In order to determine the importance of side conflicts in the dramaturgy of variety shows, we first look at the theory of dramaturgy as a whole.
Drama is one of the three types of literature, along with epic and lyric poetry. The main purpose of drama is acting on stage, and therefore the dramatic text consists of the characters’ remarks and the author’s remarks, which are necessary for correct perception and the best production. Note that the word drama itself is translated from ancient Greek as “action,” which in fact means the content, the essence of this type of literature.
Of course, it should be noted that conflict and its significance in a work can be discussed not only in relation to drama, but also in epic and lyrical works. But television shows, which will be analyzed during the work, are closest to drama. Just like the texts of dramas, show scripts are not intended to be read, but exist specifically for production (in our case, for production on television). Thus, it is advisable to pay attention to the role of conflict specifically in drama.
First you need to understand what lies at the heart of any dramatic work. “The action of a drama in the theories of the 19th century was understood as a sequence of actions of characters defending their interests in clashes with each other.” This perception of drama goes back to G. Hegel, who, in turn, relied on the teachings of Aristotle. Hegel believed that conflict, confrontation moves the action of drama, and he perceived the entire dramatic process as constant movement to the end of this conflict. That is why Hegel considered those scenes that do not contribute to resolving the conflict and moving forward to be contrary to the essence of drama. Therefore, the actions of the heroes, which constantly led to inevitable conflicts, according to Hegel, are one of the main features of a dramatic work.
Many other researchers agree with this perception of drama. For example, Doctor of Art History, theorist and playwright of the 20th century, V.A. Sakhnovsky-Pankeev argues that the key condition for the existence of drama is action, “arising as a result of the volitional efforts of individuals who, in pursuit of their goals, enter into confrontation with other individuals and objective circumstances.” Russian playwright, theater critic and screenwriter V.M. agrees with this. Wolkenstein, who believed that the action develops “in a continuous dramatic struggle.”
In contrast to this perception of a dramatic work, there is another one. For example, such theorists as the Soviet literary critic B.O. Kostelanetz, and the German drama researcher M. Pfister, in their works, were of the opinion that drama can be based not only on the direct confrontation of heroes with each other, but also on certain events that themselves were the focus of conflicts and changed the fate of the heroes and their life circumstances. Likewise, B. Shaw believed that in addition to external conflicts, drama can be based “on discussions between characters, and ultimately on conflicts arising from the clash of different ideals.” That is why, adhering to a similar point of view, K.S. Stanislavsky separated two actions - internal and external. And if we talk about internal action, then it is impossible not to mention A.P. Chekhov, in whose plays there is almost no such action. Conflicts Chekhov's dramas are not resolved through the actions of the characters; they are determined not by their lives, but by reality as a whole.
Combining these seemingly different approaches, V.E. Khalizev argues that in this way, “the subject of depiction in drama can be any intensely active orientation of a person in life situations, especially in situations marked by conflict.”
Accordingly, in any dramatic work there is a main conflict around which the entire plot is built. The main conflict is the main condition for the development, and therefore for the existence in general, of drama. And it is precisely in this contradiction, which is the conflict, according to A.A. Aniksta “displays the general state of the world.”
Let's take one of the generally accepted approaches to the composition of a drama, according to which its elements will be beginning, development, climax, and denouement. When talking about these parts of the composition of a dramatic work, we essentially mean the stages of development of the conflict. The conflict becomes main theme drama and the main plot-forming element. And that is why “the conflict revealed in the work must exhaust itself with a denouement.” This perception of conflict as a necessary element of any dramatic work originated with Aristotle, who spoke of the inevitability of both beginnings and resolutions in tragedies.
Based on theories that arose in antiquity and were reflected in subsequent dramatic works, we can talk about the existence of a plot structure that was valid for the times of Hegel. It consists of three parts:
- 1) Initial order (balance, harmony)
- 2) Disturbance of order
- 3) Restoration or strengthening of order.
It is logical that if this system implies the restoration of lost harmony, then the conflict that formed the basis of the drama will inevitably be eliminated. This position is controversial for the drama of modern times, according to which “conflict is a universal property of human existence.” In other words, some conflicts are so large that they cannot be resolved by the aspirations of several heroes, and therefore cannot disappear in principle.
Based on these opposing views on the theory of conflicts in a dramatic work, V.E. Khalizev in his work speaks of the existence of two types of conflict - “local”, which can be resolved through the efforts of several characters, and “substantial”, that is, those that are either universal in nature, and therefore cannot be resolved, or that have arisen (and, accordingly, and disappeared after some time) not by the will of man, but in the course of historical process, natural changes. “The conflict of a dramatic (and any other) plot, therefore, either marks a violation of the world order, which is basically harmonious and perfect, or acts as a feature of the world order itself, evidence of its imperfection and disharmony.”
The main confrontation of a dramatic work, that is, its main conflict, organizes the main storyline works, being the main theme of the drama. So V.M. Wolkenstein, in fact, equates the concepts of conflict and the theme of a work, arguing that “the general theme of a dramatic work is conflict, that is, a single action leading to confrontation.”
Thus, we can distinguish two main approaches to the theory of conflicts in a dramatic work. One part of the researchers believes that an external conflict, an open confrontation between several characters, becomes the main one in a dramatic work, while another part of the researchers believes that the main conflict may be internal conflict, which is not determined by the actions of the characters, but by factors that are beyond their will.
The conflict of a play, as a rule, is not identical to some kind of life conflict in its everyday form. He generalizes and typifies the contradiction that the artist, in this case the playwright, observes in life. The depiction of a particular conflict in a dramatic work is a way of revealing social contradiction in an effective fight.
While remaining typical, the conflict is at the same time personified in the dramatic work in specific characters and is “obvious.”
Social conflicts depicted in dramatic works, naturally, are not subject to any unification in content - their number and variety are limitless. However, the methods of compositionally building a dramatic conflict are typical. Reviewing the existing dramatic experience, we can talk about the typology of the structure of dramatic conflict, about three main types of its construction.
Hero - Hero. Conflicts are built according to this type - Lyubov Yarovaya and her husband, Othello and Iago. In this case, the author and the viewer sympathize with one of the parties to the conflict, one of the heroes (or one group of heroes) and together with him they experience the circumstances of the struggle with the opposite side.
The author of a dramatic work and the viewer are always on the same side, since the author’s task is to agree with the viewer, to convince the viewer of what he wants to convince him of. Is it necessary to emphasize that the author does not always reveal to the viewer his likes and dislikes in relation to his heroes. Moreover, a frontal statement of one’s positions has little to do with artistic work especially with drama. There is no need to rush around with ideas on stage. It is necessary for the viewer to leave the theater with them - Mayakovsky rightly said.
Another type of conflict construction: Hero - Auditorium. Satirical works are usually based on such a conflict. The audience denies behavior and morality with laughter satirical heroes acting on stage. The positive hero in this performance, as its author N.V. Gogol said about The Inspector General, is in the audience.
