You never questioned whether the theater was interested in having spectators come to it. At first glance, it seems yes - after all, tickets, some kind of money. But sometimes you think about it - the money is not enough to fight for, and it would be easier if no one came. This can manifest itself in different ways. Somewhere they will simply ask: “What, do you want to go to this performance?!” (this happens quite often), somewhere the regime and customs of the cash desks do not allow not only to plan something in advance, but even to strive to get there in general.
In some, mostly old and established theaters, the cashier is still confident that no one is more important than him. Perhaps this is true. For example, recently there was such a stage (Mossovet Theatre). A woman, having stood in line, turns to the cashier: “I’m from Sergiev Posad, yesterday I called your administrator, ordered 40 tickets for the performance in the stalls. He said to come today.” And the cashier answered her: “Why did you call the administrator? You need to call the box office. I don’t have that many tickets, do what you want.” Later they also told me: “Come tomorrow, tickets for this performance have already run out today” (the performance was in ten days). And it’s useless to say anything - it’s been proven over the years.
In another respected theater- Sovremennik - twice in the last three months - the same picture. The time is 18.30, there seem to be tickets (or maybe not - you can’t tell), someone calls the cashier on the phone (or she calls), the conversation continues for about ten minutes, and, of course, no one is served. Someone timidly asks: “Has it been a long time?” - there is nothing to answer.
A separate story is the pre-sale of tickets. How many tickets will go to the box office, where the rest will be sold, is a mystery. How to buy good tickets to some theaters is completely unknown. Perhaps this is a kind of business - both for the theater and for someone else. Moreover, these are not necessarily theaters with packed halls. Another scene. On the first day of the pre-sale, a man approaches the box office and discovers that there are no tickets for what he wanted to see. I was surprised. Immediately the woman at the ticket office offers him tickets at a slightly different price. To his surprise, he answers: “What do you want? Saturday is for cultural traders. They come and buy tickets upon request.” I wanted to add - and then they actively offer it “on every corner.” But it seems that this is beneficial for everyone - including the theater.
At the Mayakovsky Theater, only the most expensive tickets are on pre-sale. For “something simpler” you need to come before the performance.
Of course, this is not about all theaters. This does not apply to the Chekhov Moscow Art Theater, Youth Theater, or the O. Tabakov Theater. There may not be tickets available before the performance (and that's good!), but in advance - no problem.
And in the theaters themselves, audiences are treated differently. It is usually very pleasing when, about half an hour after the start, latecomers are shown to their places in the center of the hall. And collective trips of children to non-children's performances - how can you forget that? It’s good, especially in frost or rain, when people are allowed into the theater 10 minutes before the start. It’s very nice when the buffet sells popcorn - at the beginning of each act the audience has something to do. You never know what else.
I don’t want to, and obviously there’s no point in whining. There is a choice: if you don’t want to go to this theater, don’t go. And you’re not going.
Tyumen State Institute of Arts and Culture
Department of Drama Directing
Coursework
in acting
“Features of interaction between actor and viewer”
Completed:
student of RTK-5
Kondinkina Yu.V.
Checked:
Acting teacher
Samokhina E.Yu.
TYUMEN 2002
Plan
Introduction
1. The spectator is the third creator of the performance.
1.1. Theater specifics
1.2. The spectator is an integral part of the performance
1.3. “Energy Exchange”: stage and hall
1.4. Education of the public
1.5. Alone or collectively?
1.6. Atmosphere of feelings
1.7. Types of communication
1.8. Spectator - critic
1.9. Spectator and choice of repertoire
1.10. Small stage and spectator
2. The price of communication: opinions of actors and directors
Conclusion
References
INTRODUCTION:
The theater is built not only by those who work on stage, even very talented ones; The theater is also created by the will of the audience. Theater is two halves - if safely in one half - this does not mean that everything is safe in the whole theater.
V. E. Meyerhold
So what is theater?
In my opinion, it’s worth looking into the dictionary and finding out:
THEATER is a type of art, the peculiarity of which is artistic display phenomena of life through dramatic action that occurs during the performance of actors in front of the audience. During historical development Three main types of theater were identified, distinguished by specific features and means of artistic expression - dramatic, opera and ballet. The theater originated in Ancient Greece from the holiday in honor of the god Dionysus. The expressive means in the rituals were: coded dance, facial expressions, gestures, singing, speech and pre-theatrical elements: costume, convention, division into participants and spectators. Gradually complications occurred, and established order ritual actions when performing a religious act began to be called ritual. Initially, performances were held at the foot of the Acropolis, with seats for spectators in the open air, on the slopes of the hill. Then they began to build rooms for the actors, and on the slopes of the hill they made benches for spectators, first wooden and then stone.
Theater is a synthetic, collective, secondary art. Art can actively influence public consciousness, changing, shaping and transforming spiritual world person. Theater is a spectacle. Theater is a holiday. Theater is entertainment. At this holiday they not only laugh, but also cry, worry and suffer, decide philosophical problems. The festivity, entertainment, and entertainment of the theater are not always expressed in bright colors, sonorous songs and diversity of events. Theater must be a holiday and a spectacle only in the sense that each performance must be exciting and interesting. The theater is smart, but boring - not theater.
The theater is compared to a department, to a school. Like any comparison, it cannot be taken literally. Theater is a school that does not teach in the usual sense of the word. This school does not assign lessons and does not require memorization. There are no students or teachers in this school. WITH high department- the scenes, contrary to school etiquette, suggest answers to the audience. And the more inconspicuous this hint is, the better the “students” - the audience - perceive the “lesson” - the performance.
Theater is a school where people learn with pleasure, where they learn without noticing that they are learning. As soon as the audience notices that they are being taught, lectured, and repeated the same things that have been taught for a long time, they stop attending such a school. At the theater school they don’t drill anything into you, they don’t tell you anything, they don’t read anything. In this school they only show - they show life.
The first competitor of the theater was cinema, which was born in the 90s of the 19th century. Nowadays, only historians remember that this event gave rise to predictions about the disappearance of the theater. However, this did not happen.
Now, the emergence of various media and the new forms of social communication that have arisen in connection with this have significantly changed the nature of the expressive means of performing arts, giving rise to new forms of communication between the theater and the public. The need for theater to compete with other “adjacent” performing arts contributed to both the increased identification of its specificity by some theater groups and its inevitable loss by others. It also demanded new theoretical interpretations of the problem of “theater and the public”, taking into account the current sociocultural situation.
What unique thing can the theater offer today to a film or television lover? Amaze the imagination with scale and entertainment?
N. P. Akimov once said, “There is every reason to believe that absolutely all the possibilities of cinema are available to the theater,” and M. I. Romm said, “Everything that can be done in the theater can be done in cinema, and, from my point of view,” vision, make it in the best quality."
So, the theater can do everything that cinema can do. Cinema can do everything that theater can do and even better. Cinema and theater are two big differences. Two independent professions, completely unrelated to each other. You have to behave differently on camera and on stage. Then it is not clear why and why there are two different types of art, if there is a huge commonality between them - this is the object of the image?
Television allows us to see works without leaving home best actors. In addition, film and television can bring together constellations of performers in one production that simply do not exist in one theater company.
And the theater, despite the many problems the theater has, each time looks for new forms of expression and completely different means of creating a new world, trying to shock the viewer as much as possible. Secretly, at the same time, envying his opposite double - the successful favorite of women, the public and sponsors.
What is today's audience looking for in the theater that is not found either in the cinema, or at home, on TV? Communications. Live communication with a living person. This is the unique property of theater that no other form of art can replace.
It is the contact nature of the theater that is one of the most important and, perhaps, the most promising ways of its development. Task modern theater of the collective - to create the shortest distance of communication, at which the viewer from a passive contemplator will turn into a co-creator, living fully and deeply in the world of the performance.
1. THIRD CREATOR OF THE PERFORMANCE
You can judge the stalls by the stage, and the stage by the stalls. The orchestra is no stranger to the stage: it is like the chorus of a Greek tragedy; he is not outside the drama, but embraces it with waves of life, an atmosphere of sympathy that animates the actor; and the scene, for its part, is not alien to the viewer: it transports him no further than into his own heart. The stage is always contemporary to the viewer, it always reflects the side of life that the parter wants to see.
A. I. Herzen
1.1. Theater specifics
Art is a confession; it bears the imprint of the soul, language, culture, handwriting, worldview of the creator. It is the discovery of a new expression and new means of creating a new world. The power of art is enormous. Art melts down life stories, facts and faces into sounds and colors, into artistic images, gives them a special meaning and special power. The brighter, fuller and deeper an artist expresses life, the stronger his art. good art certainly has an impact on the mind, will and character of the audience. The benefits from it are enormous, although they cannot be calculated in tons, rubles, or kilometers.
Different arts have different effects. good song can be listened to countless times. Nice picture, hung on the wall of the room, you don’t get tired of looking at it for years. But over time, both songs and pictures grow old. Only theatrical performances do not age. The performance is over and he is no longer there. Tomorrow there will be another performance.
Disputes that theater will die as an art form have arisen more than once in history. Either the church prohibited theatrical performances, or the emerging new art - cinema - was supposed to destroy the theater. And now the theater has an even more powerful competitor in the form of the media and the World Wide Web. Theaters indeed often have to fight for viewers in the most incredible ways - from lowering ticket prices to openly profane advertising. The theater more than once yielded to the tastes of the public and, having begun as a serious event, disappeared into the beaten path of primitive entertainment.
But still the theater survived. And he still attracts audiences. It attracts with what no art has - a living person, the uniqueness of the direct contact of living art with the public, the charm of the fact that the art of theater is unique - only it is created “here”, “today”, “now” - in at the moment, instantly in front of the audience.
1.2. The spectator is an integral part of the performance
Theater is an interaction between the stage and the viewer, because the viewer is a creative participant in the performance. The viewer is a very complex and very fickle concept. It is easy to draw a divide between the enlightened part of the merchant public and, for example, the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia, between the spectators of the early and mid-20th centuries. It is much more difficult to distinguish between viewers of our era.
Falling into a hatch with a huge tongue of flame flying out of it seemed not so long ago to be a very powerful effect. He caused horror and shock. Nowadays this won’t surprise even kids.
The present time requires the present truth, the present authenticity. The viewer changes. It cannot be said that the “distrustful” viewer of today has less imagination than the “gullible” viewer of Shakespeare’s time. But this fantasy has become more sophisticated, more perfect, more subtle. Much has simply lost its meaning for us.
What kind of behavior and what is the reaction of the audience during the performance? Of course, it is interesting to find out what remains in the memory of the audience, what conclusions they made after watching this or that performance, but the audience is a collective concept. And what is not funny to the viewer of an almost empty hall is funny when the hall is filled to capacity.
An actor is a performer of roles in the theater, his main person, an independent artist, and one of the features of the actor’s work is constant communication with the audience, communication with which helps the actor critically evaluate his work. The actors know how hard it is to play for a few and how joyful it is for a packed hall. The audience, unfortunately, does not know that their reaction depends not only on the quality of the play and performance, but also to a large extent on themselves. This is the case when quantity turns into quality.
Viewers do not study the history of the theater and cannot determine where and from where this or that director’s technique was “rented”. But they have a great sense of whether it is really new or just a renewed forgotten antiquity.
The auditorium is filled with people different culture, different professions, different ages. As a rule, the oldest spectator is the most grateful. For different categories of spectators there should be different options for “game conditions”. The viewer is a constantly changing and very complex concept. The spectators, despite all the differences from one another, without saying a word, laugh, cry, applaud and cough at the same time. They are different, but they react the same way.
Without modern spectators there can be no modern theater. The modern viewer is an indispensable and obligatory participant not only in the evening performance, but also in this morning’s rehearsal, the plan for the future performance.
I would like to believe that the viewer enjoys participating in the creative process, so the task of the theater and the actor is to captivate him with an unexpected move, an unexpected solution. The degree of involvement of the viewer in the acting process should be very high.
