Change of Onegin throughout the whole work. How does the protagonist of the novel by A. S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" change under the influence of life circumstances? (USE in Russian). Internal and external changes
We get acquainted with Eugene Onegin at the beginning of the first chapter, the origins of the character of E.O. are gradually revealed to us, namely his upbringing and lifestyle. It can be said about Onegin that he was not sufficiently educated. We learn that the hero was brought up, like all the capital's aristocrats of that time. His father, who had a military rank, liked to live in a "big way". Therefore, over time, he went bankrupt, letting all his fortune “downwind”. The father did not pay any attention to the upbringing of Eugene - the boy was raised by French governesses and tutors. " We all learned little by little, something and somehow». « Onegin was, in the opinion of many (decisive and strict judges), a small scientist, but a pedant: he had a happy talent without compulsion in conversation touch everything lightly, with the learned air of a connoisseur, to remain silent in an important dispute, and to excite the smile of the ladies with the fire of unexpected epigrams". most « beloved» science for the hero was " the science of tender passion". What was the wisdom of this science? In, to lie, to flatter, to play, but at any cost to achieve your goal. It is important that true feelings in this science were not valued at all, had no meaning.
Secular entertainments - balls, restaurants, theaters, which succeeded each other in a whirlwind - this is how Onegin's life went. Pushkin emphasizes that Eugene led a life typical of his circle, which consisted of an idle " doing nothing»: « He wakes up at noon, and again until morning his life is ready, monotonous and motley.».
And at one fine moment, Onegin got bored with everything that surrounds him - the light and what he has to offer. The hero was defeated by the Russian " blues”, which he tried to overcome in a variety of ways - by reading books, moving away from the world, the desire to travel, and so on. At that time, Onegin was distinguished " involuntary devotion to dreams, inimitable strangeness and a sharp, chilled mind».
Thus, in the first chapter of the novel, Onegin is presented as an ambiguous person. At first glance, it is clear that the hero has great internal potential. And at the same time, since childhood, he has been a slave to the light, the way of life and thought imposed on him.
The hero is trying to do some useful activity "yawning, took up the pen." But the lordly perception and lack of habit of work played a role, so Onegin does not complete any of his undertakings. In the village, he tries to organize the life of the peasants. But, having carried out one reform, he safely abandons this occupation.
Having cooled down to society, having become disillusioned with people, Onegin sincerely becomes attached to Lensky. But the fate of the hero develops in such a way that he kills his friend in a duel, succumbing to class prejudices, frightened of the "whisper, laughter of fools." At this moment, the hero could not rise above the opinion of society, which he himself despised in his soul.
Because of his own selfishness, he rejects Onegin and the sincere love of Tatyana Larina. But the hero is not devoid of such a quality as "the soul's direct nobility." So, he does not give Tatyana empty hopes, telling her the truth that he cannot reciprocate her feelings.
In a depressed state, Onegin leaves the village and begins to wander around Russia. In these journeys, the hero overestimates his life, his actions, his attitude to the surrounding reality.
After the trip, the scale of Onegin's attitude changed. Now he has become a “stranger” for the “light” (and he was “very nice”). Intense experiences, reflections enriched his inner world. From now on, he is able not only to analyze coldly, but also to deeply feel and love. For Pushkin, love is an opportunity to "awaken the soul." After Tatyana's refusal, after the moral shock at the end of Onegin's novel must start a new life, it can no longer develop in the same direction.
Premise.
In books on screenwriting, there is such a tendency, each author expresses his own point of view, based on personal experience, and the basics of film dramaturgy. Speaking about the same things, but in different words, we receive a large amount of information that our "script stomach" is not able to digest. This "indigestion" is primarily due to the fact that novice authors do not have their own relatively well-formed point of view. Listening to every advice of professionals, it is difficult for novice authors to use them in their work. From the first session of the cinematograph (December 28, 1895) by the Lumiere brothers, to the present day, cinema has come a long way and has evolved. And the foundations of the theory of drama, Aristotle developed more than 2000 years ago. But today, we have a certain base of material, without which the screenwriter simply has nothing to do in this profession. Each of us has our own view of this material, and each perceives it differently. Some, after reading some book on screenwriting, agree with what was written. Others are trying to figure it out, and still others, based on what they have read, want to say something else. Having familiarized myself with the basic material, (Here I'm talking about books that are recommended to novice screenwriters), I have not seen anywhere that at least one author categorically stated that the character of the protagonist is constancy, and would substantiate his statement. In A. Molchanov's book A Screenwriter's Primer (2009), recommended to all novice authors in all film schools, I came across such a statement, and moreover, not at all convincing. The contradictory content of the fifth lesson of this book (), which is devoted to the character of the hero, served as the basis for writing this article. This lesson is more like an attempt to express your opinion on the question posed. But it does not contain useful information that can be applied in practice.
A. Molchanov's position.
Speaking about character, A. Molchanov gives a definition from Wikipedia:
"Character (Greek Character - a distinctive feature) - the structure of persistent, relatively constant mental properties that determine the characteristics of the relationship and behavior of the individual."
A. Molchanov asks to pay attention to the words:
, and says that: "the character of the hero remains unchanged".
"However, the fact that the character of the hero remains unchanged does not mean at all that the hero himself does not change."
A. Molchanov is inclined to see a change in the hero himself, but not in his character. Gives an example:
“Plyushkin was a landowner, became a poor madman, Kisa was an employee of the registry office, became a murderer, D'Artagnan was a poor Gascon, became a field marshal”
This example leads to a far from unambiguous conclusion. Plyushkin, Kisa and D'Artagnan, they all changed their social status (we will return to it a little later), their position in society, of which each of them is a part. A change in social status, A. Molchanov believes, is a change in the hero, where he calls these changes "change of fate". But the fact that at the same time the character of the hero can change, for some reason, is not considered by him.
Internal and external changes.
Here it should be said that the inner world of a person is largely formed under the influence of the surrounding reality (social environment). Almost everything that a person encounters affects the formation of his character, where some features and qualities, under the influence of certain circumstances, are replaced by others. When we say: “a person has changed,” a certain meaning is put into these words, which can be attributed to both external changes and internal ones. External changes usually include all those changes that we can visually see. For example: a person was fat - went on a diet and lost weight, was skinny - chose proper nutrition and gained weight, was shaggy - visited the hairdresser and cut his hair short, was blond - dyed his hair brown, was "black" - had plastic surgery and became "white "(Michael Jackson), etc.
With the internal changes of a person, everything is much more complicated. In the hero of a literary work, including the script, these changes are always noticeable to the reader. You could even say that he is looking for them. Otherwise, the actions of the hero lose their meaning. When viewing a painting, or reading a script, we learn about these changes from the actions and lines of the hero. A. Molchanov, for some reason does not want to "digging too deep into psychology". It’s a pity, without this it’s impossible to find out whether the character changes over the course of history or not.
By creating a character, primarily the main character, we give birth (create) a person (the main character or character), who is an absolutely full-fledged individual, like all those seven billion (with a tail) people living on our planet. Each person has a character peculiar only to him, and the hero we create has a unique “set of features of the inner world”, which is expressed in the script in actions and remarks. Only in real life, the character is formed and changed for quite a long time (but not always), which is caused by certain factors. And in the script, everything depends on us, on the "creators". By setting certain tasks, we create the hero's inner world, his character, and manage it, changing somewhere for the better, and somewhere for the worse, and at the same time we are limited by the script time. Therefore, the reincarnation of the hero on the screen occurs quite quickly.
