The sixties of the 20th century are better known as the times of poetry. Many poems appear during this period of Russian literature. But dramaturgy also occupies an important place in this context. And a place of honor is given to Alexander Valentinovich Vampilov. With his dramatic work he continues the traditions of his predecessors. But much of his work comes from both the trends of the era of the 60s and the personal observations of Vampilov himself. All this was fully reflected in his famous play “Duck Hunt”. Thus, K. Rudnitsky calls Vampilov’s plays centripetal: “.. they certainly bring to the center, to the foreground, heroes - one, two, at most three, around whom the rest of the characters move, whose destinies are less significant...”. Such characters in “Duck Hunt” can be called Zilov and the waiter. They are like two satellites, complementing each other. "Waiter. What can I do? Nothing. You have to think for yourself. Zilov. That's right, Dima. You're a creepy guy, Dima, but I like you better. At least you don’t break down like these... Give me your hand... The waiter and Zilov shake hands with each other...” The attention of the dramaturgy of this period of Russian literature was directed to the features of a person’s “entry” into the world around him. And the main thing becomes the process of his establishment in this world. Perhaps only hunting becomes such a world for Zilov: “..Yes, I want to go hunting... Are you leaving?.. Great... I’m ready... Yes, I’m going out now.” What was special about Vampilov’s play was the conflict. “The interests of dramaturgy were directed... to the nature of the conflict, which forms the basis of the drama, but not to the processes occurring within human personality“,” noted E. Gushanskaya. Such a conflict also becomes interesting in the play “Duck Hunt”. In fact, in the play there is no, as such, the usual conflict between the protagonist and the environment or other characters. The background of the conflict in the play is Zilov’s memories. And by the end of the play, even this construction does not have its resolution; In Vampilov's play, strange and unusual incidents often occur. For example, this ridiculous wreath joke. “(Looks at the wreath, picks it up, straightens the black ribbon, reads the inscription on it out loud). “To the unforgettable Viktor Aleksandrovich Zilov, who was untimely burned out at work, from inconsolable friends”... (He is silent. Then he laughs, but not for long and without much fun).” However, E. Gushanskaya notes that the story of the wreath was told to Vampilov by an Irkutsk geologist. “It was his fellow geologist who was sent a wreath by his friends with the inscription “Dear Yuri Alexandrovich, who burned down at work.” This strangeness extends to the content of “Duck Hunt” itself. The whole play main character gets ready to go hunting, makes the necessary preparations, but never gets there in the play itself. Only the finale speaks of his next preparations: “Yes, I’m leaving now.” Another feature of the play is its three-stage ending. At each of the stages it would be possible to complete the work. But Vampilov does not stop there. The first stage can be indicated when Zilov, having invited friends to the funeral, “felt for the trigger with his big toe...”. No wonder there is an ellipsis at the end of this phrase. There is a hint of suicide here. Viktor Zilov crossed some threshold in his life when he decided to take such a step. But a phone call does not allow the hero to complete the job he started. And friends who came later bring him back to real life, an environment with which he wanted to break only a couple of minutes ago. The next step is a new attempt at Zilov’s “attempt on his life.” “Sayapin disappears. Waiter. Come on. (He grabs Kuzakov and pushes him out the door.) It will be better this way... Now put the gun down. Zilov. And you get out. (They look into each other's eyes for a moment. The waiter retreats to the door.) Alive. The waiter detained Kuzakov who appeared at the door and disappeared with him.” In the third ending of the play, Zilov never comes to any specific answer to the questions that arise for him during the course of the play. The only thing he decides to do is go hunting. Perhaps this is also some kind of transition to solving one’s own life problems. Some critics also viewed Vampilov's plays in a symbolic sense. “Duck Hunt” is simply filled with symbolic objects or situations. For example, a phone call that brings Zilov back to life, one might say, from the other world. And the telephone becomes a kind of conductor for Zilov’s connection with the outside world, from which he tried to at least isolate himself from everything (after all, almost all the action takes place in a room where there is no one except him). The window becomes the same connecting thread. It is a kind of outlet in moments of mental stress. For example, when unusual gift friends (funeral wreath). “He stands in front of the window for some time, whistling the melody of the funeral music he has dreamed of. Sits on the windowsill with a bottle and glass.” “The window is, as it were, a sign of another reality, not present on the stage,” noted E. Gushanskaya, “but the reality of the Hunt given in the play.” Hunting and everything connected with it, for example, a gun, becomes a very interesting symbol. It was bought for duck hunting. However, Zilov tries it on himself. And hunting itself becomes an ideal-symbol for the main character. Victor is so eager to get to another world, but it remains closed to him. And at the same time, hunting is like a moral threshold. After all, it is, in essence, murder legalized by society. And this is “raised to the rank of entertainment.” And this world becomes a dream world for Zilov, eh. The image of a waiter becomes a guide to this world. Like a waiter worried about a trip: “How’s it going? Are you counting the days? How much do we have left?.. My motorcycle is running. Order... Vitya, the boat needs to be tarred. You should write to Lame... Vitya!” And in the end, the dream simply turns into a utopia, which, it seems, cannot come true. E. Streltsova calls Vampilov’s theater “the theater of the word, in which in an incomprehensible way the author was able to connect the incompatible.” The unusual and sometimes comical nature of some situations brings together memories that are near and dear to the heart. His dramaturgy included new images of characters, a unique conflict, and strange and unusual events. And using symbolic objects, you can recreate a separate picture, which will highlight the actions and behavior of the main character even more clearly. Peculiar open ending, characteristic of his other plays, gives hope that Zilov will be able to find his place not only in his memories within the confines of the room.

A.V. Vampilov “Duck Hunt”

“Duck Hunt” was written in 1965-1967. These years were extremely important, eventful, bright and turning points in the life of the playwright. At this time, his rebirth took place, no longer as a professional writer, but as an artist who fully felt his poetic power.

“Duck Hunt” in an original, complex and indirect way absorbed the quest of literature, theater and cinema of the sixties. The fact that the sixties in Soviet literature were the heyday of lyricism is as important for the essence of “Duck Hunt” as the golden age of the Russian novel was for the emergence of Chekhov’s drama.

The structure of “Duck Hunt,” despite all the external appearance of the play, is extremely complex and sophisticated. "Duck Hunt" is a play in memoirs. Memories like special shape dramatic narration - a very common technique in the sixties. “Duck Hunt” consists of three layers: the layer of the present, the layer of memories and, so to speak, the borderline, intermediate layer - the layer of visions.

