“The originality of the plot of A. Vampilov’s plays “The Elder Son” and “Duck Hunt” The play “The Elder Son” is constructed as a kind of psychological...”

The originality of the plot of A. Vampilov’s plays

"Eldest Son" and "Duck Hunt"

The play “The Eldest Son” is constructed as a kind of psychological experiment. The author seems to be asking the question: “What will happen if...”. If an unknown young man accidentally ends up in someone else's family and, by coincidence, passes himself off as the eldest son. Busygin and Silva are the two characters who unexpectedly invade the Sarafanov family, doing this unexpectedly and for themselves. They saw off the girls, having met them in a cafe. We found ourselves twenty kilometers from home at the moment when the last train had already left. Early spring. Cold.

The situation from which the action begins is the result of an accident, but a dramatically prepared accident. The motivation here lies in the fact that the viewer is prepared to perceive randomness at the moment when it occurs, and, without realizing it, expects it. This consists of several neutral, also random facts and coincidences.

At first, the viewer does not yet know how the action will develop; and plot logic, the connection between individual facts, hidden from him, is understood only from above final result, backdating. The first episode in the chain of motivations is Silva’s story about his father. Silva talks about a “venerable parent,” and then turns to Busygin, whom they just met: “What about you?” It turns out that Silva has disagreements with his father, but Busygin has no father. Then they accidentally overhear a conversation between the elder Sarafanov and Makarskaya and see how he entered her house. This is interpreted by them in their own way. They noticed where Sarafanov had come from, and that there was another figure in the illuminated window of the apartment.

They just need somewhere to spend the night, to keep warm, but who would let two strangers into the house if they didn’t “lie properly.” They don't mind lying, but what? There is no plan yet, and everything happens spontaneously. Busygin pretends to be Sarafanov's eldest son. The situation is already largely justified, since the viewer knows two important circumstances. Firstly, Busygin does not have a father. Busygin himself will remind you of this, answering Silva’s question about how he came up with this. He will say: “By chance. By chance. I grew up on alimony, no, no, and even remember. My son’s feelings awoke in me.”

But even the first time he reports a fact, it cannot go unnoticed or get lost. This was not a casually dropped phrase, but a whole vivid episode that leads to the reporting of a fact. The viewer's attention is activated by Silva's amusing story about his parent, which ends quite unexpectedly: “Here, he says, you have the last twenty rubles, go to the tavern, get drunk, make a row, but such a row that I won’t see you for a year or two!” "Nothing, huh?"

The viewer waits for what's next, what's the solution. Maybe Busygin has a similar story? An intriguing series of questions follows, and only to the third does Busygin answer: “I don’t have a father.” A dramatic, very subtly constructed episode: what should be remembered, not lost in memory, is presented on the principle of disappointed expectation, as an anti-climax.

The second circumstance that the viewer knows - the visit of Sarafanov Sr. to Makarskaya - will later turn out to be a false motivation, but for now this is not important. Busygin has already uttered the word “son.” Silva assessed him: “I think he has a lot of them.” And then they begin to juggle with this word, for now imposing on the viewer the very idea: “The whole point is that Andrei Grigorievich Sarafanov is my father.”

Now there remains the last, but most difficult thing: how to arrange their meeting with Sarafanov Sr. The first act of the play - Silva and Busygin's adaptation to the situation - ends successfully.

Busygin and Silva suddenly turn into witnesses, observers of someone else’s life, and are present during the creation of a “scene on a stage.” They accidentally encountered an unfamiliar world of relationships and conflicts, but if Busygin gradually becomes its resident, then the function of the second character in the development of the action is different. Silva remains out until the end family relations, and when he tries to “play along” with Busygin, he finds only stereotyped, false phrases. It plays the role of a kind of barometer of artificiality, the contrived nature of the situation, forcing the viewer to constantly feel the line between the world of real and dramatically artificial relationships. The very appearance of these two characters does not create a conflict, but becomes a conventional device that allows them, along with the viewer, to witness what is happening. This formal device does not determine the meaning of the play, but only helps to understand it.

Created critical situation. She is quite critical on her own: Nina is getting married and is going to leave for Khabarovsk, Vasenka, in love, does stupid things and almost leaves school and home. Someone has to stay with dad. This is where the “big brother” turned up. In their relationship, he plays the role of a catalyst, a reaction accelerator. New person, to whom they present their versions and whose support they seek. This is what both Nina and her father do, at whose request Busygin conducts conversations with Vasenka.

As Busygin ceases to be a stranger in this family and gets used to its relationships, a contrast is revealed in place of his former commonality with Silva. On a superficial, external level, there is no fundamental difference between them. Silva is more cheeky, Busygin is gloomier and more distrustful. It was he who came up with the aphorism: “People have thick skin, and it’s not so easy to break through it. You have to lie properly, only then will they believe you and sympathize with you.” And, following this aphorism, it is Busygin who comes up with the story with his eldest son. At the end of the play, Silva warns the Sarafanovs that they are dealing with a repeat offender. He almost believes it himself. And in the first act he modestly stipulated that theft is not his genre. The difference between the heroes is in the deeper, human qualities that Busygin finds in himself and Silva does not find.

Silva’s place in the play is too prominent for him to be so easily dismissed by showing him off in burnt pants. The reader easily accepts the comic decline of this image, but throughout the entire play he sympathizes with him, applauding the performer, but extending his sympathy to the street-colloquial wit of the character himself. In Silva, the reader finds the charm of modernity, of today, and with pleasure catches familiar conversational notes.

The play "The Eldest Son" was originally called "The Suburb". Perhaps such a name is more connected with meaning than a new, neutral one. The fact that the action takes place in the suburbs is important. Although the waves of “vanity” reach here, they are already fading, taking on quieter, family forms. “Vanity” for Vampilov’s heroes is any situation in which relationships go beyond a person’s control and begin to dictate their own repeating rhythm to him.

In the play “Duck Hunt” there is a reverse move - from the suburbs to the city.

One of the heroines says: “Yesterday, when we were moving, I got into the car and thought: well, that’s it. Hello to you, Aunt Moti and Uncle Petya. Goodbye suburbs, we're going to Broadway." There's quite a lot on this Broadway big city, where there is a central technical information bureau, the action takes place. The hero, Zilov, works in the information bureau. At least that's where he goes to work. Vampilov’s heroes do not suffer from lack of time. True, Zilov, having received a letter from his father, was never able to get out Small town, but not because he was under time pressure. This is what he says: “From dad. Let's see what the old fool writes (reads). Well, well... Oh, my God. He dies again. (Taking a break from writing). Pay attention, once or twice a year, as a rule, the old man goes to bed to die...”

This time the father did die. Rhythm presupposes orderliness and meaningfulness of movement. The heroes of the play “Duck Hunt” are in a state of incessant and pointless movement - “vanity”. In this play, Vampilov continued the type of “relationship drama” already begun earlier, but here the hero’s adaptation does not take place in a new situation for him, but in a well-lived, all too familiar situation. In the play, Zilov, like Busygin, witnesses events, his attitude towards which changes as the action progresses, but, unlike Busygin, he witnesses events not in someone else’s life, but in his own life.

Devoid of a specific plot, the place of which is taken by a biographical sequence of scenes from the life of Zilov, the play “Duck Hunt” is subject to a very rigid dramaturgy. The dramaturgical rigidity of the play is not in the precise and unambiguous plot scheme: what follows from what, but in the certainty of the dialogue and reactions of all the characters in each individual episode.

It may seem that the general logic disappears, especially in the scene of a seemingly unprovoked, illogical scandal that Zilov arranges for his friends and without which the play would not have taken place. Indeed, how can one justify this sudden and inadequate reaction of the hero? In one of the remarks, the author warns in advance of the possibility of an obvious, but not dramatic, accidental explanation: “Despite the drink, Zilov is still of a sober mind and solid memory.” And when the indignant guests disperse, a remark follows: “Only now is he finally getting drunk.” Zilov creates a scandal in his right mind and strong memory, although why he does this, he himself will not be able to explain the next morning: “The scandal - yes, I remember the scandal... Why did I create it? Yes, I myself think - why? I don’t think I can understand, God knows why!..” It is the absence of explanations and conclusions in the play in general and in each particular episode that creates the impression of randomness of what is happening. But the random, unexplained course of events creates a situation for a person that Vampilov called “vanity.” Events in the play are random, but they are closed in the non-random effect they cause. The tension of each scene does not disappear into the sand, does not disappear, but gradually accumulates, is transferred to the hero and is resolved in the final scandal, when the reaction seems, at first glance, to be unconditional. Zilov's breakdown occurs due to a combination of motives, when the tension has reached critical point and discharge is inevitable, no special additional reason is required.