I especially want to note that, focusing on the words "persistent, relatively permanent", And Molchanov does not say that "relatively constant" it is only an approximate constancy, subject to change. If change is allowed, then four character properties according to A. Molchanov, and these are: "1) Energy Level, 2) Temperament, 3) Introvert-Extrovert, 4) Habits", – should change accordingly (Not necessarily all four and all at once!).
What is a character?
Let's turn to a number of dictionaries and try to understand what the lexical meaning of the word "character" is. In the encyclopedic dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron (Volume XXXVII, 1903) gives the following definition:
“Character is a complex mental phenomenon that distinguishes an individual or a people and is expressed in a peculiar, gradually developed and conscious way of responding to various demands of the external and internal world.”
F. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron, describing the character, give a few more definitions:
“According to Freese, character is expressed in the power of reasonable self-determination; The Hegelian school defines character as the unity of deterministic and indeterminate will; Schleiermacher sees in the character a corrective for the one-sidedness of temperament. The definition of Hartmann essentially coincides with the one that we put up "(I.e., like F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron).
In the dictionary D.N. Ushakov (1940), character is defined as follows:
"Character is a set of mental characteristics that make up a person's personality and which are manifested in his actions, behavior."
In the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" (1955 - 1956) V.I. Dahl gives the following definition:
“Character is a person’s disposition, moral properties, his qualities, properties of the soul and heart. The character is good-natured, meek. He has a great personality…”
In the Dictionary of Foreign Words (Edited by F.N. Petrov, 1964), character is defined as:
"The totality of the mental characteristics of a given person, manifested in his actions, behavior."
In the "Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary" (Edited by A. M. Prokhorov, 1985), the character is:
“1) A peculiar feature of a person, thing, phenomenon; 2) (Psych.) an individual warehouse of a person's personality, manifested in the characteristics of behavior and attitude (attitudes) to the surrounding reality.
In all these dictionaries that appeared before Wikipedia (2001), in the lexical meaning of the word "character" , we do not meet the expression: "persistent, relatively permanent" , - which does not allow us to say unambiguously about its constancy. One gets the impression that A. Molchanov did not fully understand the task that he set in lesson No. 5 of the “Primer of the Screenwriter”. Wikipedia is not the criterion that a playwright should use, it requires a deeply conscious understanding of the term character in order to easily create it in the process of working on a script or any other literary work.
No psychology!
Let us return to the fact that A. Molchanov “does not want to dig into psychology”. However, in saying this, he draws attention to the words: "persistent, relatively permanent", which are characteristic of the definition of character purely from the psychological understanding of this term.
In the "Big Psychological Dictionary" (Edited by B.G. Meshcheryakov and V.P. Zinchenko, 2007), character is defined as:
“An individual combination of stable mental characteristics of a person, causing a typical way of behavior for a given subject in certain life conditions and circumstances. Character is closely connected with other aspects of a person's personality, in particular with temperament, which will determine the external form of expression of character, leaving a peculiar imprint on one or another of its manifestations.
In the same dictionary, in the definition of the term temperament, there is the following:
“Temperament also does not determine character traits, but there is a close relationship between temperament and character traits. Character traits that determine the dynamics of its manifestation depend on temperament. For example, sociability in a sanguine person is manifested in the easy and quick making of acquaintances, in a phlegmatic person - in the duration and stability of his attachment to his friends and acquaintances, in striving for his usual circle of people, etc. Temperament affects the development of individual character traits. Some properties of temperament contribute to the formation of certain character traits, others counteract.
Consider the example of A. Molchanov - the character of Rodion Raskolnikov.
A. Molchanov writes:
“Raskolnikov was a melancholy. Became sanguine? Not".
This property of character, as A. Molchanov says, remains in the hero of the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky unchanged. Rereading Crime and Punishment, as well as delving deeper into the meaning of the term temperament from the point of view of psychology, I asked myself a very interesting question:
Did F.M. Dostoevsky's goal - to change the temperament of Rodion?
And he came to the conclusion that F.M. Dostoevsky was not. Neither in the text nor between the lines there is even a hint of this. And if the author does not set such a goal, then why should we look for changes in Rodion's temperament.
It is not at all clear why A. Molchanov includes temperament in character traits (?). Due to the fact that temperament has physiological and genetic roots, it cannot be related to character properties, thus both temperament and character are the main personality traits. Temperament, in turn, can either contribute to or hinder the development of certain traits, qualities of character. From the point of view of psychology, temperament is such a personality trait that can be corrected by only 25%. These are the results of research, but in a literary work, including a script, if the author needs to change the character's temperament, then this will be done 100%. If there is no such goal, as in the case of Raskolnikov, then we cannot argue that the constancy of temperament means the constancy of character, because. in addition to temperament, many other factors influence the development, formation and change of character.
The same can be said about the third point of the properties of character presented by A. Molchanov. Raskolnikov is an introvert! I think that's how it should be! So F.M. Dostoevsky, and there is no need for us to look for changes here. In addition, from the point of view of psychology, an introvert by nature cannot become an extrovert, as nature intended.
For many times it becomes clear as day that psychology helps the screenwriter. No way without her! I can't remember one of the greats saying:
"A screenwriter, in addition to being a good writer and playwright, must also be a good psychologist."
And the more and deeper we understand human psychology, the brighter and more interesting our heroes will be. And this is very important, because it is not interesting to watch a hero who does not "cling" our soul with anything.
The opinions of psychologists.
Now let's return to the fact that A. Molchanov is categorically convinced, and tries to convince his readers, that the character of the hero remains unchanged throughout history.
Psychologists say:
“Character cannot be called a frozen formation, its formation occurs throughout the entire life path of a person. And this means that at any moment each of us can challenge the circumstances and change. The main thing is not to hide your impotence behind the phrase "That's my character."
There is another very interesting opinion of psychologists:
“A person’s character changes naturally, on its own, throughout life, primarily depending on age. Childish immediacy of reaction is replaced by youthful impulsiveness, which after a dozen or two years calms down in adult prudence. Also, the character tends to become positive with age, and downright negative in old age. In addition, the character of a person changes depending on the situation in which the person is. The most melancholic, at the sight of an approaching tsunami wave, will rush from it with the cheerfulness of a choleric. At work, a person can have one character - for example, energetic and collected. At home, the same person's character can become different, composure can change to absent-mindedness, energy to laziness. For the most cheerful person, if something hurts, the character, as a rule, becomes somehow lethargic and sad.
More:
“Character is a collection of habits, and habits can be changed. If you set yourself such a task and start training calm reactions, you can do it.
And further:
“A more important and interesting question is whether a person can change his character himself? If this means whether, in the right situation, a person can act in a manner that is not quite familiar to him (suppose, lethargically, not collected and uncertain), but as required (for example, collected, energetic and bold), then most often, with the exception of completely too severe cases, this is an absolutely real thing. Character is not a rigid system, it is determined only by the tendency to act one way or another, and the phrase: “I have such a character!” - nothing more than an excuse.
From the foregoing, it should be concluded that in real life, the character is an emerging property of the individual, the "value" is not constant, and depends on a number of circumstances and situations. The same thing happens with the character of the hero of a literary work. But here there is a special difference, which is as follows: in real life, in order for a character to change, it takes a fairly long time, and in a literary work (script) a certain (script) time is allotted for this. And first of all, everything depends on the goals and objectives set by the Author. If he needs the character of the hero to change, he will definitely change.
