Peculiarities:

• His first play became his first heartbreaking cry, appealing to the silent and unheard, preoccupied only with themselves and their own affairs. One of the characters, Jerry, at the beginning has to repeat the same phrase three times: “I was just at the zoo,” before another one heard him and responded, and the drama began. It is minimal, this drama, in all respects: both in length - up to an hour of playing time, and stage accessories - two garden benches in New York's Central Park, and the number of characters - there are two of them, i.e. exactly as much as is necessary for dialogue, for the most elementary communication, for the movement of the drama.
• It arises from Jerry’s seemingly naive, absurd, uncontrollable, obsessive desire to “talk for real,” and the scattering stream of his phrases, humorous, ironic, serious, defiant, ultimately overcomes Peter’s inattention, bewilderment, and wariness.
• The dialogue quickly reveals two models of relations with society, two characters, two social types.
• Peter is a 100% standard family American, and as such, according to current ideas of well-being, he has only two: two daughters, two televisions, two cats, two parrots. He works in a publishing house that produces textbooks, earns one and a half thousand a month, reads Time, wears glasses, smokes a pipe, “neither fat nor thin, neither handsome nor ugly,” he is like others in his circle.
• Peter represents that part of society that in America is called the “middle class”, more precisely, the upper - wealthy and enlightened - layer. He is happy with himself and the world; he is, as they say, integrated into the System.
• Jerry is a tired, dejected, sloppily dressed man, with all personal, family, and family ties cut off. He lives in some old house on the West Side, in a nasty hole, next to people like him, destitute and renegades. He, in his own words, is an “eternal temporary resident” in this house, society, world. The obsessiveness of the dirty and stupid landlady, this “vile parody of lust,” and the fierce hostility of her dog are the only signs of attention to him from those around him.
• Jerry, this lumpen intellectual, is by no means an extravagant figure: his alienated brethren densely populate the plays and novels of modern American authors. His fate is trivial and typical. At the same time, we discern in him the untapped potential of an extraordinary emotional nature, sensitive to everything ordinary and vulgar.
• Peter's indifferent philistine consciousness cannot perceive Jerry otherwise than by relating him to some generally accepted idea of ​​people - a robber? bohemian Greenwich Village denizen? Peter just can’t, doesn’t want to believe what this strange stranger is feverishly talking about. In the world of illusions, myths, and self-delusion in which Peter and others like him exist, there is no place for an unpleasant truth. Are facts better left to fiction, to literature? - Jerry says sadly. But he makes contact, revealing his guts to the random person he meets. Peter is taken aback, annoyed, intrigued, shocked. And the more unsightly the facts, the more strongly he resists them, the thicker the wall of misunderstanding against which Jerry hits. “A person must communicate somehow, at least with someone,” he fiercely convinces. “If not with people... then with something else... But if we are not given the opportunity to understand each other, then why did we even come up with the word “love”?”
• With this frankly polemical rhetorical question addressed to the preachers of abstract saving love, Albee completes his hero’s eight-page monologue, highlighted in the play as “The Story of Jerry and the Dog” and playing a key role in its ideological and artistic system. "History" reveals Albee's predilection for the monologue form as the most obvious way of expressing a character who is in a hurry to speak out, wanting to be listened to.
• In a preliminary remark, Albee indicates that the monologue should be “accompanied by almost continuous acting,” i.e. takes it beyond the limits of purely verbal communication. The very structure of Olbian paramonologues, which use various types of phonation and kinesics, their irregular rhythms, changes in intonation, pauses and repetitions, are intended to reveal the insufficiency of language as a means of communication.
• From the point of view of content, “The Story” is both an experiment in communication that Jerry puts on himself and the dog, and an analysis by the playwright of forms of behavior and feelings - from love to hatred and violence, and, as a result, an approximate model of human relations that will vary, clarify, turn with new and new facets, but will never achieve the integrity of the worldview and artistic concept. Albee's mind moves like Jerry did from the zoo, taking a big detour every now and then. At the same time, the problem of alienation undergoes changes; it is interpreted as concrete social, abstract moral, existential-metaphysical.
• Of course, Jerry's monologue is not a thesis or a sermon, it is a sad and bitter story of the hero about himself, whose insight is not conveyed in printed text, a parabolic story where the dog, like the mythological Cerberus, embodies the evil that exists in the world. You can adapt to it or try to overcome it.
• In the dramatic structure of the play, Jerry's monologue is his last attempt to convince Peter - and the audience - of the need for understanding between people, of the need to overcome isolation. The attempt fails. It’s not that Peter doesn’t want to, he can’t understand Jerry, or the story with the dog, or his obsession, or what others need: repeating “I don’t understand” three times only betrays his passive confusion. He cannot abandon the usual value system. Albee uses the technique of absurdity and farce. Jerry begins to openly insult Peter, tickling him and pinching him, pushing him off the bench, slapping him, spitting in his face, forcing him to pick up the knife he threw. And finally, the final argument in this fight for contact, the last desperate gesture of an alienated person - Jerry himself impales himself on a knife, which Peter, in fear and in self-defense, grabbed. The result, where the normal “I - you” relationship is replaced by the “killer - victim” connection, is terrible and absurd. The call for human communication is permeated with disbelief in the possibility, if not the affirmation of the impossibility of such communication, except through suffering and death. This bad dialectic of the impossible and the inevitable, in which the provisions of existentialism, which is the philosophical justification of anti-art, are distinguishable, offers neither a substantive nor a formal resolution of the dramatic situation and greatly weakens the humanistic pathos of the play.

• The strength of the play, of course, is not in the artistic analysis of alienation as a socio-psychological phenomenon, but in the very picture of this monstrous alienation, which is acutely realized by the subject, which gives the play a distinctly tragic sound. The well-known conventionality and approximate nature of this picture is complemented by a merciless satirical denunciation of the deaf pseudo-intelligent philistinism, brilliantly personified in the image of Peter. The tragic and satirical nature of the picture shown by Albee allows us to draw a certain moral lesson.

• However, what actually happened at the zoo? Throughout the play, Jerry tries to talk about the zoo, but every time his feverish thought flies away. Gradually, from scattered references, an analogy emerges between a zoo and a world where everyone is “fenced off by bars” from each other. The world as a prison or as a menagerie are the most characteristic images of modernist literature, betraying the mindset of the modern bourgeois intellectual (“We are all locked in the solitary confinement of our own skin,” remarks one of Tennessee Williams’ characters). Albee, through the entire structure of the play, asks the question: why are people in America so divided that they cease to understand each other, although they seem to speak the same language. Jerry is lost in the jungle of a big city, in the jungle of a society where there is a constant struggle to survive. This society is divided by partitions. On one side are comfortable and complacent conformists, such as Peter, with his “own little zoo” - parrots and cats, which from a “plant” turns into an “animal” as soon as an outsider encroaches on his bench (= property). On the other hand, there is a crowd of unfortunates, locked in their closets and forced to lead an animal existence unworthy of a human being. That’s why Jerry went to the zoo to once again “take a closer look at how people behave with animals and how animals behave with each other and with people too.” He exactly repeated the path of his direct ancestor O’Nil’s fireman Yank (“Shaggy Monkey”, 1922), “an instinctive worker-anarchist doomed to collapse,” as A.V. Lunacharsky noted, who threw down a fruitless challenge to the mechanical bourgeois crowd and also tried understand the measure of human relationships through the inhabitants of the menagerie. By the way, the expressionistic texture of this and other O'Neill dramas of those years provides the key to many moments in Albee's plays.