“Duck Hunt” is a psychological play, but the psychologism here is special. In the play there is no direct correspondence between an external event and a psychological reaction to it, which makes adjustments to the character of the hero. For this, the event must become a reason, must be recognized precisely as a reason. Here the hero is faced not with each individual event, but with their undifferentiated flow. This is a feature of “vanity” in which the individuality of a person or a fact ceases to exist, ceases to be distinguishable. Hence the unbreakable constancy of character, preserved by Zilov until the very end, no matter what. He breaks down precisely because of a combination of motives, when random events create a critical situation to which he is unable to adapt, remaining unchanged. He needs at least some relief.

The action of the play begins in Zilov’s apartment the morning after the scandal he caused. He really can’t remember what happened, he tries to find out something from the waiter Dima on the phone. But in any case, it is clear that this breakdown would have remained an episode for him, a necessary release, left unattended, if not for the continuation that his “joke” received. “Don’t they understand jokes?” – he asks Dima, referring to his yesterday’s guests. But they themselves answer this rhetorical question by offering their own joke. A boy enters Zilov’s apartment with a wreath, on the ribbon of which is written: “To the unforgettable, untimely burned out at work, Viktor Aleksandrovich Zilov from inconsolable friends.”

Zilov himself “understands” this joke with obvious reluctance, but it played its role. She reminds Zilov that it’s time to think “about the soul” and makes his memory tape unwind. Like a memory interrupted telephone conversations with Dima, the play develops.

The tension of random, at first glance, episodes accumulates in the action, its semantic direction is emphasized - at the very beginning and at the end - by the same scene, but different in its idea. Zilov, as soon as the wreath was brought, imagines the reaction of various relatives and acquaintances to his death: “The behavior of persons, their conversations in this scene should look parody, buffoonish, but not without dark irony.” Once again, the same episode passes before his gaze, when the circle of memories has already been completed by yesterday’s scandal: “The behavior of persons and conversations that again arose in Zilov’s imagination, this time should look without buffoonery and exaggeration, as in his memories, that is, as if all this really happened.” Between these two poles - comic and dramatic, if not tragic - events are located.

This twice-repeated scene also corresponds to the hero’s double reaction. At first, random and ordinary. Random – because every event is perceived as an episode. In the flow of events, only the latter is seen, obscuring in memory everything that preceded it. But after the memory in front of him “develops its long scroll,” the random reaction is replaced by knowledge of the sum, the totality of the events that preceded it and caused it... It becomes conscious and receives a continuation, which almost ended tragically - with Zilov’s suicide. Everything goes from the comic pole to the tragic and to an ambiguous ending, when it is not clear whether the hero is crying or laughing.

After this scene is repeated, Zilov really changes. Now a detente is coming, like a hero’s epiphany. He is in a hurry to abandon his former self, in a hurry to give up everything: an apartment, a boat... He doesn’t need anything else. Friends are perplexed and confused. They ask him to pull himself together. He will pull himself together, he will go duck hunting. The play ends with his call to Dima: “Dima? This is Zilov... Yes... Sorry, old man, I got excited... Yes, everything is correct... Completely calm... Yes, I want to go hunting... Are you leaving?.. Great... I'm ready... Yes, I’m leaving now.”

Speaking about this play and looking for a positive beginning in it, we need to remember its dramatic convention. Unlike ordinary drama, where the characters' point of view creates the impression of objectivity, here events take place in the perception of one person as his memories. Consequently, in this monologue drama, the conclusions do not pretend to be objective, since they depend only on the change in the attitude of the main character. More precisely, not conclusions, but the result of the development of action. If a person believes in something, considering it white, and if, disappointed, he decides to renounce his belief, then, without dwelling on the intermediate shades, he often declares this something black! Renunciation, as a rule, is associated with the replacement of one pole with another, at least at the moment of the first reaction.

This is what happens with Zilov. But from the very beginning he was singled out, marked among the rest. Just as Sarafanov sees his chance - not to dissolve in the “vanity” (“I’m composing”), Zilov, although more conventionally, gets his chance in the face of “vanity”: duck hunting. This is the only thing he wants and strives for. His friends are also trying to achieve something, although not very zealously: one is for apartments, the other is for the saleswoman Vera, who calls everyone incomprehensible word"alik". Zilov does not need to strive for this. He is lucky, everything comes to him on its own, and when he breaks down, it seems especially surprising: “What happened anyway? What's the matter?.. What are you dissatisfied with? What are you missing? Young, healthy, you have a job, an apartment, women love you. Live and be happy. What else do you need? He lives from vacation to vacation, when he can go duck hunting. Talking about her is his constant refrain. The very obsession of this seemingly simple thought becomes incomprehensible and annoying for the other characters. The first scandal begins with her. The reason turns out to be far from accidental according to Zilov’s scale of values. Two attitudes collide: complete satisfaction with “vanity”, desires limited by its boundaries, and... what is called “duck hunting” in the play. Not in a nominal sense, but in a symbolic sense. Duck hunting is just a slacker’s dream, which overshadowed his work and prevented him from going to his father: “September is an inviolable time: hunting.” For Zilov, duck hunting is not a hobby at all - he is offended by such an assumption. It is no coincidence that in the play they repeatedly say that he is a completely useless hunter and shooter. He himself admits this, and his wife warns at the very beginning: “The main thing is getting ready and talking.” All these individual remarks, behavior and reason in the scandal scene, not at all a hunting conversation with Dima - all this together, in the course of the action, leads to the idea that the main thing is, indeed, not hunting, but the desire to hunt. But rather, a desire for somewhere and for something. And the fact that the new meaning only partially supplanted the original one, and partially merged with it, makes the symbol not ideally abstract, but corresponding to the dramatic situation, contradictory in itself.

Zilov's circle of friends consists not of just random people, but of his colleagues, led by his immediate superior Kushak. Twice we end up in their establishment. On the first visit we become witnesses to industrial deception on the initiative of Zilov, and on the second - the disclosure of this deception. But there is no production conflict in the play, since there is no work itself - no one takes it seriously. The inscription on the wreath – “untimely burned out at work” – is an ironic metaphor, a kind of epigraph to the play.

“Hippocrates’ Humoral Theory of Temperaments Plan Introduction. Hippocrates is one of the most prominent doctors of Ancient Greece. Hippocrates' theory of temperaments. Constitutional theory of temperaments.5. Conclusion.6. List of used literature. Introduction. Temperament (lat. temperamentum the proper ratio of traits from tempero I mix in the proper..."

“Creative games The development of a person’s creative thinking cannot occur only by studying special algorithms and rules for searching for new ideas. Practice matters a lot. This article presents and...”

“Friendship comes in different forms. In almost every class there are a couple of friends, one of whom is protection and support for the weak, and the other is faithful ally to his patron. The relationship between them can be defined as friendship - service. The strong one in this couple, as it were, allows the weak one to be friends with him, without condescending to the real one...”

“Music and human health Music. So earthly and unearthly. Music is like a reflection of another space, another time, other worlds. It sounds in the noise of a waterfall, the rustling of leaves, and the singing of birds. The grasses reaching towards the Sun are filled with music, for the Sun is music itself. An old Soviet song..."

“Lesson on speech development in the preparatory group “Walk in the winter forest” Objectives: 1 Improving the grammatical structure of speech: the formation of forms of the instrumental case, the agreement of an adjective with a noun, word formation skills, the use of possessive adjectives.2. Development of thinking and memory, vision...”

Vsevolod Sakharov

The fate of the Irkutsk playwright Alexander Vampilov (1937-1972) in many of its features seemed to anticipate the fate of Vasily Shukshin: early death - and the subsequent rapid growth of interest in theaters, criticism and audiences in Vampilov's plays. In this interest, the share of vain curiosity and fashion “like Vampilov”, which is inevitable in such cases, is noticeable, and at the same time it is clear that success was predetermined by the playwright himself, who managed to create not just a few successful plays (in this case, no fashion would have helped him) , but something holistic - a theater that is rapidly developing, subject to its own laws, a special aesthetics.

For example, “The Eldest Son” is perhaps Vampilov’s most scenic play. Take a closer look at it, and you will see that in a cramped box, scenes are played out, helping one another, as many as two plays. It is difficult for viewers to immediately figure out which of them is more important. But it is clear which is more fun, more dynamic - of course, a comedy about the dashing impudent heartthrob Silva.

This clown is a crowd favorite, a spring of man who regularly turns the wheel of action. He jokes, plays the guitar, sings, etc. - in a word, he spends the whole evening on the carpet. And if this play by Vampilov can be called a comedy, then the main reason for this is Silva’s remarks and actions that amuse the audience.

