Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

melodramatice. Argumentele sale se concentreazæ, pe de o parte, asupra
momentului în care tînæra Nina, personajul principal, denunflæ øi refuzæ
acel hypocrisis pe care-l recunoaøte în persoana tatælui ei, un bætrîn înghiflitor
de flæcæri care a încercat toatæ viafla sæ-øi flinæ fiica departe de lumea
realæ, hrænindu-i imaginaflia cu miturile burgheze ale onoarei øi moralitæflii.
Însæ realul – cîtæ vreme mai este acolo – se ræzbunæ mereu (molestarea
fetei de cætre Togasso øi crima comisæ de pærinte în apærarea onoarei fiicei),
iar demascarea „iluziilor inimii“ are efectul unei treziri generînd procesul
împotriva falsei lumi în care Nina a træit pînæ atunci øi sfîrøind cu o reconversie
a subiectivitæflii sale în cæutarea unor noi puncte de reazem. Pe de
altæ parte, chiar modul în care Strehler a utilizat structurile latente ale piesei
a avut darul de a potenfla publicului francez o criticæ actualæ a conøtiinflei
melodramatice. Acest tip de semiozæ se fundamenteazæ pe perceperea
a douæ tipuri diferite de timp øi spafliu în El nost Milan: un timp gol, desfæøurîndu-se
încet øi aproape imperceptibil, øi un timp scurt, fulgerætor, intensiv;
un spafliu populat de o mulflime anonimæ în care relafliile dintre
persoane au loc în mod accidental sau episodic øi un spafliu comun ocupat
de cele trei personaje principale – Nina, tatæl øi Togasso. Primul timp
øi primul spafliu sînt ocupate de subproletariatul milanez træind melodramatic
zi de zi, la fel, acolo unde relafliile sînt absente øi unde nimic asemænætor
Istoriei nu poate avea loc, deoarece „conøtiinfla melodramaticæ
nu este contradictorie acestor condiflii: este o conøtiinflæ destul de diferitæ,
impusæ din afaræ asupra unei condiflii determinate, dar færæ sæ întreflinæ
o relaflie dialecticæ cu aceasta“. 16 Dimpotrivæ, acestui timp al cronicii i se
opune dialectic timpul dramatic în care træieøte Nina, unul dens, plin, abolind
celælalt timp øi structurile reprezentærii lui spafliale. Aici se construieøte Istoria
øi, într-adevær, refuzînd maøinæria pe care noi am recunoscut-o ca
hypokrisis sau, în alte cuvinte, conøtiinfla melodramaticæ, Nina construieøte
Istoria. Cît priveøte publicul, acesta „a aplaudat în piesæ ceva care exista
dincolo de el, care s-ar putea sæ fie chiar dincolo de autorul sæu, lucru
pe care însæ Strehler l-a oferit: o semnificaflie îngropatæ mai adînc decît
cuvintele øi gesturile, mai adînc decît soarta imediatæ a personajelor care
træiesc aceastæ soartæ færæ a fi vreodatæ capabile sæ reflecteze asupra
ei“. 17 Explicaflia vine curînd, pe mæsuræ ce sîntem conduøi cætre teatrul lui
Brecht. Aceeaøi structuræ asimetricæ, aceleaøi forme diferite de temporalitate
care se însoflesc mereu, ne spune Althusser, se regæsesc în piesele
sale de maturitate. Aceastæ dinamicæ stæ la baza unei critici reale a iluziilor
conøtiinflei (care se crede mereu dialecticæ øi se trateazæ pe sine ca dialecticæ)
sau constituie fundamentul criticii unei false dialectici (conflict, tragedie
etc.). Astfel cæ, putem noi spune, dacæ la Bertolazzi aceastæ opoziflie
poate fi foarte bine inconøtientæ, øi dacæ abia Strehler o pune ca atare în
luminæ, Brecht abordeazæ conøtiinfla melodramaticæ într-un demers critic,
pragmatic, ce îøi autoimpune dezideratul formærii unei noi conøtiinfle
active în spectatorii sæi.
