Gogol's dramaturgy in the work The Inspector General. Essay on the topic: “The role of an episode in a dramatic work” based on the comedy N

It is especially difficult to retell a poetic or dramatic work. Behind Gogol's laughter- always thinking, because the funny and the tragic are always nearby, inextricably. Therefore, together with the guys, in the form of a heuristic conversation, we are trying to recognize “ secret meaning"one episode. Our own stage version also helps us in this: theater is “our everything.”

In the 1842 edition, the meaning of the last scene is clarified by the epigraph: “There is no point in blaming the mirror if your face is crooked.” But the mirror is itself Gogol comedy. Let us take into account that the words of the Governor: “Why are you laughing? “You’re laughing at yourself!” - they can hardly be addressed to the officials, they are also amazed, “de-energized” by the news of the appearance of the auditor. Gogol wants the viewer, having seen in the comedy, as in a mirror, all the unrighteousness of his life, to take a step towards the truth about himself: “Is everything, even to the slightest, the crook of the soul vile and dishonest man Don’t they already paint the image of an honest person?

Doesn’t all this accumulation of baseness, deviations from laws and justice, make it clear what the law, duty, justice requires of us?” (“Theater Road”, N.V. Gogol).

At the thought of Khlestakovism, the eyes of viewers and readers glow no longer with laughter, but with sadness: even today officials stand between the supreme power and the people, they rule Russia. Fear of punishment from the supreme power has enormous power. But the tragedy of Russia is that the bureaucrats have no other fear - of punishment from above, of moral influence.

Download:

Preview:

Topic: “The meaning of the episode. The role of stage interpretation in revealing the image. Preparing for an essay - a discussion about the meaning of the episode. (Based on N.V. Gogol’s comedy “The Inspector General”: act IV, scenes XII - XV).”

Subject: literature

Class: 8th grade with in-depth study literature

Program:

1). Literature program for schools and classes with in-depth study of literature, gymnasiums and humanities lyceums. Grades 5-11 / Edited by: V.G. Marantsman. – M.., “Enlightenment”, 1992.;

2). Program literary education. 5-9 grades. / Ed. V.G. Marantsman. – M., “Enlightenment”, 2007.

Lesson objectives:

educational:

Using the example of one episode of the comedy N.V. Gogol's "The Inspector General" to show students the inextricable unity of the events of a dramatic work;
Teach students to navigate independently artistic space a separate episode as a part of the whole and an independent artistic and semantic unit;
To help students purposefully highlight key details in a character’s character within an episode, contributing to a deeper penetration into the ideological content of the work as a whole (from Khlestakov to Khlestakovism as social phenomenon);
Prepare students for creative written work on the topic: “Analysis of an episode.” The meaning is in revealing character.”

developing:

Using the example of a dramatization by the students themselves (in comparison with the 1952 film), to show “the versatility of reading an image - a treasure trove of untapped opportunities.” (I. Ilyinsky);
Reveal Creative skills students in the stage interpretation of images (dramatization, act IV, scenes XII – XV, “The Inspector General”);
Help students create images (costumes, scenery, musical arrangement, staging stage speech, mise-en-scène).

educational:

Try to convince students of the relevance of the problems raised by the author of “The Inspector General” in our time.

Required lesson attributes:

Didactic material specially designed for the lesson;
Text of the comedy by N.V. Gogol's "The Inspector General";
Design of the “scene” according to the episode, props (by the students);
Stage costumes (prepared by students);
Audio recording of the overture to the operetta by J. Strauss " Bat»;
Portraits of N.V. Gogol, A.S. Pushkina, V.G. Belinsky N.G. Chernyshevsky, A.S. Griboedova.

Homework:

Answer questions No. 3, 4,5 (based on didactic material);
Do you agree with the statement of K.A. Fadina about Gogol? Why?
No. 2.4 (according to plan) orally - according to the episode (characters of choice).

During the classes.

Speech warm-up.

Teacher: Let's turn to the didactic material. Before you are two portraits of N.V. Gogol: A.G. Venetsianov (autolithography) and A.A. Ivanov (drawing from 1847).

Compare the two images.
Remember which works by N.V. You know Gogol. Whose portrait, in your opinion, conveys to us the appearance of the author of works known to you?
What, in your opinion, did each artist strive to emphasize in Gogol’s image?

First portrait: “official”, “secular” - speaks of noble origin, about high social status; tailcoat, deep collar, hairstyle - cropped hair styled in fashion: the “London dandy” is dressed according to latest fashion: “cut his hair in the latest fashion, dressed like a London dandy - and finally saw the light” - unusual for us appearance writer - similarity with A. Griboyedov - diplomat and writer.

