Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

Ten serwis zostanie wyłączony 2025-02-11.

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Ograniczanie wyników

2 Pamiętnik Teatralny

2 Dębowski M.

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Aktorowie początkowi

100%

Dębowski M.

nr 3-4(255-256)

270-288

The title of the article is borrowed from the incipit of the part of Myśli o pismach polskiech (‘Thoughts on Polish Written Works’) that Prince Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski devoted to the first actors of the National Theatre. Czartoryski mentions three names there: Świerzawski, Truskolawska (actually, Truskolaska), and Owsiński. This was the first generation of Polish dramatic actors who performed on the Warsaw stage in the 1765–1775 decade, which is the period concurrent with successes of the greatest stars of European stages: Eckhof in Germany, Garrick in England, and Lekain in France. They were the performers who in the mid-eighteenth century consistently strived at achieving a greater depth of stage acting, which included perfecting the style of declamation characteristic for the “French school.” Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski as a co-founder of the National Theatre along with the Warsaw cultural elite of the period (e.g. Emanuel Murray), who watched their performances during their voyages abroad, considered this style of acting to be exemplary and advised the Polish actors to imitate it. Contemporary research on the style of play of the three “initial actors” does indeed make it possible to recognise in their creations characteristics of the “French school,” advised by “men of taste,” the characteristics that started fading away as the second generation of the National Theatre actors came to the fore at the beginning of the 19th century.

Kłopoty Molière’a w XVIII wieku

100%

Dębowski M.

tom 63

nr 4(252)

143-166

The eighteenth century, postulating the bourgeoisie rebel against the privileges of the king and aristocracy, opposing the Church and religion, rejecting classicism, court art and bienséances (decorum), should have – or so it seems – reserved a place of prominence for Molière, who had criticised them all in his plays. Yet it was not so. Molière was played in the 18th century, to be sure, but much less than, for example, Voltaire, whose dramatic work is now obsolete. The censorship of the period regarded Molière with high suspicion. Marivaux did not like Molière; Rousseau condemned his works. Voltaire and Diderot wrote about him ambiguously. The most paradoxical was the position of the revolutionaries who admired Molière theoretically but did not put on his plays. One may, therefore, ask why those committed to the Enlightenment turned away from Molière. The number of factors that side-lined Molière’s comedies in theatre life is so great that it is difficult to name them all. Presentation of several fields of research that deal with the changes within the social, religious, and economic consciousness that were underway at the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, factors affecting the way in which theatre licenses were granted in Paris in the Regency period and under the reign of Louis XV and Louis XVI, as well as the evolution of dramatic genres and performing arts bring us closer to providing such an answer, even though it obviously does not explain the issue fully.