Sæ recapitulæm modul cum Brecht îøi teoretizeazæ demersul 18 de a rupe
cu teatrul clasic. Acesta presupunea, pe de o parte, o acfliune cursiv-liniaræ
parcurgînd traseul unei intrigi, al unei desfæøuræri cætre un punct culminant
øi cætre un deznodæmînt; pe de altæ parte, personajele erau expresii ale
unei fiinflei umane înflelese ca dat nemodificabil øi a cærei fiinflare era determinatæ
de gîndire; în sfîrøit, spectatorului i se prezentau situaflii de scenæ,
oferindu-i-se senzaflii care-i anihilau capacitatea de acfliune øi îi încurajau
manifestarea instinctualæ. Dimpotrivæ, Brecht øi-a conceptul teatrul drept
persons take place accidentally or episodically, and a space mutually occupied
by the three main characters – Nina, the father and Togasso. The first time and
space are being occupied by the Milan sub-proletariat living melodramatically
day by day, where relations are absent and where nothing resembling History
cannot take place because “the melodramatic consciousness is not contradictory
to these conditions: it is a quite different consciousness, imposed from without
on a determinate condition but without any dialectical relation to it”. 16 On the
contrary, this time of chronicle is dialectically opposed by the dramatic time
lived by Nina, which is dense and full, abolishing the other time and the structures
of its space representation. It’s where History is being built and indeed,
by refusing the machinery which we identified as hypokrisis or, in other words,
the melodramatic consciousness, Nina builds History. As for the audience, it
“applauded in the play something that was beyond them, which may even have
been beyond its author, but which Strehler provided him: a meaning buried
deeper than words and gestures, deeper than the immediate fate of the characters
who live this fate without ever being able to reflect on it”. 17 The explication
comes soon, as we are being lead to Brecht’s theatre. The same asymmetrical
structure, the same different forms of temporality which always come together,
Althusser says, are to be found in his mature plays. This dynamics underlies
a real criticism of the illusions of the conscience (which always regards itself as
dialectical and treats itself as dialectical) or establishes a criticism of a false
dialectics (conflict, tragedy, etc.). So, we can say that if for Bertolazzi this opposition
may as well be unconscious and if it is Strehler who throws a light on it,
Brecht makes a programmatic act out of the critique of the melodramatic consciousness
or that hypokrisis, with the self-imposed mission to form a new active
conscience among his audience.
Let us briefly sum up the way Brecht conceptualized his approach 18 of breaking
off with the classical theatre. The latter implied, on one hand, a cursive-linear
action following a plot, developing towards a climax and a resolution; on the
other hand, the characters showed a human being regarded as an unchangeable
given and whose being was determined by thinking; eventually, the spectator
was being presented stage situations, being offered sensations which
annihilated his capacity to act and which encouraged the manifestation of his
instinct. On the contrary, Brecht conceived of his epic theatre as a narrative theatre
offering a world image established through an argumentative debate,
the play as a whole consisting in a self-developing assembly, where the human
being – whose thinking follows the logics of the social existence – is about to be
constituted and it is itself capable of constituting and where the spectator turns
into an external observer, a position allowing him to grasp the developing
events while his capacity of acting and taking decisions is being permanently
incited. “We need a type of theatre”, Brecht says, “which not only releases the
feelings, insights and impulses possible within the particular historical field of
human relations in which the action takes place, but employs and encourages
those thoughts and feelings which help transform the field itself.” 19 In the classical
theatre, we had a main character whose conscience reflected the entire significance
of the play and which, as Althusser shows 20 , carried the political themes
(political, moral, religious) which are never questioned. These myths are nothing
but the false mirror in which a society recognizes itself, that is, the mask stopping
it to know itself. Brecht broke this interface, breaking off, at the same time,
with the ideological conditions of theatre; consequently, his plays lack the formal
condition of self-consciousness accomplished by the main character.
In Brecht, none of the characters contains all the conditions of tragedy.
202