The viewer is not a taste, the viewer is an experience

The experience of the audience that is possible in the theater cannot be reduced to the experience of consuming other masses. media products. Speaking of theatrical spectator, the last thing to do is to refer to the concept of mass taste, to correlate theatrical production with this anonymous instance.

In a theater where "empathy" is possible, that is, physical one-step co-presence with the enacted fantasy, fictional reality (a rather banal and already well-known separation of the theater from other collective views), the viewer gets the opportunity to rehearse different social roles, the viewer finds himself in various random communities,the viewer experiences different emotions of collective life... This experience is generally not replicable in other views. Perhaps this is what keeps the theater from disappearing.

The internal structure of the theater as a model of society

The history of the theater offers different shapes devices of theatrical space, which entails the implementation in the viewer of experiences irreducible to everyday existence. Each form of theater draws attention to the quality of attention or social action that is important for a given social structure.

The most general theoretical knowledge concerning the spectator in the mass system. The media offers us the assertion that the viewer uncritically perceives the conventions of reality offered to him by information transmission channels, in contrast to, say, literary (non-genre literature) conventions of reality or non-mass art, where they deeply contradict the everyday experience of the viewer / reader. The shock from the disproportion triggers the mechanism of perception of a particular text, forces the viewer / reader to rethink the conventions of their own perception of reality, the boundaries of their real world.

By analogy with the perception of literature and art, we can say that various forms of theater activate in the spectator, in the participant, a special emotion and a special role that cannot be reduced to everyday experience.

In the history of the theater and in the topography of the theatrical forms existing today, it is possible to reveal different anthropological constructions of the spectator. The culture of the twentieth century is unique in that it can simultaneously practice various theatrical systems.

And it means that the viewer in reality is given the opportunity to combine his feelings, to try various social roles. Festivals or the life of theatrical cities can offer the viewer at the same time six or seven concepts of social experience of a fantastic theatrical reality, given in physical co-presence with him.

Here is a rough description of the theater spaces that are simultaneously present in a large European city. I highlight only tendencies, elements of these theatrical spaces can be combined in one performance. It is important to understand their origins and the audience role they generate.

The arrangement of the Shakespearean theater presupposes the experience of going to the theater close to table fun, to common people's rest. Such experiences appeal to a turbulent, unrestrained, emotional life.

Theatrical forms of modern times (opera, then operetta), with the concept of a stage mirror, where on the stage social conflicts are reduced or dramatized, where the action is addressed to a person with the ability not to have fun and play tricks, but to recognize himself as part of a complex society and relate his conflicts to stage version. And besides, in such a theatrical arrangement, not only the process of watching the performance becomes important, but also the demonstration of one's own prestige before the performance - a performance that is played by those who came to the operetta even before the performance. In the modern context, playing in an aristocratic or bourgeois society is possible in opera houses.

In the circus where main topic performances are training, the viewer experiences again and again his greatness and power over nature. Self-training, the conquest of wild animals, admiration for human capabilities, up to the paranormal (in the art of illusionists).

The location of the street theater pretends to mingle with real life, bringing the passerby as close as possible to the viewer. This form of theater was embodied in the street theater festival in Edinburgh, which is rarely practiced in Russia.

The invention of the nineteenth century, Cabaret is a theater in a cafe, a theater where, as in an operetta, society is ridiculed, where the reflection of politics, vices and habits of compatriots becomes a rest - the most unaffordable form of theatrical art for the Russian audience. In place of such a theatrical genre, humorous television programs such as the Full House have been steadily for several years. Several attempts were made to return the practice of cabaret to the real theatrical process, the Stend ab comedie festival was held in Moscow, the initiatives of cabaret programs periodically appear, but this direction has not yet received mass success.

And, finally, the most difficult to describe group of theatrical spaces. Theaters that call themselves avant-garde. Avant-garde art in theater calls into question the conventions of famous theatrical forms and challenges the audience's limits. These theatrical spaces are very important, they are laboratories where the viewer can again feel the role of the spectator for the first time, as well as for the first time feel theater as art.

Spaces of glee and spaces of sadness.

In addition to the image of the viewer (laughing viewer, enjoying viewer, test viewer, interlocutor viewer) and the experience of experiencing a theatrical performance that is irreducible to everyday life, different forms of theater propose to divide solidarity on different grounds, for example, in experiencing a single emotion. The viewer, realized in the performance, acquires the dominant emotion: enjoying - shocked - tormented - provoked - approving - inspired. It is the experience of uniting with other people in emotions that is more obvious than the virtual emotional experience when watching television programs, rarely where else in the life of modern society one encounters reflection. Emotional outbursts experienced among other people about theatrical events can compete with emotions about public rituals: minutes of silence, festive processions, or emotions about events in the consumer society: holiday sales, new collections, and sweepstakes.

The social experience of the theatrical spectator: spatial, role-playing, emotional, in contrast to the "quality of theatrical production" rarely becomes a topic for theater critics, which is a pity, since such an approach would allow the viewer to be presented not as a passive instance of the consumer, but to see the events of perception, the audience's feelings, the audience participation is an exciting and important part of theatrical life.

At one time, prominent filmmakers and film critics insisted that the theater, this ancient form of manifestation of human creativity, would soon perish, since its capabilities are simply pitiful in comparison with the boundless powers of cinema and booming television. These conclusions were not drawn in the heat of heated controversy, but on the basis of a cold and reasoned statement of immutable facts.

But so far, in our time, these gloomy forecasts do not come true, and the theater lives and does not yield to its department. And, what is most surprising, to this ancient temple, where the same stage, the same curtain, the same dusty backstage as hundreds of years ago, and there is no stunning technology, the viewer walks and walks, leaving the annoying killer of human time - the TV and the immense screens of cinemas.

What is the secret of this vitality, this amazing preservation by the theater of its "I" in the era of universal enthusiasm for technology and admiration for it? Probably, primarily in the fact that the theater retains its main weapon - direct, momentary, live communication between actors and spectators. This is now real, now humanly understandable, now the only one untouched by the cold metal hands of technization, which is endlessly needed by today's man, driven by the exhausting rhythm of life.

The theater is a rare haven these days, where everything is natural, natural, human, where there are no deafening amplifiers, no dead screen flicker, no technology that filled everything, but there are living people - actors, natural voices, not enlarged to frightening sizes of eyes and human passions that boil right here on stage, and I see them, I hear them, and I am among people as they are.

People strive for nature, this is an instinct for self-preservation. Theater is also nature, nature. And as long as people strive for nature, for the natural, until then the theater will exist without fear of either television or cinema. Of course, a struggle is a struggle, and the theater cannot exist on a single truthful display of life. You need depth, a philosophical comprehension of reality, your own view of the world around you, you need fearless penetration into burning modern problems. The theater needs a lot to survive in this struggle.

But he has something distinctive, something wonderful, existing only in the theater - the spectator who sits right here in the hall, and you can hear his breathing, and hear the beating of his heart, and see his eyes. The viewer, who is connected by invisible but strong threads with the actors, whom he either freezes with indifference to what is happening on stage, then burns with the heat of his excitement. The spectator, without whom the theater is unthinkable, the theatrical actor is unthinkable. The viewer is the final judge of the actor's labor, to whom he carries all the most precious, the most necessary, the most disturbing to him.

