Poetic theater. From Mandelstam to metarealists

Abstract

The article is devoted to the correlation of the O. Mandelstam reflections about the theater and the nature of the theatrical word, including those embodied in his poetic images, with the so-called “inner plastic theater” of the text in the poetry of the leaders of Russian metarealism – I. Zhdanov, S. Solovyov, A. Parschikov. The author analyzes the metaphors of the theater, acting, sounding words, images of the actor, spectator and author of the play, presented in the text-manifestos of metarealists, projecting them into the images of the art-drama, lifestyle and inspirational theater of O. Mandelstam. In the first part of the article author examines the intertextual relations of “Before the word” of I. Zhdanov, with “Hamlet” of B. Pasternak and “Swallow” of O. Mandelstam, analyzes the “houshold theater” and “booth”, their mediator role in the interaction of an author with a reader/spectator. The author discusses an image of the “ideal actor” moving and acting in empty space, which is not the scene, but the word, inhabiting this emptiness with images and the playing reader. He shows that the Hamlet question sounds for I. Zhdanov as “to be (everyday life) or (not)being(not existing)”. Special attention is paid to images of heaven and the theatrical “gods” and related Biblical and Evangelical motives. The second part of the article is devoted to the analysis of “Typewriter Amphitheater...” of S. Solovyov and his correlations with “January 1, 1924” and “Where is the bound and nailed moan?” of O. Mandelstam. The focus is an idea of the unity of the acting and genuine dying, the roots of which Solovyev is looking for in Antiquity, bringing to the fore images of Apollo, Dionysus, Dionysian games, and in Christian mythology, presenting the text as “Godborn child”, the offspring of the original Word. The third part of the article analyzes “Introduction...” of A. Parschikov, where ancient and Biblical and Evangelical motifs are also strong and the text appears in the image of Heavenly Jerusalem. The author sees the difference in the fact that A. Parschikov focuses not on the theatricality of poetic creativity, but on the game itself. His theatre, as Mandelstam would say, is “rational and transparent”.