Theatrical consciousness as everyday life and science, including the mind of the authors of encyclopedias, habitually divides the theater into several types (sometimes referred to as the birth in this case, the theater itself I guess “art”). There are simple lists of these types.

Among them, the principal theaters of drama, Opera, ballet (sometimes Opera and ballet, that is music, sometimes Opera and ballet, operetta), theatre of puppets and the pantomime theater. Sometimes added, sometimes omitted the theatre of shadows. Drops when I remember that shadows are often discarded on screen dolls, and then, the shadow theatre is in this case a kind of puppet theater. All such theaters in stock hardly anyone can doubt. But, alas, much more doubt that these lists represent some system: there is no clear symptom or set of existing signs everywhere that explain this “division of theatre on genera and species”, is not found.

In fact, it is enough to recall that puppet theatre could be an Opera (the nearest example some of the performances of Rezo Gabriadze) and have one for this sort of thing a number is meaningless if that “is”. The other thing is that some of these theaters are a number one, and some, including “occupied” in the first row, enter a different number on other grounds. This is the real difficulty. And therefore for understanding the problem requires clear criteria. Moreover, if we guessed that any show can be included in multiple rows so that the criteria should also be several. What are the criteria?

Perhaps it makes sense to look at the range of phenomena (and therefore concepts) that we considered before. Let’s start with the subject. Almost immediately considering it is written about the theatrical object is to exclude this area from those where there would be criteria to separate theaters. In fact, the theatrical subject concept, we are interested in the point of view of not separating, but connecting all theatres. As we articulated above, the subject can and should separate the theater from non-theater, other arts, including drama. The same can be said about the structure. It may be different, but regardless of the type.

But in content searches can be fruitful. For starters most familiar to the European theater of consciousness the one called dramatic. Not going to quibble over the name, knowing that this theater is usurped peculiar to every theatrical content dramatic, and discard this factor. Drama theatre, in the end, is called because it is played by drama. As in any other theatre, drama plays people with his content, so here we differences until you find it. But where there is a role, the differences are quite visible. In General terms the contents of the role in the drama theatre can be reduced to the fact that here people. The theater man actor plays the role of a man. And men only. It can be in the play and in the play call (and even externally to portray) in a most peculiar way. It can be Love or Death, or Head of sugar, or a Bird.

But really, it is always and in all cases. A critic may insist on that in the play “the wise man stumbles” was a man stump, and this definition can some direction to give you the right image to capture. Still, as he was skillful, in the drama theatre could not play the “stump” only person, not a force resembling a criticism of the stump, i.e. likely with the same reason to recall and not a stump. In a dramatic theater play concept, feeling, thing and much more. Only human however, with different properties, and even in inhuman form, and different witness such as a character or as a mask, is now on the accepted level of distinction it still.

Through the scope of the role content part of a stage image and, therefore, substantially the entire play in the drama theater is definitely: people in the role of a man. So, specific originality we can find here in the content role.