Національна Академія Мистецтв України Інститут культурології
items and according to character
жүктеу/скачать 6.92 Mb.
|
| items and according to character (and its features). In other words one can say of personal vs. positional references that are endowed to each direct speech’s utterance. From one side each such utterance is ascribed to a given person and becomes the element of its portrayal, from another side it is produced due to the respective situation with its particular circumstances. Here character becomes alternative to composition in determining the partition of the text of direct speech so that the divisions of text into thematic segments and into characteristics are intersected reciprocally. In particular character discloses different features in different textual segments. Respectively it is the functions of the cues of direct speech that change: the person remains the same but fulfils different functions in different utterances. Subsequently it is to say about different parts of role in different scenes with different functions. Obviously they are to be designated in description with different titles. This double functionalism is especially to be traced in the opera - seria where together with typical roles (French emploi) there were typical airs such as militant or vindictive ones (especially peculiar for G. Haendel) [Бюкен, 1936, 47, 56]. This tradition has been retained still in W. Mozart’s works (as in the so called “air of a portrait” of Tamino in “The Magic Flute”)898. It concerns also the patterns of behavior that a character has to demonstrate on stage as is the case with “love’s lethargy”899.
One of the evident consequences of such double textual partition ensuing from the double dependency of direct speech is its increased fractional division. Steps of the evolvement of plot in text of direct speech (and respectively in drama) are essentially lesser than those in epic narration. In particular any conversation can be divided into minimal steps of action where the irretrievable transition is already accomplished. Although such step can include more than a pair of cues it can happen that a simple couple of question – answer will play a decisive role for the fate of action. One ought to describe such tiny textual segments with separate titles. For instance, Zerbinetta’s cue in H. von Hoffmannstahl’s “Ariadne on Naxos” (act 1) can be entitled as “the promise of laughter”900. The motif of “the refusal to repeat the meeting” can be detected in the cue of Arabella (drama of the same name, act 2)901. This double dependency and fractional nature of direct speech makes it irreducible to narration and constantly distinct from all other textual segments that have other personal location. In particular each monologue as such presupposes the existence of a distinct author’s enunciation. It becomes evident when the text of a monologue becomes interrupted with the insertions of the cues of another person (in particular of an author as in novel). These moments can mark the segments of the action where the transitions of the state of hero are carried out. Meanwhile such division presupposing the author’s participation is easily to trace in the cases where there are no vestiges of the author’s remarks. As an example the monologue of Wolsey (W. Shakespeare’s “Henry VIII”, 3.2) can be taken. The presupposed fractional division betrays here the author’s participation though not attested with words. The first lines (350-358) contain the comparison of a fate with the seasons of a year: “So farewell …” till “The third day comes a frost …”. Actually these words can’t be regarded as those appertaining to the character as such: they demonstrate the rhetoric commonplace and can be taken for a latent quotation. Then the self-denigrating comparison with “wanton boys” as the sign of repentance comes (358-364). It is followed with the resignation concerning “vain pomp and glory” (365-367). At last the essential details appear concerning “sweet aspect of princes” that “more pangs and fears than wars and women have” (370). The duplicity of personal vs. positional attachments of this monologue becomes evident in its situational determination that is estimated at the same time as the circumstance of own fate. It is still to stress that it is the distinction of the reproduced direct speech from the author’s speech as such that is significant and not dialogue or monologue. The primary circumstance is here the opposition “author - hero” and not the number of heroes. In drama the role of author is reduced to minimum; nevertheless its personality never disappear. The image of Shakespeare remains present and coexists together with all his dramatis personae so that the invisible and virtual narrative of him accompanies roles of these heroes. One recognizes the line of action that is inseparable from the verbal row902. Meanwhile this action can also find different version of its verbal designations. Moreover it is the task of producer to make these virtual verbal descriptions of action real and vivid. One encounters in K.S. Stanislavsky’s producer’s notebooks dramatic texts endowed with such supplementing texts where the supposed action is narrated in details. Let if here the famous analysis of A.P. Chekhov’s “The Gull” be cited where the discovery of the implied contents was demonstrated for the first time [Станиславский, 1981, 160-161, 112-113]. The writer’s original text in the scene of the last meeting before the suicide is endowed with the producer’s comments.