Second portrait: traditional from the point of view of perception of the image of the writer N.V. Gogol, the appearance is more democratic, conducive to rapprochement; squinted eyes, a “cunning” smile, long hair– a sign – a sign of freethinking – freedom of thought (“shoulder-length blond curls”); turn-down collar of shirt and frock coat; even a long nose seems sharper (“sticks his nose everywhere”).

These are the views of two artists on the same “face”, only in the first portrait we can really see only the “face”, “external appearance”, “official shell” - a kind of “case” behind which the soul is hidden (in the face, perhaps , nobility - a direct, soulful look), and on the second - the soul embodied in the drawing, conscience, simplicity, wisdom of life experience.

N.G. Chernyshevsky (famous Russian political figure, critic, writer) believed that “those who need protection owe a lot to Gogol; he became the head of those who deny the evil and the vulgar...”

Who needs protection? – “Humiliated and insulted” by their powerless position, serf peasants are “simple Russian people”, small city employees, beggars, disadvantaged, defenseless people.
Can you agree that in the works of the writer known to you, he denies the “evil and vulgar”?

Gogol is sad about Russia, its morals, orders, and way of life. He is bitter because he is unable to change anything in the existing government system.
The writer is sad that he Mother country is in disrepair, that bribes, deception, denunciations - all this has become commonplace, does not terrify anyone.
Gogol is sad that in our country bribe takers occupy a high position in society. And they care not about the state, not about the city and its inhabitants, but only about their own well-being.
Gogol is sad about Russia and for Russia. It becomes very painful and bitter from the thought that such a country is disappearing due to the fault of greed, embezzlement, self-interest, stupidity and ignorance of the officials who govern it.
In the comedy "The Inspector General" Gogol skillfully combines "truth" and "anger", that is, a realistic reflection of reality (realism) and a bold, merciless criticism of reality. The author laughs and is sad at the “heroes of his time” - “ dead souls", moral monsters.

Everything that we are saying now, remembering what we have read and reflecting on the image of the writer himself, is very important for understanding his work. Of course, one cannot but agree that there are as many opinions as there are people. This is obvious: before us are two completely different interpretations of the “image” of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol himself. (And then what can we say about understanding, interpretation immortal images his books?!). And yet it is our reader's right to try to understand artistic design Masters of words. Which means we will read! If you want to know the soul of a writer, read his books. (Compare: “Is it possible to tell a soul?”, “Mtsyri”, M.Yu. Lermontov).

So, we read and discuss “The Inspector General”. And today we will talk about the meaning of one episode and the role of stage interpretation in revealing the image (character) of the play.

Do you think that if we discuss one episode, will we need to know the text of the entire work? Why?

An episode is only “part of the number” compound component a single whole.

The result of our conversation should be your written work on the analysis of the episode, rough plan which I bring to your attention in advance (see. didactic materials). In your upcoming work, you can change it at your own discretion (adding or excluding what is unnecessary, in your opinion).

This plan is preceded by an epigraph: “a condensed formula” is the idea of our analysis.

“In The Inspector General there are no better scenes, because there are no worse ones, but all are excellent, as necessary parts, artistically forming a single whole, rounded by internal content, not external form, and therefore representing a special and closed world in itself...” ( A.S. Griboyedov).

How do you understand it? Highlight the main thing?

Each episode is an “important link” - a “strong link” in a single chain of events, without which it is difficult to understand the work as a whole.
Each episode is “a world closed in on itself,” I would suggest a clarification: “this is a play within a play.”

This means that the episode is based on significant (in terms of ideological content and development of action) event, which, in turn, is also represented in development.

So, we choose an episode with you: act IV, phenomena XIII - XV and try to determine its “semantic load” and significance for artistic embodiment ideas ( main idea plays).

What place do you think this episode occupies in the structure of the work as a whole (in its composition)? Name the main structural episodes, at your discretion. Justify your answer.

Until now, in literary studies there is no unity in the definition of plot, climax and denouement: some talk about one plot, others - about two. Opinions were also divided regarding the climactic scene and denouement.

It is our right to interpret the text in our own way. So let's try to do this.

Please title the episode in question (you can use a quote).

Possible options: “Matchmaking”, “Khlestakov’s imaginary matchmaking”, “God bless you, but it’s not my fault!”, “What the hell! A complete groom”, “Wow, how things went”, “I can go crazy with love”, “I can’t believe it, Your Excellency!”, “Do you know what honor Ivan Alexandrovich bestows upon us”, “What kind of frivolity like this."

What did you notice while coming up with these titles?

Using the title - the name of the episode - we can purposefully place emphasis in the interpretation of the episode depending on our interest in a specific character.

Who is “acting” in this episode? (Khlestakov, Gorodnichy, wife and daughter of Gorodnichy).

And who “acts” brighter, more active, more expressive?

Once again opinions were divided! This is the “fate” or essential condition of interpretation.

