In a sense the viewer is given form. But the theatre became a matter of reality, it must be embodied in some substance. And the only substance from which the form may be cut, which can only be implemented by just a theatrical text when we see it as a form, is the language.

Theatrical language, like any language, some. It differs from other functionally: it is the language of art, not of science or life, it is adapted in order to reprimand artistic images; it is a language of sorts: it marks not frozen marble, not written words, not paint on the canvas, it consists mostly of changing or simultaneous different movements of the human body, face, when you have it, movements of the puppets and the shadows; it is hard composed of the intonations of the speaking, chanting or singing, etc. This means that it is always language. The language of the theater varies according to what belongs to the era; if the content that it implements, composed it is the language of some individuality.

In short, the language of the theatre’s many features, and it is important that they are all, without exception, are informative: if we know that it came to the theater, the most reliable evidence of our vision is the language of the theater. Here the language of acting expressed the sense of dramatic action.

The language of the theater many times specific. And almost the first thing, especially in the last decade, there pay attention this is its fundamental and dangerous policy most theatrical signs of life. It is indeed sharply distinguishes theatre in the art world and sometimes gives rise to far-reaching conclusions about theater as art in General. Doubts about the usefulness of theatre arts, as you know, aggressively formulated apologists cinema in the age of storm and stress, but now these ideas from time to time emerge. For example, in 1992, (with clear references to Eisenstein and later) published in the Appendix to the article “the Theatre of the right hemisphere” a thesis of the report with the eloquent title.

The problem is not fictional, and yet shared it the decision should not depend on fixed signs that comprise the language. Firstly, not fixed the language of the theater may be just because we have poor tools, but it is our problem, not the problem of language. Second, if the language of theatre is not fundamentally can be recorded, even in this case, it does not follow that the notorious is the attribute of any language. If in everyday conversation we use words and the dispensing of the tape, give each other some ideas and understand each other, the only indisputable material and means of our communication is “a generally understood (that is, conventional within a given collective) system of signs” (Bakhtin), that is, the language regardless of fixed signs or not.

Less demonstrative, but more significant different characteristics theatrical language. For example, his notorious diversity and at the same time, a kind of pronged or, if you prefer. The theater itself is not one but several languages. While any of them actually consists of at least two parts the language of the actor and the language of the play, for which linguistic means are supplied literature, visual arts and music. However, the dictionaries which comprise means of expression the actor and which are filled with a variety of movements, also, if desired, can be called dictionaries of borrowing. Creditors artist scene an art form of dance and singing and less ancient art of sounding words.

But the relationship between theatrical language and the languages of other arts is deeply peculiar. Take, for example, ballet theatre. It is self-evident that there are elements belonging to different arts. In recent centuries there dancing to music. Music, according to the classification. Completely independent and dance. But the ballet stage status and music and dance just not questionable. Music, first, lives in ballet is not for her, for theatrical purposes, and secondly, her dancing. That is, the dance turned into a language in which the actor expresses a meaning.

The situation is similar when talking about the language of other parts of the system performance or parts of these parts, for instance, about the scenery. Languages of the spatial arts on the stage is also shifted from the supports and, on the other hand, they are the signs of force has some properties that are contrary to their nature. Any decoration or any physical volume (including stage without scenery, which Peter brook dubbed blank space) in any performance, as we have already mentioned, produce always seems to be the most hard-core of operations which can only be done with the work of spatial art: the place in time. This is evident first and foremost in the sphere of language.

It is hardly necessary detail to prove that even a physically stationary scene, if it is not the background, and the performers, at different points of the performance of different means. The openwork at the beginning of the “Month in village” I gave the audience and the characters a sense of harmony and exquisite beauty; the final, she clearly acquired almost the opposite meaning. For example, a delicate cells from which the heroine can’t get out.

In short, it is noticeable that with the neighboring arts of the theatre comes the extreme impolite: not only that violently takes away their sovereignty and “roll” in languages, moreover, that borrows from them the means of expression, he at the same time it is hopeless.

Tongue less theatre does not happen at all. But in the advanced stage of the theatre it becomes apparent meaningful differentiation of language, and, as in all other cases, on different grounds. Not theatrical semiology, and the theater itself makes you think about language. The prosaic language of the play is, so to speak, ontological syncretism here, for without autonomy there are temporary and spatial signs, time does not duplicate or illustrates the space they are one.

In this performance, the artist, Mat professing belief can load my so called overtones, but the overtones, whatever tract is expressed and temporary plastic means together. In some mock, but clear sight it might look like this: the actor tells her that he loves her, and really can not stand, his face at this moment, fierce or sad, does not correspond to words, i.e. we see is not a tautology. But the words and intonation, and face together talking about the character of a person in this situation and the relationship of the word one: speaking words of love, this man does not love her.

It can become art when the actor will say your text is not false, but, on the other hand, characterized by a sincere love of his word also may not be and from the tone of the audience have to subtract the same thing from facial expressions: she loves me not. If the concept of lifelikeness to deprive of evaluation (which is actually not), this would be the place to say: the language of prose theatre (and maybe only he) of life in the deepest and strictest sense in real life our behavior is always syncretic.