Behind Silva, the main thing that he so diligently serves is not always discernible - a conversation about loneliness and unity. These themes exclude each other, and their merciless struggle is the basis of Alexander Vampilov’s dramaturgy.

At the beginning of “The Elder Son” there is cold, darkness, a cruel, piercing wind. And two in the wind, surrounded by carefully curtained windows and securely closed doors. And student Busygin calmly says to Silva, who is about to call for help: “Who are you, what do they care about you?.. People have thick skin, and it’s not so easy to break through it.” On the street, in front of the locked doors, one can feel the full weight of these hackneyed truths, which seem to indicate the only way out From this situation - the path of evil, loneliness and mistrust.

In Vampilov's plays, this path is always offered to the heroes. But at the same time they are given the opportunity to choose. In “The Eldest Son,” Busygin and Silva easily choose evil, and the playwright emphasizes the thoughtlessness of this act. They invade someone else's life, the already dysfunctional, disintegrating Sarafanov family. This is where this crazy, reckless deception, cruel imposture begins: Silva declares Busygin the eldest son of the head of the family, and the student agrees to this game.

And suddenly, in a conversation between the uninvited guests and the confused Vasenka, youngest son Sarafanova, this word comes up for the first time - “brother”. “What do we need? Trust... Man is brother to man, I hope you’ve heard about this... A suffering, hungry, cold brother stands at the threshold, and he won’t even invite him to sit down,” Busygin reproaches Vasenka. And from the very tone it is clear that the Word “brother” has long been lost for speaker's meaning and effectiveness, turned into a worn-out cliche, into rhetoric. This whole conversation is essentially a shameless game of trust, a continuous exchange of lofty words and concepts, a lowering of spiritual values.

In "Eldest Son" conversations follow conversations, new characters appear. But the main event has already happened: the doors opened and people met. The word “brother” is spoken, and in response the same word sounds, but with a different meaning: the head of the Sarafanov family writes the oratorio “All people are brothers” all his life. And the entire further action of the play is devoted to the resurrection of the old, eternal meaning of this word - “brother”.

This work ends successfully: people who were previously separated, absorbed in everyday life, trifles, who built their lives according to everyday rules (like Ninina: “I don’t need Cicero, I need a husband”), eventually unite into a friendly family. Everything is fine - that's what the comedy is for. But now Silva runs away from these people, and with him the superficial, self-sufficient comedy goes away. Remains main topic, which stood the test of the stage. The audience was watching her, and Silva’s tricks and jokes, while amusing the audience, did not at all obscure this topic.

The theme of “The Eldest Son” is not new: the art of human communication, unity, spiritual brotherhood. But Vampilov is also talking about something else here - about what hard, painstaking work it is, how expensive it is to establish such simple, everyday relationships between people, to improve everyday ethics. And here there is no longer any comedic serenity, no lyricism of everyday life. Vampilov’s comedy always threatens to turn into tragedy, and in the constant struggle against impending troubles, losses are sometimes more serious than gains. Small victories come at an incredible cost and require constant spiritual sensitivity, but ethical deafness, on the contrary, greatly simplifies and makes life easier, showing a person the path of ready-made decisions. Everything seems to be right about the square cadet Kudimov, and yet he is deeply unlikable. And Busygin, who at first is neither cold nor hot, enters the Sarafanov family, becomes brother and son, for he is not unambiguous, although imperfect. He is capable of both deep affection and new faith in old words.

But what makes these people overcome spiritual cold and loneliness and find unity and warmth? And who so fearlessly demanded a considerable payment from them for such an ordinary, small victory? Vampilov, of course, could say quite loud words here. But his explanation is simple: “Whatever you say, life is always smarter than all of us who live and think. Yes, yes, life is fair and merciful. She makes heroes doubt, and she will always console those who did little, and even those who did nothing but lived with a pure heart.” Of course, Vampilov’s play is not about doubting heroes and not about little people. It is about ordinary people who managed to withstand the test and unite. And life paid them for this with warmth, light, and a feeling of unity.

In “The Eldest Son,” the action is gradually taken over by student Busygin, an intelligent but tired man. For Vampilov this is the main, most interesting guy personality running through all his plays. This young man came to the comedy “The Eldest Son” from “Farewell in June,” an early play that was still imperfect in many ways. In The Eldest Son, this hero, with the help of those around him, ultimately wins. In "Farewell in June" he is broken.

This Vampilov play, with all its emphasized “youth” - sad story about the compromise that destroyed extraordinary personality. The hero of this sad comedy, student Kolesov, was let down by his reckless faith and the iron everyday scheme of a scientist’s career: diploma, graduate school, academic degree, etc. He is a talented plant breeder and botanist and cannot imagine life outside of high science, outside beautiful world herbs and flowers. But it is no coincidence that in Vampilov’s play the song plays all the time: “It’s all the lilies of the valley’s fault...”

For the sake of his herbs and flowers, Kolesov takes the path of compromise and ultimately comes to betrayal. Friendship and love are traditionally celebrated. There is nothing terrible or shocking about this betrayal - it’s an ordinary deception, where one offers a diploma and graduate school, the other - human dignity. This is simply a disgusting bargain that people entered into of their own free will. Everything is clear here. Another thing is interesting: Kolesov’s insecurity, his readiness for such a compromise.

High science is not combined here with high ethics, and therefore Vampil’s hero commits all his betrayals precisely for science. Characteristic are the alliances concluded by Kolesov with Repnikov and Zolotuev.

The rector of the institute, Repnikov, is a failed scientist who indulges himself in administrative work. Once upon a time he was broken and made a compromise. That is why I could not become a scientist. In Kolesov, Repnikov suddenly saw himself, his youth, and therefore feels a strange sympathy for him, mixed with hatred. It is no coincidence that he says confidentially: “Agree, you and I have something in common... He who once badly stumbles will limp all his life.” And Repnikov is right: Kolesov seems to be repeating his path.

Another friend of Kolesov is the old cynic Zolotuev, a flower speculator. “An honest person is one who is given little. You need to give so much that a person cannot refuse, and then he will definitely take it!” - this is his creed, and Kolesov confirms this rule with his fate. They gave him so much that he couldn't refuse. Of course, this is not vulgar money, but a subtle spiritual temptation. And Kolesov makes a decision: “I’m not Romeo. It just seemed to me that I was Romeo... I don’t have time for this...” And when Zolotuev asks how much Kolesov gave for the diploma, he replies: “I gave a lot... A lot, uncle, you never dreamed of so much. ..” Indeed, the man could not resist and broke. And it is unclear whether he has enough strength to rise. At the end of the play, Vampilov leaves his hero in an eloquent pose - with an outstretched hand, as if begging for a little warmth and participation.

In “Farewell in June,” a cruel test is given to the individual, and the person’s guilt is determined. And we could leave this hero and move on to other people and problems. But Vampilov did not calm down and in “The Eldest Son” he showed us the revival of the hero. But this one difficult fate there is another option. And it is given in “Duck Hunt,” a little staged, controversial play by Alexander Vampilov.

"Duck Hunt" is a highly strange play. It sometimes seems hopeless and turns into a gloomy grotesque. It is difficult, very difficult to see the light behind this darkness and not fall into destructive sarcasm and “black” humor. There is, apparently, only one way out: when playing this play by Vampilov, it is necessary to reveal its entire concept, and not to play out individual lines and scenes. And then the material itself will lead the performance, not allowing you to deviate from the main idea.

And it's easy to deviate. Look how boldly, almost defiantly Vampilov begins. In the morning, a very serious boy brings the main character a wreath with the inscription on the funeral ribbon: “To the unforgettable Viktor Aleksandrovich Zilov, who burned out untimely at work, from inconsolable friends.” Well, it's a cruel joke. But Zilov is not an angel. All his actions are a much more cruel game with people.

“Duck Hunt” is full of conflicts to the limit, and each of them, quite important in itself, speeds up the action. The play moves in jerks, revealing all the pitfalls, all the hidden flaws of these destinies. The blows mount: a breakup with his wife, troubles at work, the death of his father, the growing irritation of friends. And all this ends with a grandiose scandal in a cafe, where Zilov tells each of his acquaintances what he thinks about him. “Your decency disgusts me,” he shouts with hysterical anguish. And the creepiest thing about this scene is that he tells everyone the truth. They are all good, they are all smeared with the same world, these people who are considered Zilov’s friends. One of them speaks for everyone: “If you look at it, life is essentially lost...”

But there is no need to mistake Zilov for a kind of modern Chatsky, who saw the terrible faces of monsters around him and rebelled. All his actions are essentially the evil amusements of an immensely bored person, indifferent to life and people. Zilov has so mastered rhetoric, the poetry of empty beautiful words that sometimes he believes himself. It dies in it great artist, who turned his entire life into one continuous play. He also has something like the “Moscow” of Chekhov’s sisters - duck hunting, infinitely distant wonderful Life, where you can escape from “lead abominations” and monsters. But all this is a game, a cruel theater that ends in nothing. Everything has happened, everything has been said. And everything remained the same.