Let's stop at Khlestakov. Let’s not argue for now and take as the basis of our conversation that this episode is the culmination in the development of the action and in the “development” of the image of Khlestakov (the thesis of our future discussion).

Let's try to make sure of this.

What does the climax give for understanding the character of Khlestakov (and others characters)?
How do the “declaration of love” scenes characterize Khlestakov?

I asked you to prepare small theses for the characterization of Khlestakov based on statements about him by other characters in the play, while Special attention pay attention to the assessments that will appear in our episode.

I think that this will be our personal contribution to “Notes for Gentlemen Actors” (we can also borrow something from Mr. Gogol - the author of “The Inspector General” had the gift of giving an exhaustive, complete description with the help of one detail).

A bright grotesque detail comes to the fore (more expressive than hyperbole - a typical feature of Gogol’s satire and humor).

According to the apt remark of A.S. Pushkin, Gogol knew how to outline “the vulgarity of a vulgar person so that all the little things that escape the eye would flash large in everyone’s eyes.”

As an experiment, you can add characteristics “on your own” (as a “co-author”).

Approximate options for such characteristics (Gogol, author's notes):

A young man about 23 years old, thin and thin; somewhat stupid and, as they say, without a king in his head.
Speaks and acts without any consideration;
He is unable to pay constant attention to any thought;
His speech is abrupt and his words come out completely unexpectedly;
The more the person playing this role shows sincerity and simplicity, the more he will win;
Dressed in fashion;

Pay attention to the allegory speaking surname:

From “whip” (to punish, to scourge): in Gogol we find: “I swung such a Khlestakov in my book” (meaning “whip”);
To whip, to drag;
To drink vodka (to get drunk) – in a figurative sense.

“Incognito damned”;
That's what impudence is tempting! (meaning “devilry”, “lie” or “flattery”)
Literary critic Mann: He, like water, takes the form of any vessel;
He is a “chameleon” (“Is he boorish?” – alliteration).
Cheers up;
Pounds his fists (on the table or on his chest);
Deceit mixed with cowardice;
Rudeness (to Osip, to the servant - innkeeper, to the Mayor);
A vulgar man - “low in moral terms”, he very quickly forgot about his real position - a guest in the Governor’s house and behaves defiantly rudely, even “rude” to the owner of the house - he threatens to “put him on trial.”

The climax: he reveals another facet of his vulgarity:

Mindlessly dragging around, not intending to get married (a parody of love);
He drags after both - “wherever chance leads” (as when playing whist), which for some reason he plays with five people, his goal is “to hit on some pretty daughter”;
Apparently, he was too lazy to taste the true fruits of enlightenment - before us is “a kind of Minor” (Compare with Fonvizin’s comedy); kills on the spot with his remark: “with Pushkin on friendly foot“, and then: “Why write? I already know them” (about poetry own composition): “O you, that sorrow is in vain...”
He raises his hand against the Governor himself and threatens to sue him.

Let us present you our stage interpretation.

Pay attention to the details, to the performance of our “gentlemen actors”.

Did you like our interpretation of this episode?
Compare with what you saw when watching a movie (“your own interpretation” is excluded)?
Do your ideas about the heroes of Gogol’s comedy correspond to our interpretation? (Why?)

I think you noticed that, just like Gogol, we tried to emphasize the symbolic nature of the ending of the episode with the help of a silent scene (by forcing our “actors” to turn to stone for at least a minute and a half - which the author strictly insisted on).

He emphasized that his heroes now, struck by the gendarme’s remark as an “electric shock,” are at the mercy of different laws of life, a different reality. (Remember: “But there is also God - He will not forgive!”, “Masquerade”, M.Yu. Lermontov).

In our episode:

The ending is the antithesis of the denouement that follows very soon (Khlestakov’s letter - “everyone was flogged!”) - gives such a simple explanation of everything that happened that at this moment it seems to the Governor, for example, much more implausible than all Khlestakov’s fantasies - the finale of the episode: the highest happiness - become related to " significant person"paralyzed by "happiness" - "lasted, lasted the charm."

The finale of the play is paralyzed with fear: “What the hell! Indeed!" - said the Governor, rubbing his eyes (D. IV, Apparition XV) - it was “as if he had become a fool” (“an empty man” Khlestakov, “a very intelligent man in his own way” the Governor seemed to have switched roles - a paradox!).

“Really, if God wants to punish, he will take away his reason first,” “He’s a fool, a fool, an old scoundrel!” (shakes his fist at himself).

Everyone, according to Artemy Filippovich Zemlyanika, “was as if some kind of fog had stunned them, the devil had confused them!”

Why can’t a retelling of a literary text preserve the power of the text itself?

The idea of a work may not always be understood correctly;
When retelling it is difficult to preserve all copyright means of expression;
Artistic text, as the “softest” one, allows it to be interpreted in different ways.

