What is the reason for Larisa Ogudalova’s drama in the play “Dowry”? Katerina’s emotional drama (based on Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”) Identification of the specifics of teaching a dramatic work based on the material of the play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Dowry"

“He showed not only the morals, priorities, traditions of businessmen, boyars, and petty officials, but also the personal drama of a woman in love. And this woman is Larisa Ogudalova.

Larisa has a poetic soul striving for love and happiness. She is well brought up, gifted with beauty and intelligence. Her character is opposed to the foundations of the “new time”. Ogudalova lives in a world of businessmen, where the main value is money, where everything is bought and sold, where “every product has a price.”

Larisa is the main product of the play. “I am a doll for you; “If you play with me, you’ll break me and throw me away,” she says. It is sold by mother, childhood friend Vozhevatov, Knurov, Paratov, and even Karandyshev. So, Karandyshev, organizing a dinner in honor of Larisa, decided to simply show off the purchased “toy” and show his superiority over others: “I have the right to be proud and I am proud! She understood me, appreciated me and preferred me to everyone else.”

Vozhevatov and Knurov throw a coin to see who will get such a decoration. But Larisa doesn’t care about them. All her thoughts and feelings are connected with Paratov, but Paratov is only concerned about his condition. As soon as he has problems, he immediately drives off, forgetting to say goodbye to Larisa. She forgives him for this. And as soon as he returns, Larisa already feels the precariousness of her position: “You are drowning me, pushing me into the abyss.” She asks to go further away, to the village, just as Katerina, the heroine of the play “The Thunderstorm,” asked to take an oath from Tikhon.

Larisa wants to protect herself from the act that her heart strives for. But Karandyshev does not support Larisa, just as Tikhon did not support Ekaterina. Karandyshev cares only about pride. So Larisa is left alone with her fears.

Upon arrival, Paratov does not remember Larisa until Vozhevatov informs him that Larisa is getting married. Paratov also marries, or rather, the process of buying and selling occurs again: in exchange for his freedom, he acquires gold mines. Paratov wants to play for the last time, and Larisa is a great toy. He gives her the most terrible thing - faith in happiness. “I dream of one bliss: to be your slave; I lost more than a fortune, I lost you,” says Paratov. He deceives, talks about love when there is not even a grain of pity in him. Larisa believes him and plunges headlong into the pool.

Paratov’s goal has been achieved: Larisa, maddened by her love, with faith and hope in their future together, agrees to be his entirely. However, in the morning, when Larisa asks if she can consider herself his wife, Paratov “remembers” that he is bound by chains that he cannot break. This does not stop Larisa: “I will share this burden with you, I will take on most of the burden,” until Paratov admits that he is engaged. Larisa was trampled, her love was not cared for, her feelings were trampled into the dirt, they laughed in her face. And again fate plays with her, Knurov offers to buy her. She is disgusted, she is sick of this world.

She tries to die, but she doesn’t succeed: “What is holding me over this abyss, what is stopping me? Oh, no, no... not Knurov... luxury, brilliance... no, no... I’m far from vanity... Debauchery... oh, no... I just don’t have the determination.” At the denouement, Larisa falls in the struggle and accepts the position that society assigned her from the very beginning: “Yes, a thing,... I am a thing, not a person;... Each thing has its own price... I am too expensive for you.” But Larisa’s tragedy is different, her words sound like thunder in “The Thunderstorm”: “I was looking for love and didn’t find it. They looked at me and still look at me as if I was a joke... I was looking for love and didn’t find it... it doesn’t exist in the world, there’s nothing to look for. I haven’t found love, so I’ll look for gold.” Larisa is lying, she doesn’t need gold, she doesn’t need anything. That is why, when Karandyshev shoots Larisa, she thanks him.

There were several options for the outcome of events in her life. Until the last minutes, Larisa loved Paratov, and if she had remained alive, she would have been able to forgive him once again, and if he had accidentally returned to the city again, she would have believed him again, and again found herself deceived. Larisa could become Knurov's luxury, but for her it is exactly death. She would never have become Karandyshev’s wife; Karandyshev’s patronage is a grave insult. Be that as it may, Larisa would not have found happiness, there is no love for her in this world, because in those days, love was felt only for money, and not for people.

Composition

Tragedy... This word suggests death. At the end of the play, a wonderful, gifted, fragile girl Larisa Ogudalova dies. Her death is not accidental. The playwright consistently takes his heroine through suffering and shock, forcing her to experience all the bitterness of deceived love and the collapse of hopes for happiness.

What is the reason for this tragedy? A young girl from an impoverished noble family has a sensitive, loving soul, musical talent, and beauty. But this wealth cannot replace what is most valued in the world of businessmen - money, a dowry that would provide her with a worthy position in society. Discussing Larisa's upcoming marriage, Vozhevatov openly says that nowadays there are as many suitors as there are dowries, that is, every person is looking primarily for profit. Therefore, Larisa’s life turns, as Karandyshev puts it, into a gypsy camp. She is forced, by order of her enterprising mother, to be nice to rich bachelors, entertain numerous guests, attracting them with singing and beauty.

Larisa’s very first dialogue with her groom convinces us that she doesn’t like such a noisy, chaotic life. Her pure and honest nature strives for quiet family happiness with her loved one. Vozhevatov calls Larisa simple-minded, meaning by this definition not stupidity, but sincerity, lack of cunning, flattery and pretense. This girl has created her own world with her poetic imagination, into which music takes her. She sings beautifully, plays the guitar and piano, expressing her innermost feelings and experiences in the sounds of an ancient romance. Possessing a sublime poetic soul, Larisa perceives the people around her as heroes of a Russian romance, not seeing their vulgarity, cynicism, and greed. Paratov in her eyes is the ideal man, Karandyshev is an honest, humane person who is not understood by others, Vozhevatov is a close childhood friend. But all these heroes turn out to be different; they reveal their true nature in their relationship to Larisa. The brilliant Paratov turns out to be an ordinary seducer who destroys a loving girl for the sake of fleeting pleasure. He, without hesitation, leaves her to marry the owner of the gold mines. With cynical frankness, he admits to Knurov that there is nothing cherished for him, that he is ready to sell anything for profit. And he really proves this with action: he sells “Swallow” and abandons his beloved girl. This means that all of Paratov’s actions are driven by the desire for wealth and profit. This is the life position of the other characters in the play, because all their relationships are determined by their tight wallets. The conversations of the characters constantly come down to money, to buying and selling. Let us recall the remarkable dialogue between Kharita Ignatievna Ogudalova and the wealthy merchant Knurov on the eve of a dinner party at Karandyshev’s. Mokei Permenych quite unequivocally offers Ogudalova to take care of her daughter. And his own mother listens to him with understanding and gratitude, actually accepting this proposal.

Perhaps the only person in the play for whom money does not play any role is Larisa. She values ​​in people not wealth, but kindness, honesty, and decency. That is why she decides to marry a poor official Karandyshev and go to the village with him. Having lost all hope of happiness with her loved one, she wants at least understanding and respect, an honest, worthy life. Unable to pretend, Larisa admits to her groom that she only wants to love him, because she is attracted by a modest family life, which expects sympathy, tenderness and affection from him. She wants to believe that such an attitude from her future husband will cause her to reciprocate over time. But many of Karandyshev’s tactless remarks and his behavior convince us that this is not the person with a kind and sensitive soul who can make the heroine happy. This includes reproaches of the “gypsy camp”, and jealous quibbles about free conversation with Vasya Vozhevatov, and malicious envy of successful businessmen. The very ridiculous idea of ​​a dinner party is the result of painful wounded pride, envy, jealousy and vanity, which, in general, form the basis of his character. Karandyshev lacks sensitivity and love for the bride. Neither he nor Kharita Ignatievna pays attention to Larisa’s persistent requests for a modest and simple wedding. They are overcome by vanity thoughts about a magnificent celebration where the bride will shine with beauty and rich attire. And Larisa utters almost prophetic words here: “I see that I am a doll for you; if you play with me, you will break me and throw me away.” In the finale of the drama, Karandyshev will find a more precise and cruel word that will hit Larisa like a slap in the face. This word is "thing". It is this that helps to understand the reason for the tragic fate of the heroine. She lives in a world where everything is bought and sold, including beauty, love, honor. All this is a product that has its own buyer. After all, Knurov and Vozhevatov are busily concluding a trade deal, playing Larisa toss. Bound by an “honest merchant word,” Vasily Vozhevatov, an old childhood friend, refuses her even pity and consolation in order to make way for the winning Knurov.

