two parties of the same character). As a rule, the conflict manifests itself in the plot itself, revealing its essence. The resolution of the conflict is one of the determining factors of the idea. The artistic conflict underlies the developing action and gradually develops into a climax and denouement.”
Based on the semantics of the word conflict ( from Latin conflictus - collision) we can consider that this is, first of all, a clash of characters, destinies, opinions, that is, some effective act that, on an individual level or on a historical scale, leads to a change in the initial situation, existing relationships; it acquires significance not in itself, but, first of all, as a moment of development, a link in a single process.
“There are two types of conflicts embodied in works of art. The first are incidental conflicts: local and transient contradictions, closed within a single set of circumstances and fundamentally solvable by will individuals. The second are “substantial” conflicts, that is, stable and long-term contradictory situations, certain states of life that arise and disappear not thanks to individual actions and accomplishments, but according to the “will” of history and nature.
The true meaning and internal logic of the conflict are revealed only in the light of the initial motives that cause it, the prerequisites and the consequences to which it leads.
This has its own contradictions and difficulties. Reflecting on the conflict, Hegel reasonably notes that for every dramatic action there are many diverse, distant and near, causes, and the playwright’s art is manifested in the choice of the appropriate “starting point.”
This point is not absolute. In a truly profound and artistic dramatic work, the conflict is always “directly” determined, justified and at the same time unfolds on the dune of broader premises and perspectives, present in an indirect, indirect form. In terms of content, the measure of its depth is determined by its connection with the decisive socio-historical patterns of time, its true “ driving forces! From an artistic point of view, the problem is inner harmony, the proportionality of the “direct” and “mediated” depiction of the various phases of dramatic action, the unity of its “scale”.
These phases in the language of drama theory, its technologies are usually called exposition, plot, climax and denouement, that is, the composition of a dramatic work.
Sometimes a play begins with an inversion, that is, showing how the conflict will end before the action begins. This technique is often used by authors of action-packed works, in particular detective stories. The task of inversion is to captivate the viewer from the very beginning, to keep him in additional tension with the help of information about which one to go to. will lead to the end of the depicted conflict.
There is also a moment of inversion in Shakespeare’s prologue to Romeo and Juliet. It already says about the tragic outcome of their love. In this case, the inversion has a different purpose than making the subsequent one more exciting.
"sad story" Having told how his dramatic narrative will end, Shakespeare removes interest in WHAT will happen in order to focus the viewer’s attention on HOW it will happen, on the ESSENCE of the relationships between the characters that led to a pre-known tragic end.
From what has been said, it should be clear that the exposition - the initial part of a dramatic work - lasts until the beginning of the plot - the plot of the main conflict of this play. It is extremely important to emphasize that we're talking about about the beginning of the main conflict, the development of which is the subject of depiction in this play.
From the very beginning of the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, we encounter manifestations of the age-old conflict between the Montague and Capulet families. But this is not their enmity that is depicted in this work. It lasted for centuries, so they “lived and were,” but there was no reason for this play. As soon as the young representatives of two warring clans - Romeo and Juliet - fell in love with each other, a conflict arose, which became the subject of depiction in this work - a conflict between the bright human feeling of love and the dark misanthropic feeling of family enmity.
Thus, the concept - “plot” - includes the plot of the main conflict of this play. At the outset, his movement begins - dramatic action.
Some modern playwrights and theater critics express the opinion that in our time, when the pace and rhythms of life have accelerated immeasurably, one can do without exposition and start the play right away with the action, with the beginning of the main conflict, taking, as they say, the bull by the horns. This formulation of the question is incorrect. In order to “take the bull by the horns,” you need to at least name the bull in front of you. Only the heroes of the play can “start” a conflict. We must understand the meaning and essence of what is happening. Like every moment real life- the life of the heroes of the play can only take place in a specific time and in a specific space. Not to designate either one or the other, or at least one of these coordinates, would mean an attempt to depict some kind of abstraction. The conflict in this unimaginable case would arise out of nothing, which contradicts the laws of motion of matter in general. Not to mention such a difficult moment in this development as the movement of human relations. Thus, the idea of doing without exposition when creating a play is not well thought out.
Sometimes the exposition is combined with the plot. This is exactly how it was done in The Inspector General II. In Gogol. The very first phrase of the mayor addressed to the officials contains all the necessary information for understanding the subsequent action, and. at the same time. is the beginning of the main conflict of the play. It is difficult to agree with E.G. Kholodov, who believes that the plot of “The Inspector General” occurs later, when the “comedy knot” is tied, that is, when Khlestakov was mistaken for an inspector. The plot is the beginning of the main conflict of the play, and not of one or another plot “knot”. IN
In The Inspector General there is no conflict between the characters. They all - both officials and Khlestakov - are in conflict with the viewer, with the positive hero sitting in the hall. And this conflict between satirical heroes and the viewer begins before Khlestakov’s appearance. The viewer’s very first acquaintance with the officials, with their fear about the “unpleasant” news for them about the arrival of the auditor, is the beginning of the conflict (according to the specific laws of satire) confrontation between the “heroes” and the audience. The denial with laughter of the bureaucratic Russia depicted in the comedy begins along with the exposition3.
This approach to interpreting the plot of “The Inspector General,” in my opinion, is more consistent with the definition of plot that, based on Hegel, E. G. Kholodov himself will give: “In the plot “should be given only those circumstances that, picked up by the individual disposition of the soul and its needs, give rise to precisely that specific collision, the development and resolution of which constitutes the special action of this particular work of art” 4.
This is exactly what we see at the beginning of The Inspector General - a certain collision, the unfolding of which constitutes the action of this work.
Sometimes the main conflict of the play does not appear immediately, but is preceded by a system of other conflicts. There is a whole cassette of conflicts in Shakespeare's Othello. The conflict between Desdemona's father - Brabantio and Othello. The conflict between Desdemona's unlucky fiancé Rodrigo and his rival, the more successful Othello. Conflict between Rodrigo and Lieutenant Cassio. There is even a fight between them. Conflict between Othello and Desdemona. It occurs at the end of the tragedy and ends with the death of Desdemona. Conflict between Iago and Cassio. And finally, one more conflict, This is the main conflict of this work - the conflict between Iago and Othello, between the bearer of envy, servility, chameleonism, careerism, petty selfishness - which Iago is, and a man who is direct, honest, trusting, but possessing a passionate and the fierce character that Othello is.
Resolution of the main conflict. As already mentioned, the denouement in a dramatic work is the moment of resolution of the main conflict, the removal of the conflict contradiction, which is the source of the movement of the action. For example, in “The Inspector General” the denouement is the reading of Khlestakov’s letter to Tryapichkin.