Poetic and dramatic works are especially difficult to retell. Behind Gogol’s laughter there is always thought, because with him the funny and the tragic are always nearby, inextricably.

In the 1842 edition, the meaning of the last scene is clarified by the epigraph: “There is no point in blaming the mirror if your face is crooked.” But the mirror is also Gogol’s comedy itself. Let us take into account that the words of the Governor: “Why are you laughing? “You’re laughing at yourself!” - they can hardly be addressed to the officials, they are also amazed, “de-energized” by the news of the appearance of the auditor. Gogol wants the viewer, having seen in the comedy, as in a mirror, all the unrighteousness of his life, to take a step towards the truth about himself: “Doesn’t every, even the slightest, crook of the soul of a vile and dishonest person already paint the image of an honest person?

Doesn’t all this accumulation of baseness, deviations from laws and justice, make it clear what the law, duty, justice requires of us?” (“Theater Road”, N.V. Gogol).

At the thought of Khlestakovism, the eyes of viewers and readers glow no longer with laughter, but with sadness: even today officials stand between the supreme power and the people, they rule Russia. The fear of punishment from the supreme power has enormous power. But the tragedy of Russia is that the bureaucrats have no other fear - of punishment from above, of moral influence.

“God bless you, and it’s not my fault!” - this is the life credo of the Khlestakovs and Gorodnichs.

4.00 /5 (80.00%) 5 votes

An episode is just a part of something, an integral component of a single whole. As for N.V. Gogol’s comedy “The Inspector General”, this outstanding work each episode is an important link in a single chain of events that make up the plot, without which the work as a whole would be almost impossible to understand. Moreover, each episode is a play within a play, a world closed in itself. All this means that an episode of any artistic or dramatic work, in terms of the development of actions and ideological content, is based on a significant event, which, in turn, is also represented in development.

Still in fiction does not exist precise definition the beginning, climax and resolution of the episode. Therefore, each of the readers or viewers can interpret any episode at their own discretion.

Using the title or title of the episode, you can place specific accents depending on your own interest.

For example, you can stop at Khlestakov. We can say that this episode is the culmination of the development of the image of this character. It should be said that the author of the comedy had a unique ability, with the help of just one single detail, to give the most complete, comprehensive characterization of the character.

As A.S. once aptly noted, N. knew how to outline “the vulgarity of a vulgar person so that all the little things that escape the eye would flash large in everyone’s eyes.” Anyone familiar with Russian literature is perfectly familiar with the final episode, when the symbolic character is emphasized by a silent scene involving the heroes of the comedy. The author insisted that on stage the actors must freeze and remain in this position for at least one and a half minutes. emphasized that in this episode his characters are so struck by the gendarme’s remark, as if by an “electric shock,” that they find themselves in a different reality, under the rule of different laws of life.

The ending of the comedy is the antithesis to the subsequent denouement, when Khlestakov’s letter gives such a simple explanation of everything that happened that, for example, to Gorodnichy it seems even more implausible than Khlestakov’s fantasies.

Unfortunately, each individual episode of any dramatic work has a number of shortcomings. For example, from a single episode the idea of a work may be incomprehensible or misunderstood; the episode cannot express all the expressive means used by the author; it is not always easy to retell and can be interpreted in different ways. However great attention focuses specifically on episodes.

In the 1842 edition of the comedy “The Inspector General,” the author clarifies the meaning of the last episode with an eloquent epigraph: “There is no point in blaming the mirror if the face is crooked,” where the mirror is the whole comedy. And the words of the Mayor: “Why are you laughing? “You’re laughing at yourself!” most likely addressed not to the heroes of the comedy, motionless frozen in absurd poses, but to auditorium. wanted the viewer to see in the mirror all the injustice surrounding and own life and he took the first step towards himself.

Class: 8th grade with in-depth study of literature

Program:

Literature program for schools and classes with in-depth study of literature, gymnasiums and humanities lyceums. Grades 5-11 / Edited by: V.G. Marantsman. – M.., “Enlightenment”, 1992.;
Literary Education Program. 5-9 grades. / Ed. V.G. Marantsman. – M., “Enlightenment”, 2007.

Lesson objectives:

Educational:

Using the example of one episode of the comedy N.V. Gogol's "The Inspector General" to show students the inextricable unity of the events of a dramatic work;
To teach students to independently navigate the artistic space of a separate episode as part of the whole and an independent artistic and semantic unit;
To help students purposefully highlight key details in the character of a character within an episode, contributing to a deeper penetration into the ideological content of the work as a whole (from Khlestakov to Khlestakovism as a social phenomenon);
Prepare students for creative written work on the topic: “Analysis of an episode.” The meaning is in revealing character.”

Educational:

Using the example of a dramatization by the students themselves (in comparison with the 1952 film), to show “the versatility of reading an image - a treasure trove of untapped opportunities.” (I. Ilyinsky);
Reveal the creative abilities of students in the stage interpretation of images (dramatization, act IV, scenes XII – XV, “The Inspector General”);
Help students create images (costumes, scenery, musical design, stage speech, mise-en-scène).