At the end of the drama, the shocked Larisa has an epiphany. She recognizes herself as a thing that the people around her can dispose of at their own discretion. The cruelty of this discovery evokes a desperate protest in the heroine, which is expressed in thoughts of suicide. But Larisa does not have the determination and will of Katerina, the strength and integrity of her character. She lacks the strength to give up her life. And she finds another way out - to challenge the painful world of self-interest and profit by accepting Knurov’s offer. In this case, it will at least become an expensive item for a rich owner. Such a decision means the moral death of the heroine, from which Karandyshev’s shot will save her. Larisa's last words are gratitude for the fact that she was spared humiliation and final fall. For her, like for Katerina Kabanova, there is no place in the cruel world of profit, profit, deception and betrayal. Thus, Ostrovsky’s wonderful drama “Dowry” reveals the conflict of a pure, honest, spiritualized personality with a society where everything is subordinated to the powerful power of money.

The plays of A. N. Ostrovsky have been repeatedly interpreted in the methodological works of modern teachers and scientists. Traditionally, the first place in the study of this author’s work is given to “The Thunderstorm,” and that is why the largest number of publications are devoted to this particular work. The most interesting works, from our point of view, include the following:

Anikin A. A. To read A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm” // Literature at school. - 1998. - No. 3; Vlashchenko V. I.“The Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky in 10th grade // Literature at school. - 1995. - No. 3; Dolgopolov S. Did Boris love Katerina (On the study of A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”) // Teaches. newspaper. - 1993. - September 14; Lebedev Yu. V. At the origins of the “Russian tragedy”: (In connection with the article by V. I. Vlashchenko “The Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky in the 10th grade in the magazine “Literature at School”, 1995, No. 3) // Literature at school. - 1995. - No. 3. A conceptual analysis of stage productions of the play “The Thunderstorm” is contained in an interesting polemical work: Sverdlov M. I. Why did Katerina die? "Thunderstorm": yesterday and today. - M., 2005.

Over the past ten years, interest in “The Dowry,” traditionally one of the most significant works of the playwright, has increased, which initiated the appearance of the following works:

Novoselova V. The tragedy of the seagull bird, or what is the cause of the death of Larisa Ogudalova // Literature (Appendix to the newspaper “First of September”). - 1996. - No. 23; Tankova N. S. The tragedy of loneliness: A lesson based on A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “Dowry” // Literature at school. - 1996. - No. 4; Kharitonova O. The romance beginning in A. N. Ostrovsky’s drama “Dowry” // Literature (Appendix to the newspaper “First of September”). - 1996. - No. 32; Shirotov V.V. Temptation is the leitmotif of A. N. Ostrovsky’s drama “Dowry”. 10th grade // Literature at school. - 1998. - No. 3.

However, the stage history of Ostrovsky's dramaturgy, so rich and indicative for the interpretation of his plays, is rarely used in literature lessons at school.
Currently, literary and theater studies have summarized a century of experience in stage interpretations of Ostrovsky's plays, which played a huge role in understanding his dramatic works of various genres. Among the works summarizing the stage history of “The Thunderstorm,” it is necessary to mention the already mentioned book by M. I. Sverdlov, in which the author, narrating the happy and unhappy stage fate of the play, substantiates his doubts that the future fate of the productions will be happy.
Unfortunately, there are no general monographs devoted to the stage history of the plays “Forest” and “Dowry”, but interesting material devoted to their production on the stage of the Maly Theater in the 19th century is presented in the monograph by N. G. Zograf “Maly Theater of the second half of the 19th century” V." (M., 1960), as well as in reviews of performances staged from 1923 to 1969 in the collection “A. N. Ostrovsky on the Soviet stage" (M., 1974). In recent years, the theatrical heritage of V. E. Meyerhold has been comprehended, and now it is possible to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the famous production of “The Forest,” made by the master in 1924. This material is presented in the book “Meyerhold in Russian Theater Criticism. 1920-1938" (M., 2000). Unique personal impressions of participation in the productions of these plays are contained in the memoirs of A. Koonen, I. Ilyinsky, V. Pashennaya and other great actors of the Russian stage. The stage history of the productions of these three plays by Ostrovsky will help students understand the peculiarities of their interpretation in various historical periods over a century and a half and comprehend the new things that each historical era brought to the understanding of these immortal works of the great Russian playwright.

"Storm"