(<(118) Отворила дверь, чтобы уйти (шум ветра, ворвавшегося в комнату). Потом остановилась – облокотилась о притолоку и зарыдала. Треплев, облокотившись тоже о фонарь, стоит недвижно, смотрит на Нину. Свист ветра из отворенной двери. «Дайте воды» - говорит среди рыданий. (119) Треплев медленно идет (вода около зеркала на авансцене), наливает (шум стекла), подает. Пауза. Нина пьет. (Говор в столовой). (120). Нина утирает слезу платком и подавляет рыданья. Треплев со стаканом в руке неподвижно стоит, облокотясь о фонарь, смотрит безжизненно в одну точку. Здесь он уже умер.> Thus a simple question of the hero concerning the plans of lodgings is deciphered here as the decision of committing the suicide. Respectively one can make conjectures as to the following possible implicit commands that are concealed behind the characters’ enunciations.
In the similar way in the scene of the attempts of persuading the mother of Treplev to lend him money the writer’s text give grounds for the following possible transformations. <Сорин. … Посмотри, один и тот же сюртучишко он таскает три года, ходит без пальто … (Смеется). (36) Да и погулять малому не мешало бы … Поехать за границу, что ли … Это ведь недорого стоит. Аркадина. Все-таки … (37) Пожалуй, на костюм я еще могу, но чтобы за границу … (38) Нет, в настоящее время и на костюм не могу. (Решительно) (39) Нет у меня денег! (Сорин смеется) (40) Нет! (41)>) and the producer’s comment (<36 Смеется, чтобы смягчить свою просьбу. Аркадина, слушая его, перестала есть и нахмурилась. 37 Пауза. Аркадина задумалась и играет ножом. 38 Пауза. Аркадина перестала есть. Задумчиво смотрит на одну точку, медленно качая головой. Потом сразу, как бы проснувшись, говорит: «нет». 39 Быстро наливает рюмку и глотает. 40 Аркадина иачинает энергично есть. Сорин хохочет и встает. 41 Аркадина решительно и сердито «нет».> The respective concomitant memorandum looks like the following.
The examples disclose the attachment of replicas to the action and the ensuing possibilities of implications necessary for performers to comprehend the deeds of characters. Therefore drama turns into a kind of novel where direct speech is submerged into the explanatory additions. Thus one could say that it would be out of question to describe direct speech without making the slightest attempt of treating text in the manner of imaginary producer. Dramatic direct speech elaborated in such a way acquires an outlook of the so called producer’s score as the musical multi-part score. It becomes evident that such duplicity of direct speech originating from its essence as the reproduced speech can be conceived as a special case of double reflection. The very quality of direct speech is determined with the fact of a hero’s speech being reproduced by an author. A mirror arises that gives the reflection of a hero’s enunciations produced by an author. It is here that the concept of otherness gets the most favorable conditions. The otherness being the immanent property of any text, drama must necessarily refer to something alien and bear different meaning (to begin with the difference between reality and stage or actors and their masks). It is not the particular action presented on the stage (and not abstract generalities to be exemplified) that gains importance but the problems that stand behind. Subsequently together with the general reflexive properties of narration revealed in the existence of plot and composition disclosed in its interpretation another reflection arises that concerns already the represented character. It is this double reflection that gives grounds to compare direct speech (and dramatic text as its development) with musical text and producer’s score with musical score. These musical attachments of drama give also additional grounds in favor of its kinship with lyrics. In particular it reveals itself with the intensified textual density peculiar to the both genera. Musical attachments are often substantiated of contraries with the very necessity to refute this evident fact as one finds in a record of B. Pasternak903. The ultimate reason for “musical” interpretation lies not in the priority but in the very nature of double reflection proper both to lyrical incognito and to reproduced direct speech that conceals and reveals phantom as the core of poetry.
