Drama structure (briefly)

Dramas usually begin with a prologue. This is the name of the part of the work from the beginning to the appearance of the choir. The choir entered the orchestra, singing a song called a parody. Other songs of the choir are stasims. They consist of stanzas, antistrophes and epods. Conversations between the characters and their dialogues with the chorus are called episodies. The plaintive cry, performed in turn by the protagonist and the chorus of the tragedy, was called komos. The comedies had two more, characteristic parts only for them: parabase and agon. Parabase is a choir song unrelated to the content of comedy, a journalistic digression. In it, the author talks about various events and phenomena that interest him. public life, discusses literary topics. Agon is a dispute between the main characters or the main ideas of a comedy. The dramas end with exodus - the departure of the choir. The chorus talks a little with one or two characters in the drama and leaves, singing the final song.

STRUCTURE OF TRAGEDY

Regardless of the differences in the ideological and artistic content of the works of the three great tragedians, the structure of their tragedies remains generally constant, based on the alternation of speech and choral parts. Since in the following we will have to operate with terms denoting individual parts of the tragedy, it is advisable to explain their meaning.

The tragedy opens with a prologue. In Aeschylus's "Oresteia" it also consists of a short monologue, in Sophocles and Euripides it can grow to a whole scene, but in general it is equally reduced to plot exposition. The prologue is followed by a parod - the entrance of the chorus, which is to some extent connected with the main characters and in Aeschylus and Sophocles acts as a collective character, distinguished by special emotional sensitivity. In Euripides, it is usually left to the choir to comment on the events taking place in the orchestra.

The further course of the tragedy occurs in the change of speech parts(episodes) with choral(stassimami). The leader of the choir (coryphaeus) can enter into dialogue with the characters in episodies, and can perform a solo part in the so-called commos - joint vocal stage one or two characters with a chorus. Kommos is a means of conveying intense emotions when there is not enough ordinary word. Stichomythia, as a rule, is also acute in nature - an exchange of one-line remarks, during which one side attacks, and the other defends or, in turn, goes on a counterattack. The speech part concludes the tragedy(exòd - “care”); At the end, the choir leaves the orchestra together with the actors.

This structure, as we will see, can be partially modified: for example, the voice of the soloist can be woven into the choir parod in the form of separate stanzas, and his aria (monody) can be woven into the episody. With all this, the compositional capabilities of the ancient playwrights remain quite limited by tradition, as well as the number of actors, which never exceeded three people (accordingly, each of them had to play several roles). One can only be surprised how, with such limited resources and a small volume of tragedy in general (on average, about one and a half thousand poems), Athenian tragedians achieved artistic results, to this day surprising

Additionally: If the tragedy, as was usually the case later, began with the actors’ parts, then this first part, before the arrival of the chorus, constituted a prologue. Then came the parade, the arrival of the choir; the choir entered from both sides in a marching rhythm and performed a song. Subsequently, there was an alternation of episodies (additions, that is, new arrivals of actors), acting scenes, and stsims (standing songs), choral parts, usually performed when the actors left. After the last stasim there was an exod (exit), the final part, at the end of which both the actors and the choir left the place of play. In episodies and exodes, a dialogue between the actor and the luminary (leader) of the choir is possible, as well as kommos, a joint lyrical part of the actor and the choir. This last form is especially characteristic of the traditional lament of tragedy. The choir parts are strophic in structure (p. 92). The stanza corresponds to the antistrophe; they may be followed by new stanzas and antistrophes of a different structure (scheme: aa, bb, ss); Epodes are relatively rare.

There were no intermissions in the modern sense of the word in the Attic tragedy. The game went on continuously, and the choir almost never left the place of the game during the action. Under these conditions, changing the scene of action in the middle of the play or stretching it out for a long time created a sharp violation of the stage illusion. Early tragedy (including Aeschylus) was not very demanding in this regard and dealt quite freely with both time and place, using different parts of the site on which the game took place as different places of action; Subsequently, it became customary, although not absolutely obligatory, for the tragedy to take place in one place and not exceed one day in duration. These features of the construction of developed Greek tragedy were acquired in the 16th century. the name of “unity of place” and “unity of times and”. Poetics French classicism As is known, she attached very great importance to “unities” and elevated them to the main dramatic principle.

Necessary components Attic tragedy is "suffering", the message of the messenger, the lament of the choir. A catastrophic end is not at all necessary for her; many tragedies had a reconciliatory outcome. The cult nature of the game, generally speaking, required a happy, joyful ending, but since this ending was provided for the game as a whole by the final drama of the satyrs, the poet could choose the ending that he found necessary.

KNOCK.COMEDY TOUR.

The choir consisted not from 12, as in the tragedy, but from 24 people. In the middle of the performance, the action was suspended, and the choir performed a special part called parabass. This was an appeal to the audience, in which the author often expressed his views in “open” text, and sometimes commented on the concept of the work. The comedy included the following elements: prologue, parod (introductory song of the choir), agon (“competition” of the characters), parabass, episodies (acting skits, often of a comic, rude nature), and finally, exodus (departure of the choir). Agon was the core of comedy. Agon (literally) competition, struggle) called a special form of public speaking, which is a polemic with an ideological opponent. Agon reflected the very principle of competition, identifying the best, worthy as a result of fair competition, and this corresponded to the fundamental democratic norms of Greek society. Moreover, it became a sign of the Hellenic mentality. In comedy, a race was usually structured as an argument between two antagonists and often had a defiantly comic, cheerful character. The disputants sometimes tried to “outdo” each other not only in terms of logic and argumentation, but also in verbal rudeness.

BASIC ELEMENTS OF DRAMATURGIC COMPOSITION

The word “composition” goes back to the Latin words “compositio” (composition) and “compositus” - well located, slender, regular.

Any work of art in all its types and genres must create a holistic image of what is depicted. If the artist’s goal is to depict a person at work, he will certainly show the tools of labor, the processing material, and the working movement of the worker. If the subject of the image is the character of a person, his inner essence, sometimes it is enough for the artist to depict only the person’s face. Let us remember, for example, famous portrait Rembrandt "The Old Man". The person is not depicted here as a whole, but the integrity of the image not only did not suffer from this, but, on the contrary, benefited. After all, the subject of the image in this case is not the figure of the old man, but his character. Having depicted the face of an old man, Rembrandt creates typical image human character, characteristic of old people who have lived a long life filled with experiences. This image is completely complete and complete.