In Othello, the resolution of the main conflict occurs when Othello learns that Iago is a slanderer and a scoundrel. Let us note that this happens after the murder of Desdemona. It is wrong to believe that the denouement here is precisely the moment of murder. The main conflict of the play is between Othello and Iago. Killing Desdemona, Othello still does not know who his main enemy is. Consequently, only clarification of Iago’s role is the denouement here.
In Romeo and Juliet, where, as already mentioned, the main conflict lies in the confrontation between the love that broke out between Romeo and Juliet, and the centuries-old enmity of their families. The denouement is the moment when this love ends. It ended with the death of the heroes. Thus, their death is the denouement of the main conflict of the tragedy.
The resolution of the conflict is possible only if the unity of action is preserved, the main conflict that began in the beginning is preserved. This implies the requirement: this outcome of the conflict must be contained as one of the possibilities for its resolution already in the beginning.
In the denouement, or better to say, as a result of it, a new situation is created in comparison with the one that took place in the beginning, expressed in a new relationship between the heroes. This new attitude can be quite varied.
One of the heroes may die as a result of the conflict.
It also happens that outwardly everything remains completely the same. for example, in John Priestley's "Dangerous Turn". The heroes realized that they had only one way out: to immediately end the conflict that had arisen between them. The play ends with a deliberate repetition of everything that happened before the start of the “dangerous turn” of the conversation, the old fun begins, empty conversations, glasses of champagne clink... Outwardly, the relationships of the characters are again exactly the same as before. But this is a form. But in fact, as a result of what happened, the previous relationship is excluded. Former friends and colleagues became fierce enemies.
The finale is the emotional and semantic completion of the work. “Emotionally” means that we are talking not only about the semantic result, not just about the conclusion from the work.
If in a fable the moral is expressed directly - “the moral of this fable is this” - then in a dramatic work the ending is a continuation of the action of the play, its last chord. The finale concludes the play with a dramatic generalization and not only completes this action, but opens the door to perspective, to connection this fact with the wider social organism.
A wonderful example of a finale is the ending of The Inspector General. The denouement occurred, Khlestakov’s letter was read. The officials who deceived themselves have already been ridiculed by the audience. The mayor has already delivered his monologue of self-accusation. At the end of it, an appeal was made to the audience - “Who are you laughing at? You’re laughing at yourself!”, which already contains a powerful generalization of the whole meaning of comedy. Yes, they are by no means the only ones - officials of a small provincial town - the subject of her angry denunciation. But Gogol does not draw an end here. He writes one more, final scene. A gendarme appears and says: “The official who arrived by personal order from St. Petersburg demands you all to come to him this very hour...” This is followed by Gogol’s remark: “Silent scene.”
This reminder of the connection of this town with the capital, with the tsar, is necessary so that the satirical denial of the behavior of the town officials spreads to the entire bureaucracy of Russia, to the entire apparatus of the tsarist power. And this happens. Firstly, because Gogol’s heroes are absolutely typical and recognizable, they give a generalized image of bureaucracy, its morals, and the nature of the performance of its official duties.
The official arrived “but by personal order,” that is, by order of the
king A direct connection between the characters in the comedy and the king has been established. Outwardly, and even more so for censorship, this ending looks harmless: some outrages were happening somewhere, but a real inspector arrived from the capital, from the tsar, and order will be restored. But this is a purely external meaning of the final scene. Its true meaning is different. One had only to remember here about the capital, about the tsar, and through this “communication channel,” as we now say, it is to this address that all the impressions, all the indignation that accumulated during the performance are directed. Nicholas I understood this. After clapping his hands at the end of the performance, he said: “Everyone got it, but most of all I got it.”
An example of a strong ending is the ending of Shakespeare's already mentioned tragedy Romeo and Juliet. The main characters of the tragedy have already died. This unleashes and resolves the conflict that arose thanks to their love. But Shakespeare writes the ending of the tragedy. The leaders of the warring clans make peace at the graves of their dead children. The condemnation of the wild and absurd enmity that divided them sounds all the stronger because to end it it was necessary to sacrifice two beautiful, innocent young creatures. Such an ending contains a warning, a generalized conclusion against those dark prejudices that cripple human destinies. But at the same time, this conclusion is not “added” to the action of the tragedy, it is not “suspended” by the author. It follows from the natural continuation of the events of the tragedy. The burial of the dead, the repentance of the parents responsible for their death do not need to be invented - all this naturally completes and ends the “sad” story of Romeo and Juliet.
The ending of the play is, as it were, a test of the dramaturgy of the work as a whole. If the basic elements of its composition are violated, if the action that began as the main one is replaced by another, the ending will not work. If the playwright did not have enough material, did not have enough talent or knowledge, or dramatic experience in order to complete his work with a true ending, the author often, in order to get out of the situation, ends the work with the help of an ersatz finale. But not every ending, under one pretext or another, is a finale and can serve as the emotional and semantic conclusion of a work. There are several stamps that are typical examples of ersatzfina1a. They are especially clearly distinguishable in films. When the author does not know how to end the film, the characters, for example, sing a cheerful song or, holding hands, go into the distance, getting smaller and smaller...
The most common type of ersatz finale is the “retribution” of the author with the hero. In the play “104 Pages about Love,” its author, E. Radzinsky, specifically made his heroine a representative of a dangerous profession - an Aeroflot flight attendant.
When Anna Karenina ends her life under the wheels of a train, this is the result of what happened to her in the novel. In E. Radzinsky's play, the death of the plane on which the heroine was flying has nothing to do with the action of the play. The relationship between the hero and heroine developed largely artificially, through the willful efforts of the author. Different characters heroes complicated their relationship, however, the grounds for the development of conflict, genuine
There is no contradiction in the play that reflects any significant social problem. Conversations “on the topic” could continue endlessly. In order to somehow finish the work, the author himself “ruined” the heroine with the help of an accident - a fact external to the content of the play. This is a typical ersatz finale.
The problem of such an erzan ending - with the help of killing the hero - is considered by E.G. Kholodov: “If this alone achieved drama, nothing would be easier than to be known as a tragic poet. Such a primitive understanding of the problem of the tragic was also ridiculed by Lessing: “some slayer who would bravely strangle and kill his heroes and would not let a single one leave the stage alive or well, would also, perhaps, imagine himself as tragic as Euripides "5.
4. CONFLICT. ACTION. HERO IN A WORK OF DRAMATURGICAL WORK
The conflict of the play, as a rule, is not identical to some life collision in its everyday form. He generalizes and typifies the contradiction that the artist, in this case the playwright, observes in life. The depiction of a particular conflict in a dramatic work is a way of revealing a social contradiction in an effective struggle.
While remaining typical, the conflict is at the same time personified in the dramatic work in specific characters, “humanized.”