The layer of memories unfolding within this frame is richer in events, but also does not carry much drama, although several very intense events are intertwined in it. storylines: Zilov starts an affair with a pretty girl, the girl falls in love with him, his wife, having discovered his betrayal, leaves, but when, it would seem, nothing prevents the hero’s happy reunion with his young lover, in the midst of a party, almost an engagement, Zilov gets heavily drunk, arranges scandal, insults his friends and girlfriend.

Another plot unfolds in parallel: The hero receives new apartment and, in gratitude, “sets up” the boss with his ex-girlfriend, at the same time this girlfriend begins an affair with another friend of Zilov. The hero has troubles at work - he slipped a fake report to his superiors, and a friend and colleague betrayed him, evading their joint responsibility for what they had done.

The plot of the memoirs is richly varied with everyday details. The hero’s father, whom he had not seen for a long time, died, the hero’s wife turns out to have either a real or a fictional affair with a former classmate, and finally, the hero constantly dreams about the upcoming vacation, about duck hunting, for which there are no obstacles in the play.

The third layer of action is the layer of Zilov’s visions, wondering how friends, colleagues, girlfriends will perceive the news of his death, at first imaginary, in the end, as it seems to him, inevitable. This layer consists of two interludes, the text of which, with the exception of two or three phrases, almost completely coincides. But, although they coincide verbally, they are absolutely opposite in emotional sign: in the first case, the imaginary scene of death is clearly of a comic and even buffoonish nature, in the second - in its mood, there is not even a shadow of a smile in the tone. But the main thing about them is that these visions seem to objectify the nature of Zilov’s memories. The visions are mocking and malicious, the characters in the play are evil and accurately caricatured, and this moment seems to remove the subjective nature of the hero’s memories, leaving behind them the right to a certain artistic impartiality. The drama unfolds between a half-joking suicide plan, inspired by the “original” gift from Sayapin and Kuzakov, and an attempt to carry it out seriously.

The most important aspect of the play relates to its confessional character. “Duck Hunt” is structured as a confession, which lasts exactly as long as the play lasts, presenting the hero’s life in retrospective sequence - from the depths of two months ago to the present day. The tragedy increases as we approach the time junction of the hero's memories and their awareness in the present, indicating that the conflict here is not external, but internal - lyrical, moral.

Zilov’s memories add up to such a coherent, comprehensive and complete picture of life that the moments that gave rise to them seem, at first glance, not to be very significant plot points, however, in essence they are very important. Despite the coherence of Zilov’s memories, there is no cause-and-effect relationship in them; they are motivated by an external impulse - the silence of the one Zilov is calling and cannot get through to: Vera does not answer the phone - scenes related to her emerge; Sayapin and Kuzakov are silent - episodes arise with their participation, the hero’s constant interlocutor turns out to be only the waiter Dima, and this is a very significant feature in the dramatic development of the play.

“Duck Hunt” is characterized by a special atmosphere generated by the relationship between the generic principles of lyricism and drama. The dramaturgy of the play is largely determined by the combination of the objective nature of the drama, according to which everything that happens must be revealed in action, and the special lyrical essence of the main conflict, which consists in the process of memories.

Drama presupposes judgment from the outside, lyrics - awareness from within. Lyrical confession does not allow low self-exposure; dramatic action requires a conflict that must be resolved at the level of any human well-being. The poetic sentence “and reading my life with disgust, I tremble and curse” is high. Judushka Golovlev, Golyadkin or Varravin cannot be the subject of high lyricism, or more precisely, what prevents us from recognizing this right for them is poetic tradition XIX century.

The behavior of Zilov and his entourage would seem to exclude the possibility of any introspection, any self-control, but nevertheless the playwright forces this hero to look closely at his life and think about it. The gap between the seriousness of Zilov’s drama and that obvious moral defectiveness of the very layer of life from which the hero raised his face to us, bathed in “incomprehensible” tears (“whether he cried or laughed, we will never understand from his face”), was too great and for the concrete historical experience of the era, and for the artistic historical-literary experience of drama.

This is a strange and complex play in which the main drama comes from something that, in essence, is impossible to play - the process of comprehending what is happening, the process of self-awareness, and ordinary dramaturgy is reduced to a minimum. The age of the characters in the play was about thirty years old, it was comparable to or slightly higher than that generally accepted for young science fanatics of the mid-sixties. A significant place in the play is occupied by the official activities of the characters, and although in Vampilov all the efforts of the characters are aimed mainly at avoiding work, some of the pressing production tasks facing them are brought to the stage.

U central character two friends, one of whom is mean, and the other is naive and straightforward. Required for this situation love triangle of the usual style: the hero has a strict, tired, silent wife, whom he deceives, and a young beloved, on whom his thoughts are concentrated. The usual secondary figures loom on the periphery of the plot: the foolish boss, the punchy wife of one of the friends, the hero’s long-time girlfriend, a familiar waiter from a nearby cafe, a neighbor’s boy. But even this boy is not equal to himself, he came as a reminder of the drama of those years when the teenager was the personification and bearer of truth." But the fact is that, based on plot clichés familiar to the sixties, Vampilov sets himself completely different goals and tasks.

The play presents not the “drama” of the hero, “but a way of life in which dramas occur not from the hero’s active collision with reality (as was the case in Rozov’s early plays, for example), but, on the contrary, from non-collision and the transformation of life into some kind of everyday ritual , where half-love, half-friendship, occupation (...) line up in one tiresome row.” And therefore, “Duck Hunt” is based not on the pillars of external conflict, but on figurative, almost symbolic pillars. And one of them is duck hunting.

Vampilov’s play is extremely everyday, it is literally buried in everyday realities, and at the same time it is free from everyday life: “not a single playwright carries with him as much convention as this, at first glance, “everyday” writer. And if we forget this, we begin to look in him only for a storyteller and a writer of everyday life, or even “a prosecutor of provincial life and boredom, we will achieve nothing.” However, the life of “Duck Hunt” is organized in a very special way.

In the play there is not even a pleasure in words, that unbridled element of words, jokes, which is usually characteristic of Vampilov’s plays. And how cleverly and subtly Zilov’s contemporaries—the heroes of the sixties—reflected, what depths of spirit and moral paradoxes were revealed in their arrogant self-irony and subtle causticism. There is nothing of this in the play, although Zilov is quite ironic and intellectual, and is placed in the position of a reflective hero, and the author, as time will show, has not lost his craving for theatrical colorfulness.