When starting to study the play in the 10th grade, the teacher can compare the attitude of Ostrovsky’s contemporaries towards it and the reaction of subsequent generations to it. And in this comparison, the stage history of the play will be a necessary link. The beginning of the lessons could be the following question: “What is the significance of Ostrovsky’s plays for you personally? Why are there so many modern theatrical and cinematic interpretations of his works?” After the conversation with the students, we begin to compare the interpretations of the play in criticism and on the stage.
In his article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” (1859), Dobrolyubov made a number of general conclusions about the playwright’s work. Firstly, the author “extremely fully and clearly” characterized two fundamental types of relations in modern Russia - “family relations and property relations.” Secondly, he determined the alignment of social forces in Russia: tyrants and “living and active natures” crushed by them, “suppressed and unrequited.” This allowed Dobrolyubov to characterize the dramatic conflict of the plays as a clash of “older and younger, rich and poor, willful and irresponsible.” Thirdly, according to the critic, Ostrovsky made the main conflict of his plays the general contradiction of time - between the natural desire for the fullness of life and the impossibility of its implementation in the conditions of the “dark kingdom”. This concept of Dobrolyubov in its various aspects existed on the domestic stage before the productions of “The Thunderstorm” on the stage of the Moscow Youth Theater (dir. G. Yanovskaya, 1997) and “Sovremennik” (2004, director N. Chusova). In these productions, having completely changed the author's intention, the directors rehabilitated the “dark kingdom”, reducing Katerina’s tragedy to the level of eccentricity and self-will.
Ostrovsky's direct participation in the first production of the play at the Maly Theater (1859) made it possible to most fully realize the author's plan and solve the play not as a family drama, but as a tragedy. Katerina’s death, inevitable in the conditions of the existing society, gave rise to a whole storm of various feelings in the souls of her contemporaries and left no one indifferent - the woman’s suicide appeared as an extreme form of her decisive protest. It is known that when creating his images, Ostrovsky often focused on very specific creative individuals. “All my best works were written by me for some strong talent and under the influence of this talent,” Ostrovsky wrote to actress M. G. Savina (1879). It is known that the image of the Maly Theater actress L.P. Nikulina-Kositskaya, her character and life path were in many ways the source that fed the image of Katerina created by the playwright.
Katerina, played by the actress, was organically connected with the world that raised her, with its religious worldview, foundations, rules and orders, but at the same time she was able to rise above everyday life, to breathe genuine life into a deathly ritual. Despite the fact that Kositskaya appeared on stage with a kokoshnik on her head and in a sundress, which was strange for a merchant’s wife in the mid-19th century, Ostrovsky did not object to this. Probably, to some extent, this conveyed Katerina’s connection with the national culture, which endowed the heroine with a strong and free character. It was from the first performer that the tradition of performing Russian bills of sale in the theater was established. L.P. Nikulina-Kositskaya, an actress endowed with a very bright and rich temperament, played her role “with broad strokes, without psychological undertones, with elation, with ardent and sincere emotion.” Critics (Pisarev and Daragan) reproached the actress for excessive exaltation and exaggerated behavior on stage, but this was because reality itself was organically alien to her, forcing her to break herself, betray her sincerity and, as a result, be false. It is interesting that critics considered the best scene to be the scene of farewell to Tikhon, where “she managed to break through from the offensive formality of the farewell to living sincerity.” Contemporaries sometimes saw Katerina's tragedy in unsatisfied sensuality or focused attention on her religious exaltation. Nikulina-Kositskaya, paying tribute to all the poetic richness of her heroine’s nature, focused on the theme of protest against the surrounding deadening world. Her love for Boris was born from a feeling of deep dissatisfaction with life in a family permeated with hypocrisy and hypocrisy, but in the heroine there was neither fatal doom nor rampant passions. Love was for her a natural need of the soul. And this love revealed the true essence of Katerina - a selfless nature, gripped by a thirst for the joy of life, capable of unaccountable actions, far from vulgar prudence and deception. Ostrovsky attached great importance to the scene of repentance. He said that “in front of the picture of hell, Katerina does not rage and scream, but only with her face and whole figure must depict mortal fear,” but Kositskaya, according to the recollections of contemporaries, “screamed with a heartbreaking woman’s cry, one that is akin to heartbreaking crying.” Katerina, as portrayed by her, thrashed and screamed in horror and, seeing no other way out, walked towards a tragically inevitable death. Her death became an affirmation of the freedom of the true Russian national character.
Tikhon, performed by S.V. Vasilyev, took an important place in the performance. It was a deeply authentic dramatic image of a downtrodden and impersonal person, at the bottom of whose soul, however, both thought and feeling glimmer. A man suppressed by his mother’s despotism, deprived of spiritual impulses, he wanted freedom only for drunken revelry. And his wife was only a spiritual nuisance for him when, obeying the rite of farewell, he parted with her. But he was also capable of pity and compassion when he encouraged Katerina at the moment of her repentance and literally shocked the audience with the depth of suffering in the final scene. This was also a victim of the “dark kingdom”, weak, weak-willed, but capable of emotional sympathy for Katerina and in the finale hurled words of condemnation at Kabanikha.
The role of Kabanikha is the best role of the small theater actress H. B. Rykalova, whose performance Ostrovsky was delighted from the first minute, starting to enthusiastically applaud her. According to the review of E. D. Turchaninova, “Rykalova did not make Kabanikha deliberately evil, but in all her manner of carrying herself, in her calmness and inaccessibility, in her surprisingly creaky voice, a stable ancient life appeared before us.” Her Kabanikha appeared before the audience as an obstinate, insensitive woman for whom, according to Pisarev, “everything freely human, rational and moral has died out; in which the customs of antiquity, the immovable image, unconditionally dominate, in which everything that pushes away from itself internally is held back by the external right of autocracy.”
P. M. Sadovsky also personified the old terrible foundations of the Wild. “He was not a Moscow merchant, but a provincial merchant of old times, a commander not only in his family, but also in the whole city... Looking at him, it was truly terrible for those who depended on him,” wrote a contemporary. His very figure in long clothes, boots, a top hat, leaning on a thick stick, inspired fear.
There was great interest in the play in St. Petersburg. The roles at the Alexandria Theater were distributed according to the wishes of the playwright. The performance was a benefit performance by Yu. N. Linskaya, who played Kabanikha. In the capital's performance, the everyday side was generally weakened; the features of a national tragedy were exposed to a greater extent. Linskaya in the role of Kabanikha was scary and fanatical. According to the review of A.F. Koni, “coldness wafted from her, from her every word and movement.” As A. Ya. Altshuller recalls, “Linskaya played sharply, however, highlighting comic features. A frenzied, inert belief in her own rightness sometimes gave way in her Kabanova to a sober, bourgeois consciousness. This made it even more terrible, more hopeless.”
Contemporaries assessed the performance of the role of Katerina Snetkova differently. Some, like Boborykin, could not forgive the actress for the eclecticism of her image - Katerina appeared on stage in a kokoshnik and a dress with a crinoline, others sincerely admired her, but for us it is interesting to note that Snetkova “Alexander Nikolaevich taught with a voice like a canary,” and thus she conveyed to the viewer author's interpretation of the image. The remark had an unflattering connotation for the actress, but the playwright spoke of her role with great love. She conveyed the “tender, dreamy side of Katerina,” the audience remembered her big eyes, touching smile, thin fragile figure and “pretty in her facial expression, in the sound of her voice, in every movement.” Fragile Katerina on the St. Petersburg stage spoke in all her ways about the impossibility of life in the world of the Kalinovites and chose death, remaining true to herself.
The textbook contains a problematic analysis of the interpretation of the images of Katerina performed by G.N. Fedotova, P.A. Strepetova - an analysis that allows us to organize a discussion of the following questions: “Which of the two decisions of the role of Katerina do you consider justified by the entire course of the drama? Whose performance of the role of Katerina seems closer to the author’s intention?”
The interpretation of the drama “The Thunderstorm” was significantly enriched in the 20th century. Tairov nurtured the production of “The Thunderstorm” for a long time and, placing it on a par with the great works of classical drama, interpreted it as a “Russian, folk tragedy.” “This is a genuine tragedy, approaching the best plays of Sophocles and Shakespeare. It meets all the laws of high tragedy. In this play, a theme that is primordial for Russia rages: an anarchic rebellion against centuries-old slave foundations,” writes A. Koonen in his memoirs. The director saw the initial conflict in the fact that in the play “two primordial principles of the Russian system, of Russian life - “lower freemen” and “domostroy” - collide and enter into struggle.”
In his interpretation of the characters, Tairov sought to isolate and highlight a certain primary element of the image, which would contain all its main characteristics in its pure form, which can be partly compared with the search for a picturesque principle in Malevich’s Suprematism. Tairov wrote in an early article: “Kabanikha embodies the mind of everyday life, Dikoy - its element; Boris and Tikhon are both crushed by everyday life; they do not accept it, but they are afraid and do not dare to transgress it. Kudryash and Varvara take life as an empty but necessary form, which they carry to this day, until this form, like a ready-made dress, does not interfere with their manifestation. Kuligin and Feklusha are a unique manifestation of the principles underlying the course of the tragedy. In this environment, Katerina acts and fights, not accepting everyday life either in its essence or in its form, and dies in this struggle.”
Tairov brought to the fore the image of Katerina, which, of course, was greatly facilitated by the dramatic talent of the great Alisa Koonen, who played in his theater the leading roles of the world tragic repertoire (Juliet, Salome, etc.). “It is in him,” he said, “that Ostrovsky gives the clash of two principles - love of freedom and house-building. The “Dark Kingdom”, the life and customs of the city of Kalinov play a secondary role here. “The Thunderstorm” is a play, first of all, about the mental anguish and struggle of Katerina, about that thunderstorm that breaks the firmly established evil world. Domostroy is a huge ruling force; it does not tolerate protest. Katerina is a strong, passionate, freedom-loving nature. She rebels against this seemingly indestructible force. And he dies. But Katerina’s death, Tairov said, is not a defeat, but a victory. Domostroy is strong when people silently obey him. Katerina's death causes a crack in the age-old structure of the Kabanov house. Varvara leaves, a man wakes up in Tikhon. With enormous inner strength, he throws an accusation in his mother’s face: “Mother, you killed her!” You, you! You!’ And from this cry people huddle and look at Kabanikha with hidden anger.” Thus, according to Tairov’s interpretation, Katerina’s death brought to life deeply hidden human feelings in downtrodden, trampled people.
The image of Katerina, like no other of Ostrovsky’s female images, has its own traditions of stage embodiment. Most often she was played by Nesterov’s iconographic woman, a victim of her fate, a woman covered in religious mysticism or some kind of hysterical exaltation. To give a sense of contrast with the “dark kingdom,” the image of Katerina emphasized the features of a “sublime nature,” “a woman who rose above her environment.” Tairov solved the image in a different way. Katerina is flesh of flesh, blood of the blood of that dumpy patriarchal life in which she grew up and lives. She feels both humiliation and submission to her woman’s lot.
“This must be expressed absolutely specifically,” said Tairov. - And then the love and passion that flared up in her for Boris will be perceived with special force. It awakens her dormant consciousness and carries her whole being into a world that she had previously only dreamed of in her dreams.”
A. Koonen recalls how she worked on the role of Katerina:

One of the most difficult scenes for me was the scene with the key. A violent change of feelings: a passionate, uncontrollable desire to break free and run to Boris, and immediately followed by shame, the usual humility from childhood, and again an uncontrollable impulse, followed by stern reflection. All these subtle nuances were not immediately apparent. And more than once there were moments when I reached despair.
One of the most powerful scenes in the play - repentance - on the contrary, came to me right away. Katerina’s sudden cry: “Hell, hell, fiery hell!”, when in the zigzags of lightning she sees a terrible image of sin and retribution and she throws herself at the feet of her mother-in-law and Tikhon - I got this scene right away at the first rehearsal. Tairov found a very strong mise-en-scène here. Katerina crawls along the ground, as if sweeping it with her breasts, a loose scythe.
The last act began with several quiet strikes of the bell, after which the figure of Katerina slowly appeared. The stage was empty - only a rickety bench and behind it a lantern, warped from time to time, with a small light behind blind glass.
I really loved playing the short scene of farewell to Boris. I don’t know a simpler and more touching love duet in drama. Short remarks. And behind every remark there is a deep tragedy. After Boris left there was a long facial pause. When Boris left, I fell face down on the ground and lay for a long time without raising my head. There was usually deathly silence in the auditorium. Then, standing up, I swayed back and forth like a woman for a long time, repeating to myself only one word: “Goodbye... Goodbye...” From a distance, behind the stage, the quiet, sad strumming of a guitar sounded. And when Katerina rises, she is already ready to die. This is the end. “There’s a grave under the tree, wow, how nice.” She hears singing. And as if echoing, without words, I quietly sang “Christ is risen from the dead.” Katerina’s last words: “My friend, my joy, goodbye!” - sounded like a joyful cry of liberation. I threw up my hands, and it seemed to me that I was not throwing myself into the Volga pool, but flying somewhere into an unknown expanse.