Our viewer is sensitive, ardent, sincere - he vividly responds to the feeling, to the stream of emotions coming from the stage, from the screen. Any play, any film, one way or another touching on a moral and ethical theme, are urgently needed. Necessary. The viewer expects strong, bright, irreconcilable conflicts.

He comes to the theater full of confidence, with an open heart. How to justify this trust, how to keep it? It is well known that the basis of art, and consequently, the basis of theatrical performance, is a fact, selected in accordance with the point of view of the artist, displayed from a certain position. Interest is determined by the significance of the fact itself and by how independent and original the position of the theater, director, performers is, whether it is worth reflecting on it, sharing it or challenging it.

It seems that today's viewer can only be satisfied with the work that the artist looks at from the party positions, while maintaining his personal, unique attitude towards him.

The thirst for contemplation is perhaps the main feature of our viewer, be it a worker or a scientist. And the art of the theater especially meets this need of his - after all, he seems to participate in the conversation that is conducted on the stage, because the performance is a human meeting of performers and spectators, sometimes their dialogue, sometimes an argument. And the reaction of the audience - laughter, a sudden deep silence, or even a cough that immediately engulfed several people, or a vague, incessant rustle - this is the first, most direct and, perhaps, the most accurate assessment of the performance. But often the viewer has a need to express his opinion more definitely and, so to speak, individually.

Letters, notes, questions at meetings with the audience can often give a lot to the actor, suggest interesting reflections, and sometimes force him to look at something in a new way.

And then there is a need to answer some of them in detail and in detail, defending their point of view.

I would like to quote several similar letters and give my answers to them, because such an exchange of views seems to me to be fruitful for both sides.

"I have been following your work with interest for a long time. Forgive me for asking you this question, but it seems to me that such a serious actor like you could answer it. What, in your opinion, is the most important thing in works of art? What problems do you have? And ultimately, what is the purpose of art? Rostov. V. Kiselev".

Art is catharsis, purification, said Aristotle. But it is in art that a person seeks an answer to the questions of our time that torment him. Each real work necessarily carries a moral load, tries to help people navigate the stormy sea of \u200b\u200bproblems of the 20th century. I think that in our time such books, films, performances are popular, which, telling about the difficulties and difficulties of life, defend faith in goodness and justice, faith in humanity. Of particular importance are works that are not addressed to a select few, but to all of us, our people. And in order to talk with everyone about everyone, you need to talk about what is close to everyone - about a reality common to all of us. We are all alike in what we see, in what we think, what we experience.

"What, in your opinion, is the most important thing in works of art? What problems are closest to you?" - they ask me. This question cannot be answered shortly. I can only say one thing: the closest to me are those problems that seem close to you, the audience. I want to act in films that would cause controversy, but in no way leave the viewer indifferent.

"It seems to me, no matter what they say, a theater and cinema artist is very dependent in his work. There is a playwright, director, artist, and an actor only fulfills their plan. What helps an artist to defend his independence? How to convey his own - your own, and not other people's thoughts and feelings before the audience? Moscow. E. Borisov".

Independence in creativity is, first of all, the independence of the worldview of the artist, artist. I believe that every artist should have a favorite theme. The theme that he suffered through, passed through his heart. And this theme should run like a red thread through everything that he creates on stage, in cinematography. If an actor goes on stage only to shine, to make up, to change costumes to show himself, his beloved, there will be no sense. Such an actor will never become independent in creativity. This is not theater, not art. Each role, willingly or not, enriches the artist and is enriched by him. The character of the hero is often enlarged. It is not enough to be independent - you must still be modern. And what is a modern actor? No, I do not mean fashion, not those purely external, superficial signs of the times that are often presented as modernity. The contemporary artist is the mouthpiece of his time. The contemporary artist is the brainchild of his era. He is obliged, having come into the world, to raise important questions in time. Each era, in my opinion, gives birth to not only a certain type of hero, but also a certain type of actor who embodies him. In cinema, in my opinion, modern actors are Smoktunovsky and Batalov. For me, as a viewer, the range of problems, thoughts, feelings that they bring to the screen are very important and interesting. For me as an actor, the most important thing is not to lose this sense of modernity in my work. Tragically lonely and incomprehensible is the artist who was late in his work or, on the contrary, appeared a little earlier. To be at the level of the problems of his time, to talk about what worries my contemporaries, and therefore cannot but worry me too - that is, in my opinion, creative independence, this is what every actor should strive for.

"Still, we still have a lot of films that seem to be smart, serious, you even watch them with pleasure, but a little time passes, and they are easily erased from memory. But you remember some films for a long time. I, for example, remember the film very well" Cinderella "is a film of my childhood. It had some kind of naive ingenuity. And I also really like beautiful films, colorful. Not Hollywood action films, no. Even their colorfulness does not save them. I really want to watch such films as the play" Princess Turandot " , staged in your Yevgeny Vakhtangov Theater, because adults sometimes love fairy tales, even if not seriously. Pushkino. L. Grinevskaya".

In each of us, even in serious, elderly people, a child's need to be surprised, to rejoice in the colorful, unusual, bright, has lived for a long time. The ability to enjoy the illusion that real art gives us. The modern viewer expects from us not only spiritual bread, but also spectacles, spectacles in the best and highest sense of the word. Therefore, cinema, of course, must not only cause controversy, but also please people. He must be different - and smart, and funny, and serious, and festive - just like our life. Actually, there is no contradiction here. Spectacularity, bright, unique form will never prevent a piece from being smart and relevant at the same time. After all, the same "Princess Turandot" is not only a festive, bright performance, but a very smart and delicate performance.

Muscovite Buslaev wrote to me: "You are a happy actor, so many roles, so many lives you have managed to live. Probably, you played all the roles with love. And yet I would like to know if there was the most dear one among them, the one you remember alone with yourself. ".

Each role is ultimately dear to you for the simple reason that you create it with your nerve cells, heart, attitude, observations, and your life. Of course, there are good ones, there are less successful ones, there are loved ones, there are unloved ones. I have roles that I like to play, there are roles that I don’t like, but the most dear and close to me are those roles in which civic, human and moral positions are clearly expressed - when I, going on a screen or on a stage, know why do I do it, what I defend, what I fight against, what I want to preach, what I want to speak out against, what I want to glorify, and so on.

In short, no matter how expressive and advantageous the role is, if this position is not there, it is not interesting to me. I am convinced that one cannot exist on stage without a point of view, without a definite attitude to the phenomenon analyzed in a work or in a role.

Here is an interesting letter: "Lately there has been a lot of debate about how the classics should be interpreted on stage and on the screen. You have played the roles of the classical repertoire more than once. In the cinema, this is Mitya Karamazov, at the Rogozhin theater, Richard III. What is your opinion in this dispute? "

This question worries many.

It seems to me that the positions of the Marxist dialectics, which assert that life is changeable, are fair, one cannot look at the classics through the eyes of the twenties, thirties and some other years. You can only look at the classics with the eyes of today, modern man... And in it, look for answers to today's questions. This is not a memorial, this is not the Bakhrushin Museum, the famous theater museum in Moscow, but this is a living theater, which is strong in that it is always modern. As soon as the theater loses touch with life, it becomes uninteresting, no matter how famous, academic and traditional in the most beautiful sense of the word.

