Richard Wagner’s Opera “Tannhäuser” in the Director’s Interpretation of Romeo Castellucci

O. Honchar
{"title":"Richard Wagner’s Opera “Tannhäuser” in the Director’s Interpretation of Romeo Castellucci","authors":"O. Honchar","doi":"10.31318/2522-4190.2021.131.243226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The relevance of the study lies in the systematization of the expressive means of the director’s interpretation of R. Castellucci, who, using the semantic elements of Dionysianism and Appolonism, Pantheism and Christianity — the main pair of oppositions for the European cultural space, has compared not only the forms of expression, but also the concepts of art, Tannhäuser’s inability to make a choice and be successful. He sees positive elements in each of them, but without accepting them as a whole, always remains on the verge, being rejected by the system, unwilling to completely immerse himself in it. R. Castellucci interprets Tannhäuser’s image as a victim of the conventions of these systems.\nThe novelty of the research lies in the analysis of R. Castellucci’s producing, which is not substantially studied in Ukrainian musicology, although it opens a completely new interpretation of Tannhäuser. The figurative content of the main opposing forces here is fundamentally different from their previous incarnation on the opera stages of the world.\nThe main objective of the study was to penetrate into the general interpretive vision of the work — its maximum symbolization, the use of figurative and semantic elements and their combinations in the work, which constitute the semantic field of the production, having a wide variance of perception and not directly following the plot, avoiding narrative and at the same time not deviating from the author’s text. The theme of love in its sensual and spiritual, as well as art and its forms of expression — the opposition of these criteria by R. Wagner is significantly complicated through the interpretation of them by R. Castellucci in postmodern discourse, where a set of pre-meanings gains direct meaning.\nSo Venus and Venusburg, for R. Wagner, are a symbol of sensuality, and the director exaggerates the sensual to the meaning of “indecent”, where “hyper” becomes the primary characteristic, which is inherent in the elements of the production as a whole. The study was done by using semiotic principles of the director’s work and their semantic load determined the main methodological approaches of research in accordance with the works of J. Baudrillard, which were based on the algorithm for the structural analysis of an opera work developed by M. R. Cherkashina-Gubarenko.\nElizabeth is the opposition to this discourse, and the Wartburg society is the personification of excessive rationalization, which makes it mechanized and devoid of humanity, impervious to other points of view, that is, totalitarian. In the end, Tannhäuser and Elizabeth are freed from the irreconcilable tension between discourses, the end of which becomes a deeply symbolic non-existence and stratification of space, time, performer and character. In any case, Tannhäuser does not really renounce his beliefs; the blossom of the bishop’s staff as a sign of divine grace refers not so much to Tannhäuser as to labeling his views as permissible in a variety of opinions, but alien to the clerical spirit and its institutions. As a result we can argue that the director departs from traditional interpretations of the plot and value judgments of a certain world, leaving unanswered the question of the normativity of one of them as opposed to the other, makes filling with symbolic images, while blurring clear lines and avoiding direct definition through illustrative direction.\nIn general, everything hyper-, over-, “too” and “exaggerated” is characteristic of the director’s interpretations of R. Castellucci. His postmodern vision of the theater and some kinship with the “theater of cruelty” A. Artaud, allows, according to R. Castellucci, to experience these emotions outside of real life, to sublimate them through art — which was the focus of ancient tragedy.\nThe study has significance from the point of view of an artistic and scientific description of the modern stage director’s theater, the principles of the artist’s work with material and its adaptation to modernity without violating the author’s intention. It can be used as a material in the studying of directors of musical theater and in introductory courses on modern trends in operatic art.","PeriodicalId":143313,"journal":{"name":"Scientific herald of Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine","volume":"9 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific herald of Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31318/2522-4190.2021.131.243226","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The relevance of the study lies in the systematization of the expressive means of the director’s interpretation of R. Castellucci, who, using the semantic elements of Dionysianism and Appolonism, Pantheism and Christianity — the main pair of oppositions for the European cultural space, has compared not