• The obvious, but requiring several levels of analysis, ambiguity of the metaphorical image of the zoo, deployed throughout the text and collected in the broad and capacious title “The Zoo Story,” excludes an unambiguous answer to the question of what happened at the zoo.

• And the final conclusion from this whole “zoological story” is, perhaps, that the face of the dead Jerry - and the playwright clearly hints at this - will inevitably appear before the eyes of Peter who fled the scene whenever he sees it on a television screen or newspaper page violence and cruelty, causing at least pangs of conscience, if not a sense of personal responsibility for the evil that is happening in the world. Without this humanistic perspective, which assumes the civic responsiveness of the reader or viewer, everything that happened in Albee's play will remain incomprehensible and far-fetched.

Peter

about forty years old, neither fat nor thin, neither handsome nor ugly. He wears a tweed suit and horn-rimmed glasses. Smoking a pipe. And although he is, so to speak, already entering middle age, his clothing style and demeanor are almost youthful.

Jerry

about forty years old, dressed not so much poorly as sloppily. The once toned, muscular figure begins to grow fat. Now he cannot be called beautiful, but traces of his former attractiveness are still visible quite clearly. The heavy gait and sluggish movements are not explained by promiscuity; If you look closely, you can see that this man is immensely tired.

Central Park in New York; summer sunday. Two garden benches on both sides of the stage, behind them are bushes, trees, the sky. Peter is sitting on the right bench. He is reading a book. He puts the book on his lap, wipes his glasses and goes back to reading. Jerry enters.

Jerry. I was now at the zoo.

Peter doesn't pay attention to him.

I say, I was just at the zoo. MISTER, I WAS AT THE ZOO!

Peter. Eh?.. What?.. Excuse me, are you telling me?..

Jerry. I was at the zoo, then I walked until I ended up here. Tell me, did I go north?

Peter (puzzled). To the north?.. Yes... Probably. Let me figure it out.

Jerry (points a finger into the audience). Is this Fifth Avenue?

Peter. This? Yes of course.

Jerry. What kind of street is this that crosses it? That one on the right?

Peter. The one over there? Oh, this is the Seventy-four.

Jerry. And the zoo is near Sixty-fifth, which means I was going north.

Peter (he can't wait to get back to reading). Yes, apparently so.

Jerry. Good old north.

Peter (almost mechanically). Haha.

Jerry (after a pause). But not directly north.

Peter. I... Well, yes, not directly north. So to speak, in a northern direction.

Jerry (watches as Peter, trying to get rid of him, fills his pipe). Do you want to give yourself lung cancer?

Peter (not without irritation he glances at him, but then smiles). No sir. You won't make any money from this.

Jerry. That's right, sir. Most likely, you will get cancer in your mouth and you will have to insert something like Freud had after he had half his jaw removed. What are they called, these things?

Peter (reluctantly). Prosthesis?

Jerry. Exactly! Prosthesis. You are an educated person, aren't you? Are you by any chance a doctor?

Peter. No, I just read about it somewhere. I think it was in Time magazine. (Takes up the book.)

Jerry. In my opinion, Time magazine is not for idiots.

Peter. I think so too.

Jerry (after a pause). It's very good that Fifth Avenue is there.

Peter (absently). Yes.

Jerry. I can't stand the western part of the park.

Peter. Yes? (Carefully, but with a glimmer of interest.) Why?

Jerry (casually). I don't know myself.

Peter. A! (He buried himself in the book again.)

Jerry (looks at Peter silently until Peter, embarrassed, looks up at him). Maybe we should talk? Or don't you want to?

Peter (with obvious reluctance). No... why not?

Jerry. I see you don't want to.

Peter (puts down the book, takes the pipe out of his mouth. Smiling). No, really, it’s my pleasure.

Jerry. It's not worth it if you don't want to.

Peter (finally decisively). Not at all, I'm very happy.

Jerry. What's his name... Today is a nice day.

Peter (looking at the sky unnecessarily). Yes. Very nice. Wonderful.

Jerry. And I was at the zoo.

Peter. Yes, I think you already said... didn't you?

Jerry. Tomorrow you will read about it in the newspapers, if you don’t see it on TV in the evening. You probably have a TV?

Peter. Even two - one for children.

Jerry. Are you married?

Peter (with dignity). Of course!

Jerry. Nowhere, thank God, does it say that this is mandatory.

Peter. Yes... that's of course...

Jerry. So you have a wife.

Peter (not knowing how to continue this conversation). Well, yes!

Jerry. And you have children!

Peter. Yes. Two.

Jerry. Boys?

Peter. No, girls... both are girls.

Jerry. But you wanted boys.

Peter. Well... naturally, every person wants to have a son, but...

Jerry (a little mockingly). But that's how dreams are crushed, right?

Peter (with irritation). That's not what I wanted to say at all!

Jerry. And you're not going to have any more children?

Peter (absently). No. No more. (When I woke up, I would be annoyed.) How did you find out?

Jerry. Maybe it’s the way you cross your legs, or something in your voice. Or maybe he guessed it by accident. The wife doesn't want it, right?

Peter (furiously). None of your business!

Pause.

Jerry nods. Peter calms down.

Well, that's true. We won't have any more children.

Jerry (soft). This is how dreams fall apart.

Peter (forgiving him for this). Yes... perhaps you're right.

Jerry. Well... What else?

Peter. What were you saying about the zoo... what will I read or see about it?..

Jerry. I'll tell you later. Aren't you angry that I'm asking you questions?

Peter. Oh, not at all.

Jerry. Do you know why I pester you? I rarely have to talk to people, unless you say: give me a glass of beer, or: where is the restroom, or: when does the show start, or: keep your hands free, buddy, and so on. In general, you know.

Peter. Honestly, I don't know.

Jerry. But sometimes you want to talk to a person - to really talk; I want to know everything about him...

Peter (laughs, still feeling awkward). And today your guinea pig is me?

Jerry. On such a thoroughly sunny Sunday afternoon, there is nothing better than talking to a decent married man who has two daughters and... uh... a dog?

Peter shakes his head.

No? Two dogs?

Peter shakes his head.

Hm. No dogs at all?

Peter shakes his head sadly.

Well, this is strange! As far as I understand, you must love animals. Cat?

Peter nods sadly.

Cats! But it can’t be that you did it of your own free will... Wife and daughters?

Peter nods.

Curious, do you have anything else?

Peter (he has to clear his throat). There are... there are two more parrots. ... um ... each daughter has one.

Jerry. Birds.

Peter. They live in a cage in my girls' room.

