ДО ПИТАННЯ ПРО ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ТЕАТРАЛЬНО-КРИТИЧНОГО ПРОЦЕСУ В УКРАЇНІ 1920-х РОКІВ

Досліджуються закономірності розвитку театральної критики на тлі культурно-мистецького процесу та складних суспільно-політичних реалій 1920-х років. В Україні у першій пол. 1920-х рр. мав місце спонтанний вихід багатьох нових видань, для яких характерна несистематична поява, короткотривалість існування та нечітка редакційна політика. На відміну від політизованої преси ІІ пол. 1920-х рр. періодика І пол. 1920-х рр. не завжди відповідала ідеологічним настановам влади. Це обумовлено ситуацією у країні, невпорядкованою системою друку та, відповідно, відносною свободою слова. Зосереджено увагу на зміні мистецьких орієнтирів, вагомості та професійному стані театральної критики ІІ пол. 1920-х рр. у порівнянні з попереднім періодом. Адже саме тоді відбувається активізація представників різних поколінь театральних критиків. Ключові слова: театральна критика, 1920 роки, суспільно-політичні реалії, періодичні видання. The objectives of the article are to study the patterns of the theatrical criticism development against the turbulent cultural and artistic process and the complex of socio-political realities of the 1920 s. In Ukraine in the 1st half of the 1920 s there was a spontaneous output of many new publications, which are characterized by a non-systematic appearance, short-term existence and a rather fuzzy editorial policy in Ukraine in the first half of the 1920 s. Unlike the politicized press of the 2 nd half of 1920 s, periodicals of the 1st half of the 1920 s not always corresponded to the ideological attitudes of the authorities. This was due to the situation in the country, the disorderly system of the press and, accordingly, the relative freedom of speech. The article also focuses on the changing of artistic guidelines, the weight and professional status of theater criticism of the 2 nd half of 1920 s, compared with the previous period. It is at this time that the representatives of different generations of theater critics become more active. Key words: theater criticism, 1920-s, socio-political realities, periodicals.

UNKNOWN REVIEW BY ALEKSANDR NIKITENKO OF THE COMEDY THE FOREST BY ALEXANDER OSTROVSKY IN THE RECEPTIVE HISTORY OF THE PLAY

For the fi rst time, we publish an unknown review written by Aleksandr Nikitenko, a member of Imperial Academy of Sciences, of the comedy by Alexander Ostrovsky «The Forest». This review was compiled on behalf of the commission that distributed Aleksey Uvarov’s awards for the playwrights after Alexander Ostrovsky submitted his play to the competition. Review by Aleksandr Nikitenko was read at a meeting of the commission; its copy has been discovered in his personal archive. Alexander Ostrovsky participated in the competition for Aleksey Uvarov’s award for more than 15 years, but he achieved success only twice: with his «The Storm» in 1860 and with the drama «Sin and Sorrow Are Common to All» in 1863. Aleksandr Nikitenko, himself a member of the academic commission, for several years was reviewing all the works that competed for the prize, and almost always gave negative conclusions about them. He reacted sharply negatively to «The Forest» as well. In the article, Aleksandr Nikitenko’s review is considered in the context of literary, critical and theatrical criticism of the comedy by Alexander Ostrovsky, which were released shortly after its publication and production. The publication was prepared on the basis of archival documents found in St. Petersburg department of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Manuscript Department of the Institute of Russian Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Activity of the T. Shevchenko Kharkov Theater in the coverage of theatrical criticism (the second half of the 1930s – 1940s)

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”.

The interaction of theatrical journalism and theatrical criticism in the modern media