The subject of depiction in a dramatic work is, as we already know, a social conflict (of one scale or another), personified in the heroes of the work.

The history of drama shows that creating a holistic artistic image of a conflict event, meeting a seemingly simple condition, showing not only the beginning of the conflict, but also its development and result, is by no means easy. The difficulty lies in finding the only correct dramatic development, and then the completion of the initial situation.

When the beginning of the play remains the most interesting part of it and further development from the beginning goes not “up” but “down”, its author is forced to throw new “logs” into his dying fire, replacing the development of a given conflict from its initial situation with the initiation of some new ones. , additional collisions. This path excludes the completion of the play by resolving the conflict with which it began, and leads, as a rule, to an artificial conclusion through the author’s willful disposal of the destinies of his characters.

Mainly because of the compositional complexity of creating a dramatic work, a fair belief arose that drama is the most complex type of literature. To this we should add: good dramaturgy. For it is easier to write seventy pages of a bad play than nine hundred pages of a bad novel.

In order to cope with compositional difficulties, the playwright needs to have a good understanding of his artistic task, know the basic elements of dramatic composition and imagine the “standard structure” of constructing a dramatic work. It is no coincidence that the word structure is placed in quotation marks here. Of course, no work of art is written according to a predetermined pattern. The more original this essay, the better it will be.

The “Scheme” does not at all encroach on the individual originality of each given play, nor on the endless variety of works of dramatic creativity in general. It is conditional in nature and serves to clearly explain what compositional requirements we are talking about. It will also be useful for analyzing the structure of dramatic works.

At the same time, the proposed “standard structure” objectively reflects the composition dramatic work as such and, therefore, has some obligation.

The relationship between convention and obligation here is as follows: the content of the play and the ratio of the sizes of its parts are different in each given work. But their presence and sequence of arrangement are mandatory for all works.

The essence of this relationship can be illustrated with a very convincing example.

The diversity of human individualities of living, living and future people is immeasurable. Each person is individual and unique. However, all people have a single “structure” of the body. Deviation from it, illness or injury, is a great misfortune. It would therefore be strange to consider the “scheme” of man in general as an attack on the individuality of each individual person. Of course, such an image of it is an extreme simplification of the object. This, however, does not make this “scheme” incorrect or even in the slightest degree controversial. There is hardly anyone who will not agree that any violation of this “scheme” of “man in general” is undesirable in absolutely every case.

A person who lacks at least one element of the universal “constitution”, although he can live, is disabled. The same relationship exists between the general “scheme” of a dramatic work and the uniqueness of each individual play.

There are quite a few plays and scripts constructed without meeting the necessary compositional requirements. Some of them live and perform on theater stages, sometimes with success. But these are nevertheless plays by “disabled people.” They, undoubtedly, would be much more complete if their “arms,” “legs,” and “head” were “intact” and in their places. This applies not only to obviously bad plays. There are quite a few plays that were performed with great success, leaving a noticeable mark on the history of the theater, which, however, could have been better if their authors had more thoroughly artistically refined them, “brought to condition.” The most authoritative confirmation of this are the statements of the playwrights themselves. For example, N. Pogodin, whose famous play “The Aristocrats” ends with a rally of criminals, “saboteurs” and other prisoners who were reforged on the White Sea Canal, admitted that “with persistent and long searches, a more successful ending could have been found for “The Aristocrats.” A finale that would beautifully and powerfully put the finishing touches... without tedious speeches on stage.” One cannot but agree with this.

Underestimation and misunderstanding of the paramount importance of composition when writing a dramatic work is very common. Many authors are seriously convinced that neglect of composition is a sign of free flight of their creativity, the path to innovation.

The basis of true innovation is the improvement of artistic means, strengthening their effective power, raising the artist’s previous level of skill to a higher level. Making the creative task easier by refusing to fulfill the basic requirements of one’s art leads to the creation of an inferior work. Talk about innovation is intended in such cases to cover up the creative helplessness of the author.

Since without the basic elements of a dramatic composition - the image of the beginning of the struggle, the course (development) of the struggle and the result of the struggle - it is impossible to create a holistic image of a conflict event - their presence and the named sequence of arrangement in a dramatic work are necessary, in the full sense of the word, an elementary artistic requirement of dramatic art. art.

Hegel at one time drew attention to the need for the presence of the three named basic elements in a work of drama. Therefore, the principle diagram underlying dramatic work, is usually called the Hegelian triad.

For clarity, the fundamental structure of a dramatic work - Hegel's triad - can be depicted in this way.

Based on the fundamental structure of the work, we will list the specific elements of the dramatic composition, and then we will reveal the essence and purpose of each of them.

The beginning of the struggle is revealed in the exposition and in the outset of the main conflict.

The course of the struggle is revealed through specific actions and clashes of the heroes - through the so-called vicissitudes that make up the general movement of action from the beginning of the conflict to its resolution. Many plays (though not all) have a strong point high voltage action is the climax.

The result of the struggle is shown in the denouement (resolution) of the main conflict and in the finale of the play.

position to tie

new position (after decoupling)

the beginning of the main conflict

denouement

main

conflict

Every dramatic work necessarily has an exposition, that is, an initial part.

Exposition - initial part dramatic work. Its purpose: to provide the viewer with the information necessary to understand the upcoming action of the play. Sometimes it is important to let the viewer know in what country and at what time the events take place. Sometimes it is necessary to communicate something that preceded the conflict. So, for example, if the viewer does not know from the very beginning that the hero of Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion - Mr. Higgins - is a linguist who studies various dialects and patterns of non-standard speech, he will not understand, or rather, will misunderstand the reasons that prompted Higgins to take on his a decorous aristocratic house and an ill-mannered and uncouth girl - street flower girl Eliza Doolittle.