Jerry. Are they sick with something?.. Birds, that is.

For stylistic analysis, we took an excerpt from the play, which, when staged, will be interpreted in one way or another by the actors involved in it, each of whom will add something of their own to the images created by Albee. However, such variability in the perception of the work is limited, since the main characteristics of the characters, the manner of their speech, the atmosphere of the work can be traced directly in the text of the play: these can be the author’s remarks regarding the utterance of individual phrases or movements accompanying the speech (for example, , or , as well as the speech itself , its graphic, phonetic, lexical and syntactic design. It is the analysis of such design, aimed at identifying similar characteristics expressed by various stylistic means, that is the main goal of our research.

The analyzed episode is a spontaneous, expressive, dialogic monologue characteristic of Albee, with strong emotional intensity. The dialogic nature of Jerry's monologue implies that it is addressed to Peter; the whole story is told as if a dialogue is being conducted between these two people with Peter's silent participation in it. The conversational style, in particular, is proof of this.

Based on the results of a preliminary analysis of the selected passage, we compiled a comparative table of the stylistic devices used in it, ranking them by frequency of use in the text.

Frequency of use of stylistic devices

Name of stylistic device	Number of uses	Percentage of use
Conversational style markers
Auxiliary verb reduction
Phrasal verb
Onomatopoeia
Interjection
Other conversational style markers
Aposiopesis
Lexical repetition
Alliteration
Parallel design
Union with the emphatic function
Ellipsis
Graphic deviation
Exclamation
Metaphor
grammatical deviation
A rhetorical question
Antithesis
Polysindeton
Oxymoron

As can be seen from the table above, the most widely used stylistic devices are conversational style markers, aposiopesis, lexical repetitions, alliteration, epithets, as well as parallel constructions.

As a separate item in the table, we have highlighted conversational style markers, which are very diverse in nature, but united by the common function of creating an atmosphere of informal communication. Quantitatively, there were more such markers than other means, but we can hardly consider Jerry’s colloquial style of speech as the leading trend in the stylistic design of the text; rather, it is the background against which other trends appear with greater intensity. However, in our opinion, the choice of this particular style is stylistically relevant, so we will consider it in detail.

The colloquial literary style to which this passage belongs was chosen by the author, in our opinion, in order to bring Jerry’s speech closer to reality, to show his excitement when delivering the speech, and also to emphasize its dialogical nature, and therefore Jerry’s attempt to “talk.” present”, to establish a relationship with a person. The text uses numerous markers of conversational style, which can be attributed to two interdependent and at the same time contradictory trends - the tendency towards redundancy and the tendency towards compression. The first is expressed by the presence of such “weedy” words as “I think I told you”, “yes”, “what I mean is”, “you know”, “sort of”, “well”. These words create the impression that speech is characterized by uneven speed of pronunciation: Jerry seems to slow down his speech a little at these words, perhaps to emphasize the following words (as, for example, in the case of “what I mean is”) or in an attempt to gather your thoughts. In addition, they, along with such colloquial expressions as “half-assed”, “kicked free”, “that was that” or “bolted upstairs”, add spontaneity, spontaneity and, of course, emotionality to Jerry’s monologue.

The tendency towards compression, characteristic of the colloquial style, manifests itself in various ways at the phonetic, lexical and syntactic levels of the language. The use of a truncated form, that is, reduction of auxiliary verbs, for example “it”s”, “there”s”, “don”t”, “wasn”t” and others, is a characteristic feature of colloquial speech and once again emphasizes Jerry’s informal tone. From a lexical point of view, the phenomenon of compression can be examined using the example of the use of such phrasal verbs as “go for”, “got away”, “went on”, “pack up”, “tore into”, “got back”, “threw away”, "thought about it up". They create an informal communication environment, revealing the closeness expressed in language between the participants in communication, contrasting with the lack of internal closeness between them. It seems to us that in this way Jerry seeks to create conditions for a frank conversation, for confession, for which formality and neutral coldness are unacceptable, since we are talking about the most important, the most intimate for the hero.

At the syntactic level, compression finds expression in elliptical constructions. For example, in the text we encounter sentences such as “Like this: Grrrrrrr!” "Like so!" “Cosy.”, which have great emotional potential, which, realized together with other stylistic means, conveys Jerry’s excitement, abruptness and sensual fullness of his speech.

Before moving on to a step-by-step analysis of the text, we note, based on the data of quantitative analysis, the presence of some leading trends inherent in the monologue of the main character. These include: repetition of elements at the phonetic (alliteration), lexical (lexical repetition) and syntactic (parallelism) levels, increased emotionality, expressed primarily by aposiopesis, as well as rhythmicity, not reflected in the table, but largely inherent in the text under consideration . We will refer to these three nuclear trends throughout the analysis.

So, let's turn to a detailed analysis of the text. From the very beginning of Jerry's story, the reader is prepared for something significant, since Jerry himself considers it necessary to title his story, thereby separating it from the entire conversation into a separate story. According to the author's remark, he pronounces this title as if reading the inscription on a billboard - "THE STORY OF JERRY AND THE DOG!" The graphic organization of this phrase, namely its design in capital letters only and an exclamation mark at the end, somewhat clarifies the remark - each word is pronounced loudly, clearly, solemnly, prominently. It seems to us that this solemnity takes on a tinge of ironic pathos, since the sublime form does not coincide with the mundane content. On the other hand, the title itself looks more like the title of a fairy tale, which correlates with Jerry's address to Peter at a certain moment as a child who can't wait to find out what happened at the zoo: "JERRY: because after I tell you about the dog, do you know what then? Then. then I"ll tell you about what happened at the zoo."

Despite the fact that, as we noted, this text belongs to a conversational style, which is characterized by simplicity of syntactic structures, already the first sentence is a very confusing set of words: “What I am going to tell you has something to do with how sometimes it "s necessary to go a long distance out of the way in order to come back a short distance correctly; or, maybe I only think that it has something to do with that." The presence of words such as “something”, “sometimes”, “maybe” gives the phrase a shade of uncertainty, vagueness, and abstractness. The hero seems to be responding with this sentence to his thoughts that were not expressed, which can explain the beginning of the next sentence with the emphatic conjunction “but”, which interrupts his reasoning, returning directly to the story. It should be noted that this sentence contains two parallel constructions, the first of which is “has something to do.” with" frames the second "to go a long distance out of the way in order to come back a short distance correctly". The first construction is a repetition at both the syntactic and lexical, and therefore at the phonetic levels. Its identity reverses the reader's attention to the preceding elements of the phrase, namely “what I am going to tell you” and “maybe I only think that it”, and encourages us to compare them. When comparing these elements, we observe Jerry’s loss of confidence that he understood correctly. meaning of what happened to him, doubt is heard in his voice, which he tries to suppress by starting a new thought. The conscious interruption of reflection is clearly felt in the initial “but” of the next sentence.