For example, in the comedy "Teach-in teacher" ("Go to hell with Goethe"), by the German director and screenwriter Bor Dagtekin. The protagonist, bank robber Zeke Müller, played by Elias M'Barek (Healer: Disciple of Avicena (2013), The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013), Men in the City (2009)), is first introduced to us as semi-literate, devoid of humanity. He is absolutely indifferent to society and the problems of the people around him, especially to the teenagers whom he had to teach. At the moment when the story begins and the hero is shown to us, we see that his character is sufficiently formed. We understand that even before the story began, he was like that. But by the end of the story, he becomes a completely different person. His character changed, he became sensitive to others, primarily to teenagers, whom he hated. Zeki's malevolence and indifference in relation to people changes, and he becomes attentive and responsive.
Opinion of V.K. Turkina.
Speaking about the change in character, first of all, one should not forget that the hero of a literary work, from a person in real life, is distinguished by the fact that the character of the first depends on the goals and objectives set by the Author, and the second is completely left to himself. Very interesting is the opinion of V.K. Turkin, author of the book Dramaturgy of Cinema.
VC. Turkin writes:
“If the hero has been characterized and behaved so far as a person who is always in control of himself, able to make decisions, find a way out of the situation, then show him suddenly lost all these qualities, confused and helpless in some circumstances only to achieve some random effect would be a serious mistake. In any case, such a "betrayal of one's character" must always be thoroughly justified, and not be evidence of forgetfulness or frivolity of the playwright. In those cases where a change in character is part of the playwright's task, this change must be prepared and carried out in a completely justified and consistent manner.
I quoted V.K. Turkin, not only because he talks about the dependence of the character of the hero on the tasks of the playwright, but also that the character of the hero tends to change. VC. Turkin, analyzing Shakespeare's method of depicting a character, identifies two possible ways of such a depiction. In general terms, the first method:
“... It is focused on revealing a complex image, without its transition to another quality, without rebirth. This is how Oblomov was made.
And second:
“... We have heroes in the process of their self-determination, growth, the formation of their personality, worldview and moral change. The story of the growth or rebirth of the hero is the main theme of the work. ("Mother", "Chapaev")".
In other words, in the first method, the character of the hero does not change, and in the second, the change in character is the theme of the work, and the goal of the Author.
The character of Rasklnikov.
Consider Raskolnikov, whom A. Molchanov cites as an example:
Raskolnikov was weak. Got stronger? No. I was melancholic. Became sanguine? No. Was an introvert. Became an extrovert? No. Gained or lost any habits? No. What came, such and left.
With this example, A. Molchanov wants to tell us that Raskolnikov's character has not changed throughout history. To begin with, I note that the cinema is represented by thousands of pictures, where there are thousands of completely different characters, and thousands of dissimilar characters, and one example cannot be the ultimate truth. And more A. Molchanov does not give examples!
Robert McKee, in The Million Dollar Story, writes:
“If at the beginning of the story we are presented with a character who behaves like a “loving husband”, and by the end he remains the same - a loving husband without any secrets, unfulfilled desires or secret passions - then we will be extremely disappointed.
In the words of A. Molchanov, the hero must "change fate", but that in this case a change in its character is also possible, for some reason it is not considered by him. Using the example of Raskolnikov, let's try to figure it out. Watching Raskolnikov, we are not disappointed in him (I am sure!), because he comes from a perverted moral understanding of reality to truly human feelings. Raskolnikov's theory is based on: "the right of the strong to commit crime." From the moment we understand Rodion's theory, we see his attitude towards the people around him, he divides them into "higher" and "trembling creatures." The crime that Raskolnikov commits shows us him as a weak and insignificant person (The first point from the character traits of A. Molchanov). But the weak personality of Raskolnikov, after Sonya reads to him the biblical parable about the resurrection of Lazarus, reaches its climax, he admits the collapse of his theory, confesses to the murders committed and repents. First of all, the rejection of his theory is a change in Raskolnikov's attitude to the people around him and to himself. We have come to the conclusion that the confession to the murder and repentance at the end of the novel turns out to be a strong side of Raskolnikov's character. He was weak, he became strong! I repeat, how much and how the character of the hero will change depends on the Author and the tasks assigned to him.
Transformation.
In her book, Making a Good Script Great, Linda Seger writes:
“Strictly speaking, in order for the character to change, he needs help in this, i.e. By itself, it cannot change, but only under the influence of any circumstances - but you invent them.
The following is an example of character change, which Linda Seger calls transformation:
“Transformation can be extreme (180 degrees) or moderate. For example, in "The Witness" (Romantic thriller by Peter Weir. 1985) there are the following transformations: 1) Starting position: John Book (Harrison Ford) is an insensitive, tormented person. 2) Moderate Transformation: It gradually becomes clear that John Book is sensitive, human, despite the fact that he remains just as strong and determined. 3) Extreme Transformation: John stays in the Amish community and practically becomes one of them. In order for such a transformation to take place, a certain (quite significant) scenario time is needed. The change cannot occur on multiple pages. The transformation of character is a slow, gradual process during which we record the change in character at various stages, from various angles, in various situations and in his actions. We observe the character's decision to act in this way and not otherwise, we see certain emotional responses of the hero to a changing certain situation, and, finally, we see a certain action performed by the hero. And this action signifies its transformation.”
L.N. Nekhoroshev about character.
L.N. Nekhoroshev, in the book Dramaturgy of the Film, raises the question:
"What is character?"
Gives the following definition:
“Character is a combination of certain mental qualities of a person”
And says:
“Character is distinguished by two properties. The first property: the possibility of change. Throughout a person's life path, character can change very much: great misfortune; serious illness; change of life circumstances; a change of faith, and a person who is well known to us cannot be recognized: before us is a different character.
Gives an example:
“A.G. Dostoevskaya describes the change in the character of her husband, the great writer, during the four years they lived abroad, where their first child, daughter Sophia, was born and died: borders, they told me that they would not recognize Fyodor Mikhailovich, to such an extent his character had changed for the better, to that extent he became softer, kinder and more indulgent towards people.
L.N. Nekhoroshev gives examples of changes in the character of the hero / character, both in literary works and in cinema. But I will not dwell on this further, and I will advise you to familiarize yourself with the contents of this book.
A few more words about character.
The nature of the hero is much more than we can imagine. His multiple traits and qualities, which we are not even aware of, together give us what in a narrow sense is understood as character. On one of the sites (http://klub-drug.ru/kachestva-cheloveka/cherty-haraktera-cheloveka-spiso...), more than five hundred character traits and qualities are presented. If anyone is interested, this list may come in handy when working on your character, and you can also use this list as a test to determine the qualities and traits of your character. I am sure that almost every quality or character trait is in each of us, we just do not know when they will manifest themselves and in what form.
Here, to a certain extent, we can draw a generalizing conclusion:
The character of the hero, the "value" is not constant! Whether the character of the hero changes throughout history, or not, depends entirely on the goals and objectives set by the Author.