The exhibition also has one more task. With its help, so to speak, in its space, a person who comes to the theater is transformed into a spectator, into a participant in the collective perception of the play. The exhibition also gives the viewer an idea of ​​the genre of the work.

The most common type of exposure is showing that last segment everyday life, the course of which will be interrupted by the emergence of a conflict.

Dramaturgy has much in common with folk tales and most likely originates from them. Dramaturgy took from a folk tale as its main topic, its main miracle, a social miracle - the victory of good over evil. There is also a lot in common between the construction of a fairy tale and the structure of a dramatic work. In particular, the exposition of most plays is built on the same principle as the exposition of a fairy tale. So, for example, “An old man lived with his old woman by the very blue sea,” says the beginning of Pushkin’s “Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish.” “The old man was catching fish with a seine. The old woman "spun her yarn." This went on “exactly thirty years and three years,” but there was no “fairy tale.” It was only when the old man caught a goldfish that he spoke human voice, this ordinary flow of life was interrupted, the occasion for this story arose, “The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish” began.

The beginning in many plays is built on the same principle: “Once upon a time...” and suddenly the “golden fish” or “golden egg” of this work appears - the conflict that will be depicted in it.

Another type of exposition is Prologue - the author’s direct address to the viewer, short story about the characters of the future action and its character. In a number of cases, the prologue exhausts the exposition, since the beginning of the conflict of the play is contained (announced) in it itself. Often, however, the prologue only opens the exposition, which then continues until the conflict begins by showing the flow of life that precedes it. This is how the beginning of Shakespeare's tragedy Romeo and Juliet is constructed. The exposition, after a brief prologue, continues throughout the entire first act.

Sometimes a play begins with an inversion, that is, showing how the conflict will end before the action begins. This technique is often used by authors of action-packed works, in particular detective stories. The task of inversion is to captivate the viewer from the very beginning, to keep him in additional tension with the help of information about what end the depicted conflict will lead to.

There is also a moment of inversion in Shakespeare’s prologue to Romeo and Juliet. It already says about the tragic outcome of their love. In this case, the inversion has a different purpose than making the subsequent “sad story” more exciting. Having told how his dramatic narrative will end, Shakespeare removes interest in what will happen in order to focus the viewer’s attention on how it will happen, on the essence of the relationships between the characters, which led to a predetermined tragic end.

From what has been said, it should be clear that the exposition - the initial part of a dramatic work - lasts until the beginning of the plot - the plot of the main conflict of this play. It is extremely important to emphasize that we're talking about about the beginning of the main conflict, the development of which is the subject of depiction in this play.

From the very beginning of the tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, we encounter manifestations of the centuries-old conflict between the Montague and Capulet families. But this is not their enmity that is depicted in this work. It lasted for centuries, so they “lived and were,” but there was no reason for this play. Only when the young representatives of two warring clans - Romeo and Juliet - fell in love with each other, a conflict arose that became the subject of depiction in this work - the conflict between the bright human feeling of love and the dark misanthropic feeling of family enmity.

Thus, the concept - “plot” - includes the plot of the main conflict of this play. At the outset, his movement begins - dramatic action.

Some modern playwrights and theater critics express the opinion that in our time, when the pace and rhythms of life have accelerated immeasurably, one can do without exposition, and start the play right away with the action, with the beginning of the main conflict, taking, as they say, the bull by the horns. This formulation of the question is incorrect. In order to “take the bull by the horns,” you must at least have a bull in front of you. Only the heroes of the play can “start” a conflict. But we must understand the meaning and essence of what is happening. Like every moment real life- the life of the characters in the play can only take place in a specific time and in a specific space. Not to designate either one or the other, or at least one of these coordinates, would mean an attempt to depict some kind of abstraction. The conflict in this unimaginable case would arise out of nothing, which contradicts the laws of motion of matter in general. Not to mention such a difficult moment in its development as the movement of human relations. Thus, the idea of ​​doing without exposition when creating a play is not well thought out.

Sometimes the exposition is combined with the plot. This is exactly how it was done in “The Inspector General” by N.V. Gogol. The very first phrase of the mayor, addressed to the officials, contains all the necessary information for understanding the subsequent action, and, at the same time, is the beginning of the main conflict of the play. It is difficult to agree with E. G. Kholodov, who believes that the beginning of “The Inspector General” occurs later, when the “comedy knot” is tied, that is, when Khlestakov was mistaken for an inspector. The plot is the beginning of the main conflict of the play, and not of one or another plot “knot”. In The Inspector General there is no conflict between the characters. They all - both officials and Khlestakov - are in conflict with the viewer, with positive hero sitting in the hall. And this conflict between satirical heroes and the viewer begins before Khlestakov’s appearance. The viewer’s very first acquaintance with the officials, with their fear about the “very unpleasant” news for them about the arrival of the auditor, is the beginning of the conflict (according to the specific laws of satire) confrontation between the “heroes” and the audience. The denial with laughter of the bureaucratic Russia depicted in the comedy begins along with the exposition.

This approach to interpreting the plot of “The Inspector General,” in my opinion, is more consistent with the definition of plot that, based on Hegel, E.G. Kholodov himself gives: “In the plot “should be given only those circumstances that, picked up by the individual disposition of the soul and its needs, give rise to precisely that specific collision, the development and resolution of which constitutes the special action of this particular work of art.”

This is exactly what we see at the beginning of The Inspector General - a certain collision, the unfolding of which constitutes the action of this work.

Sometimes the main conflict of the play does not appear immediately, but is preceded by a system of other conflicts. There is a whole cassette of conflicts in Shakespeare's Othello. The conflict between Desdemona's father - Brabantio and Othello. The conflict between Desdemona's unlucky fiancé Rodrigo and his rival, the more successful Othello. Conflict between Rodrigo and Lieutenant Cassio. There is even a fight between them. Conflict between Othello and Desdemona. It occurs at the end of the tragedy and ends with the death of Desdemona. Conflict between Iago and Cassio. And, finally, one more conflict, This is the main conflict of this work - the conflict between Iago and Othello, between the bearer of envy, servility, chameleonism, careerism, petty selfishness - which Iago is, and a man who is direct, honest, trusting, but possessing a passionate and the fierce character that Othello is.