An excerpt from the play “Protocol of a Dispute” by the magazine “Schoolchildren’s Calendar”:
Bespectacled: Yes, some works of art can also contribute to relaxation, but to fully perceive them requires significant effort, brain work, and intellect. It’s not without reason that they sometimes say that being a spectator is a profession.
...and this is quite enough. Cinema is a whole industry. Filming is expensive, and therefore the film must certainly make a profit. And the profit comes from the mass audience...
Skeptic : Or he doesn't.
Bespectacled man : That's it. And with our unprepared audience, the director is often forced to choose: fight for quality or fight for the viewer.
Informal . It turns out that the low level of films is primarily to blame for the mass audience and the low level of its culture?
Bespectacled man :
But, by the way, it is prestigious to go to elite films. And an unprepared viewer, having stood in a huge queue for a ticket to Antonioni’s film, then, cursing, leaves in the middle of the screening, and at the same time covers up the entire elite cinema and becomes its worst enemy.
...Again, alas! Mass culture, I repeat, is terribly tenacious. And the best way to maintain its vitality is still, don’t be offended, low cultural level viewer.
Skeptic : But you must admit, many teenagers, and not only them, go to erotic films just for the sex scenes.
Bespectacled man : So for them it's pornography. Here, after all, a lot depends on the preparedness of the viewer. For some people, fashion magazines that advertise swimsuits can be pornography. And some even perceive Edouard Manet’s Olympia in the same way.
Stanislavsky said that the viewer after the performance should see the world and the future more deeply than before visiting the theater. And it was no coincidence that the principles of the “art of experience” that he developed were based on the “personality of the actor”, his excellent qualities as a creator and creator, which make it possible to educate a true stage artist who brings his creative motive to the viewer. Feelings, thoughts of the actor, his life experience, the range of aesthetic ideas about reality, his worldview is the main material for creative well-being, the material from which a stage character is created.
Stanislavsky defined the laws of creativity always presupposing the identification of the real creative abilities of the actor. “It is not the role, not the genre, not the tradition that gives the laws to creativity, but the personality of the actor, his ability to respond to the world around him, to experience it. The main thing for Stanislavsky was one single law, subordinating all others. This is the law of true stage creativity. This is a creation that is organic to a given actor, who throws into the crucible of creativity not his talent as a pretender, a copyist, but his entire personality, from his civic creed to the originality of his voice and look. True stage action arises as an exact professional form of mastering this particular role by this particular actor on this particular day, evening, when the actor performs it - “today, here, now.” Only these conditions give rise to expedient stage action. The logical chain - “actor’s personality” - “creativity” - “stage action” - is undeniable today.” This is how the constant movement and enrichment of stage action with life, the dialectical interaction of stage and life, actor and spectator, is carried out.
K. S. Stanislavsky said: “The spectator, like the artist, is the creator of the performance, and he, like the performer, needs preparation, good mood, without which he cannot perceive the impressions and main thoughts of the poet and composer.” The theater should not “teach,” but should captivate the viewer with images and, through images, lead to the idea of the play. Can't be great art without a big thought and a big audience.”
“The science of man has made an amazing leap forward, when scientists talk about man in the most subtle and precise terms; directing cannot operate with rough, approximate ideas and knowledge, or rely on old techniques and moves,” says People’s Artist and Director Andrei Popov. - ...The viewer needs to be educated, and needs to be trusted. Cultivate trust. Theater is a democratic art, art for everyone, that’s true. But the theater must educate the viewer and therefore must be ahead of him... The viewer must leave the theater filled with reflection, and not just laughing or crying. We should not make any discounts - we need modern and complex performances. This does not mean that the theater should brush aside the fact that the audience does not understand this or that performance. For this, the theater must be an educator, and a wise one, who knows and can do more than his students. Otherwise he won’t be able to teach anything.”
Thinking about the audience, these thoughts imperceptibly become thoughts about art. And, thinking about art, you return again to the audience. Obviously, one cannot be separated from the other. People and art cannot live without each other.
1.3. Energy exchange: spectator - actor
Art is the most accomplished and contagious form of communication between people. The main and fundamental condition for the emergence of contact between the artist, theater, actor on the one hand and the viewer, listener on the other, is high level art itself. You cannot demand positive responses, excitement, or experiences from the viewer if the artist himself is not a professional in his field.
If an amateur director is completely absorbed in the problem of self-expression, then a professional thinks about how to capture the attention of the audience. If the creator wants to lead the audience in the direction he wants, then he must constantly think about it. During the performance, the spectator sits in the hall, and if he is not taken care of, everyone’s attention will wane, and this is how easy it is to lose the audience.
An actor in a play must convey something that continuously increases the audience's interest so that it reaches its maximum in the finale. Then the audience will be happy.
The story that an actor tells from the stage should have energy that charges the viewer. In a well-told story, the energy builds and transfers into the audience. If the actor succeeds, then at the climax he forgets everything. In a state of maximum internal energy, viewers can reach the peak of happiness bestowed by art - catharsis. But you can’t always count on luck and intuition. “Calculation and structure of the energy of involvement are necessary,” writes director Alexander Mitta in his book “Cinema Between Hell and Heaven.”
A story well told by actors brings live energy to the audience, energy that makes the viewer worry, cry and laugh. The professional storytelling strategy is, to a large extent, the blueprint by which this energy grows.
Once upon a time, the whole world read the novels of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. To see Chekhov's performances in Stanislavsky's first productions, Moscow youth stood in queues of thousands for weeks. Once in America, the Moscow Art Theater not only stunned spectators and professionals, but also laid the foundations for what has ensured today's American show business dominance throughout the world. The Americans do not hide this. Tolstoy, Chekhov and Stanislavsky were artists on the market. The ideology of contact with the audience was a natural part of their artistic life. They could not imagine creativity without power over the audience.
“To captivate the viewer means to force him not only to understand, but mainly to experience everything that happens on stage, to enrich his inner experience, to leave indelible impressions on him,” wrote Stanislavsky.
The viewer comes to the theater loaded with his own problems, so the task of the acting troupe is to make the viewer forget this world for a while, so that emotions awaken in him from what he sees, being immersed in the theatrical world. To do this, you need to arouse emotions in him, maintain emotions and develop emotions to the maximum extent.
The performance and the actor ask the viewer questions, and bit by bit gives answers to them. Each answer contains new question. And so, by controlling the information, the actors can maintain the audience's attention. Question - answer, question - answer... The audience likes to create a whole picture from pieces of information.
Alexander Mitta writes that there are several rules that can be used to spark audience interest when telling a story.
Give information in small portions.
Each time, communicate less than the audience wants to know. As long as the actor controls the information, he is the master of the situation.
The most tidbits of information should be withheld until the very end.
Nothing should be given for nothing; the actor's character must fight for every drop of information. The more work put into searching for information, the more valuable it is to the viewer.
In the presentation of information, the most important moments are turning points, when a breath of new information turns the entire story in an unexpected new direction. Such turns define the class of history. The more unusual the twists, the more exciting the stories.
Another deeper level of the viewer's emotional involvement in the actor's performance is empathy. It grows out of curiosity, and arises in the viewer when the characters are close and understandable, when they have common moral values with the heroes on stage. Empathy gives rise to identification when the viewer, sitting in their seats, lives and acts together with the characters, experiences with them, their problems become close and understandable, and the viewer wishes them victory. Identification occurs largely on a subconscious level. The collective unconscious of our “I” encourages the audience to feel sympathy and care for heroes who are understandable and close, and have common moral values with us.
Brilliant psychological works have been written on this topic, for example, by the German scientist Carl Jung. But even without philosophy it is clear: the more understandable the character, the more understandable his anxieties and problems. Among the firm rules of a “well-told story” is this: first the actor must show the attractive qualities of the hero, help the viewer to love him or experience sympathy, and only then draw the audience’s attention to his shortcomings.
Identification is the main trump card of the entire performance, because it determines whether the audience's emotions will have a chance to develop or everything will freeze at the point of simple curiosity.
Suspense is the moment at which the audience's involvement in the film is most fully realized. Suspense is a purely English word. Language experts say that "tension" is an imprecise and incomplete translation. More precisely, it means “tense, unbearable anticipation.” Suspense occurs when danger threatens a character with whom the viewer empathizes.
Suspense is the viewer's reaction to what is happening here and now. It arises if the audience and the character have a moral community, if the audience and the character have the same emotional charge. If the viewer cares about the hero - so that he does not die, does not suffer defeat - suspense arises.
This is because suspense brings the audience into a state of extreme excitement. He is an incredible energy generator for the audience.
1.4. Education of the public
The viewer is the creator, without whom theatrical art will remain dead. But any art requires certain preparation, a range of knowledge, and mental attitude. The viewer must be talented, sensitive to the social atmosphere of the theater and performance, able to guess and tune in to the “point of view” of the author and actors of the play, and understand what is being said.
Any theater would be immensely happy if a “well-educated spectator” came to its performances, one who knows how to be a spectator. This is that layer of people who have an educated and developed aesthetic sense and sense of beauty, who understand and feel the artistic originality of the work and the author.
For example, in the Russian Academic youth theater in Moscow, the former Central Children's Theater, is one of the oldest domestic theaters for children. This is a theater that, in addition to the actual theatrical tasks - the tasks of art, has always set itself pedagogical tasks. It was in this theater that a pedagogical unit was organized more than 70 years ago, trying to solve the difficult problem of educating young spectators.
In the theater, immediately before the performance, initiations into the audience are held. During the holiday, those who came to watch the performance do not immediately go to the auditorium, but first go on a tour of the theater. They are met by members of the theater activists in costumes of fairy-tale characters, they form groups of 11-15 people and talk about how to behave in the theater, what they are called. For this purpose, a special exhibition was set up - a mini-theater museum, where you can see with your own eyes how many people take part in the creation of a performance, and what the theatrical professions are called. On the day of the holiday, the performance is preceded by a special interlude “Initiation into the Spectator,” and after the end of the action, the little spectators stand up and, together with the Spirit of the Theater, solemnly take the oath of a “true theatergoer.”
The spectator and the theater are inseparable. The theater educates its audience and shapes their tastes. And when he lags behind the audience he himself raised, then a crisis ensues. The crisis of the theater, but not of the audience.
The viewer, undoubtedly, needs to be educated, first of all, through performances, and not through lectures. If we begin to prepare children in schools to perceive theater in the same way as they are still taught to perceive Russian and foreign literature in schools, then the results will be just as dismal.
Aesthetic education, as we know, is also ethical education, should be carried out through direct contact of a person with all types of art. It's a shame that in lately Many children's theaters create performances in which they want to bring the theater for children closer to the circus, acrobatics, and saturate it with all sorts of technical tricks, instead of staging (precisely!) a children's performance based on realistic acting, on the movements of the human soul. It would be good if it again became “fashionable” to play a fairy tale for children in such a way that good and evil on stage are shown not in the form of symbols, but in the revelation of a living human essence, as it is in life.
The true preparation of the viewer always occurs outside the theater, although any steps in the fight against ignorance and distorted brains are precious.
In the West, theater directors often help the audience with well-made programs, equipped with a lot of information about the performance and around the play itself. The viewer is heterogeneous and sometimes represents a motley inert mass. Compressing it into a single team, pulling it along with you through the complex labyrinth of modern stage construction, knocking it off the usual “forecasting”, surprising it with a whole series of extremely unexpected, but infinitely truthful human movements - this is what the theater should be interested in in the first place, and playing “to the public” - bad style.
1.5. Alone or collectively?
The relationship with the audience is a special, exciting world, woven from exorbitant praise and a furious roar of mutual claims.