Why did Vampilov show us this unsympathetic man and his friends? Why weren’t you afraid of being accused of pessimism? After all, it would be much easier to write a light lyrical comedy about young lovers or everyday scenes telling about someone else's life... But Alexander Vampilov writes not a sweet story, but a cruel drama, merciless to the characters. He points to the phenomenon of life, shows it as it really is. And this is much more effective than caricatures and ridicule.

Vampilov’s play is precisely high satire, overcoming the flaws of the soul, because it forces us to take a closer look not only at Zilov, who has lost his support, but also at ourselves.

This view of Vampilov on the role of theatre, among other things, returned dramaturgy to its strength and effectiveness. Everything is important in this small world, and Vampilov’s strength lies precisely in this heightened sense of theater, to which everything is subordinated, including the light, seemingly flying dialogue that the actors so like.

Vampilov did not write scripts or texts for the theater, but dramas that only had to be staged and played. And all the efforts of the director and actors went into this production, into revealing Vampilov’s plan. Professionalism was needed here. The success of the performance depended on the accuracy of the understanding of the play. Naturally, Vampilov’s plays could not please the so-called “director’s” theater, in which the playwright’s text is just an excuse for another “interesting interpretation.” This can be easily verified by looking at theater posters.

“Duck Hunt” turned out to be too difficult for many, but it has a much lighter, comedic version - “Provincial Jokes.” This comedy is composed of two one-act plays, between the writing of which there is a time interval of eight years. Therefore, it is difficult to discern the main idea in it, as if obscured by the brilliant comedy... But here Vampilov himself helped us, placing an epigraph from Gogol at the beginning of his comedy.

Here is the first of these small plays - “The Story with the Master Page”. How easy it is to see in it a witty mockery of the administrator Kaloshin, this reinforced concrete “bourbon” and fool, a wandering set of official rules! The terrible word “metranpage”, incomprehensible to Kaloshin, hangs over the stage all the time, and the administrator’s monologue about his work and positions fits perfectly into this interpretation. There is a purely Gogolian situation, where the role of an auditor or a revived nose is played by a mythical pageant. And one could laugh at the dunce Kaloshin and move on to the second play, if not for the epigraph.

This epigraph is taken from the same Gogol, on whose grave it was written: “I will laugh at my bitter word.” And in Vampilov’s “anecdote” there is not a mocking giggle, but a bitter laugh. It was said bitterly, mournful word about a man who gradually lost himself and came to a very tragic ending. And no amount of irony will help this person. Moreover, it becomes clear that in such cases irony is powerless, because it satisfies the pride of the scoffer, but cannot do anything with the real phenomenon of life.

Vampilov chooses something else: he plays out this whole story with the master page primarily for Kaloshin, shows him all the monstrous absurdity of his life. The playwright helps a person who has put himself in a stupid position to get out of this situation. And for this, Kaloshin must look at himself, at his life from the outside.

In “The Story of a Metrean Page,” one is struck by the strength of Vampilov’s faith in man, in his hidden capabilities. It seems that Kaloshin has become so ossified and forgotten himself that there is nothing you can do to help him. But he was once alive, cheerful, able to feel. After all, he says to his friend: “Eh, Boris! There was only life in my youth... Do you remember when we worked on the river?.. The tugboat was “Grigory Kotovsky”, remember?.. And “Lieutenant Schmidt”? (Crying). All that remains from the past are the names of the ships, but the feeling of a life lived wrong has already arrived. Kaloshin is changing, reaching for a new life. True, for this he had to experience the cruel mockery of fate. But, apparently, it was impossible otherwise.

And Vampilov’s second “anecdote” is also about the incredibly difficult work of good. This is precisely a drama, in its tragedy not inferior to “Duck Hunt”. Vampilov seems to emphasize the kinship of these plays, connecting them with one eloquent detail: Zilov has not seen his parents for four years and is late for his father’s funeral because of his insignificant affairs, and agronomist Khomutov in “Twenty Minutes with an Angel” could not visit his mother for six years and give gave her money and only had time for her funeral.

This Khomutov is the angel who, within twenty minutes, brought ordinary clients of the Taiga Hotel into a state of some kind of evil obsession. One hundred of his rubles, saved up for his mother and generously donated to a business traveler who had been reveling, becomes a kind of symbol of a different attitude to life and that is why it leads everyone to extreme irritation. Khomutov’s act is a challenge, a reproach that unmistakably hits the target.

“Angel” informs the shocked business travelers of quite simple, well-known truths: “It’s not easy for all of us mortals, and we must help each other. How could it be otherwise?.. The hour comes, and we pay dearly for our indifference, for our selfishness.” This is no newer than Sarafanov’s: “All people are brothers.” But Khomutov paid so dearly for these old truths that he can no longer live as before.

That is why his very presence is unbearable for people who are ossified in shallow everyday life, in a stubborn distrust of lofty truths. That is why they are so cruel to the righteous man who suddenly appeared among them, they so stubbornly strive to find in him and his action some kind of underlying reason, a disgusting flaw.

Here again, it’s easy to misunderstand Vampilov. But if the playwright believed in Kaloshin, why would he place next to this magnanimous story a pessimistic passage on the topic “All people are scoundrels”? Is it not better to assume that in the second “anecdote” the same theme of faith and hope is continued in other ways?

Let's think about this: all these different people abandoned their daily activities and gathered around the bound “angel”. They are furious, they are waving their fists, they have quarreled among themselves, and each one frankly determines their own level of disbelief in the person. But they all thought about it. Moreover, they already think together. From this scandal, something lasting, unifying and enlightening is born.

Of course, Vampilov had no intention of ending the play with a brotherly hug. This would be a lie from all points of view. He wanted to show and showed something else: the difficult work of thought and feeling that begins in all these people. This work will bear fruit neither today nor tomorrow. But the grain is thrown into the ground. And Vampilov himself believes and makes us believe in a successful outcome.

“Provincial jokes” with their very unfunny basis make us think about the genre nature of Vampil’s plays. What is it - comedies, tragedies? The playwright himself also thought about this, and in the unfinished vaudeville “Incomparable Tips” a delightful dialogue about the nature of drama appeared. The artist Eduardov teaches the future playwright Nakonechnikov the basics of drama.

“Tips. They walk, talk... One was silent, and then he said: “You can’t live like this anymore, he says, you are not people, but jerboas, it’s boring,” he says. “I’ll put you in prison,” he says, “and I’ll sit down with you.”

Eduardov. So. This is drama.

Tips. And I saw the other one, so there was more and more laughter. And the guy is funny. He says, you took my wife away from me, of course, you took my son away too, you have other shortcomings, he says, but now, he says, that’s a thing of the past, and on the whole, he says, you are still not bad people. Therefore, he says, let's all have fun together,

Eduardov. And this is a comedy.

There's a lot of sarcasm here. Alexander Vampilov seemed to have foreseen the controversy about his dramaturgy and, as if by the way, expressed his opinion.

The last play Alexandra Vampilova “Last Summer in Chulimsk” is a drama in the full sense of the word. This is another play about a broken man. Everything here is addressed to investigator Shamanov, everything is done for him. But he himself cannot give anything in return, because he has long since lost the feeling of strength and fullness, the authenticity of his life. In Shamanovo, only the dead, the survivor remained. There is not even a desire to live, and this is especially clearly seen when he gives the enraged Pashka his pistol and, in essence, pushes him to kill. This once strong and brave man is now a living dead, cast into dust. It seems that the abyss that has accepted him is so deep; that it is impossible to rise from it.

However, the play ends with the revival of Shamanov. But for this life this one: extraordinary person still needed, commits a cruel act.

Next to Shamanov, the playwright creates Valentina, a bright and poetic creature. Despite her tragedy, no dirt will stick to this girl. It is impossible to break it, because authenticity, organicity and strength of feelings and life sensations reign here. Valentina’s naive, reckless faith in the people of even the extinct Shamanov surprises and interests, although he tells her skeptically: “You place too much hope on them.”

It is no coincidence that critics were so carried away by Valentina, her calm faith, and the stubborn restoration of everything destroyed - from the ruined front garden to the broken fate of investigator Shamanov. It does not immediately become clear that Valentina is a symbol of a wise life that heals all wounds; calmly existing inside Vampilov’s drama, merciless in its uncompromising realism.