This is very clearly shown by wonderful scenes from the legendary film of the Vasilyev brothers, "Chapaev". The difficult character of Vasily Ivanovich (B. Babochkin) collides with Commissar Furmanov (B. Blinov) sent to his division. This is shown in the scene where Chapaev, who does not recognize authorities, breaks a chair. Further, the turning point scene, where the village peasants thank Chapaev, for the fact that the marauders returned everything to the population (Furmanov's initiative). Chapaev thinks! And the scene where, instead of shaking hands, which Furmanov counted on, Chapaev throws himself into an embrace. Isn't that a change of character?
Biopics and series.
And what about the characters of the heroes of biopics, or serials? What can you say about the character of the following characters: Wilma Wallace ("Braveheart"), Abraham Lincoln ("Lincoln"), Valery Kharlamov ("Legend No. 17"), Gregory House ("House Doctor"), Ron Woodroof ("Dallas Club") Buyers"), Feride ("Singing Kinglet"), Edith Piaf ("Life in Pink Light"), Major Volkov ("The Volkov Hour"), Walter White ("Breaking Bad"), Will Graham ("Hannibal") ? What can you say about the characters of the heroes of "Santa Barbara"? Disassemble the characters of the presented heroes, and see what you get! I hope there won't be those who will say that the genre or format affects whether the character of the hero can or cannot change. The main character, because he is the main character in Africa!
Disclosure = change.
However, a change in character, his traits, qualities and habits does not always mean the opposite change. It is not necessary for the evil to become good, the weak to become strong, the indifferent to become responsive, the introverted to become sociable, and so on.
Richard Walter, in Screenwriting: Film and Television Drama as an Art, Craft, and Business, writes the following on this subject:
“A character's personality doesn't have to be reversed. Patton remains Patton and at the end of the film "Patton" is the same maniac warrior that he always was. But as the action develops, one or another feature of the hero is highlighted so that the viewer can understand why the general is the way he is. Therefore, the public, not particularly fond of Patton, but crushed by his personality, does not consider the two hours spent in the cinema a waste of time.
Changes in the character of the hero should also include what the authors of books for screenwriters, and almost all professional screenwriters, call "disclosure of character."
Throughout the story, the author shows us the character of the hero, revealing in him more and more of his features and qualities, and sometimes even those that we do not expect to see (Unpredictability that lurks in each of us!). For example, if the hero is shown to us as strong, resolute, rude, and so on, after certain actions and deeds, we find out that he is still romantic and reckless, then this is the disclosure / change of character. This statement contains a fairly simple and understandable principle. If, when a hero appears, on the first pages of the script, we see him with certain character traits, for example, he is sympathetic and courageous, then this is how we characterize him. We do not know what he will be like next, how he will manifest himself in certain dramatic situations. But the properties and traits presented below increase the “volume” of the character, which should be considered a change / disclosure of character. Presented at the end of the story, the traits and properties of the character of the hero, together give us that finally formed character, which was conceived by the author in the hero.
Andrea from The Devil Wears Prada.
Let's go further. At the beginning of the lesson, A. Molchanov asked to list the heroes whose character has changed over the course of history. Were listed:
"Anakin Skywalker, Kisa Vorobyaninov, Raskolnikov, Andrea from The Devil Wears Prada, Tyler Durden, Plushkin, Monte Cristo, D'Artagnan."
Of the characters presented, I would choose Andrea Sachs (Personal sympathy!) from the film The Devil Wears Prada (2006), based on the book by Lauren Weisberger. Let's try to figure out the character traits of the cutie Andrea, played by Anne Hathaway ("Brokeback Mountain" (2005), "Jane Austen" (2007), "Bride Wars" (2009), "Love and other drugs" (2010), Interstellar (2014)).
To do this, let's turn to the properties of character, which A. Molchanov speaks about:
"1) Energy Level, 2) Temperament, 3) Introvert-Extrovert, 4) Habits."
The second and third points can be immediately discarded, because. we do not see the author's goal to change them. Regarding the first point, Andrea, at the beginning of the story, is presented to us as a weak and fragile girl who fell into a completely different reality. Not in the world where she "cooked" before the beginning of the story. From the events that took place in the office of Runway magazine, before the appearance of Miranda Presley (Meryl Streep), we see that she is the exact opposite of the staff. Emily (Emily Blunt), immediately diagnoses, she is sure that Andrea will not last long in Miranda's frantic rhythm. But, despite the pressure of circumstances, we see that Andrea is purposeful and persistent. It enters the taste of glamor and gloss, gaining rhythm and strength. But Miranda's next, impossible assignment: our heroine needs to get the manuscript of a new book about Harry Potter, which is not yet in print. This assignment drives her to despair, and she decides to quit her job. She consciously decides to take this step, and even informs her boyfriend Nate (Adrian Grenier) about it. This is a clear sign of weakness! Andrea can't stand the rhythm of the demanding Miranda. I think that this is enough to say that Andrea is weaker than strong in terms of energy.
But what do we see after this decision? The scene where successful and attractive writer Christian Thompson (Simon Baker) calls Andrea to tell him that he's got the manuscript for a new Harry Potter book is a very important plot twist. It provides an opportunity to show the purposefulness of Andrea's character. (Otherwise it would be a completely different story!) We see how she becomes stronger and reaches the heights that millions of girls dream of. At the end of the story, from a weak and insecure girl who does not understand style and fashion, Andrea becomes a strong, stylish and successful assistant to Miranda Presley.
It is very important that in this case, the events of history stretch for almost a whole year, and this time is enough for changes to occur in the character, because. its formation, from a purely psychological side, proceeds throughout almost the entire life of a person. And it is important to see the changes conceived by the author, and to understand their significance for the plot.
Let's go back to psychology. The character of a person is manifested in a system of relations, among which, one of the main ones is the attitude towards other people. Before Andrea's purposefulness, we see her attitude towards her boyfriend, towards her friends, which she appreciates and puts above all else. But the work forces to make a choice between the "old" and "new life", which Andera makes in favor of the latter. We cannot say that she has changed her attitude towards her boyfriend and friends, she loves and respects them, but her actions - a temporary separation from Nate, a night with Christian, affect another system of relationships, the attitude towards herself. In place of modesty comes narcissism, and Andrea sacrifices her loved ones and friends for herself. (Although this is a temporary sacrifice!) This is a kind of test, after passing through which Andrea becomes who she should be according to the author's idea. All changes at this stage of her life (throughout history) affect the formation of certain character traits that change (transform) and strengthen. At the end of the story, we see her as a strong, purposeful, responsible, fashionable and stylish girl, which is not the case at the beginning of the story.
Anakin from Star Wars.
I can't ignore Anakin Skywalker, the protagonist of George Lucas' cult saga "Star Wars". But here I will be brief, I will note only the most important and obvious with regards to Anakin's character. In the first episode of the original Star Wars trilogy (Trilogy One: Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999), Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002), Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)), Anakin is introduced to us a nine year old boy. The events in the third episode take place thirteen years after the first story. Without going into too much detail, it's just hard to imagine that Anakin's character hasn't changed. As the most compelling argument, I will only say that the main character was Anakin Skywalker, and became Darth Vader. Good has been transformed into evil. And that's it!
In stories where the script time spans a day, a week, a month, it is more difficult to imagine changes in the character of the hero, but they do exist nonetheless. And in stories spanning a year, five to ten years, such changes are simply impossible not to notice. And what about the character of such heroes as Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) from Spider-Man, or Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) from the film of the same name and the novel by JK Rowling? And the character of Maleficent (Angelina Jolie), from the film of the same name by Robert Stromberg, based on the script by Linda Woolverton? You can give examples indefinitely, but the point is if you do not understand this.