In his book, Mark Zakharov, artistic director Moscow theater "Lenkom", writes: “The viewer only pretends to be an angel when he enters the theater, he also secretly dislikes us, to say the least. And he doesn’t necessarily dislike specific individuals, sometimes he dislikes all of us at once, the entire acting fraternity. It’s not for nothing that people have a mocking intonation: “Well, you’re an artist!” The intonation is not based on kindness alone. Very often, the adoration of the idol is replaced by outbursts of almost hatred. Like in a family, between close people. Relations with colleagues and distant acquaintances are usually smooth, but a loved one can be accidentally killed. From love to hate - one step. Right. But we are good too! There is also an “explosive mixture” in us, and we sometimes talk too arrogantly about our breadwinner. There is no need to settle accounts with all the bad inclinations of the audience at once; it is better to take one of his diabolical inventions, for example, a targeted performance, and, giving your reasoning an extremely objective character, try to at least slightly discredit this chimera of the 20th century.”
A performance in a theater is an undoubted blessing, an undeniable achievement, happiness both for an industrial enterprise or institution that purchases entire tickets to the theater they like, and for the theater itself, which at once sold a full set of tickets for a lump sum, usually exceeding the normal total cost of all tickets sold for an ordinary performance.
Fans of theater viewings have strong arguments in your favor. It is worth agreeing, first of all, that a collective campaign against theater performance- an event that is well remembered by trekking participants, regardless of the quality of the performance watched. In general, everything is remembered as a fun affair, like noisy and festive outings into nature with their own meals, joint mushroom picking, song rides on pleasure boats, friendly dinners, lunches, and so on. Indeed, it’s nice to immediately after work or study, without leaving, the whole team rush together to a theater and entertainment establishment and rejoice that everyone is around, that there is no one stranger that not only in the foyer, but also in any other public room you can joke for everyone at once, wave from the stalls to the balcony and back, discuss the latest news, talk casually with the management...
However, some organizers of this kind of outings do not stop there and try to set additional tables in the office premises, gradually turning the viewing into a kind of evening of relaxation, a celebration of an entire department or a separate team on the occasion of what they saw on stage.
Obviously, the professional (service) homogeneity of the auditorium is a very difficult psychological barrier for the individual viewer, which most often cannot be overcome painlessly. And it doesn’t matter who exactly is in the hall. Even if only theater experts, workers in other fields of activity or medical specialists gather in the theater, the result will still be approximately the same. At the end of the performance, any actor will probably want to go on stage and say: “People, forgive us if you can, and please come to this performance again, but only as simple, normal, ordinary spectators! You will see a different performance!”
On the same topic, Oleg Tabakov said in one of his interviews with the media: “...It is not difficult to make the viewer come to the theater - if he is interested in the theater, sooner or later he will come there at least once. What needs to be done to make it happen a second time is the question. It’s a shame if the bet is placed on a “one-time” viewer or even a traditional visitor who comes to the theater every time as if for the first time. I don’t want the theater to be talked about only as a theater. We’ll definitely see what happens.”
In Russia, the entertainment industry is not yet sufficiently developed, and many people are still poorly versed in the system of collective recreation; people want to relax in a variety of ways, sometimes big companies, and not all accumulated traditions in this direction are good. It is no secret that many Russian catering facilities, for example, have been turned into mixed-use enterprises.
Well, if you still decide to go to the theater alone, alone or with someone, then you need to follow some rules. Try to arrive half an hour before the start of the performance. The point is not only that entering the hall late can disturb other spectators, but also that a lot can be missed. Theatergoers say that in order to feel the atmosphere of the theater, before the start of the performance you need to slowly walk around the foyer and buy a program; it will help not only to find out the names of the author and actors of the play, but also to better navigate the play. The program is a “piece” of the performance.
The performance is over. Whether you liked it or not... You shouldn’t rush to a final conclusion, maybe you should think about how the theater achieved success? To achieve success in the theater, not all means are good!
1.6. Atmosphere of feelings
The most active participation of the viewer in theatrical performances was in those days when spectators threw rotten eggs and rotten oranges at the actors. And when there is absolute silence at performances in a full hall now, isn’t this active participation? Such silence is the most precious thing for a theater troupe, just as it was once precious for the old Moscow Art Theater.
It is known that art in general belongs to the sphere of feelings, the atmosphere is the heart of every work of art, and, consequently, of every performance. Among actors there are two different ideas about the stage on which they spend most of their lives. For some, it is empty space. From time to time it is filled with actors, workers, scenery and props. For them, everything that appears on stage is visible and audible. Others know that this is not true. They experience the scene differently. For them, this small space is a whole world, full of atmosphere, strong and attractive, that they cannot easily part with it and often spend more time in the theater than necessary, before and after the performance. And old actors probably spent more than once nights in empty dark restrooms, behind the scenes or on stage, illuminated by a duty lamp. Everything that they have experienced over many years rivets them to this stage, always filled with invisible enchanting content; they need this atmosphere of the theater. It gives them inspiration and strength for the future. In it they feel like artists, even when the auditorium is empty and silence reigns on the night stage.
And not only the theater, but also concert hall, the circus, the booth, and the fair are filled with a magical atmosphere. It excites both the actor and the viewer equally.
A theatrical performance, as a synthetic product, having arisen from the joint efforts of many specialists, lives a full life only in interaction with the audience. And the growth and improvement of both the theater and the viewer depend on the quality of their interaction. The viewer should not delve into the psychology of the actor; the actor is simply obliged to reveal his role and create an atmosphere.
An actor can give himself over to the atmosphere in each of his performances; he can and should enjoy new details of his acting. The space, the air around the actors, supports lively creative activity in them.
The actor who knows how to maintain a sense of atmosphere knows well what an inextricable connection is established between him and the viewer if they are engulfed in the same atmosphere. In it, the viewer himself begins to play along with the actor. He sends him waves of sympathy, trust and love across the ramp. The audience could not do this without the atmosphere coming from the stage. Without it, he would have remained in the realm of reason, always cold, always alienating, no matter how subtle his assessment of the technique and skill of the actor's play. A performance arises from the interaction between actor and spectator. If a director, actor, author, artist, musician has created the atmosphere of a performance for the viewer, he cannot help but participate in it.
During a performance, two atmospheres at odds with each other cannot exist simultaneously; individual feelings and the atmosphere opposite to them can not only coexist together, but they usually create spectacular moments on stage, giving the viewer aesthetic satisfaction. Between an individual feeling and an atmosphere, if they contradict each other, the same struggle occurs as between two warring atmospheres. This struggle creates tension in the stage action, attracting the viewer's attention. If the struggle is resolved by the victory of the atmosphere over individual feeling, or vice versa, the victorious side increases in strength and the public receives new artistic satisfaction, as if from a resolved musical chord. It goes without saying. When the individual feelings of the hero on stage are in conflict with the general atmosphere, the actor, as the performer of the role, is fully aware and experiences this atmosphere.
A performance devoid of atmosphere inevitably bears the imprint of mechanicalness. The viewer can talk about such a performance, understand it, appreciate its technical perfection, but he will remain cold - the performance will be “heartless” and will not be able to capture him entirely.
Laughter in the auditorium is a welcome guest. But it can be caused not only by genuine wit, but also by vulgarity, obscenity, stupid, offensive jokes of bad taste. Such techniques have nothing to do with art, and not a single serious actor or director uses them. At a good performance, the audience usually laughs or cries. But the laughter and tears of the audience in themselves are not a guarantee of a good performance.
Addressing young actors, Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky said:
“Theater is the most powerful weapon, but, like any weapon, it has two ends: it can bring great good to people and it can be the greatest evil. ... The evil brought by a bad book cannot be compared with the evil that the theater is capable of bringing, neither in terms of the power of infection, nor in the ease with which it spreads to the masses.”
1.7. Types of communication
“The best way to communicate with the audience is through communication with the characters in the play” K. S. Stanislavsky.
Stanislavsky attached exceptional importance to the live interaction of partners on stage. But while developing his system, he did not immediately come to a correct understanding of the nature of stage communication. If earlier the understanding of communication was such that an actor spoke a text intended for a partner standing next to him into the audience and could quite calmly stand with his back to the viewer, then all this was revised and written by Stanislavsky in his book “The Actor’s Work on Oneself,” in the chapter “Communication” . Where is it said about the organic connection between soul and body, physical and mental in the actor’s work? Fortunately, these thoughts did not satisfy the author. After the adjustments were made, the definition of the nature of communication turned out to be like the interaction of partners in the process of stage wrestling.
The actor needs to take care of the continuity of the process of communicating with partners with his feelings, thoughts, and actions. The organic nature of the interaction is sometimes lost completely unnoticed by the actor himself, for example, through frequent repetition of the role, when the internal connection with the partner is dulled and leads to overacting, which the audience is sensitive to.
“Communication is artisanal - it goes directly from the stage to the auditorium, bypassing the partner... Such communication is a simple actor’s self-show, an act…” - said Stanislavsky.
The actor is given the right to use all types of stage communication, and by the way the actor communicates with partners on the stage, the “rules of the game” by which the actor plays become clear to the viewer.
The most common and classic way communication is the “Fourth Wall”, when the viewer is an outside observer of the story being played out on stage. Apart (from French aside) means a stage monologue (short remark) that is spoken “to the side” for the audience. Usually, according to the authors of the plays, it is “inaudible” to the partners on stage.
And finally, the most original type of theatrical communication is a happening (English happening) in which the event and action are an end in itself, and not part of dramatic plot. Mixing various theatrical elements and combining them with life objects and phenomena is the hallmark of a happening. Equally characteristic is the lack of plot and logical connection between it. in separate parts. Like color in abstract painting, the episodes in a happening relate to each other compositionally or emotionally rather than obeying logic. Unlike a play, a happening often presents several images or theatrical episodes simultaneously, each with its own “idea.” Sometimes acting is included in a happening, but not with the goal of creating a fictional character acting in fictitious circumstances: the meaning and purpose of the performance lies in itself. Like a lecturer, a circus performer or a football player, the actor in a happening remains himself and in the same circumstances as the audience.
Happenings take place in galleries, train stations, squares and other places not intended for performances. They can also be staged on a regular stage. However, often the emphasis is on the environment, the setting - and then the stereotype “spectator - stage” is broken. The Happening, in essence, rejects the concept of “audience”. The actions that are performed in front of spectators are done solely for the sake of self-expression of the performers.
During the Soviet period in the USSR there were such experimental productions in which the audience bought a ticket, after which they were promised something enchanting if they put on signs with some inscription on themselves, then went down into some catacomb, etc. In the end, the spectators who agreed were taken out of the theater to those who did not agree to the first condition, therefore, did not go through the following stages, this was the end of the performance. For example, Tairov more than once used the connection of the stage with the audience, in his sensational production - “The Yellow Jacket” by Hazleton, in the operetta by S. Lecoq “Day and Night”, in the play by S. Semenov “Natalia Tarpova”, but he was always opposed to playing hall He believes that the viewer in the theater should be assigned the same role as in other forms of art, that the viewer should remain a spectator and not an actor - “Bridges across the orchestra, runs of made-up actors through the stalls and exits to the audience from the stage create not a conciliar action, but nonsense and chaos. The viewer, fortunately, tactfully remains a viewer, but the theatrically made-up and dressed extras who appear next to the audience simply insult the theater, turning it into an anti-artistic mess. Long live the ramp!” - Tairov.
1.8. Spectator - critic
All those who create the performance - the playwright, director, actors, artist, musicians and many technical theater workers - are certainly interested in what the audience thinks about their creation.
And how offensive it can be when, at an audience conference, after the end of the performance, smart, good people who, by all indications, have a correct and even deep thought in mind, cannot express it in simple words, they wise up, repeat reviewer cliches they read somewhere, and, without really saying anything, embarrassedly leave the podium. Theater exists for the people, to whom everything belongs, including art. But in order to understand it well, you need to know its laws and correctly imagine the work of those who create performances. With their criticism, the viewer can greatly help the theater if the criticism is specific and based on knowledge of two aspects: the vital basis of the play and the specifics of the art of dramatic theater.