Other parallel constructions of the second sentence can be summarized by the following model "go / come back (verbs, both expressing movement, but in a different direction) + a + long / short (antonymous definitions) + distance + out of way / correctly (adverbs of manner, which are contextual antonyms)". As we can see, these two identically constructed phrases are contrasted in their lexical meaning, which creates a stylistic effect: the reader thinks about the statement made and looks for the implied meaning in it. We don’t yet know what will be discussed next, but we can guess that this expression may be two-dimensional, because the word “distance” can mean both the real distance between objects of reality (for example, to the zoo) and a segment of life’s path. Thus, although we do not understand what exactly Jerry meant, we, based on the syntactic and lexical emphasis, feel the parting tone of the phrase and can assert the undoubted importance of this thought for Jerry himself. The second sentence, mainly due to its similarity in tone and construction with folk wisdom or a saying, can be perceived as the subtitle of a story about a dog, revealing its main idea.

Already in the example of this sentence, we can observe the creation of rhythm using a complex system of lexical and syntactic repetitions. The rhythm of Jerry's entire monologue, based on various types of repetition and alternation of tension and relaxation of his speech, gives the text emotional appeal, literally hypnotizing the reader. In this case, rhythm is also a means of creating integrity and coherence of the text.

Using the following sentence as an example, it is interesting to consider the stylistic function of using ellipses, since they will appear more than once in the text. Jerry says that he walked north, then - a pause (ellipsis), and he corrects himself - in a northern direction, again a pause (ellipsis): "I walked north. northerly, rather. until I came here." In our opinion, in this context, ellipsis is a graphic way of expressing aposiopesis. We can imagine that Jerry sometimes stops and collects his thoughts, trying to remember exactly how he walked, as if much depends on it; In addition, he is, in all likelihood, in a state of strong emotional upsurge, excitement, like a person telling something extremely important to him, and therefore often gets confused, unable to speak from excitement.

In this sentence, in addition to aposiopesis, one can also distinguish partial lexical repetition (“north ... northerly”), parallel constructions (“it”s why I went to the zoo today, and why I walked north”) and two cases of alliteration (repetition of the consonant sound [t] and a long vowel [o:]). Two equivalent syntactic structures that differ from a phonetic point of view in the sound characteristic of each of them - an explosive, decisive [t] or a long deep sound of the back row of the lower rise [o:], connected by the conjunction “and”. It seems to us that such instrumentation of the statement creates a certain contrast between the speed and inflexibility of Jerry’s decision to go to the zoo (sound [t]) and the length of his road in the north direction (sounds [o:] and [n]), emphasized by partial lexical repetition. Thanks to the convergence of the listed stylistic devices and figures, their mutual clarification, the following picture is created: as a result of thinking about the situation that Jerry is going to talk about, he decides to go to the zoo, and this decision is characterized by spontaneity and some abruptness, and then wanders slowly in a northerly direction, perhaps hoping to meet someone.

With the words “All right”, which have a functional and stylistic connotation that relates them to colloquial speech, the author begins the creation of one of the key images of the play - the image of a dog. Let's look at it in detail. The first characteristic that Jerry gives to the dog is expressed by the inverted epithet “a black monster of a beast”, where the denoted is “beast”, that is, the dog denoting “black monster”, the basis of comparison, in our opinion, is the formidable, possibly sinister looking animal with black fur. It should be noted that the word beast has a bookish connotation and, according to the Longman Exams Coach dictionary, contains the semes “big” and “dangerous” (“an animal, especially a large or dangerous one”), which, undoubtedly, together with the expressiveness of the word “monster” , adds expressiveness to the designated epithet.

Then, after a general definition, the author reveals the image of a black monster, clarifies it with expressive details: “an oversized head, tiny, tiny ears, and eyes. bloodshot, infected, maybe; and a body you can see the ribs through the skin.” Placed after a colon, these nouns can be interpreted as a series of homogeneous direct objects, but because there is no verb to which they could refer (suppose the beginning might be "he had an oversized head..."), they are perceived as a series name sentences. This creates a visual effect, increases the expressiveness and emotionality of the phrase, and also plays a significant role in creating a rhythmic pattern. The double use of the conjunction “and” allows us to speak of polysyndeton, which smoothes out the completeness of the enumeration, making a series of homogeneous members seem open, and at the same time fixes attention on each of the elements of this series. Thus, it seems that the dog is not fully described; there is still a lot that would be worth talking about in order to complete the picture of the terrible black monster. Thanks to polysyndeton and the absence of a generalizing verb, a strong position is created for the elements of enumeration, psychologically especially noticeable for the reader, which is also strengthened by the presence of alliteration, represented by a repeating sound in the words oversized, tiny, eyes.

Let us consider the four elements thus identified, each of which is specified by a definition. The head is described using the epithet "oversized", in which the prefix "over-" means "over-", that is, it gives the impression of a disproportionately large head, contrasting with the tiny ears described by the repeated epithet "tiny". The word “tiny” itself means something very small and is translated into Russian as “miniature, tiny”, but reinforced by repetition, it makes the dog’s ears unusually, fabulously small, which strengthens the already sharp contrast with a huge head, framed by antithesis.

The eyes are described as “bloodshot, infected”, and it should be noted that both of these epithets are in postposition to the word being defined after the aposiopesis marked with an ellipsis, which enhances their expressiveness. "Bloodshot", that is, filled with blood, implies red, one of the dominant colors, as we will see later, in the description of the animal, thus, it seems to us, the effect of its similarity with the hellish dog Cerberus, guarding the gates of hell, is achieved. In addition, although Jerry clarifies that perhaps the cause is an infection, bloodshot eyes are still associated with anger, rage, and to some extent, madness.

The convergence of stylistic devices in this short segment of text allows us to create an image of a crazy, aggressive dog, the absurdity and absurdity of which, expressed by the antithesis, immediately catches the eye.

I would like to once again draw attention to how masterfully Albee creates a tangible rhythm in his prose. At the end of the sentence in question, the dog’s body is described using the attributive clause “you can see the ribs through the skin,” which is not connected to the attributive word “body” by a conjunction or allied word, thus the rhythm specified at the beginning of the sentence is not violated.

The black-red palette when describing the dog is emphasized by the author with the help of lexical repetitions and alliteration in the following sentence: “The dog is black, all black; all black except for the bloodshot eyes, and. yes. and an open sore on its. right forepaw; that is red, too." The sentence is divided into two parts not only by ellipses expressing aposiopesis, but also by various alliterations: in the first case, these are repeated consonant sounds, in the second, a vowel sound. The first part repeats what the reader already knew, but with greater expressiveness created by the lexical repetition of the word “black”. In the second, after some pause and a double “and”, creating tension in the statement, a new detail is introduced, which, thanks to the reader’s preparation by the previous phrase, is perceived very brightly - a red wound on the right paw.

It should be noted that here we are again faced with an analogue of a nominal sentence, that is, the existence of this wound is stated, but there is no indication of its connection with the dog, it exists as if separately. Creating the same effect is achieved in the phrase “there’s a grey-yellow-white color, too, when he bares his fangs.” The very syntactic construction like “there is / there are” implies the existence of an object / phenomenon in some area of ​​space or time, color “exists” here, which makes this color something separate, independent of its wearer. Such “separateness” of details does not interfere with the perception of the dog as a holistic image, but gives it greater prominence and expressiveness.