A. Molchanov about the three-dimensionality of the hero.
Let's go back to the fifth lesson of the Screenwriter's Primer. It's all too unconvincing. A. Molchanov says:
“In some primers on screenwriting (there is no such word in any dictionary! And even on Wikipedia!) they write that in order for the hero to be three-dimensional, the screenwriter must describe in detail his appearance, character and social status. Nonsense".
In such a primer as Lajos Egri's The Art of Drama, the following is written about the three-dimensionality of the hero:
“Here is an approximate diagram, the backbone, the skeleton of a three-dimensional image of a character: PHYSIOLOGY: 1) Gender, 2) Age, 3) Height and weight, 4) Color of hair, eyes, skin, 5) Build, complexion, favorite postures, 6) Appearance: pleasant, neat, untidy, etc. Fullness, thinness, shape of the head, face, limbs, 7) Defects: deformities, birthmarks, etc. Diseases, 8) Heredity. SOCIOLOGY: 1) Class: lower, middle, higher, 2) Occupation: type of work, working time, income, working conditions, whether there is a trade union or not, now the organization of labor, ability to do this work, 3) Education: how many classes, what school, grades, favorite subjects, unloved subjects, inclinations, hobbies, 4) Home life: lifestyle of parents, earnings, orphanhood, parents divorced, parents' habits, intellectual development of parents, their vices, neglect, inattention ( to the child). Marital status of the character, 5) Religion, 6) Race, nationality, 7) Group position: leader among friends, in a club, in sports, 8) Political sympathies, 9) Entertainment, hobbies: books, magazines, newspapers that he reads. PSYCHOLOGY: 1) Sexual life, moral rules, 2) Personal goals, aspirations, 3) Defeats, disappointments, failures, 4) Temperament: choleric, careless, pessimistic, optimistic, 5) Attitude to life: submissive, active, defeatist , 6) Complexes: obsessions, repressed images, prejudices, phobias, 7) Extrovert, introvert, average type, 8) Abilities: knowledge of languages, special talents, 9) Qualities: imagination, prudence, taste, balance, 10) The level of mental development. Here, so to speak, is the backbone of character, which the author must know thoroughly and on which he must build the image.
Divergence of positions.
I agree with A. Molchanov that there is no need to describe in detail the appearance, social status and character in the script, unless of course the customer requires it. As for the rest, my position differs from the opinion of A. Molchanov. I have always paid and continue to pay attention to the fact that in scriptwriting manuals there are a lot of contradictions regarding the ideas of this or that author, about certain issues of cinema dramaturgy. Therefore, I would like to dwell on this disagreement in more detail. The wise words are already too deeply ingrained in my brain:
“The dramaturgy of cinema is a set of rules, and it is important for us not to follow them, but to understand them.”
Regarding the three-dimensionality of the protagonist, I adhere to the position of Lajos Egri, and I believe that the author who creates his hero has enough reason to present him to us as he conceived him. A. Molchanov writes:
“In fact, it is not appearance and social status that makes a hero three-dimensional - what difference does it make to a screenwriter whether his heroine is blonde or brunette if he is not the screenwriter of Legally Blonde? In many films, it does not matter to us what kind of trade the hero earns a living. But the character of the hero is the foundation stone of any good script. The screenwriter's task is to make this gem precious."
From this it follows that only his character makes the hero three-dimensional. But after all, in the script, before we see what the character of the hero is, we must read it to the end, and only in the finale conclude what it really is. Yes, of course, by certain actions and deeds, we will see what kind of hero it is, but it will be relatively clear and finally clear only at the very end of the story. However, from the very beginning of the story, we see the hero, and the first thing the author presents to us is his physiology (appearance), which can tell us a lot about the hero himself and his character. For those who are interested, look on the Internet for the theory of character of the German psychologist E. Kretschmer, where, in his opinion, the character depends on the physique of a person.
It is very interesting what A. Molchanov means by three-dimensionality when he says:
"... three-dimensional hero makes his character"? (Tricky question!)
Try to determine for yourself what A. Molchanov means, because he does not explain how the character makes the hero three-dimensional and how three-dimensionality is manifested.
Lajos Egri presents 27 points in three groups, which, in his opinion, make the hero three-dimensional. Egri's position is absolutely understandable, but I cannot say anything about A. Molchanov's position. Let's try to figure out what is the three-dimensionality of the hero? To do this, we will not refer to dictionaries or additional sciences, where this term is widely used, but simply imagine how we can understand it. In principle, this term itself tells us about its meaning. Three-dimensional, roughly speaking, these are three dimensions of something that show something in its entirety.
Whatever our hero is, in most cases he is a man, although sometimes the main character is a robot (“Bicentennial Man” (1999)), a cyborg (“Cyborg” (1989)). Now he will try to imagine how to describe a person in volume. The very first thing that comes to mind is what his physiology is. I did a little experiment, asked my friends to describe any person in a couple of sentences, but so that I could imagine him. Absolutely all (20) began their descriptions with physiology. The appearance of a person is something that can be seen and imagined. And therefore, each of us, at a subconscious level, has an idea about a person, primarily from the point of view of his physiology. Of course, we can describe a person by the qualities and traits of his character, but we cannot represent him according to these descriptions. We will not be able to, because we do not have a “shell” where to place these qualities and traits. And any of our ideas may turn out to be false. I mean that there is no person, there is no character! If I tell you, imagine a hero with the following qualities: witty, quick-witted, vengeful, miserly. Who appears before your eyes? Is there any image? Compare him with Alexander Kalyagin. Similar? And mine looks like it! Because Shakespeare's Shylock, whose qualities of character were presented, I used to see in the performance of A. Kalyagin.
L.N. Nekhoroshev, in the book "Dramaturgy of the Film", in the chapter "The Image and Character of the Character", writes:
“The image and character of the character. What is the relationship between these concepts? Let us put the question in a different way: which of these two concepts is more voluminous? And we will immediately answer: of course, the concept of "character image" is wider than the concept of "character character". Because the image of a person on the screen is formed not only from his character, but also from: a) the portrait appearance of the character - it may correspond to the character, but may not coincide with it and even contradict it; b) things and objects surrounding the character - from the environment in which he lives and acts; c) from the attitude of other characters towards him (remember the popular expression: “The king is played by his retinue”); d) and most importantly - the image of the hero is included as an important component - the attitude towards him on the part of the authors of the film.
When creating our hero, we give him a certain physiology. Agree, Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) from the Fast and the Furious cannot be replaced by Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) from Spider-Man. Can Tony Montano (Al Pacino) from Scarface be replaced by John Matrix (Arnold Schwarzenegger) from Commando, or Larry Dale (Ben Stiller) from Night at the Museum? And Benjamin Gates (Nicolas Cage) from National Treasure (2004), can be replaced by Frank Martin (Jason Statham) from The Transporter (2002), or Bob Lee (Mark Wahlberg) from the movie Gunslinger ( 2007)? Not! Of course not! The named actors were chosen according to the hero archetype created by the author. Not one screenwriter writes for a certain actor, if it's not special. order. Therefore, physiological descriptions are an integral part of the three-dimensionality of the hero, and although they are given in a very short form in the scripts, this is enough to visually represent the hero.
Examples for comparison.