Connections with the audience can be and are varied. Mark Zakharov said that his theater still has traditional audience conferences, which have been held twice a year for more than twenty years. These conferences are very popular, the hall is always crowded, there are people standing in all the aisles and along the walls. At these conferences, conversations with the audience are business-like and extremely frank; the public has the right to ask any questions, and the theater must be able to answer all questions. Another form of communication with the general public is theater balls, which we hold three times a year, and our guests at them are the most active spectators, friends of the theater. “Lenkom” sees in these balls a continuation of the tradition of the Moscow Art Theater “cabbages”.
The “exchange” of emotions experienced during the performance into thoughts, conclusions and generalizations occurs in different ways, sometimes quickly, more often slowly. But the stronger the feelings evoked by the theater, the more food the audience’s minds receive. And even later, new thoughts push the audience to new actions, new actions. Spectators can remember for the rest of their lives the performance they saw, individual scenes or words, their feelings and experiences. The trace left in the viewer's soul, a splinter driven by the theater, remains forever. The distance from the spectator's emotion to the action that is committed under its influence is immeasurable. After all, the impressions from the performance are multiplied by new impressions and life events, they come closer and further away depending on thousands of thousands of people, meetings, facts, books, which reduce or increase the power of the watched performance.
An artist is obliged to listen to any criticism, not to reject it outright, to “try it on” and check everything, to agree with what is fair, and, of course, not to accept erroneous advice. And the viewer-critic, expressing critical remarks about the performance, must remember that before making this or that decision, the creators of the play thought about it and worked on it for months (and, sometimes, years!) - the audience’s impression is formed in minutes . Therefore, it is not always possible to speak in a categorical tone, but one must argue with reason and respect for the opponent.
1.9. Spectator and choice of repertoire
A question that is also directly related to the interaction between actor and audience is how does the audience influence the choice of play, the distribution of roles and the rehearsal process?
Sometimes you look at the reports: what plays were played, how many times, in how many theaters, and you don’t know whether you should cry or laugh? Why, for example, did a primitive detective take such an honorable place in the summary? Are the spectators to blame? Or maybe theaters? No, artists have no right to blame the audience. We need to think about how to live on, how to correct the mistakes of the past, how to prevent them from happening in the future. After all, the bad thing is not that a certain part of the audience is not sufficiently educated aesthetically. This is a difficult matter, but it can be fixed. Universities of culture and arts have already taken up aesthetic education, folk theaters, hundreds and thousands of musicians, poets, artists, painters. And the results of this noble work are obvious. The bad thing is that the audience, their culture and tastes are growing, but the idea of the art masters about the audience does not change.
The selection of the repertoire, the distribution of roles is always like a plan for a general battle: where will this platoon, this company, this regiment, this unit go. When forming a repertoire, the theater must undoubtedly satisfy the tastes of all categories of the public. If the theater wants to conduct a dialogue, it must first of all choose a play that will provoke the activity of its partner - the viewer. If somewhere, in some cities, in some theaters, the audience demands only entertaining performances, then this is the theater’s big fault. Justifying himself by the “demands of the viewer,” he followed the path of least resistance.
Once upon a time, when Nemirovich-Danchenko was asked who you are first of all - a theater actor or a director, he answered: “First of all, we are the theater of the author.” Indeed, the problem of text, drama, and choice of play is a problem of culture and theater. The problem is no plays! Yes - there are no decent modern plays. Then why don't they stage it? modern prose? Dovlatova, Sokolov, Limonov... Such dramatizations can be done on one hand. Alfred de Musset, Théophile Gautier and Thomas Mann are dramatized! The thing is that more often than not directors don’t need plays at all. They need performances. Almost all of our theater directors are brought up on theatricality. Actually, this is their profession. They are not literary scholars or writers. They're not even critics. So there is no need to think that they need a play. They need a reason to stage. No more. They say that theaters are now inundated with plays by beginners. That this is a graphomaniac boom in drama. Alas, to our great regret, these plays are overwhelmingly of a low level. And not so much in dramatic plan, but also simply by language. The language in the play should be sophisticatedly everyday. That is, not too abstruse and dry, but not too low-key either.
Falsity spread subtly throughout the text. Involuntarily, you see in the author a very highly qualified liar and everything in you resists his passionate desire to deceive you.
Author's insincerity. In the play there are two or three situations familiar from life, perceived almost unambiguously, but the author’s moral accents in assessing these events are somewhat shifted. And further in the text the author, who is clearly not a stupid person, pretends that nothing happened.
I'm unpleasant myself main character. That is, the hero is not Ostap Bender - one, not Hamlet - two, not Treplev - three. That is, if the hero is not humorous, alien to any doubts and not creative personality or more broadly - not in search, it is almost always unpleasant. The author must be very smart and very talented in order to demonstrate the toughness of the hero without contrasting him with the viewer or reader. But smart and talented authors are not interested in such heroes. It is not for nothing that only “Rozov’s boys” and Vampilov’s “eldest sons” remain in modern drama.
"Ladies" play. The common problem of our playwrights is that they have practically no men. The second drawback is that if there are more than two heroines, then they are practically indistinguishable. But, nevertheless, the ladies' play is always lyrical and elegiac, and not as soulless as others. A woman playwright will always feel sorry for someone, at least for herself.
If we analyze what repertoire is successful with audiences, we can see that in many theaters the greatest success is not entertaining, but very serious, deeply meaningful performances with high drama.
When distributing roles, production directors do not always follow the path that the viewer expects. Directors, when accepting a play for production and taking into account the previous experience of a particular theater, are ready to say in advance which actor can play which role. Although some try not to follow this practice. The most interesting thing is to give an actor a role similar to which he has never played before, but has the psychological and physical characteristics for it. This distribution of roles is interesting both for the director and for the actor himself. And if they are lucky, it becomes a pleasant surprise for the audience.
“Today there is a generation of people sitting in the hall, for the vast majority of whom literature is best case scenario Akunin. Such spectators expect from the theater the same degree of frankness that they are accustomed to receiving in television series, “Behind the Glass” games and endless talk shows. Today people pay a lot of money for a ticket. So the theater needs a person who knows how to invite into the hall a notorious deputy, an “overexposed” new Russian, a pop star. And the viewer is rightly ready to pay a hefty sum, because, on the one hand, he receives information coming from the stage, and on the other hand, he can tell in his office that he met Zhirinovsky at such and such a premiere or how Pugacheva was dressed and she was with or without Kirkorov,” this is the opinion of Boris Lyubimov.
1.10. Small stage and spectator
The spectator and the actor are captives of a certain type of theatrical convention, a certain type of thinking or idea - people come to the theater because it is a necessary attribute of cultural development - a stamp that imposes another stamp - the social ladder. This is the idea of Jerzy Grotowski, a Polish director, like his predecessor Ludwig Flaschen, which arose from the dream of a theater in which there is some kind of connection between people, rather than an established relationship.
“In the theater, both the actor and the spectator perform an act of self-disclosure, establish contact with each other and with themselves. A clash of thoughts, instincts, subconscious. The art of theater is autonomous, it only starts from literature, and does not illustrate it; theater comes into contact with the viewer not through literary fabric, but through the condensation of feelings, the spontaneity of acting. Therefore, it is necessary to educate a new actor who plays with full physical and psychological dedication. And at the same time he was endowed with a sense of self-control and discipline. Therefore, it is necessary to study the laws of spectator perception,” urged Jerzy Grotowski.
Not all spectators were allowed to attend the performances of his “Theater of 13 Rows”. In “Acropolis” 50 people took part in the action, in “The Steadfast Prince” 35, in “Apocalypse” only 30 were allowed in. The task of Grotowski’s theater was to reconcile man with the world and man with himself. Critics called Grotowski’s team a religious community, a laboratory, a “psychoanalytic hospital”, where spectators-patients are shaken up, returning the original magic and ancient catharsis to the theater. Others called the “13 Rows Theatre” a “psychodramatic social system” in which an attempt was made to create a “therapeutic-creative collective.” Grotowski's performances were like some unfinished work of art, but always a living process, only now being created. Therefore, spectators who saw the same performance were assured that there was a completely different performance in front of them.
The small stage, which the Jerzy Grotowski Theater used in its productions, is a useful thing in many respects, in any form. It is legitimate to create such scenes in a room for fifty spectators and for a wider audience, provided that there is someone to work there. “The viewer should be fascinated by our complex, nervous existence next to him, and say to himself: “Yes! It is extremely interesting to watch them, to empathize with them, because I, the viewer, do not know what will happen to these actors in every subsequent second of their stage existence. The relationship between an actor and the audience is a relationship between a confessor and a believer; you cannot open a role without being able to open yourself; the actor, as it were, sacrifices his self,” said one of the actors in “13 Rows.”
The actor must penetrate into himself, reveal himself in front of the viewer, give him his inner world, know and learn to use all his capabilities. Grotowski defined his spectator as having his own spiritual needs, wanting to analyze himself through the performance, he overcomes the endless process of self-development, seeks the truth about himself and his purpose in life. This is a creative process of self-discovery that is not available to everyone.
The Helsinki City Theater has a small hall that can be transformed in any way you like. It can be used as an arena where spectators sit around, as an amphitheater and as a traditional hall with a stage box. In general, a theater can exist in any room, as long as there is someone there to do their job. For example, performances that are played in rural clubs are actually performances of a small hall.
In our theaters, in their conditions, small stages can be lively and useful if they become successors to the traditions of the Moscow Art Theater studios. Considering that a number of theaters have large companies and many young people in them who have little work, it will probably be useful if these young people begin to play plays in small halls, in theater lobbies and anywhere else.
The success of small stage performances is largely due to the special role played by the audience during the stage performance. In fact, a person, having purchased a ticket to a small stage performance, involuntarily feels that he is “chosen”. He is a participant in a special ritual, involved in some narrow circle, isolated from the general mass of the public, which in itself gives rise to a certain comfort of behavior and imposes certain obligations. He seems to be not just a spectator, but an honored guest. By inviting an equal partnership, the small stage seems to return to the audience the feeling of being chosen that they had lost in the hustle and bustle of everyday life, and the viewer greatly appreciates this alone. The viewer is trusting, he wants to think that for the sake of meeting him, the theater so sharply limited the space of communication and, discarding all this noisy mass of the public, invited him for an individual interview.
The opinion that the small stage in current conditions provides the shortest path to the mind and heart of the viewer is far from indisputable. What is indisputable is that the small stage creates favorable conditions for mutual understanding between the actor and the audience, but this mutual understanding is possible within a wide range. At one of its poles - high art, the magic of empathy, and on the other - the philistine delight and interest in the “living actor”.
2. THE PRICE OF COMMUNICATION: OPINIONS OF ACTORS AND DIRECTORS
Artists of color, sound, chisel and words chose art in order to communicate with all people through the medium of their artistic creations. So, the final, main goal of art is spiritual communication with people. Therefore, creativity, as a means of communication between the artist and the crowd, must have the property of being transmitted to the public. In other words, creativity must be scenic.
K. S. Stanislavsky
For quite a long time the artist cannot understand the objective value of his next creation. Sometimes it seems to him that he has created a masterpiece, and critics and spectators silently pass by him.
Every honest artist, starting new job, is sure that people will need it, tries to imagine the future viewer and guess his reaction. But when the creative work is completed and put on display, time and people correct or overturn the artists’ assumptions and, much more accurately than the authors, determine the life span of films and performances, paintings and songs.
On sleepless nights, when the performance you have released has not yet been separated from the creator, when he can still determine whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, he compares his work with the best he has ever seen.
And he thinks, thinks, thinks...
Why are viewers happy when they look at something? Why don't they like this? Why, from the director's point of view, does a weak performance succeed? A good performance Doesn't always attract a full auditorium? When the assessments do not coincide with the viewer's assessment, who is right - the artist or them?