Social conflicts depicted in dramatic works, naturally, are not subject to any unification in content - their number and variety are limitless. However, the methods of compositionally building a dramatic conflict are typical. Reviewing the existing dramatic experience, we can talk about the typology of the structure of dramatic conflict, about three main types of its construction.
Hero - Hero. Conflicts are built according to this type - Lyubov Yarovaya and her husband, Othello and Iago. In this case, the author and the viewer sympathize with one of the parties to the conflict, one of the heroes (or one group of heroes) and together with him they experience the circumstances of the struggle with the opposite side.
The author of a dramatic work and the viewer are always on the same side, since the author’s task is to agree with the viewer, to convince the viewer of what he wants to convince him of. Is it necessary to emphasize that the author does not always reveal to the viewer his likes and dislikes in relation to his heroes. Moreover, a frontal statement of one's positions has little in common with artistic work, especially with drama. There is no need to rush around with ideas on stage. It is necessary for the viewer to leave the theater with them - Mayakovsky rightly said.
Another type of conflict construction: Hero - Audience. On this
Satirical works are usually built in conflict. The visual chal denies behavior and morality with laughter satirical heroes acting on stage. The positive hero in this performance, its author N.V. Gogol said about “The Inspector General,” is in the audience.
The third type of construction of the main conflict: the Hero (or heroes) and the Environment with which they are opposed. In this case, the author and the viewer are, as it were, in a third position, observing both the hero and the environment, following the vicissitudes of this struggle, without necessarily joining one side or the other. A classic example of such a construction is “The Living Corpse” by L. N. Tolstoy. The hero of the drama, Fyodor Protasov, is in conflict with the environment, whose sanctimonious morality forces him to first “leave” it into revelry and drunkenness, then to feign a fictitious death, and then actually commit suicide.
The viewer will by no means consider Fyodor Protasov a positive hero worthy of imitation. But he will sympathize with him and, accordingly, will condemn the environment opposing Protasov - the so-called “color of society” - which forced him to die.
Vivid examples of constructing a conflict of the Hero - Environment type are Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, A.S.’s “Woe from Wit”. Griboyedov, “Thunderstorm” by A.N. Ostrovsky.
The division of dramatic conflicts according to the type of their construction is not absolute. In many works one can observe a combination of two types of conflict construction. So, for example, if in a satirical play, along with negative characters, there are also positive heroes, in addition to the main conflict Hero - Auditorium, we will observe another conflict Hero - Hero, a conflict between positive and negative heroes on stage.
In addition, the Hero-Environment conflict ultimately contains the Hero-Hero conflict. After all, the environment in a dramatic work is not faceless. It also consists of heroes, sometimes very bright, whose names have become household names. Let us remember Famusov and Molchalin in “Woe from Wit”, or Kabanikha in “The Thunderstorm”. In the general concept of “Environment” we unite them on the principle of the commonality of their views, a common attitude towards the hero opposing them.
Action in a dramatic work is nothing more than a conflict in development. It develops from the initial conflict situation that arose in the beginning. It develops not just sequentially - one event after another - but through the birth of a subsequent event from the previous one, thanks to the previous one, according to the laws of the cause-and-effect series. The action of the play in every at the moment should be fraught with the development of further action.
The theory of dramaturgy at one time considered it necessary to observe three unities in a dramatic work: the unity of time, the unity of place and the unity of action. Practice, however, has shown that dramaturgy easily dispenses with the unity of place and time, but the unity of action is a truly necessary condition for the existence of a dramatic work as a work of art.
Maintaining unity of action is essentially maintaining a single picture of the development of the main conflict. It is thus a condition for creating a holistic image of the conflict event that is depicted in this work. Unity of action - the picture of the development of the main conflict that is continuous and not replaced during the play - is a criterion for the artistic integrity of the work. Violation of the unity of action - the substitution of a conflict tied in the beginning - undermines the possibility of creating a holistic artistic image of a conflict event and inevitably seriously reduces the artistic level of a dramatic work.
Action in a dramatic work should be considered only what happens directly on stage or on screen. The so-called “pre-stage”, “non-stage”, “off-stage” actions are all information that can contribute to the understanding of the action, but in no case can replace it. Abusing the amount of such information to the detriment of action greatly reduces emotional impact play (performance) on the viewer, and sometimes reduces it to nothing.
In the literature one can sometimes find an insufficiently clear explanation of the relationship between the concepts of “conflict” and “action”. P. G. Kholodov writes about it this way: “The specific subject of depiction in drama is, as is known, life in motion, or in other words, action” 6. This is inaccurate. Life in motion is any flow of life. It can, of course, be called action. Although, in relation to real life, it would be more accurate to talk not about action, but about actions. Life is endlessly active.
The subject of depiction in drama is not life in general, but one or another specific social conflict, personified in the heroes of a given play. Action, therefore, is not the ebullience of life in general, but a given conflict in its specific development.
Further, E. G. Kholodov clarifies his formulation to some extent, but the definition of action remains inaccurate: “Drama reproduces action in the form of a dramatic struggle,” he writes, “that is, in the form of a conflict.” “We cannot agree with this. Drama does not reproduce action in the form of conflict, but on the contrary - conflict in the form of action. And this is not a game of words, but a restoration of the true essence of the concepts under consideration. Conflict is the source of action. Action is the form of its movement, its existence in a work.
The source of drama is life itself. The playwright takes the conflict from the real contradictions in the development of society to depict in his work. He subjectivizes it in specific characters, he organizes it in space and time, gives, in other words, his own picture of the development of the conflict, and creates dramatic action. Drama is an imitation of life - as Aristotle spoke about - only in the most general sense of these words. 1) in each given work of drama, the action is not copied from any specific situation, but created, organized, sculpted by the author. The movement, therefore, proceeds in this way: the contradiction of the development of society; typical, objectively existing on the basis of a given contradiction
conflict; its author's concretization is personification in the heroes of the work, in their clashes, in their contradiction and opposition to each other; development of the conflict (from the beginning to the denouement, to the ending), that is, building the action.
Elsewhere, E. G. Kholodov, relying on Hegel’s thought, comes to a correct understanding of the relationship between the concepts of “conflict” and “action”.
Hegel writes: “Action presupposes circumstances preceding it, leading to collisions, to action and reaction.”
The plot of the action, according to Hegel, lies where in the work appear, “given” by the author, “only those (and not any at all - D.A.) circumstances that, picked up by the individual disposition of the soul (the hero of this work - D. .A.) and its needs, give rise to precisely that specific collision, the development and resolution of which constitutes the special action of a given work of art.”
So, action is the initiation, “unfolding” and “resolution” of the conflict.