Zilov and Galina moved to a new apartment, the first in their lives, but the premises are in no hurry to become their home. The theme of the apartment in the play is - so to speak - cardboard and plaster. There is no house, and housing does not try to take on its features. The garden bench brought to the housewarming party by Kuzakov is just as appropriate and welcome here as in the park. The lack of furniture is just an inconvenience: there is nothing for guests to sit on, but not even a hair's breadth away from the absence of a face at home. Entering an empty, unfurnished apartment, Sayapin easily recreates in his imagination everything that should be here: “There will be a TV here, a sofa here, a refrigerator next to it. There's beer and stuff in the fridge. Everything for friends." Everything is known, down to the ins and outs of the refrigerator. But this knowledge is generated not by the character’s imagination, but by absolute impersonality, the standardization of housing.

Some distorted, ugly reminder of customs enters with Vera. Instead of a live cat - a symbol of the hearth, which is usually allowed into the house ahead of the owners, she brings a toy cat, making this plush abomination the personification not of home (although something like that, perhaps unconsciously, lies in the gift), but of male bestiality: She calls the cat Alik.

The laws of the most basic behavior are forgotten not only by the guests, but also by the owners, not only by Zilov, but also by Galina, who cannot resist the onslaught of her husband, who does not know the slightest rule or limitation of momentary desires. This is especially interesting and important to note in comparison with the fact that Zilov, who does not know how to restrain his desires, does not knowledgeable of the rules and prohibitions, does not even think of opening the hunting season an hour earlier.

The flat, emasculated world of everyday life, or, more precisely, everyday life, is contrasted in the play with another world - the world of hunting." Hunting, the theme of hunting appears here as a kind of moral pole, opposite to everyday life. This theme is not only directly stated in the title, it is not only revealed in the word, but also invisibly dissolved in the entire poetics of the drama.

In the stage directions of the play and in the plastic organization of the text, two realities are persistently repeated - the window and the rain outside the window (or the blue sky that replaces it). The window is a drawing on the backdrop, a dead, airless, painted space, the rain is light and onomatopoeia or the play of actors. Moreover, compliance with these stage directions requires considerable tricks from the director and artist.

In all tense situations, the hero’s face (sometimes this remark accompanies Galina’s behavior) is turned to the window. If the viewer should see what is happening outside the window: rain, cloudy, clear - then Zilov, turning to the window, should stand with his back to the auditorium, but if the turn to the window coincides with the turn to the proscenium, then the “biography” of the weather for the same spectators disappear.

The border between everyday and extra-domestic life in the play is the window, to which Zilova is drawn like a magnet, especially in moments of intense mental work: all transitions from momentary reality to memories are accompanied by the hero’s approach to the window. The window is, so to speak, his favorite habitat, his chair, table, armchair; Only an ottoman can resist the window (which is also one of the important features of the play, especially if we remember Oblomov’s sofa). Of all the characters in “Duck Hunt,” only Galina has this unmotivated, unconscious gesture—turning to the window at a moment of emotional stress. The window is like a sign of another reality, not present on the stage, but given in the play, the reality of the Hunt. Hunting is an ambivalent image.

On the one hand, hunting is an introduction to nature, so precious for modern man, this is the essence of nature, an existential category opposed to the everyday world. And at the same time, this is an artistically and literaryly mediated category. On the other hand, hunting is one of the most monstrous symbols of murder. This is a murder, the essence of which culture does not take into account. This murder, legalized by civilization, elevated to the rank of respectable entertainment, occupies a certain place in the hierarchy of prestigious values ​​of life. It is this double essence of hunting - purification, familiarization with the eternal, pure natural principle of life and murder - that is fully realized in the play. The theme of death permeates the entire action.

The image of Zilov is constructed in such a way that the last remark of the play can be taken as an epigraph to his analysis: “We see his calm face. Whether he cried or laughed, we won’t be able to tell from his face.” One should not think that Vampilov himself does not know whether his hero is crying or laughing; the author makes this antithesis and duality the subject of research.

Drama, much more than lyricism and epic, is characterized by plot schematics. And she has something different here than in others. literary births, meaning. A dramatic collision - that is, the circle of situations chosen by the author - already in itself carries a certain problematic. The sense of collision is a very rare quality, sometimes poorly developed even in the most brilliant playwrights. This quality is very valuable, but not exhaustive, just as absolute pitch does not exhaust the abilities of a composer. Vampilov has an absolute sense of conflict; perhaps it is precisely this that gives his poetics both such a striking attractiveness and a somewhat emphasized traditionalism. It is in the handling of dramatic conflict that Vampilov’s innovation is especially clearly visible.

Zilov is undoubtedly taller than all the characters around him. The level is set both by the position of the hero in the dramatic conflict of the play (Zilov is the bearer of reflective consciousness), and by the personality of the hero himself. Zilov is more significant not because the freedom of his desires, the irresponsibility of his actions, his laziness, his lies and drunkenness are good, but because the other characters have everything the same, only worse. Their interest in life may be cynically carnivorous, like Kushak’s, or ideally sublime, like Kuzakov’s, but not one of them will accept joint guilt, fall in love, or bewitch a girl, nor, indeed, will they think about their lives . They lack human charm that would brighten up their shortcomings.

The waiter is already described in the stage directions as a person extremely similar to Zilov. Zilov “is about thirty years old, he is quite tall, strong build“There is a lot of freedom in his gait, gestures, and manner of speaking, which comes from confidence in his physical usefulness.” The waiter is “the same age as Zilov, tall, athletic in appearance, he is always in an even business mood, cheerful, self-confident and carries himself with exaggerated dignity.” The waiter is the only character in the play, in whose description the author seems to be starting from the appearance of the main character of the play (the same age as Zilov), and in their appearance, it would seem that absolutely everything coincides; the nature that creates the similarity does not coincide, so to speak.

He knows and can do everything, except for one thing. He does not know that the world around him is alive, that love exists in it, and not lust, that hunting is not physical exercise with shooting at a target, that life is not only the existence of protein bodies, that there is a spiritual principle in it. The waiter is absolutely impeccable and also absolutely inhuman.

What is he doing here, in this play about a not very good life? good people, this calculating cold bastard? Why is it that every time he appears in “Duck Hunt” a painful, alarming, unclear and piercing note arises, like the sound of a broken string - after all, he seems to have nothing to do with the spiritual sphere of life? And yet, in the ideological structure of the play, his role is cardinal, and not only because the theme of death is connected with him - the measure of Zilov’s drama.

For Zilov, there is only one moment in the life of his spirit - hunting. Hunting is an opportunity to break away from everyday life, everyday life, vanity, lies, laziness, which he himself is no longer able to overcome. This is a world of dreams, ideal, uncompromised and lofty. In this world, his lying, nasty and poor soul is fine, there it comes to life and straightens out, uniting with all living things into a single and bright harmony. Vampilov builds the action of the play in such a way that the Waiter becomes Zilov’s constant companion and guide into this world, and this terrible figure deprives Zilov’s utopia of meaning, purity, and its lofty poetry.