The dialogue between the artist and the public often spills out onto the pages of magazines and newspapers, and during these discussions, some theater workers express dissatisfaction with the public and believe that in recent years the consumer attitude towards theater as an indispensably entertaining spectacle has become normal. At the same time, viewers say that the theater does not always please with artistic discoveries; it has become less passionate, emotional, and has lost its imagery and tendency to experiment.
Back in 1921, A. Ya. Tairov wrote: “Find out what role the viewer should play in theater - role perceiving or creating - this means answering to a large extent the question of what should be the entire structure of modern theater and the theater of the future.” Tairov himself assigned the viewer the role of a passive participant, however, creatively perceiving the performance. In those same years, Vsevolod Emilievich Meyerhold was looking for ways to activate and directly involve the viewer in the stage action. K. S. Stanislavsky, as you know, considered the viewer “the third creator of the performance.”
Well, of course, there are differences between viewers and viewers. There are among them both narrow-minded and uncultured, very old and very young. Some came to the performance by chance, others waited a week for it. Another saw this play more than once and came to compare the young performer with the famous artist of the beginning of the century, while another became acquainted with the theater and playwright. What should I do? Who to target? What to show? Who to listen to and what to believe?
First, we need to understand how the actors and directors themselves characterize the viewer and the audience. Albeit abstractly, but quite accurately, the artistic director of the Moscow Tabakerka Theater and the Theater-Studio named after. Tabakova - Oleg Pavlovich Tabakov: “The auditorium generates such a lifting force, which can only be compared with the wings of a modern hang glider, carrying a person into the sky. It would seem that nothing could be more wonderful and absurd than a person who puts on this strange metal structure with wings covered with canvas or plastic. However, pushing off from the ground and flying into the air, it presents the most amazing and beautiful sight.”
Natalya Gundareva, an actress of the Vladimir Mayakovsky Theater, once said in an interview with the Trud newspaper: “Do we even care about the theater?! In these most difficult times, in the most theatrical of countries. That's right! And in the theaters, meanwhile, spectators still cry and laugh. People want to go to the theater. We are watching the thirteenth season of “Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk” and crying. If they need these tears, then they need theater. Yes, the theater is full for Lady Macbeth. From my place on the stage I have the opportunity to see the entire hall. And all the actors usually ask me: “Natasha, is there a spectator on the balcony?” “Yes,” I answer. “Is there any on the first tier?” - “And on the first tier.” But that's today. I don't know what will happen tomorrow. And no one probably knows. But no matter what happens in life, we will immediately hear it from the theater stage.
Theater should not be a reflection of life. When life is forcibly placed on the stage of theaters, spectators run away from the audience. People rush to the theater to see beauty, even if Hamlet with five murders is playing - these are still noble, lofty, beautiful feelings. Therefore, I am convinced: theater is theater, and life is life.”
They talk a lot about the theater and everyone, good and bad, is trying to help, to keep this very theater afloat, despite the fact that the Soviet drama theater seriously and seriously ill, he is in a state of half-life. This is what Sergei Yurievich Yursky thinks. “Mutants have appeared. The theater has become a restaurant stage, a fashion show, a striptease, monologues by an entertainer, a rock ensemble, circus clowning, performances by professional athletes, entertainment by an entertainer, a park attraction - everything, everything calls itself a theater. So it’s flattering to be a theater person.
The mutants are furnished with all the external signs of the theater. Sometimes, on the wave of success, they say smugly: “We are a new theater, the old one died, it gave birth to us, we took the best from it and moved on. We are already far away." And the audience also runs to the mutants, forgetting their previous attachments. The viewer himself becomes a mutant. Stars flare up and go out, replacing each other with great speed. And in this whirlwind, suddenly... sometimes... from memories, from half-forgotten childhood impressions, from the stories of parents, acquaintances, random people, as if alive, an image of what a real theater is: with actors, artists who have an incomprehensible gift of transformation - transformation into another person.
The high wave of dramatic theater has already passed. This time is not so far away, and yet far away. Almost all film celebrities were stage actors. They could confirm their professional competence, the ability to communicate directly, the ability to control the auditorium, they influenced art: their job was to create images,” this is the opinion of Sergei Yursky, one of the most famous and professional people in the theater.
“It seems to me,” writes Mark Rozovsky, “that the viewer who is sitting in the hall today is in some ways the same as he was probably in the early 20s, and to some extent the same as he was in the late 50s - early 60s, when a new generation of intelligentsia began to join the life of the theater. In culture we are dealing with the slow degeneration and desiccation of the theater. I don't think the public is stupid. The audience that comes to my theater is not stupid. And the audience that goes to “blue” performances based on Chekhov, the director of which talks about the love between Solyony and Tuzebakh, is probably not very smart. Such performances are of little interest to me. My hair stands on end - I don’t want to watch Chekhov like that. And I won't watch. I think that your children and my children should not watch such Chekhov either. I do not speak personally about my colleagues and do not evaluate the quality of their work - I respect everyone. You don’t have to see it to judge: reviews are enough for me. I don't want to see this. And someone, apparently, wants it - that’s his right. The viewer is offered substitutes, surrogates, opuses not of the hard-won avant-garde, but some semblance of something that supposedly represents something. And the viewer, like a hungry fish who has seen little, takes the bait. They pay money, they invite theaters, they fill the halls, then they spit...
I don’t really understand the division of art into “commercial” and “non-commercial” - there is art, and there is non-art. Our theater is for the chosen few, and the beauty is that these chosen ones can be anyone. Mass culture is anticulture, a means of duping. Thanks to mass culture, a great deformation of the viewer’s consciousness occurs. Thanks to the huge amounts of money that are invested in it, thanks to what is called “show business,” mass culture has slowly but surely accustomed everyone to the idea that this is the very art that people need. Meanwhile, when, after “Uncle Vanya,” an unfamiliar viewer grabs me by the elbow and says: “Thank you, today I visited heaven,” - for me this is more valuable than all the reviews in all the polished magazines combined.”
Are the creators satisfied with the audience? It is difficult to answer unequivocally. It all probably depends on the theater and even on the performance. If the director and actors failed to captivate the audience, then “feedback” will tell us that they themselves and their theater are to blame.
Without a doubt, there is a certain percentage of the public that is not best prepared to perceive the theater. Often the viewer is spoiled by non-fiction products that he “absorbs”. But, just as in music, when sometimes you understand a piece only the third time, so in performing arts you can learn the language of theater and cultivate in yourself the desire to speak it fluently.
Natalya Triblekh has been an actress at the Film Actor Theater for many years, and she simply adores her audience. “Our audience is amazing! Constant, grateful: even in summer, the theater is full, and at the end of each performance the actors are regularly showered with flowers... And these are not premieres at all, but already some hundredth shows! From the very beginning of the theater's existence, we immediately had our own, very loyal and friendly audience. I know people who watch their favorite performances ten or fifteen times. You physically feel the support of such spectators. Sometimes you go to a performance sick, broken, or even with a fever, you can barely drag your feet in the subway... And then the performance begins... I overcome the first act with difficulty, then I begin to feel that strength is coming from somewhere, and By the end of the day, I'm absolutely healthy! Without this close connection with the audience, it is almost impossible to do anything worthwhile on stage. Although sometimes there is an audience with a negative attitude - you play and feel: what a heavy hall it is today! But we, in the end, promote such a seemingly impenetrable hall - at the expense of our own veins, as they say... More often than not, our audience is responsive and grateful. We turn on the audience, and they turn on theirs positive emotions- us. For an actor, success is public recognition. She is the one who puts everything and everyone in their place. It’s worth a lot to surprise and captivate today’s spectators, spoiled by all kinds of spectacles.”
To the question: do you feel the hall, and does it have the opposite effect on you, the most scandalous Moscow director Roman Viktyuk answered: “Of course, and very strong. The gym is always very difficult. And it’s difficult in different ways. In different halls you touch different centers: when the hall needs to be raised, then you do it physically, when it is already flying with you, then you exist differently. It’s all complicated, and at the same time very interesting: it’s almost like arguing with the audience to love it.”
The Viktyuk Theater is a director's theater. That is why his name is included in the name of the theater; it attracts the public. If we use the language of the viewer, we can say that he goes “to Viktyuk,” regardless of which theater the performance is shown in.
According to Viktyuk, Moscow is the coldest city. The most reserved, the most snobbish-minded are the Moscow public. The Moscow viewer does not have any hunger for information, and the Moscow viewer does not have any kind of hunger - maybe it is precisely because of the absence of this hunger that they calmly sit down and calmly watch, and few people can be torn away from the back of the chair.
But what about the viewer who lives in the outback? Is he really the same as the Moscow viewer? This question was asked by journalists to Sergei Yursky.
“To Nizhny Novgorod, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, or dozens of other cities - for so many years I have been showing them my concert programs, performances, we toured another 48 cities in Russia with the play “Iron Class”, about 30 cities with the play “Chairs” for many years. We come on tour to one city and play one or two performances in it. This means that this is a special layer, an intelligent layer, a theatrical layer that goes around knowing what to do. Sometimes it happens that they come to “Chairs” to watch Aunt Shura and Uncle Mitya from the film “Love and Doves”. I am happy for such people, because I love this film very much. But they get something different. Next time they will either not come at all, or they will come already knowing that they will be watching something else.
The fact that there are still enough spectators is my greatest joy, which makes me say that there is no despondency in me now. If the viewer leaves, yes, you will have to be sad.”
A different opinion about the viewer is expressed by playwright Oleg Bogaev and composer Oleg Paiderbin. They lived in Germany for a long time and collaborated with German drama theaters; they say that the German audience is more grateful than the Russian one. He will never speak loudly during a performance, drink beer and rustle bags of chips, and will not fall asleep during a performance, even if he is no longer interested. And here in Russia, according to them, a critic can come to the premiere and fall asleep in the front row, in front of the actors. Then he will wake up and talk about the performance. Let's just say what's most amazing! Our viewer has not yet had enough of video, home cinema, computer games, disco clubs, restaurants, and the German audience has already had their fill. And he returned to the theater.
Honored Artists of Dagestan, Leading Actors Academic Theater Drama of the city of Lipetsk Peter and Lyudmila Konovalov said on Theater Day: “We wish all theater groups more spectators in the hall. After all, you can rehearse a lot, stew in own juice, but if there is no viewer... And if there is one... Then the mood for creativity appears completely different. I would also like to wish that artists create and look for new forms of work, because now the theater does not stand still. Forms - mass. Just make sure it was done professionally and not fake. To make it interesting for the viewer to watch. It always seemed to us that if we play well, the audience will come to us. Nowadays the viewer may not go to even the most ingenious production; he still needs to be brought. Without this it is impossible. In a word - we all need a viewer!!!
CONCLUSION
Any actor or director will say that the audience is worth worshiping. Sing praises. Not even the smartest theater critic can give an actor the kind of happiness that an ordinary viewer gives, not an advanced, finely organized connoisseur, but our most “dark,” beginning, “primitive” fan, from whom a wave of unearthly gratitude suddenly begins to emanate. Thank you for this wave, a wonderful creation of earthly civilization! Thank you, viewer! If you only knew how much we all adore you and how sometimes, sometimes, very rarely, in isolated, uncharacteristic cases... we don’t love you either!
References:
1. Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary. M, 1987.
2. “Natalia Gundareva: her own island” and “Natalia Triblekh: a recipe for success.” "Trud", No. 34, 2000.
4. K. Bogomolov “Interview with Bogaev and Paiberdin.” "Ural", No. 7, Ekaterinburg, 2000.
5. P. Kapsheeva “The World of Adventures of Mark Rozovsky.” March 22, 2001 http://www.natura.peoples.ru.
6. “Roman Viktyuk Theater” April 2000. http: www.theatre.ru
7. B. Nicolescu “Peter Brook and Traditional Thought” M. 1994.
9. S. Kryukov “Myths of the Moscow winter” story
10. A. Shary “Face to face” Sergei Yursky. Recording of a conversation on Radio Liberty dated March 10, 2000.
11. A. Deinega “Russian Drama Theater named after. Gorky. City of Lipetsk.
chapter “The theater must be promoted” L. 1999.