The hero in a dramatic work must fight, be a participant in a social conflict. This, of course, does not mean that the heroes of other literary works of poetry or prose do not participate in social struggle. But there may be other heroes. In a work of drama there should not be heroes who stand outside the depicted social conflict.
The author depicting a social conflict is always on one side of it. His sympathies and, accordingly, the audience’s sympathies are given to some characters, and his antipathies to others. At the same time, the concepts of “positive” and “negative” heroes are relative concepts and not very accurate. In each specific case, we can talk about positive and negative characters from the point of view of the author of this work.
In our general understanding of modern life, a positive hero is one who fights for the establishment of social justice, for progress, for the ideals of socialism. A negative hero is, accordingly, one who contradicts him in ideology, in politics, in behavior, in attitude to work.
The hero of a dramatic work is always a son of his time, and from this point of view, the choice of a hero for a dramatic work is also of a historical nature, determined by historical and social circumstances. At the dawn of Soviet drama, finding a positive and negative character was easy for authors. A negative hero was anyone who clung to yesterday - representatives of the tsarist apparatus, nobles, landowners, merchants, White Guard generals, officers, sometimes even soldiers, but in any case, everyone who fought against the young Soviet government. Accordingly, it was easy to find a positive hero in the ranks of revolutionaries, party leaders, heroes of the civil war, etc. Today, in a period of comparative peacetime, the task of finding a hero is much more difficult, because social clashes are not expressed as clearly as they were expressed in the years of revolution and civil war, or later, during the Great Patriotic War.
“Reds!”, “Whites!”, “ours!”, “fascists!” - different in different years
children shouted, looking at the cinema screens. The reaction of adults was not so immediate, but fundamentally similar. The division of heroes into “ours” and “not ours” in works dedicated to the civil revolution. The Patriotic War was not difficult, neither for the authors nor for the audience. Unfortunately, the artificial division imposed from above by Stalin and his propaganda apparatus Soviet people on “ours” and “not ours” also provided material for working only with black and white paint, images from these positions of “positive” and “negative” heroes.
An acute social struggle, as we see, is happening now, both in the sphere of ideology, and in the sphere of production, and in the moral sphere, in matters of law, and norms of behavior. The drama of life, of course, never disappears. The struggle between movement and inertia, between indifference and burning, between open-mindedness and narrow-mindedness, between nobility and baseness, search and complacency, between good and evil in the broad sense of these words, always exists and provides an opportunity for the search for heroes as positive, with whom we sympathize , and negative.
It was already said above that the relativity of the concept of a “positive” hero also lies in the fact that in drama, as in literature in general, in a number of cases the hero with whom we sympathize is not an example to follow, a model of behavior and life position. It is difficult to classify Katerina from “The Thunderstorm” and Larisa from “Dowry” by L.N. as positive heroes from these points of view. Ostrovsky. We sincerely sympathize with them as victims of a society living according to the laws of animal morality, but their way of fighting their lack of rights and humiliation is ours. Naturally, we reject it. The main thing is this. that in life there are no absolutely positive or absolutely negative people. If people shared things like this in life, and a “positive” person would have no reason or opportunity to turn out to be “negative” and vice versa, art would lose its meaning. It would lose one of its most important purposes - to contribute to the improvement of the human person.
Only a lack of understanding of the essence of the impact of a dramatic work on the audience can explain the existence of primitive assessments of the ideological sound of a particular play by calculating the balance between the number of “positive” and “negative” characters. Especially often such calculations are used to evaluate satirical plays.
We divide conflicts in scripts and films not only into types - dramatic and narrative, but also within each of the types - into species conflicts.
What types are these?
There are two types of dramatic conflicts:
Group I: external conflicts and
internal conflicts.
External conflict- this is a conflict whose parties are personified. In order to correctly determine the essence of the external conflict, it is necessary to pose the question: the conflict between “which” and “which” of the characters in the film?
The external conflict in the film “Titanic” is between Rose and her millionaire fiancé, in I. Bergman’s film “Autumn Sonata” - between Eva and her mother, a successful pianist Charlotte, in “The Long Farewell” - between Evgenia Vasilievna and her son Sasha.
The conflict is internal- a clash of two principles in the character’s soul. To formulate it correctly, it is necessary to pose the question: the conflict between “what” and “what” in the hero’s soul?
And then you will correctly determine that internal conflict in the soul of Shakespeare's Othello there is a struggle between the gullibility of love and the suspicion of jealousy, in the film "Kalina Krasnaya" - the loyalty of Yegor Prokudin native land with his rebellious self-will, in the film “Theme” - between the playwright Kim Yesenin’s awareness of the ensuing waste of talent and his hope for his spiritual revival.
It should be added: the existence in the film of a truly developed internal conflict gives the plot of the work a greater degree of deep content. Thus, in the characters of the above-mentioned films by I. Bergman and K. Muratova, we find internal conflicts, but in the main characters of melodramas there are none.
II type of conflicts: open and
hidden conflicts.
(It is necessary to take into account: we are not dealing with the third and fourth types of conflicts - for both external and internal conflict can be both open and hidden).
Conflicts are open clear to the viewer from the very beginning of their inception. These include all the above-mentioned examples of external and internal conflicts.
Hidden conflicts- the audience for the time being, sometimes for quite a long time, does not know about the existence of the conflict, and then it opens, and most often - suddenly. So, for quite a long time we do not suspect the presence of an acute dramatic external conflict between Cabiria and the accountant Oscar, who is “in love” with her, but then this conflict is suddenly revealed with all its merciless obviousness - both for the heroine of the picture and for us , spectators.
Or - Ada’s sudden decision to throw her beloved piano (“Piano”) into the ocean. Only here is the internal dramatic conflict revealed to us in its entirety: between carnal passions and the spiritual principle living in the soul of the heroine.
Correlation of genders and types of conflicts
So, dramatic conflicts can be:
Dramatic and narrative
External and internal,
Open and hidden.
In order not to get confused in their correlation, let's draw up a diagram:
Scheme of correlation between genders and types of conflicts:
PLOT MOTIFES AND SITUATIONS
The plot motive (not to be confused with the similar-sounding term “motivation”) is another part of the plot film.
What is a "motive"?
Motif (French motif from Latin moveo - I move) is a stable formal and meaningful component of the plot.
In this definition, first of all, you should pay attention to the word - “ stable" That is, repeating, moving from one work to another, from there to a third, and so on...
The motif of fratricide and manicide, which lies at the heart of the tragedy “Hamlet,” is repeated in it - in the play, which, at the request of Prince Hamlet, is performed in front of the king by traveling actors and which is called “The Murder of Gonzago.”