Educational: Try to convince students of the relevance of the problems raised by the author of “The Inspector General” in our time.

Required lesson attributes:

Didactic material specially designed for the lesson;
Text of the comedy by N.V. Gogol's "The Inspector General";
Design of the “scene” according to the episode, props (by the students);
Stage costumes (prepared by students);
Audio recording of the overture to the operetta by J. Strauss “Die Fledermaus”;
Portraits of N.V. Gogol, A.S. Pushkina, V.G. Belinsky N.G. Chernyshevsky, A.S. Griboedova.

Homework:

Answer questions No. 3, 4,5 (based on didactic material);
Do you agree with the statement of K.A. Fadina about Gogol? Why?
No. 2.4 (according to plan) orally - according to the episode (characters of choice).

During the classes

I. Speech warm-up.

Teacher: Let's turn to the didactic material. Before you are two portraits of N.V. Gogol: A.G. Venetsianov (autolithography) and A.A. Ivanov (drawing from 1847).

Compare the two images.
Remember which works by N.V. You know Gogol. Whose portrait, in your opinion, conveys to us the appearance of the author of works known to you?
What, in your opinion, did each artist strive to emphasize in Gogol’s image?

First portrait:“official”, “secular” - speaks of noble origin, high social status; tailcoat, deep collar, hairstyle - cut hair styled in fashion: “a London dandy” is dressed in the latest fashion: “cut in the latest fashion, like a London dandy is dressed - and finally saw the light” - the writer’s appearance is unusual for us - resemblance to A. Griboyedov - diplomat and writer.

Second portrait: traditional from the point of view of perception of the image of the writer N.V. Gogol, the appearance is more democratic, conducive to rapprochement; squinted eyes, a “cunning” smile, long hair – a sign – a sign of freethinking – freedom of thought (“shoulder-length brown hair”); turn-down collar of shirt and frock coat; even a long nose seems sharper (“he sticks his nose everywhere”).

N.G. Chernyshevsky (a famous Russian political figure, critic, writer) believed that “those who need protection owe a lot to Gogol; he became the head of those who deny the evil and the vulgar...”

Who needs protection? – “Humiliated and insulted” by their powerless position, serf peasants are “simple Russian people”, small city employees, beggars, disadvantaged, defenseless people.
Can you agree that in the works of the writer known to you, he denies the “evil and vulgar”?

Gogol is sad about Russia, its morals, orders, and way of life. He is bitter because he is unable to change anything in the existing government system.
The writer is sad that his native country is in desolation, that bribes, deception, denunciations - all this has become commonplace and does not terrify anyone.
Gogol is sad that in our country bribe takers occupy a high position in society. And they care not about the state, not about the city and its inhabitants, but only about their own well-being.
Gogol is sad about Russia and for Russia. It becomes very painful and bitter from the thought that such a country is disappearing due to the fault of greed, embezzlement, self-interest, stupidity and ignorance of the officials who govern it.
In the comedy "The Inspector General" Gogol skillfully combines "truth" and "anger", that is, a realistic reflection of reality (realism) and a bold, merciless criticism of reality. The author laughs and is sad at the “heroes of their time” - “dead souls”, moral monsters.

Everything that we are saying now, remembering what we have read and reflecting on the image of the writer himself, is very important for understanding his work. Of course, one cannot but agree that there are as many opinions as there are people. This is obvious: before us are two completely different interpretations of the “image” of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol himself. (And then what can we say about understanding and interpreting the immortal images of his book?!). And yet, it is our reader’s right to try to understand the artistic intent of the Master of Words. Which means we will read! If you want to know the soul of a writer, read his books. (Compare: “Is it possible to tell a soul?”, “Mtsyri”, M.Yu. Lermontov).

II. So, we read and discuss “The Inspector General”. And today we will talk about the meaning of one episode and the role of stage interpretation in revealing the image (character) of the play.

Do you think that if we discuss one episode, will we need to know the text of the entire work? Why?

An episode is only a “part of a number”, an integral component of a single whole.

The result of our conversation should be your written work on the analysis of the episode, a rough outline of which I offer to your attention in advance (see didactic materials). In your upcoming work, you can change it at your own discretion (adding or excluding what is unnecessary, in your opinion).

This plan is preceded by an epigraph: “a condensed formula” is the idea of our analysis.

How do you understand it? Highlight the main thing?

Each episode is an “important link” - a “strong link” in a single chain of events, without which it is difficult to understand the work as a whole.
Each episode is “a world closed in on itself,” I would suggest a clarification: “this is a play within a play.”

This means that the episode is based on a significant (in terms of ideological content and development of action) event, which, in turn, is also presented in development.