The third type of construction of the main conflict is the Hero (or heroes) and the Environment with which they are opposed. In this case, the author and the viewer are, as it were, in a third position, observing both the hero and the environment, following the vicissitudes of this struggle, without necessarily joining one side or the other. A classic example of such a construction is “The Living Corpse” by L. N. Tolstoy. The hero of the drama, Fyodor Protasov, is in conflict with the environment, whose sanctimonious morality forces him to first “leave” it into revelry and drunkenness, then to depict a fictitious death, and then to actually commit suicide.
The viewer will by no means consider Fyodor Protasov a positive hero worthy of imitation. But he will sympathize with him and, accordingly, will condemn the environment opposing Protasov - the so-called “color of society” - which forced him to die.
Vivid examples of constructing a conflict of the Hero-Wednesday type are Shakespeare's Hamlet, A. S. Griboedov's "Woe from Wit", and A. N. Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorm".
The division of dramatic conflicts according to the type of their construction is not absolute. In many works one can observe a combination of two types of conflict construction. So, for example, if in satirical play, along with negative characters there are also positive heroes, in addition to the main conflict Hero - Auditorium, we will observe another - the conflict Hero - Hero, a conflict between positive and negative heroes on stage.
In addition, the Hero-Environment conflict ultimately contains the Hero-Hero conflict. After all, the environment in a dramatic work is not faceless. It also consists of heroes, sometimes very bright, whose names have become household names. Let us remember Famusov and Molchalin in “Woe from Wit”, or Kabanikha in “The Thunderstorm”. In the general concept of “Environment” we unite them on the principle of the commonality of their views, a common attitude towards the hero opposing them.
Action in a dramatic work is nothing more than a conflict in development. It develops from the initial conflict situation that arose in the beginning. It develops not just sequentially - one event after another - but through the birth of a subsequent event from the previous one, thanks to the previous one, according to the laws of the cause-and-effect series. The action of the play in every this moment should be fraught with the development of further action.
The theory of dramaturgy at one time considered it necessary to observe three unities in a dramatic work: the unity of time, the unity of place and the unity of action. Practice, however, has shown that dramaturgy easily dispenses with the unity of place and time, but unity of action is a truly necessary condition for the existence of a dramatic work as a work of art.
Maintaining unity of action is essentially maintaining a single picture of the development of the main conflict. It is thus a condition for creating a holistic image of the conflict event that is depicted in this work. Unity of action - a picture of the development of a continuous and not replaced main conflict during the play - is a criterion for the artistic integrity of the work. Violation of the unity of action - the substitution of a conflict tied up in the beginning - undermines the possibility of creating a holistic artistic image conflict event inevitably seriously reduces the artistic level of a dramatic work.
Action in a dramatic work should be considered only what happens directly on stage or on screen. The so-called “pre-stage”, “non-stage”, “off-stage” actions - all this is information that can contribute to the understanding of the action, but in no case can replace it. Abusing the amount of such information to the detriment of action greatly reduces the emotional impact of the play (performance) on the viewer, and sometimes reduces it to nothing.
In the literature one can sometimes find an insufficiently clear explanation of the relationship between the concepts of “conflict” and “action”. E. G. Kholodov writes about it this way: “The specific subject of depiction in drama is, as is known, life in motion, or in other words, action.” This is not accurate. Life in motion is any flow of life. It can, of course, be called action. Although, in relation to real life, it would be more accurate to talk not about action, but about actions. Life is endlessly active.
The subject of depiction in drama is not life in general, but one or another specific social conflict, personified in the heroes of this play. Action, therefore, is not the ebullience of life in general, but a given conflict in its specific development.
Further, E. G. Kholodov clarifies his formulation to some extent, but the definition of action remains imprecise: “Drama reproduces action in the form of a dramatic struggle,” he writes, “that is, in the form of a conflict.” We cannot agree with this. Drama does not reproduce action in the form of conflict, but, on the contrary, conflict in the form of action. And this is by no means a game words, but the restoration of the true essence of the concepts under consideration. Conflict is the source of action. Action is the form of its movement, its existence in a work.
The source of drama is life itself. The playwright takes the conflict from the real contradictions in the development of society to depict in his work. He subjectivizes it in specific characters, he organizes it in space and time, gives, in other words, his own picture of the development of the conflict, and creates dramatic action. Drama is an imitation of life - as Aristotle spoke about - only in its very in a general sense of these words. In each given work of drama, the action is not copied from any specific situation, but created, organized, sculpted by the author. The movement, therefore, proceeds in this way: the contradiction of the development of society; a typical conflict that objectively exists on the basis of a given contradiction; its author's concretization is personification in the heroes of the work, in their clashes, in their contradiction and opposition to each other; development of the conflict (from the beginning to the denouement, to the ending), that is, building the action.
Elsewhere, E. G. Kholodov, relying on Hegel’s thought, comes to a correct understanding of the relationship between the concepts of “conflict” and “action”.
Hegel writes: “Action presupposes antecedent circumstances leading to collisions, to action and reaction.”
The plot of the action, according to Hegel, lies where in the work appear, “given” by the author, “only those (and not any at all - D.A.) circumstances that, picked up by the individual make-up of the soul (of the hero) of this work- D.A.) and its needs, give rise to precisely that specific collision, the deployment and resolution of which constitutes the special action of a given work of art.”
So, action is the initiation, “unfolding” and “resolution” of the conflict.
The hero in a dramatic work must fight, be a participant in a social conflict. This, of course, does not mean that the heroes of other literary works of poetry or prose do not participate in social struggle. But there may be other heroes. In a work of drama there should not be heroes who stand outside the depicted social conflict.
The author depicting a social conflict is always on one side of it. His sympathies and, accordingly, the sympathies of the readers are given to some heroes, and his antipathies to others. At the same time, the concepts of “positive” and “negative” heroes are relative concepts and not very accurate. In each specific case, we can talk about positive and negative characters from the point of view of the author of this work.
In our general understanding of modern life positive hero- this is the one who fights for the establishment of social justice, for progress, for the ideals of socialism. The term is negative, respectively, the one who contradicts it in ideology, in politics, in behavior, in attitude to work.
The hero of a dramatic work is always a son of his time, and from this point of view, the choice of a hero for a dramatic work is also of a historical nature, determined by historical and social circumstances. At the dawn of Soviet drama, finding a positive and negative character was easy for authors. A negative hero was anyone who clung to yesterday - representatives of the tsarist apparatus, nobles, landowners, merchants, White Guard generals, officers, sometimes even soldiers, but in any case, everyone who fought against the young Soviet government. Accordingly, it was easy to find a positive hero in the ranks of revolutionaries, activists, parties, heroes of the civil war, etc. Today, in a period of comparative peacetime, the task of finding a hero is much more difficult, because social clashes are not expressed as clearly as they were expressed during the years of revolution and civil war, or later, during the Great Patriotic War.
“Reds!”, “Whites!”, “ours!”, “fascists!” - children shouted in different ways over the years, looking at the movie screens. The reaction of adults was not so immediate, but fundamentally similar. The division of heroes into “ours” and “not ours” in works dedicated to the revolution, civil war, and the Patriotic War was not difficult, either for the authors or for the audience. Unfortunately, the artificial division imposed from above by Stalin and his propaganda apparatus Soviet people on “ours” and “not ours” also provided material for working only with black and white paint, images from these positions of “positive” and “negative” heroes.