The film “Rosencrantz and Guildestern are Dead” (created by the Englishman Tom Stoppard based on his play in 1990) very clearly shows how the same motive - fratricide and manicide - can be presented many times in different ways, as if passing from life to art and, conversely, from art into the lives of heroes.
The main plot motif of “Macbeth” - a villainous murder at the instigation of a woman - you will find in N. Leskov’s story “Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk”, and in several films based on the novel by James Cain “The Postman Always Rings Twice”: in the film by L. Visconti "Whiplash" (1942) and in the works of American directors Thay Garnett (1946) and Bob Rafelson (1981).
Classification of plots
It is the stability, the repetition of motives in different works different authors makes it possible to classify infinite number plots developed in art.
The definition used in practice “ wandering stories", With scientific point vision, therefore can be considered incorrect. It would be more accurate to talk about “ wandering plot motives».
The plot of one work always different from another - otherwise it will simply be his cast, imprint, copy. This difference can be seen in remakes, even in such as (absolutely extreme case!) film directed by Gus Van Sant “Psycho” (1999), in which the authors set themselves the task, in memory of the master, to simply repeat Hitchcock’s masterpiece in a new technique - right down to the size, angles and camera movements. But - color, small changes in details, significant ones - in the personal qualities and behavior of the actors - and before us is another story.
However, it turns out that the sea of plots - literary and cinematic - can be classified, brought into groups - according to the characteristics underlying these plots - the same plot motifs.
Playwrights are well aware of the talk that there are only 36 plots. Or - 20 stories. A variety of numbers are mentioned. But they do not clarify that we are not talking about plots, but about plot motives.
In the book “Dramaturgy of Cinema” by the outstanding film playwright and theorist, founder of the screenwriting department of VGIK Valentin Konstantinovich Turkin (the first edition was published in 1938), you will find a lengthy reference to the book “Thirty-six dramatic situations” by the French author Georges Polti, published at the beginning of the last century. V.K. Turkin reproduces all these 36 situations in his book, adding his own comments to the explanations of Georges Polti. Here is an excerpt from a review of the book by J. Polti, written by A. Lunacharsky (“Paris Letters” - Theater and Art magazine): “In “Goethe’s Conversations with Eckermann” there is the following phrase from Goethe: “Gozzi argued that there is only thirty-six tragic situations. Schiller racked his brains for a long time to discover more, but he didn’t even find as much as Gozzi...
Polti found all thirty-six and lists them, giving at the same time a huge mass of transitions and options.
But excuse me, this section is about plot motives, and J. Polti, judging by the title of his book, wrote about situations. Are these the same thing?
No, not one. Although these components are approximately of the same order. What is a plot situation?
Plot situation- This motive, developed to designate conflicting forces.
Let's see how the situations found by Georges Polti are presented in his book (we quote from V.K. Turkin):
« 1st situation. Prayer
Elements of the situation: 1) pursuer; 2) persecuted and begging for protection, help, shelter, forgiveness, etc.; 3) the force on which it depends to provide help, etc., while the force does not immediately decide to defend itself, hesitates, is unsure of itself, which is why you have to beg it, and the more you beg it (thereby increasing the emotional impact of the situation) The more she hesitates, she does not dare to provide help.
Examples: 1) a person fleeing begs someone who can save him from his enemies; 2) asks for asylum in order to die in it; 3) asks those in power for dear, close people; 4) asks one relative for another relative; 5) a shipwrecked person asks for shelter, etc.”
Please note: in the title of the situation it is indicated not the situation itself, but the motive underlying it: " supplication».
And only then, when its elements are set out, does it appear before us situation, which already involves characters representing the parties to the conflict: 1) the pursuer; 2) persecuted; 3) the force on which assistance depends.
It is curious that in the part to which Georges Polti gave the subtitle “Examples”, there are no in this case there are no examples. In it we find only “transitions and variants,” according to A. Lunacharsky, of the initial situation, developing the same plot motive of supplication.
But in many other motive-situations J. Polti gives examples. Let's take situation No. 8:
“Indignation, riot, mutiny.
Elements of the situation: 1) tyrant; 2) conspirator.
Examples: 1) a conspiracy of one (“The Fiesco Conspiracy” by Schiller); 2) conspiracy of several;
3) the indignation of one (“Egmont” by Goethe); the indignation of many (“William Tell” by Schiller, “Germinal” by Zola).”
“9th situation. A daring attempt.
Elements of the situation: 1) daring; 2) object, i.e. what the daring person decides to do; 3) opponent, opposing person.
Examples: 1) theft of an object (“Prometheus - the Thief of Fire” by Aeschylus); 2) enterprises associated with dangers and adventures (novels by Jules Verne and adventure stories in general); 3) dangerous enterprises in order to achieve the woman you love, etc.”
Since, by all accounts, it is clear that Georges Polti did not read our great poet, we dare to give as an example the last (3) version of the situation - “ Stone Guest» A. Pushkin.
As you may have already concluded even from just the three motive-situations given above: there is quite a noticeable arbitrariness in their designation. In his review A.V. Lunacharsky wrote: “Of course, digitally thirty six he (J. Polti - L.N.) does not see anything Kabbalistic. He understands that one can easily disagree with him, compress any two situations into one or two variations and count them as two situations...”
True, the future Soviet People's Commissar of Education immediately adds: “... but you still have to revolve around the figure thirty six…».
Is this true?
Look carefully at the list of motives proposed by J. Polti, and you will find that it can be expanded quite easily. In this list you will not find such obvious “dramatic” motives and situations developed on their basis as “ betrayal"(Kurbsky in S. Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible), " slander"("Ivanhoe" by W. Scott), " deceit"(Shakespeare's Othello and Cunning and Love"
Schiller), " love of money» (« Merchant of Venice"Shakespeare, " Stingy Knight"Pushkin), " suicide"("The Meek" by Dostoevsky, "The Thunderstorm" by Ostrovsky, "Anna Karenina" by L. Tolstoy), " fraud"("Dead Souls" by Gogol) and so on...
On the other hand, the list of motives-situations contained in the book by V.K. Turkina, it can be compacted. And to an extremely large extent. The famous Argentine poet and writer H.-L. Borges, an extraordinary scholar in the field of literature, has a short one-page essay called “The Four Cycles.” In it he writes: “There are only four stories. One, the oldest, is about a fortified city, which is stormed and defended by heroes. ...The second story, connected to the first, is about returning. ...The third story is about the search. We can consider it a variant of the previous one (! - L.N.). ... Latest story- about the suicide of God. ...There are only four stories. And no matter how much time we have left, we will retell them - in one form or another.”