Tairov's performance evoked very contradictory responses from both the press and the audience. Some, like A. Kugel, considered the production unsatisfactory and simply boring. The critic's complaints related to both the director's decision of the play and the acting performance; he spoke about the lack of “poetry, lyricism, sincerity” in the interpretation of images. L. Grossman, on the contrary, spoke highly of the performance, especially appreciating the work of A. Koonen. In his opinion, the actress managed to reveal the elements of the tragedy of a Russian woman, if you like, of the Russian national character, which consists not so much in opposition to Domostroev customs, but in the struggle of contradictory motivations, “restrained passion, bashful affection, painful melancholy.” Despite the fact that Tairov remained dissatisfied with the results of the work, the performance of the role of Katerina by Alisa Koonen remained the most significant event in the stage history of the play.
Having talked about the production of “The Thunderstorm” by Tairov, the teacher can ask the students the question: “In which monologues of Katerina performed by Koonen could the contradictory character of the heroine be most fully revealed?”
In 1962, the Maly Theater staged The Thunderstorm. The director of the play was V. Pashennaya, who played the role of Kabanikha in it. This is how N.L. Tolchenova writes about this performance in the book “Living Pashennaya”:

“Kabanikha Pashennaya... her devastated soul, poisoned by greed, is like petrified clay. The boar... frightens with the deadness of the soul in a still living body. Like a hardened block, like a barrier lying across the riverbed, it blocks people’s lives. A thunderstorm, fiery arrows of lightning, thunderclaps are needed in order to remove this block from the human path.
At the same time, Pashennaya, it would seem, was not looking for anything at all in Kabanikha that would come from external exaggeration.
Kabanikha is an elderly woman, but not yet an old woman. She, God forbid, doesn’t want to look like an old woman. It conceals an exorbitant envy of everything young and living, of what has managed to escape or is trying to escape, to escape from the whirlpool and stirs up Kabanikha’s poisoned soul even more.
For some reason, no one remembers that Kabanikha’s name is Marfa Ignatievna. And what’s scary about this ordinary woman, Marfa Ignatievna, is not that she growls in her gut, stamps her feet and threatens those around her with a stick, even in her appearance most often more reminiscent of a schismatic or an Orthodox mother-abbess than a merchant’s wife. Kabanikha Pashennaya is not like that at all. Outwardly peaceful, loose, young woman is busy with her house and household chores. She does not go on the offensive against new orders of life that are disgusting to her. She seems to exterminate them casually, entrenched in her home fortress, eating all the household members, convinced in her heart that she is right. Kabanikha especially likes to appear in public as such a kind family woman, a caring person for everyone. To others, you see, Marfa Ignatievna will indeed seem like a kind person, unless she zealously observes customs and the strength of the foundations of life.
Did this venerable Marfa Ignatievna, so preoccupied with her home and her children, become less terrible, less terrible because she did not scream heart-rendingly at them, did not stomp loudly, did not commit atrocities with all frankness?
Only from time to time, only in “shock” scenes did Pashennaya reveal the true essence of the heroine. More often she showed just such a Kabanikha, who slowly, purposefully - that’s the whole horror! - “sharpenes his loved ones like rusting iron.” It’s not just Katerina who’s sharpening. It sharpens both Tikhon and Varvara. A huge human tragedy is hidden behind every word, look, gesture of Tikhon - he was played superbly by V.D. Doronin. Marfa Ignatievna irreparably ruined her son. She broke his soul much earlier than she took on Katerina’s soul. Wanting to completely subjugate the heir of her goods, her boxes and clothes, her home, her “business,” she calmly crushed the human in a person - as if she drowned a kitten: why does he need it?
The final scene was full of inner meaning. Everything about it sounded like a harbinger of another, unprecedented thunderstorm. The personification of this new force were the fishermen, somewhat similar to Repin’s barge haulers, who carried Katerina’s body onto a steep cliff. Sobbing, Tikhon throws himself on the chest of his dead wife: “Mama, you ruined her!” - his cry sounds like a terrible guess and an even more terrible accusation. “You, you, you!” - Tikhon repeats, as if having lost power over himself. People standing silently around come closer to Katerina’s body. Step. One more step. And again silence.
Looking sideways at the gathered people, Kabanikha-Pashennaya suddenly becomes afraid of something unknown. A vague premonition is pressing in her chest.”

"Forest"