III. So, we choose an episode for you: act IV, phenomena XIII - XV and we will try to determine its “semantic load” and significance for the artistic embodiment of the idea (the main idea of the play).

What place do you think this episode occupies in the structure of the work as a whole (in its composition)? Name the main structural episodes, at your discretion. Justify your answer.

It is our right to interpret the text in our own way. So let's try to do this.

Please title the episode in question (you can use a quote).

What did you notice while coming up with these titles?

Using the title - the name of the episode - we can purposefully place emphasis in the interpretation of the episode depending on our interest in a specific character.

Who is “acting” in this episode? (Khlestakov, Gorodnichy, wife and daughter of Gorodnichy).

And who “acts” brighter, more active, more expressive?

Once again opinions were divided! This is the “fate” or essential condition of interpretation.

Let's try to make sure of this.

What does the climax provide for understanding the character of Khlestakov (and other characters)?
How do the “declaration of love” scenes characterize Khlestakov?

IV. I asked you to prepare small theses for the characterization of Khlestakov based on statements about him by other characters in the play, while paying special attention to those assessments that will appear in our episode.

A bright grotesque detail comes to the fore (more expressive than hyperbole - a typical feature of Gogol’s satire and humor).

According to the apt remark of A.S. Pushkin, Gogol knew how to outline “the vulgarity of a vulgar person so that all the little things that escape the eye would flash large in everyone’s eyes.”

As an experiment, you can add characteristics “on your own” (as a “co-author”).

Approximate options for such characteristics (Gogol, author's notes):

A young man about 23 years old, thin and thin; somewhat stupid and, as they say, without a king in his head.
Speaks and acts without any consideration;
He is unable to pay constant attention to any thought;
His speech is abrupt and his words come out completely unexpectedly;
The more the person playing this role shows sincerity and simplicity, the more he will win;
Dressed in fashion;
You should pay attention to the allegorical nature of the speaking surname:
- From “whip” (to punish, to scourge): in Gogol we find: “I swung such a Khlestakov in my book” (meaning “whip”);
- To whip, to drag;
- To drink vodka (to get drunk) – in a figurative sense.
“Incognito damned”;
That's what impudence is tempting! (meaning “devilry”, “lie” or “flattery”)
Literary critic Mann: He, like water, takes the form of any vessel;
He is a “chameleon” (“Is he boorish?” – alliteration).
Cheers up;
Pounds his fists (on the table or on his chest);
Deceit mixed with cowardice;
Rudeness (to Osip, to the servant - innkeeper, to the Mayor);
A vulgar man - “low in moral terms”, he very quickly forgot about his real position - a guest in the Governor’s house and behaves defiantly rudely, even “rude” to the owner of the house - he threatens to “put him on trial.”

The climax: he reveals another facet of his vulgarity:

Mindlessly dragging around, not intending to get married (a parody of love);
He drags after both - “wherever chance leads” (as when playing whist), which for some reason he plays with five people, his goal is “to hit on some pretty daughter”;
Apparently, he was too lazy to taste the true fruits of enlightenment - before us is “a kind of Minor” (Compare with Fonvizin’s comedy); kills on the spot with his remark: “with Pushkin on a friendly footing,” and then: “Why write? I already know them” (about poems of my own composition): “O you, that sorrow is in vain...”
He raises his hand against the Governor himself and threatens to sue him.

V. Let us present to you our stage interpretation.

Pay attention to the details, to the performance of our “gentlemen actors”.

Did you like our interpretation of this episode?
Compare with what you saw when watching a movie (“your own interpretation” is excluded)?
Do your ideas about the heroes of Gogol’s comedy correspond to our interpretation? (Why?)

VI. I think you noticed that, just like Gogol, we tried to emphasize the symbolic nature of the ending of the episode with the help of a silent scene (by forcing our “actors” to turn to stone for at least a minute and a half - which the author strictly insisted on).

In our episode:

The ending is the antithesis of the denouement that follows very soon (Khlestakov’s letter - “everyone was flogged!”) - gives such a simple explanation of everything that happened that at this moment it seems to the Governor, for example, much more implausible than all Khlestakov’s fantasies - the finale of the episode: the highest happiness - to become related to a “significant person” are paralyzed by “happiness” - “the charm lasts, the charm lasts.”

“Really, if God wants to punish, he will take away his reason first,” “He’s a fool, a fool, an old scoundrel!” (shakes his fist at himself).

Everyone, according to Artemy Filippovich Zemlyanika, “was as if some kind of fog had stunned them, the devil had confused them!”

VII. Why can’t a retelling of a literary text preserve the power of the text itself?

The idea of a work may not always be understood correctly;
When retelling, it is difficult to preserve all the author's expressive means;
Literary text, being the “softest”, allows it to be interpreted in different ways.