Look what's here highest degree compaction and concentration of material! Of course, as already mentioned, there is a very noticeable degree of arbitrariness and subjectivity in this. Some creative personalities circumstances do not hide the latter. Thus, the famous English postmodernist film director Peter Greenway said in one of his television interviews (Culture channel, December 2002) that for him in art there are “only two topics:
The question of the nature of conflict in a dramatic work is also controversial. The problem of conflict (collision) as a source of action was carefully developed by Hegel. He explained a lot about the plot of the drama. But in the concept of the German philosopher there is a certain one-sidedness, which became clear with the strengthening of realism in literature.
Without denying the existence of constant, substantial conflicts that have become “as if nature,” Hegel at the same time emphasized that truly free art “should not bow” to such “sad, unhappy collisions.” Weaning artistic creativity From the deepest contradictions in life, the philosopher proceeded from the conviction of the need for reconciliation with the presence of evil. He saw the calling of the individual not in improving the world or even in its self-preservation in the face of hostile circumstances, but in bringing itself into a state of harmony with reality.
From here follows Hegel’s thought that the most important thing for an artist is collision, “the true basis of which lies in spiritual forces and their divergence from each other, since this opposition is caused by the act of man himself.” In collisions favorable to art, according to the philosopher, “the main thing is that a person enters into a struggle with something in himself and for himself that is moral, true, holy, incurring retribution on his part.”
Ideas about this kind of conflict, which can be controlled by a rational will, determined Hegel’s teaching on dramatic action: “At the heart of the conflict is a violation that cannot be maintained as a violation, but must be eliminated. Collision is such a change in the harmonic state, which in turn must be changed."
Collision, Hegel persistently emphasizes, is something constantly developing, seeking and finding ways to overcome its own; it “needs a resolution following the struggle of opposites,” that is, the conflict revealed in the work must exhaust itself with the denouement of the action. The conflict underlying a work of art, according to Hegel, is always, as it were, on the eve of its own disappearance. In other words, the conflict is understood by the author of “Aesthetics” as something transitory and fundamentally solvable (eliminable) within the limits of a given individual situation.
Hegel's concept of collision is preceded by ancient teachings about plots: Aristotle's judgment on the need for beginnings and endings in tragedies, as well as the ancient Indian treatise on dramatic art called “Natyashastra”. It summarizes a rich and varied artistic experience. In myths and epics, fairy tales and early novels, as well as dramatic works of eras distant from us, events invariably lined up in strictly ordered series, fully consistent with Hegel’s ideas about the movement from disharmony to harmony.
This was the case in late Greek comedy, where “every smallest shift in the action is completely random, but on the whole this endless chain of accidents suddenly for some reason forms a certain pattern,” and in Sanskrit drama, where there are no catastrophes: here “misfortunes and failures are overcome and the harmonious relationship is restored. The drama moves from peace through discord back to peace,” “the confrontation of passions and desires, conflicts and antinomies are superficial phenomena of an inherently harmonious reality.”
A similar pattern in the organization of a series of events is not difficult to discern in ancient tragedies, where the conflict is eventually resolved: the heroes receive retribution for pride or outright guilt, and the course of events ends with the triumph of order and the reign of justice. The “disastrous side of events” here “inevitably turns to the side of revival and creation,” everything “ends with the founding of new cities, houses, clans.”
The mentioned features of artistic conflict are also present in Shakespeare’s tragedies, the plot of which is based on the scheme: “order - chaos - order.” The plot structure in question is threefold. Here are its main components: 1) initial order (balance, harmony); 2) its violation; 3) its restoration, and sometimes strengthening.
This stable event scheme embodies the idea of the world as orderly and harmonious, free from persistent conflict situations, and in no way in need of significant changes; it expresses the idea that everything that happens, no matter how whimsical and changeable it may be, is guided by positive forces of order.
The three-part plot scheme has the deepest cultural and historical roots, it is predetermined and given by archaic mythology (primarily cosmogonic myths about the emergence of order from chaos) and ancient teachings about the undivided harmony reigning in the world, be it the Indian “rita” (designation of the principle of universal orderliness in cosmology of the era of “Rigveda” and “Upapishads”) or “cosmos” of ancient Greek philosophy.
In terms of its initial worldview orientation, the long-standing three-part plot structure is conservative: it affirms, defends, and sanctifies the existing order of things. Archetypal plots in historically early versions express unreflective trust in the world order. In these stories there is no place for any supra-personal forces that would be denied. Consciousness, imprinted by this kind of plot, still “does not know any fixed, stable background.”
Conflicts here are not only fundamentally removable, but also urgently require resolution within individual human destinies, within the framework of individual circumstances and their combinations. Calming and reconciling endings or epilogues, marking the triumph of a perfect and good world order over any deviations from the norm, are as necessary in traditional plotting as a constant and a rhythmic pause in poetic speech.
Early artistic literature apparently knows only one type of catastrophic ending to the action: fair retribution for some kind of individual or family guilt - for an initiative (although not always conscious) violation of the world order.
But no matter how deep Hegel’s thoughts about collision and action are, they contradict very many facts artistic culture, especially in modern times. The general basis of the collision is the unattained spiritual good of man, or, to put it in the manner of Hegel, the beginning of rejection of “existing existence.” IN historical life of humanity, the deepest conflicts appear as stable and sustainable, as a natural and irremovable discord between people with their needs and the surrounding existence: social institutions, and sometimes even the forces of nature. If these conflicts are resolved, they will not be resolved individually. acts of will individuals, but the movement of history as such.
Hegel, as can be seen, “allowed” the contradictions of existence into the world of dramatic art in a restrictive manner. His theory of collision and action is fully consistent with the work of those writers and poets who thought of reality as harmonious. The artistic experience of realistic literature of the 19th-20th centuries, which focused on socially determined conflicts in people’s lives, comes into sharp contradiction with the concept of collision and action proposed by Hegel.
Therefore, another, broader view than Hegel’s on dramaturgical conflicts, a view first expressed by Bernard Shaw, is also legitimate, even urgent. In his work “The Quintessence of Ibsenism,” which, unfortunately, remained beyond the sight of our drama theorists, classic concept conflicts and actions coming from Hegel are decisively rejected.
In his characteristic polemical manner, Shaw writes about the “hopelessly outdated” dramatic technique of a “well-made play”, which has become obsolete in the plays of Scribe and Sardou, where there is a local conflict based on chance between the characters and, most importantly, its resolution. In relation to such canonically constructed plays, the playwright speaks of “foolishness called action.”
Shaw contrasted traditional drama, which corresponds to the Hegelian concept, with modern drama, based not on the vicissitudes of external action, but on discussions between characters, and ultimately on conflicts arising from the clash of different ideals. Reflecting on Ibsen’s experience, B. Shaw emphasized the stability and constancy of the conflicts he recreated and regarded this as the natural norm of modern drama: if the playwright takes “layers of life” and not accidents, then “he thereby undertakes to write plays that have no denouement.” .