Resolution of the main conflict. As already mentioned, the denouement in a dramatic work is the moment of resolution of the main conflict, the removal of the conflict contradiction, which is the source of the movement of the action. For example, in “The Inspector General” the denouement is the reading of Khlestakov’s letter to Tryapichkin.

In Othello, the resolution of the main conflict occurs when Othello learns that Iago is a slanderer and a scoundrel. Let us note that this happens after the murder of Desdemona. It is wrong to believe that the denouement here is precisely the moment of murder. The main conflict of the play is between Othello and Iago. Killing Desdemona, Othello still does not know who his main enemy is. Consequently, only clarification of Iago’s role is the denouement here.

In "Romeo and Juliet", where, as already mentioned, the main conflict lies in the confrontation between the love that broke out between Romeo and Juliet, and the centuries-old enmity of their families. The denouement is the moment when this love ends. It ended with the death of the heroes. Thus, their death is the denouement of the main conflict of the tragedy.

The resolution of the conflict is possible only if the unity of action is preserved, the main conflict that began in the beginning is preserved. This implies the requirement: this outcome of the conflict must be contained as one of the possibilities for its resolution already in the beginning.

In the denouement, or better to say, as a result of it, a new situation is created in comparison with the one that took place in the beginning, expressed in a new relationship between the characters. This new attitude can be quite varied.

One of the heroes may die as a result of the conflict.

It also happens that outwardly everything remains completely the same, as, for example, in “A Dangerous Turn” by John Priestley. The heroes realized that they had only one way out: to immediately end the conflict that had arisen between them. The play ends with a deliberate repetition of everything that happened before the start of the “dangerous turn” of the conversation, the old fun begins, empty conversations, glasses of champagne clink... Outwardly, the relationships of the characters are again exactly the same as before. But this is a form. But in fact, as a result of what happened, the previous relationship is excluded. Former friends and colleagues became fierce enemies.

The finale is the emotional and semantic completion of the work. “Emotionally” means that we are talking not only about the semantic result, not just about the conclusion from the work.

If in a fable the moral is expressed directly - “the moral of this fable is this” - then in a dramatic work the ending is a continuation of the action of the play, its last chord. The finale concludes the play with a dramatic generalization and not only completes this action, but opens the door to perspective, to the connection of this fact with a broader social organism.

A wonderful example of a finale is the ending of The Inspector General. The denouement occurred, Khlestakov’s letter was read. The officials who deceived themselves have already been ridiculed by the audience. The mayor has already delivered his monologue of self-accusation. At the end of it, an appeal was made to the audience - “Who are you laughing at? You’re laughing at yourself!”, which already contains a powerful generalization of the whole meaning of comedy. Yes, they are by no means the only ones - officials of a small provincial town - the subject of her angry denunciation. But Gogol does not draw an end here. He writes one more, final scene. A gendarme appears and says: “The official who arrived by personal order from St. Petersburg demands you all to come to him this very hour...” This is followed by Gogol’s remark: “Silent scene.”

This reminder of the connection of this town with the capital, with the tsar, is necessary so that the satirical denial of the behavior of the town officials spreads to the entire bureaucracy of Russia, to the entire apparatus of the tsarist power. And this happens. Firstly, because Gogol’s heroes are absolutely typical and recognizable, they give a generalized image of bureaucracy, its morals, and the nature of the performance of its official duties.

The official arrived “by personal order,” that is, by order of the king himself. A direct connection between the characters in the comedy and the king has been established. Outwardly, and even more so for censorship, this ending looks harmless: some outrages were happening somewhere, but a real inspector arrived from the capital, from the tsar, and order will be restored. But this is a purely external meaning of the final scene. Its true meaning is different. One only had to remember here about the capital, about the tsar, and through this “communication channel,” as we now say, all the impressions, all the indignation that accumulated during the performance, are directed precisely to this address. Nicholas I understood this. After clapping his hands at the end of the performance, he said: “Everyone got it, but most of all I got it.”

An example of a strong ending is the ending of Shakespeare's already mentioned tragedy Romeo and Juliet. The main characters of the tragedy have already died. This unleashes and resolves the conflict that arose thanks to their love. But Shakespeare writes the ending of the tragedy. The leaders of the warring clans make peace at the graves of their dead children. The condemnation of the wild and absurd enmity that separated them sounds all the more powerful because to end it it was necessary to sacrifice two beautiful, innocent young creatures. Such an ending contains a warning, a generalized conclusion against those dark prejudices that cripple human destinies. But at the same time, this conclusion is not “added” to the action of the tragedy, it is not “suspended” by the author. It follows from the natural continuation of the events of the tragedy. The burial of the dead, the repentance of the parents responsible for their death do not need to be invented - all this naturally completes and ends the “sad” story of Romeo and Juliet.

The ending of the play is, as it were, a test of the dramaturgy of the work as a whole. If the basic elements of its composition are violated, if the action that began as the main one is replaced by another, the ending will not work. If the playwright did not have enough material, did not have enough talent or knowledge, or dramatic experience in order to complete his work with a true ending, the author often, in order to get out of the situation, ends the work with the help of an ersatz finale. But not every ending, under one pretext or another, is a finale and can serve as the emotional and semantic conclusion of a work. There are several stamps that are typical examples of the ersatz finale. They are especially clearly distinguishable in films. When the author does not know how to end the film, the characters, for example, sing a cheerful song or, holding hands, go into the distance, getting smaller and smaller...

The most common type of ersatz finale is the “retribution” of the author with the hero. In the play “104 Pages about Love,” its author, E. Radzinsky, specifically made his heroine a representative of a dangerous profession - an Aeroflot flight attendant.

When Anna Karenina ends her life under the wheels of a train, this is the result of what happened to her in the novel. In E. Radzinsky's play, the death of the plane on which the heroine was flying has nothing to do with the action of the play. The relationship between the hero and heroine developed largely artificially, through the willful efforts of the author. The different characters of the heroes complicated their relationship, however, there was no basis for the development of conflict, a genuine contradiction that reflected any significant social problem, not in the play. Conversations “on the topic” could continue endlessly. In order to somehow finish the work, the author himself “ruined” the heroine with the help of an accident - a fact external to the content of the play. This is a typical ersatz finale.