But Vampilov creates high tragedy. In world drama, tragedy often arose where an innocent, bright creature, a symbol of goodness, died. The death of the devastated Shamanov could not teach anything, would not create a sense of tragedy. But when misfortune overtakes Valentina, a strong feeling arises that shocked the audience and tore Shamanov out of his spiritual sleep. And again Vampilov shows what price one has to pay for revival human personality. His tragedy plays out at such heights of spirit that from the very beginning we forget about the ordinary Chulimsk and think only about the lessons of humanity contained in this ordinary story.

The playwright sees the complexity of life modern man and believes in him, in his ability to survive and win. And therefore Vampilov’s plays are structured as arguments in the great debate about man. But in them there is no forgiveness, no justification of everything human. Here everything that is inorganic, evil, and leads a person away from the main path is condemned and mercilessly cut off. This theater is extremely demanding of its characters, because it strictly implements the old principle of our literature formulated by Dostoevsky - “with complete realism, find the person in a person.”

Speaking about the dramaturgy of Alexander Vampilov, we must always remember the incompleteness and lack of composition of his theater. He started well, but it's hard to judge the whole from a great start. Nevertheless, the very movement of dramatic material indicates the right direction for further searches. Vampilov left us excellent plays, but they should not obscure the main thing - the idea of ​​a new theater that holds them together. We will, apparently, return to this idea more than once in our debates about modern dramaturgy.

Keywords: Alexander Vampilov, criticism of the works of Alexander Vampilov, criticism of the plays of Alexander Vampilov, analysis of the works of Alexander Vampilov, download criticism, download analysis, download for free, Russian literature of the 20th century.

Alexander Valentinovich Vampilov(August 19, 1937, Kutulik, Irkutsk region - August 17, 1972, Port Baikal) - Soviet playwright.

During literary work A. Vampilov wrote about 70 stories, sketches, essays, articles and feuilletons. In 1962, A. Vampilov wrote a one-act play “Twenty Minutes with an Angel.” In 1963, the one-act comedy “House with Windows on a Field” was written. In 1964, during his studies, the first big play was written - the comedy “Farewell in June” (the playwright returned to work on it several times: four versions of the play are known). In 1965, A. Vampilov wrote the comedy “The Eldest Son” (the first title was “The Suburb”). In 1968, the playwright completed the play “Duck Hunt”. At the beginning of 1971, A. Vampilov completed work on the drama “Last Summer in Chulimsk” (first title “Valentina”).

“A chance, a trifle, a coincidence of circumstances sometimes become the most dramatic moments in a person’s life,”- Vampilov developed this idea in his plays. A. Vampilov was deeply worried moral problems. His works are written on life material. Awakening conscience, cultivating a sense of justice, kindness and mercy - these are the main motives his plays.

Type of hero of time - eccentrics, strange people, weird women, bringing the holiday (Valentina in the play “Last Summer in Chulimsk”.

Sound. There are no musical sequences - there is an interesting speech of the characters. What is important is the chance - the random circumstance of the episodes, the case is a test for the heroes. The hero's personality manifests itself through dramatic and tragic episodes.

While studying, he wrote the comedy Fair (other title Farewell in June, 1964), which was highly appreciated by playwrights A. Arbuzov and V. Rozov. Vampilov’s own theme can be heard as a harbinger. It has not yet gained strength, it is only cutting through the plot of a “student comedy”, sometimes too intricate, sometimes too simple, in the style of a faculty skit. There are still many spectacular provisions, they are sketched out generously and illegibly. An upset wedding, a failed duel, a hero serving fifteen days of forced labor... The author still does not quite believe that he can hold our attention with a character sketch. And the character has already been presented, its own theme is stated by the fate of young Kolesov.

Zolotuev seems to be a completely introductory comic character, but in the concept of the play he is the most important. Breaking all the laws of the genre, he delivers a three-page monologue. This monologue is about the misfortune of an old bribe-taker who ran into an honest man. He still can’t believe that he didn’t take bribes - everyone takes them, it’s important not to miss the price offered. Zolotuev is offended, indignant at his ostentatious honesty and, even after serving the allotted time, he is sure that he was in prison in vain: it means he gave little.

But what does this have to do with the pensioner Zolotuev, when we are interested in the dashingly brave, honest and charming guy Kolosov? Kolesov is full of young energy, harmless mischief, but in general he is a great guy and when he is kicked out of the institute, most of the guys are on his side.

Trouble comes to the young hero from the other side: when he has to make his first serious life choice. It’s not just blood flowing through your veins, it’s a serious matter: college or love?

Having laughed at Zolotuev, Kolesov himself does not notice how he converts to his faith: everything is bought and sold, the price and purpose are important. Leaving your beloved girl, as her father demands, is both difficult and mean. But what if the diploma is on fire? If fate is at stake? Kolesov had everything that is characteristic of a good, honest young man: next to and across from enthusiasm there is a skeptical posture, next to the romance of the soul, distrust of phrases, educational pressure, moral rules with which elders are always bored. This is probably where the mischief and youth come from. Hence the demonstrative practicality, ostentatious rationalism, a little funny and still innocent at a young age, but imperceptibly, like Kolesov, justifying the first transactions with conscience.

In Kolesov, the negative shines through, which will be the essence of Victor in “Duck Hunt”. Kolesov's transformation is a wheel, he betrays the girl for the sake of a diploma, scientific work. It can roll here and there. Zilov in “Duck Hunt” - Zil truck, goes along the destinies. There are 20 years between these heroes, the winning student has become an egoist and a scoundrel. 3 plots in “Farewell in June” - Kolesov and Tanya, a student wedding and a mono drama - a man who measures everything for money.

In 1967 Vampilov wrote plays Eldest Son and Duck Hunt, in which the tragic component of his drama was fully embodied. In the comedy The Eldest Son, within the framework of a masterfully written intrigue (the deception of the Sarafanov family by two friends, Busygin and Silva), the conversation was about the eternal values ​​of existence - the continuity of generations, the severing of emotional ties, love and forgiveness of close people to each other. In this play, the “metaphor theme” of Vampilov’s plays begins to sound: the theme of the house as a symbol of the universe. The playwright himself, who lost his father in early childhood, perceived the relationship between father and son especially painfully and acutely.

Not in the foreground love stories, and the relationship between father and son, although they are not blood relatives. I remember the return prodigal son from the bible . Theme: to go crazy or not to go crazy- they all go crazy with feelings. All this develops into a loving relationship.

The plot of the play “The Eldest Son” is simple. The title of the play “The Eldest Son” is most apt, since it main character- Volodya Busygin fully justified the role he took on. He helped Nina and Vasenka understand how much their father, who raised them both without a mother who abandoned the family, meant to them. The gentle character of the head of the Sarafanov family is evident in everything. He takes everything to heart: he is ashamed of his position in front of the children, hides the fact that he left the theater, recognizes his “eldest son,” tries to calm Vasenka down and understand Nina. He cannot be called a loser, because at the very peak of his mental crisis, Sarafanov survived, while others broke. Unlike the neighbor who refused Busygin and Silva a place to stay for the night, he would have warmed the guys up even if they had not made up this story with the “eldest son.” But most importantly, Sarafanov values ​​​​his children and loves them. Children are callous towards their father.

Silva, like Volodya, is essentially also an orphan: with living parents, he was raised in a boarding school. Apparently, his father’s dislike was reflected in his character. Silva told Volodya about how his father “admonished” him: “For the last twenty rubles, he says, go to a tavern, get drunk, make a row, but such a row that I won’t see you for a year or two.” It was no coincidence that Vampilov made the origins of the heroes’ destinies similar. By this he wanted to emphasize how important a person’s own choice is, independent of circumstances. Unlike the orphan Volodya, the “orphan” Silva is cheerful, resourceful, but cynical. His true face is revealed when he “exposes” Volodya, declaring that he is not a son or a brother, but a repeat offender. Nina's fiance, Mikhail Kudimov, is an impenetrable man. You meet such people in life, but you don’t immediately understand them. “Smiles. He continues to smile a lot. He’s good-natured,” Vampilov says about him. In fact, the most precious thing to him is the word that he gave himself for all occasions. He is indifferent to people. This character occupies an insignificant place in the play, but represents a clearly defined type of “correct” people who create a suffocating atmosphere around themselves. Involved in a family intrigue, Natasha Makarskaya is shown as a decent, but unhappy and lonely person. Vampilov deeply reveals in the play the theme of loneliness, which can drive a person to despair. In the image of the Sarafanovs’ neighbor, a type of cautious person, an ordinary person, who is afraid of everything (“looks at them with caution, suspicion,” “removes silently and fearfully”) and does not interfere in anything, is deduced. Issues and main idea the plays are stated in the very title of the dramatic work. It is no coincidence that the author replaced the original title “Suburb” with “Elder Son”. The main thing is not where events take place, but where who participates in them. Be able to think, understand each other, support each other difficult moments, to show mercy - this is the main idea of ​​the play by Alexander Vampilov. The author does not define the genre of the play. Along with the comic, there are many dramatic moments in the play, especially in the subtext of the statements of Sarafanov, Silva, and Makarska.