The epithet “grey-yellow-white” defines the color as blurry, unclear in comparison with the bright saturation of the previous ones (black, red). It is interesting to note that this epithet, despite its complexity, sounds like one word and is pronounced in one breath, thus describing the color not as a combination of several shades, but as one specific, understandable to every reader, color of the animal’s fangs, covered with a yellowish coating. This is achieved, in our opinion, by smooth phonetic transitions from stem to stem: the stem gray ends with the sound [j], from which the next one begins, yellow, the final diphthong of which practically merges with the subsequent [w] in the word white.

Jerry is very excited when telling this story, which is expressed in the confusion and increasing emotionality of his speech. The author shows this through the extensive use of aposiopesis, the use of colloquial inclusions with interjection, such as “oh, yes,” emphatic conjunctions “and” at the beginning of sentences, as well as onomatopoeia, formed into the exclamatory sentence “Grrrrrrrr!”

Albee practically does not use metaphors in the monologue of his main character; in the analyzed passage we encountered only two cases, one of which is an example of an erased linguistic metaphor (“trouser leg”), and the second (“monster”) refers to the creation of the image of a dog and in to some extent repeats the already mentioned inverted epithet (“monster of the beast”). The use of the same word “monster” is a means of maintaining the internal integrity of the text, as, in general, is any repetition accessible to the reader’s perception. However, its contextual meaning is somewhat different: in an epithet, due to combination with the word beast, it takes on the meaning of something negative, frightening, while in a metaphor, when combined with the epithet “poor”, the absurdity, incongruity and sick state of the animal comes to the fore , this image is also supported by the explanatory epithets “old” and “misused”. Jerry is confident that the dog's current condition is the result of people's bad attitude towards him, and not manifestations of his character, that, in essence, the dog is not to blame for the fact that he is so scary and pathetic (the word "misused" can be translated literally as " incorrectly used", this is the second participle, which means it has a passive meaning). This confidence is expressed by the adverb “certainly”, as well as the emphatic auxiliary verb “do” before the word “believe”, which violates the usual pattern of constructing an affirmative sentence, thereby making it unusual for the reader, and therefore more expressive.

It is curious that a significant part of the pauses occur precisely in that part of the story where Jerry describes the dog - 8 out of 17 cases of the use of aposiopesis came across us in this relatively small segment of the text. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, starting his confession, the main character is very excited, first of all, by his decision to express everything, so his speech is confusing and a little illogical, and only then, gradually, this excitement smoothes out. One can also assume that the very memory of this dog, which once meant so much for Jerry’s worldview, excites him, which is reflected directly in his speech.

Thus, the key image of the dog is created by the author using “colored” language frames, each of which reflects one of its features. The mixture of black, red and gray-yellow-white is associated with a mixture of menacing, incomprehensible (black), aggressive, furious, hellish, sick (red) and old, spoiled, “misused” (gray-yellow-white). A very emotional, confusing description of the dog is created with the help of pauses, emphatic conjunctions, nominative constructions, as well as all kinds of repetitions.

If at the beginning of the story the dog seemed to us to be a black monster with red, inflamed eyes, then gradually he begins to acquire almost human features: it is not for nothing that Jerry uses the pronoun “he” in relation to him, not “it”, and at the end of the analyzed text to mean “muzzle” " uses the word "face" ("He turned his face back to the hamburgers"). Thus, the line between animals and humans is erased, they are placed on the same level, which is supported by the character’s phrase “animals are indifferent to me... like people.” The case of aposiopesis presented here is caused, in our opinion, not by excitement, but by the desire to emphasize this sad fact of the similarity of people and animals, their internal distance from all living beings, which leads us to the problem of alienation in general.

The phrase “like Saint Francis had birds hanging off him all the time” is highlighted by us as a historical allusion, but it can be considered both as a comparison and as irony, since here Jerry contrasts himself with Francis of Assisi, one of the most revered Catholic saints, but uses for him descriptions of the colloquial verb “hang off” and the exaggerated “all the time”, that is, they detract from the serious content with a frivolous form of expression, which creates a somewhat ironic effect. The allusion enhances the expressiveness of the conveyed idea of ​​Jerry’s alienation, and also performs a characterological function, describing the main character as a fairly educated person.

From the generalization, Jerry returns to his story again, and again, as in the third sentence, as if interrupting his thoughts out loud, he uses the emphatic conjunction “but”, after which he begins to talk about the dog. The following is a description of how the interaction between the dog and the main character took place. It is necessary to note the dynamism and rhythm of this description, created with the help of lexical repetitions (such as “stumbly dog ​​... stumbly run”, as well as the verb “got” repeated four times), alliteration (the sound [g] in the phrase “go for me, to get one of my legs") and a parallel construction ("He got a piece of my trouser leg... he got that..."). The predominance of voiced consonants (101 out of 156 consonants in the segment “From the very beginning ... so that was that”) also creates a feeling of dynamics and liveliness of the narrative.

There is a curious play on words with the lexeme “leg”: the dog intended “to get one of my legs”, but the result was that he “got a piece of my trouser leg”. As you can see, the constructions are almost identical, which creates the feeling that the dog has finally achieved his goal, but the word “leg” is used in the second case in the metaphorical sense of “trouser leg,” which is clarified by the subsequent verb “mended.” Thus, on the one hand, the coherence of the text is achieved, and on the other hand, the smoothness and consistency of perception is disrupted, to some extent irritating the reader or viewer.

Trying to describe the way the dog moved when it pounced on him, Jerry goes through several epithets, trying to find the right one: “Not like he was rabid, you know; he was sort of a stumbly dog, but he wasn’t half-assed, either. It was a good, stumbly run...” As we see, the hero is trying to find something in between “rabid” and “half-assed”, so he introduces the neologism “stumbly”, implying, in all likelihood, a slightly stumbling, uncertain gait or run (conclusion that the word “stumbly” is an author’s neologism was made by us on the basis of its absence in the dictionary Longman Exams Coach, UK, 2006). gaits to the entire object. The repetition of this epithet with different nouns within two closely spaced sentences is, in our opinion, the purpose of clarifying its meaning, making the use of the newly introduced word transparent, and also focusing the reader’s attention on it, since it is important for characterizing the dog, him. disproportionate, absurd.