Theater is always interesting for its consonance with the times. I hope no one will argue with this. And if so, how can the classics be watched or staged, relying on traditions or even decisions that were alive in the twenties and thirties. I agree that there is no need to flip classic upside down, but I am convinced that you need to find in Shakespeare, or in Dostoevsky, or in Tolstoy, what is close to you. I personally cannot imagine a solution to any classic role if it did not help you express what worries you.

And the best works recent years confirm this. Therefore, to be honest, I do not really understand this dispute. Richard III for me is not a historical person, but a character through which I can say something that seems essential to me. Another question that you think is important is whether you guess the modern note in the classics.

If sometimes the classics are taken as allies to express those feelings and thoughts that are not needed now, here it really turns out to be a failure for the simple reason that even the brilliant classics will not help inaccurately, or incorrectly, or late expressed today thoughts. And if this thought is true today, trembling, living, bleeding, then the classics, of course, are sharp, strong and powerful weapons. And the classic work helps the best artists to express with the greatest force and with the greatest clarity this or that civic, creative, human, if you will, party position. This is how I feel about my participation in the classical repertoire. This understanding is nothing new. I just want to emphasize the cruelty of the thought that without today's eyes to stage a classic is generally meaningless. So I think. If you do otherwise, then this is a museum, purely literary pleasure, not theatrical.

I received a lot of letters after the painting "The Chairman". The image of Trubnikov was assessed in different ways. For example, V. Timonenko from Smolensk ended his letter like this: "In my opinion, the most important thing is that people like Trubnikov entice people to feat and instill confidence in the future. Remember Nagulnov and compare with Trubnikov. This is a moral hero." ...

This point of view is close to me as a performer. Many viewers argued that he was a despot, a dictator and that his leadership was built only on screaming. But I have already argued with this opinion above.

With keen interest I read and remembered the letter from Gennady Ivanovich Chernov, former director of the Krasny Kotelshchik plant, in which he compared the facts that took place in his life with the situation depicted in the play Day-Day.

I find a heartfelt echo, close to me the statements of my correspondents that "heroes are needed violent, passionate, those who knock at the heart, sound the alarm, awaken a dormant conscience, seek, infect with their mood."

To be honest, letters delight you, where you are praised: as they say, "a kind word and a cat is pleased." But still, those letters in which one senses a serious, interested attitude to the work of the theater, to the work of an actor, remain in the memory the longest.

Several years ago a drilling foreman VE Rotin wrote to me from Yakutia. Viktor Evseevich did not agree with my performance of the role of Druyanov, but the tact with which he expressed his views, his love for the theater in general and for Vakhtangovsky in particular, knowledge of our performances, their thoughtful analysis involuntarily suggests that the performers would have played with more return (they always intuitively feel the mood of the audience), if there are more such spectators at the performances.

Very often, both in letters and at audience conferences, I am asked what qualities a real actor needs. This question is asked by both journalists and people who, perhaps, are surprised or attracted by the specificity and uniqueness of our profession, and, probably, those boys and girls who dream of going on stage. I can answer this way.

A real actor must have good health and the sensitivity of a tuning fork. Have patience and an open heart. Warmly experience all the troubles of the time in which he lives Do not despair of failure. Be able to work hard. And to see in work the highest happiness of your life. It is at work. He should not curry favor with the public, not adapt to her, but strive to subdue her, lead him, at least seriously talk with her. Finally, a real actor must have talent, which is either born with a person, or not. There is nothing you can do about it. A diamond can be polished, turned into a diamond. Brick, no matter how hard you grind, will remain a brick. Guessing talent in advance is almost impossible. In this case, I am talking about my profession.

I often hear: "In our viewership, you are an actor, first of all, of the modern repertoire. What caused this: the distribution of roles? Your special predilection for such roles?"

In the overwhelming majority of cases, the fate of an artist depends on the repertoire that is created in the theater. And if, for example, I had played in some operetta theater, I would never have got the roles that I played. But, probably, no one would entrust me with these roles, if they did not excite me, if they did not appear that, perhaps, small, but tribune from which it is possible to speak about the problems that concern me as a person, as a citizen ( big or small is another matter). And if there is a coincidence of my worldview with the worldview positive hero, then that wholeness of the image arises, which, probably, reaches the viewer. And if, say, you want to say more, but the role does not allow this, then there is no complete merging with the image and the viewer remains cool to your performance.

And now I consider it necessary to touch upon one more side of the relationship between the viewer and the actor. I quote a letter I received about ten years ago and nevertheless remained in my memory: "The stereotype breaks down with difficulty. When I watched" Front ", at first I did not really accept your Gorlov, and suddenly, somewhere in the middle of the performance, I clearly saw instead of Gorlov, there is some huge ugly stump that sticks out in the middle of the road, grabbed by the roots, and it is necessary to uproot it neither to pass nor pass. "

Yes, theaters are often faced with the fact that most viewers are attracted by a certain familiar stereotype. And when they meet with an unusual decision of the role or an unusual talent, they often immediately accept it wary, suspiciously, and sometimes simply do not accept it. They violently, sometimes rudely and categorically reject the unusual for them, because it confuses such spectators. "Is it possible? Why, we were taught differently. I'm used to something else. I don't understand this and, therefore, I do not accept."

This is an evil, limited, if you like, philistine judgment - if not for me, then it means it is wrong. This impoverishes both the spectator and the art. And in art there can be no single solution. Otherwise, Hamlet would not have been played for four hundred years. It would be boring to repeat the same thing from century to century. This is the immortality of Shakespeare, that every epoch finds in him what is in tune with itself. And not only in Shakespeare. The possibilities of reflecting the present day by means of art are endless. Endless. And the more diverse they are, the more complete this reflection is. And the broader the horizons and possibilities of the viewer or reader. You can choose the artists who most fully express your attitude to the world. But this does not mean that there can be no other way of expressing reality than the one you are accustomed to.

There are many excellent, talented monuments to outstanding cultural figures of the Georgian people in Georgia. But how different they are! Furious Gamsakhurdia and captivating Baratashvili, all like Tabidze's flame and huge rocky Yashvili, piercing to tears of Pirosmani, on his knees, with a lamb pressed to his chest, and already embodied in granite by Sergo Zakariadze - a monument to the fallen soldiers in Gurjaani. The soul rejoices at such a variety and endless talent of Georgian sculptors.

One thing is the same in them - love for the great sons of Georgia, love and deepest respect for their people. Yes, both must be invariable, immutable. And the possibilities for expressing these feelings are endless.

The same applies to the theater, to the actors. Moreover, our art is so fleeting, so quickly passing and, therefore, requires caution in assessments, love and understanding.

After all theatrical performance, acting theatrical work is not bronze or granite, which can be appreciated many years later. Acting has only the present and, no matter how terrible it may be to say, there is no future. The actor stops acting - and his role, his creation, disappears. This is the brutal truth about our profession. We don't have to wait for understanding from future generations. We need understanding today and today only. There will be other actors and other audiences tomorrow.