Poetic and dramatic works are especially difficult to retell. Behind Gogol’s laughter there is always thought, because with him the funny and the tragic are always nearby, inextricably.

Doesn’t all this accumulation of baseness, deviations from laws and justice, make it clear what the law, duty, justice requires of us?” (“Theater Road”, N.V. Gogol).

At the thought of Khlestakovism, the eyes of viewers and readers glow no longer with laughter, but with sadness: even today officials stand between the supreme power and the people, they rule Russia. The fear of punishment from the supreme power has enormous power. But the tragedy of Russia is that the bureaucrats have no other fear - of punishment from above, of moral influence.

“God bless you, and it’s not my fault!” - this is the life credo of the Khlestakovs and Gorodnichs.

Gogol's dramaturgy is a special page of his work. For him, the theater was not entertainment, but a great school, where from the stage “a living lesson is read to a whole crowd at once” and the audience can “shake with one shock, sob with one tears and laugh with one universal laughter” (“Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends”). In total, Gogol wrote several plays (“ Vladimir III degrees", "Marriage", "Players" and others), but central place Of course, the first of them is “The Inspector General”. According to Gogol himself, the plot of this comedy, like “ Dead souls", "gave" him Pushkin. In October 1835, having left work on “Dead in Souls,” Gogol very quickly wrote “The Inspector General” - already on December 6, the comedy was basically finished, and on April 19, 1836 it was staged Alexandrinsky Theater In Petersburg. At the same time it came out separate edition plays. Gogol was extremely dissatisfied with the production of the play in St. Petersburg. Subsequently, he tried many times to explain the meaning of his comedy (“Theater Road Trip,” “The Inspector General’s Denouement,” “The Author’s Confession”), and revised its text many times, creating new editions, the last of which, the fifth, appeared in the summer of 1842.

The comedy is based on an anecdote about an imaginary inspector, which had been used more than once in Russian drama before Gogol. But under the pen of a satirical writer funny story about how a person was mistaken for who he really is, turned into a sharp denunciation of social and moral vices Russian bureaucracy and a call for their correction. Gogol's "The Inspector General" contains both humor and satire, which corresponds comedy genre, but in accordance with the main pathos the play is usually defined as satirical comedy. This is how Gogol’s contemporaries, including those close to him in spirit, views, and artistic tastes, understood “The Inspector General.”

But this ideological layer associated with denunciation social vices and forming the basis of Gogol’s social satire, is only one of the lines of the author’s plan, although a very important one. For the writer himself, the line that brings comedy to the level of moral and philosophical generalizations and is associated with Gogol’s “ visible to the world laughter" and "tears invisible to him."

Belinsky also noted: “The idea of “The Inspector General” is not of a topical, purely political nature, but of a universal and philosophical nature.” The degree of typification and generalization here is such that a special concept even arose, named after the Gogol hero - Khlestakovism. Gogol paid special attention to the actors for the role of Khlestakov. This image turned out to be new and incomprehensible for stage interpretation. In all the comedies on a similar topic that preceded Gogol’s “The Inspector General,” the imaginary inspector always deliberately deceived the city authorities. Gogol changes in his play the main thing on which the plot was usually based: there is no deceiver here, or, as the author writes in “Notes for Gentlemen Actors,” “Khlestakov... speaks and acts without any consideration.” The question arises: who then deceived the officials? Why do they mistake an “icicle, a rag” for an important person?

Fear is to blame for everything: “in fear”, “in fright”, “trembling with the whole body” - these words are constantly heard in the author’s remarks. The image of Khlestakov, imaginary auditor, Gogol also changes fundamentally. His inner essence- this is an emptiness that can be filled with anything (“I have extraordinary lightness in my thoughts!”). He can be anyone: an ardent lover, famous writer, a brilliant socialite who suddenly turns into a dreamy nature lover. When officials saw him as a formidable auditor, Khlestakov instantly turned into him. Even his speech has changed: short, abrupt phrases from the big boss are heard (“My ear is already sharp! I gave them all a joke!”), from which officials tremble with fear.

Thus, it turns out that Khlestakov is the best embodiment of that absurd state bureaucratic system, where everything is not in its place, and the place makes a person what he considers himself to be and how others see him. Khlestakov leaves, the deception dissipates. But now what seemed to be an unshakable system of urban structure looks different now. In their own way, each of the officials is somewhat reminiscent of Khlestakov. So, thinking about the rank of general that Khlestakov’s father-in-law, a “significant person,” could count on, the mayor, in Khlestakov’s style, is carried away by dreams into the distance. Having learned how he was deceived, the mayor cannot even immediately believe it, and the almost impossible happens: he slightly reveals his real human face, hidden under the mask of an official running the city. That is why in the last act the figure of the deceived and ridiculed mayor looks so tragic. “Why are you laughing? “You’re laughing at yourself,” his words sound, addressed not only to other officials, but to everyone who witnessed this only at first glance funny action, behind which tears are hidden. It is not for nothing that this remark of the mayor appeared only in the last edition of The Inspector General, when his general idea was finally formed. Who main character this unusual comedy?