The phrase "Cosy. So." we defined it as an ellipsis, since in this case the omission of the main members of the sentence seems undoubted. However, it should be noted that it cannot be supplemented from the surrounding context or based on linguistic experience. Such fragmentary impressions of the main character, not related to the context, once again emphasize the confusion of his speech, and, in addition, confirm our idea that he sometimes seems to be responding to his thoughts, hidden from the reader.

olby monologue stylistic device

The following sentence is an example of double alliteration, created by the repetition of two consonant sounds [w] and [v] in one segment of speech. Since these sounds are different in both quality and place of articulation, but sound similar, the sentence is a bit like a tongue twister or saying, in which the deep meaning is framed in an easy-to-remember, attention-grabbing form. Particularly noticeable is the pair “whenever” - “never when”, both elements of which consist of almost identical sounds, arranged in different sequences. It seems to us that this phonetically confusing phrase, which has a slightly ironic overtone, serves to express the confusion and confusion, chaoticity and absurdity of the situation that developed between Jerry and the dog. She sets up the next statement, “That’s funny,” but Jerry immediately corrects himself: “Or, it was funny.” Thanks to this lexical repetition, framed in equivalent syntactic constructions with different tenses of the verb “to be,” the tragedy of that very thing becomes obvious to the reader. a situation that once upon a time could have been laughed at. The expressiveness of this expression is based on a sharp transition from a light, frivolous to a serious perception of what happened. It seems that a lot of time has passed since then, a lot has changed, including Jerry’s attitude to life. .

The sentence “I decided: First, I”ll kill the dog with kindness, and if that doesn’t work. I”ll just kill him.”, expressing the main character’s train of thought, requires special consideration. As we can see, thanks to the convergence of stylistic devices, such as lexical repetition, oxymoron (“kill with kindness”), parallel constructions, aposiopesis, as well as phonetic similarity of expressions, this sentence becomes stylistically striking, thereby drawing the reader’s attention to its semantic content. It should be noted that the word “kill” is repeated. twice in approximately similar syntactic positions, but with a semantic variation: in the first case we are dealing with the figurative meaning of this verb, which can be expressed in Russian “to amaze, delight”, and in the second - with its direct meaning “to deprive of life”. Having reached the second “kill”, the reader automatically in the first split second perceives it in the same softened figurative meaning as the previous one, therefore, when he realizes the true meaning of this word, the effect of the direct meaning is intensified many times over, it shocks both Peter and the audience or readers. In addition, the aposiopesis that precedes the second “kill” emphasizes the words that follow it, further exacerbating their impact.

Rhythm, as a means of organizing the text, allows us to achieve its integrity and better perception by the reader. A clear rhythmic pattern can be seen, for example, in the following sentence: “So, the next day I went out and bought a bag of hamburgers, medium rare, no catsup, no onion.” It is obvious that here the rhythm is created through the use of alliteration (sounds [b] and [g]), syntactic repetition, as well as the general brevity of the construction of subordinate clauses (meaning the absence of conjunctions, it could be like this: “which are of medium rare” or "in which there"s no catsup."). Rhythm allows you to more vividly convey the dynamics of the described actions.

We have already looked at repetition as a means of creating rhythm and maintaining the integrity of the text, but the functions of repetition are not limited to this. For example, in the phrase "When I got back to the rooming-house the dog was waiting for me. I half opened the door that led into the entrance hall, and there he was; waiting for me." the repetition of the element “waiting for me” gives the reader a feeling of building anticipation, as if the dog had been waiting for the main character for a long time. In addition, one feels the inevitability of the meeting, the tension of the situation.

The last point I would like to highlight is the description of the actions of the dog to whom Jerry offers hamburger meat. To create dynamics, the author uses lexical repetitions (“snarled”, “then faster”), alliteration of the sound [s], combining all actions into one uninterrupted chain, as well as syntactic organization - rows of homogeneous predicates connected by a non-union connection. It’s interesting to see what verbs Jerry uses to describe the dog’s reaction: “snarled”, “stopped snarling”, “sniffed”, “moved slowly”, “looked at me”, “turned his face”, “smelled”, “sniffed”, "tore into". As we can see, the most expressive of the presented phrasal verbs “tore into”, standing after the onomatopoeia and highlighted by a pause preceding it, completes the description, most likely characterizing the wild nature of the dog. Due to the fact that the previous verbs, with the exception of “looked at me,” contain a fricative [s], they are combined in our minds as preparation verbs and thus express the dog’s caution, perhaps his distrust of the stranger, but at the same time we feel a burning desire in him to eat the meat offered to him as quickly as possible, which is expressed by the repeated impatient “then faster.” Thus, judging by the design of the last sentences of our analysis, we can come to the conclusion that, despite his hunger and his “wildness,” the dog is still very wary of the treat offered by a stranger. That is, no matter how strange it may seem, he is afraid. This fact is significant from the point of view that alienation between living beings can be maintained by fear. According to the text, we can say that Jerry and the dog are afraid of each other, so understanding between them is impossible.

So, since repeating meanings and stylistic devices turn out to be the most important stylistically, based on the analysis we can conclude that the main trends used by Edward Albee to organize the monologue speech of the main character are all kinds of repetitions at different linguistic levels, the rhythm of speech with its alternation of tense moments and relaxations, emotionally charged pauses and a system of interconnected epithets.

Edward Albee

What happened at the zoo

Play in one act

CHARACTERS

Peter

about forty years old, neither fat nor thin, neither handsome nor ugly. He wears a tweed suit and horn-rimmed glasses. Smoking a pipe. And although he is, so to speak, already entering middle age, his clothing style and demeanor are almost youthful.

Jerry

about forty years old, dressed not so much poorly as sloppily. The once toned, muscular figure begins to grow fat. Now he cannot be called beautiful, but traces of his former attractiveness are still visible quite clearly. The heavy gait and sluggish movements are not explained by promiscuity; If you look closely, you can see that this man is immensely tired.

Central Park in New York; summer sunday. Two garden benches on both sides of the stage, behind them are bushes, trees, the sky. Peter is sitting on the right bench. He is reading a book. He puts the book on his lap, wipes his glasses and goes back to reading. Jerry enters.

Jerry. I was now at the zoo.

Peter doesn't pay attention to him.

I say, I was just at the zoo. MISTER, I WAS AT THE ZOO!

Peter. Eh?.. What?.. Excuse me, are you telling me?..

Jerry. I was at the zoo, then I walked until I ended up here. Tell me, did I go north?

Peter (puzzled). To the north?.. Yes... Probably. Let me figure it out.

Jerry (points a finger into the audience). Is this Fifth Avenue?

Peter. This? Yes of course.

Jerry. What kind of street is this that crosses it? That one on the right?

Peter. The one over there? Oh, this is the Seventy-four.

Jerry. And the zoo is near Sixty-fifth, which means I was going north.

Peter (he can't wait to get back to reading). Yes, apparently so.

Jerry. Good old north.

Peter (almost mechanically). Haha.

Jerry (after a pause). But not directly north.

Peter. I... Well, yes, not directly north. So to speak, in a northern direction.

Jerry (watches as Peter, trying to get rid of him, fills his pipe). Do you want to give yourself lung cancer?

Peter (not without irritation he glances at him, but then smiles). No sir. You won't make any money from this.

Jerry. That's right, sir. Most likely, you will get cancer in your mouth and you will have to insert something like Freud had after he had half his jaw removed. What are they called, these things?

Peter (reluctantly). Prosthesis?

Jerry. Exactly! Prosthesis. You are an educated person, aren't you? Are you by any chance a doctor?

Peter. No, I just read about it somewhere. I think it was in Time magazine. (Takes up the book.)

Jerry. In my opinion, Time magazine is not for idiots.