In “Duck Hunt,” dramaturgy came close to a person, opened a person, so to speak, from within the personality, it tried to penetrate under the shell of the body, behind the frontal bone, to make the process of choice, decision, and thinking dramatic. Eighties dramaturgy with joy; picked up this internal cerebellar attention, but not yet very well aware of what to do with this attention. However, Vampilov also found himself in a kind of confusion before his own discovery.

Vampilov was the last romantic of Soviet drama. He was formed as a personality in the second half of the fifties, at a time when the ideals, aspirations, slogans and goals of society, quite humane in themselves, seemed to be about to begin to connect with real life, about to gain weight and meaning in it (and sometimes it seemed like they were already gaining). He worked as an artist when they began irreversible processes demarcation between proclaimed values ​​and real life. The terrible thing was not that in this way the meaning of ideals was destroyed, but that the meaning of morality in general was destroyed. Vampilov was a son, and a wonderful son, of the time that gave birth to him: he needed to know how a person lives, where he should go, how to live, he needed to answer these questions for himself, and he was the first, at least the first of the playwrights , discovered that life had come to that final line, beyond which these questions no longer have the usual answer.

Philology. Art history Bulletin of Nizhny Novgorod University named after. N.I. Lobachevsky, 2008, No. 3, p. 246-252

ARTISTIC FEATURES OF “DUCK HUNT” BY A. VAMPILOV © 2008 K.A. Demeneva

Nizhny Novgorod State University named after. N.I. Lobachevsky

xenia_demeneva@mail. gi

Received by the editor on May 14, 2008

A number of poetic features of “Duck Hunt,” the central play of A. Vampilov’s theater, are examined: the organization of the system of images, the functions of the main character, ways of determining his subjectivity, the nature of interaction with the environment. The question is raised about the relationship between the time layers of the play: the stage and off-stage past, the actual present, the possible future.

Key words: A.V. Vampilov, dramaturgy, “Duck Hunt”, tragicomedy, drama, time, personalities

nazh, subjectivity, society, individuality,

The play by A.V. Vampilov’s “Duck Hunt” is usually viewed as a socio-psychological drama (less often as a tragicomedy with elements of industrial conflict, farcical and melodramatic inserts), in which the playwright reconsiders the problems of his early works. In the first two multi-act plays (“Farewell in June”, “Eldest Son”), the playwright was interested in the balance of power in revealing the human subjectivity hidden under the social mask in a situation generated by the unique manifestations of omnipotent life. They were understood as a confluence of circumstances, which is an echo of the multi-events and diversity of life, and a happy or unfortunate event as a form of its individual expression of will. The problematics of the plays were born at the intersection of relative constancy, internal orderliness, regular reproduction of everyday conditions, shown not from the material, but from the socially effective side, human subjectivity seeking self-determination and access to reality, and existence as a kind of good god who is able to set life in motion . It was convenient to solve such dramatic problems within the framework of the comedy genre: this practically did not require deviating from its canonical structure. However, even with a slight shift in emphasis from depicting the situation to the process of self-knowledge of the individual, a change was required genre forms, which led to a revision of the disposition in Vampilov’s triad of man - life (people) - being. On the one hand, the infinity of manifestations of the act of self-knowledge and the impossibility of its completion became obvious to the playwright, on the other hand

conflict, problem.

On the other hand, social life in reality showed the limitations of its proposals to man and was unable to satisfy his growing need to find a common substantial meaning from which individual meaning would be derived. The favorable existence of comedies was, in fact, not the reality of life, but the reality of literature - the playwright was convinced of this by personal example, trying to break through to the reader and meeting constant resistance along the way. Life has abandoned man, offering him, at the risk of everything, to be active and fight, without objective reasons, effective methods and faith in a positive outcome of the struggle. Complication of the picture of the world, unstoppable actualization and self-generation of models of being that claim to explain true reasons his existence and vector of development, the loneliness of a person in a world that has lost interest in him, pushed Vampilov to the transition from the comedic element to the tragicomic, from the canonical features of drama to its novelization (the term of M. M. Bakhtin). This was expressed not only in the deliberate incompleteness of the fate of the protagonist, immersed in the eternal present without the possibility of any future, but also in the complex plot-compositional structure of the play, previously uncharacteristic of Vampilov’s poetics. Thus, the fabric of “Duck Hunt” falls into three layers: Zilov’s past, which is a chain of episodes, slightly interconnected plot-wise and aimed at revealing as many aspects of his personality as possible, the hero’s present, in which he is deprived of the opportunity to act, and representations of geo-

swarm, tied to the moment of the present and showing his capabilities as an interpreter. Vampilov freely edits parts of the text using the logic of memories generated by mentally flipping through a phone book. After a party at the Forget-Me-Not cafe (the name is symbolic: the inability to forget the past, the erinical role of memory), Zilov receives a funeral wreath from his friends. The first episode of the hero’s performances, stage-marked by music and blackout, shows how he sees the reaction of the environment to his own death, if it really happened: Sayapin’s doubts about the veracity of the rumors (“No, he was joking, as usual”), Kuzakov’s confidence in the realization pessimistic version of events (“Alas, this time everything is serious. There’s nowhere more serious”), the ironic epitaph of Vera (“He was an Alik of Aliks”), the sanctimonious condemnation of Kushak (“Such behavior does not lead to good”), the unification of Galina and Irina (“We will be friends with you”) and the sinister role of the Waiter, who collects money for a wreath, making the fact of death socially irrefutable. The described scene gives an idea of ​​Zilov as a psychologist and interpreter of human nature: his assumptions about the possible behavior of the environment are accurate and plausible - this is confirmed by the further course of the play. In addition, this fragment reveals the specifics of constructing the play’s imagery system (its concentration around the image of Zilov) and the dual definition of the characters’ subjectivity - through identifying their attitude towards Zilov (acceptance/rejection) and characterizing their positioning strategy, which involves the following methods:

Declarative statements: “Kuzakov. Who knows... If you look at it, life is essentially lost...” According to M.B. Bychkova, in this case, a replication of the persistent Chekhov motif “life is lost” is presented. This is supported by the frequency of occurrence of the phrase in the text, its contextual environment (it is said out of place, at the wrong time), and lexical design. However, if in Chekhov the subject of action is life, which emphasizes spontaneity, the independence of fate from the will of the character (justificatory mode), then in Vampilov we are dealing with a passive construction, in which a distinction is made between a grammatical subject, expressed lexically, and a logical subject, hidden, but easily restored by context - life is lost [by us] (accusatory mode). For