This axis plays principal role in dialogue as the foundation of textual integration. It would be appropriate to cite here the statements of S.D. Balukhaty who has scrutinized these aspects in regard to conversational structures904. In this way a “communicative axis” arises that can be regarded as the necessary prerequisite for the very existence of dialogue. Here the controversy arises between the universal inferential foundation of textual integration and the mentioned properties of direct speech connected with the admission of chaos and with fractional division of text. As the result conversation always becomes discussion so that objections become device of uniting cues in the continuous flow. A dialogue is used as a rule as an alternation of conjectures and objections: even if the succeeding cue only supplements the preceding one it implies partial negation. Respectively a pair of cues in dialogue can be converted into an adversative sentence of a monologue. It can be exemplified with the case of catechism with its alternation of questions and answers. Such case is to be found before the scene of the murder of Macduff’s son (“Macbeth”, 4.2) where a concatenation of cues arises in his conversation with the mother. To comprehend adequately this conversation one should remind the meaningful utterance of Lady Macduff “All is the fear, and nothing is the love” (12th line) introducing the infernal visionary of the world. Then after the farewell with Ross the conversation begins: “L. Macduff: How will you live? Son: As birds do, mother …”. Then at last follows the infantile refutation of this infernality brought forth with calumny: “Son: … there are liars and swearers enow to beat the honest men” – bearing in mind that here the liar and the honest man would represent absolutely opposite meanings under the conditions of perverted world. Another sample gives the discussion of the murderers (“Macbeth”, 3.3): “3d Murderer: Who did strike out the light? 1st M.: Was’t not the way? 3d M.: There’s bit one down: the son is fled. 2nd M.” We’ve lost / Best half of our affair”. The cues supplement one another so that the thorough axis is built up. In regard to this axis one could say of its “bifilar” structure (and even of the triple structure, be an author’s image and voice taken into account). Respectively one has to represent such bifilar axis in dialogue’s description. In describing a conversation one has to take into consideration in particular the initiative of one of the participants (for instance of that putting question as in interrogation), then the cues of the dependent one can be recorded in brackets so that the whole becomes monologue. In the case of parity it is worth reminding that each dialogue can be converted into soliloquy. Here the fractional nature of dialogue and the reflexive nature of direct speech reveal common foundation. As far as the speech of one person is permanently interrupted with the cues of the partner it loses its continuity and dissociates into a series of fractional cues itself! Subsequently such fractional cues are to be reintegrated and identified as those belonging to the same character. Meanwhile such interruptions are of outer origin and they reveal only the general property of direct speech peculiar for monologue as well. Each transition from one utterance (as well as a cue) to the next one within the text of role designates the transition attesting the change that takes place within the character as a whole. Together with the conservation of a character’s identity the person doesn’t remain the same so that new features are revealed or developed. Respectively each monologue also demonstrates fractional division so that the constant necessity arises to identify such verbal masks as the attributes of the same person. The problem arises whether the utterances of a monologue can become a cento that’s a mixture of cues of different characters or they can be attributed to a sole person’s identity. Such inherent interdependence between the fractional division of utterances and the personification of direct speech attested in the old tradition of cento gives also device for dialogues’ description with converting them into a kind of soliloquy. One can imagine the situation where all signs indicating the attribution of cues to a character disappear (in particular it concerns pronouns and proper names). Then the task would arise as to their identification. Such experimental distortion of dramatic text would be similar to that of converting verses into prose. Then “a conversation with the self” is made up so that the partner’s voice appears as one’s own imaginary remark. As an example one can take the famous scene from O. Wilde’s “Lady Windermere’s Fan” (3) where the chief heroine has come to the flat of Mrs Erlynn who was claimed to be notorious for her frivol behaviour and reveals in reality generosity in persuading her to return home. The cited passage contains the most important excerptions. After the removal of all the particulars of personal location of direct speech a bare concatenation of thoughts appears that can be regarded as inner hesitation of heroine (who is here designated as Lady and her partner as she). The subject of soliloquy is supposed to be represented in the 1st person, so W. will be chosen here.
The viewpoint of the Lady is here chosen because it is her decision that is to be taken, the confrontation and struggle of adverse opinions contributing to the revaluation of her deeds. One sees the profitability of such transformation in the detection of communicative axis. Here one can divide the following steps: 1) the jealous suspicions are cast to doubt; 2) the confession of reading the letter strikes the heroine and becomes the first turning point; 3) the false opinion about the absence of love is argued that becomes the second turning point; 4) the decisive step (and the third turning point) is the refutation of the false opinion of “mercy” with the paradoxical statement of “hatred & contempt” as the sources of the husband’s genuine attitude towards the pretended sweetheart. In the situation Mrs. Erlynn can be regarded as a “magic helper” who supplies the missing arguments to the heroine’s inner discussion. Such are first of all her confession in regard to letter and the paradox of donations motivated with contempt. Her cues can be identified as those of objections vs. the heroine’s previous opinions. If the initial state of mind can be represented as “living at the mercy” → [ABUSED PRIDE] → [refusal to return home] so the transition gets the outlook of a paradox: love (of the husband) (→ hatred) → contempt → hold → love (of Mrs. Erlynn). Another example can be found in A.N. Tolstoi’s «Насильники» ‘The Ravishers’ (act 3) in the scene of the conversation between Nina and Claudius with the succeeding declaration of love. This dialogue can be converted into a soliloquy in the same way where the viewpoint of Claudius is to be chosen due to his initiative in the actions that follow.
