“OBERIU” and Alexander Vvedensky’s Christmas Tree at
the Ivanovs
--A.Charumati Ramdas
Absurd! Incomprehensible! Erotic! – These adjectives are
not enough to describe Christmas Tree at the Ivanovs. They, on the contrary,
reflect just one aspect of almost all the works of OBERIUs (who were not
as well known as the futurists and other formalists of the 20’s of the last
century), one of the founder figures of which, along with Daniel Charms , was
Alexander Vvedensky.
Russian literature of the first 20-30 years of the XX
century was known for formalists as well as for socialist realists. In the post
revolutionary-post symbolist scenario, almost every literary group – whether of
formalist or socialist leaning tried to assert itself, tried to prove that it
was the true representative of their epoch and hope for the future! In
fact, during the early 20’s, almost everyday literary groups were emerging and
vanishing in quick succession. Only a handful of them could survive for a
substantial period of time and leave some imprint on the literature.
As is well known, during the first half of 20’s, young
Soviet poetry was in search of new forms of expression. Obviously, the new
challenges, the new life demanded a dynamic language that would not remain
confined within the four walls of a room! Silence was not the need of the time,
but it was the street talk that was required. Typical examples of such a ‘talk’
could serve A.Blok’s The Twelve and V. Mayakovsky’s Mystery Buff.
But, at the same time, some really “incomprehensible” type
of poetry was also being written by futurists, where the poet was more
concerned with rhythm rather than the communicative function of the language or
the social obligation of poetry. Famous among the futurists were Khlebnikov,
Kruchenykh, Kamensky, Pasternak, Shklovsky, Mayakovsky etc. To these famous
futurists clung a few ‘lesser known’ formalists, but such associations often
proved short-lived. Later these ‘less famous’ formalists organised their own
groups and continued writing ‘incomprehensible poetry’. Young poets, like
A.Vvedensky and Daniel Charms, considered their poetry as ‘revolutionary
poetry’. One of them, A.Tufanov even proposed an ‘incomprehensible, axial
classification of poets’ according to which, “poets within an angle of 10 -400
correct the world, those within 140-890 reproduce,
those within 900-1790 decorate it. Only the
‘incomprehensibles’ and ‘expressionists’ situated between 1800-3600,
while distorting or reforming it, prove to be the real revolutionaries”.
Though these poets were called ‘Zaumniks’ by the
established ones, A.Vvedensky and Daniel Charms preferred to be called
‘Chinarists’. They were taken as ‘non-serious’, ‘jokers’ of the new times. In
fact they were presenting poetry of a non serious nature where an absurd but lively
world was created. Everything was topsy-turvy, abnormal: the dead came back to
life, porridge was not eaten but drunk (along with the box!), people walked
with their backs forward and all such nonsensical things! In order to create
such jokes they not only distorted the form of the ‘word’ but also confused its
relation with other words. By doing so, they tried to kill boredom and
depression and posed a challenge to ‘realism’ which, according to them, was
‘hypocritical’.
At the end of 1927, the ‘Chinarists’ formed a new group
‘Association of Real Art (Obyedineniye Realnogo Isskustva) or ‘OBERIU’ (ОБЭРИУ) and now, instead of non-serious
things they tried to depict the world in a subjective, clear, bright, clean
way. The ‘art’ free from the norms of day to day world was indeed the ‘real’
art in their opinion!
“You might suspect,” wrote OBERIUs in their manifesto,
“that this is not the same object that you see in life? Go nearer and touch it
with your fingers. Look at the object with naked eyes, and you will notice that
it is free from the dilapidated literary gilt. You might think that our
subjects are ‘non-real’, ‘illogical’? But does art need worldly logic? We
appreciate the beauty of a woman’s portrait, ignoring the fact, that contrary
to anatomical logic the artist has turned her shoulder blade and shifted it to
a side. ‘Art’ has its own logic and it does not destroy the subject, but helps
to identify it.”
The group (OBERIU) consisted of only a few poets: A.