As an example, I will give a few excerpts from the scripts, which describe some of the external features of the main characters (and not only!).
"Among the unremarkable tourists and businessmen sits TOM WELLES, middle-aged, neat hair, strict gray suit."
“A young girl, CASEY BECKER, puts the phone to her ear. She is no more than sixteen. Friendly face with innocent eyes.
“A young girl of 17 in a flannel nightgown. CLOSE UP of a face lit by the faint light of a computer monitor ... Insightful and intelligent, with sad lonely eyes.
BRAKES SCREAMING, the transport vehicle PUTS FRAME to show JAKE SULLY, a scruffy, unkempt-looking combat veteran seated in a battered carbon fiber wheelchair. At 22 years old, in his eyes one can read the wisdom and caution of a person who has already known pain.
From the movie "Wildness" written by Steven Peters:
“SAM LOMBARDO slowly takes the stage. He is in his thirties, a prominent handsome man. He is dressed almost exactly like the students, a khaki polo shirt and sailing boots.”
"Jackie Brown is a very attractive black woman of about forty-five, although she looks thirty-five."
“The old lady's name is Rose Calvert. Her face is wrinkled, her body is out of shape and huddled under a simple chintz dress. But her eyes are still as bright and lively as those of a young girl.”
Jack Dawson and Fabrizio de Rossi, both in their 20s, exchange glances while the other two argue in Swedish. Jack is an American, a lanky drifter with hair too short for the time. He is also unshaven, his clothes rumpled from sleeping in them. Jack is an artist, he studied at the school of Bohemian style of painting in Paris. He is also very reserved and confident for his 20s, having lived on his own since he was 15."
“The guy on the floor is CHUCKIE SULLIVAN, 20, the healthiest in the company. He is loud, frantic, a born entertainer. Behind him sits WILL HUNTING, 20, handsome and confident, the unspoken leader. To Will's right is BILLY MCBRIDE, 22, heavy, quiet, someone you definitely wouldn't want to argue with. And finally MORGAN OMILY, 19, younger than the rest. Stretched out and intrigued, Morgan listens to Chucky's horror stories with a feeling of revulsion. All four speak with heavy Boston accents."
A brief description of the appearance of the hero is one of the facets of three-dimensionality. We represent it, and we understand who we will follow and who we will worry about. Remove from all the examples listed, everything related to the description of appearance, read what you received and imagine. Represented? Yes! Nothing to imagine! There is nothing left but the name of the characters, which does not mean anything, unless it is a biopic, where the main character is a famous person.
Here is what Lajos Egri writes about three-dimensionality:
“Every object has three dimensions: depth, height, width. Human beings have three more: physiology, sociology, psychology. Without knowing these dimensions, we cannot comprehend a person. Studying a person, it is not enough to know whether he is rude or polite, religious or godless, decent or low. You need to know why he is like this, why his character is constantly changing and why these changes are inevitable, regardless of whether the person himself wants them or not.
And here is what Lajos Egri writes about the meaning of three-dimensionality:
“If we understand that these dimensions determine every moment of human behavior, then it is easy for us to write about any character and understand both his motives and their sources. Take any work that has stood the test of time and you will see that it survived because it had all three dimensions. Remove even one of them, and there will be no real literary achievement.”
I think that everything is clear with physiology, and its attitude to the three-dimensionality of the hero is understandable.
social status.
Sociology (L. Egri) or social status (A. Molchanov) is the second dimension of the hero, and an integral part of three-dimensionality. We cannot talk about character without knowing the hero's social status. What is important here is his presentation not only at the moment the hero appears on the pages of the script, but also how it was throughout his life, outside the script. Because our past leaves a certain imprint on what we are in the present. Lajos Egri has a very good example of this:
“If you were born in a basement and played in the dirt of the street, your behavior will be different from the behavior of a boy who was born in a mansion and played with clean and beautiful toys”
Agree that both children in the future will have a different character, not only because they are different people, but also because their social environment gives a completely different perception of reality. I note that the social status means not only the profession of the protagonist. But for some reason A. Molchanov speaks only about her:
“In many films, we don’t care at all what trade the hero does for a living.”
The attitude of the hero to friends, relatives, colleagues largely forms the character, which will be quite understandable, given these relationships. The hero, simply put, cannot be presented without a social position, taking into account the all-round attitude in society. And whatever one may say, we indicate this in our hero, in certain scenes of our script. No way without it! This is our past, present and possibly future! I will not delve deeper into sociology, I think what has been said is enough to understand what social status gives us. And he gives us the next facet of the hero's three-dimensionality. In general, it is difficult to imagine and say that the screenwriter does not care what the physiology and what the social status of his hero is. But I think, saying this, A. Molchanov had serious prerequisites, although he does not tell us anything about this.
The fate of a hero
In order not to force you to return to the beginning of the article, I will repeat. A. Molchanov writes:
“Plyushkin was a landowner, became a poor madman, Kisa was an employee of the registry office, became a murderer, D'Artagnan was a poor Gascon, became a field marshal. All these heroes have changed fate.”
To this I promised to return, and I hold back what I said. From this example, in fact, it follows that all the "heroes" have changed their social position in society. Some for the better, and some for the worse. I cannot say why A. Molchanov calls this “fate”, although I tend to see this as a purely authorial approach. And I dare to suggest that the susceptibility of the term fate is much simpler and easier than that of the term social position (status). Regardless of how we call the same phenomenon, its understanding remains the main thing. talking "they all changed fate", A. Molchanov states only the fact of the change, for example: "Plyushkin was a landowner, became a poor madman". Without reading the poem "Dead Souls", we cannot understand these changes, because we do not know what Plyushkin drives to madness and makes him a beggar. But we know for sure that such a “change of fate” is represented by N.V. Gogol quite thoroughly, otherwise there would be no sense in this "change".
And what happens, for example, with Malefistena? Is there a change in her fate? She was a good fairy at the beginning of the story, and she is a good fairy at the end of the story. Looks like her fate hasn't changed! But we cannot say that nothing has changed in her, at least her character has undergone a transformation. She was a good fairy, then, due to a number of circumstances (a mean act of Stefan (Sharlto Copley), he deprived her of her wings), she became very bad, and at the end of the story she becomes good again. The sixteen years she spent watching Princess Aurora (Elle Fanning) changed her character and brought her back to her true self.
When working on a hero, it is important for us to know why “changes” happen to him, the prerequisites are more important than the result. Why does a true friend become a traitor? Why does an exemplary family man become a traitor? Why does a former jailer become a successful entrepreneur? Answers to these "Why?" hidden in sociology, and are one of the dimensions of the three-dimensionality of our hero.
instead of a conclusion.
Enough has already been said about the third dimension, so that we can put an end to it. I did not plan the conclusion in the article, and in the end I will say that everything that has been said is the fruit of my reflection on the tasks and questions posed in the article. This is my personal opinion, which I do not impose on anyone. We all make mistakes, and let these mistakes be correctable, and if they change our fate, then only for the better.
One of the main characters of the novel in the verses of A.S. Pushkin is Onegin. It is no coincidence that the work is named after him. The image of Onegin is complex and contradictory, containing positive signs of progressiveness and sharply negative features of clearly expressed individualism....
I liked his features, Involuntary devotion to dreams, Inimitable strangeness And sharp, chilled mind. I was embittered, he is sullen; We both knew the game of passions, The life tormented us both; In both hearts...