The heroes of “Duck Hunt” are characterized by a partial awareness of their own role in shaping their fate, begun but not completed, and therefore incomplete recognition of responsibility for life;

Complexes of statements and actions aimed at creating and maintaining a socially approved image: “Sash.<...>I’m far from a prude, but I have to tell you that he behaved very... mm... imprudently.” The image of Kushak, more than all others, is satirical. The comic mask of an influential person, but burdened with vices, is presented here in almost all its basic qualities. There is neither a tragicomic shift in emphasis (hyperbolization of vice, layering of monstrous features), nor a dramatic complication of subjectivity. “Duck Hunt” has the greatest similarity in the organization of the system of images with the first play, “Farewell in June”: the connection “influential person - formal subordinate” and the tension in it (Repnikov - Kolesov, Kushak - Zilov) are preserved. If we talk about the internal classification of Vampilov’s plays, then it is necessary to identify the following pairs with identical poetic structures: “Farewell in June” and “Duck Hunt”, “Eldest Son” and “Last Summer in Chulimsk”;

Contrasting the character with the environment through a negative-ironic nomination: “Faith. He was an Alik of Aliks." The frequency and variety of addressing of the word “alik” is characteristic feature speech portrait of Vera. This ironic nomination (which in the context of the play has lost its original connection with the word “alcoholic”) is not only a way of establishing a distance between the female character (the accuser) and the male character (the accused and the guilty), it is also an attempt at typification necessary to develop a picture of the world. The need for self-knowledge, felt by all the characters, is realized here in a contrary way. However, generalization in the world of “Duck Hunt” is a false path leading to pseudo-understanding, temporarily removing the urgency of the issue. The only way to yourself is individualization, seeing yourself and the world in specific, unique features - only Zilov is capable of this.

It is necessary to pay attention to the remark that precedes the scene imagined by the hero: “The light slowly goes out, and two spotlights light up just as slowly. One of them, shining half-heartedly, snatched Zilov from the darkness, sitting on the bed. Another spotlight, bright

cue, lights up a circle in the middle of the stage.” The author emphasizes that light circles should record the disintegration of space into the real, in which the inactive subject is immersed in objective reality, and the unreal, in which reality is recreated and constructed by the subject. In the real space, Zilov is a character; in the unreal, in addition to the character function, he claims to be the author. By imagining his own death and the life that continues after it, in which he exists not physically, but as an object of discussion, he gains the ability to perceive reality detachedly, without immersion in it, which is the most important condition for objective vision. The given distance between the real, stage Zilov, sitting on an ottoman, and the reality that he models in his own mind, objectifying it for the viewer and reader, forms the internal opposition in him of the character-object and the character-subject, realized in further scenes. If the character-object located in the past mainly acts and is practically devoid of reflective qualities, then the character-subject, yearning for action and realizing its impossibility (which leads to the decision to go hunting as an overcoming of the reality blocking his activity), is forced to live through memories and thanks to time distance, overestimate them. The contrast between false activity and the necessary awareness of life, complicated by the refusal to interfere in it or the fundamental impossibility of doing so, was characteristic of Vampilov’s first plays, but it was precisely in “Duck Hunt”, thanks to the compositional articulation of episodes from different times and the disintegration of the main character into the subject and object of perception , expressed itself so clearly.

Vampilov uses a minimum of dramatic means to depict the situations presented in the play: he imitates the everyday flow of life, in which the general eventlessness emphasizes the significance of each event, endowing it with semantic completeness. The speech design of the characters’ remarks creates the effect of non-fictional scenes, their empirical simplicity and recognition. The characters are immersed in life, not distanced from it by reflection, the logic of their behavior is determined by the social role and relationships shown in the play as established. The subjectivity of the characters in the play depends only to a small extent on space and time; it is determined

is the relationship between impulsive action and its subsequent rethinking and evaluation. The difference between the characters’ strategy for positioning themselves in society and the real needs dictated by character reveals the specifics of the processes of containment and inhibition, the mechanisms of social regulation of relationships, and forms the field of play according to the rules that determine the atmosphere of the play. The characters willingly enter into dialogue, which is due to the givenness of their relationship and a fairly confident awareness of the possibilities and restrictions imposed by society. They do not see the difference between social life with its rules, restrictions and reality, where the implementation of any mode of behavior is possible, therefore the nature of their actions can be called non-game, or “serious”. The contrast between “serious” characters and “frivolous” ones (“cheerful”, “crazy”) is one of the immanent features of the figurative system of Vampilov’s plays, which allows us to talk about the unity of his poetics. A “serious” condition, which can be characteristic of both an individual and a situation, means the presence of some external or internal limit placed on any action and phenomenon. “Serious” characters represent society as a protective shell designed to minimize the influence of accidents. Their subjectivity has merged with a social mask, which predetermines standardization and average behavior even with external speech freedom. They consider the restrictions imposed by society to be organic to their own nature, since the presence of rules and prohibitions streamlines life and eliminates the need to determine the substantial content of subjectivity. “Serious” characters are characterized by a conflict-free type of interaction with each other and with the reality in which they are immersed. The tension that nevertheless arises as a result of subordination to rules that limit opportunities and do not allow passions to break free, they relieve with the help of aggression that is permitted or hidden from society: “Zilov. Eh, you should have seen him with a gun. Beast"; “Sayapin.<...>In someone else's apartment, everything is in plain sight, everything is in public. The wife makes a scandal, and you, if you are a delicate person, endure it. Or maybe I want to hit her?” . Opposed to them, the “cheerful”, “going crazy” Zilov implements in his behavior a game model of interaction with the environment and reality, which makes his actions unpredictable for other characters.