An acute social struggle, as we see, is happening now, both in the sphere of ideology, and in the sphere of production, and in the moral sphere, in matters of law, and norms of behavior. The drama of life, of course, never disappears. The struggle between movement and inertia, between indifference and burning, between broad-mindedness and limitation, between nobility and baseness, search and complacency, between good and evil in in a broad sense These words always exist and provide an opportunity to search for heroes, both positive, with whom we sympathize, and negative.
It has already been said above that the relativity of the concept of a “positive” hero also lies in the fact that in drama, as in literature in general, in a number of cases the hero with whom we sympathize is not an example to follow, a model of behavior in life position. Difficult to classify as positive With these points of view to the heroes Katerina from “The Thunderstorm” and Larisa from “Dowry” by A. N. Ostrovsky. We sincerely sympathize with them as victims of a society living according to the laws of animal morality, but we naturally reject their way of struggling with their lack of rights and humiliation. The main thing is that in life there are no absolutely positive or absolutely negative people. If people shared this way in life, and a “positive” person had no reason and opportunity to turn out to be “negative” and vice versa, art would lose its meaning. It would lose one of its most important purposes - to contribute to the improvement of the human person.
Only a lack of understanding of the essence of the impact of a dramatic work on the audience can explain the existence of primitive assessments of the ideological sound of a particular play by calculating the balance between the number of “positive” and “negative” characters. Especially often such calculations are used to evaluate satirical plays.
No one, presumably, would demand that for a correct understanding of I. E. Repin’s painting “Ivan the Terrible Kills His Son,” the artist depicted “positive” courtiers standing around the Tsar and Tsarevich, shaking their heads condemningly. No one will doubt the revolutionary pathos of B.V. Ioganson’s painting “Interrogation of Communists” on the grounds that there are only two communists depicted in it, and several White Guard counterintelligence agents. For works of drama, however, such an approach is considered possible, despite the fact that its history does not provide fewer examples its inadmissibility than painting, than any other art. The film “Chapaev” helped raise millions of heroes, although Chapaev dies at the end of the film. The famous tragedy of Sun. Vishnevsky is optimistic not only in name, although his heroine - the commissar - dies.
The moral victory or political rightness of heroes can increase or decrease not depending on their numbers.
The hero of a dramatic work, in contrast to the hero of prose, whom the author usually describes in detail and comprehensively, characterizes himself, in the words of A. M. Gorky, “autonomously,” by his actions, without the help of the author’s description. This does not mean that the stage directions cannot briefly describe the characters. But we must not forget that stage directions are written for the director and performer. The audience in the theater will not hear them.
For example, the American playwright Tennessee Williams gives a devastating characterization of its main character, Stanley Kowalski, in a stage direction at the beginning of the play A Streetcar Named Desire. However, Stanley appears to the viewer as quite respectable and even handsome. Only as a result of his actions does he reveal himself as an egoist, a knight of profit, a rapist, as an evil and cruel person. The author's remark is intended here only for the director and performer. The viewer shouldn't know her.
Modern playwrights sometimes “voice” their stage directions with the help of a presenter, who, on behalf of the author, gives the characters the necessary characteristics. As a rule, the presenter appears in historical-documentary plays. To understand what is happening there, explanations are often necessary, which are impossible to put into the mouths of the characters themselves due to the documentary nature of their text, on the one hand, and most importantly in order to preserve a lively dialogue, not burdened with elements of commentary.
Material taken from absolutely different sources and elaborate.
Conflict is keyword dramas. Drama deals only with the actions of people in relation to each other, which is why conflict is always the center of our attention. Any emotional or intellectual value in a drama comes from the conflict of the characters. The actions of people in drama are usually inherently conflicting. And if it turns out that the conflict is hidden or weak, you need to find it and develop it.
In order for the performance to be exciting, in the structure of the drama the framework of conflicts is built contrary to the philistine logic of everyday life. In everyday life, you almost never guess a person’s intentions by his face and appearance. And in real life there is no genius insight that could penetrate the killer's brain and determine that at that moment he is cutting your throat in his imagination. But in drama, we can. In drama we balance between the obvious and the mysterious, the ordinary and the spectacular. We want to reveal people's secrets, but in such a way that it happens naturally, as if by itself.
There is only one way for this - the actions of people in conflict. Words tend to deceive and hide true intentions. Only action tears off people's masks and reveals their true essence. These actions must be based on the needs of the people themselves. And only by bringing people into conflict can we hide our story-telling intentions so deeply that no one will guess about them.
“We playwrights are like traffic cops. With only one difference: we are crazy traffic controllers. In life, traffic controllers ensure safety, but in drama, we only think about hitting oncoming cars. We are the creators of disasters."
Mario Puzo
In a conflict, clear, clearly defined forces are fighting. Good fights evil. Bad guys fight good guys. The brightest sparks of conflict are struck from the clash of extreme forces, when the devil enters into battle with the angel. In complex forms, evil hides under the guise of kindness. The angel is well wrapped up and is not immediately recognizable. You need to find and recognize two irreconcilable opponents - the protagonist and the antagonist. To give the clash of complex and multi-valued characters a clarity that will be devoid of triviality.
Everyone's life experience young artist throws up a lot of characters and situations born of the imagination, not yet described by anyone, not identified in any way. Heroes are a unique wealth, and the way they are identified in a conflict is quite universal.
The stronger the difference between the heroes, the better the conflict develops.
Chekhov in his work “Verochka” revealed to us an amazing clash of two extremes - defenseless passionate nature, rich in love, eager to give oneself to the beloved and impenetrable, like an alien, a beggar for the feelings of the hero. The extremes are not only people of law and criminals, rich people and thieves, cowboys and Indians.
In conflict, it is useful to look for the clash of extremes, such as angel and devil.
Evil in dramatic conflict cannot be expressed as a social or environmental phenomenon. It cannot act as a philosophical category. Evil must necessarily be concentrated in the form of a specific antagonist who fights the hero here and now. Such evil most strongly involves the viewer in emotional empathy; it is full of surprises in development.
The hero, the bearer of evil, can express any philosophical ideas, but not with words, but with actions in conflict. Evil in a conflict must take the form of a specific person with a personal character and personal interests - an antagonist. Through his actions, the enemy asks the hero questions. The hero gives answers through actions. This is how conflict develops from a dramatic situation.
In a conflict, two sides always collide: two individuals, two groups, two armies, or one against all, but these “everyone” for the conflict are one person - the antagonist. In any case, there are two faces. Even if there is only one person in the scene, he is a participant in the conflict. His will can collide with an absent opponent. Finally, he may develop internal conflict. Wherever there is volitional action, it becomes visible and understandable only when it encounters a barrier in the conflict.
The conflict does not come out in every scene, but it always exists and develops. Some scenes prepare conflicts, others make sense of it. But they are always associated with conflict. Anything that is not related to conflict is unnecessary for drama.