For example, Inna Churikova is an actress of great talent, she is not like anyone else. Her manner of performance is unusual, an expression of her love for life. Perhaps, dear reader, you are closer to something else, more definite, more familiar. So what? It's your right. But it is not a law for everyone. By the way, the great sage Socrates said: "I know that I know nothing." That is why he is a sage, that he admits the possibility of his ignorance.

Not so long ago, a small but stunning note flashed in the Literaturnaya Gazeta - a spectator from Uman writes with resentment: “Actors play either positive or negative characters. Why don't they want to reckon with the fact that I, the viewer, have a memory? including emotional. We must not recognize the artists and perceive them only as actors... And then you look at a positive image, and the memory tells me that I saw this actor in the role of a scoundrel and a scoundrel. How to be here? "Indeed, how to be here? And the audience, and most importantly, the actors? Moreover, I know from my own mail that there are a lot of such spectators with increased emotional memory, if not the majority, that is, those who do not accept the attempts of the actors to escape And maybe the viewer is right and you need to return the role so that everyone knows his sixth. And the actors are easy - the road is rolling, and the viewer knows in advance the taste of the dish served by this or that actor for many years.

But Evgeny Bogrationovich Vakhtangov said that an actor, a real actor, must be able to play both vaudeville and tragedy, which means that he must be able to play both heroes and villains. How to be here? I think that those viewers who find it difficult to switch from one perception of the actor to another relate to the art of the actor, let them excuse me like children to a fairy tale, where everything is laid out on the shelves and has settled down for many centuries. This uncle is Bova Korolevich, and this one is Koschey the Immortal. Such a viewer, as playwright S. Aleshin absolutely correctly wrote in one article, does not want to learn anything new when he comes to the theater. He wants confirmation of what he already knows. And he gets annoyed, irritated and even angry if he sees and hears something different, and even the opposite. Such a viewer, having come to the performance, wants to amuse his pride and receive confirmation of his infallibility. He, this spectator, is insulted if the actor, whom he is used to seeing in positive roles, suddenly plays a villain. This, in his mind, is a betrayal.

And in his remarkable sincerity and truthfulness book "Questions to Yourself" Vasily Makarovich Shukshin writes: "Like anyone who does something in art, I also have an" intimate "relationship with readers and viewers - letters. They write. They demand. They scold for the rudeness of the heroes, for their drinks, etc. Surprising, of course, is the well-known categoricalness with which they demand and scold. Indeed, a rare confidence in their own righteousness. Just amazing! Almost anonymous letters threatening to kill from around the corner with a brick. But what do they demand? So that I invent. He, the devil, has a neighbor who works behind the wall, drinks on weekends (sometimes noisy), sometimes quarrels with wife ... He does not believe in him, he denies, but will believe if I lie from three boxes; he will be grateful, cry at the TV, moved, and go to bed with a calm soul. "

I used this quote to show that the problem of such a viewer worries and worries many artists. It worries me, because there are a lot of them, such viewers and readers. And the strangest thing is the aggressiveness with which they defend their point of view, which they consider unshakable and the only true.

The ability to perceive beauty is not born by itself. This skill needs to be cultivated. You need to get used to music, painting, theater, so that they become for a person not entertainment, but a necessity. You can't look at the theater as a kind of sofa for relaxation - it's convenient, familiar, that's good.

If any work of art seems incomprehensible to you, maybe even alien, - do not rush to deny, but try to think about what its creator wanted to say, what idea to express.

Contact with the audience is an indispensable condition for the existence of the theater. If he succeeds in shaking hearts, revealing the invisible sides of life, then he is needed, then he is full, then he is invincible.

But the other side - the spectator - also needs contact with the theater, and, consequently, our aspirations to find mutual language must be reciprocal.

You have never wondered whether the theater is interested in having spectators come to it. At first glance, it seems to be yes - after all, tickets, some money. But if you figure it out sometimes, the money is not the one to fight for, and it would be easier if no one came. This can manifest itself in different ways. Somewhere they will simply ask: "How, do you want to go to this performance ?!" (this happens quite often), somewhere the mode and customs of the cash register do not allow not only planning something in advance, but generally striving to get there.

In some, mostly old and well-deserved theaters, the cashier is still sure that no one is more important than him. Perhaps this is so. For example, recently there was such a scene (Mossovet Theater). The woman, having stood in line, turns to the cashier: "I am from Sergiev Posad, yesterday I called your administrator, ordered 40 tickets for the play in the stalls. He said to come today." And the cashier answered her: "Why did you call the administrator? You have to call the cashier. I don't have so many tickets, do what you want." Later I was also told: "Come tomorrow, today tickets for this performance have already run out" (the performance was ten days later). And it is useless to say something - it has been tested over the years.

In another respected theater - Sovremennik - twice in the last three months - the same picture. The time is 18.30, tickets seem to be there (or maybe not - you cannot determine), someone calls the cashier on the phone (or she calls), the conversation lasts about ten minutes, while, of course, no one is being served. Someone timidly asks: "Has it been long ago?" - there is nothing to answer.

A separate story is the advance sale of tickets. How many tickets will arrive at the box office, where the rest will be sold, is a mystery. How to buy good tickets for some theaters is not known at all. Perhaps this is a kind of business - both for the theater and for someone else. Moreover, these are not necessarily theaters in which the halls are packed. Another scene. On the first day of pre-sale, a man walks up to the box office and finds that there are no tickets for what he wanted to see. I was surprised. There and then a woman at the box office offers him tickets at a slightly different price. To his surprise, he answers: "What do you want? Saturday is for cultorgs. They come and buy tickets on request." I would like to add - and then actively offer "at every corner." But it seems that this is beneficial to everyone - including the theater.

At the Mayakovsky Theater on pre-sale - only the most expensive tickets... For "something simpler" you need to come before the performance.

Of course, this is not the case for all theaters. This does not apply to the Chekhov Moscow Art Theater, Youth Theater, O. Tabakov Theater. There may be no tickets before the show (which is good!), But in advance - no problem.

And in the theaters themselves, the audience is treated differently. It is usually very happy when, about half an hour after the start, latecomers are taken to their places in the center of the hall. And the collective trips of children to non-childish performances - can you forget that. It's good, especially in frost or rain, when the theater is allowed into the theater 10 minutes before the start. It makes me very happy when they sell popcorn in the buffet - at the beginning of each action, the audience has something to do. But you never know what else.

I don't want to, yes, obviously, and it makes no sense to whine. There is a choice: if you do not want to go to this theater, do not go. And you don't go.

And yet, how can theater influence our psyche? What does it give a person that even with the widespread development of cinema, its role does not weaken, but somewhere even strengthens? And is it generally useful to go to the theater? Does it make sense?

The importance of theater in personal development

Let's see what Kevin Brownie, anthropologist, art critic and filmmaker, has to say about this. At one of the conferences, he singled out 10 reasons why theater is so important in our life. Let us turn only to those that touch upon the topic of interest to us.

Theater helps us realize our humanity. Only by empathizing, observing everyday situations from the outside, we can realize what makes us human.

Regular theater attendance develops the ability to communicate, express our feelings and emotions, and improve mutual understanding with the world and other people.

It gives an understanding of how our consciousness works, how the environment in which we find ourselves affects our thinking and our behavior.