Gogol himself, answering this question, wrote: “...No one noticed the honest face that was in my play. ...It's honest noble face there was laughter." Laughter is like a kind of cleansing force that allows a person to see himself from the outside, to be surprised or even frightened, but still to discover something in himself that should be immediately gotten rid of, that needs to be corrected, eradicated in himself. This is how the meaning of the name of the comedy begins to expand. Gogol included in his play a call for everyone to “turn their pupils into the soul,” that is, look into themselves and make an “audit” of themselves - before it’s too late. And with this, the auditor “who came by personal order” from St. Petersburg is unlikely to be able to help, just as the imaginary auditor - the “fake flighty secular conscience” that is embodied in Khlestakov - will not help. What is needed is the awakening of a genuine human conscience - and this requires high power, the true auditor is the Supreme Judge, punishing officials mired in sins.

This is precisely the meaning that the author put into the Silent Scene - the final scene of the comedy, which is an extended stage direction. She gives the comedy's denouement the deepest moral and philosophical meaning. It's like " last scene life,” according to N.V. Gogol. The meaning of the denouement of the comedy “The Inspector General,” expressed in the Silent Scene, is due to its symbolic nature, which allows us to speak about the moral and philosophical idea of “inevitable retribution” present in the play along with the idea of social exposure of the vices of the bureaucratic system. The silent scene also appeared only in the final edition of 1842, when a radical revolution took place in Gogol’s worldview and work. At its core is the tragic realization that Russian life is split, Russian people are internally divided. And the artist cannot do anything about this misfortune yet - all he can do is expose it to the light and warn everyone. Gogol was not an exposer of “social evil”, because the evil with which he fought was not social, but spiritual, it was not outside, but inside a person. That is why Gogol was so distressed by what was happening in Russian life and thought so persistently about saving Russia from internal corruption, which was clearly visible to him, but for many the invisible cause of disasters. He will write about this in his main work - the poem “Dead Souls”.

Gogol's dramaturgy in the work The Inspector General

Searched on this page:

role of the episode in dramatic work auditor
Gogol's dramaturgy
essay on the role of an episode in a dramatic work the auditor
Gogol's dramaturgy The Inspector General
Gogol's dramatic works

The play warns from the very beginning, and throughout the text there are words and expressions scattered that speak of the exclusivity of everything that is happening. Khlestakov, according to Gogol, main character plays and the most unusual - not only in character, but also in the role that fell to him. In fact, Khlestakov is not an auditor, but also not an adventurer who deliberately deceives others. It seems that he is simply not capable of a cunning thought out in advance, an adventure; this, as Gogol says in his stage directions, is a young man “without a king in his head,” acting “without any consideration,” possessing a certain amount of naivety and “sincerity.” But it is precisely all this that allows the false auditor to deceive the mayor and his company, or rather, allows them to deceive themselves. “Khlestakov does not cheat at all, he is not a liar by trade,” wrote Gogol, “he himself forgets that he is lying, and he himself almost believes what he says.” The desire to show off, to become a little taller than in life, to play a more interesting role, destined by fate, is characteristic of any person. The weak are especially susceptible to this passion. From an employee fourth grade Khlestakov grows to “commander-in-chief.” The hero of the analysand experiences his finest hour. The scope of lies stuns everyone with its breadth and unprecedented power. But Khlestakov is a genius at lying; he can easily come up with the most extraordinary things and sincerely believe in it.

Thus, in this episode, Gogol deeply reveals the multifaceted nature of the protagonist: outwardly ordinary, nondescript, empty, a “wizard,” but internally a talented dreamer, a superficially educated fanfare, who in a favorable situation transforms into the master of the situation. He becomes a "significant person" to whom bribes are given. Having gained a taste for it, he even begins to demand rudely from Dobchinsky and Bobchinsky: “You don’t have money?”

Indeed, in the “scene of lies” Khlestakov is a bubble, inflates as much as possible and shows himself in his true light, only to burst at the denouement - to phantasmagorically disappear, rushing off in three. This episode is truly magic crystal"comedy. Here all the features of the main character, his " acting". The scene allows us to better understand that "extraordinary ease of thought" about which Gogol warned in his remarks to gentlemen actors. Here comes climax the hero's pretense and lies. The prominence of the “scene of lies” represents Gogol’s formidable warning to subsequent generations, wanting to protect them from terrible disease- Khlestakovism. Its impact on the viewer is great: anyone who has lied at least once in his life will see what excessive lies can lead to. Looking at the image of Khlestakov, you understand how creepy it is to be in the skin of a liar, experiencing constant fear of exposure.