Chapter I. The role of irony in the development of an artist.22
1.1 Irony in A. Vampilov's "Notebooks" historical and cultural context).22
1.2. The peculiarity of irony in early prose
A. Vampilova.38
1.3. The formation of irony as a way of worldview: "Provincial anecdotes"54
Chapter II. Worldview function irony in plays
A. Vampilova.66
2.1. "Farewell in June".66
2.2. "Elder son".71
2.3. " duck hunting".84
Chapter III. The play "Duck Hunt" in the context of postmodern irony.100
Dissertation Introduction 2000, abstract on philology, Yurchenko, Olga Olegovna
The dissertation is devoted to a holistic consideration of the work of A.V. Vampilov. At the same time, in the role of structure-forming and | irony is the worldview principle.
The creative heritage of Alexander Valentinovich Vampilov (1937-1972) includes six plays: "House with Windows in the Field" (1963), "Farewell in June" (1964), "Elder Son" (1965), "Duck Hunt" (1967), " Provincial Anecdotes (1968), Last Summer in Chulimsk (1970); 30 short stories, most of which were published under the pseudonym A. Sanin in 1961 in the collection "Coincidence"; 6 feuilletons; 23 essays and articles; one unfinished play "Incomparable Tips".
Dramatic works by A. Vampilov: four multi-act plays - "Farewell in June", "Elder Son", "Duck Hunt", "Last Summer in Chulimsk" and three one-act plays - "House with Windows in the Field", "A Story with a Met Entrepreneur", " Twenty minutes with an angel" - received in literary criticism definition of "Vampilov's theatre". The theater workers themselves confirmed the legitimacy of this definition more than once: “Vampilov was given an amazing sense of the theater, a special gift of theatrical thinking. In his plays, for all the recognizability of what is happening, a special Vampilian world emerges, clearly indicated by the artist” (1, p. 76).
In connection with the 60th anniversary, new editions of plays were published, the playwright's Notebooks were published (2). Published later along with plays, early stories and letters (3), they to some extent brought us closer to the innermost unity of his artistic world. It turned out that the search for the key to Vampilov's theater, as to any artistically significant phenomenon, can hardly be exhausted once and for all. Researchers are still faced with the task of comprehending and interpreting the Vampilov Theater in the light of new approaches, setting it in new contexts.
Vampilov's dramaturgy, essentially connected with the ideas of its time, itself required time for its understanding and evaluation. As B. Sushkov wrote about "Duck Hunt", this work "is already beginning to interact with time according to the law of the classics:" Topicality has passed, eternity has appeared" (4, p. 86). That is, the situation with Vampilov’s dramaturgy was almost the same as with any innovative art, as it was, for example, with Chekhov’s plays, in which a temporary pause was “built in” as a condition, translating the aesthetics of novelty into the aesthetics of recognition (5, p. 91 ). Today, time has confirmed that the plays "Elder Son" and "Duck Hunt" continue to be among the best in Russian dramaturgy of the 20th century. And "Duck Hunt", which was considered the starting point for the so-called "post-Vampilian" dramaturgy, actually became the beginning of the postmodern stage in Russian dramaturgy.
Several monographs (6) and many dissertations were devoted to the work of the playwright, but only in a few of them the artistic world of A. Vampilov was comprehended not in an airless cultural space, but as a holistic phenomenon, formed in a wide field literary interactions and contexts. Thus, the connections between prosaic and dramatic works(7); analyzed genre system(8); compared theatrical interpretations with published texts (9); an analysis was made of a number of cultural mythologies used by Vampilov (10).
But familiarity with the existing research literature leaves a feeling of dissatisfaction in explaining the integrity of this cultural phenomenon, has not yet been sufficiently explored aesthetic principles, features of the worldview of the artist. Not explained, in particular, the inconsistency of perception public consciousness- theater, spectator, reader, literary criticism- everything that was called "Vampilov's theatre". “The assessment of his work remained generally very high, but it turned out to be not only surprisingly contradictory, but also somehow discouragingly diverse and multidirectional. The only thing that united the writers was the recognition of the "elusiveness", "mysteriousness" and "paradoxicality" of Vampilov's dramaturgy" (11, p. 180).
More or less unanimously, literary criticism defined the themes of A. Vampilov's works: "...will you, man, remain man?" (12, p. 590); “. will overcome alive soul routine of life? (13, p. 204); all his plays are directed against. dehumanization”, this is “the struggle of the hero for the salvation of his soul” (14, p. 36), etc. Significant difficulties in the perception of Vampilov's plays were associated with the identification of the author's position. Against the background of the usual ideological and thematic orientation, understandable heroes, and established genres of Soviet drama, they were met with caution, as they broke the stereotypes of perception, obscured the author's attitude to the events and characters depicted, it was difficult to determine whether it was dramatic and sympathetic or satirical. That kind of comedy, which was once discovered by Chekhov, was modified in Vampilov's "performance" and therefore looked like an unusual phenomenon.
Difficulties in identifying the author's position, the final author's intention in the analysis of a separate dramatic work are connected with the specifics of the genus: the playwright's world is always a special world with a "special status of the writer", where "two ideological spaces are combined: the author's and the character's" (15, p. 320). Finding the key to the unity of the playwright's artistic world is always a difficult task. Attempts to search for a holistic approach to Vampilov's work are only being outlined in the research literature.
Thus, the relevance of the study artistic heritage A. Vampilova is dictated by the need to determine the dominant, the basis artistic outlook Alexander Vampilov, leading the ideological and emotional assessment of the depicted. The need to give holistic analysis creativity of Vampilov is also dictated by the level of the state dramatic genres, their crisis, requiring an appeal to the work of one of the best playwrights of the 20th century.
In our opinion, if we isolate the dominant principle of his work, we can try to get to the personality of the artist and his method. So general principle in Vampilov's plays, in our opinion, there is irony, which even romantics characterized as "the dominant system of feelings" (Schiller), "universal sense of reality" (Schlegel). Irony permeates not only plays, but also stories, essays, notebooks playwright. This is evidenced individual statements critics. N. Tenditnik wrote: "Irony in Vampilov's stories is a stylistic, fundamental quality" (16, p. 567). Alexander Ovcharenko, in his discussions about Vampilov's plays, noted: “Somewhere in the depths of his plays, irony is hidden, or perhaps, to be more accurate, not irony, but the wise grin of the author. (17, p. 53). B. Sushkov main feature Vampilova calls "a mocking-skeptical attitude towards everything in the world, including oneself" (18, p. 37). S.S. Imikhelova, having considered the lyrical unity of the author and the hero in Vampilov's plays, came to the conclusion that the hero's drama is filled with lyric-ironic intonation, since it is based on the author's drama (19).
In this regard, the works of S.M. Kozlova (20) and A. Bocharova (21), where a holistic approach to Vampilov's plays is carried out from the point of view of the internal, ^ ideological and emotional dominant, from the genre side. So,<
Duck hunting” was determined by S.M. Kozlova as an ironic drama. The criterion by which a dramatic work is classified as ironic is her author's disposition to a dual perception of the action of the play and its hero, to the image of two ideological and emotional planes - dramatic and comic, from which an ironic assessment is formed, excluding an unambiguously negative or positive statement ( 20, p. 93-94). A. Bocharov ranked Vampilov among the writers of the ironic warehouse (21, p. 90). He saw the commonality of ironic pathos in the works of Vampilov and Shukshin: “In both Shukshin and Vampilov, irony is born because neither their heroes nor the authors themselves can gain confidence” (21, p. 85). But irony as the dominant principle of all Vampilian creativity, unfortunately, is only outlined in these small works and has not yet become a subject of special interest in studies devoted to the playwright. She was not seen as a fundamental quality of the Vampilian art world.
Irony is always "playing with contradictions" (22, p. 80). This is also a “way of self-determination”, which reveals the features of the poetics of “ironic completion” - the poetics of paradox, oxymoron and inversion, “rooted in carnival eccentricity, “wrong side”, “reverse” (23, p. 142). Irony is usually understood in two meanings: 1) as a stylistic device, as “an allegory expressing mockery or slyness, when a word or statement acquires in the context of speech a meaning that is opposite to the literal meaning or denies it, casting doubt” (24, p. 132); 2) as an aesthetic category, "a kind of comic, based on the opposition of the subject to which the writer's attention is directed, and the expression of the author's attitude to the subject" (25, p. 356).
In modern literary criticism, a view of irony has been established that combines these two different definitions. It is considered as a concept that leads to the final author's intention in the work. “As a kind of aesthetic attitude, irony is revealed primarily in style, in a verbal-evaluative reaction to reality embodied in its direct meaning, but irony can determine the principles of organizing the inner world of a work, that is, the creative position of the author-demiurge in relation to the created image of reality” (26 , p. 190).
The authors of the monograph devoted to the aesthetic meaning of irony in art (27) believe that the need to use irony arises when a person seeks to question everything, when it becomes a way of his philosophical and poetic thinking and frame of mind. Such a perception of the world becomes especially acute in times of cataclysms, instability in public life - in morality, law, eternal truths.
The 60s of the XX century were just the time when the social conflict caused the need to use the functions of irony in literature: a paradoxical rethinking of stereotypes of all levels (moral, literary, including genre), an ironic rejection of accepted standards. Irony is widely used by Vampilov both in plays and in stories and essays to debunk everyday, cultural clichés. So, in the essay “How are our acacias?” (1965), the author-narrator characterizes the school disciplines with irony, breaking down the existing stereotyped ideas and established views on each of them: “Physics beckoned us to the cities, geography encouraged us to wander, literature, as expected, called for feats.” (28, p. 431). Everything serious, pathos-positive in the literature of socialist realism is rejected by the narrator, but without pressure, with a touch of light irony, which does not negate sympathy for opposing views and sides.
The result of the expression of the general ironic worldview of Vampilov was the motive of the game, the rally, one of the favorites in his plays. In his works, Vampilov created an atmosphere of universal comedy, the relativity of everything and everything, including social ideals and ideas. The plot in his stories and plays is based on the fact that people's perception of the abnormal, the absurd is so habitual that they get used to it, come to terms with it, consider it to be in the order of things. Modern researchers in our country and abroad characterize such thinking from the standpoint of the psychoanalytic theory of art as belonging to a masochistic, totalitarian culture (29). The young Vampilian hero lives in an atmosphere where the categories of good and evil have become vague, where everything imperceptibly turns into a game: both good is not serious, and evil is pretend. Thus, the prank in “The Elder Son” especially clearly demonstrates the socio-cultural situation of total lies and institutionalized hypocrisy, which is not taken seriously and tragically by the characters, but this violation of proportions allows the author to create an ironically gloomy atmosphere of total absurdity.
The ironic as the principle of Vampilov's worldview was formed in opposition to the dogmatic seriousness of contemporary writers. In a lyrically frank diary entry, he will declare his creative credo as follows: “Anton Pavlovich Chekhov was going to write about the inkwell. The writer Markov, the author of the novel Strogoffs, read by everyone, began with the note “The wolves got stuck”, I start with a story about how the flies almost got stuck, and no one will stop me, because my modesty tells me to start like that” (3, p. 247). Rejecting claims to the global nature of the idea as deeply alien to its artistic principles, Vampilov is deeply serious in ironic self-affirmation.
Irony became a form of expression of the author's consciousness in the works of many writers - Vampilov's contemporaries, whose maturity fell on the 60-70s. It was a time of transition of the general mood from the romantic illusions of the "thaw" to sobriety, a time of collapse of hopes, bitterness and vague anxiety. Later, reflecting on the place of his generation in Russian literature, Sasha Sokolov remarked: “My literary generation had its own mission. But this generation, which was supposed to immediately follow the “thaw”, did not take place, and if it did take place, it was very incomplete and very, very late.” (30, p. 180). The words of Vampilov, uttered by him shortly before his death, are known, that the hero of his “Duck Hunt” reflected the dramatic experience of his own generation: “And we are like that. It's me, you know? Foreign writers write about the lost generation. Didn't we have losses?" (31, p. 46). Having lost external and internal guidelines on their life path, the “post-sixties” suffered from loneliness and unbelief “in narrow deep wells”, crying out to their neighbor: “Save our souls! We are dying from suffocation ”(V. Vysotsky). Former values and traditions collapsed, new ones were discredited, and a person turned out to be unable to overcome the spiritual crisis and, instead of the lost universal meanings, find others, following his own, unique path. This was the drama of the Vampilian generation, the echoes of which can be found in the playwright's notebooks: “There is nothing worse than spiritual bankruptcy: a person can be naked, poor, but if he has at least some idea, goal, hope, mirage, -. he is still human and his existence has meaning” (2, p. 42). The choice and deed of the sixties were associated with moral self-determination in the "crisis life", which existed as a subtext with external well-being and cheerfulness. This was the absurdity of the then life, which Vampilov decided to declare one of the first.
It should be noted that this problem was fundamental in Russian literature of the 19th century, and its traditions live actively and powerfully in Vampilov's worldview (Gogol, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, L. Andreev, etc.). She always solved the mystery of the outcome of a person (goal, for what he lives, and not why and how), death and immortality. If a person is at least in search of meaning, he already has a chance for salvation, because, according to Berdyaev, the Way is truth and life, and the search for meaning is already some kind of finding it.
In times of cataclysms, instability in public life - in morality, law, eternal truths - the desire to question everything, to use irony as a way of philosophical and poetic thinking and frame of mind becomes especially acute. Such a time was the 60s, when, with the help of irony, writers expressed dissatisfaction with the outdated value system.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that irony for Russian literature of the second half of the 20th century is one of the most significant development factors. We can talk about four decades of the development of irony within the framework of Soviet culture, and consider the starting point of this movement to be the end of the 1950s, the so-called Khrushchev thaw of the 60s, which created the conditions for the development of irony not only as a literary device, but also as a way of artistic perception. peace. In fact, for the most part, the aesthetics of the artists of this time is based on irony. It was their ability to ironically dissect the surrounding reality, to express skepticism and mockery in relation to phenomena that were previously considered taboo, which gave a feeling of freshness and novelty to the new literary current.
The ironic was formed among ironic writers as opposed to the dogmatic seriousness of the “production theme” that exists in fiction, dedicated to the builders of industrial giants, the labor of workers, engineering and technical and party workers, heads of enterprises and production teams. The prose of Vasily Aksenov, Fazil Iskander, Vasily Shukshin, the poetry of Bulat Okudzhava, Andrey Voznesensky, the dramaturgy of Alexander Volodin, Rustam Ibragimbekov were perceived as signs of a different worldview, a different lifestyle, opposed to the heavy, "serious" Stalinist ideology. Of course, each of the writers ^ created his own style of irony. If with Aksenov this is always an open mockery of cretinism, the "Homeric stupidities" of a totalitarian society, then in Iskander's famous trilogy "Sandro from Chegem" the same goal is achieved through the ingenuous narration of his characters, as if unaware that simplicity gives their stories about the past and present of Soviet Abkhazia has a completely different, satirical connotation. We find a more subtle and deeper expression of irony in Voznesensky's poetry, where the ironic arose not only at the semantic, but also at the structural, conceptual level (32).