The stage is taken out to the center of everything - human bodyfollowing the ancient Greek anthropocentrism that changes the roles in our relationship with technological process, makes us subordinate technology to us, and not obey it ourselves.

Expanding consciousness and acceptance of other people and cultures. It is difficult to say how much this can affect us, but for globalization and successful socialization, this is an important point. Modern world dictates its own rules, and we better follow them.

Theater is a great way to explore the world, human relationships, and analyze them. It acts as a kind of laboratory, a mirror of where we live and what we constantly encounter.

Performances develop creativity with the power of art, inspire new achievements and instill confidence in solving various problems.

The University of Arkansas has conducted research on how live performances can affect students in schools. All this was aimed at ensuring that the much needed theater finally entered their practice. Due to the over-emphasis on the exact sciences, children lose many important things that will be more difficult to acquire in adulthood.

Research has shown that performances develop the ability to understand and empathize. In the control group that read the original work or watched the movie based on the motives, this was not so pronounced, but it was nonetheless.

The researchers noted the importance of observing action here and now. The option with recordings or films has some weight. But they never compare to the emotions that arise in real time.

People often neglect comedies and musicals, considering this frivolity to be an unworthy show. However, it is these performances that affect mental health. The emotional background also returns to normal.

Scientists recommend paying attention to local independent and amateur theaters. First, they help people of all ages fulfill their dreams and play the roles they have dreamed of all their lives. Secondly, the smaller scale of the action makes it easier to see and hear, while the chamber atmosphere contributes to comfort and tranquility. Thirdly, you can always join the team and take part in one of the performances yourself, which will give an unforgettable experience and bring new emotions.

How does theater affect our psyche?

IN Ancient Greece the theater was a real institution of psychological practice. Here you will find an excellent way of healing, and correction of the psyche with empathy, and anonymity, and a universal artistic idea. Even then, everyone was well aware that the theater has a very strong influence on the personality. In modern psychoanalysis, this will be called a translation from distress (stress, harmful and unpleasant, leading to pathology) to eustress (useful and pleasant stress, leading to recovery).

How does psychological rehabilitation work in theater?

Art critic Yuri Grigorievich Klimenko reflects on this issue in detail and practically.

1) It all starts with the process of co-creation between the actor and the viewer. This includes imagination, role-playing games, play freedom, separation of consciousness into I and not-I.
2) Then the transfer from distress to eustress begins, which is based on the mechanisms of psychological defense. This includes: aggression, projection, repression, fantasy, denial, suppression, conversion, etc.
3) And the last comes catharsis, which is the goal. It arises as a result of the cumulative impact of all of the above mechanisms, which appeared at different levels: emotional-behavioral, vegetative, cognitive and socio-psychological.

Recognition and work on yourself

Carl Gustav Jung, a well-known psychologist, a student of Freud, speaks of the role of the theater as a “mystical involvement” into which the personality is immersed. Here he feels himself not as a separate person, but as a people, a community. Jung also believed that the most powerful effect, leading to the release of complexes, would have that work of art that is objective and impersonal.

This "influence" happens approximately like this: the actor, by his acting, induces the viewer to find in the character unconsciously what requires compensation at a conscious level.

Love or dislike for the theater arises in a row different reasons... Among the psychological, one is clearly in the lead. The viewer sees himself in the hero, recognizes his weak points, condemns his own behavior. And here it is very important for him to find the strength to rebel against his weaknesses, to evaluate himself from the negative side. Then he can get rid of the negative hero in himself.

Psychologist Eric Berne believes that any communication is beneficial and useful for people, and the theater provides an excellent opportunity for him. Analyzing experimental data, he notes that the absence of emotional and sensory stimuli can lead to mental disorders. A person must organize his life on a high emotional level, and the theater can help him in this. After all, the latter is filled with acts of hidden communication.

Comedies and tragedies equally affect a person's emotional health, even though the former make us laugh and the latter make us sympathize.

Catharsis is not always the target of a tragedy. During the stage performance, the viewer has his own performance in his head, which may not correspond to what is happening on the stage, either in terms of the plot or genre.

Comedy, despite the long outdated title of "low genre", has nothing to do with humiliation of a neighbor or ridicule of a person.

Theater is the same games we all play on a daily basis, according to Bern. One could say that the theater makes a person free, but in fact it makes him a slave. The viewer, coming to the theater, hopes that he will solve his problem. And he can really solve it if the person himself finds the courage not to be afraid of situations in which “his” character can be immersed, but to use them for healing.

Theatrical habits also follow from this. Someone can go to a favorite performance several times, because in it he will see the already familiar games in which he takes part with pleasure, abandoning public role-playing behavior. There are only three ways to find freedom in the theater: involvement in the present, spontaneity and closeness.

If we transfer the psychological theory of emotions to the theater, we can see that the latter leads to sympathy and empathy. Compassionate, the viewer understands and justifies the character's actions as if they were their own. He can empathize not only with a positive (according to the plot) hero, but also with a negative one, investing in him his reasons and his motivation for certain actions.

Is the spectator a patient?

Nikolai Nikolaevich Evreinov, playwright, art critic, psychologist and philosopher, noted that the theater awakens the will to live in the audience, powerfully forcing him to transform.

What is the beauty of theater as a psychological tool? In traditional treatment, a person is aware of himself as a patient - and this is always distress. But the theater provides freedom, depersonalizes the patient and thus immerses him in eustress. The theater is able to influence everyday stress, displacing it, and this is its unique strength.

Modeling various situations on the stage is an opportunity to unite in a moment of empathy a variety of people who find their personal meaning in them. It turns out quite a group therapy, which keeps each "patient" incognito.

English psychologist Robert Burns developed the self-concept, which leads to the achievement of internal coherence. The viewer constantly compares his Self with what is happening on the stage, tries to integrate himself into this newly created theatrical world. In doing so, he tries to avoid cognitive dissonance. To do this, you need to observe several simple conditions: accept everything that happens (be ready to co-create), adapt (obey the rules of the game), activate psychological protection (choose the rules that are acceptable to yourself), or reject the setting (not accept the rules of the game).

A drop of negativity in a barrel of positive

Be that as it may, but theater is not always an extremely positive experience. Especially when it comes to the waiting period for the performance. Doctor Leonid Aleksandrovich Kitaev-Smyk singles out such spectator phobias as public disclosure of one's true self, fear of surviving catharsis, fear of failure of a favorite actor (author of a play, character), displeasure and wasted time.

However, even such negative stress bears fruit, namely, internal introspection. If you observe the activity of the thinking of the actor and the viewer during the production, you can notice "insights", which will be the very moments of self-reflection.

Carl Rogers, the leader of humanistic psychology, in his theory claims that a person cannot change events, but may well change his attitude towards them. And the performance in the theater encourages this, acting as a reality that will be uniquely perceived by each individual.

The role of the spectator in the play.

Theater is a syncretic art that combines many other arts. In terms of influence, it is not inferior even to the mass media. The theater unites and rallies, gives rise to disputes and answers questions, dictates its own rules of the game, becomes a victim of fashion or follows the tastes of the audience. Theater is the highest manifestation of a person's love for beauty, the desire to destroy the boundaries of fantasy and reality, the desire in conditions of limited time and space is transferred to other worlds, historical eras, to try on many others within one life. Theater is a ritual, a game; here all are participants in one action. And just like any other art, theater requires an accomplice - the viewer.