“How tired he was from the bustle, I made friends with him at that time. I liked his features,” says A.S. Pushkin about his acquaintance with Eugene Onegin, the hero of the novel, turned into a contemporary of the author, a living person by the power of the author's poetic talent. AT...
In the work of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, the novel "Eugene Onegin" occupies a special place. Pushkin wrote it for eight years: from 1823 to 1831. This time was very difficult in the history of Russia. The events of December 14, 1825 abruptly turned history ...
The letters of Tatyana and Onegin stand out sharply from the general text of Pushkin's novel in verse, they help to better understand the characters, and even the author himself singles out these two letters: an attentive reader will immediately notice that they differ from the strictly organized "Onegin ...
The novel by A. S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" is the greatest work that has no analogues in genre in Russian literature. This is not just a novel, but a novel in verse, as Pushkin wrote, "a diabolical difference." The novel "Eugene Onegin" is a realistic, historical,...
on literature. 2016
Why did Raskolnikov return to the office when he saw Sonya?
Seeing Sonya, Raskolnikov returned to the office, because the girl was a kind of "anchor" of the hero, warning him against bad actions and guiding him to salvation.
It was Marmeladova who pushed Rodion to confess. The author portrayed this character to save the soul of Raskolnikov, who got lost in his own theory. Before coming to the office, Rodion promised the believing Sonya that he would confess, because murder is one of the gravest sins. It was very difficult for the hero to tell the truth. However, when he saw Sonya, who appeared before him as a reminder of a promise, having stepped over himself, "with pale lips, with a motionless look," the hero took this decisive step towards his salvation.
I believe that it was precisely because of his vow that Raskolnikov gathered his will into a fist and returned to the office again.
In what works of Russian literature do the heroes go through difficult life trials and deep disappointments, and in what way can these characters be compared with Raskolnikov?
There are many works whose heroes go through difficult life trials and deep disappointments.
For example, the character of Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons" is Yevgeny Bazarov. The hero is a nihilist, he denies all generally accepted norms of behavior. However, a turning point happens in his life, which served as a kind of test for him. Eugene unrequitedly fell in love and realized that the theory of his views is imperfect and there really is a bright feeling in the world - love. Having experienced a difficult time for himself, the hero became disillusioned with life, so he devoted himself completely to work. Like Raskolnikov, Bazarov's life after the turning point was monotonous, filled with experiences. Each hero has experienced a strong shock, which can be interpreted as punishment or deliverance. Bazarov dies from blood poisoning, and Raskolnikov was sent to hard labor. These moments helped the heroes to comprehend the true values in life. Bazarov says goodbye to Odintsova and his parents, he understands how much these people mean to him. And Rodion got a chance to repent of his sin and start life anew, together with Sonya.
Another character who experienced trials and deep disappointments is Evgeny, the hero of A. S. Pushkin's poem "The Bronze Horseman". The life of the character was calm and monotonous. He dreamed of quiet family happiness with his beloved Parasha. However, everything changed after another flood in St. Petersburg. The "Neva sovereign current" carried away Parasha's house. For the hero, this was a severe blow, after which he could not recover. All his plans and dreams collapsed with her. The author portrays a "little man" who was able to challenge society. In order to find the strength in himself for such an action, Eugene had to overcome the difficulties of accepting reality and endure utter disappointment in life. The hero could not cope with the load that had fallen on him and went crazy, and later died on one of the streets of St. Petersburg.
I believe that literature depicts many heroes with complex life histories, and the heroes of Turgenev's novel and Pushkin's poem are just a few of them.
Why is the “condescension” of the first snow appearing in the poem “Walkingsnow…” as a significant event, a turning point in a person’s life?
The "condescension" of the first snow in the poem "It was snowing ..." appears as a significant event, a turning point in a person's life, because it symbolizes a new, clean page of life for the heroes, which remains their kind of utopia.
It was at the moment of a serious conversation between the couple that the first snow fell. Nature created the right atmosphere for the heroes, allowed them to believe "in a bright dream." The author depicts a clean land, powdered with white snow, and as if giving them a chance for a new life, started from the same snow-white leaf. However, at the same instant, the heroes came to their senses, all that fictional fairy tale was left behind, but in reality, “the delight of the soul replaced despair ...”.
I believe that the "indulgence" of the first snow symbolizes the possible beginning of a new life, a new round of relationships, which is why it is of such great importance for the couple.
In what works of Russian poetry is the beneficial effect of nature on man shown and in what ways are they similar to the poem by V.N. Sokolov?
Many works of Russian poetry show the beneficial influence of nature on man.
For example, Yesenin's poem "Birch". In it, the lyrical hero also describes the actions taking place in winter. He, too, sees the beauty of the winter landscape in a special light. In Yesenin's poem, snow "is like silver" covers nature, it turns golden at dawn and covers the world around us with new canvases of winter velvet. The author expresses that thanks to this beauty, a person feels all the charm of his native home and admires its expanses. As in Sokolov's poem, the hero notices the beauty of the world around him and notes the uniqueness of the winter landscape.
In Pushkin's work "Winter Morning" the hero also notes the beauty of the winter landscape, also compares the new day with the beginning of a new, fresh life. But Pushkin's life appears as something figurative and distant, starting in the morning of a sunny, frosty day. And Sokolov has a chance for a “clean slate” along with the first snow. During the description of the winter landscape, the heroes of each work manage to experience a whole host of feelings. In Pushkin, the character is impressed by the views of the winter morning, nature gives him a breath of "fresh air" and makes him show even more zeal for life: "It's nice to think by the couch. But you know: should not order the brown filly to the sled? Whereas in Sokolov's characters only for a moment succumb to the magical charms of nature and think about a brighter future.
I believe that it is in these poems that the beneficial influence of nature on man is most clearly shown.
How the main character of A.S. Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin" under the influence of life circumstances?
A.S. Pushkin is a great writer and poet of our Fatherland. "Eugene Onegin" is one of the author's most famous works. Pushkin himself defined its genre as a novel in verse. And indeed, there is a rhyme in the work, but at the same time, a large branched plot can be traced in it. In addition, especially for writing this work, the author came up with his own poetic size - the Onegin stanza. There are a number of distinctive features that allow the reader to distinguish this work for himself.
Some of them are in the story itself. The protagonist of the novel is Eugene Onegin. It is for the life story of this character that the reader follows the entire work. The novel begins with a description of Eugene's idle life in the city. We see a young man who entertains himself like the whole secular society of that time: balls, evenings, restaurants. The author depicts an "extra person" who cannot find a place for himself among other people. Such a life bored Onegin. Eugene's habitual life is disturbed by the news of his uncle's death. This event forces the "young rake" to move to the village.
There Onegin continues to mope. However, it is in the village that the best qualities of the hero are manifested. For example, in order to make life easier for his peasants, he introduces quitrent instead of corvée. In the village, he met a new man for him - Vladimir Lensky. The life story of this man left a mark on Onegin's life. Eugene treated Lensky tolerantly and condescendingly, because in the village it was his only company. However, after the ball at the Larins, when the hero hit on Vladimir's beloved, a duel took place between them, in which Onegin killed his comrade. He was never able to go against the rules of society and not appear for a duel. But thanks to these events, we see another hero - a sufferer who sincerely worries about the fate of young Vladimir.