12. I. Vinogradova “Which road leads to the Moscow Art Theater?” Recording of a conversation with Oleg Tabakov. http: www.theatral.smotritel.ru, August 2000.
13. K. Bogomolov “Interview with Bogaev and Paiberdin.” "Ural", No. 7, Ekaterinburg, 2000.
14. S. Melnikova “I am for search and disorder” Conversation with Yulia Rutberg. "Petersburg Theater Magazine", No. 20 March 2000.
15. M. Zakharov “Contacts at different levels.” M. 2000.
16. G. Tovstonogov “Mirror of the Stage” - 1 volume. M. 1974.
17. A. Mitta “Cinema between Hell and Heaven”, chapter “Involvement Strategy”. "Horseshoe" 2000.
18. M. Chekhov “The Path of an Actor. Life and meetings”, chapter “Atmosphere”. M. 2001.
19. Magazine “Schoolchildren’s Calendar” 1991, Politizdat.
20. Christy. G.V. Education of an actor from the Stanislavsky school. M., “Iskusstvo”, 1968.
21. N.K. Cherkasov “Notes of a Soviet Actor”, chapter “Actor and Spectator”. M. 1953.
22. K. Smolina “One Hundred Great Theaters of the World.” M. 2001.
23. N.V. Kiseleva, V.A. Frolov “Fundamentals of the Stanislavsky system”, textbook. Rostov-on-Don, 2000.
24. V. Sakhnovsky - Pankeev “Rivalry - commonwealth. Theater and cinema. Experience of comparative analysis”, chapter “Theater and Cinema”. L. 1979.
25. “Moscow Art Theater in the Soviet era.” Materials and documents. M. 1974.
The role of the spectator in the play.
Theater is a syncretic art, combining many other arts. The power of influence is not inferior even to the media. Theater unites and unites, gives rise to disputes and answers questions, dictates its own rules of the game, becomes a victim of fashion or follows the lead of the audience’s taste. Theater is the highest manifestation of a person’s love for beauty, the desire to destroy the boundaries of fantasy and reality, the desire, in conditions of limited time and space, to be transferred to other worlds, historical eras, to try on many others within one life. Theater is a ritual, a game; here everyone is part of the same action. And just like any other art, theater requires an accomplice - the viewer.
K. S. Stanislavsky considered the viewer “the third creator of the performance.” V. E. Meyerhold said that “the theater is built not only by those who work on stage, even very talented ones; The theater is also created by the will of the audience.” It is also known that the director was looking for all sorts of ways to involve the public in the stage performance. A. Ya. Tairov called the viewer a passive participant who creatively perceives the performance.
Each theater has its own relationship with the audience. Some educate their own, others attract strangers, playing by someone else's rules. Some of them challenge the public like a gauntlet with each of their performances, using new, forbidden means of seduction - a blow below the belt. Others welcome with open arms anyone who looks at the light of the footlights, walk through the foyer as if through home, sharing the latest news and sorrows, then seat them in a comfortable chair and offer, instead of the old life, a new one, with different passions, tears, joys and loves - right in the heart, somewhere in the region of the soul. But the main rule is that the viewer does not remain indifferent. Without him, crying, laughing, defiantly slamming the door, wanting to prolong acts, actions and pictures, the theater will cease to be a theater. It will cease to exist altogether.
You can talk about the role of the viewer for a long time and in different directions. An interesting question is the psychology of spectator perception: what makes the viewer empathize, how an individual member of the public influences the reaction of the entire audience, how applause and applause are born, how the interaction between the actor and the viewer occurs. It should be noted that in different eras the audience interacted in different ways with the direct participants in the performance, and with each other. A whole evolution. It is quite appropriate here to talk about what actors, directors, make-up artists, props - all visible and invisible creators of new realities in the context of a separate theater think about the role of the viewer in the play. However, let us make a reservation right away that within the framework of this work it is not possible to consider in detail all of the above points. Therefore, we note the main theses and try to cover them in as much detail as possible.
Psychology of theater spectator perception
Viewer differs from viewer. The hall today is filled with a “diverse” audience. Theater has become one of the most fashionable forms of art, along with cinema and photography, so in velvet armchairs we can see characters from high society and glossy “life”, true theatergoers, a lot of critics of all kinds and varying degrees of toothiness, fans of specific actors or TV series, and just random people who came. The theater halls are filled with spectators of various social status, material well-being, education, and age. Another thing is that when one finds himself in an environment of limitless illusion, unusual metamorphoses occur in an ordinary person, unexpected for him.
As you know, the human soul is in the dark, but psychologists claim that the secrets of a person’s inner world are subject to them. True, there are not many studies directly devoted to the psychology of the viewer. Patrice Pavy in the “Dictionary of the Theatre” identifies some models by which the viewer’s perception is tested; psychologists, as a rule, begin their articles with a classification of communicative acts, which, of course, explain the mechanism of human perception of a work of art, but do not take into account the specifics of theatrical art, and they are not familiar with it, so most often they are biased, which they themselves honestly admit. “Today, psychology, which deals with the problem of creativity, reaches in its research the personality of the actor and stops, not mastering the specific laws of this art.” Psychologists view theater as “a centuries-old self-organizing laboratory for a hidden experiment on the human psyche. After all, a theatrical performance that takes the viewer through an emotional communication full of ups and downs of the heart with an actor-character to “joy-suffering” - catharsis, with all its centuries-old practice proves that it undoubtedly acts as a healing factor. Moreover, whether it’s the laughter of a comedy or the tears of a tragedy, the effect is the same.”
Again, I will make a reservation that, unfortunately, within the framework of this work it will not be possible to consider even half of the existing theories, some of which we have already outlined. But let’s dwell on a rather interesting study by Yu. G. Klimenko, “Theater as Practical Psychology.”
In his work, Klimenko devotes a lot of space to the psychology of the actor, his relationship with the image, talks separately about the audience’s perception of the performance, in particular about the self-identification of the individual spectator during the performance, explores the nature of tears generated by tragedy and comedy in the public, but, unfortunately, not examines the nature of the interaction between actor and spectator.
Regarding “tragic” and “comic” tears, Klimenko argues as follows: “Asking forgiveness from the shadow of Aristotle, I dare to say that high comedy brings the viewer to catharsis just as well as tragedy, and the proof of this is tears of laughter. Tears are what unites tragedy and comedy. It is interesting to note that the audience’s tears have nothing in common with the tears with which the personal self, excited by the vegetative reaction, cries, experiencing. The viewer-image cries with these tears: they are silent, light, emotive, they are like the tears of an actor, which do not distort the appearance, do not interfere with speaking in an even voice, because it is not the actor who cries, but the character. Shedding such tears, the actor experiences inner delight and jubilation.” I will not go deeper into the definition of the concept of “vegetative reaction”. I will only note that the “spectator-image” is a character who, according to Klimenko, is born inside the individual, since he experiences two performances - one, which he is currently watching on stage, and the other, which takes place in his imagination, in which he associates himself with the characters of the play.
The researcher talks about various rituals associated with the theater. The actor has his own psychological rituals before, during, and at the end of the performance. The viewer, in a sense, also prepares for his trip to the theater. Klimenko also notes that “the intermission gives a sense of community, literally a ritual walking around the foyer (originating in the ancient theater, where an inquisitive viewer looked at the statues of gods, statesmen, poets, great actors and athletes), a heightened interest in the photo series, the public, the exhibition books about actors, visiting a buffet, etc. The post-performance ritual appears as unity in expressing gratitude: applause, challenges, offering flowers, etc.” .
Klimenko further says that despite the isolation of the participants in the rituals, their actions are concentrated in a common creative act, “consisting of preparation (prelude), the unification itself and its result (impression, evaluation). Thus, the performance-intimacy is united by a common arch-ritual."
However, Klimenko calls the “post-performance” ritual the main ritual in the psychology of spectator perception, since it realizes that cathartic unity, which in fact is a component of any creative act, and especially the interaction between the actor and the viewer. This unity gives rise to the “effect of conciliarity,” which is the logical conclusion of the performance prepared by the actor and “co-created by him with the audience.” Klimenko describes the post-performance ritual itself as follows: “The spectator longs to prolong the bliss through the ritual, to remain as long as possible under the impression of what he has just lived and felt, because he has to part with the one to whom he transferred the innermost, dear part of his own Self, and the person to his suffering treats more carefully than joys. The actor often feels empty in these moments, and excessive prolongation of the post-performance ritual can be painful (excruciating, as the actors themselves put it), so it is natural that for the viewer the significance of the ritual increases by the end of the performance, while for the actor it decreases.”
It is also interesting that, according to Klimenko, the actor offers the public a kind of freedom of co-creation, and “the viewer then awakens imagination-anticipation (guessing, completing drawings, further fantasizing), which marks entry into the game, gaining freedom, liberation from society. He is free by the state of play in co-play. This is the main condition for co-creation."
In my opinion, it is a very interesting theory, with a creative approach to the material being studied. To conclude the chapter, I will outline another view on the nature of spectator perception - this is a theory about the psychology of the crowd, in the context of the theater, say, the psychology of the masses. It is known that a person, being surrounded by many other people unfamiliar to him, perceives reality differently and, as a rule, reacts to it completely unpredictably. The audience is a close-knit group of spectators that detects the slightest changes in general behavior and instantly reacts to every emotional outburst. Various theories that examine the origin of applause are based on studies of mass psychology.
I note that the study of audience perception is a very interesting topic. Only, in my opinion, by decomposing the viewer’s feelings into components, we lose the sense of the magical nature of the theater. Having once been led by the fickle and sometimes bad taste of the public, television ceased to be art, but began to produce a product of mass consumption. I think that if the theater follows the same path, it will suffer the fate of modern television. Having lost its intimacy, becoming a center for entertainment and distraction, it will die, since this type of art should always be at least a little above reality. The theater should not be publicly accessible; there should be room for mystery.
Spectator and era
A topic worthy of serious research. In different countries, in different eras, the viewer showed his role in the performance in completely different ways. Once very active, influencing the repertoire and cast, once more passive, not directly participating in the theatrical performance.
Theatrical performances in Ancient Greece took place during national festivals in honor of the god Dionysus. Spectators watched performances from morning to evening, eating and drinking in the theater itself. The audience actively and directly reacted to all the twists and turns of the plot. The play they liked was rewarded with applause and shouts of approval. There were also clackers among the audience. V.V. Golovnya mentions the comedian Philemon (IV century BC), who “more than once successfully used dummy spectators against his opponent, Menander.” Of course, if you didn’t like the play, there were whistles and knocks from the stands, sometimes even the actors were driven off the stage with stones. Thus, the success or failure of the play directly depended on the viewer’s disposition or disposition towards it.
Speaking about the medieval theater, we note that the spectators themselves could also be actors, since the performances were organized by people from various guilds. The leading genres of theater of the Middle Ages were presented in squares and during fairs. The favorite folk characters of the mysteries were the jester and the demon, and when the viewer got tired of the virtuous edification of religious plots, he could demand the appearance of these heroes. Considering that many genres of medieval theater were no strangers to improvisation (farce, for example), one can imagine how many times actors had to act out folk lines “from the audience.”
Renaissance theater gives birth to a different viewer. It is difficult to imagine how ordinary, ordinary people who came to the Globe Theater could perceive the most complex, deepest allusions and mythologies of Shakespeare's texts. Although, captivated by the dynamically developing plot, most likely, the viewer did not follow the language of the playwright, despite the fact that the plays of the Renaissance are extremely rich and interesting in the composition of the language (what is the dialectical commedia dell'arte in Italy).
Improvisation, which was an integral part of the commedia dell'arte, gave the public the opportunity to take part in the developing action, approve or disapprove of the characters' behavior, and immediately react with a variety of remarks, expressing their opinions.