To understand the motivational chain it suffices to exclude personal attributions of utterances. The discussion begins with the idea of “vague intentions” (смутные намерения) and comes to the detection of own “sufficient force” (хватит силы). It designates the first step; then the confession on Nina’s previous passion follows with her sarcastic remark. And just this explanation gives opportunity for the principal words on “touching the heart” (касаюсь сердцем), “thoughts on a brim” (краешком подумайте) and “shut eyes” (закройте глаза). Paradoxical form of agreement there follows with Nina’s pejorative estimation of previous connections as “bathe of baseness” (в подлости выкупаться). Such “mud-bath” becomes here an examination of the love passion. The dominant motifs refer to the images of weakness (brim, heart, shut eyes) that overcome the violation. It is these images that aid in conquering the heart of the sweet-heart and become recognizable as those attributed to the masculine partner of dialogue. The same approach to conversational passages as those representing heterogeneity in the manner of cento and equal to soliloquy can be detected in the scene of the rupture between Kat and Ostuzhev from A.I. Sumbatov-Yuzhin’s “The Gentleman” (4.5). The viewpoint of the heroine who takes the final decision becomes here the principal power.
Without the conversion into soliloquy it becomes already evident that the attempt to make a declaration of love encounters the overt lie and sophistic arguments of liberty. It refers to a very typical phraseology of libertinism where freedom is identified with the absence of duties. The hero declares his demands for “absolute” liberty from love and at the same moment contradicts to this declaration with the desire for “free love” – obviously without duties from his side. Thus absolute liberty turns into absolute egoism and therefore must indulge in deceiving his pretended sweetheart. This vulgar deceit is attested wit Kat’s utterance: «Будь вы в самом деле женаты, я стала бы вашей любовницей». That is why Kat finds a true revelation in discovering everybody’s neglecting her personality (Я всем нужна) without taking into account her own viewpoint (чем же я хочу быть). The key phrase is here that where “awakening” (разбудил) is mentioned. It marks the turning point of the whole scene. It is with this exclamation that Kat becomes aware of her being deceived. Another example of the critical turn in the development of action can be found in the episode of I. Kocherga’s “Nature and Culture” where not only the malice of a scoundrel (the former husband of heroine who has turned out to be a thief and who has nevertheless profited in his official career) remains unpunished. The situation is still more complicated due to the disclosure of the heroine’s friend reserved behavior that results in the heroine’s disappointment.
Here one traces obviously more bitter and realistic picture than in the previous examples. The heroine endures mot only the successes of the scoundrel. Still the worse is that his information about the genuine state of affairs turns out to be true. The heroine’s expectations are shipwrecked, and despite the succeeding happy end this bitterness of the disillusionment (proclaimed here in addition by the overt thief) puts its seal upon the whole. The malice exists and flourishes – such is the latent meaning of the drama. That the scoundrel discloses the truth looking like a calumny gives especially painful blow. The situation of a “contest of advantages” displays honesty vs. power. Therefore the dramatic conflict isn’t solved with the neat reconciliation; its solution becomes only postponed to be achieved beyond the play’s borders. Another example of the turning point in the dramatic development is to be found in B. Grincbenko’s “It is Clouded” where a sly youngster Taras makes a fool of his uncle the landowner with compelling him to sell his mortgaged grounds to the village’s community and thus gaining the bride for himself. The scene represents a typical situation of hesitation where the key for decision belong to the protagonist Taras.
Due to the velocity of action uncle is as the result in the desperate situation of the debtor that must pay and can’t now borrow money. Besides, the deceitful rumor on the intention of buying grounds at another person make him haste with the bargain. Such approach to conversation’s description as equal to жүктеу/скачать 6.92 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|