All this testified to a paradigm shift in artistic thinking, which gradually led to a different use of irony. The ironic for the writers of the new generation was associated not so much with the specific phenomena of the political system, but with the inconsistency of human existence itself and life in general. Moreover, not only the person himself with his deviations, phobias, gestures was ironically perceived, but also his language as a way of expressing the inner “I”. Researchers call such irony “linguistic”, highlighting it along with “image” irony, when the main material for artists can be “populist images, established expressions, language tracing papers, slogans, quotes from lumpen dialects” (32, p. 16). As the most striking example, they name not only postmodernist prose (“other”, according to S. Chuprinin’s definition) and avant-garde poetry of the 70s and 80s, but also rock poetry, where the principles of the new style were formulated: free manipulation of verbal and musical images, conscious eclecticism, the introduction of experimental, non-traditional sound objects. (In this regard, one cannot fail to recall the dialogue in the play “The Elder Son”, which is constructed according to the same “image”, game principle: clichés like “a simple modest guy”, “I must open the eyes of the public”, “I will overcome difficulties, senior comrades will will help", poetic-song commonly used clichés "is he a pilot? don't fly away, dear, don't fly away." the desire of people to overcome the pressure of a painful provincial existence, the threat of a spiritual vacuum).
The beginning of ironic aesthetics was laid in the "young" youth) prose of the late 50s - early 60s, where irony was based not on the author's voice, but on the voice of the hero, a private person, reflected the mindset of a young person at the time of the destruction of a non-individual, officially - dogmatic system of values and the formation of a personal worldview. The irony was aimed at false guidelines, was caused by distrust of "high words", but in no way to high truths, to reality itself. On the contrary, the young heroes of A. Bitov (“Such a long childhood”), A. Rekemchuk (“Young-green”), V. Aksenov (“Colleagues”) and other authors overcame the moment of snobbery in relation to the surrounding reality, so the ironic intonation was associated with the self-irony of the hero, the awareness of his own imperfection, which became an antidote to youthful egocentrism.
At the end of the 60s, the nature of irony and its carrier became more complicated. Irony stemmed not only from the reflection of the hero, it entered the author's consciousness in the psychological prose of F. Iskander, A. Bitov, V. Orlov, V. Shukshin and other prose writers, was associated with the realization of the limited capabilities of a person in his opposition to circumstances, with disappointment in moral stability of modern man. In the psychological prose of “summing up”, “internal monologue”, irony goes beyond the psychological atmosphere, stylistic coloring, becomes a sign of the author’s forced reconciliation with imperfect reality, but does not give rise to a playful, mockingly skeptical, imitative attitude to the depicted. Only in some stories of this time does irony become a factor in the formation of the world: “The Holy Well” and “The Cube” by V. Kataev, “semiprobable stories” by V. Shefner “The Modest Genius”, “Palace V for Three”. “Snail on the slope of A. and B. Strugatsky”, “Overstocked barrel” by V. Aksenov, “Point of view” by V. Shukshin.
In research on irony (33), two main layers of culture are distinguished that feed ironic literature and form two lines of tradition and two stylistic streams: the tradition of folk laughter culture, acting in the form of subjective irony, and<\ традиция романтической иронии. Оживление романтической " традиции в литературе на рубеже 60-70-х годов было вызвано наступлением новой духовной ситуации: историческое разочарование, связанное с крушением оттепельных иллюзий, прежде всего веры в воодушевлявшую общество идею свободы личности, расхождение действительности с провозглашенным универсальным идеалом. Под знаком безнадежности и тревоги, в русле развенчания неоправдавшихся надежд и иллюзий развивается и драматургия этого времени. «Счастливые дни несчастливого человека» А. Арбузова, «Варшавская мелодия» Л. Зорина, «Традиционный сбор» В. Розова, «Сколько лет - сколько зим» В. Пановой - это пьесы-исповеди, пьесы-интроспекции, пьесы горьких, безнадежных итогов, отразившие переход общего умонастроения от иллюзий к трезвости.
The connection of romanticism with the art of these years is evidenced by the orientation towards autobiography as a reflection in the work of a certain author's drama, the game principle of the creation and functioning of the work, dual worlds as the division of the world into real and ideal. However, the ironic literature of the second half of the 20th century is polemical in relation to romantic irony, since the understanding of the world and man in it differs from the aesthetics of the early 19th century. It can no longer affirm the absolute freedom of the individual, because the development of civilization has created a situation of universal connection and universal dependence. Having experienced the collapse of many utopian ideals, literature can no longer oppose ideal and reality as truth and its perversion. Reality is perceived by her as an element that combines the low and the high, and therefore the aesthetics of ironic literature approaches folk aesthetics with its ideas about the ambivalence of life, about the combination of opposite principles in it. Such a representation is characteristic of folk laughter culture. Vivid evidence is the "anecdotal structure" (21, p. 88) of V. Shukshin's fabulous prose ("Until the third roosters") or one-act plays by A. Vampilov ("Provincial anecdotes").
Thus, the formation of Vampilov the artist and his contemporaries took place in a contradictory world with a broken hierarchy of values, where the author's consciousness is marked by ironic duality - he does not dwell on any of the particular concepts, but does not arrogantly reject any of them. The desacralization of generally accepted values in order to verify their authenticity, the reversal of "top" and "bottom" became one of the distinguishing features not only of the "sixties" writers, but of artists of the next generation. In the dramaturgy of the 1970s and 1980s, there was even a trend that critics dubbed “post-Vampilian” and which continued the search for ironic drama begun by their talented predecessor.
It would be a mistake to explain this total appeal to irony as the basic principle of poetics by reasons of a sociocultural order only, if it were not for the quality that connects it with a philosophical view of the world (34, p. 25), is the attitude to the world of ideas and values, this emotional-value orientation, which is an expression of a person's personal self-determination. In our opinion, irony in the art of this period of culture, merged with self-irony, has become the highest form of manifestation of the personal principle. It should be emphasized that the entire literature of the 20th century was marked by an aggravation of the philosophical problem of human self-identity.
The problem of human self-identity is the core, the core of literature, which always, in every era anew, following philosophy and religion, focuses its attention around the search for an answer to the questions: “What am I?”, “What am I for?”. The need for self-identity, self-identity is a vital human need. And the self-identification of the human "I" as a complex activity of a person in self-determination is aimed at achieving identity with oneself, correlating oneself as "I" with the true image of "I", i.e. development of ideas about the true and false "I".
On the threshold of the third millennium, it turned out that humanity in the 20th century, without solving the old problems, faced new ones, the causes of which lie in the person himself, in the crisis of his self-identity. At the turn of the 1960s and 1970s, a new social reality began to take shape, for the definition of which the term postmodern is widely used. Expressing the cultural and historical uncertainty of the era, this term has become the personification of the crisis of self-identification of modern man. A person of the postmodern era has lost a sense of the identity of his own "I", in contrast to a person of a traditional society, who had a sense of self-identity, ontological certainty, authenticity. This crisis has a global universal character, and in Russia, where the post-Stalinist reality is, according to A. Bitov, “life is separate from history. a person from himself” (35, p. 60), it is repeatedly reinforced by the acuteness of social conflicts, the collapse of the former political system, the growth of nationalism and separatism, etc.
Writers caught the main danger in modern man - the fear of being alone, alone with himself, the hope for an external cover, identifying himself with someone or something. In this case, we are talking about the illusion of self-identity, because a person tries to identify himself with sociality, and in a fit of vague dissatisfaction with his own failure, he even strives for ideological identity. He hardly gets liberation from everything untrue, from borrowed knowledge, ideological and social habits, traditions, superstitions.
If we talk about the writers who constituted such a specific phenomenon as the underground of the 70-80s, or the literary emigration of the third wave, then in their opposition to the Soviet ideology they always experienced a burning interest in manifestations of individualism, the search for their "I", their will, personal freedom. It is quite natural that these manifestations in their works were in the nature of a rebellion against an objectively hostile reality and its absurd laws. But in search of the true "I", the heroes of the best works of "other" prose are also unable to escape from the crisis of self-identity, since they cannot but be involved in this world of total absurdity. Both Venichka (“Moscow-Petushki” by Ven. Erofeev) and Boris Alikhanov (“The Zone” by S. Dovlatov) are firmly connected with this world, not free from its atmosphere, imbued with it to the marrow of their bones - its culture, mythology, language. They come from this world, which they so passionately reject, and therefore cannot free themselves from the air of their "special, unprecedented country." However, they are caught at the moment of self-knowledge, awareness of their own imperfection by their authors, who, in self-irony, some kind of metaphysical sadness and longing of their heroes, see the path to true self-identification, the path to salvation from the general total crisis.
Self-knowledge of the heroes of Russian literature of the second half of the century is not only an impartial look inside oneself, it is also the path to true being, to the true Home, approaching
Truth. The drama of homelessness (“an overturned house,” according to Trifonov), impassability (“a receding universe,” as Makanin put it) continues to excite the literature of the second half of the 20th century and is becoming truly massive. Homelessness is presented to writers as a spiritual state - a state of total loneliness, thrown into a lifeless, inhuman space, when a person has nothing to rely on, except only on himself, his personal choice. The situation of individualistic choice tests his hero and A, Vampilov (36, p. 98).
Russian literature, even at the end of the 20th century, inevitably responding to conflicting issues in the social sphere, could not but fix the increased urgency of the problem of self-identification as a person’s search for some content of his own life cleared from society, as “the desire for a confrontation with himself” (37, p. 167). A. Vampilov, who, together with his contemporaries, strove to express a very definite drama of individual consciousness, is among the writers who react sharply to the manifestation of this trend. In his plays, irony becomes the basis of conflict, because every time it calls into question the social context, the social reality itself. The playful nature of irony helps to convey the semblance of a social structure. But at the same time, the individual thinking involved in it is also subjected to ironic perception. And then the object of irony becomes not only the social situation based on legalized lies, hypocrisy, but also the character of the person himself.
The protagonist of his plays is a young man who is at some distance from moral absolutes. At the same time, he is not an object of condemnation, ridicule, and looks sympathetic next to characters that are boring in their correctness and require exposure: outwardly significant, they just embody, expose the imaginary world order. This is how Kolesov and Repnikov (Farewell in June), Busygin and Kudimov (Elder Son), Zilov and the waiter Dima (Duck Hunt) confront each other. But at the same time, the author's attitude to Kolesov, Busygin, Zilov is ambiguous and in many respects ironically ambivalent. The advantage of Vampilov's drama is that in the new socio-historical conditions the author saw the main basis of life's contradictions - not the general discord surrounding the hero (although he is an important condition for personal drama), but his overcoming his own inner "hell". At first glance, socially critical pathos is inherent in Vampilov's plays: reality itself, reality, is called into question (in "Farewell in June" this is an atmosphere of sale, in "The Elder Son" - a situation of total lies), nevertheless, the inner reality of the individual is also not certain. The author's attitude of sympathy towards the hero of the play "Farewell in June", spontaneously rebelling against a troubled reality, is then replaced by an ironic attitude towards him, since the main conflict turns out to be Kolesov's internal choice between a pragmatic goal - a diploma that makes it possible to do what he loves, and such hitherto abstract for him with concepts like love, loyalty, responsibility. That is, the rebellious nature of the romantic personality is being tested. And not only the "ideology" of Zolotuev or Repnikov becomes the subject of criticism, but also Kolesov's difficulties in defending his "ideology". The duality of the author's attitude towards the hero is most clearly stated in "Duck Hunt".
In the light of all that has been said above, the purpose of our study will be to comprehend the ideological and aesthetic role of irony in the system of artistic thinking of A. Vampilov. This goal is specified by the following tasks: to systematize ideas about the role of irony, its place in the dramaturgy of the second half of the 20th century; to explore the place of irony in the individual author's consciousness of A. Vampilov in the dynamics of the evolution of his artistic system.
The scientific novelty of the study is determined by a systematic study of Vampilov's work in order to clarify the specifics of his artistic thinking (irony), to consider works in a broad general cultural context, and above all in the aspect of the relationship - differences and similarities - romantic and postmodern irony. In the study of the phenomenon of "Vampilov's theater", the question in this aspect has not yet been raised.
All of the above is reflected in the structure of the work. In the first chapter, having singled out irony as the dominant feature of Vampilov's work, we trace how from a stylistic device, a form of comic irony, already in early prose, it develops into a way of seeing the world. The second and third chapters will focus on the playwright's best plays, where irony appears as a way of artistic thinking and mindset, and where its functions are considered in a wide field of cultural and literary interactions and contexts.
Conclusion of scientific work dissertation on the topic "Irony in the artistic world of A. Vampilov"
Conclusion
As we have seen, the irony in the work of one of the artists of the 20th century is connected with the general worldview of the artist, when he believes every thesis as an antithesis and sees an object of ridicule in any serious faith. Irony in the plays of A. Vampilov, thus, acts as a way of philosophical and poetic thinking and mindset, which are caused by the time of instability in public life - in morality, law, attitude to eternal truths. It became one of the sources of a new vision: the novelty of Vampilov's dramaturgy was filled with a sharp sense of complexity, the contradictory nature of being, the need to overcome dogmatic thinking.
In essence, the author demonstrates to the reader and the viewer his own inner drama - existential in nature, since it exposes the dead end of the crisis consciousness, connecting scandal, rebellion and lack of will, indifference, impotence of individual will and at the same time a claim to omnipotence. Already in his early work, this dead end of the Vampilov (later Zilov) drama is outlined, which consists in the existential impossibility of connecting everyday, everyday, banal reality with the world of a lofty, uncompromised dream. The originality of the Vampilov conflict corresponded to the moods of artists of this era, who tried to express the inner world of their contemporary, “which turned out to be not equal to his external being” (1, p. 193), in the words of A. Vasilyev, a theater director who tried to find an answer in Duck Hunt to the contradictions that tormented him.