Vvedensky, Daniel Charms, N. Zabolotsky, K. Vaginov, I. Bakhterev and B. Levin.
Each of them had his own logic, which looked naïve, fantastic.
OBERIUs paid attention not to the idea, not to the
subject, nor the form of a literary work, but to something else which was very
hazy and incomprehensible to a rational mind, while being comprehensible only
to them. They framed their own model of the world, of world order, relations
between words seemed illogical in their works but it was convincing, natural.
But in spite of its ‘illogical’ nature the poetry of OBERIUs was poetry of
thought, of deep and warm ideas.
‘Time’ and ‘Death’ occupy an important place in the works
of OBERIUs. Man’s interaction with nature, the dignity of man and other such
problems of human life attracted them. The wonderful thing about these problems
is that they talked as if on behalf of a child or an eccentric creature or a ‘real
thinker’. This enabled them to cast a clear, clean glance at the object. But as
a result of this ‘child’s perception of things’, a comical situation is often
created. But OBERIUs don’t make fun of life; don’t look at it from the view
point of a satirist.
OBERIUs also loved the grotesque, absurd, erotic, unusual,
incomprehensible, and fantastic. That is why in spite of not being in the
limelight and facing victimisation, the poems of Vvedensky and Charms have not
totally disappeared even today. Both of them were famous as ‘children’s poets’
but they also wrote a few things for the grown ups.
In the light of these observations we shall discuss
A.Vvedensky’s play Christmas tree at the Ivanovs. Vvedensky’s ‘childish
adult’ image is seen here and there in the play.
*************
Written in 1938 Christmas tree at the Ivanovs consists
of four acts comprising a total of nine scenes. The action takes place in the
90’s of the XIX century i.e. two decades before the October Revolution, so it
is quite possible that the author acts like a fortune-teller and predicts the
events that are likely to take place after two decades of the October
Revolution.
A.Vvedensky is fond of Time and does all sorts of
experiments with it. A few details deserve special mention:
1. At the beginning and end of every scene, the author
does not forget to describe the clock on the wall and the time shown there in.
This facilitates parallel depiction of events. In the first scene the clock
shows 9.00 o’clock in the evening and the scene ends with the clock showing
midnight. In the second scene the action takes place in the nearby wood and the
same clock shows the same 9.00 o’clock of night as the beginning
and the scene ends at midnight. The position of the clock is also fixed, it is
“to the left of the door.” Every scene begins with the mention of time in this
clock irrespective of whether the action takes place in the house of the
Ivanovs or in the woods, or in the street or in the court, or in a mental
asylum. By making the clock show time the author has also shown that the total
action lasts for 22 hours i.e. from nine in the evening to 7.00 o’clock next
evening. A very good use of this device is made to show simultaneous actions at
different places.
2. Another peculiarity is the ‘actors’ of the play. Each
one of them deserves a special mention. The author talks about the age of
‘children’, but there is no mention of the age of parents. The youngest is ‘one
year old’ Petya Perov. Then comes 8 years old Nina Serova, followed by Varya
Petrova, 17; Volodya Komarov, 25; Sonya Ostrova, 32; Misha Pestrov, 76; and
Dunya Shustrova, 82. It is interesting to note that the petronym of these
children is not the same, though they are the children of same father. But
order of the patronyms is rhythmic:
Petrov, Komarov, Pestrov; Serova, Petrova, Ostrova,
Shustrova.
The family, apart from these seven children and their
parents consists of servants and cooks as well. Among the other characters are
teachers of Latin and Greek.
It is clear that this family represents an old
aristocratic type of family, symbol of old, pre-Revolutionary Russia.
