Main Article Content
Every epoch, without a doubt brings changes not just in social, political-economical or moral life of society, the country, but also in art. What seemed to be solidly established, goes through transfi guration. sometimes, such transformation is significant and exceedingly noticeable. in other cases, it’s relatively light and could be described as barely noticeable.
modernity always brings its own demands, fulfi lment of which, is of course a matter of time, but also necessary; Since time cannot be turned back. You must follow it step by step.
For modern world theatre, one mutual feature is generally remarkable. Genre, as such, loses its distinct, defi nitive contours and becomes a more conditional occurrence. If in earlier times, the precept of genre was defi ned quite scrupulously, modern
theatre has annihilated, erased all separating borders. It’s almost impossible to fi nd true tragedy, drama or comedy in their classical form today. In modern theatre, it seems like there was some kind of a fusion in this direction. These days, the more synthesized, eclectic is the play, the more spectators it will attract. Of course, said tendency is applied to modern world theatre and not just one country’s theatrical art. Therefore, Georgian theatre is no exception.
In presented work, the author analyzes two performances: “The broken jug” by Arthur von Kleist (Vaja-Pshavela Telavi State Professional Drama Theatre. Directed by Robert Sturua and Nikoloz Heine-Shvelidze. 2015) and “Julius Caesar” by
William Shakespeare (Shota Rustaveli Tbilisi State Professional Drama Theatre. Directed by Robert Sturua. 2015). By reviewing these two plays, it becomes visible to the reader, how the original
genre of the literature piece, the origin, the play disappeared as a result of directorial interpretation. Kleist’s comedy became a social-political farce, grotesque, satire. As for Shakespeare’s tragedy with a historical theme, it transformed into political tragi-farce, which is dominated by irony and sarcasm. The
author reaches the goal by analyzing, solving a few important, key scenes in a quite argumentative way. The reader develops an evident view of both performances. Because the work covers the most important part – clearly outlines the directorial concept of the plays, the message which is for the viewers. A deep decryption of the directors’ intentions gives the ability to the author to bring the reader a vivid picture of visuals from both plays. Therefore, with the help of this work, we are easily able to understand the form and content of these two performances.