The play "Duck Hunt" by Vampilov gave birth to the so-called "post-Vampilov" dramaturgy, where there is also a sense of an existential dead end. In contrast to The Duck Hunt, the “post-Vampilian” plays are already devoid of the poetry of everyday life, and the meager, primitive speech of the characters corresponds to the poverty and wretchedness of their life. The ugly life is far from the everyday life that Vampilov rehabilitated together with his contemporary writers. This is also evidenced by the statements of critics about the stories and plays of L. Petrushevskaya: she completes, “brings the everyday line into a dead end in domestic literature”, brings everyday, everyday collisions to the limit, “to the last edge” (2). This is how the craving for everyday life, everyday life, which is characteristic of all followers of Chekhov's drama, develops in late postmodernism, but it was from Vampilov that his followers drew an appeal to the reality of consciousness and subconsciousness, thanks to which everyday everyday life is filled with wonderful links, mysterious signs and symbols. It was from Vampilov that they could learn the dramatic poetics of duality, when the hero's doubles contain demonic or angelic incarnations.
Dvoemirie” in Vampilov’s work, as we have seen, is deeply fundamental. It is also explained by reasons of a sociocultural nature: the real, genuine reality of culture in his era was opposed by the imaginary of official culture, and the notorious conflict between “physicists and lyricists” was encouraged by the latter as completely harmless. But the main point explaining the ironic duality underlying the work of the playwright and prose writer, in our opinion, is his desire to overcome unilinear thinking, to get away from dogmatism, to oppose destructiveness, fragmentation with a kind of synthesis, “syncretism”. An ironic worldview made it possible to oppose one-sidedness with ambiguity, categoricalness with dialecticalness, and monologism with the equality of different voices. Such a worldview does not let contradictions out of sight and even gives them a high status. The contradiction becomes the source of development, the root of resilience. In the words of the 20th century poet A. Blok, the dignity of a romantic is "the saving poison of contradictions."
Thus, the basis of A. Vampilov's work is an insoluble internal conflict, romantic at its core, in the center - a hero trying to connect reality and unreality, life and art, and each time experiencing a tragic realization of the impossibility, unfulfillment of this desire. Artistic intuition suggested to Vampilov a way out of this conflict: the agonizing duality of contemporary man is by no means overcome, not removed. It is seen at the very beginning of the path as the original, inherent in time, and, thanks to ironic talent, is given as objectively contained in the public consciousness. Connection, unity, identity of contradictions are achieved by an ironic worldview, logic, returning to the ironic pathos of the romantics, are confirmed by the whole system of borrowings, rethinking of traditional artistic structures (albeit in a postmodern version). Thanks to the dialectical worldview, irony helps to come to a constructive integrity, to a dynamic balance (3, p. 188). Irony, as the principle of the aesthetic completion of the artistic whole, is the principle of Vampil's creativity, which made it possible to most accurately express the consciousness of a person of a turning point, contradictory, crisis era, to most fully and vividly convey its spiritual meaning.
List of scientific literature Yurchenko, Olga Olegovna, dissertation on the topic "Russian literature"
1. Tovstonogov G. Feeling of the theater//Theatre. 1977. - No. 2.
2. Vampilov A. Notebooks. Irkutsk. - 1997.
3. Vampilov A. Favorites. M., 1998.
4. Sushkov B. Alexander Vampilov. M., 1989.
5. Karasev L.V. Chekhov's plays//Questions of Philosophy. 1998. - No. 9.
6. Gushanskaya E. A. Vampilov. L., 1989; Sushkov B. Alexander Vampilov. - M., 1989; Tenditnik N. Alexander Vampilov. -Novosibirsk. - 1979; Tenditnik N. Before the face of truth: Essay on the life and work of Alexander Vampilov. - Irkutsk. - 1997.
7. Tsymbalistenko N.V. Artistic skill of Alexander Vampilov: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. Bitter. - 1986.
8. Zborovets I.V. Dramaturgy Alexander Vampilov: The problem of character. Artistic originality: Author. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. Kyiv. - 1983.
9. Zhurcheva T.V. Dramaturgy of Alexander Vampilov in historical and functional coverage: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1984.
10. Yu.Pogosova N.V. Theater of Alexander Vampilov: cultural aspect: Abstract of the thesis. dis.cand. art history. M., 1994.
11. Gushanskaya E. Drama by A. Vampilov//Star. 1981. - No. 12.
12. Rasputin V. About Vampilov // Vampilov A. House with windows in the field: Plays. Essays and articles. Feuilletons. stories and scenes. Irkutsk. -1981.
13. Lakshin V. Soul alive//October. 1981. - No. 3.
14. Nikitin N. Experience of Vampilov (notes of a playwright//Moscow. 1989.
15. Polyakov M.A. Poetics of modern drama//Polyakov M. In the world of ideas and images: Historical poetics and theory of genres. M., 1983.
16. Tenditnik N. Early Vampilov // Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. - Irkutsk. 1981.17.0vcharenko A. Dramatic saga (Plays by Alexander Vampilov // Young Guard. 1985. - No. 6.
17. Sushkov B. Alexander Vampilov. M., 1989.
19. Kozlova S.M. Traditions of the genre of ironic drama (the experience of typological research: “Ivanov” by A.P. Chekhov and “Duck Hunt” by A. Vampilov // Genre and composition of a literary work. Petrozavodsk. - 1983.
20. Bocharov A. Sociability of irony // Questions of literature. 1980. - No. 12.
21. Losev A. Antique and romantic irony//Aesthetics and art. From the history of pre-Marxist aesthetic thought. M., 1966.
22. Tyupa V. I. The artistry of a literary work: Issues of typology. Krasnoyarsk. - 1987.
23. Brief literary encyclopedia. M., 1980.
24. Shpagin P.I. Irony//Short Literary Encyclopedia. M., 1966. -T. 3.
25. Rybalchenko T.L. Ironic-philosophical prose in the modern literary process//Problems of method and genre. Issue. 17. -Tomsk. - 1991.
26. Pigulevsky V.O., Mirskaya L.A. Symbol and irony. Chisinau. 1990.-157 p.
27. Vampilov A. How are our acacias? // Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. -Irkutsk. 1981.
28. Smirnov I.P. Psychodiachronology. Psychohistory of Russian literature from romanticism to the present day. M., 1994.
29. Sokolov Sasha, Mikhailov A. Salvation in the language // Literary studies. - 1990. - No. 2.
30. Tenditnik N. Alexander Vampilov. Novosibirsk. - 1979.
31. Trofimova E.I. On irony in modern Russian poetry//Philological sciences. 1998. - No. 5-6.
32. Rubina S.B. Irony as a system-forming beginning of the dramaturgy of E. Schwartz: Cand. dis. Kuibyshev. - 1989.
33. Bitov A. Pushkin House//New World. 1987. - No. 10.
34. Imikhelova S.S. Modern hero in Russian Soviet dramaturgy of the 70s. Novosibirsk. - 1983.
35. Buber M. The problem of man // Buber M. Two images of faith. M., 1995.1. Chapter I
36. Vampilov A. Notebooks. Irkutsk. - 1997.
37. Zorkin V. "Do not get away from memory"//Speaks and shows Irkutsk. -1997.-№33.
38. Volodin A. So restless at heart: Notes with digressions. -Spb., 1993.
39. Erofeev Ven. From notebooks//Erofeev Ven. Leave my soul alone: Almost everything. M., 1995.
40. Russia/Russia. Issue. 1 (9): The seventies as a subject of the history of Russian culture. - M.-Venice. - 1998.
41. Poetry Day 1969. - M., 1969.
42. Dark O. V. V. E., or the collapse of languages / / New lit. review.1997.-№25.
43. Skaftymov A.P. Moral searches of Russian writers: Articles and researches about Russian classics. M., 1972.
44. Uvarova-Daniel I. “Either a true story, or a fiction.” / / New lit. review. 1997. - No. 25.
45. Yu.Zholkovsky A.K. From the history of yesterday / / Russia / Yau581a: The seventies as a subject of the history of Russian culture. M.-Venice.1998.1. P. Neva. 1996. - No. 1.
46. Epstein M. After the carnival, or the Eternal Venichka / / Erofeev Ven. Leave my soul alone: Almost everything. M., 1995.
47. Gachev G.D. Development of figurative consciousness in literature//Theory of literature: Main problems in historical coverage: Image, method, character. M., 1962.
48. History of aesthetics: Monuments of world aesthetic thought, vol. 3. -M., 1967.
50. Reutsky P. A young man with Chekhov's talent//Vampilov A. Finnish knife and Persian lilac. Irkutsk. - 1997.
51. Berkovsky N.Ya. Formation of Chekhov: from stories to plays//Berkovsky N.Ya. Literature and theatre. M., 1967.
52. Vampilov A. 0 "Henry // Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. - Irkutsk. 1981.
53. Vampilov A. Nonsense//Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. -Irkutsk. 1981.
54. Goethe I.-V. About art. M., 1980.
55. Vampilov A. Coincidence//Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. Irkutsk. - 1981.
56. Zholkovsky A. Wandering dreams and other works. M., 1994.
57. Vampilov A. End of the novel // Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. -Irkutsk. 1981.
58. Polyakov M. In the world of ideas and images: Historical poetics and theory of genres. M., 1983.
59. Chiladze T. Poetry drama//Modern dramaturgy. 1984. -№4.
60. Vampilov A. Success: A play in one act//Modern dramaturgy. 1986. - No. 1.
62. Vampilov A. How are our acacias? // Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. Irkutsk. - 1981.
63. Vampilov A. Last summer in Chulimsk//Vamdilov A. House with windows in the field. Irkutsk. - 1981.
64. Pogosova N.V. Theater of Alexander Vampilov: cultural aspect: Abstract of the thesis. dis. Candidate of Arts. M., 1994.
66. Vampilov A. Provincial jokes/UVampilov A. House with windows in the field. Irkutsk. - 1981.
67. Molchanova C.B. Please, closer to the text//Literary studies. 1993. - No. 3.
68. Shugaev V. About Vampilov // Vampilov A. White cities: Stories, journalism. M., 1979.
69. Gudkov L., Dubin B. The ideology of structurelessness (intelligentsia and the end of the Soviet era)//Znamya. 1995. - No. 11.1. Chapter II
70. Kurbatov V. “Into the depths of the departing and playing stars.”//Alexander Vampilov: Time and man of time: Collection of literary critical materials. Irkutsk. - 1997.
71. Vampilov A. Farewell in June // Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. -Irkutsk. 1981.
73. Pigulevsky V.O. The aesthetic meaning of irony in art (from romanticism to postmodernism): Abstract of the thesis. doc. dis. M., 1992.5. Angara. 1968. -№ 2.
74. Vampilov A. Elder son // Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. -Irkutsk. 1981.
75. Vampilov A. Notebooks. Irkutsk. - 1997.
76. Tyupa V.I. The artistry of a literary work. -Krasnoyarsk. 1987.
77. Musical life. 1983. - No. 12.
78. Gushanskaya E. Self-consciousness according to Vampilov//Star. 1989. - No.
79. Kozlova S.M. Paradoxes of Drama Drama of Paradoxes: Poetics of Drama Genres in the 1950s-1970s. - Novosibirsk. - 1993.
81. Vampilov A. Duck hunting//Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. -Irkutsk. 1981.
82. Rasputin In Afterword//Vampilov A. White cities. M., 1979.
83. Rudnitsky K. On the other side of fiction//Questions of literature. -1976. -No. 10.
84. Antipiev N. Frankness: Sat. lit.-critical Art. M., 1984.
85. Zhemchuzhnikov V. Unforgotten drama: Memories. Irkutsk. -1997.
86. Grakova I. About Vampilov /A. Vampilov. House with windows in the field. -Irkutsk. 1982.1. Chapter III
87. Smirnov I.P. Psychodiachronology. Psychohistory of Russian literature from romanticism to the present day. M., 1994.
88. Lipovetsky M. Russian postmodernism. Essays on historical poetics. Ekaterinburg. - 1997.
92. Farber F., Sverbilova T. A Vampilov's plays in the context of American culture: Elements of the theater of the absurd // Sovrem, dramaturgy. 1992. -№ 2.
93. Vampilov A. Notebooks. Irkutsk. - 1997.
94. Berkovsky N.Ya. Romanticism in Germany. L., 1973.
95. Beck T. Time in captivity, or Escape from captivity // Banner. 1996. - No. 5.
96. Murikov G. Imaginary victories in imaginary life//Modern dramaturgy. 1984. - No. 3.
97. Tyupa V.I. The artistry of a literary work. -Krasnoyarsk. 1987.
98. Lipovetsky M. "Freedom's black work." Sverdlovsk. -1991.
99. Eight bad plays. M., 1992.
101. Modern foreign literary criticism: Encyclopedic reference book. M., 1996.
102. Pogosova N.V. Theater of Alexander Vampilov: cultural aspect: Abstract of the thesis. dis.cand. art history. M., 1994.
103. Galdanova G. Traditional beliefs of the Buryats in the system of Buddhism // Buryat Buddhism: history and ideology. Ulan-Ude. -1997.
104. Kuzmin A.B. Metaphysics I: Self-identity, self-knowledge, spirituality: Cand. dis, Ulan-Ude. - 1998.
105. Tagore R. Sadhana//Lama A. Govinda. Creative meditation and multidimensional consciousness. M., 1993.
106. Medarich M. Autobiography / Autobiography // Autointerpretation: Sat. articles. SPb., 1998.
108. Shatina L.P. Reflection as an organizing principle of A. Vampilov's dramatic plot // Aesthetic discourse.1. Novosibirsk. 1991.
110. Lotman Yu.M. Selected articles: In 3 vols. T. No. - Tallinn. 1992.2 5. Bogdanova P. Anatoly Vasilyev: theory, nihilism, paradoxes//Modern dramaturgy. 1995. - No. 1-2.
111. Vasiliev A. New drama, new hero//Lit. review. 1981. - No. 1.
112. Vampilov A. Duck hunting//Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. -Irkutsk. 1981.
114. Kolobaeva L.A., Irony in the lyrics of Innokenty Annensky//Philological sciences. 1977. - No. 6.
115. Smelyansky A. Bulgakov in the Moscow Art Theater. M., 1989.
116. Kozlova S.M. Traditions of the genre of ironic drama (the experience of typological research: “Ivanov” by A.P. Chekhov and “Duck Hunt” by A. Vampilov / / Genre and composition of a literary work. Petrozavodsk, 1983.
117. Markovich V. Once again about "creative longing"//Neva. 1994. - No. 10.1. Conclusion
118. Vasiliev A. New drama, new hero//Literary review. -1981.-No. 1.
119. Lipovetsky M. Tragedy and who knows what else//New World. 1994. - No. Yu.
121. Nightingale Garden "// Principles of analysis of a literary work. -M., 1984.
122. LIST OF USED LITERATURE
123. Alexandrova A. Features of the expression of the author's position in the dramaturgy of A. Vampilov // Questions of Russian literature. Lvov. - 1990. - Issue. 2(5). - S. 124-132.