The plot in short is this:
The Puziryev family is waiting for a Christmas tree, which
is scheduled to be decorated the next day. The parents have gone to the
theatre. While the children are given bath in a common tub, some altercation
takes place between Sonya Ostrova and the maid. The maid cuts off the head of
the naughty girl and on the eve of Christmas the first death in the family
takes place. The maid is arrested, the Christmas tree is decorated and one by
one all the children, followed by their parents, die. Even the judges in the
court, where the murderer was tried, die. So, it is death and more death. Death
on the eve of Christmas! The Christmas tree, which symbolises birth, witnesses
so many deaths. But it is the old, aristocratic system that dies on the eve of
birth of something great – the new system. Even those who survive, like the
wood cutter and other servants, study and become teachers, this also conforms
to the changes that took place in the social system of Russia.
Some expressions are really startling. In the second scene
of first act are shown wood cutters who are cutting trees in the wood. The
scene begins with their song, but a little later the author explains that they
are dumb, and the song which they were singing happened just by chance! And
life is full of such accidents!
In the next scene the severed head, on witnessing the
melancholy scene around, comments:
HEAD: Body, did you
hear?
BODY: O HEAD, I did not hear anything. I don’t have ears.
But I have felt everything.
This is the description of those who don’t hear anything,
who remain indifferent to everything around them. The confession of Petya
Petrov is also similar: “I can’t speak. I speak by thoughts. I am little, I am
a fool, I don’t remember anything!” Such people, as we know, were in abundance
in the Society during the 30’s of XX century.
A.Vvedensky, shows his talent as a poet in many dialogues.
Some examples will show what sort of poetry he wrote:
Scene eight has this song, which the judges in the court
sing one by one:
Russian
Transliteration
Translation
Судим Sudim Judging
Будем Budem Shall be
Судить Sudit’ Judging
И будить I budit’ And waking
Людей. Lyudei People.
Несут Nesut Carrying
Суд Sud Judgement
И сосуд I sosud And vessel
На блюде Na blyude On a plate
Несут Nesut Carrying
На посуде Na posude In a dish
Судей Sudei Judges.
Seventh scene has this song by the dog VERA:
Я хожу вокруг гроба. I roam around the grave.
Я гляжу вокруг в оба. I look at both.
Это смерть – Это проба.
Here is death –
Here is trial.
-------------------- --------------
Жизнь дана в украшение. Life is given in decoration
Смерть дана в устраешение Death given in horror
Для чего же разрушениею. Why then this destruction?
The author has beautifully used proper nouns Kozlov and
Oslov with their common noun counterparts: (common nouns Kozlov means ‘goats’
and Oslov means ‘donkeys’):
Зимним вечером Козлов On a winter evening Kozlov
Щёл к реке купать козлов Took the goats to the river
Видит ществует Ослов Sees approaching Oslov
Он ведёт с реки ослов. Bringing donkeys from the river.
In the last pathetic scene, when one after the other all
the children are dying, Puzireva – the mother asks, “Is there a Sun behind the
window?” The question seems ridiculous how could the Sun be there at seven
o’clock in the evening in December, when “there is so much snow that you can
happily carry it in carts; (scene 2); but there is another contradiction to
this in scene 3, when, while describing the setting the author talks about a
candle flowing in the river! How could there be water on the surface of river
during December! So, it is clear that Puzireva’s question is not about the
presence of the Sun, it is about Hope and Optimism which could enable them to
live despite their sorrow. But Puzirev’s answer is not at all promising: “How
can there be a Sun, when it is still evening.” There is no indication of an
earlier end to this evening that has witnessed so many deaths at the same time!
The whole Puzirev family dies, two judges die ‘without waiting for Christmas’
and the remaining judges exclaim:
We are scared by two deaths.
A rare event – judge for yourself.
Obviously this refers to the purges of the 30’s when there
were deaths everywhere and people were always scared. They pretended not to
see, not to say anything. They pretended to be dumb and blind. This was really
the order of the day and Vvedensky in this absurd, incomprehensible manner
tried to depict the reality of the 30’s when while waiting for a new life, people
were dying without any complaint! As if they were waiting for their turn!
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें
टिप्पणी: केवल इस ब्लॉग का सदस्य टिप्पणी भेज सकता है.