Modern theater is a revolutionary period in theater history during which different theater theorists and practitioners experimented with previously unexplored ideas. One of these movements, essential to anti-realist theater which rebelled against realism and naturalism, is symbolism. Symbolism was a theatrical movement that moved away from logic and the representation of life towards illogic and the representation of the inner being of man. In exploring the use of this theory in dramatic works, this work uses the famous symbolist play Pelléas et Mélisande. The choice of Pilleas and Mélisande is not only important for its symbolic force but also because the author is the most acclaimed symbolist playwright. The article thus explores Pilleas and Mélisande from a symbolist point of view based on actions present in the play. The article concludes that although symbolism was short-lived and is no longer practiced today, its elements are used in various ways by playwrights even in contemporary times. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay For historical reasons, Western history has been divided into epochs or periods and the history of Western theater has also been summarized by these historical dichotomies. Since ancient Egyptian times, the history of theater has been traced through the Greek and Roman eras to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Among these historical periods, the Modern Theater, renowned for its predilection for the diversity of ideas, occupies a preponderant place. The period of modern theater began in the fall of the 19th century. Evidence of its beginnings goes back to the works of Richard Wagner who advocated and practiced musical theater in which "music, through melody and tempo, allows greater control over performance than is possible in spoken theater » (Brockett, 582) and a theater architecture that allowed people, regardless of class, to pay equal rates. Georg II, Duke of Saxe-Meiningen, has become an ideal figure of today's director. These early innovations preceded the dramatic works of Henrik Ibsen, considered the father of modern theater. His dramatic works championed the cause of realism, closely followed by naturalism (an extreme form of realism). After him (as reflected in his later plays) there was a revolt against realistic theater resulting from the escalation of myriad theatrical movements such as Symbolism, Expressionism, Absurdism, Eclecticism, Dadaism, futurism, etc. RM Wernaer's observation about the Romantics will be enough to move the discourse forward: "Our writers felt possessed of two distinct personalities, one facing the natural world with its sensual qualities, its definable limits, its laws of time and place ; the other facing God with his circle of infinity, his celestial values, his tones of feeling, his emotional ecstasies, his dreams and his visions.” (quoted in Tisdel, 2) The first is the drama of action which Aristotle emphasized when he defined drama as "the imitation of action" – a drama which has to do with realistic events and tangibles filled with realism and other movements that preceded it. On the other hand, the latter seeks to capture the intangible or surreal world. These have been explicitly explained with theoretical support from theater artists encapsulated in modern theater movements. The symbolism which occupies a central place in this speech was concerned with this inner man. Symbolism was the first great revolt against realistic theater. It began in France atend of the 19th century and ran out of steam at the dawn of the 20th century. It was a theater that advocated the use of symbols and metaphors to suggest deeper meanings than their outward appearances. By this, he sought to “objectify the subjective” (Matthew cited in Valeri, 41), thus bringing out the man's interior qualities – which had been neglected by the theater of the time. “For the Symbolists, subjectivity, spirituality, and mysterious internal and external forces represented a higher form of outward appearance” (Brocket, 584), so they revered the internal, intangible nature of man rather than the realistic nature. This change in dimension was motivated by the fact that "scientists' preoccupation with observable superficial details made them neglect higher truths" (G. Albert cited in Valeri, 4) because "something eternal, mysterious and he unknowable essential was at the heart of creation. , beyond the reach of scientific research” (Burhan cited in Valeri, 4). One of the leading playwrights of the Symbolist movement was Maurice Maeterlinck who asserted that: "the most dramatic moments are those silent moments during which the mystery of existence, usually obscured by hectic activity, makes itself felt" (Brockett, 564 ). To express this "mystery of existence", he wrote plays such as L'Intrus (1894), L'Aveugle (1890), La Mort