In the Spanish theater, there were sometimes even fights on stage between actors and spectators, some of whom took their places on the stage. One of the participants in the performance could accidentally offend someone from the audience - retribution would occur immediately. Well, if he faked it or played poorly, the actor could find himself showered with rotten oranges or cucumbers.
G. N. Boyadzhiev cites the words of Lope da Vega, in which he noted the incredible impact of the illusion of the theater on the viewer, that, losing the line between the magical space of the theater and reality, he transferred his impressions to life. “If an actor plays a traitor, he is so hated by everyone that they won’t sell to him when he wants to buy something, and the crowd runs away from him when they meet him. And if he plays noble people, they give him a loan, invite him to visit,” and naturally they give him all sorts of gifts before and after the performance and applaud him. I think that in this case the viewer played fatal role for an arrogant actor.
The public of the Spanish theater was its sovereign mistress. The regular visitors, the “musketeers,” were especially aware of their economic rights, including ordinary shoemakers, but they refused to call themselves anything other than “gentlemen.” Well, of course! The fate of the author very often depended on their opinion. There was even such a legend that one young playwright was concerned about the well-being of his new play and, in order to gain the support of the “musketeers,” he took it to one of them, enclosing a bag of gold coins. The play returned to the author along with the money. Naturally, the young playwright was not successful. These are the proofs of love - it turns out that the viewer also acted as a kind of censor, objective and incorruptible.
The English audience of the Renaissance did the theatrical art a service, since not a single royal decree could abolish the democratic British theater. About two thousand people gathered for the performances, a huge figure even by today’s times. The hall was crowded, noisy and fun. All sorts of goodies were distributed, and all sorts of brawls took place.
The theater of classicism in France so amazed the viewer with its aesthetics that already at that time the first critical notes from educated spectators began to appear. Plays, acting, and recitation were discussed. Actually, we owe the appearance of Moliere’s play “Impromptu at Versailles” to these first critics. True, the main critic was, of course, the king, but sometimes his preferences and those of the public differed.
It is also curious that the tastes of high society and the fashion of that time greatly influenced the costumes of the actors. French theater is generally subject to fashion trends. For example, already in the Age of Enlightenment, when the language of square theaters, the “market genre”, came into fashion, it began to be used in full in court performances. People of the world loved to say some “fair” word, and, accordingly, they were glad to hear it from the stage, even if not at the Comedy Française.
In the Age of Enlightenment, there were already two main critics, as I. Ivanov notes, the king and the stalls. The aristocratic audience, as a rule, did not begin to applaud after each new performance until the head of state expressed his attitude towards the play. The stalls outnumbered all other spectators and could consist of spectators of various social statuses - the most democratic part of the audience. Ivanov notes that “in essence, he exclusively went to the theater for the sake of a play; the noble gentlemen were more likely to give their own performance than to watch the actors play.” Many cases are described when chevaliers and marquises, who came to the theater, naturally in the middle of the action, loudly demanded a seat, greeted each other with kisses, and talked aloud about their adventures. If suddenly such a “spectator” was reproached for being in the way, he would answer: “I wish, damn it, to be seen from head to toe; I pay an crown only to hover around the actresses during intermission.” In due time, Pushkin's Onegin will tell us a similar story about the purpose of visiting the theater.
In general, such a hooligan and provocative role. In principle, now there are also such boorish spectators who come from the buffet in the middle of the action, squeeze through the rows, disturb the actors and the rest of the audience, and some very honestly answer their interlocutors in mobile phones that they are now in the theater. By the way, many directors were influenced by this behavior of individual spectators. For example, in Mirzoev’s play “Seven Saints from the Village of Bryukho” one of the characters periodically falls out of the reality of the play, answering mobile phone calls and making excuses that he cannot talk now because he is acting on stage. The audience understands the hint, but such attacks, born of the audience's rudeness, have a detrimental effect on the general atmosphere of the performance.
Returning to the French theater of the Enlightenment, I will note another interesting fact. The orchestra acquires almost despotic power in the theater. Even the aristocratic audience gathered in small boxes in order to be hidden from the mockery of “the most democratic part of the hall.” The partner reacted to any changes in the personal lives of the actors. Having learned about the marriage, the audience greeted their favorites with love arias, and sometimes the entire performance was turned into an illustration of the wedding celebration. The influence of the public was so great that once an actor, who asked the audience from the stage not to make noise, was forced to kneel and ask for forgiveness.
Thus, in the reaction of the viewer of the Enlightenment, one could trace the trends of the historical era, and the details of the personal lives of the actors, and love or not love for them. A dialogue took place between the audience and the artists, related to the context of the performance, since sometimes, in response to the audience’s devotion, the actors inserted into their monologues either complaints about the authorities, or requests for help in relations with them, and sometimes they asked for forgiveness.
The role of the spectator increased and took on the form of tyranny. For example, already at the end of the 20th century, the trial of the wittiest English playwright Wilde, or rather the reaction of the prim British public to it, interrupted his relationship with the theater for the rest of the writer’s life. All ongoing performances were banned; the public did not want plays by a “criminal before society.”
The modern viewer, in my opinion, is less active. Once upon a time he imposed his opinion on the media, now certain performances and certain actors are imposed on the viewer, especially in the enterprise. However, the director's theater has many opportunities to feel the power of the audience's role, involving the viewer in the performance intentionally or subconsciously, which leads to the most interesting observations.
I repeat that the topic of the viewer in a particular historical era is extremely broad and interesting. The author was only able to outline some theses.
Observations on the role of the spectator
In my opinion, one of the most interesting roles of the viewer in the play is his direct participation. Nowadays, human behavior in the theater is determined by ethical rules, which in rare cases are not observed. Of course, today it is difficult to imagine audiences forcing an actor to ask for forgiveness from the audience on his knees. It’s hard to imagine a live reaction to each line from the stage with endless lines from the audience. However, the director's theater, which made the viewer one of the participants in the performance, directly calling him a co-creator, tries in every possible way to make the audience's empathy material, visible. It’s nice for both the actor and the viewer to participate, having a little look behind the scenes.
Once, at the Maly Theater’s performance of “The Abyss” based on Ostrovsky’s play, I had to observe a very interesting effect of the audience’s “participation” in the fate of the hero. The main character of the play is an honest man who does not allow himself to take bribes and suffers serious troubles because of his integrity. His children are seriously ill; his wife, the daughter of a wealthy man who refused to help his negligent son-in-law, practically leaves him. There is a scene in the play when a strange man with a demonic essence comes to the hero and offers him money, promising that if he takes this bribe, everything will work out in the family. The hero faces a painful choice - saving his family or his virtuous principles. The psychological tension that arises in the hall thanks to the performance of A. Korshunov, who plays the role of Kiselnikov, reaches such a limit that the whispers of sympathizers sweep through the rows: “Well, take the money, save the family!” Imagine such a situation in the Age of Enlightenment! Moreover, this was not an isolated phrase. The “children's hall” effect is born - the little viewer always advises the hero on what is best to do. Of course, the actor heard this, and I think that this played a significant role in the design of his performance, because Kiselnikov became more shrill, and after the end of the performance the audience did not let Korshunov go backstage for a long time. The spectator is a factor coordinating the work of the actor and the course of the entire performance.
Roman Viktyuk likes to experiment with the audience. He admits that he loves it when the audience leaves the hall, slamming the door loudly - this is his honest answer “no”. The director very often in his performances provokes the viewer into verbal dialogue, which sets the actors up for tough acting. Sometimes he needs such provocations to introduce the viewer to the style of the performance.
In A Clockwork Orange, in my opinion, one of the director’s most interesting and intertextual performances, Viktyuk introduces an absolutely provocative mise-en-scène at the very beginning. Three heroes approach the front of the stage and, without making any movements, pause for about five minutes. For the theater this is practically an eternity. At this time, someone leaves the Viktyukov theater forever, someone, after waiting for some time, begins to whistle, someone tries to call one of the actors for a dialogue - the audience hurls insults, someone demands that the action be continued immediately, In the end, laughter and applause are heard in the hall. Then the hero Pete comes up to the microphone and addresses one of the “especially distinguished” spectators. Sometimes, in the spirit of Burge's hero, without leaving the image, he answers just as sharply: “You paid, sit down!” At the end of the performance, Alex, delivering his monologue in which he talks about how the world has degraded and how difficult it is to remain spiritual in this world, turns to these “especially distinguished” ones: “When you can’t sit quietly in the theater for ten minutes! » By making the viewer a direct hero of the play, provoking him to aggression, the director shows how this feeling is born in a person, that it is characteristic of everyone, but it can be controlled, and this determines the main idea of the play.
However, the author was present at the performance when the provocation failed. The viewer paused steadfastly. Then Pete had no choice but to go up to the microphone and bitterly state: “An incredibly intelligent viewer was caught!” But Alex had nothing to reproach the audience with, and his monologue had no effect on the conscience of the audience. The idea lost its sharpness when the viewer did not fulfill the role invented for him by the director. The performance suffered.
But the most interesting and bewitching roles are given to his viewers by Vyacheslav Polunin in his fabulous and tragicomic “Snow Show”. By calling the viewer a full-fledged participant in the performance, he deprives him of the position of an outside observer. The audience is so involved in the process that they deliberately prolong the running time of the performance. According to the plan, the performance ends completely when the round dance of balls with which the audience is playing all ends up on stage, and the audience, having figured out this plan, catch the small balls and hold them in their hands.
The space in the performance is so conventional that the viewer is allowed to penetrate the holy of holies - the stage. The actors explain the rules of the game to the selected spectators (with gestures - many of them are foreigners) and act out small scenes with their participation.
During the intermission, numerous characters of the play slowly exit the stage into the hall and play pranks in every possible way. They pour water on the viewer, take off the ladies' boots, and shower the children with candy. The most interesting thing is that the audience gets involved in this game, passing bottles of water along the rows, treating the actors with candies and chocolate. Without this improvisation on the part of both the actors and the audience, the performance would have lost its charm and touching quality. The viewer is identified as a direct hero of the world that Polunin and his team are talking about. This is reminiscent of a trip to some country, where the actors are residents of this country, and the audience are tourists who visited it. At the end of the performance, the green team of clowns approaches someone from the audience, takes a photo, and hugs one of them, as if before a long separation. The viewer feels so comfortable in the general atmosphere of improvisation and play, so imbued with the world of childhood and fantasy, that he strives to take something away from this wonderful country with him. Some put handfuls of paper snow into their pockets, forming entire snowdrifts in the hall, others catch small balls, put them next to them in chairs and stroke them, like a beloved pet.
Speaking about the role of the viewer, let us remember that actors often say whether the audience is “bad” or “good”, because, indeed, it depends on its character how much easier it will be to find a dialogue with it and create an atmosphere of co-creation. It is important for artists how the audience reacts, how ready they are to accept the rules of the game or how indifferent they are to the performance.
The viewer is the leading force for the actor, the director, and the entire theater as a whole. There is no theater without an audience.
Literature
Arnaudov M. Psychology of literary creativity. M., Progress. 1970.
Basin E.Ya., Krutous V.P. Philosophical aesthetics and psychology of art. M., Gardariki. 2007.
Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., Art. 1986.
Belinskaya E.P., Tikhomandritskaya O.A. Social psychology of personality: Textbook for universities. M., Aspect Press. 2001.
Burns R. Development of self-concept and education. M., Progress. 1986.
Wilson G. Psychology of artistic activity: Talents and fans. M., Kogito-Center. 2001.
Wundt V. Fantasy as the basis of art. SPb., M.:M. O. Wolf. 1914.
Vygotsky L.S. Psychology of art. Minsk, Modern Word. 1998.
Theater quiz
"All life is theater"
Prepared and carried out
primary school teacher
Shlyanchak N.A.
S. Red poppy
2019
Theater quiz “All life is theater”
Target:
- finding out knowledge about the theater;
Familiarization with the theater, education, showing interest in this species activities;
Expanding their horizons, deepening their knowledge in the field of literature and art.