The problem of such an ersatz finale - with the help of the murder of the hero - is considered by E. G. Kholodov: “If this alone achieved drama, nothing would be easier than to be known as a tragic poet. Such a primitive understanding of the problem of the tragic was also ridiculed by Lessing: “some slayer who would bravely strangle and kill his heroes and would not let a single one leave the stage alive or well, would also, perhaps, imagine himself as tragic as Euripides "

"Drama? one of the main types of fiction... covering works usually intended for stage performance.” This, the most common judgment, is a purely practical definition of drama, which not only does not explain its essence, but also classifies it as literature. Let's look at the definition of drama in a specialized publication: drama is “a type of literary work in dialogic form intended for stage performance.” Here an attempt is made to define a structural principle, but, unfortunately, only one (dialogical form), and nevertheless, from this definition the conclusion follows that drama is only a genre in literature.

The essence of drama is in conflict, struggle, which occurs before our eyes and transforms into a different quality. Drama emphasizes the tension and conflict of human existence, and they say that it is natural to man and constantly accompanies him.

Secondly, drama? This is a text written for various roles, based on conflicting action. Hegel wrote about this: “dramatic in the proper sense is the expression of individuals in the struggle of their interests and in the discord of the characters and passions of these individuals.”

Thirdly, the term drama is sometimes used to define special genre dramaturgy (bourgeois drama, lyrical drama, romantic drama).

“Dramaturgy” is, on the one hand, a type of art, and on the other, a type of literature and theater. Dramaturgy is also sometimes understood as the entirety, a collection of plays (works intended for stage execution) in general.

Dramaturgy arises at the moment of the birth and emergence of theater, because it is a product of the creativity of the first playwrights.

Theater at the time of its inception had a ritual basis. Its ritual genesis is beyond any doubt. The ritual basis of the theater?? it is primarily an institution of pagan Mystery. In their ideas, drama occupied a very special place and had a sacred meaning.

Drama connects? according to Hegel? the objectivity of the epic with the subjective beginning of the lyrics. But then he comes to a contradiction: calling drama poetry, he nevertheless notes that “the need for drama in general lies in a visual depiction of ... actions and relationships, accompanied by verbal statements by persons expressing the action.”

Khalizev in his book “Drama as a Phenomenon of Art” considers drama as a literary and artistic form with a certain content. He writes: “...drama as a meaningful form verbal art- this is the main subject of our work.” The author examines the artistic possibilities of drama based, firstly, on its verbal nature, and secondly, on its intended use for the stage. It seems to me that this position is largely incorrect, because... drama is primarily written as a work intended to be staged, which imposes certain contours on its forms. Aristotle also wrote about this: “... when putting together legends and expressing them in words, one should imagine them before one’s eyes as [vividly] as possible: then [the poet], as if he himself was present at the events, will see them most clearly and will be able to find everything that is relevant and in no way miss any contradictions.”

Thus, drama passes the techniques and means of verbal and artistic expression through the filters of stage requirements. M.Ya. wrote about this correlation between the structure of drama and stage execution, and calling it the first requirement for a playwright. Polyakov in his "Poetics". In his opinion, “theory of drama” examines and considers drama as a unique verbal basis of a theatrical work. This definition is closer to the concept of “drama,” but it is not only a verbal, but also an effective basis, and this should not be forgotten or skipped.

In our opinion, V.M. said most accurately about the essence of the drama. Wolkenstein in the article “The Fates of Dramatic Works”: “I believe that dramas “for reading” (that is, only for reading) do not exist; What's a drama that can't be played? not a drama, but either a treatise or a poem in a dialogical form, and if it is a drama, then it is a failed drama... I... see in drama a natural stage material, a literature of theatrical possibilities... a play is both stage material and a completed work of art.” Dramaturgy? It is precisely the literature of theatrical possibilities; it is not a kind of literature, not a literary and artistic form, and certainly not the highest form of poetry.

Aristotle's Poetics, the first and most important treatise on the theory of drama. The principles that Aristotle defined in his Poetics dominated the theory and practice of Western theater until the twentieth century. They even received names such as “Aristotelian type of action.”

Aristotle divides all scenes of tragedy into three groups:

• 1) Scenes where “happiness” and “unhappiness” alternate;
• 2) Scenes of recognition;
• 3) Scenes of pathos, scenes of violent suffering.

Scenes where the hero’s “happiness” and “misfortune” alternate are scenes of his successes and failures, victories and defeats, where moments of the dominance of “single action” over “counter-action” sharply alternate with moments of the opposite meaning. In other words, these are the scenes that can be called battle scenes.

Aristotle calls scenes of genuine recognition scenes of recognition. In many ancient tragedies, the decisive moment of the struggle - catastrophe - coincides with recognition (for example, recognition of one's guilt is a catastrophe for Oedipus). Scenes of double spectacle - when a trial, theatrical performance, etc. takes place on stage, and some of the characters contemplate the performance together with auditorium, ? are usually recognition scenes.

Brecht coined the term "Aristotelian theatre" to refer to dramaturgy and theater based on the principle of illusion and identification. But, in our opinion, Brecht identified one of the characteristics of action with the entire concept of Aristotle. In principle, the reasons for the emergence of this term are associated with the attempt of many directors and theater workers of the twentieth century to move away from classical techniques in production, to go beyond the canon, and to destroy the usual framework of performance. These searches gave rise to a number of very interesting directions (Brecht's epic theater, Artaud's theater of cruelty, etc.).

With the advent of directing, the playwright and dramaturgy are gradually pushed into the background, and then the actor. The playwright moves into a subordinate position, and drama becomes, according to Wolkenstein’s definition, “the literature of theatrical possibilities.

Our position on this issue is as follows: drama is a certain literary action, enshrined in the text of the play in one form or another (which is a genre). Text ( literary basis) is not, in our opinion, primary in relation to the definition of “drama” or “drama”; action (drama) is primary. Drama first? This is a stage work (intended for stage performance). Although in the history of the theater there have been plays that were not intended for the stage.