Peter. I think so too.

Jerry (after a pause). It's very good that Fifth Avenue is there.

Peter (absently). Yes.

Jerry. I can't stand the western part of the park.

Peter. Yes? (Carefully, but with a glimmer of interest.) Why?

Jerry (casually). I don't know myself.

Peter. A! (He buried himself in the book again.)

Jerry (looks at Peter silently until Peter, embarrassed, looks up at him). Maybe we should talk? Or don't you want to?

Peter (with obvious reluctance). No... why not?

Jerry. I see you don't want to.

Peter (puts down the book, takes the pipe out of his mouth. Smiling). No, really, it’s my pleasure.

Jerry. It's not worth it if you don't want to.

Peter (finally decisively). Not at all, I'm very happy.

Jerry. What's his name... Today is a nice day.

Peter (looking at the sky unnecessarily). Yes. Very nice. Wonderful.

Jerry. And I was at the zoo.

Peter. Yes, I think you already said... didn't you?

Jerry. Tomorrow you will read about it in the newspapers, if you don’t see it on TV in the evening. You probably have a TV?

Peter. Even two - one for children.

Jerry. Are you married?

Peter (with dignity). Of course!

Jerry. Nowhere, thank God, does it say that this is mandatory.

Peter. Yes... that's of course...

Jerry. So you have a wife.

Peter (not knowing how to continue this conversation). Well, yes!

Jerry. And you have children!

Peter. Yes. Two.

Jerry. Boys?

Peter. No, girls... both are girls.

Jerry. But you wanted boys.

Peter. Well... naturally, every person wants to have a son, but...

Jerry (a little mockingly). But that's how dreams are crushed, right?

Peter (with irritation). That's not what I wanted to say at all!

Jerry. And you're not going to have any more children?

Peter (absently). No. No more. (When I woke up, I would be annoyed.) How did you find out?

Jerry. Maybe it’s the way you cross your legs, or something in your voice. Or maybe he guessed it by accident. The wife doesn't want it, right?

Peter (furiously). None of your business!

Pause.

Jerry nods. Peter calms down.

Well, that's true. We won't have any more children.

Jerry (soft). This is how dreams fall apart.

Peter (forgiving him for this). Yes... perhaps you're right.

Jerry. Well... What else?

Peter. What were you saying about the zoo... what will I read or see about it?..

Jerry. I'll tell you later. Aren't you angry that I'm asking you questions?

Peter. Oh, not at all.

Jerry. Do you know why I pester you? I rarely have to talk to people, unless you say: give me a glass of beer, or: where is the restroom, or: when does the show start, or: keep your hands free, buddy, and so on. In general, you know.

Peter. Honestly, I don't know.

Jerry. But sometimes you want to talk to a person - to really talk; I want to know everything about him...

Peter (laughs, still feeling awkward). And today your guinea pig is me?

Jerry. On such a thoroughly sunny Sunday afternoon, there is nothing better than talking to a decent married man who has two daughters and... uh... a dog?

Peter shakes his head.

No? Two dogs?

Peter shakes his head.

Hm. No dogs at all?

Peter shakes his head sadly.

Well, this is strange! As far as I understand, you must love animals. Cat?

Peter nods sadly.

Cats! But it can’t be that you did it of your own free will... Wife and daughters?

Peter nods.

Curious, do you have anything else?

Peter (he has to clear his throat). There are... there are two more parrots. ... um ... each daughter has one.

Jerry. Birds.

Peter. They live in a cage in my girls' room.

Jerry. Are they sick with something?.. Birds, that is.

Peter. Don't think.

Jerry. It's a pity. Otherwise, you could let them out of the cage, the cats would eat them and then, perhaps, die.

Peter looks at him confused, then laughs.

Well, what else? What are you doing to feed all this crowd?

Peter. I... uh... I work in... in a small publishing house. We... uh... we publish textbooks.

Jerry. Well, that's very nice. Very nice. How much do you earn?

Peter (still fun). Well, listen!

Jerry. Come on. Speak.

Peter. Well, I make fifteen hundred a month, but I never carry more than forty dollars... so... if you... if you're a bandit... ha ha ha!

Jerry (ignoring his words). Where do you live?

Peter hesitates.

Oh, look, I'm not going to rob you and I'm not going to kidnap your parrots, your cats and your daughters.

Peter (too loud). I live between Lexington Avenue and Third Avenue, on Seventy-fourth Street.

Jerry. Well, you see, it wasn't that hard to say.

A bulldozer driver and an electric locomotive driver once met... It seems like the beginning of a joke. We met somewhere at the 500th kilometer in the snowy wilderness under the howling of the wind and wolves... We met two solitudes, both “uniform”: one in the uniform of a railway worker, the other in a prison padded jacket and with a shaved head. This is nothing more than the beginning of “An Unforgettable Acquaintance” - the premiere of the Moscow Theater of Satire. Actually, in “Satire” they figured out for three, i.e. figured out to divide two one-act plays by Nina Sadur and Edward Albee into three artists: Fyodor Dobronravov, Andrei Barilo and Nina Kornienko. Everything in the performance is paired or dual, and only director Sergei Nadtochiev, invited from Voronezh, managed to turn the divisible into a single, integral performance. The nameless wasteland, which even trains whistle at, whistling non-stop, suddenly turned out to be a twin city of New York's Central Park, and the domestic restless ex-convict found a common topic for silence with the American loser. The apparent gap between the circumstances of the plays “Drive” and “What Happened at the Zoo” turned out to be just an intermission.

“Drive!”, echoing the title of the play, the man standing on the rails shouts to the driver. The play is built around a man's attempt to commit suicide by train. He is a man, he is a man, the whole country rests on him, but he no longer stands for it. “You are a hero! You were in prison...”, says a young driver (A. Barilo) to an elderly man who has decided not to live long (F. Dobronravov). “You are a traitor, man! You betrayed us! You betrayed all generations!” - youth abandons experience and, instead of lending a helping hand, hits him in the jaw with his fist. But the generational conflict in the play is not resolved by force. Years and rails separate the characters, but they are united by the starry sky and a hundred-ruble piece of paper passed from hand to hand. The stars at the back of the stage shine and fall every now and then. “Zvezdets!” the characters explain, without guessing anything. Lives don't come true, let alone wishes.

Nina Sadur's play, written in 1984, has not lost its relevance, but has become more expensive. It's not a matter of decoration, it is minimal and for such an acting performance it is sufficient and convenient (set design - Akinf Belov). It has become more expensive in the sense of the rise in cost of life, although life is still a penny, but for a fiver, according to the play, you can’t buy red wine anymore. In the play, the red price for the red one is one hundred rubles, and the obscenely expensive candies mentioned in the play at 85 rubles per kilogram go for 850. Focusing on prices, updating the text, the director, however, retained the mention of execution as a criminal punishment (this trouble is promised by one character to another), which in our time of a legal moratorium on the death penalty and illegal executions here and there looks like some kind of omission.