124. Andreev V. The Riddle of Man // Sovrem, Dramaturgy.-1982.-No. 3. S. 253-256.
125. Anikst A.A. Drama theory in the West in the first half of the 19th century. The era of romanticism. M., 1980.
126. Anninsky L. Pranks of the Sphinx // Sovrem, dramaturgy. 1983. - No. 2.-S. 192-194.
127. Antipiev N. An evil good man: Conflict in the drama of A. Vampilov // Siberia. 1976. - No. 5.
128. Antipiev N. Victor Zilov's Paradox: "Duck Hunt" by Alexander Vampilov / Antipiev N. Frankness. M., 1984. - S. 8-56.
129. Antipiev N. Psychological paradox in the plays of A. Vampilov // Problems of moral and psychological content in the literature and folklore of Eastern Siberia.-Irkutsk. 1982. - S. 30-39.
130. Aristotle. Poetics. -M, 1957.
131. Bakhtin M. The work of Francois Rabelais and the folk culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. M., 1965.
132. Bakhtin M.M. The art of the word and folk culture of laughter (Rabelais and Gogol)//Context-1972: Literary and theoretical studies. M., 1973. - S. 248-259.
133. Beck T. Time in captivity, or Escape from captivity // Banner. 1996. - No. 5. pp. 221-222.
134. Bentley E. Life of Drama. M., 1978.
135. Berkovsky N.Ya. Chekhov: From Stories and Novels to Drama // Berkovsky N.Ya. Literature and theatre. M., 1969.
136. Bogdanova P. Anatoly Vasiliev: theory, nihilism, paradoxes // Modern dramaturgy. 1995. - No. 1-2. - S. 188-201.
137. Borovikov S. Naturalness and theatricality: Dramaturgy A. Vampilov // Our contemporary. 1978. - No. 3. - S. 162-177.
138. Borovikov S. On the dramaturgy of A. Vampilov // Sovremennik: Crete, yearbook, 1979. M., 1979. - S. 227-246.
139. Borovikova V. Some features of the plot in the dramaturgy of A Vampilov // Problems of method and genre. Tomsk. -1977.-Iss. 5.- S. 125-134.
140. Bocharov A. Naughty jokes: (Iron. lit. 70s) // Bocharov A. Infinity of search. M., 1982. - S. 349-358.
141. Bocharov A. Sociability of irony // Vopr. lit., 1980. - No. 12. -S. 74-114.
142. Buyda Yu. Cynics and hypocrites. The generation that does not exist // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 1997. - 5 Nov.
143. Bulgak L. Time in the plays of the young // Theater, 1972. - No. 5. - P. 93-97.
144. Vampilov A. House with windows in the field: Plays. Essays and articles. Feuilletons. stories and scenes. Irkutsk. - 1981. - 690 p.
145. Vampilov A. Notebooks. Irkutsk. - 1997. - 112 s,
146. Vampilov A. Coincidence: Stories and scenes. Feuilletons. Essays and articles. Irkutsk. - 1988. - V.2.
147. Vampilov A.: Time and time man: Sat. lit.-crit. mat-lov. -Irkutsk. 1997.- 136 p.
148. Vampilov A.B. White cities: Stories, journalism. M., 1979. - 288 p.
149. Vampilov A.B. Favorites. M., 1999. - 776 p.
150. Vampilov on the amateur stage: Collection // Comp. J1.B. Nameless. Irkutsk. - 1997.- 96 p.
151. Vangu K. "Duck Hunt": a hero from the gap // Lit. study.-1997. Book 5-6. - S. 102 - 105.
152. Vasiliev A. New drama, new hero//Lit. review. 1981. - No. 8. - S. 86-89.
153. Wreath to Vampilov: Collection / Comp. L.V. Ioffe. Irkutsk. - 1997. -93 p.
154. Vishnevskaya I. Living soul // Theatre. 1974. - No. 7. - S. 80-85.
156. Volodin A. So restless at heart: Notes with digressions. -Spb., 1993.- 128 p.
157. Volkenstein V. Dramaturgy. -M, 1969.
158. Eight bad plays. M., 1992.
160. German V. The complexity of the "close-up" // Lit. review. 1980. - No. 12.-S. 43-44.
161. Goethe I.-V. About art. M., 1980.
162. Gladkovskaya L. Dramaturgy and modernity // Soviet dramaturgy. L., 1978. - S. 697-718.
163. Golenishchev-Kutuzov I.N. Irony and Zoshchenko // Russian Literature. 1995.- No. 3. - S. 18-20.
164. Gorbunova E. Questions of the theory of realistic drama of the 20th century. -M., 1963.
165. Goryushkina I. To the question of Chekhov's tradition in dramaturgy A, Vampilova // Izv. Sib. Department of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1983. - No. 6: Ser. societies, sciences. - Issue 2. - S. 128-134.
166. Goryushkina I. Artistic world of Alexander Vampilov // Science in Siberia. Novosibirsk. - 1983. - 13 Jan. - S. 18.
167. Grakova I. About Vampilov //A. Vampilov. House with windows in the field. -Irkutsk. 1982. - S. 604-608.
168. Grigoray I. Character and plot in the dramaturgy of A. Vampilov // Structure of a literary work. Vladivostok. - 1983. - S. 23-30.
169. Gromova M.I. Russian modern dramaturgy: Uch. settlement M., 1999. - 160 p.
170. Gromova M.I. Chekhov's traditions in the theater of A Vampilov // Literature at school. 1997. - No. 2. - S. 46-56.
171. Gushanskaya E. Alexander Vampilov: time and man of time // Star. 1982. - No. 11. - S. 160-163.
172. Gushanskaya E. Alexander Vampilov: Essay on creativity. L., 1990.
173. Gushanskaya E. Drama by Alexander Vampilov // Star. -1981. - No. 12. P. 180-189.
174. Gushanskaya E. Self-consciousness according to Vampilov // Zvezda.-1989.-№ 10.-p. 189-194.
175. Dark O.V.V.E., or the collapse of languages / / New lit. review. -1997. - No. 25. S. 246-262.
176. Dashevskaya O. Poetics of artistic time in the dramaturgy of A Vampilova // Artistic creativity and literary process. -Tomsk, 1985. S. 230-242.
177. Demidov A. On the work of A. Vampilov // Vampilov A. Favorites. M., 1975. - S. 461-492.
178. Demin G.G. Vampilov's traditions in the social drama and its embodiment on the capital's stage in the 70s: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. art history. M., 1986. - 16 s.
180. Erofeev Ven. Leave my soul alone: Almost everything. M., 1995. -408 p.
181. Zhakovskaya T. Poster for tomorrow // Neva. 1978. - No. 8. - S. 208-209.
182. Zhemchuzhnikov V.B. Unforgotten Drama: Memories. One act play. Irkutsk. - 1997. - 80 p.
183. Zholkovsky A. The art of adaptation // Zholkovsky A. Wandering dreams and other works. M., 1984. - S. 31-53.
184. Zhurcheva T. Dramaturgy of Alexander Vampilov in the historical and functional coverage (conflicts, characters, genre originality): Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1984. - 17 p.
185. Zhurcheva T. Vampilov's work in the mirror of literary criticism // Problems of the history of criticism and poetics of realism. -Kuibyshev. 1981.-S. 127-143.
186. Zhurcheva T.V. Creative history and stage fate of A. Vampilov's play "Farewell in June" 7 / Poetics of Realism. Kuibyshev. -1983.-S. 131-153.
187. Zhurcheva T.V. Artistic structure and stage history of A. Vampilov's play "Duck Hunt" // Poetics of Realism. -Kuibyshev. 1982. - S. 133-158.
188. Zborovets I. Vampilov-satirist // Issues of Russian literature. -Lviv. 1982. - Issue. 1. - S. 37-45.
189. Zborovets I. A house for a person: A Vampilov's multidimensional word // Lit. studies. 1984. - No. 1. - S. 141-150.
190. Zborovets I.V. Dramaturgy A.B. Vampilova: (Problems of character, artistic peculiarity): Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. Kyiv. - 1983. -24 p.
191. Zorkin V. Do not get away from memory: Strokes to the portrait of Alexander Vampilov. - Irkutsk. 1997. - 93 p.
192. Ivanova L.L. Dramaturgy A.B. Vampilova: (Features of the artist's creative individuality): Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences.-Lviv. 1983.- 16 p.
193. Ignatova N. Scales of time // Theatre, life. 1974. - No. 15. -S. 12-13.
194. Imikhelova S.S. Biblical allusions as a subject of modern literary hermeneutics // Literature and religion: problems of interaction in a general cultural context. Ulan-Ude. - 1999. -S. 42-46.
195. Imikhelova S.S. The main trends in the development of Russian Soviet drama in the 70s: (to the problems of modern times, the hero): Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1984. - 16 p.
197. Imikhelova S.S. The originality of the artistic method in the "author's" prose and dramaturgy of the 1960-1980s: Abstract of the thesis. dis. doc. philol. Sciences. M., 1996. - 39 p.
198. Imikhelova S.S. Modern hero in Russian Soviet dramaturgy of the 70s. Novosibirsk. - 1983. - 126 p.
199. Imikhelova S.S. Formation of the artist A. Vampilov .: from stories to drama / / Vestn. BGU. Ser. philol. - Ulan-Ude. -1999. - Issue. 4. - S.
200. Ischuk-Fadeeva N.I. Chekhov and Vampilov: traditions and innovation // Problems of the typology of Russian literature of the XX century. -Permian. 1991. - S. 99-112.
201. Kamyshev V. Philosophy of A. Vampilov: (Creative portrait of a playwright) // Baikal. 1989. - No. 5. - S. 79-80.
202. Kartasheva I.V. The story of N.V. Gogol's "The Nose" and Romantic Irony // From Karamzin to Chekhov. Tomsk. - 1992. - S. 154-162.
203. Kasatkina T.A. Irony in Dostoevsky's Possessed // Philological Sciences. 1993. - No. 2. - S. 69-80.
204. Kiselev H.H. Randomness in the structure of the action of A. Vampilov's plays//The problem of method and genre. Tomsk. - 1997. - Issue 19. -S. 266-275.
205. Klimenko V. Thirst for good: Notes on the work of A. Vampilov // Our contemporary. 1983. - No. 6. - S. 163-169.
206. Kozlova S.M. Paradoxes of Drama Drama of Paradoxes: The Poetics of Drama Genres in the 1950s-1970s. - Novosibirsk. - 1993. - 128 p.
207. Kozlova S.M. Traditions of the genre of ironic drama (the experience of typological research: "Ivanov" by A.P. Chekhov and "Duck Hunt" by A. Vampilov // Genre and composition of a literary work. Petrozavodsk. - 1983. - P. 85-94.
208. Kolobaeva JI.A. Irony in the lyrics of Innokenty Annensky // Philological Sciences. 1977. - No. 6. - S. 21-29.
209. Kononenko E.I. Space of irony: theory and artistic practice. Voronezh. - 1990. - 92 p.
210. Korobov M.V. Reading Vampilova//Russia/K.Sh81a: The Seventies as a Subject of the History of Russian Culture M.-Venice. - 1998. - Issue. 1 (9).-S. 125-134.
211. Kostelyanets B. Drama and action. JI., 1976.
212. Kralin M. "The most truthful theatre.": On the poetics of A. Vampilov // Lit. studies. 1979.-No. 1.-S. 123-132.
213. Krechetova R. Artist and play // Sovrem, dramaturgy. 1983. - No. 3. - S. 237-245.
214. Kuzmin A.B. Metaphysics I: self-identity, self-knowledge, spirituality: Dis. .cand. philosophy Sciences. Ulan-Ude. - 1998. - 127 p.
215. Kurbatov A. "Into the depths of the departing and playing stars." // Vampilov A. Duck hunting: Plays. Irkutsk. - 1987. - S. 3-26.
216. Lakshin V. Days and years of Vampilov's heroes // Youth. 1976. - No. 5. - S. 60-62.
217. Lakshin V. Living soul: (Life and work of A. Vampilov) //
219. Lipovetsky M. "Freedom is a dirty job.". Sverdlovsk. - 1991. - 272 p.
220. Lipovetsky M. Russian postmodernism. Essays on historical poetics. -Ekaterinburg. 1997.
221. Losev A.F. Ancient and Romantic Irony // Aesthetics and Art: From the History of Pre-Marxist Aesthetic Thought. M., 1966. - S. 54-80.
222. Lyubimov Yu.P. About Vampilov //Star. 1997. - No. 8. - S. 140-142.
223. Magdieva S.S. Philosophical drama of modernity: the function of the parable in it (A. Vampilov, R. Ibragimbekov): Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1989. - 24 p.
224. Maksimova V. The fate of the first plays // Sovrem, dramaturgy. 1982. -№2.- S. 213-224.
225. Makhova M.S. "Sinners and Angels" in the dramaturgy of A. Vampilov // Actual problems of modern philology. Saratov. - 1984. -S. 43-51.
226. Makhova M.S. Drama by A. Vampilov. Traditions and innovation: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1991. - 16 p.
227. Makhova M.S. The Vampilov Phenomenon. M., 1999. - 193 p.
228. Merkulova M.G. Time in the dramaturgy of A. Vampilov // Problems of the evolution of literature of the XX century. M., 1995. - Issue. 2, - S. 130-131.
229. Merkulova M.G. Dramaturgy A.B. Vampilov in the historical and literary context: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1995.-25 p.
230. Molchanova S. Please, closer to the text: (On the dramaturgy of A. Vampilov) // Russian speech. 1993. - No. 3. - S. 7-12.
231. Morozov B. On both sides of the ramp // Theater. 1983. - No. 6. - S. 36-37.
232. Mostkov Yu. Habitual miracles//Irkutsk story. Irkutsk. 1983.-S. 8-9.
233. Nikitin G. Vampilov's experience (dramatist's notes) // Moscow.1984. -No. 4. -S. 184-192.
234. Ovcharenko A. Dramatic saga: Plays by A. Vampilov // Mol. guard. 1985. - No. 2. - S. 248-257.
235. Paradox about drama. Rereading the plays of the 1920s and 1930s. M., 1993.
237. Pivoev V.M. Irony as an aesthetic category // Philosophical sciences. 1982. - No. 4.
238. Pigulevsky V.O. The aesthetic meaning of irony in art: Abstract of the thesis. dis. doc. philosophy Sciences. M., 1992. - 37 p.
239. Pigulevsky V.O., Mirskaya J1.A. Symbol and irony. Kishinev. -1990.- 157 p.
240. Pisareva O.A. Irony in the novels of JI. Leonov in the 30s // Poetics of Russian Soviet Prose. -Ufa. 1989. - S. 49-55.
241. Pogosova N.V. Theater of Alexander Vampilov: culturologist, aspect: Abstract of the thesis. dis. Candidate of Arts. M., 1994. - 199 p.