KS Stanislavsky considered the viewer "the third creator of the play". V. E. Meyerhold said that “the theater is being built not only by those who work on the stage, even if they are very talented; the theater is also created by the will of the audience. " It is also known that the director was looking for all sorts of ways to involve the audience in the stage action. A. Ya. Tairov called the viewer a passive participant who creatively perceives the performance.

Each theater has its own relationship with the audience. Someone educates their own, someone attracts strangers, playing by someone else's rules. Some with each of their performances challenge the public like a glove, using new, forbidden means of seduction - a blow below the belt. Others welcome with open arms anyone who has looked at the light of the ramp, walk through the foyer, like around the house, sharing the latest news and sorrows, then sit in a comfortable chair and offer instead of the old life, a new one, with other passions, tears, joys and loves - right in the heart, somewhere in the area of \u200b\u200bthe soul. But the main rule is that the viewer does not remain indifferent. Without him, crying, laughing, defiantly slamming the door, wanting to prolong the acts, actions and pictures, the theater will cease to be a theater. In general, it will cease to be.

You can talk about the role of the viewer for a long time and in different directions. An interesting question is the psychology of audience perception: what makes the viewer empathize, how an individual representative of the audience influences the reaction of the whole audience, how applause and standing ovation are born, how the interaction between the actor and the audience takes place. It should be noted that in different eras the audience interacted differently with the direct participants in the performance, and with each other. A whole evolution. It is quite appropriate here to talk about the fact that actors, directors, make-up artists, props - all visible and invisible creators of new realities in the context of a particular theater think about the role of the spectator in the play. However, let us make a reservation right away that it is not possible to consider in detail all of the above points within the framework of this work. Therefore, we will note the main theses and try to highlight them in as much detail as possible.

Psychology of theatrical audience perception

The viewer is different from the viewer. Today the hall is filled with a “diverse” audience. Theater has become one of the most fashionable art forms along with cinema and photography, so in velvet armchairs we can see characters of secular and glossy “life”, true theatergoers, a lot of critics of all kinds and varying degrees of toothiness, fans of specific actors or TV shows, and just people who came by accident. Theater halls are filled with spectators of different social status, material well-being, education, age. It is another matter that, falling into an atmosphere of boundless illusion, an ordinary person experiences unusual, unexpected metamorphoses for himself.

As you know, a person's soul is darkness, but psychologists say that the secrets of a person's inner world are subject to them. True, there are not many studies directly devoted to the psychology of the viewer. Patrice Pavi in \u200b\u200bthe "Theater Dictionary" designates some of the models by which the perception of the viewer is tested, psychologists, as a rule, begin their articles with a classification of communicative acts, which, of course, explain the mechanism of human perception of a work of art, but do not take into account the specifics of theatrical art and they are not familiar with it, therefore, they are often biased, which they themselves honestly admit. "Today psychology dealing with the problem of creativity comes in research to the personality of the actor and stops, not owning the specific laws of this art." Psychologists regard theater as “a self-organizing laboratory for centuries for a hidden experiment on the human psyche. After all, a theatrical performance that takes the viewer through an emotional, full of ups and downs of the heart, communication with the actor-character to "joy-suffering" - catharsis, with all its centuries-old practice proves that it undoubtedly acts as a health factor. Moreover, whether it is the laughter of a comedy or tears of tragedy - the effect is the same. "

Again, I will make a reservation that, unfortunately, within the framework of this work, it will not be possible to consider even half of the existing theories, some of which we have already outlined. But let us dwell on a rather curious study by Yu. G. Klimenko "Theater as practical psychology".

In his work, Klimenko devotes a lot of space to the psychology of the actor, his relationship with the image, talks separately about the audience's perception of the performance, in particular about the self-identification of an individual spectator during the performance, explores the nature of tears, born of tragedy and comedy, among the audience, but, unfortunately, not examines the nature of the interaction between the actor and the viewer.

Regarding the "tragic" and "comic" tears, Klimenko argues as follows: "Asking for forgiveness from the shadow of Aristotle, I dare to assert that a high comedy just as safely leads the viewer to catharsis as tragedy, and tears of laughter are proof of this. Tears are what unites tragedy and comedy. It is curious to note that the audience's tears have nothing to do with the tears that cry, experiencing, the personal I, excited by a vegetative reaction. The viewer-image cries with these tears: they are silent, light, emotive, they are like the tears of an actor, not distorting the image, not interfering with speaking in an even voice, because it is not the actor who is crying, but the character. Shedding such tears, the actor experiences inner delight and jubilation. " I will not delve into the definition of "vegetative reaction". I will only note that the "viewer-image" is a character who, according to Klimenko, is born inside the individual, since he experiences two performances - one that is currently looking on the stage, and the other that takes place in his imagination, in which he associates himself with the characters in the play.

The researcher talks about various rituals associated with the theater. The actor has his own psychological rituals before, during, and after the end of the performance. The viewer is also in a sense preparing for his trip to the theater. Klimenko also notes that “the intermission gives a sense of community, literally a ritual walk in the foyer (originating in the ancient theater, where an inquisitive viewer looked at the statues of gods, statesmen, poets, great actors and athletes), heightened interest in photographs, the public, the exhibition books about actors, a visit to a buffet, etc. The post-performance ritual appears as a unity in the expression of gratitude: applause, calls, offering flowers, etc. " ...

Further, Klimenko says that despite the isolation of the participants in the rituals, their actions are concentrated in a common creative act, “consisting of preparation (prelude), unity itself and its result (impressions, assessments). Thus, the performance-closeness is united by a common arch-ritual ”.

However, the main ritual in the psychology of audience perception, Klimenko calls the "post-show" ritual, since it realizes that cathartic unity, which is actually a component of any creative act, and especially the interaction between the actor and the viewer. This unity gives rise to the "conciliarity effect", which is the logical conclusion of the performance prepared by the actor and "co-created by him with the audience." Klimenko himself describes the post-performance ritual as follows: “The viewer wants to prolong bliss through the ritual, to remain as long as possible under the impression of what has just been lived and felt, because he has to part with the one to whom he gave the innermost, dear part of his own I, and the person to his suffering treats more carefully than joys. The actor, on the other hand, is often devastated at these moments, and excessive prolongation of the post-show ritual can be painful (painful, in the words of the actors themselves), so it is natural that for the viewer the importance of the ritual by the end of the performance increases, for the actor it decreases.

It is also interesting that, according to Klimenko, the actor offers the public a kind of freedom of co-creation, and “the viewer then awakens the imagination-anticipation (guessing, drawing, fantasizing), which marks the entry into the game, gaining freedom, liberation from society. It is free to play in co-play. This is the main condition for co-creation. "

In my opinion, a very interesting theory, with a creative approach to the material under study. In conclusion of the chapter, I will outline another view of the nature of spectator perception - this is a theory about the psychology of the crowd, in the context of the theater, say, the psychology of the mass. It is known that a person, being surrounded by many others, unfamiliar to him, people, perceives reality in a different way and, as a rule, reacts to it completely unpredictably. The audience is a close-knit group of spectators, catching the slightest changes in general behavior and instantly reacting to every emotional outburst. Studies in mass psychology are based on various theories that examine the occurrence of applause.

