E-mail: alexander.stavissky@yandex.ru
Тel.: +7 (812) 272 85 20; +7 (812) 272 17 89;
Mokhovaya st. 34, 191028 St. Petersburg, Russian Federation;
associate professor (Acting skills and direction), St. Petersburg Theatre Arts State Academy, Puppet Theatre Faculty
Stability of the folk puppet-show genre, integrity of its formal signs, its amazing preservation through centuries can be explained by interdependence of all its structural components. The article covers constructive, technological and performing peculiarities of the traditional Petrushka street theatre’s scenic space, connection between action formulas and theatrical construction. The idea of spatial-ludic performing theatricality emerges naturally from the phenomenon of two mutually interpenetrating structure-forming definitions, revealing to us. Polysemous dialectics of this phenomenon consists of two notions: corporeality and architecture. The puppet with its rag body is immanent both to the theatrical construction and to the performer. As a sort of moving sculpture, it belongs to the categories of architectural plastic; as a character, it produces an influence by gesture, kinetics, evident physical anomaly (in the case of the protagonist), thus arousing curiosity, laugh, fear.
Screen as a theatrical construction and as a performing theatrical scenic space is also “corporal” and pliable. Firstly it contains functions and meanings of the viviparous beginning, Mother-Soil, the birthplace and the graveyard of things. Secondly, it contains functions and meanings of a theatrical costume with all its mimetic and secondary pliable features. Thirdly, it hides the performer inside. “Corporeality” spreads all through area surrounding the screen, where spectators are involved in the play relations. It generates a special multilevel composition, spatial alternation of “animated and unanimated” arranged in the pyramid principle: puppet — performer — screen — spectator. Audience (i. e. the marketplace) forms the basement of the pyramid, the puppet and its actions — its top. The structure of the puppet show resembles bee’s cells, reproducing itself.
In other words: puppets, the Musician, as well as the screen itself are important, mutually determining components of the general theatric spatial concept, i. e. the stage image of the performance. Thus “place of action” forms both the action and the actor.
B ogatyrev P. G. Questions of Th eory of the Folk Art. Moscow, 1971. In Russian.
Buckland Raymond. Th e Gypsy: Mysteries of Life and Tradition. Moscow, 2003. [Russian translation from: Buckland Raymond. Gypsy: Witchctaft & Magic. Llewellyn Publications; 1st edition, 1998.] In Russian.
Evreinov N. N. ”Th eatre Everywhere, in Everything…”. Th eatre Inventions. Moscow, 1992. In Russian.
Freydenberg O. M. Th e Poetics of Plot and Genre. Leningrad, 1936. Pp. 203–204. In Russian.
Ivanova A. A. Puppet Theatre: Substantial Content of the Technologic Systems. St. Petersburg, 1996. In Russian.
Kerzhentsev P. M. Th e Creative Th eatre. Moscow; Petrograd, 1923. In Russian.
Lehmann Hans Thies. Postdramatic Theatre. [Russian translation of: Postdramatisches Th eater. Verlag der Autoren, Frankfurt am Main 1999]. Moscow, 2013. In Russian.
Morozov I. A. Th e Puppet Phenomenon in Traditional and Modern Cultures. Cross-cultural Studies upon Ideology and Anthropomorphism. Moscow, 2011. In Russian.
Nekrylova A. F. The Russian “Petrushka”— Folk Puppet Theatre in Ethnography Light. The Art of Theatre Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. Yekaterinburg. 2005. № 4. Pp. 105–121. In Russian.
Ponyrko N. V. Christmastide and Butter Week Laughter. Likhachev D S., Panchenko. I., Ponyrko N. V. Laughter in the (Medieval) Old Russia. Leningrad, 1984. Pp. 154–202. In Russian.
Solomonik I. N. Traditional Puppet Th eatre of the Orient. Moscow, 1992. In Russian.