242. Polyakov M.Ya. In the world of ideas and images: Historical poetics and the theory of genres. M., 1983. - 368 p.
243. Pronin A. High tension of small forms: Characters and conflicts in one-act dramaturgy A.V. Vampilova // Siberia. -1984.-No. 5.-S. 93-98.
244. Pronin A.M. Soviet one-act drama of the 1960s-1970s: (Conflicts and characters in the plays by A. Volodin, A. Vampilov, V. Rozov): Abstract of the thesis. dis.cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1984.- 16 p.
245. Propp V.Ya. The nature of the comic in Gogol // Russian literature. - 1988. No. 1. - P. 27-43.
247. Rasputin V. About Vampilov // Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. -Irkutsk. 1981, -S. 588-590.
248. Reutsky P. A young man with Chekhov's talent // Vampilov A. Finnish knife and Persian lilac: Stories and essays. Irkutsk. -1997.-S. 3-4.
249. Rozov V. "I wrote my first play from hunger" / / Prince. review. -2000.-№3.-S. 5.
250. Rozov V. Dialogue about drama // In the world of books. 1974. - No. 3.
251. Rozov V. In memory of Alexander Vampilov // Theater. 1972. - No. 10. -WITH. 122-123.
252. Russia/Russia. Issue. 1 (9): The seventies as a subject of the history of Russian culture. - M.-Venice. - 1998. - 304 p.
253. Roshchina O.S. Ironic mode of artistry//Young philology. Novosibirsk. - 1998. - Issue. 2. - S. 3-19.
254. Rubina S. Irony as a structure-forming principle of the play by E. Schwartz "Dragon" 7 / Content of artistic forms. -Kuibyshev. 1986. - S. 61-77.
255. Rubina S.B. Irony as a system-forming principle in the dramaturgy of E. Schwartz: Abstract of the thesis. dis. PhD phil. Sciences. Gorky. - 1989. - 16 p.
256. Rubina S.B. The functions of irony in various artistic methods // Content of artistic forms in fiction.-Kuibyshev. 1988. - S. 40-51.
257. Rudnitsky K. On the other side of fiction: Notes on the dramaturgy of A. Vampilov // Vopr. lit. 1976. - No. 10. - S. 77-90.
258. Rybalchenko T. Ironic-philosophical prose in the modern literary process // Problems of method and genre. Tomsk. - 1991.- Issue 17. pp. 190-207.
259. Sakharov V. Theater of Alexander Vampilov // Our contemporary. -1976. -No. 3.
260. Sakharov V. Theater of Alexander Vampilov // Sakharov V. Human Affairs. M., 1985. - S. 223-239.
261. Sakhnovsky-Pankeev V. Drama. Conflict. Composition. Stage life. M., 1969.
262. Semyon G.Ya. Paradox as a stylistic device // Philological Sciences. 1987.- No. 5. - S. 80-83.
263. Sergeev M. Theater of Alexander Vampilov // Literature of Siberia: History and Modernity. Novosibirsk. - 1984. - S. 143-157.
264. Skaftymov A.P. Moral searches of Russian writers: Articles and researches about Russian classics. M., 1972.
265. Smelkov Yu. Renewal of the conflict // New world. 1976. - No. 4. -S. 241-246.
266. Smelkov Yu. Vampilov Theater plays and performances // Lit. review. - 1975. - No. 3. - S. 92-96.
267. Smirnov I.P. Psychodiachronology. Psychohistory of Russian literature from romanticism to the present day. M, 1994. - 352 p.
268. Smirnov S. "Here are our roots" // Lit. review. 1980. - No. 12.
269. Smirnov S. Behind the line of drama: On the textual criticism of A. Vampilov's plays // Lit. review. 1987. - No. 8. - S. 99-100.
270. Smirnov S. On the "post-vampilian" dramaturgy //Third scientific-theoretical. conference of young scientists [Irkutsk State University. A.A. Zhdanov]: Tez. dokl.-Irkutsk, 1985. S. 60-61.
271. Smirnov S.R. "Mother son never": Unfinished song by A. Vampilov and V. Shukshin // Lit. review. 1997. - No. 5. - S. 86-89.
272. Sobennikov A.S. Chekhov traditions in the dramaturgy of A. Vampilov // Chekhoviana: Chekhov in the culture of the XX century. M., 1997.
273. Modern foreign literary criticism: encyclopedic reference book. M., 1996.
274. Solovyov V. Righteous and sinners of Alexander Vampilov // Aurora. 1975. - No. 1. - S. 61-63.
275. Streltsova E. "The Situation of the Threshold" in the plays of A. Vampilov: Through the pages of the playwright's works // Baikal. 1984. - No. 6. - S. 111-116.
276. Streltsova E. "What seemed like a joke.": Prose A. Vampilov // Lit. review. 1979. - No. 10. - S. 36-40.
277. Streltsova E. Shotgun or telephone?: On the symbolism of the play "Duck Hunt" by Alexander Vampilov // Russian speech. 1988. - No. 4. - S. 44-50.
278. Streltsova E.I. The captivity of duck hunting. Irkutsk. - 1998. - 374 p.
279. Sushkov B. Alexander Vampilov. M., 1989. - 165 p.
280. Tenditnik N. Alexander Vampilov. Novosibirsk. - 1979. - 71 p.
281. Tenditnik N. In the battle for human hearts: (On the plays of A. Vampilov) // Siberia. 1972. - No. 6. - S. 79-105.
282. Tenditnik N. Truths are old, but eternal: (Creativity of A. Vampilov) // Tenditnik N. Masters. Irkutsk. - 1981. - S. 125-210.
283. Tenditnik N. Early Vampilov // Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. -Irkutsk. -1981. pp. 565-572.
284. Tenditnik N.S. In the face of truth: Essay on the life and work of Alexander Vampilov. Irkutsk. - 1997. - 140 p.
285. Tovstonogov G. How to talk with a classic? //Sovrem, dramaturgy. 1982. - No. 4. - S. 206-209.
286. Tovstonogov G. Sense of the theater: To the 40th anniversary of A. Vampilov // Theatre. -1977. No. 2.-S. 74-77.
287. Tolstykh V. A stranger among his own // Lit. studies. 1981. - No. 5. - S. 158-168.
288. Trofimova E.I. On irony in modern Russian poetry //Philological sciences. 1998. - No. 5-6. - S. 14-20.
289. Trushkin V. Literary Irkutsk: Essays, lit. portraits, sketches.-Irkutsk. 1981.
290. Tynyanov Y. Poetics. History of literature. Movie. M., 1977. - S. 277.
291. Tyupa V. Artistry of a literary work. -Krasnoyarsk. 1987.
293. Uvarova-Daniel I. "Either a true story, or a fiction." / / New lit. review. ¿997. - No. 25. - S. 201-214.
294. Umarov E., Pal I. The problem of the genre in the performing arts // Star of the East. 1981. - No. 2.
295. Fadeeva N.I. Dramatic hero and his modifications in tragedy and comedy // Philological Sciences. 1984, - No. 4.
296. Farber F., Sverbilova T. A. Vampilov's plays in the context of American culture: Elements of the theater of the absurd And Sovrem, dramaturgy. 1992. - No. 2.
297. Khalizev V.E. Drama as an art form. M., 1978.
298. Tsymbalistenko N.V. Artistic skill of Alexander Vampilov: Abstract of the thesis. dis. cand. philol. Sciences. Bitter. - 1986.
299. Chiladze T. Poetry of drama // Sovrem, dramaturgy. 1984. - No. 4,
300. Shaitanov I. Heroes and situations of modern drama // Sib. lights. -1978. No. 9.
301. Shamrey L. Social and individual in the dramaturgy of A.P. Chekhov and A. Vampilov // Traditions and innovation in Russian literature of the 19th century: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr.-Gorky. 1983.
302. Shatina L.P. Reflection as an Organizing Principle of A Vampilov's Dramatic Plot // Aesthetic Discourse. -Novosibirsk. 1991.
303. Shugaev V. About Vampilov // A Vampilov. White cities: Stories and journalism. M., 1979. - S. 267-286.
304. Epstein M. After the carnival, or the Eternal Venichka / / Erofeev Ven. Leave my soul alone: Almost everything. M., 1995. - S. 3-30.
305. Yurchenko O.O. Irony in the plays of A. Vampilov. Ulan-Ude. -1999.- Issue. 4.
306. Yashina N. Lyrical beginning in the dramaturgy of A. Vampilov // Problems of literary genres: Materials of the third scientific. interuniversity conf. 6-9 Feb. 1979 Tomsk. - 1979.
Answer left Guest
Shukshin's heroes have a feature that makes them part of the writer's individual artistic world - the absence of spiritual inertia, indifference. These simple people are not concerned with material goods, but with their inner world, they think, seek, try to understand the meaning of their existence, their feelings, to defend themselves.)
According to V. Rasputin, before V. Shukshin, “no one else in our literature claimed the right to himself with such impatience, no one managed to make himself listen to such an internal matter. to believe, the essence of personality, the continuing life of a permanent, historical person, not broken by temporary hardships.")
2.
The hero of our time is always the "fool" in whom his time lives most expressively, the truth of this time.
V. Shukshin
The heroes of the stories of Vasily Makarovich Shukshin are often simple, uncomplicated, open, stubborn people who love their land and nature. They are gullible to those around them, who do not always understand them and therefore consider them strange, "freaks". The heart of Shukshin's "freaks" is sensitive to someone else's pain and joy, and the mind is directed to actively changing the surrounding life for the better. Unfortunately, most often these kind and cheerful people remain alone, because their inquisitiveness and curiosity are alien to those around them, and the desire to selflessly help is even scary or, at best, causes
irritation.
I really like V. Shukshin's stories "Crank", "Microscope", "Give me a heart!", The main characters of which are these same "strange people" with their own original view of the world. Andrey Erin ("Microscope") is ready to make sacrifices (to get a terrible headache from his wife, to work for more than a month and a half shifts and, most importantly, to be able to suppress the pangs of conscience due to deceit), just to realize his cherished dream - to acquire a microscope. Neither his wife nor his friends will ever be able to understand why throwing away a lot of money to buy an "unnecessary" item, but Andrey does not aspire to this. His goal is lofty and humane - he wants to learn how to deal with "germs" that shorten a person's life by almost three times. Thinking about humanity, Andrei is ready to endure suffering and misunderstanding on the part of loved ones. You involuntarily imbue this person with respect, even realizing that he has taken up a task that is beyond his power - he lacks elementary knowledge.
The desire to move forward, a sense of belonging
to everything that is done in the world, the ability to sincerely
rejoice in world discoveries and achievements in the field of
this technology and science characterizes the rural veterinarian
Kazulin.
The whole trouble is that Shukshin's "freaks" with their unbridled fantasy, loftiness above everyday trifles and the eternal desire for truth and justice live among ordinary people, immersed in everyday life and everyday problems. This is the reason for their misunderstanding and distrust of the "strangeness" of Shukshin's favorite heroes. "Freaks" themselves are often aware of their otherness and sincerely upset if their actions are perceived incorrectly. Such is the Chudik from the story of the same name: benevolent and awkward, compliant and proud, unhappy and cheerful. His desire to help, to do the best, invariably brought him trouble: “The Freak had one peculiarity: something constantly happened to him. ". But to me, as well as to the author, Chudik is sympathetic precisely because of his unwillingness (or inability?) to learn the "prose of life", his lack of understanding of how one can be insincere, not help each other. A weirdo gets joy from life itself, and not from whether it develops the way he wants or not.
These are the heroes of Shukshin's stories. They, to be careful, are still found in our lives today, still facing hostility, 2/2 Like Comment Complain
A. VAMPILOV, SOIL DRAMEWIST
It so happened in Soviet literature that dramaturgy was the phenomenon most subject to clan influences. Outwardly not advertised, but a clear division into “us” and “them” made it difficult for “strangers” to get into the “dramatic workshop”. 1 And others were disdainful to get there, seeing who one had to be and what to correspond to in order to fit into the “elite”.
The best Russian playwright of the second half of the 20th century, Alexander Vampilov, was perceived by the "elite" as "alien". The consequence was lifetime half-fame and posthumous fame lasting about a decade (70s - early 80s), after which the stage of lasting oblivion set in with a break on duty in 1997, the anniversary year for the writer.
The main reason for such a disproportion between the scale of Vampilov's talent and the place in literature assigned to him by most influential critics (on a par with A. Arbuzov, V. Rozov, A. Volodin, M. Roschin, A. Gelman, I. Dvoretsky, L. Petrushevskaya and others, and even below some of them), - a conscious neglect and rejection of the soil orientation of his plays. Attempts to start a truthful conversation about Vampilov were preempted by historical and literary arguments: “Vampilov did not grow out of the “soil”, he grew up, by the way, from the “youth” literature of the 60s. 2 So what? And Shukshin "grew out of her", and the early Rasputin and Belov were formed not without her influence. Growing up doesn't mean growing up. The 20th century is the era of the crisis of the Russian national consciousness, therefore it is not surprising that even the greatest talents went indirect ways to pochvenism.
But the well-known critic's formula is unfair also because in Vampilov's dramaturgy one can find many multidirectional tendencies. Take any of them - and build a concept. L. Anninsky tried to connect Vampilov's work with the "youth" literature of the sixties, and it is possible - with Chekhov, and with the theater of the absurd, and with anything, up to postmodernism. There are objective grounds for such parallels. However, parallels lead away from the highway if they seek to replace it with themselves.
The cunning gift of Alexander Valentinovich often pushed him to the playful form of presenting the Russian idea. Deliberate non-seriousness of tone, paradoxes, humour, irony, clownish vaudeville, liberties with "eternal" themes and plots, free travels in the dramatic tradition, etc. you gave folklore Ivanushka the Fool in Vampilovo, who is used to keeping the secret under a bushel. Vampilov managed to turn the notorious, chronic for Soviet dramaturgy, conflict-freeness into an elegant artistic device.
However, his acting had a clear limit, indicated by the concepts of "Russian conscience", "Russian soul", "Russian fate". The fundamental insensitivity to them became the basis for the creation of the myth of Vampilov. The extreme poles of this myth were, on the one hand, the excommunication of the playwright from the soil movement, and, on the other hand, the thesis that Vampilov's talent was not realized. Our article is devoted to controversy from the first of these positions, and we will say a few words about the second. Outwardly quite plausible (the early death of the playwright, his relatively small creative heritage, etc.), it is fraught with an unexpected, to some extent unforeseen turn of logic: if it didn’t come true, then it didn’t have time to express the cherished . An analysis of Vampilov's creativity testifies that he succeeded.