Note that the study of audience perception is a very interesting topic. Only, in my opinion, having decomposed the spectator's feelings into components, we lose the feeling of the magical nature of the theater. Once following the lead of the changeable, and sometimes bad taste of the public, television ceased to be an art, but began to produce a product of mass consumption. I think that if the theater follows the same path, it will suffer the fate of modern television. Deprived of intimacy, becoming a center for entertainment and distraction, he will die, because this art form must always be at least slightly above reality. The theater should not be open to the public, it should have a place for secrecy.

Spectator and era

A topic worthy of serious research. In different countries, in different epochs, the viewer showed his role in the performance in completely different ways. Once very active, influencing the repertoire and the cast, sometime more passive, not taking a direct part in theatrical performance.

Theatrical performances in Ancient Greece were held during the days of popular festivities in honor of the god Dionysus. The audience watched the performances from morning to evening, ate and drank in the theater itself. The audience actively, directly reacted to all the twists and turns of the plot. The play you liked was presented with applause and cheers. There were also claqueurs among the audience. V. V. Golovnya mentions the comedian Philemon (IV century BC), who “more than once successfully used false spectators against his opponent, Menander”. Of course, if the play was not pleasant, whistles and knocks were heard from the stands, sometimes even the actors were chased off the stage with stones. Thus, the success or failure of a play directly depended on the viewer's disposition or aversion to it.

Speaking of medieval theater, we note that the audience themselves could be actors, since the performances were organized by people from various workshops. The leading genres of theater of the Middle Ages were presented on the squares, during fairs. The jester and the demon were the favorite folk characters of the mysteries, and when the viewer got tired of the virtuous edification of religious subjects, he could demand the appearance of these heroes. Considering the fact that many genres of medieval theater were not alien to improvisation (farce, for example), one can imagine how many times the actors had to play around with folk lines “from the audience”.

The Renaissance theater gives birth to a different audience. It is difficult to imagine how an ordinary, common people who came to the Globus Theater could perceive the most complex, deepest allusions and mythologemes of Shakespeare's texts. Although, fascinated by the dynamically developing plot, most likely, the viewer did not follow the language of the playwright, despite the fact that the plays of the Renaissance are extremely rich and interesting in terms of the composition of the language (which is the dialectical comedy del arte in Italy).

Improvisation, which was an integral part of the commedia dell'arte, gave the audience the opportunity to take part in the developing action, approve or disapprove of the characters' behavior, and immediately react with various remarks, expressing their opinion.

In Spanish theater on stage, sometimes there were even fights between actors and spectators, some of which took their places on stage. Some of the participants in the performance could accidentally hurt someone from the audience - retaliation came immediately. Well, if he faked or played poorly, the actor could be showered with rotten oranges or cucumbers.

G.N.Boyadzhiev quotes the words of Lope da Vega, in which he noted the incredible impact on the audience of the illusion of the theater, that losing the line between the magical space of the theater and reality, he transferred his impressions to life. “If an actor plays a traitor, he is so hated by everyone that he is not sold when he wants to buy something, and the crowd runs away when he is met. And if he plays noble ones, they give him a loan, invite him to visit, ”and naturally they give him gifts before and after the performance and applaud. I think that in this case the viewer played a fatal role for the arrogant actor.

The Spanish theater audience was its sovereign mistress. Especially their economic rights were realized by regular visitors - "musketeers", including ordinary shoemakers, but they refused to call themselves someone other than "gentlemen". Of course! The fate of the author very often depended on their opinion. There was even such a legend that one young playwright was worried about the welfare of his new play and, in order to get the support of the "musketeers", took it to one of them, attaching a bag of gold coins. The play returned to the author along with the money. Naturally, the young playwright had no success. These are the proofs of love - it turns out that the viewer also acted as a kind of censor, objective and incorruptible.

Renaissance English audiences have done the theater a favor, as no royal decree has succeeded in abolishing the democratic British theater. About two thousand people gathered at the performances, the figure is huge even today. The hall was cramped, noisy and cheerful. All sorts of goodies were immediately spread, all sorts of fights took place right there.

The theater of classicism in France amazed the viewer with its aesthetics so much that already at that time the first critical notes of educated spectators began to appear. Plays, acting, recitation were discussed. Actually, it is these first critics that we owe the appearance of Moliere's play "Impromptu Versailles". True, the main critic was, of course, the king, but sometimes the preferences of him and the public differed.

It is also curious that the tastes of high society, fashion of that time greatly influenced the costumes of the actors. French theater is generally subject to fashion trends. For example, already in the era of the Enlightenment, when the language of open-air theaters, the “market genre,” came into vogue, they began to use it in full in court performances. People of the world loved to say some kind of "fairground" word, and, accordingly, they were glad to hear it from the stage, albeit not "Comedie Francaise".

In the era of the Enlightenment, there were already two main critics, as I. Ivanov notes, - the king and the parterre. The aristocratic audience, as a rule, after each new performance did not begin to applaud until the head of state expresses his attitude to the play. The parterre outnumbered all other spectators and could consist of spectators of various social status - the most democratic part of the public. Ivanov notes that "in essence, he was solely going to the theater for the sake of the play; noble gentlemen were more eager to give their own performance than to watch the actors play." Many cases are described when the Chevalier and the Marquise, who appeared at the theater, naturally in the middle of the action, loudly demanded a place, greeted each other with kisses, and spoke aloud about their adventures. If suddenly such a “spectator” was reproached for interfering, he replied: “I wish, damn it, to be seen from head to toe; I pay ECU only so that during the intermission I am hovered around the actresses. " In due time Pushkin's Onegin will tell us a similar story about the purpose of visiting the theater.

In general, such a hooligan and provocative role. In principle, now there are also such boorish spectators who come from the buffet in the middle of the action, squeeze through the rows, disturb the actors and the rest of the audience, and some very honestly answer their interlocutors on their mobile phones that they are now in the theater. By the way, for many directors, this behavior of individual viewers has had an impact. For example, in Mirzoyev's play “Seven Saints from the Village of Bryukho,” one of the characters periodically falls out of the reality of the play, answering mobile phone calls and justifying that he cannot speak now, because he is playing on stage. The audience understands the hint, but such attacks, born of the audience's rudeness, have a destructive effect on the general atmosphere of the performance.

Returning to the French theater of the Enlightenment, I will note one more interesting fact... The parterre acquires an almost arbitrary power in the theater. Even the aristocratic audience gathered in small boxes in order to be hidden from the scornfulness of "the most democratic part of the hall." The parterre reacted to any changes in the actors' personal lives. Having learned about the marriage, the audience greeted their favorites with love arias, and sometimes the whole performance was turned into an illustration of a wedding celebration. The influence of the public was so great that one day the actor, who asked the audience not to make noise from the stage, was forced to kneel down and ask for forgiveness.