The protagonist and antagonist often fight in conflict not because one is bad and the other is good. No, they are simply both involved in a dramatic situation due to a common problem in which their destinies collide and compromise is impossible.
At the center of the conflict there must be something specific that deeply affects the most important interests in life. The characters' interests must collide over some specific thing. Specific issues are usually surrounded by sensory details. They make the energetic core of the conflict visible and voluminous, and this helps to emotionally enter the world of warring characters.
When disaster occurs in a conflict, unexpected developments occur. Conflict dramatically worsens a situation or creates unintended consequences. The conflict creates intriguing questions: What does the future hold for the characters?
Conflict is a living improvisational way in which an event develops. A conflict is like a script that two co-authors improvise. The conflict must be resolved here and now. Time pressure works well. Conflict helps us experience the feelings of the characters as our own emotional experience.
These issues do not arise in conflicts in any particular order. It doesn't look like answering one question opens the way to the next.
No, these questions seem to simultaneously vibrate in the body of the conflict. They constantly arise all together and each separately. The answers to these questions help us understand whether the conflict is developing correctly. Are we fully exhausting the potential for conflict in our history?
Conflict is a story about feelings. It is not at all necessary to express feelings outwardly apart from actions in a conflict. You must have feelings. Their conflicts are conveyed when they are visually well told.
Rules that help develop conflict:
1. at the beginning of the scene, the characters’ goals are incompatible and incomprehensible
2. an alternative factor threatens from outside
3. there is time pressure. The problem must be solved here and now
4. We must push heroes towards disaster.
5. We make sure that the viewer asks himself: what will the hero do?
6. the conflict develops as an emotional experience of the characters, which we can feel with them
To bring out this emotional experience, the conflict must be developed in the dramatic performance of the actors.
Conflict always develops as a dialogue of actions. These actions can be external - expressed by actions, or internal - then they are expressed by internal actions. But actions in actions should always look like improvisation of two co-authors. One never knows what the other will do.
An indispensable quality of conflict development is its unpredictability.
Unpredictability is one of the problems that is solved when working with the behavior of heroes. In any scene, no matter how well the conflict is developed in the script, unpredictability must be achieved through the actions of the actors, conscious and calculated.
A character alone can always be represented as a field of struggle between good and evil, as a field of action in conflict. If this is not the case, actions are threatened by straightforwardness.
To develop the conflict, we need to understand what each of the opponents is charged with. The greater the potential difference, the brighter the spark of conflict. Potential differences can be the thinnest crack in a relationship. We insert the knife of analysis into it and carefully push this gap apart with conflict. The greater the potential difference, the brighter the spark of conflict.
The main task of developing a conflict is to force the viewer, along with the actors, to experience the emotional experience of the characters. This is empathy. Conflict is the best way to achieve this. Because in conflict, emotions are born in a concrete struggle before our eyes. The path of development is read to our emotions - we follow it and our emotions grow.
At the moment of development of the conflict, we are most creatively in touch with the text of the script. Text cannot capture the full emotional experience of a scene. And he shouldn't do that. It is enough to provide the correct guidelines for development and conflicts in the text.
The greater the contrast between the characters, the brighter the conflict appears.
The characters must have two different ambitions. What comes into conflict is what the character actually wants, not what he says in words. In small specific conflicts, large vital interests are revealed. And before the conflict, they are hidden inside the characters.
Two different improvisations pit characters in conflict.
The conflict pits two different, warring goals against each other. Sometimes these targets are off stage. We need to clarify them and make them understandable, then the conflict will strengthen.
The hero and antagonist act in different masks.
A mask is not necessarily an expression of deceit. It is often protection from environmental aggression. A weak man performs in a superman mask. The deceiver is in the mask of a good man with a heart of gold. Gentle in a mask of nasty severity. The mask can grow to a person. The mask is part of the personality (although I believe that the mask destroys the personality).
Misunderstanding of each other is an important element in the development of conflict. A misunderstanding is only a small part of the misunderstanding, but it is not so easy to figure it out. The difference in mentality can pit characters in irreconcilable combat for the most unexpected reasons. In drama, compromise does not work as a final solution. Conflict takes its place.
For conflict to engage us emotionally, the characters must be charged with universal emotions.
For example: fear, panic, pleasure, disappointment, helplessness, guilt, lust, joy, etc.
Conflict is the way characters act. Through these actions they reveal and develop emotions in us. The characters struggle, their emotions come out, and we perceive them. All this is born in conflict.
An important element of conflict are barriers. Only by overcoming barriers does the hero make the conflict visible. Barriers reveal character. If there are no barriers, there is no development of conflict.
The easiest way to show conflict is in a verbal argument between the characters.
Usually the hero and antagonist hold opposing views on all major things. It's a pleasure to write the dialogues of their arguments. The imagination is bursting with spectacular remarks, the hand writes itself. But that's the last thing we should do.
There is a simple criterion for the appropriateness of dialogue in drama. If words create a barrier that an opponent in a conflict must overcome, they help. If words only color, clarify character traits, do not relate to what is developing here and now, they need to look for another place where they will create a barrier. Or throw it away.
In a novel or story, dialogue has completely different functions. There he is much closer to our verbal contacts in life. But the life-like quality of the drama is a thin layer of skin that hides the skeleton and muscles of the structure. As one writer said, “The novelist who writes drama is like the captain of a ship in distress. He throws overboard everything that prevents the ship from reaching port.”
Conflict is essentially a dialogue. But questions and answers are not words, but actions. Questions look like barriers for the enemy.
Barriers can be external and internal. Deciding on something means overcoming a barrier within yourself. To act means to overcome a barrier in a real dramatic situation.
In conflicts we seek for each character the highest barrier that he can overcome.
Drama strives to develop the extreme states of everything that falls into its field. Happiness tends to become heaven, unhappiness strives to become hell. Life is threatened by death, love is threatened by betrayal.
Conflicts in the drama also tend to the maximum. Their maximum is a disaster. As Chekhov noted: “In the end, the hero either gets married or gets shot.” It would be useful to have in your hands a structure that is inert to the quality of conflict. Any conflict - original or trivial, slightly outlined and crude, bloody - can have a chance in this structure to develop into a catastrophe. Of course, at the same time, conflicts should not lose their originality.
If there is such a blank for different conflicts, we will be able to see what and where we did not push through, developing the potential for conflict. We will get a model that has a chance to be permanently in our desktop.
As drama theory says, conflict is the basis of any dramatic work, defining and plot structure, and composition, otherwise the desired action cannot be embodied in the work and make vivid images their heroes.
The presence of a conflict helps to more clearly identify the parties who have different attitudes towards the truth, and this in turn helps to more clearly identify the parties to the conflict in constructing the overall composition of the work, using a set of monologues, dialogues, and remarks exchanged by the characters while performing certain actions at the same time. The goal that the playwright will follow is to reveal the character of the hero, identify the relationship with other characters in the work, give him not only a certain assessment through the lips of the characters interacting with him, but also show the process of the hero’s self-development.
I would like to draw attention to the different nature of conflict in drama.