Also in the village, Onegin was able to meet a girl who loved him with all her heart - Tatyana Larina. Unfortunately, Eugene valued his freedom too much, so he did not reciprocate the girl. At the moment, for him, her feelings are just a game, a childish delusion. He did not appreciate the gift that Tatyana could give him. Thus, Onegin disappointed the girl and doomed her to the suffering of unrequited love.
After the duel, Eugene was forced to leave. The next time the reader can see the hero after a certain period of time. He meets an old friend at one of the secular evenings. A friend introduces Onegin to his wife, who, by chance, turned out to be the same Tatyana Larina. Eugene immediately falls in love with a new woman for him, who struck him with her beauty. At this moment, we can see another Onegin - a truly suffering, loving hero. There is no trace of an arrogant person. This is evidenced by his ways to achieve the heroine. Knowing that Tatyana is married, he continues to write letters to her, to which he never receives an answer. Once, having come to her house and finding her alone, he declares his love to her, but Tatyana remains faithful to her husband and does not succumb to the words of Eugene.
Thus, we can observe a peculiar evolution of the hero: from an arrogant egoist to a feeling and loving person. I believe that Yevgeny's life path is very complicated, therefore it requires special attention of the reader. The author ends his work in such a way that we can think for ourselves whether this suffering “extra person” found his place or remained outside the whole society.
Irina Seryozhenko
Eugene Onegin was a young Petersburger, at the time of the beginning of the novel he was twenty-six years old. The author briefly describes his life: he learned “something and somehow”, that is, he was completely unaccustomed to serious consistent work. But since he was endowed with natural abilities to a sufficient degree, they still had to show themselves in some way.
He began to lead a secular life at the age of sixteen, and very soon he got bored with it, because it was predictable and monotonous. At the same time, she largely corrupted Yevgeny, who was already unaccustomed to tension (“But was my Yevgeny happy?”). Hypocrisy and cold flirting killed in him youthful reverie and romance, made him a bored cynic. Eugene skillfully portrayed feelings in order to succeed in secular society (“The less we love a woman, the easier she likes us”). But having become a virtuoso in this game, having reached the limit, he involuntarily went beyond him and was disappointed (“He looked in great distraction, Turned away - and yawned”).
This happened because a person can, of course, adapt to almost any system of relations, only in this case such an adaptation will be accompanied by certain reactions (“In short: the Russian melancholy took possession of him little by little”). A person has a well-defined moral nature, a person by vocation is a creator who sincerely loves other people. But in order to reveal the true purpose of this or that person, it is desirable that he exist in an appropriate social environment that stimulates precisely the highest, creative principle. If society is built on distorted foundations, then a person is distorted under its influence. He can resist the curved environment, but then his position will be stamped with drama.
Eugene Onegin was not an outstanding person in order to be able to cope with the corrupting influence of a wrongly organized society, but he clearly understood its falsity and retired from such a life. At the same time, he did not find an equivalent replacement, because his seclusion would be good if he worked hard systematically, but "hard work was sickening to him." At the same time, he was a caring owner. The author, completely without irony, reports that Onegin "read Adam Smith" and "He replaced the corvée with the old quitrent with a light Yarem."
In the village, he continued to miss. Having met Vladimir Lensky, he fell in love with him, because he reminded him of his younger years, when he himself was full of energy, ebullient and ardent, before he had time to become disillusioned with the world he so passionately aspired to. Onegin was captivated by the spontaneity and originality of the young friend (“He listened to Lensky with a smile”, “He tried to keep a cooling word in his mouth”). A chance acquaintance with the Larin family did not inspire Onegin at all, but he already singled out Tatiana:
“Are you in love with a smaller one?”
"And what?" “I would choose another
If only I were like you, a poet…”
A striking fact - the girls were not even introduced to the new guest.
Tatyana's sudden love did not evoke a response in Onegin - he was still too jaded, "But he did not want to deceive the gullibility of the innocent soul" and was able to adequately explain himself to Tatyana, giving her her due:
When would a family picture
I was captivated at least for a single moment, -
That's true b, except for you alone,
The bride was not looking for another.
It was not for nothing that Eugene Onegin withdrew from the world. He continued to be a noble man, although his nobility was passive. The quarrel with Lensky was entirely invented by him. He himself was well aware of this (“Having called upon himself to a secret judgment, He accused himself of many things…”), but turned out to be unable to get away from the formal habits and rules of the world, even having actually left it. High-society games and masks in his soul turned out to be stronger than the firm awareness of the episode (“But wildly secular enmity Is afraid of false shame”). He was frightened by the “whisper, laugh fools” and killed his friend, thereby killing something in himself.
Onegin left because he wanted to escape from himself, but he did not have the spiritual strength for deep repentance and a change in life. A meeting with Tatyana a few years later struck him. Tatyana turned into a goddess, retaining her spiritual power, and Onegin realized that his flight was in vain.
But at a late and barren age,
At the turn of our years
The dead trail of passion is sad ...
One way or another, life led Onegin to the logical conclusion of his youth - this is a complete collapse, which can be experienced only by rethinking the previous life in the most cruel way. To enhance the effect, Pushkin made Onegin fall in love with Tatyana, but it could have been another woman. The bottom line is that the masks and roles inspired from early youth suffer a severe defeat, and life thus gives the hero a chance to renew moral feelings, a chance for new meanings of existence. It is known that in the last, encrypted chapter, Pushkin brings his hero to the camp of the Decembrists.
Essay on literature on the topic: How Onegin changes
Other writings:
- The novel by A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin” is an unusual work. There are few events in it, many deviations from the storyline, the story seems to be cut off in half. This is most likely due to the fact that Pushkin in his novel sets fundamentally new for Russian literature Read More ......
- "Eugene Onegin" is rightfully considered the central work of A. S. Pushkin. Work on it lasted about eight and a half years. At the first mention of the work on Eugene Onegin, Pushkin reported: "I am not writing a novel, but a novel in verse - a diabolical difference." Read More ......
- Why does Onegin live and not grow old? In my opinion, firstly, because this image came from the pen of a brilliant writer, recognized throughout the world. And nothing ingenious does not lose its relevance for a very long time. Secondly, A. S. Pushkin described in his Read More ......
- Everyone is capable of love, only everyone has their own. For some, it is passionate and bright, while for others it is quiet, romantic, calm. Onegin, like any other person, is also capable of love. Eugene spent all his youth in the company of secular Read More ......
- Pushkin's novel in verse "Eugene Onegin" is a cross-section of the author's contemporary era. Russian literature did not know such works before. Pushkin was the first who astutely discerned the trait that was destined to develop in Russian society: the loneliness in it of everyone who, so Read More ......
- Eugene Onegin, the protagonist of the novel of the same name in verse by A. S. Pushkin, is portrayed as a young rake who meets the criteria of the world, a dandy not only in clothes, but also in lifestyle. But secular society does not suit Onegin, it revolts his critical mind. Before “Eugene Read More ......
- "Eugene Onegin" is the first Russian realistic novel and the only novel in verse in Russian literature. The complexity of the image of E. Onegin can be traced throughout the novel. This lies at least in the fact that we see how much Onegin is different at the beginning and Read More ......
- Composition Pushkin A.S. - Eugene Onegin Subject: - The realism of A.S. Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin" (1) In the novel "Eugene Onegin" A.S. Pushkin paints a picture of the life of different groups of the noble society of Russia in the XIX century, their way of life and mores, the life of the peasantry. Read More ......