Is drama an independent literary method? scenic representation of life, the subject of which is a holistic action, developing from beginning to end (from exposition to denouement) as a result of the volitional efforts of heroes who enter into combat with other characters and objective circumstances. Drama is part of the overall theatrical process; dramaturgy is the art of writing dramas and the entirety of written dramas. It is possible to write a play competently only with good knowledge of the laws of dramaturgy.

Aristotle spoke simply of "the beginning, middle, and end of a play." Obviously, a play that begins by chance and ends because two and a half hours have elapsed will not be a play. Its beginning and end, the coherent construction of all its parts, is determined by the need for a concrete expression of the concept that constitutes the theme of the play.

Lope de Vega, writing in 1609 about “The New Art of Comedy Writing,” gave a brief but useful summary of the structure of the play: “In the first act, state the case. In the second, intertwine the events so that until the middle of the third act it is impossible to guess the denouement. Always subvert expectations."

According to Dumas the Son, “Before creating any situation, the playwright must ask himself three questions. What would I do in a similar situation? What would other people do? What should I do? An author who does not feel inclined to such analysis should leave the theater, because he will never become a playwright.”

The playwright must assume that he is writing for people who know absolutely nothing about his material, except for a few historical topics. And if this is so, then the playwright should make it clear to the audience as soon as possible:

1) who his characters are, 2) where they are, 3) when the action takes place, 4) what exactly in the present and past relationships of his characters serves as the plot.

The beginning of the play is not an absolute beginning; it is just one moment in a larger complex of actions; this is a moment that can be precisely defined and is certainly a very important moment in the development of the plot, because it is the moment when decisions are made (fraught with consequences). This is the moment of awakening the rational will for an intense conflict pursuing a specific goal. Drama is struggle; interest in drama is, first of all, interest in the struggle, in its outcome.

The playwright keeps the reader in suspense, delaying the resolution moment of the battle, introducing new complications, the so-called “imaginary denouement,” temporarily calming the reader and again inciting him with a sudden violent continuation of the struggle. We are fascinated by drama - first of all - as a competition, as a picture of war.

Dramaturgy requires increasing action, the lack of build-up to the action instantly makes the drama boring. Even if a lot of time passes between actions, the playwright depicts to us only moments of clashes growing towards disaster.

Mandatory scene climax. The unflagging interest with which the viewer follows the action can be defined as anticipation mixed with uncertainty. The characters in the play have made a decision; the viewer must understand this decision and imagine its possible result.

The viewer anticipates the realization of these possibilities, the expected collision. The playwright strives to make the action seem inevitable. He will succeed if he captivates the audience and awakens their feelings. But the audience is captivated by the development of the action just as much as they believe in the veracity of each new revelation of reality that affects the goals of the characters.

Since the audience does not know in advance what the climax will be, they cannot check the action in light of the climax. However, they test it in the light of their expectations, which focus on what they consider to be the inevitable result of the action, that is, the obligatory scene.

The climax in drama is the main event that causes the action to build up. Mandatory scene- this is the immediate goal towards which the play develops.

The climax is that moment in the play at which the action reaches its highest tension, the most critical stage of development, after which the denouement occurs.

At the moment of resolution, we observe in many dramas a construction corresponding to the principle of concentrating forces on a decisive point at a decisive moment. In many plays, the catastrophic moment occurs with the participation - and maximum volitional tension - of all or almost all of the main characters. These are, for example, the final scenes of many of Shakespeare's plays, for example the ending of Othello, Hamlet, and Schiller's The Robbers. It should be noted that the catastrophe, which in ancient tragedy is followed by a denouement, in many new dramas coincides with the denouement.

IN denouement the fates of all the main characters must be completed.

Composition (lat. composition- composition, connection) - this concept is relevant for all types of arts. It is understood as a significant relationship between the parts of a work of art. Dramatic composition can be defined as the way in which a dramatic work (in particular a text) is ordered, as an organization of action in space and time. There may be many definitions, but in them we encounter two essentially different approaches. One considers the relationship between the parts of a literary text (discourse characters), the other looks directly at the sequence of events and actions of characters (discourse of production). In theory, such a division makes sense, but in practice stage activities it is hardly possible to implement it.

The foundations of composition were laid in Aristotle's Poetics. In it he names the parts of the tragedy that should be used as formative ( eide) and component parts ( kata to poson), into which the tragedy is divided by volume (prologue, episody, exodus, choral part, and in it parod and stasim). Here we also find the same two approaches to the problem of composition. Sakhnovsky-Pankeev also pointed out this, saying that it is simultaneously possible to “study the composition of a play based on the formal features of the differences between parts (divisions) and analyze the construction based on the features of the dramatic action.” It seems to us that these two approaches are actually stages in the analysis of dramatic composition. The composition in drama simultaneously depends on the principle of construction of the action, and it depends on the type of conflict and its nature. In addition, the composition of the play depends on the principle of distribution and organization of the literary text between the characters, and the relationship of the plot to the plot.

How necessary and pressing are issues of composition in the study and analysis of a dramatic work? It is hardly possible to exaggerate their role. In 1933, B. Alpers pointed out that “questions of composition in the near future will be one of the central production issues of dramatic practice.” This conviction has not lost its sharpness in our time. Insufficient attention to the problems of composition leads to the fact that directors are often forced to change the composition of the play, which, in general, violates the author’s intention, although in many ways it clarifies the meaning.

The main elements in the construction of a composition are repetition, which creates certain rhythmic series, and the violation of this repetition is contrast. These principles always have a semantic meaning, and in some cases - a semantic one. We will consider the types of dramatic compositions later, but we note that any composition based on some model (which is the idea) is initially formalized as a kind of “plan” designed to maximally express the author’s intention and the main idea of ​​the work. The composition at this stage is subordinated to the task of revealing, developing and resolving the main conflict. Therefore, if we consider a conflict as a clash of characters, then “composition is the realization of conflicts in dramatic action, which in turn is realized in language.” Thus, we remove the contradictions in the problem of understanding dramatic composition. In matters of Poetics, composition is the law of constructing levels of meaning in a work of art. Composition allows perception to go from part to whole and vice versa, from one level of meaning to another, from primary meanings and meanings to a certain generalization, generalized content. The director in his work adds additional structural principles determined by the technology of translating the play on stage: pictorial composition, architectural composition, organization of the hall - stage, openness or closedness of the production, and many others. etc. To these can be added a paradoxical composition, the meaning of which is to reverse the perspective of the dramatic structure.