The conflict in the tragedy arises between personal aspirations and the super-personal laws of life occurs in the consciousness of the hero and the entire plot is created to develop and resolve this conflict. The hero of the tragedy is in conflict not only with other characters, but also with himself, experiencing deep suffering.
Of all the dramatic genres, drama is the most diverse in subject matter, distinguished by the great breadth of life conflicts depicted. The main difference between drama and tragedy is the essence of the conflict on which it is built. If the tragedy contains a contradiction in the soul of the hero, then the pathos of drama that permeates the drama gives rise to a clash of characters with such forces of life that confront them historically, socially, and romanticly.
Unlike tragedy and drama, comedy is full of humorous and satirical pathos, which is generated by the comic contradictions of the characters being recreated. Comics develop through conflicts, often based on chance. By genre issues Comedy is a moral and descriptive genre. Comedy has always reflected the life and customs of its time and has always been relevant.
Conflict in different dramatic genres has a different character.
Farces and many comedies are replete with misunderstandings and funny clashes between characters. In tragedies, drama and so on " high comedies“Serious and deep conflicts are embodied. Dramaturgy gravitates towards acute conflict situations. The conflict permeates the entire dramatic work and forms the basis of each of its episodes. Therefore, dramaturgy is characterized by the intensity of experiences.
If we talk about the traditions of modern drama, then this is a conflict between the new in the character and psychology of a person - the unusual with what was before, the familiar, which is expensive not just due to inertia, but also because its time, exciting with the new, was won in a difficult struggle.
A person seriously busy with his work inevitably becomes involved in the conflict. A person's character is revealed in struggle - this is an axiom.
Genres, forms, artistic principles, conditionality and unconditionality, manifestations of the hero, the potential of his soul...
Everything is decidedly different and it’s good that it’s different - everything is open to interpretation and debate, only one thing is beyond discussion: only the vitality and severity of the conflict determines the persuasiveness of the hero.
The absence of conflict leads to the fact that heroes become inactive and unintellectual; the ideal hero cannot be discovered outside the fight against evil. The severity of the conflict does not mean only the formulation of acute conflicts in the work. It will be acute only if we do psychological and social implications from this struggle of forces.
The creation of an acute conflict is only the initial prerequisite for a way out of conflictlessness. The conflict may not involve a direct clash of two disparate characters; the conflict may appear in the form of an illustration, transform into a system of side conflicts, additional ones, acting as “psychological coloring.” The false idea about the fading of conflicts in reality and the possibility of reproducing such a “fading” as a confrontation between “good” and even “better” turned out to be unviable.
The drama was able to recognize in practice that it is not the conflict that is dying out, but certain historically conditioned forms and manifestations of it, which are being replaced by others, in no way inferior to the old ones in depth and sharpness, allowing one to penetrate into the world of feelings and subject characters to artistic research.
The drama opened up for us an “industrial conflict” that was based on a social conflict – the hero’s deviation from the norm, opposition to his society. Industrial conflict is a conflict between a person and a team. Production drama is a conflict arising due to unskilled management decision, low qualifications of workers, low level of labor organization and management.
Industrial conflict allows us to identify a dramatic situation, an “observation area,” before it leads to a sharp division of forces: the conflict can proceed as a clash between the hero and his antagonist or as a struggle between the hero and himself.
Heroic drama manifests itself - where the conflict acquires sharp force, expressiveness, and specific historical certainty. The heroism of human feat is presented to the drama primarily as a moral conflict.
This period reveals conflict in the so-called “plays of life” - where the conflict moves along with the characters, and sometimes appears in the foreground. The main idea of the conflict in the “plays of life” is the value of the individual, which was proclaimed under any restrictions. It was not determined by the measure of what had already been accomplished, but by the craving for beauty, harmony, and movements towards the ideal.
Submission to this idea prevents the characters' own themes from emerging alongside it. A psychological drama, in which the problematic nature of a character is acutely shown, where the hero can clearly define his position in relation to the current situation, constantly competes with a journalistic drama - where the movement of side conflicts slows down the flow of the main action. In journalistic drama, the concept of character and position in the conflict are separated by a small distance.
The collision “hero” - “hero” is a comparison of a kind of system of views, a comparison over the personality of each of the parties to the conflict. In such conflicts, the line of conduct, the tactics of actions cannot appear otherwise than openly social Psychology. This conflict is determined by simply dividing the characters into “black” and “white”.
The word "conflict" means clash. All this is connected with acute emotional experiences, with confrontation. All difficult-to-resolve contradictions are usually called conflicts.
Any conflict begins with a conflict situation.
In other words, in order for a conflict to arise, a basis or basis is necessary. Thus, considering the conflict as a whole, we have a conflict situation, which consists of opponents and the object of the conflict, that is, the really existing reason due to which opponents become warring parties.
The object may exist long before the conflict.
The beginning of a conflict is actions aimed at creating a conflict - an incident.
The essence of any conflict consists of four components - the object of the conflict, the opponent, the incident and the subject of the conflict.
The essence of the psychological mechanisms of conflicts can be reflected by classification according to general characteristics.
Business conflicts, emotional conflicts. Moreover, any conflict can develop into an emotional one.
Conflicts are also divided into global, short-term and protracted, feverish and destructive, spontaneous and planned.
There are two main types of conflict: intrapersonal and interpersonal.
Intrapersonal conflict involves the interaction of two or more parties. Several mutually exclusive needs, goals, and interests can simultaneously exist in one person.
The causes of interpersonal conflicts are often ambiguous and have a different nature. These may also be purely psychological reasons - antipathy, active hostility based on significant personality differences.
A dramatic conflict is a confrontation, a contradiction between those depicted in the work active forces: characters, personalities and circumstances, various aspects of character, which are directly revealed in the plot, as well as in the composition.
Usually forms the core of the topic and problem, and the nature of its resolution is one of certain factors dramatic idea. Based on this definition of conflict and its role in dramaturgy, it is clear that without it there can be no dramaturgy.
Collection output:
DRAMATURGIC CONFLICT IN THE SYSTEM OF ROLE RELATIONS
Solovyova Margarita Vladimirovna
head Department of Television Directing and Cinematography, Professor
Kazakh National Academy of Arts named after. T. Zhurgenova,
Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty
DRAMATURGIC CONFLICT IN THE SYSTEM OF ROLE RELATIONS
Margarita Solovyeva
head of TV-film-directing and directing of photography department, professor
of Kazakh National Academy of Arts after by T. Zhurgenov,
Republic of Kazakhstan,
Almaty
ANNOTATION
The option of constructing a dramatic conflict based on a violation of the role relationships of the characters is considered. An intentional change by the author of established role relationships gives rise to a conflict, in the process of development of which life positions are clarified characters.
ABSTRACT
It is considered the option of composition of the dramaturgic conflict based on the contravertion in the role relations of characters. Author's intentional change of the role relations generates a conflict. Life positions of dramatic personae are found out in the conflict development.
Keywords: dramaturgy; conflict; character; role relationships.
Keywords: dramaturgy; conflict; character; role relations.
