RUSSIAN LITERATURE最新文献_第5页

Тeaтр фарса по-русски: “Продолжательница” Сарду Н.А. Лухманова 俄罗斯闹剧的主题曲：萨杜·卢赫马诺娃的“女继承人”

IF 0.2 3区文学

RUSSIAN LITERATURE Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.09.003

Татьяна Левицкая (Tatiana Levitskaia)

{"title":"Тeaтр фарса по-русски: “Продолжательница” Сарду Н.А. Лухманова","authors":"Татьяна Левицкая (Tatiana Levitskaia)","doi":"10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.09.003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.09.003","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Nadezhda Lukhmanova (1841-1907) was an important figure in the history of Russian farce theatre. She gained notoriety as a translator with the audience-winning comedy <em>A Hero of the First Empire</em> (1894, based on the play by Victorien Sardou and Émile Moreau <em>Madame Sans-Gêne</em>, 1893). Lukhmanova made a lot of changes to the play: it was not a translation but a retelling of the story, quite far from the original version. Her free translation and her creation of a sequel to the <em>Madame Sans-Gêne</em> story (the play <em>Napoleon I</em>, 1895) raised a wave of negative critical reviews. Critics regarded Lukhmanova as a “predatory translator” who spoiled original works and stole good ideas. Later she translated a large number of farces that were successful with audiences, and wrote several original plays. However, her work as a translator of farcical plays influenced public perceptions of her fiction and journalism. Readers and critics questioned why a writer and publicist, known for moralizing lectures and articles, should translate farces? The truth is that work in the farcical genre helped Lukhmanova to rethink the story of her personal life, demonstrating the absurdity of marriage conventions – and to play this out in front of an audience.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":43192,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN LITERATURE","volume":"135 ","pages":"Pages 19-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49839440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Драматургия, театр, театральная критика в первой трети XX века 20世纪上半叶的戏剧、戏剧、戏剧批评

IF 0.2 3区文学

RUSSIAN LITERATURE Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ruslit.2023.03.001

Ольга Купцова (Ol’ga Kuptsova) , Анна Сергеева-Клятис (Anna Sergeeva-Kliatis)

引用次数: 0

П.П. Перцов. ‘Русская “комедия масок”’ (К юбилею Ревизора)

IF 0.2 3区文学

RUSSIAN LITERATURE Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ruslit.2023.02.002

Михаил Эдельштейн (Mikhail Edel’shtein)

引用次数: 0

“Вы не должны […] негодовать на Веру”: Письма М.Н. Шульгиной С.С. Татищеву “你不应该憎恨信仰”:舒尔金写给塔蒂舍夫的信

IF 0.2 3区文学

RUSSIAN LITERATURE Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.09.006

Анна Сергеева-Клятис (Anna Sergeeva-Klyatis)

引用次数: 0

Действо о человеке абсурда: Кругом возможно бог А. Введенского 关于一个人的行为是荒谬的：周围可能有上帝。《神秘的人：上帝可能在身边》（Mystery Play About the Absurd Man:God May Be Around by A.Vvedenskii）

IF 0.2 3区文学

RUSSIAN LITERATURE Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.12.003

Корнелия Ичин (Kornelija Ičin)

引用次数: 0

Ревизор, откомментированный всем Гоголем. Александр Слонимский и Юлия Сазонова-Слонимская в полемике о мейерхольдовском спектакле 所有gogol推荐的审计员。亚历山大·斯洛宁斯基和茱莉亚·萨佐诺夫-斯洛宁斯基在关于迈耶霍尔多夫戏剧的争论中

IF 0.2 3区文学

RUSSIAN LITERATURE Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ruslit.2023.01.001

Ольга Купцова (Olga Kuptsova)

{"title":"Ревизор, откомментированный всем Гоголем. Александр Слонимский и Юлия Сазонова-Слонимская в полемике о мейерхольдовском спектакле","authors":"Ольга Купцова (Olga Kuptsova)","doi":"10.1016/j.ruslit.2023.01.001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ruslit.2023.01.001","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The discussion of Meyerhold’s “Revisor” (GosTIM, premiere – December 9, 1926) is an unprecedented case in European theatre of the first half of the twentieth century: no other theatrical event had such a breadth of public reaction. In the general controversy around the Meyerhold “Revisor”, the theatre-critical dialogue between the philologist and theatre critic of the Leningrad “Gvozdev school” Alexander Slonimsky and the director and theatre critic Iulia Sazonova-Slonimskaia (who were brother and sister) represents not only the views of Soviet Russia and Russia Abroad, but also those of the drama/theatre theorist and theatre practitioner. The dialogue considered in this article – at first glance, local and peripheral – turns out to be inscribed in the discussions of the 1920s about one of Meyerhold’s most controversial performances, and at the same time becomes the prehistory of the discussions of the 1930s about Meyerhold theatre’s formalism and “untimeness”, which brought a tragic denouement: the dissolution of the theatre and the death of its director.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":43192,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN LITERATURE","volume":"135 ","pages":"Pages 207-238"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49877553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Science of Acting in the Russian Theatre at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century – From the Modern Epoch to the Avant-Garde 20世纪初俄罗斯戏剧中的表演科学——从现代到前卫