Play "Duck Hunt" written by Vampilov in 1968. Researchers note that “Duck Hunt is Vampilov’s most bitter, most desolate play.” As critics point out, Alexander Vampilov “managed to sensitively capture and convey the loss in the everyday bustle of a sense of kindness, trust, mutual understanding, and spiritual kinship.” “You need to write about what keeps you awake at night,” Vampilov argued. “Duck Hunt” is a personally experienced, felt, silent experience. The play "Duck Hunt" takes place in the late 60s. Before the reader’s eyes is the city apartment of the main character, Zilov. Throughout the play, the hero's memories depict individual episodes of his life. Zilov is “about thirty years old,” as the author notes in the remark. Despite the hero’s young age, his spiritual decline and lack of moral and heartfelt strength are palpable. Vampilov points out that “in his gait, in his gestures, and in his conversation, there is a certain uncertainty and boredom, the origin of which cannot be determined at first glance.” As the play progresses, the reader learns that Zilov’s external well-being and physical health are just appearances. Something destroys the hero from within. Some force took over him. This force is life itself, which Zilov does not want to fight. He does not live - he becomes obsolete. At some point, fate swallowed up Zilov, the routine and routine of life became the norm, moreover, a habit, second nature. The theme of “outliving oneself” and spiritual decline runs through the entire action of the play as a leitmotif. Funeral music funeral wreath, the phrase “life, in essence, is lost” are characteristic details accompanying the development of the action. The worst thing is that Zilov has long come to terms with his fall. “Come on, old man,” he says to Sayapin, “nothing will happen between us anymore... However, I could still do something else. But I do not want. I have no desire." This phrase - “I have no desire” - personifies the entire internal and external life of the hero: his relationships with his wife, women, friends, colleagues, himself. Zilov voluntarily surrenders. He enters vicious circle, where the only action is to escape from oneself. Zilov is surrounded by people with whom he can communicate without any effort - whether heartfelt or mental. The hero probably came to such an existence after a terrible shock. Researchers note that “... behind Zilov’s<…>undoubted disappointment, mental breakdown, as a result of which he is ready to stop believing in goodness, decency, calling, work, love, conscience.” He turns into a cynic, having experienced an internal catastrophe. Suffering is opposed by indifference and denial. “Cynicism from suffering?...Have you ever thought about this?” . However, it is cynicism that allows Zilov to recognize, understand, and define. Still, he does not live in a world of illusions. As Alexander Vampilov’s contemporary writer Sergei Dovlatov noted, “cynicism presupposes the presence of common ideals.” Of course, Zilov had ideals. But they could not withstand the rough touch of reality when “turbulent life turned into meager prose.” Myself image of the coveted duck hunt devoid of romantic, idyllic coloring. For Zilov, duck hunting is nothingness, the silence of the hunt is “the soundlessness of eternal oblivion, the muteness of an almost otherworldly world”: “Do you know what silence this is? You're not there, do you understand? No. You haven't been born yet. And there is nothing. And it wasn't. And it won’t.” Breaking out of a dark cycle requires action. Not decorations, not preparations for action, but action. In spiritual despair, Zilov tries to commit suicide. But this act of his is a game with himself, dark irony, mockery: “He sat down on a chair, put the gun on the floor, leaned his chest on the trunks. I tried the trigger with one hand and tried it with the other. He put a chair, sat down, arranged the gun so that its barrels rested against his chest, and the butt against the table. He put the gun aside, pulled off his boot from his right foot, took off his sock, and again placed the gun between his chest and the table. I felt the trigger with my big toe...” In our opinion, the problematics of the play “Duck Hunt” can be defined in the words of one of Alexander Vampilov’s contemporaries, the writer Valentin Rasputin: “The main question that Vampilov constantly asks: will you remain a man, man? Will you be able to overcome all that deceitful and unkind..." “Duck Hunt” is the tragic culmination of the main theme of Alexander Vampilov’s theater: “will a living soul overcome the routine of life?” . And maybe all is not lost for Zilov. Maybe the hero will get a second wind and see that “the rain outside the window has passed, a strip of sky is turning blue, and the roof of the neighboring house is illuminated by the dim afternoon sun.” Maybe Zilov’s words “I’m ready. Yes, I’m leaving now” - real action, the beginning of a new life. Without a doubt, Alexander Vampilov possessed a rare gift - the gift of a dramatic writer. His work is alive; a sense of proportion, talent, a considerable amount of genius - features Vampilov's dramaturgy. There is no place for untruth in the play “Duck Hunt”. That is why it is read freely and at the same time turns thought into the depths of human existence. The author managed to turn dialogic speech characters into a "sparkling, energetic stream". Truthfulness and the gift of human sensitivity are what provide the work of Alexander Vampilov with incomparable appeal.

In drama Last summer in Chulimsk(1972) Vampilov created his best female image - the young worker of the provincial tea shop Valentina. This woman strove to preserve the “living soul” within herself with the same tenacity with which throughout the play she tried to preserve the front garden, which was continually trampled by indifferent people.

Almost all Vampilov's heroes young and carefree. They easily go through life, doing their wonderful stupid things. But the day comes when it becomes clear that carelessness is just a game, a shield covering the vulnerable core of the soul. The day comes when they must show their true selves, make a choice on which their further fate. They say that we all live for some very important moment in life, when we will have to pour out of the bag of our life everything that we put in it in order to choose something most important - something that will help us not to break down in a difficult situation , but become stronger. However, for the author, the hero is not the one who does not stumble, but the one who finds the strength to rise and move on.

In general, the peculiarity of Vampilov’s plays is that he does not pronounce the final verdict on his characters. The author prefers to use an ellipsis. We see such an ending in the author’s last play, “Last Summer in Chulimsk.” This play is rightly called the author’s most “Chekhovian” play, from which even a comma cannot be removed. The symbolic image of this play - the front garden fence - is an indicator of humanity for the heroes of the play. Most of them continuously destroy the gate, sincerely not understanding why Valentina stubbornly continues to repair it (“People walk across and will continue to walk”).

"Duck Hunt"

Play by A.V. Vampilov’s “Duck Hunt,” written in 1970, embodied the fate of the generation of the “era of stagnation.” Already in the stage directions the typical nature of the events depicted is emphasized: a typical city apartment, ordinary furniture, household disorder, indicating disorder in the mental life Victor Zilov, the main character of the work.

Quite young and physically healthy man(in the story he is about thirty years old) feels deeply tired of life. There are no values ​​for him. From Zilov’s first conversation with a friend, it turns out that yesterday he caused some kind of scandal, the essence of which he no longer remembers. It turns out he offended someone. But he doesn't really care. “They’ll survive, right?” - he says to his friend Dima.

Suddenly, Zilov is brought a funeral wreath with a ribbon on which touching memorial words are written: “To the unforgettable Viktor Alexandrovich Zilov, who was untimely burned out at work, from inconsolable friends.”

Initially, this event seems like a bad joke, but in the process of further development of events, the reader understands that Zilov really buried himself alive: he drinks, makes scandals and does everything to arouse the disgust of people to whom he was close and dear until recently.

In the interior of Zilov’s room there is one important artistic detail- a large plush cat with a bow around his neck, a gift from Vera. This is a kind of symbol of unrealized hopes. After all, Zilov and Galina could have a happy family with children and a cozy, well-established life. It is no coincidence that after the housewarming party, Galina invites Zilov to have a child, although she understands that he does not need one.

The basic principle of relationships with people for Zilov is unbridled lies, the purpose of which is the desire to whitewash oneself and denigrate others. So, for example, inviting his boss Kushak to a housewarming party, who at first does not want to go on a visit without his wife, Zilov informs Galina that Vera, with whom he is supposedly in love, has been invited for him. In fact, Vera is the mistress of Zilov himself. In turn, Victor pushes Kushak to court Vera: “Nonsense. Act boldly, don't stand on ceremony. This is all done on the fly. Grab the bull by the horns."

Expressive in the play is the image of Sayapin's wife Valeria, whose ideal is bourgeois happiness. She identifies family ties with material benefits. “Tolechka, if in six months we don’t move into such an apartment, I will run away from you, I swear to you,” she declares to her husband at the Zilovs’ housewarming party.

Aptly depicted by A.V. Vampilov and other expressive female image the play is the image of Vera, who is also, in essence, unhappy. She has long lost faith in the possibility of finding a reliable life partner and calls all men the same (Alikami). At the housewarming party, Verochka constantly shocks everyone with her tactlessness and attempt to dance on Zilov’s table. A woman tries to seem ruder and more cheeky than she really is. Obviously, this helps her drown out her longing for real human happiness. Kuzakov understands this best of all, who tells Zilov: “Yes, Vitya, it seems to me that she is not at all who she claims to be.”

