Творче становлення Михайла Верхацького як теоретика театру: його дискусія з Дмитром Грудиною на шпальтах харківської преси (1930-ті роки)

Abstract

У статті досліджено дискусію між учнем Леся Курбаса Михайлом Верхацьким та ректором Харківського музично-драматичного інституту Дмитром Грудиною, яка розгорнулася на шпальтах журналу “Радянський театр” у 1930-ті роки. Розглянуто особливості теоретичного становлення М. Верхацького в “Березолі”. Охарактеризовано ідеологічні та художні тенденції театрального мистецтва у кінці 20-х – на початку 30-х років ХХ століття.

В статье исследовано дискуссию между учеником Леся Курбаса Михаилом Верхацким и ректором Харьковского музыкально-драматического института Дмитрием Грудыной, развернувшуюся на страницах журнала “Советский театр” в 1930-е годы. Рассмотрено особенности теоретического становления М. Верхацкого в “Березиле”. Охарактеризовано идеологические и художественные тенденции театрального искусства в конце 20-х – в начале 30-х годов ХХ века.

The article is an attempt to present and analyze the discussion between the student of Les Kurbas, Mykhailo Verhatsky and the rector of the Kharkiv Music and Drama Institute, Dmytro Grudyna, which unfolded on the pages of the Soviet theater magazine in the 1930’s. At the same time, the peculiarities of the theoretical formation of M. Verkhatsky in the “Berezil” are accentuated in the context of sociopolitical processes of that time. Mykhailo Verhatsky is a director, historian and theoretician of the theater, a theatrical teacher, whose creative activity left a noticeable mark in the history of the Ukrainian theater of the twentieth century. Of particular interest is the emergence of the artist in the “Kharkiv” period: during his studies at the Theater Institute (1925–1935) and in the theater “Berezil” – because he still remains almost unexplored. In particular, it concerns the theoretical development of the artist and the scientific and theoretical developments of this period, which require separate consideration. The purpose of this article is to discover and investigate theoretical work of M. Verkhatsky in the “Kharkiv” period in the context of the theatrical process of the late 1920’s – the first half of the 1930’s. In 1926 the theater “Berezil” moved to the Kharkiv. M. Verkhatsky was so enthralled with the plays of Berezil, which eventually became an integral part of the theatrical collective and entered the last set of the regiment with B. Balaban, V. Voronov, L. Dubovyk and V. Sklyarenko. M. Verkhatsky developed the understanding of the theater in the “Berezil” and subsequently demonstrated the theoretical developments on the pages of professional editions. This is about the article “To the question of dialectics at the theater”, published in number 3–5 of the journal “Soviet Theater” for 1930. In this article the author violates fundamentally important issues regarding the development of the Ukrainian theater and, in fact, represents the theoretical basis of the Berezil. At a time when the harassment of the theater “Berezil” becomes the so-called “trend”, each creative step of the actors of “Berezil” was regarded first of all from ideological positions. Therefore, Dmytro Grudyna, as a representative of Kurbas’s criticism and rector of the Kharkiv Music and Drama Institute, could not fail to respond to the article by M. Verkhatsky. For the magazine “The Art Tribune” No. 3 of 1931, D. Grudyna wrote an article “A glass from Berezil”. Due to the fact that M. Verkhatsky aesthetically formed as a actor of “Berezil”, he was able to oppose the postgraduate position of the position of the rector of the institute D. Grudyna and respond to a squall of crushing criticism. Therefore, on the pages of the magazine “Soviet Theater” number 5–6 of 1931, we encounter two published articles: M. Verhatsky's “Against the Critique of Invented Mistakes”, in which he opposed the misrepresentation of D. Grudyna’s various facts; and D. Grudyna “The glass ...” “is warriors” (“honesty” of the t. Verhatsky)”, which not only gave a rebuke to M. Verkhatsky, but also caused another revealing “blow” “Berezil”. M. Verkhatsky’s discussion with D. Grudyna is an example of a fierce struggle that lasted in the artistic circles of the 1930’s. Various aesthetic preference – one supporter of the classical theater, another so-called left – did not allow them to get to know each other. In addition, D. Grudyna fought with M. Verhatsky, attributing to him political perversions, and thus the theatrical discussion took on forms of political character. The position of M. Verkhatsky in this discussion is an attempt to present and defend the artistic guidelines, the theoretical foundations of the Berezil. His scientific terminology does not always seem convincing and requires clarification and concrete examples. Probably such records were, but the author did not manage to print them after the accusations. The artist remained faithful to the creative principles of Berezil and its leader, Les Kurbas, and even at the beginning of the political oppression of the theater, he boldly defended the Berezilian concept.