des Tentagiles (1894) and Pelléas et Mélisande (1892). Henrik Ibsen's later plays can also be attributed to the Symbolist school of thought. They include: The Wild Duck (1884), Rosmersholm (1886) and When We Dead Awaken. In these pieces he uses “symbolism and subject matter more concerned with personal relationships than with social issues” (Brockett, 549). Every symbolist needs some kind of master vision to be able to tackle the images that ultimately make up the symbols. He needs a high subconscious to enter into symbolist inspiration. To do this, he could identify the symbols and because “the world of senses and objects simply represented the world of ideas”, he would attribute meanings to them. Other writers like Maurice Maeterlinck believe that instead of identifying objects and writing around them, the symbol should arise from the work. According to him: “I don’t believe the job can be viable. The work born from the symbol can only be an allegory… the symbol is a native force and the spirit of man cannot resist its laws.” (quoted in Valéri, 9). For him, symbolism is above all a manifestation of the writer's intuition, the symbol only emerging from it. Unlike realism, symbolist writers avoided contemporary and practical issues and opted instead for themes from the past and the realm of fantasy. They needed to disengage from the problems of the present because this would allow them the isolation they need to conceive of their works in idealistic terms. Maurice Maeterlinck defends it: I remain of the opinion that we must abstract ourselves in spite of ourselves from the times it undergoes and influence it naturally, but that is good, if we want to do lasting and lasting work. strong work, to free it from the details of the present” (quoted in Valeri, 12). Maeterlinck's characters are seen as messengers of the universe – he does not create them through abstract thought. By creating them, he comes into contact with the universe from which he draws the intuition necessary to create what would have meaning for him one day later. The staging design of symbolist plays is just enough to suggest meanings. His actions are dreamlike and his language hushed and highly stylized to create a mystical impression in order to “objectify the subjective” through vagueness and suggestiveness.which would create an evocation rather than a description. Despite its short period of reign, Symbolism can be considered a success because it ushered in the second phase of modern theater which is a revolt against realism. Published in 1892, Pelléas et Mélisande is a fairy tale in five acts about an average story. old prince – Golaud, who finds a beautiful girl, Mélisande, at the edge of a spring. He marries the girl with the father's consent and takes her to his home for the reception of his family members, notably Pelleas who is soon obsessed with her. Mélisande loses her alliance while playing with him at La Fontaine l'Aveugle with Pelléas. This knowledge of Golaud arouses his first suspicions and he asks her to go get the ring. She accompanies Pelléas to find him, and soon, they are together again when Pelléas plays with Mellisande's hair. Golaud soon discovers their closeness and becomes jealous to the point of trying to kill Pelléas in the vault. He then asks little Ynoild about them and, convinced that they are meeting, he sets off with his sword to harm them. Pelleas insists on seeing Mélisande for the last time before her trip and the venue is a fountain in the park where they express their love and kiss. Golaud spies on them and the swords Pelléas and Mélisande flee. They were found later, both injured. Mélisande gives birth to a baby. Golaud expresses his regrets and seeks to know if they had sexual relations. Mélisande dies after declaring her innocence to Golaud. Pelléas et Mélisande is a classic symbolist drama, starring the most acclaimed foreman, Maurice Macterlinck. He uses the play to project the symbolist doctrine he defends. Perhaps the most plausible symbolic feature of the play is its use of a fairy tale instead of contemporary events that were popular in the theater of its time. According to Tisdel, “it is the story of Paolo and Francesca treated not as a representation of life. , but as a symbol of life. (4) The Story of Paolo and Francesca is a poem by the medieval playwright Dante contained in his Divine Comedy about lovers thrown into hell for committing adultery. Gianciotto, Francesca's husband, kills them out of jealousy and with them he is thrown into hell. This is in accordance with the symbolist doctrine that subjects are chosen from fairy tales and the realm of fantasy. In symbolizing this story, Maeterlinck does not use personification but rather suggestions which, because they cannot be interpreted precisely, evoke a kind of vagueness which mystifies the audience. Tisdel observes this about the play: The necessary lack of individuality in the characters precludes clear and fine dramatic characterization, and the placing of real and symbolic characters side by side leads to confusion, because the symbol is not a personification and can therefore always be assimilated to what it represents, the result becomes a blur which leaves the common mind perplexed. (5) This confusing vagueness is reflected in Scene III, the short scene where Little Ynoild tries to lift a rock and later turns his attention to a flock and their shepherds who never appear on stage. Little Yniold: Oh, this stone is heavy!