The housewarming scene uses an important compositional move. All the guests give the Zilovs gifts. Valeria torments the owner of the house for a long time before giving a gift, and asks what he loves most. This scene plays a big role in revealing the image of Zilov. Galina confesses that she has not felt her husband’s love for a long time. He has a consumer attitude towards her.

Vera, asking about her mistress with a grin, also understands that Victor is indifferent to her and her visit does not give him much pleasure. During the conversation, it turns out that Zilov does not like his job as an engineer, although he can still improve his business reputation. This is evidenced by Kushak’s remark: “He lacks a business spirit, that’s true, but he’s a capable guy...”. The Sayapins give Zilov the hunting equipment that the hero dreams of. The image of duck hunting in the work is undoubtedly symbolic in nature. It can be seen as a dream of worthwhile cause, which Zilov turns out to be incapable of. It is no coincidence that Galina, who knows his character more deeply than others, notices that the main thing for him is getting ready and talking.

A peculiar test for Zilov is a letter from his father, who asks him to come to see him. It turns out that Victor has not been with his parents for a long time and is very cynical about the tearful letters of his old father: “He sends out such letters to all ends and lies there, like a dog, waiting. Relatives, fools, come over, oh, oh, and he’s happy. He lays down and lies down, then, lo and behold, he gets up - he’s alive, healthy and drinking vodka.” At the same time, the son does not even know exactly how old his father is (he remembers that he is over seventy). Zilov has a choice: go on vacation to his father in September or realize his old dream of duck hunting. He chooses the second. As a result, the unfortunate old man will die without seeing his son.

Before our eyes Zilov is destroying last hopes Galina for personal happiness. He is indifferent to her pregnancy, and the woman, seeing this, gets rid of the child. Tired of endless lies, she leaves her husband for her childhood friend, who still loves her.

Troubles are brewing at work: Zilov handed over an article with false information to his boss, and also forced his friend Sayapin to sign it. The hero is facing dismissal. But he doesn’t really worry about it.

In a cafe with the sentimental name “Forget-Me-Not”, Zilov often appears with new women. It is there that he invites young Irina, who sincerely falls in love with him. His wife finds him and his girlfriend in a cafe.

Having learned about Galina’s desire to leave him, Zilov tries to keep her and even promises to take her hunting with him, but when he sees that Irina has come to him, he quickly switches. However, other women whom he once attracted to him with false promises eventually leave him. Vera is going to marry Kuzakov, who takes her seriously. It is no coincidence that she begins to call him by name, and not Alik, like other men.

Only at the end of the play does the viewer learn what kind of scandal Zilov created in Forget-Me-Not: he gathered his friends there, invited Irina and began to insult everyone in turn, grossly violating the rules of decency.

In the end, he also offends the innocent Irina. And when the waiter Dima, with whom the hero is going on the long-awaited duck hunt, stands up for the girl, he insults him too, calling him a lackey.

After this whole disgusting story, Zilov is actually trying to commit suicide. He is saved by Kuzakov and Sayapin. The economical Sayapin, dreaming of his own apartment, is trying to distract Zilov with something. He says it's time to refinish the floors. Victor responds by giving him the keys to the apartment. The waiter Dima, despite being offended, invites him to go duck hunting. He allows him to take the boat. Then he drives away people who are somehow trying to fight for his life. At the end of the play, Zilov throws himself on the bed and either cries or laughs. And most likely he cries and laughs at himself. Then he finally calms down and calls Dima, agreeing to go hunting with him.

What is the further fate of the hero? It is quite obvious that he needs to rethink his attitude towards life in general, towards the people with whom he communicates. Perhaps Zilov will still be able to overcome his mental crisis and return to normal life. But most likely the hero is doomed to quickly find his death, since he cannot overcome his own selfishness and does not see a goal for which it is worth continuing life. The loss of spiritual and moral supports is a typical feature of the generation of the period of stagnation. For centuries, people's lives have been subject to the norms of religious morality. At the beginning of the 20th century social thought was driven by the idea of ​​creating a bright future, a socially just government system. During the Great Patriotic War the main task was to protect native land from the invaders, then - post-war construction. In the sixties and seventies there were no socio-political problems of this magnitude. Perhaps this is why a generation of people has formed who are characterized by loss family ties and the meaning of friendships. The influence of the church on the spiritual life of man by this time had been lost. Norms of religious morality were not observed. And few people believed in the idea of ​​building a bright future. Reason spiritual crisis Zilova is the awareness of the worthlessness of his life, the lack real goal, since the so-called duck hunt, which he constantly dreams of, is more of an attempt to escape from life’s problems than a real thing for which he can sacrifice everything else.

Genre originality of dramaturgy by A.V. Vampilova ("Farewell in June", "Eldest Son", "Duck Hunt")

The play "Farewell in June" in the context of the search for A.V. Vampilov genre form

The literature of the sixties is the literature of young authors and young heroes.

The main thing in the existence of this young hero there was a moment of entry into life, into its disordered, non-textbook element, which immediately presented its demands to young people and claimed their rights to them - the moment of transition from ideas about life to life itself, from knowledge of how to live, to practice, to practical implementation of this knowledge.

"The main problematic interest of literature was aimed at the collision romantic hero with life, with its powerful and diverse and complex empirics,” notes A. Demidov. Therefore, it is natural that student life is perceived in this context as childish, naive, simple and ingenuous life, and its problematics as obviously conventional. In the general flow of youth plays, “Farewell in June” turned out to be perhaps one of the most student plays of those years in the full sense of the word, to the same extent that “My Friend, Kolka” or “Goose Feather,” for example, were plays about school.

Vampilov is looking for a hero and a range of problems that might interest him as an artist and a person. Searches of this kind have not yet appeared in prose. There he was interested and subject to everything.

According to E. Gushanskaya, “prose was shaped, on the one hand, by an innate sense of words, pleasure, intoxication with the suddenly discovered ability to write, take themes out of thin air, build intrigue, smoothly but dashingly complete the coolest or stupidest plot, on the other hand, pragmatism newspaper assignment, professional necessity. In drama it was different. Here Vampilov is looking for his theme, his intonation."

It turns out that he is not interested in How enter into life, otherwise What happens to a person upon entry, what kind of thing is life? Not so much the element itself and its flesh, but the moral structure of life. He is interested in what problems have to be solved when joining it. And Vampilov is looking for an answer to his question in the most direct, literal sense of the word, going through the options. And the main thing here is probably not the result, but the direction of the search.

First edition The play "Farewell in June" can be considered a text published in a book published in Irkutsk in 1972. The play in this edition is significantly different from all others.

Second edition are the texts of "Angara", the magazine "Theater", the latter of which absorbed both previous ones with slight variations.

Latest canonical edition“Farewells in June,” included in the “Favorites” and reprinted in all subsequent editions of Vampilov, was published by I. S. Grakova based on a working copy of the K. S. Stanislavsky Theater (mentioned in the quoted letter to E. L. Yakushkina) in accordance with by the will of the playwright himself, but without his authorization. (The collection “Favorites” was conceived during Vampilov’s lifetime.)

The main focus of Vampilov’s searches in his work on “Farewell in June” was to change the problematics of the play, its moral meaning and the meaning of the personality of the protagonist.

“Having based the play on a true story that happened during his time at the university, Vampilov was surprised to discover that, although poignant and entertaining in itself, this story is dramaturgically poor,” notes.

There was nothing left in the subtext of dramatic events and images. Everything was brought out to the extreme and somewhere out there, in the non-Euclidean distance, it strived for the absolute equivalence of good and evil. “For all the cheerful lightness with which the speech element of the play was endowed, in the second edition of “Farewell in June” there was also a sense of airless space in its own way. The formula of acting: “playing the evil one, look for where he is good” - was implemented here already at the level of the text ", writes V. Klimenko.

However, one achievement of the second edition was undoubted - this is that the dramaturgy of the play was now based on the conflict between Kolesov and Repnikov, different poles of human nature, and moral evil acquired living, vital, sliding forms, and pretend that you are not familiar with it that it was completely alien to you was impossible.

IN final version the plays of Repnikov, Kolesov and Tanya, at first glance, took on the very guises in which they were formed in the second. The “ultimacy” of the quality of each of them has disappeared. This applies to Repnikov, his wife, and, above all, Kolesov. The nature of the conflict underlying the play has also changed.