So the driver would have continued to stand for life in the cold, and the man to lie on the rails for death, if “Granny in Boots” had not appeared on the tracks (railroad and life). “Once upon a time there lived a little gray goat with my grandmother,” but he ran away. The grandmother was looking for a goat, but found a man. “I’m no one’s,” the man lamented, and under the light of an abyss full of stars, he suddenly found himself needed by someone.

All three are not loners, but lonely people. Their loneliness is simple, truthful, they have nothing to talk about, but no one to talk to. They don’t have abstract “stress,” but something very specific that “has happened.” But the author, unlike life, is kind to his characters. A conscientious driver who does not want to “spin” in life will spin in the cold, but he will also receive a wise word of hope “for warming up.” The sick man will warm himself up with the grandmother, and the grandmother will now certainly find the runaway goat. On the rails that separated the heroes, a crumpled hundred-ruble note will remain lying - the truth, the one that the characters revealed to each other without knowing it, the characters do not buy. The rails will not disappear, but the paths with which they are laid will curl and intertwine (projection onto the stage) like the lives of the characters on this winter night. Snow will fall on the stage, but the frost will not catch anyone, only the “sick world” will have a slightly lower temperature. The author will not deny even him a chance for recovery.

After intermission, night will give way to day, silver winter to crimson autumn, snow to rain, and the railway to a neat path in the park. Here the quiet family American Peter (A. Barilo), a very average representative of the middle class, will have an unforgettable acquaintance. This phrase for the title of the play is taken exactly from the play by E. Albee. But under the title that promises something pleasant, a blood-chilling story will be revealed.

Peter has only a couple each (for a “double” performance, and this does not seem to be a coincidence): two daughters, two cats, two parrots, two televisions. Jerry's "perpetual temporary tenant" has everything in a single copy, with the exception of two photo frames, empty. Peter, seeking peace from his family in the shade of the trees, would dream of “waking up alone in his cozy bachelor flat,” while Jerry dreams of never waking up. The characters are no longer separated by rails, but by classes, environment, way of life. Good-looking Peter with a pipe and a Time magazine cannot understand sloppy, nervous Jerry in patched pants. Jerry is bright and extraordinary, and Peter is a man of general rules, standards and schemes; he does not understand and is afraid of exceptions. A few years after the premiere of the play, E. Albee dedicated its continuation to him: the background story of the meeting of Peter and Jerry. The play was called “At Home in the Zoo” and talked about a different kind of loneliness, loneliness among family and friends, loneliness and at the same time the inability to be alone.

Peter in the play symbolizes the generally accepted, while Jerry is not accepted by anyone, cast out into life and rejected by it. He is a desperate man because he is desperate. Different from others, the extraordinary Jerry stumbles upon, albeit polite, indifference. People have a lot to do and no one cares about anyone. People make contacts, increase the number of “friends”, but lose friends; By maintaining connections and acquaintances, they will not support a stranger in trouble, or just on an escalator. “A person must somehow communicate with at least someone...” Jerry shouts to the audience, who find it easier to sit on VKontakte than to make contact. Jerry shouts at the faceless mass, reminding him that it is made of people. “We’re spinning this way and that,” the speakers shout in English, as if answering the driver from the first story who didn’t want to “spin.” We spin and spin, taking an example from the planet. Each around its own axis.

Peter and after him the audience will be taken out of the so-called “comfort zone”, from the predictable course of events. Mikhail Zhvanetsky once remarked that “I won’t forget you” sounds pleasant, like recognition, and “I will remember you” sounds like a threat. Peter will remember the meeting on the bench forever, and the public will not forget “what happened at the zoo.” The domestic audience knows that from Pushkin to Bulgakov, meetings on the benches do not promise anything good - in this American play one should not count on a happy ending either.

Both plays appear “out of the blue” and are driven by verbal pull. Loneliness and the desire of the characters to leave a life that did not demand them united these stories. In an attempt to commit suicide, the characters turn to people: having lived their lives alone, they decide to at least face death not alone. The characters have no one to talk to, they have reprimanded themselves, they have condemned themselves. With a snatched, caught interlocutor, a barely glimmering dialogue certainly turns into an exchange of monologues: how to dose the avalanche of unspoken things? There are no pauses on stage; the suicidal characters seem to be caught between the pause of silence of life and the pause of death, which nothing will interrupt. Only in this narrow space, lined like a staff of music, sometimes with stripes of sleepers, sometimes with stripes of a bench, can you talk enough. But the performance, going into words, still penetrates the audience. To be fair, in this case this is not the effect of theater, but the theatricality of what is happening. Thus, according to the stage directions to the central monologue of Albee’s play, the author is counting on a hypnotic effect that could captivate the character-listener, and with him the entire hall. The text is truly chilling. In the play, the monologue, trimmed for the convenience of the actor and the audience, achieves a certain effect not thanks to the actor's recitation, but with the music of Alfred Schnittke. Fyodor Dobronravov, and the whole performance is proof of this, is quite capable of capturing and holding the audience, but at key moments the actor seems to be urged on, hurried by something, and only well-chosen music allows him to break down the text into bars, hear the halftones in it, feel the climax, startle at the sudden ending.

However, the degree of tragedy here has been significantly reduced. To the delight of the audience. Editing the text and selecting music helped. The absurd play, scored by Mario Lanza's hit, finally gave in to the music and flowed after it according to the laws of melodrama. Here there was also a place for Fyodor Dobronravov’s divertissements: be it a ditty about Aunt Manya (from the first act), or “Be with me” from the repertoire of M. Lanz in Russian translation. The director also squeezed a third character into the play, not intended by the author - a cheerful American old lady in huge headphones, completely immersed in the music of Chubby Checker. This pretty old lady shows no interest in others, she simply lives for her own pleasure. Only at the end of the play will she show courtesy and open a black umbrella over Jerry, who is getting wet in the rain. He won't need it anymore.

Both parts of the play turned out to be “not so different from each other.” There is no need to complain about a lack of stage time or material. There was enough of everything here. After all, it was no coincidence that the at first glance strange note on the poster “two short stories for three artists based on plays.” Two short stories based on plays are essentially two retellings of plays, two simple, sincere, sincere stories in person. Any retelling loses a lot compared to the original source. The play “Satire” balances on the brink of melodrama and tragicomedy; the actors do their best, it seems, not to spoil the audience’s mood. Apparently, the walls of the theater, accustomed to laughter, are conducive to this. Laughter at all costs. “Unforgettable Acquaintances” is an attempt to transform the role not only for Fyodor Dobronravov, for whom this performance can be considered a benefit, but also for the theater, which allowed itself to deviate from the usual genre. A little. But the direction is right.

The format of the premiere of the Satire Theater is quite understandable - life, in general, is also a one-act play. Its ending is predictable, but the plot manages to meander in the most bizarre way. It seems that the play based on it is doomed to failure: the director does not explain the concept, all the actors are vying for the main roles, and year after year it becomes more and more difficult for the make-up artist to “look younger” and spruce up... There are no tests, rehearsals, run-throughs... Everything is for the public. Every day is a premiere - for the first and last time.

Photo from the official website of the theater