In the given field of social checks and balances, ethical relativism and utilitarian relations, the hero feels confident, which is confirmed by the characterological remark: “Zilov is about thirty years old, he is quite tall, of strong build; There is a lot of freedom in his gait, gestures, and manner of speaking, which comes from confidence in his physical usefulness. At the same time, in his gait, in his gestures, and in his conversation, there is a certain carelessness and boredom evident, the origin of which cannot be determined at first glance.” Despite the hero's confidence in his own strength, his relationship with his environment is disharmonious. On the one hand, the gaming model of behavior, the refusal to recognize the external limit of actions, gives him a feeling of freedom: comfort and conflict-free relations with the social environment are of no value to him, do not constitute his subjectivity, and therefore do not dominate his fate. On the other hand, the idea of ​​life as a game, where the realization of all needs is possible in the presence of such qualities as dexterity and resourcefulness (this allows us to speak about Zilov’s closeness to the type of trickster characteristic of central characters Vampilov’s comedies), obscures from him the need to realize his own subjectivity, located on the periphery of consciousness. Hence the “carelessness” and “boredom” described in the remark - qualities characteristic of the disappointed heroes of novels of the first third of the 19th century. However, if for the hero of the novel “boredom” was a symptom of the idea of ​​the meaninglessness of social existence not manifested in the mind, then in relation to the dramatic hero it is evidence of the internal need for the realization of subjectivity. Without encountering any serious obstacles on his way, Zilov understands that there are no objective restrictions. A society that is afraid of non-standard actions is able to explain and even forgive any of its actions, therefore the search for external and internal limits, the boundaries of what is permitted becomes its unconscious goal. Subjectivity, which must be determined in the conflict, pushes the hero to search for this conflict. The desire of society to smooth out contradictions and quickly and unambiguously resolve situations makes the creation conflict situation almost unreal. The task facing Zilov is also complicated by the fact that at the moment of resolution he is not aware of it. In response to direct insults that the hero throws in the face of those around him, the mechanism of social pushing is triggered - the announcement of death

you m. Being declared dead is related to social death and is a plot synonym for being declared crazy. The difference between Zilov and his environment lies primarily in the fact that, while in society, he remains free from it. Reality as it is cannot satisfy any of the characters in the play, since the norm of life, even with statistical averaging, has fluctuations determined by subjective needs. However, Zilov and his circle have different ideas about the desired existence. The subjectivity of the protagonist is determined by the way duck hunting, he internally contrasts the world of hunting and the only person associated with it, the waiter, with the social environment. Despite the high degree of adaptation in society, the waiter is intuitively unpleasant to most of the characters; only in Zilov’s perception is he a normal person: “Galina. I don't know, but he's terrible. One look is worth it. I'm afraid of him. Zilov. Nonsense. Normal guy" . The life desired by the main character is unattainable within society, since it lies outside it, therefore his connection with the guide to the world of duck hunting is the most stable and deeply subjective. The remaining characters believe that reality, as it should be, is realized exclusively in society, the only reality given to them. Personal space, mutual understanding in the family, romantic love- all these values ​​that define subjectivity can be realized; they do not crowd out each other, do not form the field of character competition. A prosaically ordered reality, in which there is no place for substantial conflict, also eliminates subjective conflicts. Zilov, who creates a situation of scandal in every scene of memories, rebels, tries to disassociate himself from the world of “others,” seeks the hidden essence of things through a conflict with reality, society and himself. The final stage of rebellion is suicide, the accomplishment of physical death following social death.

If most of the characters play by the rules, then Zilov plays with the rules: he breaks them and tempts others to do the same (model of behavior of a provocateur). Knowledge of human nature in the variety of its negative manifestations gives Zilov strength: he easily persuades his interlocutors to follow their own needs despite the fear of consequences, thereby forcing them to once again show their worst side. If we consider constant indulgence of nature as ha-

characteristics of the fall, then the dynamics of Zilov’s behavior is a fall into which he involves those around him. However, the catastrophic nature of this process is not determined by circumstances, but by the hero’s inherently substantial desire to reach the limit, to find boundaries that can put an end to the descent. Only having reached the last line will he be able to rise above his position and look at himself from the outside. Scenes relating to the past do not reflect the dynamics of character, but the consistent development of the hero’s mode of behavior. In the past, not remote from the moment of the stage action, but immediately preceding it, the hero is so active that this activity completely displaces reflection, which is not stated either effectively or declaratively. Zilov’s past can be roughly divided into the stage past, shown in the pictures of memories (the hero is given in a ready-made form, in already frozen subjective features), and the off-stage past, which is discussed in the dialogue between Galina and Zilov, hinting at the dynamics that may have taken place character, vector of subjective change: “Zilov. Listen. Come on, don't panic.<...>Well, something has changed - life goes on, but you and I - everything is in place with you.” However, there is no certainty as to whether the “other” Zilov actually existed. The hero's past, separated by a significant interval from the present, does not have the usual explanatory power in the play. Changing character under the pressure of circumstances, the confrontation between catastrophically transforming subjectivity and substantial, impersonal time are issues that are excluded from the author’s focus. The prevalence of such problems in social, everyday and psychological drama of the second half of the twentieth century, the introduction of a non-protagonist as the main character gave researchers reason to consider the story of Zilov as a story of the loss of positive potential. However, the juxtaposition of time layers in “Duck Hunt” argues against such interpretations. In the play there is a certain past, remote from the moment of action and expressed not compositionally, but rhetorically. It appears in the characters’ remarks and sets temporal depth, emphasizing the established nature of the characters’ relationships. The focus is not on becoming, but on a certain static endowed with the power to keep the situation unchanged. Moment of action, or stage time, breaks down into the stage present, duration

which is measured in hours, and a stage past, the duration of which, in all likelihood, is no more than a month. Both the present and the past are shown fractionally - in the form of episodes, the connecting link of which is Zilov (there is not a single episode where he does not participate). However, the present and the past are not two phases of the protagonist’s life that are similar in nature; they are two substantial quantities that differ in the nature of their existence, in the ways of manifestation, and in their semantic content. Zilov’s present, flowing in the isolating space of the apartment, is continuous in its flow, it is objective, relatively dynamic and represents a set of similar segments, between which there are no time pauses. Memories that tear the fabric of the present are also one of the phases of its course. The climax - the suicide attempt, its prevention and the emotional disaster that inevitably followed - completes the present. It ends where the future can begin, illustrated in the play by the image of a duck hunt. IN social world Duck hunting is not feasible, it is an artifact of another time and space. The stage past is divided into separate localized elements, does not have a single flow pattern, is intermittent, which makes it impossible to show the consistent development of what was called Zilov’s “spiritual illness” in criticism. The present in the play is undoubtedly objective, but the past, opposed to it, is subjective. Pictures of the past are given from the individual perspective of Zilov’s perception, they were selected by him from the entire set of life episodes according to the problem-thematic and character principle, and this process of selecting and viewing the selected material is nothing more than reflection, which the hero avoided. We can say that the past is not simply reproduced, that is, shown as the present, but is produced, reflected and processed by the consciousness of the protagonist. It is unreal, simulated, therefore, Zilov shown in the flashback scenes is not a previous temporal stage of the image of Zilov, immersed in the present, but a certain mental construct, a phantom of consciousness. And yet, it makes sense to talk about the juxtaposition of Zilov’s images, localized in the present and unreal past of memories. The articulation of episodes that form the event outline of the play is presented as an author’s device; it is stage marked and indifferent to any subjectivity.

