Civilizational and Mental Discourses of the Russian Theatre as an Identity Code

The Russian theatre of the last centuries is a distinctly formed identity code, possessing certain content (social and moral) and formal (artistic and aesthe­tic, including those genre and verbal) features. The purpose of this article is to justify the presence of the Russian theater as an identity code, of which we believe there are two discourses — civilizational and mental. Drama is defined as a borderline civilizational code of the Russian theatre. This is both a kind of literature that has developed dynamically, paradoxically, creating an outstanding repertoire for the theater, and the definition of a life situation that characteri­zes theatricality as a specific feature of Russian identity. The civilizational discourse of the Russian theatre manifests itself through the paradoxes of conflict in psychological drama. The unique (mentally deterministic) cultural dimension of the Russian drama forms a logical chain: time, space, and a person lost in time and space. The drama comes into the person’s life not only as a kind of literature, but also as a situation of their existence. Russian directing is defined as a mental/specific and, at the same time, civilizational/universal code. The civilizational discourse in the Russian, as well as the world theatre represents the paradox associated with the institutionalization of director’s profession as an embodiment of the demiurgic beginning and the sphere of self-realization of individual peculiarities of a creative personality (which can be seen in the experience of V. Meyerhold and E. Vakhtangov, G. Tovstonogov and Yu. Lyubimov, and many of the existing directors of today). An actor in Russia is more than an actor; paraphrasing the well-known formula, we pay attention to the characteristic of mental identity code inhe­rent in acting. The triad of playwright—director—actor undoubtedly forms the basis of the Russian artistic tradition and affirms the importance of professional intentions and the cultural and philosophical mea­ning of creative activity of each of the three authors of a theatrical work. The actor in this chain is the final link. The civilizational discourse, based on the universals of cultural practices, is associated with transformation of styles, methods, eternal matters, reflecting primarily in drama. The mental discourse, fully specific, is associated with local themes (acting) and paradoxical receptions of world practices and influence on them (directing).