Background. Topicality of the theme. With the advent of the Internet, Internet journalism has appeared. In relating to theater, in essence, it is theatrical criticism, which has only undergone major changes. In recent years, there have been lively discussions in professional circles about the state and prospects of theater criticism as a profession, about the nature of theater criticism, its self-identification in the modern information space. Round tables with the participation of leading theater critics are devoted to the issues of the current state of theater criticism, a number of relevant materials have been published in specialized publications, often with indicative headings: “Who needs theater critics?” [1], “Theater criticism: final or transformation?” [9]; interviews of theater critics, in which they uphold the positions of the profession and, at the same time, speak about urgent problems and the need to update it taking into account rapidly changing realities: with S. Vasilyev [2], N. Pivovarova [5], Ya. Partola [6]; discussion articles on the status and prospects of the profession by M. Harbuziuk [3], M. Dmitrevskaya [4], N. Pesochinsky [7], I. Chuzhynova [10], S. Schagina, E. Strogaleva, E. Gorokhovskaya [11]. Thus, there are several points of view on this topic: that theatrical journalism has replaced theatrical criticism; that theatrical critics of the old school did not have time to adapt to the changing world and use new tools in this profession, and young critics just occupy their niches in the youth media and on the Internet; that the profession of a critic does not go beyond the framework of participation in expert councils, jury membership, attendance at theater festivals, and writing reviews on request. The question, however, is still open. The main goal of this article is to determine the degree and main character of the interaction of journalism and theatrical criticism in modern media. Results of the study. Those who are seriously engaged in theater studies and academic theater criticism feel the need for specialized publications, the number of which in Ukraine is reduced to a minimum. Therefore, those who had the opportunity to publish reviews in the socio-political periodicals, have to combine three professional areas in one, becoming a theater journalist. Academically trained theater critics can write and often write good books, but, as a rule, do not know how to write for newspapers and magazines. But graduates of journalistic departments who write about the theater are not familiar with professional terminology, which is able to give a correct assessment of the premiere performance. The question arises: how to combine those and these, that the theater journalism was both fascinating and acute, and moderately scandalous, but at the same time accurate and high-quality? To grow such specialists is a matter of work, there can be no conveyor system here. Modern theater criticism, gradually becoming obsolete, rather survives from the common theatrical space. The theater critic cannot be a free artist, and live on the money from the results of his work, because in non-capital cities the number of journals in which the theater specialist would have had time to publish his works has decreased by several times. In cities such as Poltava, Sumy, Chernigov, the issues relating to theatrical premieres are not covered by critics (they are simply not there), but by journalists who write on various topics and rarely specialize in one. The substitution of theatrical critique by journalism is quite natural, for example, for cities where there is no professional training of theater critics, however in Kiev, Kharkiv and Lviv theater studies continue, and a certain number of graduates hope for the viability of this profession. Theatrical criticism and theatrical journalism are in their own way demanded in certain circles. Criticism is closer to theaters, journalism – to the audience. It is difficult to debate with this statement that new epoch came with the Internet. Now, the spoken word has a completely different value. For example, а word thrown on Facebook can have the same effect on public opinion as a big, built, hard fought text. This does not mean that you do not need to write large texts and publish them on paper. You just need to understand and accept the new reality, its advantages and disadvantages, its danger and its benefits. It is a very important problem of our consciousness and the problem of our theater. The Internet has given a new push to the development of new type of media-translations, actively working in social networks. Sites appear on the network where online remote screenings of performances are held. They provide Internet audiences with the opportunity to be acquainted with the history of national and world theater art; they are introduced to modern avant-garde performances. Of course, this also brings the theater closer to a wide, as a rule, young audience and opens up new opportunities for a different kind of theater journalism. Сonclusions. Thus, the Internet becomes an active means of influencing the minds in the modern media space. The Internet influences everyone and everything, changing attitudes towards theatrical art, as well as contemporary theater criticism and theater journalism. However in this case, it is essential to remember that not the Internet, but only professional theater criticism that has been and remains the breeding ground for the scientific work of theater critics and art historians, while creating the history of dramatic, opera and ballet theater.

Theatrical, Periodical, Authorial: Frances Brooke’s Old Maid (1755–1756)

Manushag Powell revisits Frances Brooke’s Old Maid (1755-6) to highlight its understudied interest in theatrical performance and criticism. Brooke’s interest in the drama was lifelong, encompassing not only personal ambitions that were partly thwarted by her famous quarrels with David Garrick over her Virginia and his King Lear, but also her friendship and eventual partnership with the powerful actress-manager Mary Ann Yates, who was also a close friend of fellow pioneering periodicalist Charlotte Lennox. Brooke’s interest in the theatre predated and reached far beyond Garrick’s involvement. Ultimately, the essay champions the radical ambitions of Brooke’s periodical writing and theatrical criticism, and both recognises and laments the fact that an alliance of female professional artistry could be enabled by the theatre, but not yet by periodical writing.

Theatre and press in 1920–1929. (Self )legitimation of theatre criticism

In the beginning of the development of the professional Lithuanian theatre in the first decadeof Lithuanian independence, Lithuanian theatre criticism also took its first steps. The article analyses the connection between theatre and its reviewers, their attitude towards contemporary aspects of theatre and life, scenic art and literature, aesthetics and national ideology. The debatable atmosphere of press and theatre is accentuated. Three reviewers of different newspapers and periodicals, different experiences and methods are presented: Viktoras Jocaitis, Pranas Lubickas, and Vytautas Pranas Bičiūnas. The author maintains that the real school of theatrical criticism of that period was not only theatre, but also press. The debates on the state of national art (theatre, literature, fine arts) and its development appeared in publications, shaped multiple public spheres, and theatre criticism got involved into it.