The comedy painted a broad picture of the life and morals of a landowner's estate in the post-reform period - a picture in which the features of decline were clearly identified. With irony and humor, the author depicted contemporary life, exposed a number of negative social phenomena, designating them as a “forest” in which real people are forced to live. The play loudly echoed the theme of the struggle against hypocritical despotism for freedom of feeling, for the human right to happiness.
Ostrovsky considered The Forest a “strong play,” and its great success at the Maly Theater confirmed his opinion. "The Forest" became one of Ostrovsky's most popular plays on the Russian stage. The author himself attended the rehearsals and gave advice to the actors. He was forced to make some cuts that were supposed to weaken the socially accusatory thrust of the play and soften the characteristics of individual characters (Gurmyzhskaya and Bulanov). The actors paid attention mainly to the external characteristics of the role: the sanctimonious hypocrisy and sensuality, the greed and tyranny of Gurmyzhskaya, the arrogance and narcissism of her favorite Bulanov, the cunning of the rascal Vosmibratov, the chatter of the liberal Milonov, the servility of Ulita, etc.
This world was opposed by the actors Neschastlivtsev and Schastlivtsev and the lovers Aksyusha and Peter. The success of the performance and the approval of its positive program depended on the performance of these roles.
For the first time since the revolution in 1924, Meyerhold staged “The Forest” and created a cutting-edge interpretation of Ostrovsky’s work. The director is developing a new stage form capable of reflecting the thoughts, feelings and moods of the post-revolutionary era. The performance was a resounding success, which can only be compared with the success of the first Chekhov performances at the Moscow Art Theater. How can one explain such popularity of the play? Critics saw its source in the creation of a fundamentally new theater that could laugh and cry with the audience and transform theater visitors into a single, cohesive collective of the auditorium. The relevance and modernity of the sound of the play was achieved not so much by changes in the text, but by the director’s original interpretation of the images, the highlighting of new episodes with the rearrangement of scenes, costumes and makeup, and, finally, the extremely fast pace of the performance.
The play was divided into thirty-three episodes, each with its own title, each of which appeared on the screen. For example, “Alexis is a flighty boy”, “He scolds and prays, prays and scolds”, “Arkashka the coupletist”, “Stumps on end”, “Arkashka and the Kursk governor”, ​​“Stumps on end again”, etc.
The performance was assessed and perceived differently by sophisticated audiences and the masses. Inexperienced viewers were sometimes frankly mistaken about the time when the comedy was created. “So, for example, one Red Army soldier, looking at the play “The Forest” staged by Meyerhold, was extremely pleased that in the seventh year of the revolution we finally had a talented playwright, so excellently able to make fun of mama’s boys in tennis trousers, sweet-voiced priests, general’s widows, gendarme colonels and other characters of the recent system, with whom this Red Army soldier settled his final scores on the military fronts.”
Critics and trained spectators saw behind the ease of play and its improvisational nature a new theatrical system created by the master. It included, according to the critic B. Alpers, first of all, a new acting technique (biomechanical system), a new use of the stage as a machine (constructivism) and a sum of dramatic techniques that established a connection between modern theater and the style of the national folk theater (Russian farce). Critics enthusiastically welcomed the “revival” of the classics, capable of “speaking with a new voice about today’s things.” “The director captures the viewer and forces, sometimes against his will, to take part in ridiculing the old way of life - not the way of life of Ostrovsky’s time, but the way of life of the recent past, not yet overcome in our days and shown satirically by Meyerhold in The Forest from the stage of his theater.” .
Meyerhold questioned the idea of ​​Ostrovsky's heroes as everyday types, enshrined in the traditions of the Maly Theater, and viewed them as masks of a bygone century, depicted in modern propaganda literature and caricature posters. Make-up, costumes, wig - everything was supposed to help reveal the inner essence of the image: coarse mutton wool was used for the wigs of the merchant Vosmibratov and his son, Alexis’s green wig literally emphasized his “green”, golden threads in the hair and beard of the landowner Milonov, turned by the director into priest, they talked about his greed.
Critics' assessments of the performance were diametrically opposed. Some, such as B. Alpers, A. Gvozdev, A. Slonimsky, enthusiastically welcomed the performance, others, such as A. Lunacharsky, A. Kugel, accused Meyerhold of violating Ostrovsky’s copyright and called him “Nightingale the Robber.” In other socio-political conditions, these articles could become the basis for a serious discussion about the possibilities and limits of directorial interpretation, and not just about endless distortions and arbitrary manipulation of the text. But, unfortunately, with the exception of A. Kugel’s article, the discussion as a whole concentrated around the form of organization and presentation of stage material, which was perceived as not just self-sufficient, but distorting the images of the main characters - actors Neschastlivtsev and Schastlivtsev. In fact, these characters, who with their romantic attitude to life conquered its squalor and vulgarity in Ostrovsky's play, in the play turned out to be overloaded with acute grotesquerie, which crowded out the true feelings, pain and suffering of the characters. To the greatest extent this applied to the role of Arkashka, played by I. Ilyinsky, who aroused the approval of the broad masses of spectators and many critics. Meyerhold interpreted this role not only as a reckless gayer and drunkard, but also as a modern entertainer-coupletist. “Unfortunately,” I. Ilyinsky later wrote, “Ostrovsky’s golden text was lost behind tricks and tricks.” Those feelings of the viewer that should have been born from contact with this image also disappeared, which impoverished the emotional fabric of the performance, turning it into a cascade of successful tricks, dances and couplets.
Unfortunately, having played its historical positive role, Meyerhold’s “The Forest” did not provide a genuine solution to the problem of interpreting the classics. The new sound of the performance was largely achieved by reducing the socio-psychological content of the comedy and changing its compositional concept. Caricatured posters appeared on the stage instead of complex images of people who actually existed in the past. From a comedy of manners, the play has turned into a modern propaganda piece.
It would seem that this performance, which struck a chord with the theater community, should have provoked some kind of “response” to Meyerhold, who dared to violate the unshakable traditions of theatrical art. But the productions of “The Forest” at the Maly Theater in 1937 (directed by L. M. Prozorovsky) and in 1975 (directed by I. V. Ilyinsky) did not become an artistic discovery for the audience. The directors returned to the canonical production of the play, although they were forced to shorten the text. Prozorovsky's performance was distinguished by some idealization of the passing world, when landscape and genre prevailed over the satirical sound of the play. “The appearance of every landscape painted by such a wonderful master as A. Gerasimov was greeted by the public with applause: his forest, his park delighted with its freshness and richness,” writes the critic. And here he exclaims: “But they so distracted the attention of the audience with their lush landscape that they disturbed Ostrovsky, who in his comedy is occupied not with the beauty of the noble estate, but with its rot, which infects the air of the whole country” (S. Durylin). Most likely, the problem was that in the atmosphere of 1937, Ostrovsky’s time appeared in a haze of sadness and regret about the bygone world of estate life, quarrelsome aunties, enterprising merchants and other signs of the “dear old days.”
The production of I.V. Ilyinsky, undertaken by a mature master who once superbly played Neschastlivtsev in Meyerhold’s play, was supposed to continue his dispute with the famous director, create subtle psychological images and give a new stage embodiment of the play. It is noteworthy that Ilyinsky also pays great attention to the design of the performance. Theatrical artist A.P. Vasiliev understood the director’s intention and found “the external form of the performance in combining realistic authenticity with painting - everything, even the interiors, was designed picturesquely. The main backdrop was designed in the form of a moving panorama. He not only opens the performance, but also crowns it, meeting travelers rejected by society with the joyful jubilation of nature, continuing the movement at the final bows” (I. V. Ilyinsky). The director expressed his attitude towards the forest in which his characters find themselves in his own way. This is not only the “forest” of Gurmyzhskaya, Vosmibratov, Milonov, but also the “forest” in which Aksyusha and Peter live. It was this perception of the world in its entirety that the artist of the performance had to convey. The director moves away from the grotesque, satirical sound in the interpretation of images, praising “the Russian actor-artist who will never find anything in common with philistinism and selfishness, no matter what shell they hide in” (I.V. Ilyinsky). Ilyinsky himself played Neschastlivtsev, trying to realize that human element in his hero, which turned out to be unclaimed in Meyerhold's performance - his bitterness, wandering, humor and at the same time his cunning, enterprise, lack of excessive scrupulousness. Unfortunately, in the “glorious years of stagnation,” and this was precisely the height of the Brezhnev era, the pathos of simplicity, honesty and selflessness that the vagabond actors carried within them did not inspire the audience, leaving in their hearts only a feeling of love for the great actor and gratitude for his creative longevity.
As a result of studying the play and getting to know its stage history, students may be asked the question: “What do you think of Ostrovsky’s heroes - naive, funny or respectable? What theme of the play might be relevant in our time?

The theme is “The Tragedy of Loneliness” based on A. Ostrovsky’s play “Dowry.”

Epigraph: “In a play like “The Demon Dowry,” it is not only the artist’s thought that captivates—it is the moral and humane thought. She has the very depth of life, the desire to comprehend its riddle, to touch... the good and the bad in people.” V. Lakshin.

Students are transported mentally to Shchelykovo, where the playwright is working on the play “Dowry.” According to the author, it offers a new view

works. What is he thinking about in the silence of his office? Why is it now, when the woman who devotedly loved him has passed away, that he turns to the topic of love? Were those words spoken? Or did your heart hurt because you were too late to say them? What did Ostrovsky want to tell us? And isn’t this the secret of the play that future generations will have to unravel? And the newspapers of that time vied with each other: “How the talent of our first playwright was crushed!”; “Ostrovsky outlived his talent!”; “Oh, Ostrovsky! Why didn’t you die before writing Late Love?

But why does this “failed play” touch you so much, why doesn’t it let you go, makes you think? What is her secret? The mystery of the “Dowry?”

Usually the names of Ostrovsky's plays are sayings, proverbs, that is, phrases with meaning (“Truth is good, but happiness is better,” “The heart is not a stone,” “Guilty without guilt,” etc.). Even “I Rose” has subtext. In "Dowry", at first glance, there is no subtext. Well, who is this homeless woman;!? According to Ostrovsky, the word “dowryless” had another meaning: a girl with high moral qualities who does not require a dowry.

There is a difference, and the title of the play sounds different, and we think about it. Who is she, Larisa Ogudalova? What is most important to her: a dowry? money? Or maybe something else? And the mysteries continue. Analyzing the list of characters, we note that Larisa is the only one whose last name is not indicated. Why? How is it different from others? We come to the conclusion that Ostrovsky has meaningful first and last names (gut - deceive, Larisa - seagull, knur - boar, etc.) and the heroine does not fit into this circle of people, the main thing is that she - seagull.

So the curtain rises. What should we see? (On the board is a sketch of the scenery for the drama.) Reading the stage directions, we find artistic details that alarm us. Yes, freedom, space, will, but... behind bars, there, in the distance. And here... a coffee shop, here there is music, gypsies, wine, noise. And in this world lives a heroine. What do we know about her? What is the need for its appearance? What does Larisa do while everyone is talking... about her?

But the most unexpected thing is her first words. When a person arrives, it is logical to say “hello,” and Larisa’s first words in the play are the words “goodbye.” Why? Analyzing Act I, we come to the conclusion that the heroine is on the threshold of life, she is leaving, but where? Who is she saying goodbye to? The words “I'm at a crossroads” prove this. What are Larisa's paths?

The first path is undoubtedly the path to Paratov. Analyzing act I, phenomenon 4, we answer the questions: How does Larisa Paratova see? Is he her ideal? And since an ideal is the perfect embodiment of a dream, let’s try to understand what Larisa dreams about.

Why does the conversation about Paratov end with a conversation about death? Obviously, because this is not the path to freedom, which Larisa strives for, but the path to death, perhaps spiritual. But these are just guesses. Maybe we're wrong? Let's take a closer look at Paratov.

Students answer the questions: How does Paratov appear? What can we tell about him based on how he got here? Why, having taken Robinson with him, did he not take the Unlucky - the merchant's son? What is Robinson for him? Does Paratov know the word pity?

But that's not all. Paratov has two faces - two masks. One is for everyone, for show, and the other is not visible to everyone, but Larisa sees it.

Let's analyze the monologue about Larisa when Paratov finds out about her marriage. What do the dots here indicate? Paratov thinks. But when a person thinks, can he pretend? Let's connect these phrases. What will we get?