The catchphrase “The whole world is a theater, and people in it are actors” figuratively explains our existence in a world of close human contacts. We are constantly in a state of play, and throughout our lives we play an innumerable number of roles - as many as there are meetings, even fleeting ones. If we perform our roles “excellently,” then those around us do not notice this, but if we overplay or underplay the role, passions around us heat up - and conflict inevitably arises. In our arsenal there are main roles, loved ones, imposed by someone, well-learned and random, passing ones - life does not allow us to remain out of the game for a moment, and even when we are left alone with ourselves, texts from our life plays that we have already performed or are supposed to be “staged.”
It is almost impossible to list all the roles that we have played, are playing or will play, but some exercises and trainings in the arsenal of both practicing psychologists and in the arsenal of professional actors and teachers allow us to realize which roles we know well and which ones need to be studied. acting and directing. For example, as part of independent work, students are asked to make a list of all their life roles. It is interesting that after the first hundred examples that must be followed, students write the sacramental “etc.”, as they come to realize the inexhaustibility of this process. This simple exercise allows you to realize that you have a lot of communication skills.
By violating role relationships, we always risk creating a conflict situation. Dramaturgy uses this consciously, drawing a model of people's behavior in various situations, but in ordinary life everything happens spontaneously, and if suddenly a conflict occurs, you should look for a “bad actor.” The role always presupposes a certain vocabulary, intonation, a set of gestures, facial expressions, and behavior. All audiovisual arts were created and exist in order to teach a person to play the play of life well and save him from the destructive effects of anger and claims. Thus, a conflict will certainly arise in the classroom if students do not play the role of students, and the lecturer does not play the role of a teacher giving knowledge. A seemingly innocent appeal to students “Children!” - entails certain consequences, since children can afford free behavior: what is the demand from the child? Knowledge of the law of role relationships allows you to avoid conflict situations: as soon as a tense psychological situation develops, you should calmly find out who is playing the wrong “play.”
The origins of the concept of “drama” relate to history ancient Greek theater, and dramaturgy was initially considered as a kind of educational tool. Ancient playwrights developed the necessary tools for producing plays that could influence the consciousness and behavior of society in a certain way. The Greek roots of the words “drama” (το δράμα comes from the verb δρώ - I act) and “tour” literally add up to the concept “the action of twisting, twirling.” And when in everyday life we say with surprise, “Wow, the play is over!”, this directly points to the ancient connection of our existence with theatrical performance.
The conflict is an important condition dramaturgy (conflict - from the Latin “conflictus” - clash, based on the Greek word conflictena - abscess, pimple). Conflict as a catalyst in chemical reaction, reveals all the character properties of the participants in the action. If on theater stage or there is no clearly expressed dramatic conflict on the movie screen, it will certainly arise between the stage and the audience. Sometimes theater directors specifically use this technique to stir up the audience and make the performance interactive. However, such a technique is not welcomed in cinema - the viewer “votes with his feet”, leaving the cinema hall or switching TV channels in search of another spectacle.
Life feeds audiovisual arts with its stories, and they, in turn, teach us optimal models of relationships. If the external environment changes quickly and dramatically, a person often cannot figure out what role he should play now, and the person says either “the world has gone crazy!” or “I’m going crazy!” It is this situation that is described in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and the greatness of the prince is that with a radical change in role relationships, he only pretended to be crazy, although he had every reason to actually go crazy.
Table 1.
Hamlet's role relationships before and after his father's death
|
after |
|
|
crown prince |
"ordinary" prince |
|
son of the king |
son of the Phantom |
|
queen's son |
queen's son |
|
son of the Phantom |
|
|
mother's son |
aunt's son? mother's nephew? |
|
uncle's nephew |
father's nephew? uncle's son? |
|
overlord of Polonia |
equal to Polonius |
|
friend of Laertes |
enemy of Laertes |
|
in love with Ophelia |
disappointed in Ophelia |
|
Horatio's friend |
Horatio's friend |
|
"classmate" of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern |
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern killer |
After Claudius killed his brother-king and married the queen, Hamlet, unwillingly, found himself drawn into a completely different play, in which he not only lost the title of crown prince, but, contrary to the precepts of old Hamlet, became a murderer, caught in a tangle of relationships his mother and uncle. Hamlet's roles were changed radically and greatly a short time. Only two positions remained in this chaos: the queen's son and Horatio's friend. But both of these roles have no weight: now, in the new matrimonial conditions, the role of the queen’s son is the same as the role of an illegitimate offspring, who, as a shame, must be gotten rid of, so as not to complicate relations in Elsinore and not cause confusion in everything kingdom; and the role of Horatio’s friend - a man without a clan, without a tribe - has no practical meaning and will not protect him from anything. Hamlet's life now “weighs” as much as the skull of the jester Yorick in his hands.
The basis of the dramatic conflict is the struggle of vital interests, aspirations, opinions, views. The viewer follows the struggle of the characters and takes the side of those who are in to a greater extent corresponds to his established ideas about the meaning and goals of life. In Shakespeare's Hamlet, the fratricidal king calls the prince “our dear, our dear son,” that is, openly, publicly, demonstrates the role of a loving father, concerned state of mind son. But the throne was not seized at all in order to leave Hamlet as heir. A new royal branch should begin with Claudius, and the death of the middle-aged Gertrude is just around the corner - she should make room for a new queen, the ancestor of the “Claudians.”
It is interesting that the prototype of Prince Hamlet, whose name was Amlet, was luckier than the literary hero: he not only managed to replace the letter by which he was to be executed, but even married one of the English princesses. Returning incognito to Denmark a few years later, he dealt with his uncle-stepfather: during a feast, he secretly called his mother from the hall, locked the door and burned the king and his comrades. That is, Amleth played the role of the crown prince to the end, since he learned its ruthlessness well in childhood.
In “The Seagull,” A. Chekhov repeated the situation in “Hamlet,” even to the point of directly quoting the action - in the scene where Treplev talks to Arkadina, who undoubtedly played the role of Gertrude many times. Treplev, like Hamlet, demands motherhood from his mother, and both deny their sons love and mercy, fencing themselves off with idle talk, not wanting to play the role of mothers.
Television talk shows are an excellent example of how a dramatic conflict is built right during the program due to the fact that the characters are forced to tear off their masks themselves, entering into altercations with participants and experts. Before the eyes of the TV viewer, victims suddenly turn into predators, rude tormentors turn out to be deceived simpletons, lovers turn into unfaithful spouses, and unfaithful spouses turn into confused fathers... And the more unexpected the role that a participant receives during a talk show, the sharper and more tense the atmosphere in the studio, the more It is more interesting to follow the development of the conflict.
Great actors are distinguished by their ability and talent to create several options for role relationships during even a short dialogue - such as Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, Oleg Yankovsky, Evgeny Lebedev and others... In this series, we should remember the film by director and actress S. Potter “The Tango Lesson”, in which she consistently played roles, experiencing all stages of falling in love - from simple interest in a talented dancer to deep, almost maternal love for him as a person. Each episode of this film is built on the principle of divergent role relationships, and therefore a dramatic conflict unfolds in each episode. E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance” is built on the principle of a hard breakdown of role relationships.