only the forms of expression, but also the concepts of art, Tannhäuser’s inability to make a choice and be successful. He sees positive elements in each of them, but without accepting them as a whole, always remains on the verge, being rejected by the system, unwilling to completely immerse himself in it. R. Castellucci interprets Tannhäuser’s image as a victim of the conventions of these systems. The novelty of the research lies in the analysis of R. Castellucci’s producing, which is not substantially studied in Ukrainian musicology, although it opens a completely new interpretation of Tannhäuser. The figurative content of the main opposing forces here is fundamentally different from their previous incarnation on the opera stages of the world. The main objective of the study was to penetrate into the general interpretive vision of the work — its maximum symbolization, the use of figurative and semantic elements and their combinations in the work, which constitute the semantic field of the production, having a wide variance of perception and not directly following the plot, avoiding narrative and at the same time not deviating from the author’s text. The theme of love in its sensual and spiritual, as well as art and its forms of expression — the opposition of these criteria by R. Wagner is significantly complicated through the interpretation of them by R. Castellucci in postmodern discourse, where a set of pre-meanings gains direct meaning. So Venus and Venusburg, for R. Wagner, are a symbol of sensuality, and the director exaggerates the sensual to the meaning of “indecent”, where “hyper” becomes the primary characteristic, which is inherent in the elements of the production as a whole. The study was done by using semiotic principles of the director’s work and their semantic load determined the main methodological approaches of research in accordance with the works of J. Baudrillard, which were based on the algorithm for the structural analysis of an opera work developed by M. R. Cherkashina-Gubarenko. Elizabeth is the opposition to this discourse, and the Wartburg society is the personification of excessive rationalization, which makes it mechanized and devoid of humanity, impervious to other points of view, that is, totalitarian. In the end, Tannhäuser and Elizabeth are freed from the irreconcilable tension between discourses, the end of which becomes a deeply symbolic non-existence and stratification of space, time, performer and character. In any case, Tannhäuser does not really renounce his beliefs; the blossom of the bishop’s staff as a sign of divine grace refers not so much to Tannhäuser as to labeling his views as permissible in a variety of opinions, but alien to the clerical spirit and its institutions. As a result we can argue that the director departs from traditional interpretations of the plot and value judgments of a certain world, leaving unanswered the question of the normativity of one of them as opposed to the other, makes filling with symbolic images, while blurring clear lines and avoiding direct definition through illustrative direction. In general, everything hyper-, over-, “too” and “exaggerated” is characteristic of the director’s interpretations of R. Castellucci. His postmodern vision of the theater and some kinship with the “theater of cruelty” A. Artaud, allows, according to R. Castellucci, to experience these emotions outside of real life, to sublimate them through art — which was the focus of ancient tragedy. The study has significance from the point of view of an artistic and scientific description of the modern stage director’s theater, the principles of the artist’s work with material and its adaptation to modernity without violating the author’s intention. It can be used as a material in the studying of directors of musical theater and in introductory courses on modern trends in operatic art.
理查德·瓦格纳歌剧《Tannhäuser》在导演对《罗密欧·卡斯特鲁奇》的诠释
本研究的相关性在于导演对卡斯特鲁奇阐释的表现手段的系统化,卡斯特鲁奇运用欧洲文化空间的主要对立对酒神主义和阿波罗主义、泛神论和基督教的语义元素,不仅比较了表现形式,而且比较了艺术概念Tannhäuser的无能选择和成功。他在每个人身上都看到了积极的因素,但没有把它们作为一个整体来接受,总是处于边缘,被系统拒绝,不愿意完全沉浸其中。R. Castellucci将Tannhäuser的形象解释为这些系统惯例的受害者。该研究的新颖之处在于对R. Castellucci的制作的分析,这在乌克兰音乐学中并没有得到实质性的研究,尽管它打开了Tannhäuser的全新解释。这里主要对立力量的形象内容与他们之前在世界歌剧舞台上的化身有着根本的不同。研究的主要目的是深入到作品的一般解释视野-其最大的符号化,在作品中使用比喻和语义元素及其组合,它们构成了生产的语义场域,具有广泛的感知差异,不直接跟随情节,避免叙事,同时不偏离作者的文本。R.卡斯特鲁奇在后现代话语中对这些标准的阐释使瓦格纳对这些标准的反对变得非常复杂,在后现代话语中,一组前意义获得了直接意义。因此,对于瓦格纳来说,维纳斯和维纳斯堡是感性的象征,导演将感性夸大到了“不雅”的意义,“超”成为了主要特征,这是整个作品元素中固有的。本研究采用导演作品的符号学原理,根据J.鲍德里亚的作品确定了主要的研究方法,这些方法基于M. R. Cherkashina-Gubarenko开发的歌剧作品结构分析算法。伊丽莎白是这种话语的对立面,而沃特堡社会则是过度合理化的人格化,这使得它变得机械化,缺乏人性,不受其他观点的影响,即极权主义。最终,Tannhäuser和Elizabeth从话语之间不可调和的张力中解脱出来,其结局成为空间、时间、表演者和人物的深刻的象征性不存在和分层。无论如何,Tannhäuser并没有真正放弃他的信仰;作为神圣恩典的标志,主教的手杖的开花与其说是指Tannhäuser,不如说是指他的观点在各种各样的观点中被允许,但与牧师精神及其制度格格不入。因此,我们可以说,导演偏离了对某个世界的情节和价值判断的传统解释,没有回答其中一个相对于另一个的规范性问题,而是用象征性的图像填充,模糊了清晰的线条,并通过说明性的方向避免了直接的定义。总的来说,过度、过度、“太”和“夸张”是导演对卡斯特鲁奇的诠释的特点。根据卡斯特鲁奇的说法,他对戏剧的后现代看法以及与“残酷戏剧”a·阿尔托(A. Artaud)的某种亲近感,使他能够在现实生活之外体验这些情感,并通过艺术将它们升华——这正是古代悲剧的焦点。从艺术和科学地描述现代舞台导演的戏剧,艺术家的材料工作原则以及它在不违背作者意图的情况下适应现代性的角度来看,研究具有重要意义。它可以作为研究音乐剧导演和歌剧艺术的现代趋势的入门课程的材料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信