“Well... God be with her...! Married... getting married... Still, my soul has become easier..."

A completely different person is in front of us, and only Larisa could see this person. But why only her? What makes her different from everyone else? Let's analyze Act II, Episode 3: Where is Larisa going? Why isn't she attracted to gifts? What does she dream about? Compare the dreams of Larisa and the people around her. What is the difference? Why does Larisa sing during a conversation? What is the most important thing in this life for her?

During the conversation, the romance “Amulet” by Lunev and Kozlova is heard. Love lives in the heroine's heart. Dreams about her

Larisa, love is everything to her (according to Ostrovsky, love will save the world), but no one needs this love. Larisa understands this, or rather, begins to understand, which is why she is so scared, restless, and incredibly hard.

Analyzing the conversation with her mother (Act II, Appearance 6), we try to understand what Larisa is afraid of. After all, Para-tov has not appeared yet! And she is afraid of this loneliness.

Maybe Paratov still needs her?

Let's analyze Act II, Scene 8. This is a very strange meeting. Questions arise immediately: Why is there no greeting? No remarks, why? Why does Larisa allow herself to be thought of “anything”? Why does he still confess his love? Why doesn’t Paratov ask who Larisa is marrying? Why does he need her love?

Larisa's love for Paratov is the consolation of his pride. But this is not what Larisa is waiting for. However, he decides to go with him, why? Let's analyze Act III, Episode 12.

What makes Larisa choose this path? The romance “Everything Ends One Day” by V. Zakharov is playing. Larisa “drinks the sweet poison of the desired deception...” And what is the ending of the path to Paratov? (Act IV, scene 7.) And the ending is in the eyes of Paratov. “It’s bright in my eyes, like the sky... I’ll think about myself...!”

Yes, Larisa will change her mind, because she has another path. With Karandyshev.

Analyzing the play, we answer the following questions: What is Karandyshev like? (Act II, 6th, 9th appearances.) Why is Larisa still going to marry him? Does Karandyshev love Larisa? (111th action, 11th appearance.)

We see that there is no love here either, here is only the owner’s right to property. Larisa cannot accept this.

So - to Knurov? What is Knu-rov like? Does he love Larisa? (Act II, Appearance 8.) There is not a word about love in their conversation! ...No one needs the love of a lonely seagull...

Now Larisa is pronouncing a monologue about death. She is left with death. Larisa’s sad song is finished, her sad romance is interrupted, like a bird with a broken wing, she rushes through this life full of cruelty, not saving Larisa’s amulet of happiness. The tragedy of the heroine is the tragedy of a lonely soul.

The topic of the lesson is “Temptation - the leitmotif of the drama by A.N. Ostrovsky "Dowry"

Temptation is not evil, but good. It makes the good even better. This is a crucible for purifying gold... St. John Chrysostom

Goals and objectives of the lesson. By examining the main motives of the drama, prove that the motive of temptation is the leitmotif. Correlate the final scene of “Dowryless” with the Christian understanding of temptation. Improve students' skills in working with the text of a literary work and a literary critical article. Review some literary concepts. Arouse interest in the spiritual problems of existence.

Lesson equipment. Materials for preparing homework in groups (fragments of articles about “Dowry” by Y. Lebedev and V. Vishnevskaya, texts of poems by E.A. Boratynsky “Disbelief” and Medvedev “No, he didn’t love...”), video cassette with a fragment of E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance”.

The song sounds based on the words of Boratynsky “Do not tempt me unnecessarily.” Preferably a live performance.

We continue our acquaintance with one of Ostrovsky’s best creations. In the last lesson we talked about the history of creation, the theme of the work, and its main motives. What did you, readers of the late 20th century, raise the most questions about? Perhaps this play seemed quite simple to you?

In the literature about Ostrovsky and the drama “Dowry,” the main disputes arise in connection with the final scene. And the original reading of the play by film director Eldar Ryazanov also raises questions specifically about the ending. Let's compare Ostrovsky's text and the final scene of the film. (Watch a fragment of the ending of the film “Cruel Romance.”)

What does Ryazanov have left behind the scenes?

How significant is the ending in a musical or literary work?

Two modern critics interpret Larisa’s last words this way (the statements are written on the board):

“In all this - and in death next to the gypsy revelry, and in words of forgiveness

and love is some kind of sacrilege” (V.Ya. Lakshin).

“The consciousness of the saving power of Christian love sounds in Larisa’s farewell words...” (Yu.V. Lebedev).

Which of them, in your opinion, is closer to Ostrovsky’s plan? (A little discussion is possible.)

Let's leave final conclusions. Let's turn to the text. As always, the title of the drama is significant for Ostrovsky. In this case it has two meanings, which ones? (Social and spiritual.)

Can Larisa's tragedy be explained by social reasons? (Yes.)

Will social analysis of the drama allow us to understand the last scene? (No.)

This means we need another way. Russian religious philosopher of the early 20th century Nikolai Berdyaev noted that “all of our literature of the 19th century is wounded by the Christian theme, all of it seeks salvation, all of it seeks deliverance from evil, suffering, the horror of life for the human person, humanity, the world.” Perhaps this thought will help us? Perhaps the path of spiritual analysis of Ostrovsky’s drama will be more fruitful? In the last lesson, you noticed that along with the main theme, Ostrovsky sounds additional ones that set off the main one. What are their names? (Motives.)

We called these motives: the motive of space, the motive of the person-thing, the motive of brilliance, the motive of temptation, the motive of loneliness.

Which of these motives is closer to Berdyaev’s just spoken words? (Motive of temptation.)

Let us outline the topic of our lesson: The motive of temptation in Ostrovsky’s drama “The Demon Dowry.” The main task of the lesson will be the study of this motive. How do you explain the meaning of the word temptation? (Temptation.)

Are you susceptible to temptation? Do they interfere with your life?

What temptations captured the heroes of Ostrovsky’s drama? Where does the motive of temptation begin to sound? Based on the text, tell us about the temptations of Knurov, Vozhevatov, Kharita Ignatievna, Karandyshev.

What is the nature of these temptations? (These are temptations of the material order.)

The temptations of Ostrovsky's characters are in one way or another connected with the heroine of the drama. What is she like, Larisa Ogudalova? Why does everyone only talk about her?

Are only beauty and musical abilities attractive to Larisa? Perhaps there must be something in it that is close to everyone?

However, Larisa's beauty has some flaws. Which? (This is the beauty of a soul losing faith. It is divorced from reality.) Apparently, for this reason, Larisa’s beauty is subject to temptation. What are they trying to seduce her with?

Knurov in the Ogudalovs' house. Listen to his first phrase addressed to Kharita Ignatievna: “What do you think about your daughter, what is she like?” Is the pronoun what here by chance?

That is, with all his passion, Knurov is first of all tempted by a beautiful thing. The motive of the person-thing, as it were, complements the motive of temptation. It is complemented by another motif - the motif of brilliance. You observed it in your homework. Tell us about your observations.

Money, glitter, jewelry - they tempt Larisa. And she is tempted.?

What is it that seduces the heroine?

Why?

What kind of ideal man is Paratov and why is he so successful in the role?

tempter?

Somewhere in the history of Russian literature we have already encountered something similar. Who? (Pechorin at Lermontov.)

Are their similarities significant? (No, it is only external. Paratov is a shallow likeness of Pechorin.)

But why does Larisa idealize Paratov so much?

The climax of the drama is Larisa singing a romance to the words of Boratynsky. Is that romance in Ostrovsky a coincidence?

You have become acquainted with fragments of an article by Inna Vishnevskaya. It talks about the performance of the role of Larisa by the great Russian actress V.F. Komissarzhevskaya. A whole legend is associated with this performance in the history of Russian theater. But today we are interested in something else. Vera Fedorovna, instead of “Don’t tempt...”, sang another popular romance to Medvedev’s words “No, he didn’t love.” You compared these two texts. What has changed in the interpretation of the main character?

A man with a dark, black soul. Who is this? (Devil.)

Does Larisa's temptation end with Paratov's confession?

But these are again temptations of a material order. Larisa’s soul dreams of nothing but love. The motives that we saw in the drama converge and echo the motive of temptation. So this is the central motive? (Yes, this is the leitmotif.)

This means that the topic of our lesson is transformed into another: “Temptation is the leitmotif of Ostrovsky’s drama “Dowry.” - Paratov is the ideal for Larisa. But the ideal man reveals all his cards. What kind of person appears before her? What does the quote from Lermontov mean in Larisa’s mouth: “In the eyes, it’s as bright as the sky”?

What biblical story comes to your mind when we talk about temptation? (Christ is tempted by the devil in the desert.)