In considering general principles, it is necessary to consider the parts of composition, and here we turn again to Aristotle. He was the first to theoretically identify the parts of a tragedy that make up its composition. In every tragedy, writes Aristotle, there must be six parts:

* legend ( mythos);

* characters ( ethe);

* speech ( lexis);

* thought ( dianoia);

*spectacle ( opsis);

* musical part ( melos);

The first four parts relate directly to dramaturgy, the last two directly to performance. Aristotle considers the sequence of events (legend) to be the most important of all parts, because the purpose of imitation is to depict an action, not a quality. In his opinion, it is qualities that give people characters. “Happy or unhappy... are only [only] as a result of action... [in tragedy] action is not carried out in order to imitate characters, but [on the contrary], characters are affected [only] through action; Thus, the purpose of the tragedy is the events(our italics - I.Ch.).” Designating the sequence of events as the most important part of the tragedy, Aristotle considers the principles of organizing events into a single whole as the basis for constructing a composition.

What should be the sequence of events? The first condition is that the action must have a “known volume”, i.e. to be complete, whole, having a beginning, middle and end. A warehouse of events, like any thing consisting of parts, must not only “have these parts in order,” but the volume must not be random. This is the law of unity and wholeness and it expresses the relationship of the part to the whole. The next principle Aristotle highlighted was the position according to which the composition should express an action centered not around one person, but an action. “Because an infinite number of events can happen to one person, some of which have no unity.” Theatrical imitation consists of imitation of a single and whole action, which involves all the characters in its zone. Therefore, the sequence of events is an expression of this general action. Events must be composed in such a way “that with the rearrangement or removal of one of the parts, the whole would change and be upset, for the presence or absence of something that is imperceptible is not part of the whole.” It should be noted here that this is the law of “event exclusion,” which must be applied in the analysis of a play when isolating events and separating them from facts. If what is excluded changes the plot of the entire play, it is an event; if not, it is a fact that affects the action of a character or several characters, but not the plot of the entire play.

Speaking about the plot, we must understand by it a “legend”, according to Aristotle’s definition, which undoubtedly influences general composition plays. Stories can be simple and complex (woven). Complex ones differ from simple ones - Aristotle points out - by the presence of a turning point (change of fate) based on recognition (for more details on these concepts, see “Poetics”). Aristotle calls the above-mentioned parts formative, because these principles organize and order the sequence of events into a certain sequence.

Prologue- an introductory monologue, sometimes an entire scene containing a statement of the plot or the initial situation.

Episode - direct development of action, dialogic scenes.

Exod - the final song accompanying the ceremonial departure of the choir.

Choir part- it includes Stasim (choir song without actors), the number and volume of stasims are not the same, but after the third the action moves towards a denouement; commos - joint vocal part of the soloist and choir.

These are the parts of the tragedy that make up its composition. Each of these parts contains a different number of events, but there is a certain difference between them. Next, we need to consider each of these parts, and then the types of compositions that they form.

Composition structure

With the development of dramaturgy, the initial division into the middle, beginning and end in the technique of dramaturgy became more complicated, and today these parts of a dramatic work have the following names: exposition, plot, development of action, climax, denouement and epilogue. Each element of the structure has its own functional purpose. But such a scheme did not take hold immediately; in principle, disputes over the name and number of elements continue to this day.

In 1863 Freytag proposed the following diagram dramatic structure:

1. Introduction (exposition).

2. Exciting moment (plot).

3. Rise (ascending movement of action from the exciting moment, that is, from the beginning to the climax).

4. Climax.

5. Tragic moment.

6. Downward action (turn to disaster).

7. The moment of last tension (before the disaster).

8. Disaster.

Of course, some points in this scheme are controversial, nevertheless, this is the most interesting scheme in developing the concept of composition structure. In our country, Freytagne was deservedly forgotten, due to the fact that Stanislavsky's critical remarks about the fact that the use of such a concept dries up creativity were misunderstood. This is a fair remark, but a remark actor, not a theater theorist. There were several other schemes for dramatic structure; we have noted only the most interesting.

Ultimately, all authors agree on the triad structure underlying the dramatic composition. Here, in our opinion, there cannot be a “universal” scheme, since this is creativity, and its laws largely remain a mystery to us. One way or another, if we try to bring all these schemes together, the structure of a dramatic work can be expressed as follows:

result of the struggle

start of the fight

progress of the struggle

From this diagram we see that the beginning of the struggle is revealed in the exposition and outset of the main conflict. This struggle is realized through specific actions (vicissitudes - according to Aristotle) ​​and constitutes a general movement from the beginning of the conflict to its resolution. Climax is the highest tension in the action. The result of the struggle is shown in the denouement and ending of the play.

Parts of a composition

Prologue currently acts as Preface - this element is not directly related to the plot of the play. This is a place where the author can express his attitude, this is a demonstration of the author's ideas. It can also be the orientation of the presentation. Following the example of ancient Greek plays, the Prologue can be a direct appeal of the author to the viewer (“An Ordinary Miracle” by E. Schwartz), the chorus (“Romeo and Juliet”), the character (“The Life of a Man” by L. Andreev), a person from the theater.

Exposition(from lat. expositio- “exposition”, “explanation”) - part of a dramatic work that characterizes the situation preceding the start of the action. Its task is to present all the proposed circumstances of the dramatic work. Even the title of the play itself serves to a certain extent as exposition. In addition, the task of the exposition, in addition to presenting the entire background of the play, includes exposing the action. Depending on the design, the exhibition can be: straight(special monologue); indirect(disclosure of circumstances as the action progresses);

Also, the role of exposition may be to show events that happened long before the main action of the play (see “Guilty Without Guilt” by A.N. Ostrovsky). The purpose of this part of the composition is to convey information necessary to understand the upcoming action, a message about the country, time, place of action, a description of some events that preceded the beginning of the play and influenced it. A story about the basic balance of forces, about their grouping for conflict, about the system of relationships and interconnections of characters in a given situation, about the context in which everything must be perceived. The most common type of exhibition is showing the last segment of life, the course of which is interrupted by the emergence of a conflict.