For Alexander Valentinovich, the main topic was the definition of the spiritual and moral coordinates in which his compatriots-contemporaries find themselves. The playwright sought to find out to what extent today's Russians have retained their connection with their root traditions, how difficult it is to restore and how this connection, which is the key to the identity and vitality of the people, can be restored. Let me emphasize: Vampilov is talking primarily about Russian people and Russian problems (and not about Soviet or “common human” problems that do not exist in his work outside the Russian context). For the sake of this, the writer created his works, it was the axis around which the intricate "architecture" of his plays arose. For the sake of affirming the key soil values - conscience, sympathy and mutual assistance as necessary prerequisites for the existence of the Russian spirit - he showed the relationship of characters: relatives and strangers, close and distant.
It is no coincidence, therefore, that Vampilov's dramaturgy is based on two contrasting types of personality: conciliar 3 and individualistic. And the types of morality corresponding to them: soil-based, which has Orthodoxy as its source, and pragmatic, which has Western roots and is nationally destructive, from the point of view of the writer, orientation. The conflict between these opposing principles is central to Vampilov's dramaturgy and forms the basis for the problems of historical memory and national self-consciousness that are essential for modern soil culture.
In Vampilov's plays, there is a contrast between public life (permeated with falsehood) and private life, where the authenticity of the human soul is revealed. The playwright understands that in the conditions of the dominance of atheism and internationalism, family and life become a stronghold of historical memory and national identity. It is not surprising that he transfers the action of his plays mainly to these spheres, where the heroes are minimally affected by the need to put on the mask of a Soviet person and they get the greatest opportunity to be themselves. And here often there is a transformation of Vampilov's characters, a spontaneous, at first glance, change in their behavior, when fateful decisions are made by them on the go and just as unexpectedly the deep Russian essence of their characters is revealed.
Already in his debut drama - "one-act" "Twenty Minutes with an Angel" (original title - "Angel", 1962) - Vampilov spoke about the most relevant. The late version of this play (with the buffoonish genre subtitle "Second Anecdote") was made by the playwright as the final part of "Provincial Anecdotes". The genre of the resulting dilogy was named by the author with irony: "A tragic performance in two parts."
The play "Twenty Minutes with an Angel", starting as a farce, ends with a dramatic collision. Two businessmen with "alcoholic" surnames Anchugin and Ugarov, waking up in a hotel room, suffer from a hangover. They don't have the money to buy alcohol. The corridor hotel Vasyuta and the inhabitants of neighboring rooms do not lend. And then drunkards, having reached an extreme degree of despair, resort to traditional Russian methods of salvation: they turn to both neighbors and distant ones. Ugarov sends a telegram to his mother, and Anchugin starts shouting from the window, calling on passers-by: “Good people! Help!".
It may seem that Vampilov builds the plot of the play for the sake of mockery of the unlucky characters. However, such a conclusion would be superficial. Yes, they are funny in their alcoholic "suffering", but the main intrigue lies ahead. After all, the fundamental question that worries the heroes of most of Vampilov's plays is whether there are people in the world who live according to their conscience. The righteous are searched for during the day with fire, and when they find them, they arrange a “strength test” for them.
This is what happens with the appearance on the stage of Khomutov. He has a "soil" surname and profession - an agronomist (in the professions of Anchugin and Ugarov - the motive of separation from the roots: the first of them is a driver, the second is a freight forwarder). Khomutov offers the "suffering" money, motivating his responsiveness as follows: "It is not easy for all of us, mortals, and we must help each other."
However, in Soviet people, the ethical motivation of actions is suspicious. Therefore, Anchugin and Ugarov, sensing a trick in Khomutov's responsiveness, turn from hangover drunkards into representatives of society. And already, as “public people,” they build versions according to which Khomutov is either a psycho, or a drunk, either from the police, or from the “organs,” or a thief, or a blackmailer. Ugarov is even ready to admit that the money was offered by Khomutov out of the kindness of his soul, but he connects his disinterestedness with faith in God. In the Sovietized consciousness of Ugarov, religiosity is a reprehensible quality, hence the investigator's intonation: “By the way, do you believe in God?<…>Are you by any chance a member of a sect?
So caricature characters "remembered" their roots. Vampilov shows that it is not easy for Russian people living in the second half of the 20th century to do this. After all, Khomutov answers the question of Ugarov quite in the Soviet way: "In God? .. No, but ...". Nevertheless, he stubbornly tries to awaken a moral sense in his interlocutors, appealing not to conciliar unity, but to blood kinship: “Tell me, are your parents alive?” However, this question only raises further suspicions. And when witnesses invited by drunkards appear in the hotel room, the discussion takes on new shades of sociality. Ugarov, in proof of his Soviet righteousness (and what is the price in the eyes of the author, it turns out from the character’s further remark) says: “... I get toilet bowls for my native city ...”. The parodic style of this saying, as well as the context in which the word “native” is placed, show how negatively the author perceives separation from the “soil”.
For the majority of those invited, the "religious-psychiatric" version of Khomutov's behavior seems the most plausible. Corridor Vasyuta: "Aren't you an angel from heaven, God forgive me." Touring violinist Bazilsky: “Maniac! Do you imagine yourself to be Jesus Christ?” . Engineer Stupak: “Nonsense. And besides, it's religious." In aggressive but friendly attacks on Khomutov - a perverted manifestation of the conciliar feeling. His background: how dare you think you're better than us?
At the same time, a number of statements are being built that affirm the postulates of pragmatic morality. Vasyuta says that “with a car, for example, a husband is better than without a car,” and Stupak is interested in “how much is disinterestedness today.” It would seem that Khomutov is alone, defeated, and moral values are ridiculed along with him. But Vampilov, a virtuoso master of intrigue, helps his hero get out of the impasse. This time (as in most of the playwright's subsequent plays), salvation comes from the female side. Vampilov finds his own use for the well-known imperative “look for a woman”. Stupak's wife Faina believes in Khomutov's sincerity and thus challenges him to be frank. The hero admits that he recently buried his mother, whom he had not seen for six years and whom he was going to, but never bothered to send money. And now I decided to give these hundred rubles to the first person who needs them.
And then everyone rushes to Khomutov with words of repentance and sympathy. The same Vasyuta “changes the record”: “Lord, what a sin<…>Where there is money, there is evil - it's always like that. They really feel sorry for Khomutov. But they also rejoice: he is the same as us, which means that we are also people, which means that we can be considered people without making any special efforts. How important it is for them, Russians, to have a sense of moral worth. And at what a small price they, formed in forgetful times, want to acquire it. Therefore, Vampilov lets his heroes go in a vicious circle, as if saying: until you firmly return to your roots, you will forever wander from the rejected, but inalienable traditional morality to the seductive new one.
At the moment of general unanimity, Ugarov quietly sends Vasyuta for wine, and she fulfills his order, obviously counting on a bribe. And the final "unifier" is the bottle. To celebrate, Anchugin and Ugarov sing to the accompaniment of the touring violinist Bazilsky. It is planned, although it remains outside the plot, a serious quarrel between Stupak and Faina, who saw in her husband's worldly sophistication a morally unacceptable essence for herself.
The result to which Vampilov brings us is disappointing: Russian people, contemporaries of the playwright, are able to remember their moral foundations only when they find themselves in an extreme situation. And for everyday life, pragmatic morality is also suitable for them. Her burden, like a collar, hangs on the Russian neck. And life turns into an anecdote with a tragic background - this is, obviously, the key to Vampilov's genre "tricks".
The playwright continued the game he had begun, calling his second one-act play "The House with Windows in the Field" (written no later than 1964) a comedy. The house in which the action takes place stands on the edge of the village, which prompts the reader and the viewer to remember the proverb: “My hut is on the edge - I don’t know anything.” But with Vampilov, everything happens exactly the opposite. The main events have been moved to the “house on the edge”.
The plot of the play is simple, almost vaudeville. Teacher Tretyakov, having worked in the village for the prescribed three years, decides to leave for the city. In parting, he goes to his good friend Astafyeva. The heroine's surname is consonant with the phrase "leave him", which, on the one hand, means "let go", and on the other - "delay". This is how Astafieva behaves towards Tret-yakov: wishing that he would stay, she pronounces, skillfully alternating, now parting, now delaying phrases. The teacher, a fat and slow person, follows Astafieva's lead, fully justifying the saying: "To be a bull on a string." Not without reason, according to the author's will, the heroine runs a dairy farm, and the hero has a "cow" surname (remember from folklore: a third-rate bull).
At the very last moment, Tretyakov decides to stay in the house with windows in the field. And he utters meaningful, albeit seemingly strange words: “Crazy people are now returning to the city ...”, which can be interpreted as follows: leaving an empty village - a field, primordial Russia - is madness. The weight of this problem is emphasized by the choir present in the play. According to Vampilov, the departure of the intelligentsia (and not only them) from the Russian countryside is an event no less colossal than those described in ancient dramas. It is also significant that in Vampilov's play the choir sings folk songs. Their texts are selected with intent: like the parts of the choir in the ancient drama, they become a commentary on the actions of the characters and the voice of the highest court. Thus, it is unlikely to be a big stretch to assert that Tretyakov's choice was corrected by the voice of the people, by centuries-old traditions.
In the center of the play "The House with Windows in the Field" is an epoch-making problem, one of the main ones in soil literature. However, the heroes do not perceive its scale and tragedy. Therefore, they become the characters of the work, which the author attributed to the comedy genre. Like the characters in other dramas by Vampilov, they do not see the dialectic of the particular and the general: believing that they are solving exclusively personal issues, they are not aware of their contribution to solving the problem of the national level.
In 1964, the turn came for Vampilov's two-act plays. He wrote the comedy The Fair, later known as Goodbye in June. And again, the genre designation hints at the presence of content hidden from a superficial glance. Be indignant and bewildered, reader and viewer, maybe you will be able to dig deeper, Vampilov teases.
The idea of movement in a vicious circle of moral problems - a leitmotif in the work of the playwright - is embedded in the name of the protagonist of "Farewell in June", graduate student Kolesov, in the characters and relationships of the characters, in the ring composition of the play. The work begins and ends with a scene at a poster stand at a bus stop. Kolesov meets Tanya, sympathy arises between them. But soon the hero ends up in the police for an extravagant attempt to invite a popular singer to the wedding of a classmate with a perfectly chosen "empty" surname Goloshubova. The student is in danger of being expelled from the institute.
But suddenly (usually with Vampilov) it turns out that Tanya's father is the rector Repnikov. He did not excel in science, but he reached heights as an administrator. Unlike him, Kolesov is a promising young scientist and an extraordinary personality. And therefore - a living reproach to the mediocre rector, especially as a possible future son-in-law. 4 Repnikov (who knows how to cling to his career like a burdock) decides to teach the obstinate student a lesson, to show him where the "truth of life" is. And he offers Kolesov a test for pragmatism: for a diploma and a place in graduate school, he must refuse Tanya.
The student accepts the rector's proposal. When negotiating, they use the vocabulary of a trade deal. Repnikov is no less free than the characters in the play “Twenty Minutes with an Angel”, who “grounded” Khomutov: “Agree, you and I have something in common ...”. Kolesov's moral rift went through the crack that, in the era of national depersonalization, ran across the Russian conscience. The hero has exchanged human relations for profit. But when he saw Tanya again at the graduation party, he was horrified by his compromise and tore up a brand new diploma. The difficult restoration of relations with the girl begins (and will it come true?) With this gesture. However, the betrayal has already taken place. And Tanya throws Kolesova: “No, I don’t believe you. How do I know, maybe you will change me again. In the interest of the business. I can't do that."
The young heroes of Vampilov take not only love, but also marriage lightly. Student Bukin marries classmate Masha in order to get a place in a hostel for a drinking buddy. The newlyweds perceive the upcoming divorce as an empty formality: "You need to apply to the registry office - just something." Again, a piece of paper (document) becomes the measure of conscience. And again, the relationship of the characters begins to develop in a circle. Addressing Masha, Bukin says: “Before leaving, you always want to make peace. So accepted. Neuro-nicks ". The hero's ironic reaction to what is "accepted" (that is, to the tradition of maintaining the priority of human relations) and to the awakening of his own conscience is indicative. Masha behaves similarly when, explaining the reason for her tears, she says: “I have alcohol ...”.
"Neurasthenia", "alcoholism", "madness", "melancholy", etc. - Vampilian metaphors, signaling the appearance of moral anxiety in the heroes. And if we take into account that Vampilov's characters are predominantly young people, it becomes obvious that the playwright is interested in the "front line" of the struggle for soil values, their present and near future.
Vampilov is not a pessimist. However, he subjects his heroes to constant moral tests. In his dramas, relations between people are not only destroyed or restored, but are also replaced by new ones, and not always the best ones. In the play “Farewell in June”, the resourceful businessman Zolotuev calls Kolesov his nephew and invites him to live with him: “I'm alone, you know. One, like a finger. I’ll write down the house for you, the dacha, the car ... ". Having lied once, the protagonist acquires a dubious environment. For Zolotuev, who has criminal experience, there are no honest people: “An honest person is one who is given little. It is necessary to give so much that a person could not refuse ... ". Most of all, this pragmatist is amazed by the auditor (an off-stage character), who first refused a bribe and brought the dishonest seller to justice, and then did not accept a large sum from him for the mere admission of his wrong. 5 Here the criminal is also curious, disinterested in his desire to ask the price of someone else's conscience.
Vampilov experienced his highest rise in 1967, when he created the plays "Elder Son" and "Duck Hunt". The first of them, according to the custom established by the dramaturge, was called a comedy and in the initial version was called "Suburb". By the time this drama came out as a separate edition (1970), Vampilov revised it and changed its name.
The plot of the plot of "The Elder Son" is happening rapidly. Two young people, hardly knowing each other, missed the last train and went in search of lodging for the night. As the action unfolds, we learn that Busygin is a medical student and Silva is a sales agent. In Vampilov's system of coordinates, this means that the former is only morally self-determining and is called upon to "heal" human souls and relationships, while the latter has managed to make a choice in favor of pragmatic morality. 6 Already the first words of Silva testify to this choice: he parodies the words of a folk song. And Vampilov does not forgive such jokes to his characters, even in comedy.
In company with a friend (a superficial understanding of sobornost), Busygin also tries to “shine” with pragmatism. At his university, he studies "physiology, psychoanalysis and other useful things." (The fact that these disciplines are taught without attention to the moral aspect and to the person as a whole person is a passing stone in the garden of the Soviet education system, which is basically Western.) Therefore, the student suggests “utilizing” human relations: “People have a fat skin, and it is not so easy to break through it. It is necessary to lie properly, only then will they believe you and sympathize with you. They need to be frightened or moved to pity.