Both the hero’s present and his memories are shown with the same degree of objectivity. Zilov of the present, in relation to scenes of memories, takes on the role of the author: his subjectivity dictates the selection of episodes, determines the start time and end time of the scene. Becoming an author, coinciding with him, he is forced to adopt his objective manner. He is indifferent to himself in the past in the sense that he tries to reproduce what he has lived as accurately as possible in his mind. Based on the above, three hypostases (in other words, types of manifestation) of Zilov’s image can be identified: 1. Zilov of the present time, isolated from society, forced to remember, not acting, covertly reflecting (reflection is expressed compositionally, not rhetorically), experiencing an emotional catastrophe, accepting solutions. 2. Zilov of memories, immersed in the life of society, provoking and provoked, acting, unreflecting, playing. 3. Zilov is an author-interpreter who exists at the moment of showing imaginary scenes and scenes of memories; he is declared both as an observer and as a creator. It is excluded from the scope of action, therefore it is accurate and objective. The coincidence of Zilov with the image of the author at the time of the stage performance of these episodes suggests that the convention of the past in the play is relative: on the one hand, it is unreal, subjectively processed, on the other hand, it is as similar as possible to the real one, and does not differ from it in emotional coloring. Living life and living memories in the play are identical. E. Gushanskaya in the work “Alexander Vampilov. Essay on Creativity" declares the existence of a fourth hypostasis - the future Zilov, who "befalls something more terrible than death -<...>learn to shoot." However, the future in the play is invariably set as unrealized, therefore, there is no future for Zilov, who learns to shoot, takes the path of correction, etc. The present of the play is completed scenically, since the problematic of the hero’s last final phrase is expressed in its entirety, but ontologically it has no completion, it is indefinite. In “Duck Hunt,” the present appears not only as a moment in time that does not imply completion (Zilov’s eternal present, in relation to which the past is a memory lived at this particular moment, and the future is a potential, desired, but unrealizable time), but also as modernity, dictating the choice of issues (peaceful sixties, prose

ethically ordered reality: typical houses, typical destinies, invisible to the world tears), and as a reflective substance. The present is the only true reality of the hero: the past no longer exists, the future has not yet been born. Zilov is isolated from others: locked in an apartment, inside his physical shell, in time - his loneliness is existential, since only it is capable of manifesting unconscious subjectivity. The hero's memories, which are a form of reflection, cover the entire dramatic canvas and go far beyond the scope of their subjective nature. Being objectified for the reader (spectator) and equally for the hero (distanced from his own past, Zilov sees himself from the outside, his consciousness is divided into producing and contemplative parts, he himself is a spectator, which is emphasized on stage), the memory is practically deprived of subjective coloring, it spontaneously. This is the only form of existence of the past in the present; the past is actualized in connection with material signs and attempts at action by the hero. The present is not capable of changing the past, it is ineffective and stable in its immutability, however, thanks to merging with the subjectivity of the hero (throughout almost the entire play, he is the only tenant of the reality of the present; the present in the play is also the subjective time of the occurrence of psychological processes) learns to objectively reflect the episodes that were real some time ago. Zilov, the subject of memories, is a medium of times. He did not seek self-knowledge, did not strive for it - moreover, he, like the character of Vampilov’s comedy “Farewell in June” Kolesov (although, unlike him, unconsciously), tried to shield himself from reflection with activity that did not have any goals, even hedonistic ones, which criticism so often points out. Zilov of the past lives instinctively, Zilov of the present, thanks to immersion in spontaneously emerging pictures of memories, comes to some understanding own life. This can be judged based on the hero’s decisions. So, as was said earlier, Zilov is passively subject to the elemental power of memories, he undergoes his own past (a double circle of living the same episode), but the Zilov of the present is, first of all, a thinking subject. The structure of the play is such that in relation to episodes of the past, the consciousness of the author, hero and reader are united in their contemplation; no hierarchical relationships arise between them,

a priori assumed in episodes of the present. In addition, at the intersection of past and present, the idea of ​​the hero’s dramatic guilt arises. Unlike tragic guilt, which is substantial in nature, it is subjective-substantial and is born not in connection with the unstoppable decay of the world in which the hero exists, but in connection with the contradiction that arises between his actions, goals and the substantial content of subjectivity. The dramatic hero does not fully know himself, and the more his behavior diverges from internal image ideal self, the more powerful the dramatic conflict becomes. This ignorance given by the drama is the source of dramatic guilt. It may not have the catastrophic consequences of tragic guilt, but it also has a substantial component, since it represents the gap between what is and what is desired as a fundamental contradiction social life. Zilov's dramatic guilt lies in the fact that awareness comes to him too late - when life has exhausted the possibilities for taking action. The hero is several steps late, but for time, which flows unstoppably from the past to the present and the future, this is an insurmountable gap. Suicide not completed is also an attempt to overcome time, to complete the past with one cutting of the Gordian knot. internal conflict action, but the present is a different reality, it resists the invasion of alien elements into it. The reluctance to live with the burden of dramatic guilt and doom for this life lead the hero to an emotional catastrophe.

In criticism of the 70-90s. There has been a tendency to interpret “Duck Hunt” primarily as a drama of loss, since the play consistently exposes value series: the hero realizes - or makes visible for awareness - something that could have become a solid support in his life, but is no longer there. And yet, “Duck Hunt” is primarily a tragicomedy of existence and self-valued awareness: its conflict is born where reality, taking the form of a mercilessly objective mirror,

gives the hero the opportunity to look at himself from the outside. The vision of subjectivity as an invariably stable, long-standing and correctly understood entity, which gives the hero confidence in his own abilities, comes into conflict with the image that appears before him when he finds himself not in the role of a participant in events, but in the role of an eyewitness. The question “Is it really me?” that is not expressed verbally in the play, the catastrophic discrepancy between I-for-myself and I-actually, the reluctance to be myself gives rise to an existential conflict that involves two ways of resolution: the destruction of the unwanted “I” through physical elimination (suicide) or through transformation. Zilov consistently tries both. The open ending of the play does not leave us the opportunity to make an unambiguous statement about Zilov’s transformation: Vampilov did not want categorical certainty. The consciousness of the hero, burdened with the burden of dramatic guilt, having acquired the ability to reflect, is wide open to life, like the consciousness of the reader and the author. There is no limit to subjectivity; it is capable of change. Speaking about the play and about Zilov: “It’s me, you understand?” - Vampilov, apparently, wanted not only to point out the limitations of vulgar sociological interpretations of the play, but also to declare it as a drama of self-comprehension, in which the hero, reader and author are equal.

Bibliography

1. Bakhtin M.M. Epic and novel (On the methodology of researching the novel) // Bakhtin M.M. Questions of literature and aesthetics. Research from different years. M.: Artist. lit., 1975. 504 p.