Do the heroes of Ostrovsky's drama talk about God?

Yes, God has left their souls, because they all find themselves in the grip of temptations and seductions. How does Orthodoxy define temptation? (This is a test of faith.)

Let us turn to the words of John Chrysostom, which we took as the epigraph to the lesson. Is Larisa’s last remark “I love you all” appropriate in this sense?

Will Larisa's soul regain its lost faith? (Discussion.)

Which of the two critics is closer to the truth? (Answer options.)

Thus, the leitmotif of Ostrovsky’s drama carries a complex semantic load. If the souls of people are deprived of a moral core, moral strength, then they fall into the power of temptations and enticements. Finding faith will be the more difficult the more moral flaws the soul has. In this sense, Ostrovsky’s drama sounds quite modern and relevant.

Perhaps not everyone will agree with the conclusions of the lesson, so homework will allow you to justify other positions.

Karandyshev collected crappy weapons into his collection. His pistol misfired. What could Larisa's fate be in this case? You will prepare a short essay about this for the next lesson.

Someone was dissatisfied with how we resolved the dispute between two critics. Or maybe their positions are not so contradictory? Give your arguments.

Without a doubt, interest in Ostrovsky’s “Dowry-less” is largely caused by the original film adaptation of the play by Eldar Ryazanov. One can speak of originality already because the perception of the film’s characters by young viewers, on the one hand, is perplexing, on the other hand, it confirms the idea expressed more than once that each generation tries on great works to its own experience.

When asked which of the characters in “Dowryless” she liked the most, the tenth-grader confidently stated Knurov. And others immediately agreed with her. Their arguments: Knurov is a solid, reliable person, with someone like that you won’t be lost in life. Of course, this comes from the film. Ryazanov really makes Knurov-Petrenko attractive. And it fits the definition of “new Russian” in the best sense.

Yes, social reasons contributed to the tragic outcome of the story of Larisa Ogudalova. But Ostrovsky himself explores, first of all, the tragedy of a talented individual, and not a girl without a dowry. That is, for the playwright, the determining factors are not social, but spiritual reasons. This is the only way to consider the ending of “The Dowry,” which is incomprehensible to the modern reader. Ostrovsky, like all Russian classics of the 19th century, is faithful to the Christian tradition; he necessarily correlates the behavior and actions of his heroes with the moral principles of Orthodoxy. This determined the topic of the lesson in the Xth grade. He is the second, at the first there was a conversation about the era, the history of creation, heroes (excellent material for him was published by Yu. Lebedev in the 4th and 5th issues of the magazine for 1996).

Exploring various motives that in their own way complement the tragic historian Larisa, we come to the conclusion that her short life is a life among seductions and temptations. And if Larisa rejects the temptations of the material order, then the spiritual ones seize her without a trace. This realization comes too late. Temptation is good, through it faith is strengthened. This Christian truth is revealed to Larisa at the moment of death, and only because of this she turns her last words of forgiveness and love to those who have just betrayed her.

Such a study is an attempt, following Ostrovsky, to understand the idea of ​​caring for talent.

A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm,” written in 1859, is considered in Russian literature as a social drama and as a tragedy. Some critics even introduced a concept that unites these two genres - domestic tragedy.
But in order to more accurately define the genre of “Thunderstorms,” we need to understand the essence of the dramatic and tragic.
Drama in literature and in a work of art is generated by the contradictions in people's real lives. It is usually created under the influence of external forces or circumstances. In dramatic situations, people's lives are often under the threat of death, which is caused by external forces that are independent of people. The definition of genre also depends on an assessment of the main conflict in the work. The article by N. A. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” shows that the main conflict of “The Thunderstorm” is the conflict between Kabanikha and Katerina. In the image of Katerina we see a reflection of the spontaneous protest of the younger generation against the constraining conditions of the “dark kingdom”. The death of the main character is the result of a collision with her tyrant mother-in-law. From this point of view, this work can be called a social and everyday drama. It is noteworthy that the author himself called his work a drama.
But Ostrovsky’s play can also be perceived as a tragedy. What is tragedy? The tragic genre is characterized by an insoluble conflict between the personal aspirations of the hero and the laws of life. This conflict occurs in the mind of the main character, in his soul. The hero of a tragedy often struggles with himself, experiencing deep suffering. Seeing the main conflict in the soul of the heroine herself, her death as a result of the collision of two historical eras (note that this is how this image was perceived by Ostrovsky’s contemporaries), the “Thunderstorm” genre can be defined as a tragedy. Ostrovsky's play is distinguished from classical tragedies by the fact that its hero is not a mythological or historical character, not a legendary figure, but a simple merchant's wife. Ostrovsky places a merchant family and family problems at the center of the narrative. Unlike classical tragedies, in “The Thunderstorm” the private lives of ordinary people are the subject of tragedy.
The events in the play take place in the small Volga town of Kalinov, where life is still largely patriarchal. The drama takes place before the reform of 1861, which had a largely revolutionary impact on the life of the Russian province. Residents of the village of Kalinova, which is not far from the village, still live according to “Domostroi”. But Ostrovsky shows that the patriarchal structure is beginning to collapse before the eyes of the residents. The youth of the city do not want to live according to “Domostroy” and have not adhered to patriarchal orders for a long time. Kabanikha, the last guardian of this dying way of life, herself senses its imminent end: “It’s good that those who have elders in the house, they hold the house together as long as they are alive. What will happen, how the old people will die, how the light will remain, I don’t know.”
Looking at the relationship between her son and daughter-in-law, Kabanikha understands that everything is changing: “They don’t really respect elders these days... I’ve seen for a long time: you want freedom. Well, you wait, you can live in freedom when I’m gone...”
Kabanikha has no doubts about the correctness of patriarchal orders, but she also has no confidence in their inviolability. Therefore, the more acutely she feels that people do not live according to Domostroev, the more fiercely she tries to preserve the form of patriarchal relations. Kabanikha stands only for the ritual; she tries to preserve only the form, and not the content of the patriarchal world. If Kabanikha is the guardian of the patriarchal form of life, then Katerina is the spirit of this world, its bright side.
From Katerina's stories about her former life, we see that she comes from the ideal patriarchal domostroevsky world. The main meaning of her former world is the love of everyone for everyone, joy, admiration for life. And before Katerina was part of just such a world, she did not need to oppose herself to it: She is truly religious, connected with nature, with popular beliefs. She draws knowledge about her surroundings from conversations with wanderers. “I lived, didn’t worry about anything, like a bird in the wild,” she recalls. But in the end, Katerina still turns out to be a slave of this patriarchal world, its customs, traditions, and ideas. The choice has already been made for Katerina - they married off the weak-willed, unloved Tikhon. Kalinovsky’s world, its dying patriarchal way of life, disrupted the harmony in the heroine’s soul. “Everything seems to be from under captivity,” she conveys her perception of the world. Katerina enters the Kabanov family, ready to love and honor her mother-in-law, expecting her husband to be her support. But Kabanikha doesn’t need her daughter-in-law’s love at all, she only needs an outward ^ expression of humility: “She won’t be afraid of you, and even less so of me. What kind of order will there be in the house? ”
Katerina understands that Tikhon does not meet her ideal husband. The relationship between her and her husband is no longer Domostroevsky, because Tikhon is characterized by the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bmercy and forgiveness. And for Katerina, this trait, according to Domostroevsky laws, is a disadvantage (Tikhon is not a husband, not the head of the family, not the owner of the house). This destroys her respect for her husband and her hope of finding support and protection in him.
Gradually, a new feeling arises in Katerina’s soul, which is expressed in the desire for love. But at the same time this feeling is perceived by Katerina as an indelible sin: “How, girl, not to be afraid!.. I’m not afraid to die, but how can I think that suddenly I will appear before God as I am here with you... What a sin- That! It’s scary to say!” Katerina perceives her love for Boris as a violation of the rules of “Domostroy”, a violation of the moral laws in which she was brought up. Katerina perceives cheating on her husband as a sin that must be repented of “to the grave.” Without forgiving herself, Katerina is not able to forgive another for condescension towards her. “His caress is worse to me than beatings,” she says about Tikhon, who has forgiven her and is ready to forget everything. Katerina's tragic conflict with herself is insoluble. For her religious consciousness, the thought of committing a sin is intolerable. Feeling the split in her inner world, the heroine already in the first act says: “Out of melancholy, I will do something to myself!” Feklusha with tales that “people with dog heads” received their appearance as punishment for infidelity, and the old lady predicting a “pool” for youth and beauty, thunder from the sky and a picture of fiery hell for Katerina mean almost terrible “last times” ”, “end of the world”, “judgment seat of God”. The woman’s soul is torn to pieces: “The whole heart was torn to pieces! I can’t stand it anymore!” The culmination of both the play and the heroine’s mental torment comes. Along with the external, internal action also develops - the struggle in Katerina’s soul flares up more and more. By publicly repenting, Katerina takes care of the cleansing of her soul. But the fear of Gehenna continues to possess her.
Having repented and relieved her soul, Katerina still voluntarily dies. She cannot live by violating the moral laws that were instilled in her from childhood. Her strong and proud nature cannot live with the consciousness of sin, having lost its inner purity. She doesn't want to justify herself in anything. She judges herself. She doesn’t even need Boris that much; his refusal to take her with him will not change anything for Katerina: she has already ruined her soul. And the Kalinovites are unmerciful to Katerina: “If you execute you, then your sin will be removed, but you live and suffer from your sin.” Ostrovsky's heroine, seeing that no one is executing her, ultimately executes herself - she throws herself off a cliff into the Volga. It seems to her that she is repaying herself for her sins, but only God can repay her sins, but she herself refuses God: “The Light of God is not dear to me!”
Thus, if we consider the central conflict of the play as a conflict in the soul of the heroine, then “The Thunderstorm” is a tragedy of conscience. With death, Katerina gets rid of the pangs of conscience and the oppression of an unbearable life. The patriarchal world is dying, and with it its soul is dying (in this regard, the image of Katerina is symbolic). Even Kabanikha understands that nothing can save the patriarchal world, that it is doomed. Added to the daughter-in-law’s public repentance is the son’s open rebellion: “You ruined her! You! You!"
The moral conflict occurring in Katerina’s soul exceeds in depth the social, everyday and socio-political conflicts (Katerina is the mother-in-law, Katerina is the “dark kingdom”). As a result, Katerina is not fighting with Kabanikha, she is fighting with herself. And it is not her tyrant mother-in-law who destroys Katerina, but a turning point that gives rise to a protest against old traditions and habits and a desire to live in a new way. Being the soul of the patriarchal world, Katerina must die along with it. The heroine's struggle with herself, the impossibility of resolving her conflict, are signs of tragedy. The genre uniqueness of Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm” lies in the fact that the social and everyday drama, written by the author and characterized by Dobrolyubov, is also a tragedy in the nature of the main conflict.