… It is heavier than me…. It’s heavier than everyone else…. This is heavier than anything that ever happened…. I see my golden ball between the rock and this ugly stone, and I can't reach it…. My little arm is not long enough,…and this stone will not be lifted…. I can't lift it,…and no one could lift it…. It is heavier than the whole house;… one would think that it has roots in the earth…. [The bleating of a herd heard in the distance.] — Oh! Oh! I hear the sheep crying…. [He goes to look at the edge of the terrace.]For what ! there is no more sun…. They are coming… the little sheep… they are coming…. There are a lot of them!… There are a lot of them!… They are afraid of the dark…. They are coming together! They are hurrying!… They can no longer walk…. They are crying! they are crying! and they are going fast!... They are going fast!... They are already at the big crossroads. Ah! ah! They no longer know where they should go…. They don't cry anymore... They are waiting... Some of them want to go right…. They all want to go to the right…. They can't!… The shepherd throws dirt at them…. Ah! ah! They're going to pass through here... They obey! They obey! They are going to go under the terrace…. They will go under the rocks…. I will see them nearby…. Oh! Oh! how many!… How many!… The whole road is full of them….They all stand still now… Shepherd! shepherd! why don't they talk anymore? (30) In the extract above, the most plausible is the vagueness of the action and the dialogue. One might wonder why Little Yniold attempts to move the rock in the first place, what this suggests, and what the relevance of the sheep and the shepherd is. While the action is used as a symbol, it will remain vague to those who do not decipher it. The language of Pelléas and Mélisande is lyrical and fragmented. It does not flow logically as in the case of realistic plays. This is reflected in the play as follows: GOLAUD: Nothing, nothing, my child. I saw a wolf passing through the forest. – they get along well? – I am happy to hear that they are on good terms. – they kiss sometimes. - No. YNIOLD: Kissing, little father? — No, no, — ah! yes, little father, yes; Yes; once…once when it was raining…. GOLAUD: Did they kiss? — But how, how did they kiss? YNIOLD: So, little father, then!… [He kisses her on the mouth, laughing.] Ah! ah! your beard, little father!... It stings! It rocks! It stings! It's turning gray, little father, and your hair too; all gray, all gray, all gray…. [The window under which they are sitting is lit at the moment, and the light falls on them.] Ah! ah! the little mother lit her lamp. It's light, little father; it is light… (25) With this fragmented language, he is supposed to reveal to the audience “the hidden consciousness of our existence” (Krasner, 65) by appealing to their subconscious due to its unrealistic nature. The productions of Pelléas and Mélisande are very rare. This indicates that its production is not supposed to have a lot of action and that the setting should also be enough to symbolize an inner truth. Brockett describes the first production of the play: Few estates and few furniture were used; the stage was lit from above and most of the action took place in the dark; a gauze curtain, suspended between the actors and the audience, gave the impression that mist enveloped the stage; the backgrounds painted in gray tones accentuated the air of mystery; the costumes were vaguely medieval, although the intention was to create draperies with no particular era. The actors spoke in staccato chants like priests and, according to some critics, behaved like night walkers; their gestures were highly stylized. (564) Overall, symbolism appears more fully in performance than in text, because the essence of symbolism is to objectify subjective and unrealistic stage designs and the stylized actions all contribute to making symbolism a successful movement . The period of modern theater is an ideological revolt in which different theater practitioners exercised their ideas in theories and movements reflecting their thoughts on how and for what purpose theater should be practiced. Among these myriad artistic movements is symbolism which serves as a bridge between realism and,: 27/7/2016