Background. In the Ukrainian art history, the problems of theatre criticism and the interrelations between criticism and stage art until remain insufficiently studied. The article considers the activities of the T. Shevchenko Kharkov Theatre (until 1935 – the Theatre «Berezil») in the second half of the 1930s–1940s in the coverage of theatre criticism. Since 1933, the aesthetic course of this theatre had changed dramatically from avant-garde searches to socialist realism in connection with the defeat of the position of Les Kurbas and his dismissal from the theatre. This reversal of the creative course of the theatre becomes a subject of reflection in theatre criticism, which during this period also experienced fundamental transformations both in genre-style and in ideological aspects. Thus, the article analyzes the development of theatre criticism in the context of artistic phenomena of the second half of the 1930s–1940s. Objectives and methodology of the research. The objective of this study is to analyze the difficult period of stylistic changes in the T. Shevchenko Kharkov Theatre in the second half of the 1930s–1940s, that was at the stage of formation of socialist realism in the Ukrainian art, from the viewpoint of theatre criticism of that time. System-historical and comparative-historical methods were used in the study. The results of the study. On the basis of the press reports on the activities of the T. Shevchenko Kharkov Theatre the most important features and tendencies inherent in theatrical criticism of this period have been derived. The article deals with editions, in which during the period under study the materials about the T. Shevchenko Theatre appeared most often. These are, in particular, Kharkov newspapers «Krasnoye Znamia», «Sotsialisticheskaya Kharkovshchina», Kiev editions «Sovetskoye Iskusstvo», «Sovetskaya Ukraina», «Kievskaya Pravda», «Pravda Ukrainy», «Literatura i Iskusstvo», «Komsomolskaya Ukraina», «Proletarskaya Pravda», «Literaturnaya Gazeta». The articles about the tour performances of the T. Shevchenko Kharkov Theatre were published in the editions of other cities, including the newspapers «Bugskaya Zarya» (Nikolaev), «Dnepropetrovskaya Pravda», «Zarya» (Dnepropetrovsk), «Bolshevistskaya Pravda» (Vinnitsa), «Lvovskaya Pravda», «Svobodnaya Ukraina» (Lviv), «Voroshilovgradskaya Pravda» (Luhansk), «Moskovskiy Bolshevik», «Komsomolskaya Pravda», «Trud» (Moscow). Since 1933 the theatre had its own edition – «Berezilets», which in 1935 got a new, ideologically correct name – «Za Sotsialisticheskiy Realizm» («For Socialist Realism»). The article outlines the circle of authors who practiced the theatre criticism professionally. It should be noted that the activities of the T. Shevchenko Kharkov Theatre at that time was often described by journalists who published the notices occasionally. Among those who analyzed the theatrical process systematically, the most attention deserve the following critics: V. Morskoy, L. Livshits, B. Milyavsky, V. Chagovets, Y. Shovkoplyas, G. Gelfandbein, A. Gozenpud, V. Gavrilenko, A. Kostrov, A. Lein, D. Zaslavsky, Ya. Gan, Y. Pavlovsky. The critical notices by writers V. Sukhodolsky, Yu. Martych and L. Dmiterko have been considered separately as examples of a rather original glance at the performances and presence in the text of an expressive author’s style. During this period, under the pressure of strict ideological control over the art, quite stable canons of compiling notices were formed and took root, almost not allowing a critic to display his individuality. Among the features peculiar for the theatre criticism there were the uniformity of the titles of articles simply stating the play name, an extremely rare manifestation of specific position of the author regarding the stage work and transition to the level of figurative or conceptual understanding. The main matter of the analysis was rather the performance content, its subject, but not the means by which it is embodied; more attention was paid to the literary source, and not to the performance. In the first part of the notice, the play subject was usually explained from the standpoint of party ideology, often using the quotes from Soviet leaders’ speeches. Usually in a notice, the close attention was paid to acting and the actors performing the main roles. This peculiarity reflects disclosure of the new facets of talent of a number of actors of the T. Shevchenko Kharkov Theatre of that period. It should be noted that actor’s individuality of I. Maryanenko, V. Chistyakova, M. Krushelnitsky, L. Serdyuk and others was displayed more powerful than in «Berezil». Giving priority to an actor in theatre criticism to a certain extent levelled the producer’s role. At that time, the palette of stage producer’s means should not was to be going beyond strict aesthetic requirements. It was necessary to remain in the stylistic framework of a life-like presentation, when a producer was fully focused on the actors, and M. Krushelnitsky, L. Dubovik, R. Cherkashin and others did it skilfully. The best examples of theatre criticism contained careful analysis of originality of their production. A notice briefly described the scenography and sometimes the composer’s work. The final part contained a laconic conclusion. On the one hand, such a scheme of compiling notices impoverished the critic’s possibilities, his freedom in expressing thoughts, and on the other hand, it set a clear structure for presenting the material. In this period, as it has been at all times, the performance notices remained the most popular genre of theatre criticism. Portraits of actors were printed occasionally. Interviews were rather rare (usually with a producer). Conclusions. Theatre criticism of the second half of the 1930s–1940s existed in strict limits dictated by ideological reasons, because of which it only partially elucidated the stylistic changes that took place in the T. Shevchenko Kharkov Theatre in this period. For an objective analysis of the activities of the theatre, it is necessary to address to a wide range of sources, in particular the recollections of the direct participants of the then theatrical process that were published later, in period of ideological “thaw”.
(Neo)modernism în rupturi rizomice