27. Fairy tale play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Snow Maiden"

The poetic fairy tale “The Snow Maiden” stands apart from a number of other works by Ostrovsky. In other plays, Ostrovsky paints gloomy pictures of the merchant environment, criticizes harsh morals and shows all the tragedy of a lonely soul forced to exist in the conditions of the “dark kingdom.”
The work “The Snow Maiden” is an amazing fairy tale that shows the beauty of the surrounding world, love, nature, and youth. The work is based on folk tales, songs, traditions and legends. Ostrovsky only combined fairy tales, legends and songs together and gave folk art a very unique flavor. In “The Snow Maiden” the main place is occupied by human relationships. At first glance, the plot looks absolutely fantastic. But then it turns out that living human characters are visible in this phantasmagoria.
The action takes place in a fabulous place - the kingdom of Berendey. Describing the laws of this country, Ostrovsky seems to paint his ideal of social order. In the kingdom of Berendey, people live according to the laws of conscience and honor, trying not to provoke the wrath of the gods. Beauty is very important here. The beauty of the surrounding world, the beauty of girls, flowers, songs are appreciated. It is no coincidence that the singer of love Lel turns out to be so popular. He seems to personify youth, ardor, ardor.
Tsar Berendey himself symbolizes folk wisdom. He has lived a lot in the world, so he knows a lot. The king is worried about his people; it seems to him that something evil appears in the hearts of people:
What values ​​does Tsar Berendey think about? He is not worried about money and power. He cares for the hearts and souls of his subjects. By painting the Tsar this way, Ostrovsky wants to show an ideal picture of a fairy-tale society. Only in a fairy tale can people be so kind, noble and honest. And this intention of the writer in depicting a fabulous ideal reality warms the reader’s soul, makes him think about the beautiful and sublime.
Indeed, the fairy tale “The Snow Maiden” is read with enthusiasm at any age. And after reading it, the thought appears about the value of such human qualities as spiritual beauty, fidelity and love. Ostrovsky talks about love in many of his works.
But in “The Snow Maiden” the conversation is conducted in a very special way. In the form of a fairy tale, the reader is presented with great truths about the enduring value of love.
The ideal kingdom of the Berendeys lives so happily precisely because they know how to appreciate love. That is why the gods are so merciful to the Berendeys. And it only takes breaking the law, insulting the great feeling of love, for something terrible to happen.
It is no coincidence that Mizgir’s betrayal of Kupava resonated with pain in everyone around him. Everyone took the guy’s ignoble behavior as a personal insult:
In the kingdom, simple but beautiful relationships have been developing between people for a long time. The deceived girl Kupava first of all turns to the tsar-protector with a request to punish the culprit of her grief. And having learned all the details from Kupava and those around him, the king makes his verdict: the culprit must be punished. What punishment does the king choose? He orders Mizgir to be driven out of sight. It is in exile that the Berendeys see the most terrible punishment for a guilty person
There are no bloody laws in the kingdom. This could only happen in a fairy tale created by the writer’s imagination. And this humanity makes the kingdom of the Berendeys even more beautiful and pure.
The figure of the Snow Maiden is remarkable. She is completely different from everyone around her. The Snow Maiden is a fairy-tale character. She is the daughter of Frost and Spring. That is why the Snow Maiden is a very contradictory creature. The coldness in her heart is the legacy of her father, the stern and gloomy Frost. For a long time, the Snow Maiden lives in the wilderness of the forest, and her mansion is carefully guarded by her stern father. But, as it turned out, the Snow Maiden resembles not only her father, but also her mother, the beautiful and kind Spring. That is why she was tired of living alone, locked up. She wants to see real human life, experience all its beauty, take part in girlish fun, listen to the wonderful songs of the shepherd Lelya. “Life is not a joy without songs.”
The way the Snow Maiden describes human life shows her genuine admiration for human joys. The cold heart of the fairy-tale girl does not yet know love and human feelings, but nevertheless she is already beckoned and attracted by the bewitching world of people. The girl realizes that she can no longer remain in the kingdom of ice and snow. She wants to find happiness, and perhaps this, in her opinion, only in the kingdom of the Berendeys. She says to her mother:
The Snow Maiden amazes people with her beauty. The family in which the Snow Maiden finds herself wants to take advantage of the girl’s beauty for their personal enrichment. They beg her to accept the courtship of the rich Berendeys. They cannot appreciate the girl who has become their named daughter.
The Snow Maiden seems more beautiful, more modest and gentler than all the girls around her. But she does not know love, so she cannot respond to ardent human feelings. There is no warmth in her soul, and she looks distantly at the passion that Mizgir feels for her. A creature that does not know love evokes pity and surprise. It is no coincidence that no one can understand the Snow Maiden: neither the Tsar nor any of the Berendeys.
The Snow Maiden attracts others so much precisely because of her coldness. She seems like a special girl, for whom you can give everything in the world, and even life itself. At first the girl is indifferent to everyone around her. Gradually she begins to experience some feelings for the shepherd Lelya. This is not love yet, but it’s already hard for the icy beauty to see the shepherd with Kupava:

Shepherd Lel rejects the Snow Maiden, and she decides to beg her mother for ardent love. The kind that burns the human heart and makes you forget about everything in the world:
Spring gives her daughter a feeling of love, but this gift can be disastrous for the Snow Maiden. Spring is tormented by heavy forebodings, because the Snow Maiden is her daughter. Love turns out to be tragic for the heroine. But without love, life loses all meaning. The Snow Maiden cannot cope with the desire to become the same as all the people around her. Therefore, she decides to neglect the precepts of her father, who warned her against the disastrous consequences of human passion.
The Snow Maiden in love becomes surprisingly touching. A whole world, completely unknown to her previously, opens up for her. Now she understands all those who experience love languor. She answers Mizgir by agreeing to become his wife. But Mizgir is not able to give up his intention to appear before all the Berendeys with his bride, considering the beauty’s fears a whim.
The first bright rays of the sun kill the Snow Maiden.
Mizgir cannot accept the death of his beloved, so he throws himself from a high mountain. But the death of the Snow Maiden seems to the Berendeys to be something natural. The Snow Maiden was alien to the warmth of her soul, so it was difficult for her to find her happiness among people