A chain of accidents leads to the goal of friends (Vampilov is faithful to his methods of creating intrigue). They overhear the beginning of Sarafanov's conversation with Makarskaya and show up at Vassenka's just at the moment when he is absorbed in his problems and remains alone in the room. Friends lie in turn. The initiative belongs to Busygin. He is talking with Vasenka, appealing to his soul: “Man is a brother to man, I hope you heard about this.” Silva immediately grabs onto this formula and betrays to the dumbfounded teenager that Busygin is his own brother.
Vassenka believes in this lie not only out of naivety and inexperience. The Sarafanov family is on the verge of collapse. The mother left them long ago. Nina is going to marry a military school cadet Kudimov, who was assigned to Sakhalin. Vasenka himself, dejected by his unrequited love for Makarska, wants to leave for a construction site. But the guilt and pain for the disintegrating family, as well as the shame of the father left alone, remain in his soul. Therefore, for him, the unexpected appearance of Busygin as a close relative seems like a happy way out of the current situation.
And for Andrei Grigoryevich Sarafanov, it is simply saving. Fourteen (twice seven) years since his wife left him, who "turned up one engineer 7 - a serious person." In letters, the ex-wife mockingly calls him blessed, and the children consider him a loser who cannot stand up for himself. He really is like that, if you do not see his human essence. He raised his daughter and son, never finding a new wife who could replace their mother; worked in the symphony orchestra of the Philharmonic, but was laid off and now plays at funerals and dances, unskillfully hiding it from children; writes either a cantata, or an oratorio “All people are brothers”, but it does not move beyond the first page - Manilov's pace!
Sarafanov has a soft, gentle character, to match his surname, which comes from the name of Russian women's peasant clothing. He believes that “life is just and merciful. She makes heroes doubt, and those who did little, and even those who did nothing, but lived with a pure heart, she will always console. Sarafanov sees the meaning of his life in children. But this does not prevent him during a quarrel from reproaching them for prudence, which in his eyes, as well as in the eyes of the author, looks like an unconditional moral flaw.
The appearance of Busygin for Andrey Grigorievich means the acquisition of a kindred soul and becomes a reason for celebration. Yes, having learned that the student is not his son, Sarafanov insists: "live with us." And, turning to Busygin and his own children, he says: “I’m bad or good, but I love you, and this is the most important thing.”
A large place in the play, as in all of Vampilov's work, is occupied by the theme of family troubles. It runs like a red thread through the plot of "The Elder Son". We hear its echo in the orphanhood of Busygin, in the mention of the films “Divorce in Italian” and “Day of Happiness” (“also about divorce,” as Vasenka clarifies), in the annoyance of Makarska, who works as a secretary in court, with an abundance of cases about divorce. However, the family theme for Vampilov is not the ultimate goal, but an opportunity to talk about kinship and alienation in the Russian world. Therefore, Busygin is so dear to the author.
Once in a strange family, this hero became its unifier. His moral transformation took place under the influence of Andrey Grigorievich. Busygin calls him a holy man and refuses to continue to play the role of a rogue, motivating this as follows: "No, God forbid, deceive someone who believes your every word." 8 The student talks to Nina and Vasenka, urging them not to leave their father, and they eventually heed the words of their "big brother". The amazed Nina calls Busygin a psycho and a madman, which, according to Vampilov, as we remember, means the most precious compliment. And the main character, having done good to people, decides to leave them for a while, but again he is late for the train. This time, because you can't take time and effort into account when building human relationships.
In this respect - and in other plans - Shukshin discovered a very important for the entire literary process of the 60s and 70s. creative closeness to the quest of the playwright Alexander Vampilov (1937-1972), who tragically died on Lake Baikal two years before Shukshin's death, the creator of the plays The Elder Son (1968), Duck Hunt (1971), Provincial Anecdotes (1971), “Last Summer in Chulimsk” (1971) and others. Outwardly, this closeness was revealed, say, in the increased attention of both writers to the above-mentioned naive methods, with which the provinces and villages “warmed up”, decorated their life, “poeticized” it.
They were united, as people of the theater, by something deeper: the realization of how plot-driven, stage life is, rich in unmanifested adventures, paradoxes, comic situations, repetitions of the plot.
Vampilov's plays paradoxically combined the tragic grotesque and vaudeville, naturalness and unknown, supposedly previously impossible for the characters, psychological changes and solutions: everything became possible for unsettled, shocked minds.
Such were the highly playful plays (and performances) of this playwright-reformer. A. Vampilov was looking for special marginal characters, attributed by some fatal force to the margins of life, in the interval. “Marginal” does not mean “bad”, “criminal”, these are isolated, confused, naive creatures who often do not know how to “live with wolves and howl like wolves”. A. Vampilov searched and found ... even entire marginal families, sections of society. His play "The Elder Son" begins with a cruel joke of two young people: somewhere in the suburbs, at night, they entered at random into a random apartment, wanting only to spend the night in it. Seeing that they were about to be kicked out, one of the frivolous hooligans announced that he was ... the illegitimate son of the absent owner of this apartment, the head of the family! In other artistic worlds, this unkind eccentric joke would have remained within the framework of an episode, an anecdote: no one would play such an unreasonable game of two young rogues ... play along! But the whole world of Vampilov is so saturated with phantasmagoria, eccentricity that the inhabitants of a random apartment ... believed in a paradoxical trick, then convinced the inventors themselves of the truth of this imaginary sonship, forced them to behave quite humanly in accordance with fantastic logic.
The whole story of the young man Busygin dramatically changes the meaning of everyday life: at first he plays an impostor son, then, turns into a son, assimilates the kindness and naivety of the owner of the house, the elder Sarafanov, begins to sincerely regret and love the “father”. The mischievous person becomes human.
Such is - real and fantastic - provincial life in other plays by A. Vampilov. In the play "Last Summer in Chulimsk" the very world of a tiny town or village on the border of the forest (taiga) and urban civilization is fantastic: it is full of strong, rude passions. Here, detached from strong feelings, from past success, investigator Shamanov meets Valya, who really loves him. But this strong, passionate life for a long time only flowed around Shamanov.
Even the naive Evenk Yeremeev comes here - like a bigfoot ... But this town, where Shamanov took refuge, where he seeks only peace, turns out to live in a deep, fate-breaking dependence on the big "city", on its officials and crooks, he is humiliated this addiction. There is no ideal oasis for “duck hunting”, rest from the inhuman game-life.
It is curious that A. Vampilov does not push action anywhere. The poetics of A. Vampilov not only in this play is close to the poetics of V. Shukshin's "eccentricities", and its characterization almost entirely applies to the "characters" of V. Shukshin. Life in "The Elder Son" is not constructed, but arises, its dramaturgy is not introduced from outside, but is born in itself. Guys who are trying to wait 5-6 hours under the roof of someone else's house, confident that they have cruelly cheated others, find themselves in a world that exists in nervous, unadorned forms of life, a world of almost fabulous miracles, a world warmed by cordiality.
Many plot-semantic situations, dramatic states of the characters, a kind of self-awareness (“self-awareness”) by the characters in time connected both the main work of A. Vampilov - the play “Duck Hunt” (1971), and the novelistic cycles of V. Shukshin “Characters” (1973 ), "Conversations under a clear moon" (1975), etc. In essence, the hero of the "Duck Hunt" Zilov, whose role in the 70s. both O. Efremov and O. Dahl, an anti-leader character who runs away from serious decisions, deceives all hopes, performed beautifully, and Shukshin’s countless drivers, carpenters, eccentrics and “village Socrates” live by the idea of game, hunting, mischief, challenge. They all need one thing:
We must go somewhere - To hell, even to heaven ...
Vampilov's hero Zilov wanders around the stage - most often in a restaurant, among a flock of pseudo-friends (this is no longer a collective, but an "anti-collective"), realizing both his own and general restlessness. To one of his pseudo-friends, the Waiter, he speaks of his sad discovery:
“Well, here we are friends. Friends and friends, and I, for example, take and sell you for a penny. Then we meet and I tell you: “Old man, I say, I got a penny, come with me, I love you and want to drink with you.” And you go with me, drink. Then we hug, kiss, although you You know very well where I got a penny from.
Where is the friendship, where is the conspiracy, where is the instinct of the pack, the group egoism? As is typical for Zilov’s monologues, the frequent repetition of “well, here we are friends”, “we will embrace you,” he still does not fully believe that everything has faded away, flown out of words about friendship, from gestures of friendship, that liberation from the ideal has come true. Hence - the search for the ideal "on the side", outside the "anti-commonwealth", "gang of friends", where there is "duck hunting".
The hero of Vampilov does not want his passion for duck hunting to be called a "hobby". He talks about the special silence on this hunt: “Do you know how quiet it is? You're not there, do you understand? No. You haven't been born yet. And there is nothing. And it won't." The usual taiga at the hour of waiting for the hunt turns into something sacred for him: “I will take you to the other side, do you want? .. You will see what kind of fog it is - we will sail like in a dream, no one knows where. And when does the sun rise? ABOUT! It's like in a church, and even cleaner than in a church... And the night! My God!"
In essence, both A. Vampilov's plays and many of Shukshin's short stories (and especially the fairy tale "Until the Third Cocks") are a confessional space of very lonely dreamers, crushed by life, living among the inanimate world, torn into acts, scenes, this loneliness among hardened simplified consciousnesses.
In the narrative technique of V. Shukshin, in his absolute ear for all the voices of life, the ability of the characters to “feed a cue” to a partner, in the feeling of the general “stage character” of life, easily crushed and crushed into frames, mise-en-scene, there were many other influences, findings, besides experience A. Vampilova.
And in these scenes, the role of replicas, verbal fractions, and modern vocabulary has sharply increased. "In what area do you identify yourself?" - so asks the candidate of sciences his village fellow countryman Gleb (“Cut off”); "Is your mound in a hole?" - this is one secretary asking another on the phone about the boss (at work or away); “Here our Ivan went to pull rubber and bargain, as the current plumbers do” - this is about the hero of the fairy tale “Until the third roosters”. “I’ll carry it over bumps”, “make her a present for the Eighth of March” (i.e. a child), “a wedding is not yet a sign of quality”, “there is no article for this” (i.e. punishment), “I stopped drinking - there is nothing to fill the vacuum”, “no idea about the culture of the body”, “will you accept (i.e. drink)?” etc. - the richness of Shukshin's remarks is very colorful, mixed, colored with an ironic light.
But, of course, the highest success of Shukshin's novelistic art is associated with stories in which, like A. Vampilov's, there is a peculiar change of faces, biographies, Khlestakov's stay in someone else's mask, in someone else's role. Shukshin boldly intrudes into the sphere of such a Khlestakov-like, extreme "mischief" of heroes, a prank, a mysterious swindle. All of Shukshin's short stories seem to be just a presentation of entertaining stories in an equally entertaining way. This game of entertaining pretense takes place, for example, in the stories "General Malafei-kin", "Mil pardon, madam", of course, in the tragicomic story "Cut off", in a number of episodes from "Kalina Krasnaya", in the fantastic journey of Ivan the Fool for the notorious information about his mind (“Until the third roosters”).
The painter Semyon Malafeikin, an ordinary villager, suddenly started a strange game with fellow travelers in the train car: he pretended to be a police general. And what does he, who repaired the dachas, know about the life of a general? It turns out that he “knows” a whole layer of benefits, handouts, complementary foods:
“In vain you refuse to give - it’s convenient. You know, no matter how tired you are during the day, and when you arrive, you light the fireplace, the soul departs.
Dacha? - Yes.
Of course not! What do you! I have two co-drivers, so one already knows: a quarter to five calls. "Home, Semyon Ivanovich?" - "Home, Petya, home." We call the dacha home with him.
At first glance, these games of bosses, the change of official masks, miracles in the sieve, the jump to other worlds, offices, dachas simply amuse, give the heroes the opportunity to frolic. Bronka Pupkov in the story "Mil's sorry, madam!", Burning with impatience, joins any company of newcomers and once again tells in detail how during the war years he tried to "extinguish the harmful candle", that is, to kill Hitler ... Yegor Prokudin, a former thief in "Kalina Krasnaya", as soon as he was offended by the village parents of the bride, immediately selects for himself, puts on a comfortable mask of a prosecutor, possibly the head of the camp, an educator, and begins to expose the old people, skillfully "introducing" into his speech typical intonations, arguments , underwear. He defends himself like a demagogue and amuses himself by ridiculing this demagogic vocabulary.
“- See how nicely we settled down to live! Yegor spoke, occasionally glancing sharply at the seated old man. - The country produces electricity, locomotives, millions of tons of cast iron ... People are exerting all their strength. People literally fall from tension, liquidate the remnants of slovenliness and dementia, people, one might say, stutter from tension, - Yegor jumped on the word "tension" and savored it with pleasure, - people are covered with wrinkles in the Far North and are forced to insert gold teeth for themselves .. And at this very time there are people who, out of all the achievements of mankind, have chosen a stove for themselves! That's how it is! Glorious, glorious ... We'd rather prop up the chuval with our feet than strain together with everyone ... "
Shukshin achieved the highest skill in playing with verbal cliches, changing word masks created on the basis of newspaper formulas, all kinds of “speech substitutes”, buffoonery that evokes the traditions of folk mockingbirds in the story “Cut off”. In this story, the village mockingbird (and peasant prophet) Gleb Kapustin, who has long involved visiting candidates, scientists, etc., his fellow villagers, his family, who also plays and plays along with him, in his denunciations, really confuses the visiting intellectual with his art . Knocks down from the very first replicas:
“Well, what about primacy?
What primacy? - again, the candidate did not understand.
The primacy of spirit and matter...
As always... Matter is primary...
And the spirit - then. And what?"
Re-read this short story, and you will feel the whole frightening nature of laughter, dressing up Gleb as a debater, "half-scientist": on the one hand, he ridicules the worn-out formulas, the entire flow of information from Moscow, and on the other, he kind of warns that the provinces are on their own. mind that she is not only an object of manipulation, “bashing” ... In the mischievous, mockingbirds of the late Shukshin, including both Gleb Kapustin and Yegor Prokudin (his laughter, as it turned out, is tragic, dying, like his own bright impulse to normal life), and conditional Ivan the Fool, one cannot see the “unbelted inhabitants”, “the offensive force of rudeness”, the emptiness of people from the antiworld, weighed down by a “spiritual inferiority complex”, which turns into a “desire to show off over others” (L. Anninsky).