Conflicts, which are a constant feature of recreated life, are very important in the drama of the 20th century. After Ibsen and Chekhov, the action, steadily striving towards a denouement, was increasingly replaced by plots that unfolded some kind of stable collision.
Therefore, in the drama of our century, as D. Priestley noted, “the revelation of the plot occurs gradually, in a soft, slowly changing light, as if we were examining dark room using an electric flashlight." And the fact that artistically recreated collisions become less dynamic and are studied slowly and scrupulously does not at all indicate a crisis in dramatic art, but, on the contrary, its seriousness and strength.
As writers deepen into the multilateral connections of characters with the circumstances of surrounding existence, the form of conflicts and incidents becomes more and more close for them. Life invades the literature of the 20th century with a wide stream of experiences, thoughts, actions, events that are difficult to reconcile with the “laws” of Hegelian conflict and traditional external action.
There are, therefore, two types of conflicts embodied in works of art. The first are incidental conflicts: local and transitory contradictions, confined within a single set of circumstances and, in principle, solvable by the will of individual people. The second are substantial conflicts, which are either universal and in their essence, unchangeable, or arise and disappear according to the transpersonal will of nature and history.
In other words, the conflict has two forms. The first is conflict as a fact that marks a violation of the world order, which is basically harmonious and perfect. The second is conflict as a feature of the world order itself, evidence of its imperfection or disharmony. These two types of conflicts often coexist and interact within the same work. And the task of a literary critic who turns to dramatic creativity is to understand the “dialectics” of local conflicts and stable, stable contradictions in the composition of artistically mastered existence.
Dramatic works, with more energy and relief than any other type of literature, bring to the fore the forms of human behavior in their spiritual and aesthetic significance. This term, unfortunately, has not taken root in literary criticism, denotes the originality of the embodiment of the “personality makeup” and inner world of a person - his intentions and attitudes, in actions, in the manner of speaking and gesticulating.
Forms of human behavior are marked not only by individual uniqueness, but also by socio-historical and national differences. In the “behavioral sphere”, forms of a person’s action among the public (or “in public”) are distinguishable - and in his private, everyday life; theatrically spectacular - and unpretentiously everyday; etiquette-set, ritual - and initiative, free-personal; certainly serious - and playful, coupled with fun and laughter.
These types of behavior are assessed in a certain way by society. In different countries and in different eras they relate differently to cultural norms. At the same time, forms of behavior evolve. Thus, if in ancient and medieval societies the etiquette “prescribed” behavior, its patheticism and theatrical showiness dominated and were influential, then in recent centuries, on the contrary, personal freedom of behavior, its non-patheticism, lack of effect and everyday simplicity prevailed.
There is hardly any need to prove that drama, with its inherent “unbreakable line” of characters’ statements, is to a greater extent than other groups works of art, turns out to be a mirror of the forms of human behavior in their richness and diversity. Forms of behavior as reflected by theatrical and dramatic art undoubtedly require systematic study, which has barely begun. And analyzes of dramatic works, undoubtedly, can and even should contribute to the solution of this scientific problem.
At the same time, drama naturally emphasizes a person’s verbal actions (indications in it of the character’s movements, postures, and gestures are, as a rule, few and sparing). In this respect it is a relief and concentrated refraction of shapes speech activity people.
Consideration of the connections between dialogue and monologue in the drama of recent centuries with colloquial speech seems to be a very pressing prospect for its study. At the same time, the connection between dramatic dialogue and conversation (conversation) as a form of culture cannot be understood in any broad and complete manner without a scientific examination of conversational communication itself, which still remains outside the attention of our scientists: colloquial speech is considered more as a phenomenon of language than of culture and its history.
Khalizev V.E. Dramatic work and some problems of its study / Analysis of a dramatic work - L., 1988.
4.1. Defining the boundaries of the concept “nature of conflict”.
The term "nature of conflict" is often used in writings on drama, but there is no clear terminological clarity in its functioning. A. Anikst, for example, characterizing Hegel’s reasoning about conflict, writes: “In essence, everything that Hegel says about “action” and general condition world, is a discussion about the nature of dramatic conflict" (9; 52). Introducing various types collisions highlighted by the philosopher, Anikst notes that “this place of his aesthetics is of exceptionally great interest, because here questions about the character, ideological and aesthetic qualities of the dramatic conflict are resolved” (9; 56). The nature and character of the conflict are reduced by the researcher to an unambiguous concept. V. Khalizev, in his work “Drama as a Kind of Literature,” also resorts to the formulation “nature of conflict,” although, highlighting the same issues in the preface to the collection “Analysis of a Dramatic Work,” the scientist also uses the concept of “nature of conflict,” and notes that “ Among the controversial is the question of the nature of the conflict in a dramatic work" (267; 10).
IN reference publications This conceptual formula is not allocated to a special paragraph at all. Only in the translated “Dictionary of the Theater” by P. Pavi does such an explanation exist in the “Conflict” section. It says: “The nature of various conflicts is extremely diverse. If a scientific typology were possible, it would be possible to draw a theoretical model of all conceivable dramatic situations and thereby determine the dramatic nature of theatrical action, the following conflicts would emerge:
Rivalry between two characters for economic, love, moral, political and other reasons;
The conflict of two worldviews, two irreconcilable moralities (for example, Antigone and Creon);
The moral struggle between the subjective and the objective, attachment and duty, passion and reason. This struggle can take place in the soul of the individual or between two “worlds” that are trying to win over the hero;
Conflict of interests between the individual and society, private and general considerations;
The moral or metaphysical struggle of a person against any principle or desire that exceeds his capabilities (God, absurdity, ideal, overcoming oneself, etc.)" (181; 162).
The nature of the conflict in this case refers to the forces entering into struggle among themselves. In works on drama one can also find references to the tragic, comedic, melodramatic nature of the conflict, i.e., reducing the concept to a genre characteristic. The very meaning of the word “nature” in relation not to the sphere of the physical existence of the world, but to the field of metaphysical reflection, is multifunctional, it can be used with various logical series. In V. Dahl’s dictionary this is explained as follows: “Referring nature to personality, they say: born this way. In this meaning, nature, as a property, quality, accessory or essence, is transferred to abstract and spiritual objects” (89; III, 439). Hence the completely justified application of the concept of “nature” to any other concepts and phenomena that require an explanation of their characteristics.
For system analysis In a dramatic work, it is necessary to establish clear boundaries for such a definition as “the nature of a dramatic conflict” and separate it from the concept of “the nature of the conflict”, to reveal their interdependence, interconnection, but not identity.