Thus, when developing a film or television project, having determined the main cast of characters, the authors need to decide what the role relationships of the characters are before the conflict of interests, and how the roles change in the process of dramatic conflict, giving rise, against the background of the main knot of contradictions, to many small conflicts that reveal the characters’ characters.
Bibliography
- Pavi P. Dictionary of theater M.: Progress, 1991.
- Salnova A.V. Greek-Russian and Russian-Greek dictionary - M.: Russian language, 2000.
- Solovyova M.V. Educational aspect of dramaturgy of “role relationships”: collection. Art. International scientific and practical conference “Culture-art-education: trends and prospects” - Almaty, 2002.
- Solovyova M.V. Forms of dramatic conflict and the approval of the protagonist: collection. Art. International scientific and practical conference "Economics, law, culture in the era of social transformation" - Almaty, 2006.
- Eisenstein S. Montage. Dramaturgy of film form. - M., 2000.
As we have seen, dramatic action reflects the movement of reality in its contradictions. But we cannot identify this movement with dramatic action - reflection here is specific. That is why a category has appeared in modern theater and literary studies that includes both the concept of “dramatic action” and the specificity of reflecting contradictory reality in this action. The name of this category is dramatic conflict.
The conflict in a dramatic work, reflecting real life contradictions, has not just a plot-constructive purpose, but is also the ideological and aesthetic basis of the drama and serves to reveal its content. In other words, dramatic conflict acts both as a means and as a way of modeling the process of reality at the same time, that is, it is a broader and more voluminous category than action.
In its concrete artistic implementation and development, a dramatic conflict allows one to most deeply reveal the essence of the phenomenon being depicted and create a complete and holistic picture of life. That is why most modern theorists and practitioners of drama and theater definitely assert that dramatic conflict is the basis of drama. It is the conflict of the drama that indicates
Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, unlike vulgar materialist aesthetics, does not identify the fundamentally different concepts of life contradictions and dramatic conflict. Lenin's theory of reflection states the complex, dialectically contradictory nature of the process of reflection itself. Real life contradictions are not directly, “mirrored” projected in the artist’s mind - they are perceived and interpreted by each artist in his own way, in accordance with his worldview, with a whole complex of individual mental characteristics, as well as with previous experience of art. The author's class and ideological position is determined primarily by what life contradictions reflect the dramatic conflicts he depicts and how he resolves them.
Each era, each period in the life of society has its own contradictions. The complex of ideas about these contradictions is determined by the level of public consciousness. Some theorists of the past called this complex of ideas, this view that generalizes important aspects of reality, a dramatic concept or the drama of life.
Of course, in the most direct, immediate form, this concept, this drama of life is reflected in dramatic works. The very emergence of drama as a type of art is evidence that humanity has reached a certain level of historical development and a corresponding understanding of the world. In other words, drama is born in a “civil” society, with a developed division of labor and an established social structure. Only under these conditions can a social and moral conflict arise, forcing the hero to choose one from a number of possibilities.
Ancient drama arises as art model genuine, essential, deep contradictions of existence associated with the crisis of the ancient polis based on slavery. The archaic period, with centuries-old customs, with the patriarchal traditions of the heroic age, was ending. “The power of this primitive community,” notes F. Engels, “had to be broken,” and it was broken. But she was broken under influences that directly appear to us as a decline, a fall from grace in comparison with the high moral level of the old tribal society. The basest motives - vulgar greed, crude passion for pleasure, dirty stinginess, selfish desire to plunder the common property - are the successors of the new, civilized, class society.”
Ancient drama gave absolute meaning to the contradictions of that particular historical reality. The dramatic concept of reality, which gradually took shape in ancient Greece, is limited by the idea of a universal “cosmos” (“proper order”). According to the ancient Greeks, the world is governed by a higher necessity, equivalent to truth and justice. But within this “proper order” there is continuous change and development, which is carried out through the struggle of opposites.
The socio-historical prerequisites for Shakespearean tragedy, as well as for ancient theater, are a change of formations, the death of an entire way of life. The class system was replaced by bourgeois orders. The individual is freed from feudal prejudices, but is threatened with more subtle forms of enslavement.
The drama of social contradictions was repeated at a new stage. The emergence of a new class society opened, as Engels writes, “that era, which is still ongoing, when all progress at the same time means relative regression, when the well-being and development of some is achieved at the cost of suffering and suppression of others.”
A modern researcher writes about the era of Shakespeare:
“For an entire era in the development of art, the tragic effect of resistance and the death of the old, taken in its ideal and high content, constituted the general source of conflict...
Bourgeois relations were established in the world. And the alienation of the human from man was directly included in the conflicts of Shakespeare's tragedies. But their content is not reduced to this historical subtext; the current of action does not close on it.”
The free will of the Renaissance man comes into tragic conflict with the moral norms of the new, “orderly” society - the absolutist state. In the depths of the absolutist state, the bourgeois order is maturing. This contradiction in various collisions was the basis of many conflicts in Renaissance drama and Shakespeare's tragedies.
The contradictions of historical development become especially acute in bourgeois society, where the alienation of the individual is caused by diverse forces embodied in the state apparatus, reflected in bourgeois norms of law and morality, in the most complex webs of human relationships that are in conflict with social processes. In a bourgeois society that has reached maturity, the principle of “every man for himself, one against all” becomes obvious. History is, as it were, the resultant of multidirectional wills.
Consideration of the essence of this new socio-historical collision helps to understand F. Engels’ instructions regarding the “alienation” of social forces: “Social force, i.e.
the combined productive force that arises due to the joint activity of various individuals due to the division of labor - this social force, due to the fact that the joint activity itself does not arise voluntarily, but spontaneously, appears to these individuals not as their own united force, but as some kind of alien, outside them standing power, about the origin and development trends of which they know nothing...”
The bourgeois reality, hostile to man, reflected in the drama of the 19th and early 20th centuries, does not seem to accept the hero’s challenge to a duel. It is as if there is no one to fight with - the alienation of social power here reaches extreme limits.
And only in Soviet dramaturgy did the powerful progressive course of history and the will of the hero - a man from the people - appear in unity.
Awareness of the movement of history as a result of class struggle made class contradictions the vital fundamental basis of the dramatic conflict in many works of Soviet drama, from the time of “Mystery Bouffe” to the present day.
However, all the richness and diversity of life’s contradictions told by Soviet drama does not come down to this. It also reflected new social contradictions, no longer generated by class struggle, but by differences in levels of social consciousness, differences in understanding the weight and priority of a particular task - political, economic, moral and ethical. These tasks and problems associated with their solution arose and inevitably arise in the process of socialist transformation of reality. Finally, we must not forget the mistakes and misconceptions along the way.
Thus, the dramaturgical concept of reality in indirect form, in dramatic conflict (and even more specifically, through the struggle of individuals or social groups) gives a picture of social struggle, deploying the driving forces of time in action.