Tasks:
Show ingenuity and resourcefulness during the quiz; cultivate a love for the theater.
Universal learning activities:
Personal UUD
Awareness of life meanings and values; formulate your own point of view on the proposed material or situation;
Regulatory UUD
Make a plan and sequence of your actions; adjust (make additions), volitional self-regulation (ability to overcome obstacles).
Cognitive UUD
Statement of a problem, educational goal, work with information, modeling, structuring, reflection.
Type of lesson: quiz.
Progress of the lesson
1. Updating knowledge. Motivation
S. Marshak. IN THE THEATER FOR CHILDREN.
To the people! To the people!
Wherever you look,
Every aisle
There's a wave of guys coming.
They sit them on chairs
And they ask you not to make noise,
But the noise is like a hive,
Where did the bear go?
From a long well -
Invisible to the eye -
Then the flute will laugh,
Then the double bass will bark.
But suddenly the lights went out,
There's silence
And ahead beyond the ramp
The wall moved apart.
And the children saw
Clouds above the sea
Stretched networks
Fisherman's hut.
A violin began to sing below
In a squeaky voice -
The fish spoke
On the seashore.
Everyone knew this fairy tale -
About the golden fish, -
But it was quiet in the hall,
It's like it's empty.
He woke up, clapped,
When the fire was lit.
They knock their feet on the floor,
Palm on palm.
And the curtain flutters
And the light bulbs are shaking -
It applauds so loudly
Half a thousand guys.
They don't mind the palms...
But now the house is empty,
And only the locker room
The cauldron is still boiling.
A living wave roars,
Runs all over Moscow,
Where is the wind and trams,
And the sun is in the blue.
2. Goal setting.
- Hello, teachers and guys! Today we will talk about... And what, you decide for yourself. Look at the screen and determine the topic of our quiz.(Slide 1)
Have you been to the theater?(slide 2)
Theater (Greek main meaning - place for spectacle, then - spectacle) - a form of performing art. Theater is a synthesis of all arts, it includes music, architecture, painting, cinema, photography, etc. The main means of expression is the actor, who through action, using various theatrical techniques and forms of existence, conveys to the viewer the essence of what is happening on stage . In this case, the actor does not have to be a living person.
Theater - this is a very ancient art. The theater was born in Ancient Greece from mystery plays in honor of Dionysus. In those days, there were plays of only two genres - tragedy and comedy. They were most often written on mythological or historical subjects. All roles were played by men. The actors (initially there were only two of them on stage, the third was introduced by Sophocles) performed in huge masks and buskins. There were no decorations. Women (excluding hetaeras) were not always and not everywhere allowed to attend performances, especially comedy, and, as a rule, sat separately from men. In Greece, the profession of an actor was considered prestigious, but in Rome it was disgraceful (that’s why Nero’s performances so shocked those close to him).
In Russia, acting has also been known for a long time. At first they were associated with religious festivals or with pagan rituals. But gradually the “relay race” of acting passed to the laity. Russian medieval buffoon actors have been known since the 11th century. Among them were musicians, singers, dancers, jokers, and trainers of wild animals (primarily bears, Bear Fun). These were poor people who had neither shelter, nor food, nor clothing, and need forced them to take up such a trade. They often united and walked around Rus' together, begging for alms, for which they showed their talents. They began to build light buildings in city squares for their housing and for receiving visitors and spectators - booths.
There are a great many types of theater. And today you will be theater experts.
3. Creative application and acquisition of knowledge in a new situation (problem tasks)
And now I invite you to plunge into the atmosphere a little theatrical arts. As you know, in the theater there are actors and spectators. And now I will ask everyone to choose their own acting troupe, consisting of 6 actors.(team selections) . As you know, the work of actors is assessed not only by the audience, but by strict critics. The teachers present will act as critics, who will evaluate your work and, based on the results of the quiz, determine the winners. All competitions are assessed on a five-point scale. Answers to questions are accepted by a raised hand.
And your first test.
1) Warm-up
What types of theater can you name?
You have named only a small part of the types of theater, but there are also opera, drama, puppet theater, parody theater, ballet, operetta, pantomime, theater of the absurd, author's theater, children's theater, animal theater, theater for the disabled, musical, one-man theater, song theater, poetry theater , dance theater, shadow theater, street theater, variety theater, light theater and others.
2) What do I know about the theater? (Slides)
1. How does the aphorism end: “There are no small roles, there are small...”?
A. Actors.
B. Playwrights.
B. Directors.
G. Spectators.
2. How does the title of one of A.N.’s plays end? Ostrovsky’s “Our People -...”?
A. Let's sing.
B. Let's be numbered.
B. Let's get used to it.
G. Let's call you.
3. What is the theater school at the State Academic Maly Theater often called?
A. Shavings.
B. Stump.
V. Sliver.
G. Plywood.
(Shchepkinsky School - named after M.S. Shchepkin)
4. What theater award exists in our country?
A. “Golden Bolt.”
B. “Highlight of the season.”
V. “Theater cog”
G. “Acting hairpin.”
(This is what the Union of Theater Workers of Russia called their award. It looks like a nail, only crystal.)
5. What was the name of the American dancer Isadora Duncan in the 20s?
A. Great sandal.
B. Great slipper.
B. The Great Sandal.
G. Great pointe.
(Because she danced without shoes.)
6. What is the name of the part of a ballerina's costume?
A. Kipa.
B. Pack.
B. Stack.
G. Bunch.
7. What is the name of an amateur comic-humorous performance?
A. Arbuznik.
B. Carrot.
V. Kapustnik.
G. Lemongrass.
8. How it ends catchphrase: “Talented people need to be helped, mediocrity...”?
A. And so it goes.
B. They will make their way on their own.
B. A sponsor will help.
G. And so not bad.
9. Complete the comic definition of opera: “Opera is when a person is killed, and he still ...”
A. Walks
B. Sings
V.Breathes
G.Sitting
3) “Understand me!”
I invite one representative from the team. You will be the directors of the play. But unfortunately, you can only speak with verbs. Your task is to explain the content of the work for the production of the play. For example: went, scraped, broomed, baked, cooled, rolled, sang, deceived, left, rolled, sang, ate. What kind of fairy tale is this?). That's right, it's Russian folk tale"Kolobok"
Assignments for directors.
1. Fairy tale “Alyonushka and brother Ivanushka”
2. Fairy tale “Masha and the Bears”
4) Quiz.
1st round “Theater” (slides)
According to Stanislavski, what is a continuation of a hanger? (Theater.)
The part of the auditorium closest to the buffet is... Which one? (Balcony.)
What advantage did the lady who had a theater box on the balcony have over the lady sitting in the stalls? (If a lady had a theater box on the balcony, she could wear a hat with feathers of any size. But those who sat in the stalls could not afford anything like that.)
Why don't kangaroos ever go to theatres?(Because in theaters it is customary to check bags in the cloakroom.)
What is the time for eating sweets at a theater buffet called? (Intermission.)
An announcement that all tickets have been sold is called… (Full house.)
Round 2 “Representatives of the theater” (identify the representatives of the theater from the pictures)
1.The team that makes up the creative staff of the theater is called… (Troupe.)(photo of a group of actors)
2. “Sleeveless vest” (Bezrukov Sergey.) (sleeveless vest)
3.Which character in Tolstoy’s fairy tale sold “ABC” and bought a ticket to the theater? (Pinocchio.) (ABC)
4. Actor and director, who directed the largest puppet theater for 60 years.
(S.V. Obraztsov) (samples of dolls)
5. Great Russian ballerina. (Galina Ulanova) (Russian Ulan)
6.Name of the famous trainer of the Moscow Cat Theater. (Kuklachev)(doll)
5. Physical training
Pantomime (invite the opposing team to portray 1. “Joy”, 2. “Surprise”)
6. Application of knowledge and skills in a new situation
"Blitz tournament"
1) What blocks the stage from the audience? (curtain)
2) Colorful announcement about performances and concerts. (poster)
3) A person who tells the actor words from his speech. (prompter)
4) What is the name of the first performance of the play in the theater? (premiere)
5) What is the name of theatrical cosmetics? (makeup)
6) Stormy, prolonged applause. (ovation)
7) Theater artist. (decorator)
8) A dramatic work intended for the theater. (play)
9) The theater room where the costumes of theater actors are stored. (costume department)
10) What are the names of products that only depict real objects?
used during theater performances. (props)
11) What is the name of the speech of one person? (monologue)
12) What is the break in the play called? (intermission)
13) How many warning bells are given before the start of the performance? (3)
14) Modern musical performance? (musical)
15) A theatrical performance in which they only dance and say nothing. (ballet)
16) What type of theater evokes the greatest delight among young spectators? (puppet)
17) Actor and director, who directed the largest puppet theater for 60 years.
(S.V. Obraztsov)
18) Theater of variety programs. (variety show)
19) What skills does the vaudeville genre require from artists? (sing and dance)
20) A scene in which the actor does not utter a single word, but explains everything usinggestures (pantomime)
21) The most famous Italian opera house. ("La Scala")
22) Name the largest theater in St. Petersburg. (Mariinsky Theater)
23) What decorates the facade of the Bolshoi Theater? (4 horses harnessed to the chariot of the patron god of art Apollo)
24) Who played all the roles in the theaters of Ancient Greece? (men)
25) Great Russian ballerina. (Galina Ulanova)
26) What were the names of the first professional artists in Rus'? (buffoons)
27) The name of the famous trainer of the Moscow Cat Theater. (Kuklachev)
28) The hero of P.I. Tchaikovsky’s ballet, who fought the Mouse King. (Nutcracker)
29) Sad puppet friend Pinocchio. (Pierrot)
30) What book did Pinocchio exchange for a ticket to puppet theater? (ABC)
7. Summing up.
While the judges are counting the points, I will tell you about some unusual theaters.
1. In one of the ancient theaters there was a special row for one-armed warriors. A row of bald slaves was seated in front of them, and by hitting their bald heads, the first could applaud.
2. There is a so-called theater of cruelty. But don’t think that they show torture and abuse. In it, the whole performance is simply shown with gestures and inarticulate sounds.
3. In Sicily to this day there is a puppet theater, the performance of which lasts... a month! In ancient times there were also performances that lasted for a year! True, during the day the audience went about their usual business, as they do now, and in the evening they watched the continuation of the same play. For the last eight hundred years, one and the same theme has been developed - the struggle of the knight Roland with the Moors.
4. The Japanese kabuki theater, where all roles, even female ones, are played by men, was founded by a woman. Her name was Okuni and she was a shrine attendant in the 17th century. She and other women then also performed all roles, including male ones. However, soon the country’s leadership did not like it, and women in the kabuki theater were replaced by young men, and later by mature men. Nowadays, traditions are no longer so strong, and in some troupes women have begun to play female roles again.
Our strict critics - the judges announce the results.
(Summing up and awarding the winners).
8.Reflection
Today we have only lifted the curtain on such a huge, diverse world as theater. It is impossible not to love the theater - it allows us to plunge into the world of beauty, being a reflection of our life, in fact, life itself. And as the great English playwright William Shakespeare said in the words of Jacques from the comedy “As You Like It”
The whole world is a theater.
There are women, men - all actors.
They have their own exits, departures,
And everyone plays more than one role.
And I wish you that all the roles in your life are worthy of the title of a person.
1. “Judgement sheet.”
1 team2nd team
1. Warm-up "Name the theater"
2. “What do I know about the theater?”
3. “Understand me”
4. 1st round “Theater”
6. Pantomime
7. Round 3 “Blitz tournament”
Total
1. “Judgement sheet.”
1 team2nd team
1. Warm-up "Name the theater"
2. “What do I know about the theater?”
3. “Understand me”
4. 1st round “Theater”
5. 2nd round “Representatives of the theater”
6. Pantomime
7. Round 3 “Blitz tournament”
Total