Գաղափարական հակադրութիւնը սփիւռքահյ թատրերգութեան մէջ (Հայաստանի խորհրդայնացման հանգրուանին)
Loading...
Date
2011
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
The article discusses the positioning of Armenian Diaspora playwrights vis-à-vis the Soviet regime in Armenia. After a brief introduction to the political conditions of the time, the author delineates the characteristics of the political drama in Diaspora literature and argues that the term “political” in this context has a limited connotation and mostly refers to intra-Armenian ideological differences. The bone of contention regarding these differences is the stance of the Diaspora Armenians towards the Soviet regime in Armenia.
By analyzing three plays, namely Arshag Chobanian’s The Miracle, Bedros Zaroyan’s We Too Have A Motherland, and Karnig Svlazian’s The Repatriation, Urneshlian sketches the two main concepts underpinning the pro-Soviet arguments: a) that the Soviet regime brought prosperity to Armenia making ethnic preservation possible unlike life in the Diaspora which leads to assimilation, and b) that the motherland is timeless; and loving it cannot be circumstantial, as regimes are temporary.
Through a detailed analysis of the characters of a number of anti-Soviet plays (published specifically in the Hayrenik Monthly in Boston), the author contrasts them to the pro-Soviet plays. Ureshlian discusses the anti-Soviet plays, namely A. Savazian’s Nahabad Nahabedian, Vahé Valatan’s Kheghdi Hamar (for conscience), Yeghia Kasbarian’s Yerevan Mech (in Yerevan), Geran Vartanian’s Veradznonoot (rebirth), Nigol Nigoghosian’s Arevatsvadz Djamprn (towards dawn), Ellen Puzant’s Khaghdunank Hamar (for the sake of peace) and Nerses Sarukhhanian’s Abesdamputyun (rebellion) (printed separately as a book). He notes that these writers were proponents of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) and were political refugees, as they wrote in Eastern Armenia.
According to Urneshlian the anti-Soviet plays aimed at drawing attention to the fact that the denationalized ideas of the Communists brought misfortune to the Armenian nation and the state. He adds that most of the plays are put in a historical context, and the plots are based on intense dramatic clashes between different members of the same family, who have opposite political views. Urneshlian categorizes the characters as: a) the able, strong, and virtuous ARF-member, b) the merciless communist, who is full of moral and social vices, and c) the honest communist, who eventually realizes that he is deceived and repents and opts for the “correct path.”
Ureshlian generalizes that all these plays indicated the political viewpoints of the playwrights and acquired a rhetorical style, which made the psychological evolution of the characters unconvincing. Besides, some scenes did not sound natural, due to the obvious interference of the authors in the natural course of the plays. He concludes that these rhetoric scenes undermined the literary value of the plays. The author notes, however, that most of these plays are bygone due to the deep changes in Armenia. Nonetheless, these plays reflect the condition and attitude of a society at a certain period.
Description
Keywords
Citation
Իւրնէշլեան, Ա., «Գաղափարական հակադրութիւնը սփիւռքահյ թատրերգութեան մէջ (Հայաստանի խորհրդայնացման հանգրուանին)», «Հայկազեան հայագիտական հանդէս», 2011, Պէյրութ, էջ 227-244