The exposition contains an event that occurs at the beginning of the play. The initial situation begins with it, giving impetus to the movement of the entire play. This event is usually called original. It not only helps to identify the basis of the plot, but also effectively prepares the beginning. Plot and exposition are inextricably linked elements of a single, initial stage play, which forms the source of dramatic action. You should not think that the initial event constitutes the exposition - this is incorrect. In addition to this, it may also include several other events and various facts. Note that our consideration concerns dramatic exposition, but there is also theatrical exhibition. Its task is to introduce the viewer into the world of the upcoming performance. In this case, the very location of the auditorium, lighting, scenography, and much more. others related to the theater, but not to the play, will be a kind of exposition.

The beginning- the most important element of the composition. Events that violate the initial situation are located here. Therefore, in this part of the composition there is the beginning of the main conflict; here it takes on its visible outlines and unfolds as a struggle between the characters, as an action. As a rule, two opposing points of view, different interests, worldviews, and ways of existence collide. And they not only collide, but are tied into one conflict knot, the resolution of which is the goal of the play. One might even say that the development of the action of the play is the resolution of the plot.

Regarding what is considered the beginning of an action, Hegel noted that “in empirical reality, each action has a lot of prerequisites, so that it can be difficult to establish in what place the real beginning should be found. But since the dramatic action is essentially based on a certain conflict, the appropriate starting point will be that situation from which this conflict should subsequently develop.” It is this situation that we call the tie.

Development of action- the most extensive part of the play, its main field of action and development. Almost the entire plot of the play is located here. This part consists of certain episodes, which many authors break down into acts, scenes, phenomena, and actions. The number of acts is in principle not limited, but, as a rule, ranges from 3 to 5. Hegel believed that the number of acts should be three:

1st - collision detection;

2nd - the disclosure of this collision, “as a living clash of interests, as division, struggle and conflict.”

3rd - resolution in the extreme aggravation of its contradiction;

But almost all European drama adheres to the 5-act structure:

1st - exposition;

2,3,4th - development of action;

5th - final;

It should be noted that in development of action find and climax- another structural element of the composition. It is independent in nature and functionally different from action development. That is why we define it as an independent (in function) element.

Climax- by general definition, this is the pinnacle of development of the play’s action. In every play there is a certain milestone that marks a decisive turn in the course of events, after which the very nature of the struggle changes. The denouement begins to rapidly approach, It is this moment that is usually called - climax. The climax is based on central event, which is a radical change in the action of the play, in favor of one side or another involved in the conflict. In its structure, the climax, as an element of composition, can be complex, that is, consist of several scenes.

Denouement- here the main (plot) action of the play traditionally ends. The main content of this part of the composition is the resolution of the main conflict, the cessation of side conflicts, and other contradictions that constitute and complement the action of the play. The denouement is logically connected with the plot. The distance from one to the other is the plot zone. It is here that the through-action of the play ends and the characters come to one or another result, as they say in the theory of Sanskrit drama - “finding fruit,” but it is not always sweet. In European tragedy, this is the moment of the death of the hero.

Epilogue - (epilogos) - part of the composition that produces a semantic completion of the work as a whole (and not the storyline). The epilogue can be considered a kind of afterword, a summary in which the author sums up the semantic results of the play. In dramaturgy it can be expressed as the final scene of the play, following the denouement. Not only the content, style, form, but also its very purpose has changed in the history of drama. In antiquity, an epilogue was an address by the choir to the viewer, which commented on the events that had taken place and explained the author's intention. In the Renaissance, the epilogue acts as an appeal to the viewer in the form of a monologue, containing the author's interpretation of events that summarizes the idea of ​​the play. In the dramaturgy of Classicism, please treat the actors and the author favorably. In the realistic drama of the 19th century, the epilogue takes on the features of an additional scene that reveals the patterns that determine the fate of the heroes. Very often, therefore, the epilogue depicted the life of the heroes many years later. In the twentieth century, there is polyphony in the understanding and use of the epilogue. It often appears at the beginning of the play, and during the course of the play it is explained how the characters came to such an ending. Chekhov was constantly occupied with the question of the “original” ending of the play. He wrote: “I have interesting story for a comedy, but haven't figured out the ending yet. Whoever invents new endings for plays will invent new era! There are no rough ends! Hero, either get married or shoot yourself, there is no other choice.”

Wolkenstein, on the contrary, believed that “an epilogue is usually a statistical stage statement: a sign of the author’s inability to give an exhaustive resolution of the “dramatic struggle” in the last act. A very controversial definition, but still not without its meaning. Indeed, some playwrights overuse the epilogue to express not so much their ideas, but to complete the action. How important the problem of the ending of the play and the epilogue arising from the entire content of the play is emphasized by the following opinion. “The problem of the last act is first of all an ideological problem and only then a technological one. It is in the last act that, as a rule, the resolution of the dramatic conflict is given, therefore, it is here that the ideological position of the dramatic writer most actively and definitely declares itself.” An epilogue can also be understood as a certain look into the future, answering the question: what will happen to the characters in the play in the future?

An example of an artistically resolved epilogue is the “silent scene” in Gogol’s “The Inspector General,” the reconciliation of clans in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet,” and Tikhon’s rebellion against Kabanikha in Ostrovsky’s “The Thunderstorm.”

Laws of composition

We will not dwell on this topic in detail; it is enough to note that there is enough literature on this issue. Moreover, in music, painting, and architecture they are developed with such care that theater theorists are truly to be envied. Therefore, it is difficult to come up with something new in this case; we will limit ourselves to simply listing these laws.

* Integrity;

* Interrelation and subordination;

* Proportionality;

* Contrast;

* Unity of content and form;

* Typification and generalization;