In the final version, as already mentioned, the theme of love between Kolesov and Tanya turned out to be “blurred”, lightened, and most importantly, secondary to the main conflict, built on the problem of moral bargaining, spiritual betrayal. This was reflected in a direct reduction in volume stage action, given to the heroes, and in the nature of the depiction of their feelings.

While constructing the plot of the play, the author returned to its original, Irkutsk version. Not being in love or being in love “not too much, but slightly,” Kolesov, without much mental struggle, refused Tanya, that is, he agreed to break up with the girl whom he had seen three or four times. His passion for science was obvious stronger feelings To her. (Vampilov also removes the traits of desperate ambition characteristic of the hero at the beginning.) If we compare key scene plays - the explanation-break of Kolesov with Tanya - in all three editions, we will see that the differences in them are very significant.

In the first case, we have a business man energetically sending a casual acquaintance away; in the second, a lover who drives Tanya away from him with anguish and pain, painfully experiences parting with her, and, finally, in the final version, these themes merge together, melting into a dramatic conflict plays. In the third case, we have before us a person who doesn’t seem to know what he wants. Vampilov seeks from his hero a different kind of sincerity than the direct pragmatics of the plot requires.

Kolesov-II was a love-struck, suffering boy who was honestly afraid of “ruining life” - the future prosperous, serene life of the rector’s daughter and was sincere in his impulse (“I’m a rogue without cigarettes or recommendations, a scoundrel, a preference player with marked cards<...>I’m sitting at someone else’s dacha and cleaning a gun, which was used to kill one magpie in ten years<...>Run away from me without looking back, I have no idea what happiness is" ("Theater").

In the third option the situation was more complicated. Dramatic action It turned out that there was a certain “creeping” of moral truths and cause-and-effect relationships onto each other, a certain strange balance of various inertial forces of the plot. Kolesov-III in this culminating explanation, in essence, could equally be mistaken for a cowardly lover who sacrificed his feelings, and for business man who gave up personal happiness for the sake of a goal.

This dramatic feature arose as a result of the author’s conscious search. In the play there was a kind of mixing of the character of the hero. It was about the tension between behavior and self-awareness. The behavior showed a calculating person, the self-awareness of a lover. The hero was at a loss, but the author triumphed in victory, he managed to recreate psychological situation, in which a person would be under the influence of many different contradictory principles and clearly suffer from this.

The author makes the moral situation extremely complicated. The young man is impulsive and hot-tempered, Tanya is charming, pretty and loves the hero, the guilt is scanty, the punishment is unfairly harsh, the topic is no less attractive than beautiful girl, especially since the girl throws herself on the neck, and scientific work slips out of your hands. The choice, it would seem, was made in favor of what was more difficult and, therefore, was noble. And the fact is that does Kolesov, for him there is nothing that could look like meanness or betrayal in his eyes. But what he did, regardless of the objective assessment of his action, still turned into a moral crime. This is how the path to Zilov was paved.

Let Kolesov commit a moral transgression, which he did not consciously commit and the consequences of which he did not foresee. But by chance, casually, having paid with Tanya’s love for the opportunity to graduate from college, the hero, as it turned out, betrayed himself first of all.

By building this final metamorphosis of his hero, Vampilov demonstrates the real dramatic skill. Retribution overtook the hero not in monologues and denunciations, but in the plasticity of action, in its subtle, barely noticeable nuances.

Nothing changed in Kolesov’s life after receiving his diploma, but he, who previously was the “soul of society”, the indispensable center of attraction and active action of each scene, unexpectedly became a background character: (remark) " Prom in the University. <...> Laughter can be heard from the hall. Noise, music. Kolesov is sitting at one of the tables. In front of him is a bottle of wine and several glasses. Bukin and Gomyra leave the hall. They stop at the door without noticing Kolesov". Vampilov came to this kind of construction only in latest edition plays - in all previous plays, Kolesov's place in the composition of the action remained invariably leading.

And although justice triumphed in all editions of the play, both justice itself and the nature of its victory were different. The final ending brought us not “to the happy reunion of Kolesov and Tanya” (A. Demidov), but only to the beginning of their love in the truest sense of the word, to the beginning of their difficult life journey.

In the final version of the play, we faced a different moral conflict than at the beginning of the writer’s work, and the very conflict of the play underwent a transformation before our eyes. significant changes. The play, conceived as a simple-minded lyrical comedy (this applies to both its first and second editions), turned out to be almost a moral and psychological drama, although we are aware that Farewell in June is still far from such a thing.

The play “Farewell in June” immediately brought the author a certain, for now purely professional, fame (it was published in 1966 simultaneously in three editions, was recommended for production, noted in the central press, began to be staged on the periphery, was included in theater reviews and received positive reviews).

The opinion of M.I. is correct. Gromova, according to which “in the context of Vampilov’s plays, her existence and her role are extremely important as a clear example of the playwright’s search and choice of his path.”

The question for Vampilov suddenly turned out to be what in this case had to be considered a deal with conscience, What for the sake of what had to betray. And these are not such simple questions if you approach life without ready-made answers.

Analyzing “Farewell in June” in the preface to Vampilov’s “The Chosen” in 1975, A. Demidov noted that “one should not overestimate the scale of the heroes’ love and look in the play for the theme of betrayal of feelings, dramatic delusion, fatal mistake. About the love of heroes in the strict sense of the word there is no speech in the play, and the happy reunion of Tanya and Kolesov at the end of the curtain, which the playwright rightly refused, only “displaced” author's intention" .

The thoroughness with which Vampilov builds the conflict of the play indicates that his attention is attracted not by the first, self-evident layer moral issues, embedded in the play, and its deep roots. First of all, it is striking that in comedy there is a dissociation between the clichés of the dramatic situation and the essence of what is happening.

The difficulty of reading "Farewell in June" lies in the paradoxical combination of an outwardly traditional comedy plot with ambiguous, non-banal, psychologically complex content. This could not but affect genre specifics plays.

A. Vampilov wrote a "comedy in two acts." Most researchers of the playwright's work (S. Borovikov, A. Demidov, I. Zborovets, K. Rudnitsky, Y. Smelkov, N. Tenditnik, etc.) are unanimous in their recognition of the outstanding artistic success of the playwright in "Farewell in June", where the playwright remains is true to the complex genre nature of lyrical comedy, the specificity of which lies in the merging of the lyrical and comic, in the organic synthesis of the sad, touching, sad with the funny and amusing.

A.V. Vampilov transformed this “light” genre in his own way: he shortened the lyrical scenes, limited the comic situations, significantly strengthened the elements of drama and psychologism (the fate of Kolesov and the fate of his “doubles” in the play); all complex conflicts and acute contradictory situations were resolved tragicomically: for example, at a critical moment in the duel between rivals Frolov and Bukin, an innocent magpie dies (as they say, “the witness was slapped”); introduced images that carry a philosophical load (cemetery, alpine meadows).

It is significant that in a later edition of the play (17 editions in total, 4 published) A.V. Vampilov increasingly moved away from external comic techniques, sought to more thoroughly motivate the contradictory actions of the protagonist, to strengthen the dramatic note in his character. Behind the comedy and humor, one senses the author’s deep sadness at the awkwardness of the fates of the heroes he portrays. A.V. Vampilov treats the characters and situations that arise in the comedy with sad humor, sometimes combining farce and drama, reducing the comedic worldview with psychologism internal conflict, the lyricism of the narrative, thereby transforming purely comic elements into tragicomic ones.

A.V. is simply comical. Vampilov, like every talented comedian, is complex in its ideological and aesthetic essence. Laughter A.V. Vampilov appears as a result of the writer’s understanding of the contradictions of reality and therefore has a socially and philosophically generalizing meaning; his laughter is judged and intellectual.

Vampilov's achievements as a playwright in Farewell in June are still extensive. These are essentially “discoveries for oneself,” but discoveries nonetheless are considerable.

“Vampilov here turned a common moral and didactic conflict, dictated by a very trivial plot and a simple theme, into a truly serious moral one, or rather, a moral and social one, a conflict associated with the problems of a person’s choice of individual honor and public morality", Ї writes M.I. Gromova.

Performances of “Farewell in June” were widely staged throughout the country. What was attractive about the play was its everyday acute and dramaturgically familiar situations, lively recognizable characters, light witty dialogue, and probably also the opportunity to interpret the comedy in a very diverse and original (if not harsher) way: in some theaters it was shown under the title “Love Doesn’t Forgive” directly opposite to the meaning of Vampilov’s play.

The second half of the sixties were years of intense and steady change in the social and moral quality of life. The unpretentious, but historically very accurately chosen conflict of the comedy sensitively, like a seismograph, reacted to changes in the general tone of the time, and Vampilov as a playwright, perhaps unconsciously tried to capture these “shocks of reality” in his work, record, preserve them in art world plays.