Since the concept of “nature,” according to Dahl, when applied to abstract categories of logical constructions, correlates with different semantic groups, then, speaking about the nature of a dramatic conflict, one can mean both its genre essence, and the characteristics of the forces entering into a duel, and the belonging of these forces to that or other area human activity. However, in these cases, the definition of “the nature of the conflict” does not claim categorical status. If we introduce the term as a theoretical unit, then it is necessary to find a more generalizing and universal meaning.
IN this study the nature of the conflict will be understood as a meta-category, i.e. the broadest and fundamental category poetics of drama, which is a system-forming beginning in the process of the author’s modeling of the world order. The introduction of this category will allow us to more clearly and substantively trace how the ontological views of the artist determine the specifics of his artistic principles.
If we use the distinction between the concepts of “collision” and “conflict”, keeping in mind that the first is a designation of potential contradictions, and the second is the process of their complex collision - a struggle organized into a single artistic process, then a collision is defined as the basis of the conflict, the impetus for its development . In turn, the source of the conflict determines the nature of the conflict.
“Mediation” of the collision between the source of contradictions and the holistic model of their representation (conflict) seems fundamentally important. In this triad - source (nature of conflict) - collision - conflict - the cognitive-modeling function of art is clearly visible. Collision acts as a really existing contradiction, conflict is its artistic image (collision is the signified, conflict is the signifier). The material carrier of the artistic sign (conflict) in drama is the objective world, which includes man. Here, it seems to us, lies the core of the generic specificity of drama.
The objective world and man in lyric poetry and epic remain the depicted word; in drama, reproduction is initially programmed verbal description into an effective series. The focus on material materialization is manifested through a special concentration of the crisis conditions of the character’s existence for maximum manifestation of his personal qualities and the essence of the events taking place. Only in drama does conflict become not just a way of depicting the world, but the very texture of the image; only in drama does conflict turn from a means, a principle (a logical-abstract concept) into a carrier of artistic imagery. Comprehension of the depth and specificity of the conflict is impossible without turning to the source, the fundamental basis for the creation of contradictions, i.e. the structure of the conflict is determined by the nature of its occurrence.
The supporters of the “new drama” rebelled against the established forms of dramatic skill because they saw completely different sources for creating conflicts than their predecessors. According to A. Bely, the “drama in life” was replaced by the “drama of life.”
Without resorting to theoretical calculations, it is through the concept of “the nature of conflict” that V. Yarkho, who talks about the work of ancient Greek authors, and A. Skaftymov, who reveals the specifics of Chekhov’s plays, analyze the features of different dramaturgical systems. Here is what Yarkho writes about the essence of the differences between the dramaturgy of Aeschylus and his younger contemporaries: “when analyzing the post-Aeschylus tragedy, we will try to get an answer to the following questions, already embedded in the dramaturgy of Aeschylus: How does she see the world - does it retain its finite rationality in the eyes of Sophocles and Euripides? “What is the essence of the tragic conflict - is it limited to the tragedy of the situation, or is the conflict rooted in the tragic inconsistency of the world as a whole?” (294; 160). Skaftymov, characterizing Chekhov's plays, notes that first of all it is necessary to find an answer to the question: “Where does conflict arise from? Who and what is the source of suffering?” (215; 419).
Let us note that in the first case we are talking about dramas created at the dawn of the formation of the literary kind; but even then, as noted modern explorer, the different nature of the conflict distinguished the works of playwrights, determining the features of their artistic principles. Consequently, at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. supporters of the “new drama” only aggravated and placed at the center of discussion the issue inherent in drama at all stages of its historical development.
4.2. Casual and substantial nature of the conflict.
V. Khalizev turned to a theoretical understanding of this problem, proposing to classify conflicts according to the sources of their occurrence. Exploring Hegel’s theory of conflict, V. Khalizev writes: “Hegel allowed contradictions into the world of dramatic art in a restrictive way. His theory of conflict and action is completely consistent with the work of those writers and poets who thought of reality as harmonious.” In this regard, Khalizev proposes to call this kind of conflicts “incident conflicts,” i.e., “local, transitory, confined within a single set of circumstances and fundamentally solvable by the will of individual people.” He also identifies “substantial conflicts,” that is, “states of life marked by contradictions that are either universal and in their essence unchangeable, or arise and disappear according to the transpersonal will of nature and history, but not thanks to individual actions and accomplishments of people and their groups.” (266; 134).
Hegel did not deny the presence of such conflicts, calling them “sad,” but he denied art the right to depict them, while the philosopher applied the concept of “substantial” to the sphere of human spiritual aspirations. Hegel did not question the return to the original harmony of the world; the constant (“substantial”) in his theory is a person’s comprehension of this truth through a chain of trials and deprivations.
By proposing to divide conflicts, based on the nature of their occurrence, into causal and substantial, the modern theorist means the manifestation of different worldviews on which the authors rely. In this regard, the conflict “either marks a violation of the world order, which is basically harmonious and perfect, or acts as a feature of the world order itself, evidence of its imperfection or disharmony” (266; 134).
Thus, a conflict can be an artistic embodiment of harmony or disharmony, cosmos or chaos (if we keep in mind the archetypal nature of these concepts, which developed at the level of mythological consciousness).
The materialization of conflict through the behavior of a human actor, the focus on which we highlight as a specific feature of drama, can manifest itself through different spheres of human activity: social, intellectual, psychological, moral, and also in various combinations of them with each other. The sphere of manifestation of contradictions will be referred to in this study as the nature of the conflict. The nature of the conflict can equally reflect both its causal and substantial nature.
But, given the fact that drama is obliged not to tell about the conflict, but to show it, the question arises about the boundaries and possibilities of the visible manifestation of the conflict, especially when it comes to such subtle areas as spiritual activity associated with a person’s ideological aspirations, and mental life, associated with the characteristics of his psyche. It is no coincidence that V. Khalizev has doubts about the fullness of the artistic powers of drama, since it “is not able to use internal monologues heroes in combination with the accompanying comments of the narrator, which significantly limits its capabilities in the field of psychologism" (269; 44). P. Pavi talks about this: "drama, which sets out the internal struggle of a person, or the struggle of universal principles, faces great difficulties in dramatic representation." Preference given to too particular or too universal human conflicts leads to the disintegration of dramatic elements..." (181; 163).
Nevertheless, K. Stanislavsky, the director who was one of the first to discover the principles of the stage embodiment of the “new drama,” saw the main task of the actor in recreating the “life of the human spirit.” And he built his famous system of acting creativity on appealing to the internal impulses of human behavior. The director introduced the concept of " internal action“, distinguishing it from “external action.” This distinction was firmly entrenched in the theory of drama of the twentieth century, largely influencing the renewal of its provisions as a whole.