Thus, in the reaction of the Enlightenment viewer, it was possible to trace the trends of the historical era, and the details of the personal life of the actors, and love or not love for them. There was a dialogue between the audience and the artists, connected with the context of the performance, because sometimes, in response to the audience's loyalty, the actors inserted into their monologues either complaints about the authorities, or requests for help in relations with them, and sometimes they asked for forgiveness.

The role of the spectator grew and took on the forms of tyranny. For example, already at the end of the 20th century, the trial of the witty English playwright Wilde, or rather the reaction of the prim British public to him, interrupted his relationship with the theater until the end of the writer's life. All the performances in progress were banned, the audience did not want the plays of the "criminal before society."

The modern viewer, in my opinion, is less active. Once he imposed his opinion on the media, now certain performances, certain actors are imposed on the viewer, this is especially the sin of entreprise. However, the director's theater has a lot of opportunities to feel the power of the audience's role, involving the viewer in the performance, intentionally or subconsciously, which leads to the most interesting observations.

I repeat that the topic of the viewer in a particular historical epoch is extremely broad and interesting. The author only managed to outline some theses.

Observations on the role of the viewer

In my opinion, one of the most interesting roles of the spectator in the play is his direct participation. Nowadays, human behavior in the theater is determined by ethical rules that are rarely followed. Of course, today it is difficult to imagine viewers forcing an actor to beg forgiveness from the audience on their knees. It is difficult to imagine a lively reaction to every line from the stage with endless lines from the audience. However, the director's theater, which made the viewer one of the participants in the play, directly called him a co-creator, is trying in every possible way to make the public's empathy material, visible. It is both pleasant for the actor and the viewer to take part by looking a little behind the scenes.

Once, at the Maly Theater's play "The Abyss" based on Ostrovsky's play, I had to observe a very curious effect of the audience's "participation" in the fate of the hero. The main character of the play is an honest person who does not allow himself to take bribes and is in serious trouble because of his decency. His children are seriously ill; his wife, the daughter of a wealthy man who refused to help a negligent son-in-law, practically leaves him. There is a scene in the play when a strange man with a demonic essence comes to the hero and offers him money, promising that if he takes this bribe, everything will work out in the family. The hero is faced with a painful choice - to save his family or his virtuous principles. The psychological tension arising in the hall due to the play of A. Korshunov, the performer of the role of Kiselnikov, reaches such a limit that a whisper of sympathizers sweeps through the ranks: "Well, take the money, save the family!" Imagine this situation in the Age of Enlightenment! Moreover, this was not an isolated phrase. The effect of a "children's room" is born - the little viewer always advises the hero on how best to act. Of course, the actor heard this, and I think that it played a significant role in the drawing of his performance, because Kiselnikov became more piercing, and at the end of the performance, the audience did not let Korshunov go backstage for a long time. The viewer as a factor coordinating the work of the actor and the course of the entire performance.

Roman Viktyuk likes to experiment with the audience. He admits that he loves it when the viewer leaves the hall, loudly slamming the door - this is his honest answer "no". The director very often in his performances provokes the viewer into verbal dialogue, which sets the actors up for tough acting. Sometimes he needs such provocations to introduce the viewer into the style of the performance.

In A Clockwork Orange, in my opinion, one of the director's most interesting and intertextual performances, at the very beginning Viktyuk introduces an absolutely provocative mise-en-scene. Three heroes approach the proscenium and, without making any movements, pause for about five minutes. For the theater, this is practically an eternity. At this time, someone leaves the Viktyukov theater for good, someone, after waiting for a while, starts whistling, someone tries to call one of the actors for a dialogue - the audience screams insults, someone demands to continue the action immediately, in finally, laughter and applause are heard in the hall. Then the hero Pete approaches the microphone and addresses one of the "particularly distinguished" viewers. Sometimes, in the spirit of Burdzhev's hero, without leaving the image, he just as sharply replies: "Paid, sit!" At the end of the play, Alex, delivering his monologue, in which he talks about how the world has degraded and how hard it is to remain spiritualized in this world, addresses these very “especially distinguished” ones: “When you cannot sit quietly in the theater for ten minutes! " Making the viewer the direct hero of the play, provoking him to aggression, the director shows how this feeling is born in a person, that it is characteristic of everyone, but it can be controlled, and this determines the main idea of \u200b\u200bthe performance.

However, the author was present at the performance when the provocation failed. The viewer paused steadily. Then Pete had no choice but to walk up to the microphone and state with bitterness: "The intelligent spectator was caught outrageously!" But Alex had nothing to reproach the audience with, and his monologue had no effect on the conscience of the audience. The idea lost its sharpness when the viewer did not perform the role invented by the director. The play suffered.

But the most interesting and mesmerizing roles are given to their viewers by Vyacheslav Polunin in his fabulous and tragicomic "Snowy Show". Calling the viewer a full-fledged participant in the performance, he deprives him of the position of an outside observer. The audience is so involved in the process that it deliberately prolongs the timing of the performance. According to the concept, the play ends completely when the round dance of balls with which the audience is playing is all on the stage, while the audience, having figured out this idea, catch small balls and hold them in their hands.

The space in the play is so conditional that the viewer is allowed to enter the holy of holies - the stage. The actors explain the rules of the game to the selected audience (with gestures - there are many foreigners among them) and act out small scenes with their participation.

During the intermission, numerous heroes of the play slowly leave the stage and play pranks in every possible way. They pour water over the viewer, take off their boots, shower the children with sweets. The most interesting thing is that the audience is included in this game, passing bottles of water through the rows, treating the actors with sweets and chocolate. If it were not for this improvisation both on the part of the actors and on the part of the audience, the performance has lost its charm and touchingness. The viewer is identified as the immediate hero of the world, which Polunin and his team tell about. It resembles a trip to some country, where the actors are the inhabitants of this country, and the spectators are tourists who have visited it. At the end of the performance, a green team of clowns approaches someone from the audience, takes pictures, hugs one of them, as if before a long separation. The viewer feels so comfortable in the general atmosphere of improvisation and play, so imbued with the world of childhood and fantasy that he seeks to take away, take away from this wonderful country something with him. Some put paper snow in their pockets in handfuls, which has formed whole snowdrifts in the hall, others catch small balls, put them next to them in chairs and stroke them like a favorite pet.

Speaking about the role of the spectator, let us remember that actors often say “bad” or “good” hall, because, indeed, it depends on his character how much easier it will be to find a dialogue with him and create an atmosphere of co-creation. It is important for artists how the viewer reacts, how ready he is to accept the rules of the game, or how indifferent he is to the performance.

The viewer is the driving force for both the actor and the director, and for the theater as a whole. There is no theater without a spectator.

Literature

Arnaudov M. Psychology of literary creativity. M., Progress. 1970.

Basin E.Ya., Krutous V.P. Philosophical aesthetics and psychology of art. M., Gardariki. 2007.

Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., Art. 1986.

Belinskaya E.P., Tikhomandritskaya O.A. Social psychology of personality: Textbook for universities. M., Aspect Press. 2001.

Burns R. Development of self-concept and education. M., Progress. 1986.

Wilson G. Psychology of artistic activity: Talents and fans. M., Kogito-Center. 2001.

Wundt V. Fantasy as the basis of art. SPb., M.: M. O. Wolf. 1914.

Vygotsky L.S. Psychology of art. Minsk, Modern word. 1998.