IF 0.2 3区文学

RUSSIAN LITERATURE Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.10.002

Rose Whyman

{"title":"The Science of Acting in the Russian Theatre at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century – From the Modern Epoch to the Avant-Garde","authors":"Rose Whyman","doi":"10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.10.002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.10.002","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>K.S. Stanislavsky’s System remains the basis for actor training in conservatoires in the UK and more widely and Vs. E. Meyerhold’s Biomechanics is increasing in popularity as a training method in the twenty-first century. Both methods were rooted in scientific understandings from the modern epoch to the avant-garde, so it is important to question how this remains relevant to today’s practice. This essay explores responses to Diderot’s <em>Le paradoxe sur le comédien</em> (<em>The Paradox of the Actor</em>) in Russia from the nineteenth century to the 1930s, which, essentially, questioned whether “head” or “heart” should be primary in acting. A.N. Ostrovskii and P.D. Boborykin discussed this question from the 1860s in relation to the new science of I.M. Sechenov, which theorised generating emotion by reflex. Reflex theory impacted the debate between “experiencing” and “representation” in acting. The development of I.P. Pavlov’s reflex conditioning had further implications for “heart” or “head” and “experiencing” or “representation” debates for Stanislavsky and Meyerhold. In the 1930s, L. S. Vygotsky proposed a new response to Diderot’s <em>Paradox</em> and N.A. Bernstein’s neurophysiology pushed against the Soviet Pavlovian paradigm – a new context for reassessment of the great directors’ work.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":43192,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN LITERATURE","volume":"135 ","pages":"Pages 297-323"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49877519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Reforming Early-Twentieth-Century DANCE Theatre: Mikhail Fokin and Isadora Duncan 改革二十世纪早期的舞蹈戏剧:米哈伊尔·福金和伊莎多拉·邓肯

IF 0.2 3区文学

RUSSIAN LITERATURE Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.11.014

Irina Sirotkina

{"title":"Reforming Early-Twentieth-Century DANCE Theatre: Mikhail Fokin and Isadora Duncan","authors":"Irina Sirotkina","doi":"10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.11.014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.11.014","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The innovative choreographer Mikhail Fokin (Michel Fokine, 1880-1942) is often credited with reforming early-twentieth-century ballet theatre. In the first decade of the twentieth century he vehemently criticized traditional ballet for mechanistic virtuosity and lack of emotion. The reform he suggested was to introduce a new genre of one-act abstract ballet set to classical or romantic, non-dancing music, as well as a new emotional regime in ballet theatre. In his early statement of his purposes, he recognized that one of the strongest inspirations came from his contemporary, Isadora Duncan. Dance historians have also commented that the direction in which Fokin took ballet was suggested to him by the American dancer. Yet with the advance of modern dance in the 1930s, Fokin started distancing himself from Duncan. While admitting that his “Greek” ballets such as <em>Eunice</em> and <em>Daphnis and Chloe</em> (both 1907) stemmed from Duncan dance, he categorically denied any influence of hers on his main chefs-d’oeuvre, <em>The Swan</em> (<em>The Dying Swan</em>, 1907) and <em>Chopiniana</em> / <em>Les Sylphides</em> (1907-1909). Believing Fokin’s words, Russian dance historians have seriously belittled Duncan’s contribution to the reform of twentieth-century ballet. The article restates Duncan’s impact on Fokin by demonstrating that <em>Chopiniana</em> borrowed from Duncan’s <em>Chopin-Abend</em> (1904), and that the genre of the one-act “abstract” ballet is indebted to her dance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":43192,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN LITERATURE","volume":"135 ","pages":"Pages 349-364"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49877552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Анонимная рецензия на Стихотворения А.С. Хомякова: Аполлон Григорьев или Ф.М. Достоевский? 匿名评论帕西科夫的诗:阿波罗·格里戈里耶夫还是陀思妥耶夫斯基?

IF 0.2 3区文学

RUSSIAN LITERATURE Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.08.003

Василий Лурье (Basil Lourié)

{"title":"Анонимная рецензия на Стихотворения А.С. Хомякова: Аполлон Григорьев или Ф.М. Достоевский?","authors":"Василий Лурье (Basil Lourié)","doi":"10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.08.003","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.08.003","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article reconsiders the vexed question of the authorship of the anonymous review (published in the journal <em>Vremia</em>, 1861) of the book Poems by A.S. Khomyakov. The review dealt not only with Khomyakov’s poems but also with his oeuvre as a whole, including his theological works. Inductive logic was applied to the task of resolving the text’s attribution, as a comparison of the respective likelihoods (conditional probabilities) of two alternative hypotheses: authorship by either Apollon Grigoriev or Fedor Dostoevsky. The author of the review speaks about Khomyakov’s theological brochures and tragedy Ermak with the same opinions and even almost the same wording as Grigoriev does in other texts of the same period. No similar opinions appear in texts belonging to Dostoevsky, even though Dostoevsky’s interest in Khomyakov’s journalism (but not his theology) is documented from the early 1860s. There are no grounds for speaking of any theological influence by Khomyakov on Dostoevsky in the 1860s (unlike in Dostoevsky’s last years). The conclusion by Boris F. Egorov that the author was Grigoriev is confirmed, whereas Vladimir N. Zakharov’s arguments for the authorship of Dostoevsky are disproved.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":43192,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN LITERATURE","volume":"134 ","pages":"Pages 73-95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44405868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Становление и эволюция белорусского 4-стопного ямба 白俄罗斯四步坑的形成和演变1

IF 0.2 3区文学

RUSSIAN LITERATURE Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ruslit.2022.08.004

Татьяна Земскова (Tatiana Zemskova), Евгений Казарцев (Evgeny Kazartsev)

引用次数: 0