2. Vampilov A. Duck hunting: Plays. Notebooks. Ekaterinburg: U-Factoria, 2004. 544 p.

4. Gushanskaya E. Alexander Vampilov: Essay on creativity. L.: Sov. writer. Leningr. department, 1990. 320 p.

5. Bychkova M.B. “Duck Hunt” by A. Vampilov: an attempt at an existentialist reading // Drama and theater: Collection. scientific tr. Tver: Tver. state University, 2001. Issue. II. pp. 105-114.

AESTHETIC PECULIARITIES OF THE “DUCK HUNTING” BY A. VAMPILOV

This article is devoted to the study of some poetical features of the "Duck hunting", the central play of A. Vam-pilov's theatre. The organization of the system of images, the functions of the main character, the means for identification of his subjectivity, and the manner of his interaction with the milieu are examined. The question is also raised of the correlation between the play's temporal layers: onstage and offstage past, actual present, and possible future.

Composition

The sixties of the 20th century are better known as the times of poetry. Many poems appear during this period of Russian literature. But dramaturgy also occupies an important place in this context. And a place of honor is given to Alexander Valentinovich Vampilov. With his dramatic work he continues the traditions of his predecessors. But much of his work comes from both the trends of the era of the 60s and the personal observations of Vampilov himself. All this was fully reflected in his famous play “Duck Hunt”.

Thus, K. Rudnitsky calls Vampilov’s plays centripetal: “.. they certainly bring to the center, to the foreground, heroes - one, two, at most three, around whom the rest of the characters move, whose destinies are less significant...”. Such characters in “Duck Hunt” can be called Zilov and the waiter. They are like two satellites, complementing each other.

"Waiter. What can I do? Nothing. You have to think for yourself.

Zilov. That's right, Dima. You're a creepy guy, Dima, but I like you better. At least you don't break down like these... Give me your hand...

The waiter and Zilov shake hands...”

The attention of the dramaturgy of this period of Russian literature was directed to the features of a person’s “entry” into the world around him. And the main thing becomes the process of his establishment in this world. Perhaps only hunting becomes such a world for Zilov: “..Yes, I want to go hunting... Are you leaving?.. Great... I’m ready... Yes, I’m going out now.”

What was special about Vampilov’s play was the conflict. “The interests of dramaturgy were directed... to the nature of the conflict, which forms the basis of drama, but not to the processes occurring within the human personality,” noted E. Gushanskaya. Such a conflict also becomes interesting in the play “Duck Hunt”. In fact, in the play there is no, as such, the usual conflict between the protagonist and the environment or other characters. The background of the conflict in the play is Zilov’s memories. And by the end of the play, even this construction does not have its resolution;

In Vampilov's play, strange and unusual incidents often occur. For example, this ridiculous wreath joke. “(Looks at the wreath, picks it up, straightens the black ribbon, reads the inscription on it out loud). “To the unforgettable Viktor Aleksandrovich Zilov, who was untimely burned out at work, from inconsolable friends”... (He is silent. Then he laughs, but not for long and without much fun).”

However, E. Gushanskaya notes that the story of the wreath was told to Vampilov by an Irkutsk geologist. “It was his fellow geologist who was sent a wreath by his friends with the inscription “Dear Yuri Alexandrovich, who burned down at work.” This strangeness extends to the content of “Duck Hunt” itself. Throughout the play, the main character gets ready to go hunting, makes the necessary preparations, but never gets there in the play itself. Only the finale speaks of his next preparations: “Yes, I’m leaving now.”

Another feature of the play is its three-stage ending. At each of the stages it would be possible to complete the work. But Vampilov does not stop there. The first stage can be indicated when Zilov, having invited friends to the funeral, “felt for the trigger with his big toe...”. No wonder there is an ellipsis at the end of this phrase. There is a hint of suicide here.

Viktor Zilov crossed some threshold in his life when he decided to take such a step. But a phone call does not allow the hero to complete the job he started. And the friends who came later again bring him back to real life, the environment with which he wanted to break only a couple of minutes ago. The next step is a new attempt at Zilov’s “attempt on his life.” “Sayapin disappears.

Waiter. Come on. (He grabs Kuzakov and pushes him out the door.) It will be better this way... Now put the gun down.

Zilov. And you get out. (They look into each other's eyes for a moment. The waiter retreats to the door.) Alive.

The waiter detained Kuzakov who appeared at the door and disappeared with him.”

In the third ending of the play, Zilov never comes to any specific answer to the questions that arise for him during the course of the play. The only thing he decides to do is go hunting. Perhaps this is also some kind of transition to solving one’s life problems.

Some critics also viewed Vampilov's plays in a symbolic sense. “Duck Hunt” is simply filled with symbolic objects or situations. For example, a phone call that brings Zilov back to life, one might say, from the other world. And the telephone becomes a kind of conductor for Zilov’s connection with the outside world, from which he tried to at least isolate himself from everything (after all, almost all the action takes place in a room where there is no one except him). The window becomes the same connecting thread. It is a kind of outlet in moments of mental stress. For example, with an unusual gift from friends (a funeral wreath). “He stands in front of the window for some time, whistling the melody of the funeral music he has dreamed of. Sits on the windowsill with a bottle and glass.” “The window is, as it were, a sign of another reality, not present on the stage,” noted E. Gushanskaya, “but the reality of the Hunt given in the play.”

Hunting and everything connected with it, for example, a gun, becomes a very interesting symbol. It was bought for duck hunting. However, Zilov tries it on himself. And hunting itself becomes an ideal-symbol for the main character.

Victor is so eager to get to another world, but it remains closed to him. And at the same time, hunting is like a moral threshold. After all, it is, in essence, murder legalized by society. And this is “raised to the rank of entertainment.” And this world becomes a dream world for Zilov, eh. The image of a waiter becomes a guide to this world.

Like a waiter worried about a trip: “How’s it going? Are you counting the days? How much do we have left?.. My motorcycle is running. Order... Vitya, the boat needs to be tarred. You should write to Lame... Vitya!” And in the end, the dream simply turns into a utopia, which, it seems, cannot come true.

E. Streltsova calls Vampilov’s theater “the theater of the word, in which in an incomprehensible way the author was able to connect the incompatible.” The unusual and sometimes comical nature of some situations brings together memories that are near and dear to the heart.

His dramaturgy included new images of characters, a unique conflict, and strange and unusual events. And using symbolic objects, you can recreate a separate picture, which will highlight the actions and behavior of the main character even more clearly. A kind of open ending, characteristic of his other plays, gives hope that Zilov will be able to find his place not only in his memories within the room.