Based on the semantics of the word, conflict, Some theorists believe that a dramatic conflict is, first of all, a specific clash of characters, characters, opinions, etc. And they come to the conclusion that drama can consist of two or more conflicts (social and psychological), of main and secondary conflicts and etc. Others identify the contradictions of reality itself with conflict as an aesthetic category, thereby revealing a misunderstanding of the essence of art.
The works of leading modern theater researchers and practitioners refute these erroneous assumptions.
The best plays of Soviet playwrights were never divorced from the most important phenomena of reality. Invariably maintaining a class approach to the phenomena of reality, the party-
With new certainty in their assessment, Soviet playwrights took and continue to take the dominant issues of our time as the basis for their works.
The construction of a communist society proceeds in stages, one stage provides for another, higher one, and this continuity must be understood and recognized by society. Theater, as one of the means of ideological support for the construction of communism, must deeply comprehend the processes occurring in life in order to contribute to the development and movement of society forward.
Thus, dramatic conflict is a broader and more voluminous category than action. This category contains everything specific features dramaturgy as an independent art form. All elements of drama serve the best development of the conflict, which allows the most profound revelation of the depicted phenomenon and the creation of a complete and holistic picture of life. In other words, dramatic conflict serves to deeper and more clearly reveal the contradictions of reality and plays a major role in conveying the ideological meaning of the work. And the specific artistic specificity of reflecting the contradictions of reality is what is commonly called the nature of the dramatic conflict.
The different life material underlying the plays gives rise to conflicts that are different in nature.
End of work -
This topic belongs to the section:
A.I. Chechetin
Preface.. in a socialist society, according to Lenin, a rapid development begins.. the complexity of this problem is due to the breadth of the phenomenon itself and the variety of its social and moral functions..
If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:
What will we do with the received material:
If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:
| Tweet |
All topics in this section:
A. I. Chechetin
Fundamentals of Theater Dramaturgy
IN THE PEOPLES OF WESTERN EUROPE AND IN RUSSIA
The Great October Socialist Revolution was a turning point in the entire world history. In the year of the revolution and in the terrible years of the civil war, when all the people, all working
Rituals and festivities under the primitive communal system
Various kinds of festivals and theatrical performances in their origins among all peoples of the world are in one way or another connected with rituals. Rituals are an integral part of the spiritual culture of the people
Mass celebrations, theatrical performances in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome
Already in the 3rd millennium BC. e. On one of the islands of the Greek archipelago - on the island of Crete - a high culture was created. It was there that archaeologists discovered the first human
Theatrical performances of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance
The revolutionary movement of slaves and the invasion of barbarians put an end to the Roman state. The destroyed slave society is replaced by feudalism. Development of Western Europe
And mass celebrations in Russia of the XII-XVII centuries
Performances and celebrations among the Slavic tribes that inhabited the territory of Eastern Europe and our country, like all peoples of the world, are associated with ancient rituals. And here from the beginning
Farcical and other performances of the 19th century.
Social life Russia at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries is marked by the strengthening of the role of the court aristocracy and nobility. Exactly these social groups create and organize unique
Mass celebrations and performances during the revolution and civil war
In the year of the Great October Socialist Revolution and during the terrible years of the Civil War, mass theatrical performances and celebrations are held in many cities
Celebrations, festivals, mass celebrations, amateur theatrical movements of the 20-30s.
At the end of the 20s, the Soviet country moved from the recovery period to the reconstruction of the national economy. The years of the first five-year plans began, the years of extensive construction of social
Mass celebrations, festivals, theatrical performances of the 50-60s
The treacherous attack of the Nazi invaders, the Great Patriotic War and the difficult years of the post-war recovery period interrupted the active development of the masses for a long time
Amateur theatrical movements of the 60-70s. National anniversary celebrations and celebrations
In the 60s and 70s, nationwide mass celebrations with particular force revealed their educational, mobilizing and organizing influence. It was during this period that the widest
The concept of drama
Drama - gender literary work in a dialogical form, intended for stage embodiment“- this is what the Theater Encyclopedia says.
In the latest edition
Action in drama
Having defined action as the main essential feature of drama, as its most important aesthetic category, let us consider the structure of action in general and dramatic action in particular
Drama composition
The concept of “composition” refers to all kinds, types and genres of art. For drama, this concept is especially important in connection with its very aesthetic nature.
Real life m
Genre as an aesthetic category
In the syncretic art of ancient peoples, future genera as ways of depicting and reflecting reality existed only in an undeveloped form, in an embryonic state. Into the distance
General and specific in drama and in the script of a theatrical performance
Theatrical performances and mass celebrations in honor of significant dates for the whole country and the most important events in the life of groups occupy an increasingly important place in our activities.
Theme, idea, concept of the theatrical performance script
It is well known that the creation of an artistic image of any work of art depends primarily on the theme and idea of the work, on the main thought of the artist. According to theorists
Composition as montage in a theatrical performance script
Considering the features of the compositional structure of the drama, we were convinced of the relative completeness and internal integrity of each link of the drama. We understood the construction of the drama as
Editing techniques in a theatrical performance script
S. Eisenstein said that montage is based on the comparison of two or several pieces and is more like a product rather than their sum; the result of the comparison is all qualitative here
Number in the theatrical performance script
Back at the end of the 18th century, the Russian actor and playwright P. A. Plavilshchikov noted that German and English actors “connect their performances from many knots, bringing the weight to one chapter
Types and genres of rooms
Any classification in art is incomplete, and we distinguish here species and genre groups, focusing only on numbers that are often found in theatrical scripts. specific feature The dramaturgy of theatrical performances is directly related and another essential side follows from it - active, agitational
TYPES OF THEATER PERFORMANCE AND FEATURES OF ITS DRAMATURGY
In the preface to the textbook, in connection with the clarification of the terminology of our subject, we already spoke about clearly distinguishable generic and specific characteristics of theatrical performances
Propaganda artistic performance as a type of theatrical performance
Ideological-political, ideological work can be divided into theoretical activity, propaganda and agitation. At the same time, the theorist, the propagandist, and the agitator decide on the same issue.
Expressive means of propaganda and artistic presentation
Scriptwriters of propaganda and artistic performances have a rich arsenal at their disposal. expressive means. We will consider these funds, focusing primarily on
Literary and musical composition as a type of theatrical performance
In almost every issue of the magazine “Youth Variety”, “Cultural and Educational Work” (and in other mass publications designed to help amateur artists not only
Theme, idea, conflict in literary and musical composition
When creating a literary and musical composition, the choice of theme and its definition are part of creative process. This choice is determined by the material the script decided to work on.
The concept of “theatrical celebration” and the nature of its dramaturgy
Almost all types of folk festivals (this is confirmed by the historical part of the work) were and are theatrical in nature or include elements of theater.
Celebrations
A. V. Lunacharsky, drawing practical, organizational and theoretical conclusions on the basis of the first revolutionary celebrations, already in 1920 identified two main parts of mass theater
Celebrations
The features of the scenario of a mass, theatrical festival, both its literary basis and elements of composition, are determined primarily by the specific qualities of the festival itself.