This is a very cruel, dismissive assessment. Obviously back in the 60's and 70's. many truths were greasy, covered with a kind of "lime", everything was imitated. Vasily Shukshin was the first to think about a problem of great importance: why is all this rural, grassroots Russia so afraid of ... Moscow, which owns "television power", experiments on itself, coming from the capital? Naive, ridiculous are Gleb Kapustin's attacks on the smart guy from Moscow. Even more naive are Alyosha Beskonvoyny's experiments in self-defence, saving peace of mind from the onslaught of absurdity. The hero of the short story "Alyosha Beskonvoyny" every Saturday drowns the bathhouse, escapes from microbes (washes himself) in its hell. They tried to take away from him this moment of peace, this opportunity to remember and weigh what he had lived, to fence himself off for a moment from the bustle, when he exploded. "What should I cut my soul into pieces?" Alyosha then shouted in a voice that was not his own. And this frightened Taisya, his wife. The fact is that "Alyosha's older brother, Ivan, shot himself like that."
All Shukshin's mockingbirds, as the researcher S. M. Kozlova noted, after the appearance of his historical novel about Razin in some amazing way began to merge with the image of Stepan Razin, an equally powerful and naive people's defender, sufferer, creator: “They are like Adam's rib isolated from the body of the people. They are tools in the hands of the people who create history ... In this definition, Gleb Kapustin is also a projection of Razin's Shukshin image ... Gleb Kapustin, thus, is the "level of the era", "the slice of time" ... He expresses, reflects time in its contradictions, he "cuts off" one after another the growth of dogmas and lies.
UDC 821.151.1.09. "1917/1991"
DENISOVA Tatyana Nikolaevna, Postgraduate Student, Department of Theory and History of Literature, Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov. Author of 3 scientific publications
"NON-HEROIC" HERO OF A. VAMPILOV
The article deals with a prominent representative of the dramaturgy of the 70s of the XX century - Alexander Vampilov, the creator of psychological drama, who introduced a new type of hero into literature - a kind of "extra person" of the XX century.
Philosophical problems, psychological drama, hero of "heroless time", antihero
In the dramaturgy of the 1950s and 1960s, the originality of the concept of personality consisted in the pathos of affirming the romantic hero of his time, an active and active transformer of the surrounding reality.
However, by the end of the 1960s - the beginning of the 1970s, the problem of a failed personality was identified in dramaturgy, which, according to P. Bogdanova, was connected with the fact that "the early stage of the 50s - early 60s in the theater was a stage of social optimism” The 70s were marked by the absence of illusions that collapsed along with the thaw”1.
The image of the process of transition from socially active young heroes of the 50s and 60s, the years of the "thaw", their hopes for changing the world - to disappointment, the collapse of hopes, to the loss of ideals and illusions, which emerged in the psychological drama of the 60s, later received a deep artistic and analytical embodiment in the work of A. Vampilov in the 70s.
A. Vampilov starts where his predecessors left off - at the point of "defeat
© Denisova T.N., 2011
young hero, convinced of the futility of romantic hopes. Behind its external, often prosperous existence is the drama of a young man of the 70s of the XX century, which is based on the discord between ideals and reality, rethinking the role of a deceived generation, a generation that has not escaped serious moral losses.
A new hero appears in Vampilov's dramas - uncomfortable, contradictory, not always understood. Some critics believed that Vam-Pilov's heroes were atypical, not correlated with their time; that these are lone heroes, living in narrow private interests, cut off from the team, “these are inactive people who do not actively participate in the production process, do not meet the high moral requirements that are placed on them”3. With the advent of heroes with shortcomings, weaknesses and even vices, a lot of controversy arose in criticism about their "positivity" or "negativity". A.Yu. Meshchansky notes that "in the characters of the plays
playwright, rather than people lost to society, marginal personalities, but types of heroes who do not fit into the framework of social ideas about well-being are brought out”4. Vampilov himself believed: “In order to live with dignity, heroic efforts are necessary. What matters is not what a person does, not what he says, what matters is what happens to him. The playwright explores the social and moral problems of the life of society, which fostered Russian literature, raising it to the level of philosophical reflection. Vampilov obeyed the Chekhovian aesthetic principle of “drawing life as it really is”, and, according to Li Hong, drew a line under the social euphoria of the 60s, artistically exploring those social and moral metastases that corroded society and the individual6.
The model for the type of Vampilov's hero, to one degree or another, was Tretyakov from the play "The House with Windows on the Field." Many traits of Tretyakov's character can also be observed in the heroes of Vampilov's later works: Kolesov, Busygin, Zilov, Shamanov. They are educated, capable of strong feelings, dissatisfied with reality; they are united by the desire to understand life and find their place, inner freedom and looseness. And each of them, making a choice, to varying degrees, makes a moral compromise. According to
A. Sobennikov, the author shows the fate of the same hero in two different readings: “acquisition of a human face, the true “I” ... and the loss of the “I”, the destruction of man”7. The choice of the hero of Vampilov's plays becomes more and more difficult and painful. As S.N. Motorin, the main feature of the choice that the Vampilian hero faces is its “implicitness”: “The problem is not to decide which path is right and go that way, but that it is necessary to see the very possibility of choice” 8. Moreover, the choice of heroes should not be speculative, but active.
The reception of duality, according to T. Zhurcheva, is one of the main ones in Vampilov's poetics9.
According to N. Leiderman and M. Lipovetsky, a system of fairly stable dramaturgical types runs through the entire dramaturgy of Vampilov, forming quite clear duets. in the work of Shukshin10; this type is opposed by the pragmatic hero. Thanks to this technique, the protagonist finds himself at the crossroads of opposing possibilities and throughout the play makes his own choice. Vampilov did not set himself the task of creating the image of a “positively beautiful person”, but tried to understand the problem: who is he, the hero of that heroless time in which he himself lived? And this issue is fully resolved in the image of the "hero of our time" - the central character of "Duck Hunt" Viktor Zilov.
"Duck Hunt" is the most creatively suffered and the most bitter of Vampilov's plays. She became not only his artistic discovery, but, according to M.I. Gromova, "a turning point in the development of Soviet drama"11. It is in this “drama of a failed human life” that a literary type appears, which was traditional for Russian literature of the 19th century and later transformed in the work of “new wave” playwrights - the type of “extra person”.
This type of hero (Viktor Zilov) does not suddenly appear in Vampilov's plays: he continues the line of his characters. Describing his hero, Vampilov in a detailed remark hints at the disharmony reigning in his soul12. Viktor Zilov is not only a "portrait composed of the vices of our entire generation in their full development," but all the classic characteristics of an "extra person" fit him: just like Pechorin, he is "madly chasing life," striving to realize his personal potential, but destroys everything around, not finding a match for his ideals in reality. The tragic doom of a gifted person, "the inability to realize oneself, leads
to alienation from the environment, reaching a complete separation, falling out of it. Li Hong noted that Zilov only automatically submits to habits, the main of which is lies6. More
V.G. Belinsky expressed disbelief in the words of "superfluous people": "They themselves do not know when they are lying, and when they are telling the truth, when their words are the cry of the soul, or when they are phrases"13. These words can also be attributed to Zilov, who ceases to distinguish between game and reality, and lies become a habit and a necessity. He lies at work and at home, and, getting used to lying, is convinced of his sincerity. V.G. Belinsky noted that in the characters of such people "there is no completeness in any feeling, in any thought, in any action."
The feeling of “emptiness of the heart” torments the hero: “I don’t care about anything. All in the world. Don't I have a heart? As Fesenko E.Ya. noted, Zilov has no connection with the past (his attitude to his dying father), no connection with the future (no children, he does not dream about them)14. In his monologue, addressed to his wife, but pouring into the void, with a central motive of disappointment and focusing on his inner world, one can hear an echo with Lermontov's "Duma" and "Hero of Our Time", which characterize the hero of the 30s of the 19th century - the hero of "heroless time"13. In criticism, the interpretation of this monologue is ambiguous: B. Sushkov believes that this monologue of Zilov is evidence of his remorse, the possibility of rebirth, because hunting attracts him because there he feels the possibility of the appearance of himself, another, that “... there is no more of his former, other and won't be" 15. “With these short phrases,” writes A.V. Lakshin, - like nails are being hammered in. The critic does not leave Zilov hope for a revival16. Zilov takes his place "among the superfluous people of the seventies", who do not see the meaning in life, do not find their application6. “Zilov is Vampilov’s pain, pain born of the threat of moral devastation, the loss of ideals, without which a person’s life is completely meaningless,” O. Efremov noted17. The playwright, addressing not the established hero, but the emerging
Xia, explores such a phenomenon, widespread among the youth of the seventies, as the loss of moral criteria, spiritual emptiness, apathy and indifference.
The attitude towards Zilov in criticism was ambiguous. In the works of N. Tenditnik18, Ya. Bulgan19, N. Kotenko20, the interpretations of Vampilov's hero are absolutely different, but in all three Zilova is denied a positive life perspective. Until now, there is a sharp controversy about the "mystery of Zilov." O. Kuchkina responds
about Zilov as a “finished” person, although he feels his own degradation21. N. Akilov considers Zilov to be an egocentrist with philistine interests, it is argued that people like Zilov are atypical and dangerous, because. interfere with building a bright future22; V. Savitsky and
V. Lakshin agree in Zilov's assessment, believing that duck hunting, where he so strives, is only self-deception, a surrogate for the dream of a spiritually devastated person for a long time. From Zilov they made "a rare example of cynicism." They wrote about him: “... Before us is a deadly longing. It is clearly visible: Zilov has nothing to live with and nothing to live for. A dead man is roaming the stage."23 But, as rightly noted by E.Ya. Fesenko, one cannot call Vampilov's hero a "living dead" if together with him Vampilov reflects on "eternal themes" - about Life and Death, about Resurrection and Love14.
There are also voices in criticism in support of Zilov: N. Antipiev claims that although Zilov himself feels like an “extra person”, he is “not superfluous for life. He is the most necessary for her. T. Shakh-Azizova talks about the “tragic and merciless” duck hunt,25 and E. Streltsova draws a parallel between Zilov and the Shukshin hero Yegor Prokudin: “The relationship of the heroes is in the lack of internal resources to start a second life”26. Very accurately E.Ya. Fesenko attributed Zilov to the type of person who was “beautifully frightened” (scared of becoming like his double Dima - a truly dead soul). G. Chebato-revskaya also speaks about the ambiguity of the image of the protagonist, noting the constant expectation of awakening in the soul of Zilov, which
did not take place 27. And although the resurrection of Zilov did not happen on the pages of the drama, it is full of hidden meaning and leaves a feeling of confidence that the hero’s meeting not only with Faith, but also with God will definitely happen.
Alexander Vampilov sought to show the inner complexity of an ambiguous person. His hero - thinking, reflecting - asks questions: “Why? Who am I? What is the essence of human existence? A. Vampilov, like M.Yu. Lermontov, does not condemn life itself, the only thing that matters is how the characters of the plays live it. Director O. Efremov, comparing Zilov with "A Hero of Our Time", noted: "Zilov ... there is such a" bitter medicine ", which, as it turned out, we, people of a completely different time, also need. It is necessary in order to be morally cleansed, to shudder
from the spectacle of the spiritual devastation of a man who is very similar to us, not at all a monster and not a bastard” 17
The complexity of evaluating Vampilov's characters is that they are studied by the author so deeply that an unambiguous assessment is impossible: everything is mixed up. The boundary between Good and Evil turns out to be obscured, erased by the multi-shaded relationships between the characters.
Gradually moving away from the romanticism of the sixties, A. Vampilov proposed a completely new concept for the Soviet dramaturgy of the 70s of the XX century, the concept of a hero - a “non-heroic person”, fatally alone, gifted, not seeing the path to self-realization, with lost moral guidelines, continuing the gallery of “an extra person » in Russian literature.
Notes
1 Bogdanova P. Big change // Modern dramaturgy. 1999. No. 4. S. 163.
2 Leiderman N., Lipovetsky M. Modern Russian literature of the 1950-1990s: in 2 vols. T. 2. S. 272.
3 Nechaeva I. Signs of modern psychological drama // Writers and the literary process. Issue. 4. Dushanbe, 1974, p. 74.
4 Meshchansky A.Yu. The phenomenon of drunkenness in the dramaturgy of A. Vampilov // Semantics and pragmatics of the word and text. Arkhangelsk, 2010. S. 176.
5 Vampilov A. I'm with you people. M., 1988. S. 245.
6 Hong Li. The artistic world of A. Vampilov the playwright. M., 2006. S. 101, 122.
7 Sobennikov A. Chekhov's traditions in the dramaturgy of A. Vampilov // Chekhoviana: Chekhov in the culture of the 20th century. M., 1993. S. 156.
8 Motorin S.N. Creativity of Alexander Vampilov and Russian drama of the 80-90s of the XX century. M., 2002.
9 Zhurcheva T. Dramaturgy by A. Vampilov in historical and functional coverage. Kuibyshev, 1984, p. 179.
10 Martirosyan O.A. The originality of the type of hero V.M. Shukshina // Vestn. Pomor. university Ser.: Humanite. and social Sciences. 2009. No. 3. S. 50-53.
11 Gromova M.I. Russian modern dramaturgy. M., 1999. S. 50-51.
12 Vampilov A. Farewell in July. Plays. M., 1977.
13 Belinsky V.G. Hero of our time. Composition by M. Lermontov. St. Petersburg, 1840. URL: http://az.lib.ru/b/belinskij_w_g/text.
14 Fesenko E.Ya. Philosophical drama by Alexander Vampilov. // Resphilologica. 2000. Issue. 2. S. 225, 227.
15 Sushkov B. Alexander Vampilov. M., 1989.
16 Lakshin V. Days and years of Vampilov's heroes // Youth. 1976. No. 5.
17 Efremov O. About Vampilov // Vampilov A. House with windows in the field. Irkutsk, 1981. S. 624-625.
18 Tenditnik N. In the battle for human hearts // Siberia, 1972. No. 6.
19 Bulgan Ya. Time in the plays of the young // Theatre. 1972. No. 5.
20 Kotenko N. Test for independence // Young Guard. 1972. No. 5.
21 Kuchkina O. Character "in general" and character-problem // Theatre. 1974. No. 2.
22 Akilov N. Reflection on the fate of talent // Theatrical life. 1975. No. 1.
23 Rudnitsky K. On the other side of fiction. Notes on the dramaturgy of Vampilov // Vopr. literature. 1976. No. 10.
24 Antipiev N. Hero of resistance to the canons. Alone with conscience. M., 1981.
26 Streltsova E. Heroic dead end // Theatre. 1992. No. 10.
27 Chebatorevskaya T. Such a different Alexander Vampilov // Lit. gas. 1974. 22.05.
Denisova Tatiana
A. VAMPILOV'S "NONHEROIC" HERO
The article is about an outstanding dramaturgy representative of the 70s XX century - Alexandr Vampilov -the creator of psychological drama, who introduced in the literature a new type of character - a distinctive "unnecessary person" of the XX century.
Contact information: e-mail: [email protected]
Reviewer - Nikolaev N.I., Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of Theory and History of Literature, Severodvinsk Branch of the Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov
