Genre of the play "The Cherry Orchard"

7. The genre of the play "The Cherry Orchard"

The remarkable merits of The Cherry Orchard and its innovative features have long been unanimously recognized by progressive critics. But when it comes to the genre features of the play, this unanimity is replaced by dissent. Some see the play "The Cherry Orchard" as a comedy, others as a drama, others as a tragicomedy. What is this play - drama, comedy, tragicomedy?
Before answering this question, it should be noted that Chekhov, striving for the truth of life, for naturalness, created plays not of purely dramatic or comedic, but of very complex formation.
In his plays, the dramatic is realized in an organic mixture with the comic, and the comic is manifested in an organic interweaving with the dramatic.
Chekhov's plays are a kind of genre formations that can be called dramas or comedies, only keeping in mind their leading genre trend, and not the consistent implementation of the principles of drama or comedy in their traditional sense.
A convincing example of this is the play "The Cherry Orchard". Already completing this play, Chekhov on September 2, 1903 wrote Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko: “I will call the play a comedy” (A.P. Chekhov, Complete Works and Letters, vol. 20, Goslitizdat, M., 1951, p. 129).
On September 15, 1903, he informed M.P. Alekseeva (Lilina): “I did not get a drama, but a comedy, in places even a farce” (Ibid., p. 131).
Calling the play a comedy, Chekhov relied on the comic motives prevailing in it. If, answering the question about the genre of this play, we keep in mind the leading trend in the structure of its images and plot, then we must admit that it is based on not a dramatic, but a comedic beginning. Drama means drama goodies plays, that is, those to whom the author gives his main sympathies.
In this sense, such plays by A.P. Chekhov as "Uncle Vanya" and "Three Sisters" are dramas. In the play The Cherry Orchard, the main sympathies of the author belong to Trofimov and Anya, who do not experience any drama.
Recognizing The Cherry Orchard as a drama means recognizing the experiences of the owners of the Cherry Orchard, Gaev and Ranevsky, as truly dramatic, capable of evoking deep sympathy and compassion for people who are not going back, but forward, into the future.
But this in the play could not be and is not. Chekhov does not defend, does not affirm, but exposes the owners of the cherry orchard, he shows their emptiness and insignificance, their complete incapacity for serious experiences.
The play "The Cherry Orchard" cannot be recognized as a tragicomedy either. For this, she lacks neither tragicomic heroes, nor tragicomic situations that run through the whole play, defining her through action. Gaev, Ranevskaya, Pishchik are too small as tragicomic heroes. Yes, besides, in the play the leading optimistic idea comes through with all distinctness, expressed in positive images. This play is more correctly called a lyrical comedy.
The comedy of The Cherry Orchard is determined, firstly, by the fact that its positive images, which are Trofimov and Anya, are shown by no means dramatic. Dramaticity is unusual for these images either socially or individually. Both in their inner essence and in the author's assessment, these images are optimistic.
The image of Lopakhin is also clearly undramatic, which, in comparison with the images of the local nobles, is shown as relatively positive and major. The comedy of the play is confirmed, secondly, by the fact that of the two owners of the cherry orchard, one (Gaev) is given primarily comically, and the second (Ranevskaya) in such dramatic situations, which mainly contribute to showing their negative essence.
The comic basis of the play is clearly visible, thirdly, and in the comic-satirical depiction of almost all minor actors: Epikhodova, Pishchika, Charlotte, Yasha, Dunyasha.
The Cherry Orchard also includes obvious vaudeville motifs, even farce, expressed in jokes, tricks, jumps, dressing up Charlotte. In terms of the issues and the nature of its artistic interpretation, The Cherry Orchard is a deeply social play. It has very strong motives.
Here the most important questions for that time were raised: the liquidation of the nobility and estate economy, its final replacement by capitalism, the growth of democratic forces, etc.
With a clearly expressed socio-comedy basis in the play "The Cherry Orchard", lyrical-dramatic and socio-psychological motives are clearly manifested: lyric-dramatic and socio-psychological motives are most complete in the depiction of Ranevskaya and Vari; lyrical and socio-psychological, especially in the image of Anya.
The originality of the genre of The Cherry Orchard was very well revealed by M. Gorky, who defined this play as a lyrical comedy.
"A. P. Chekhov, he writes in the article “0 plays”, “created ... a completely original type of play - a lyrical comedy” (M. Gorky, Collected Works, vol. 26, Goslitizdat, M., 1953, p. 422).
But the lyrical comedy "The Cherry Orchard" is still perceived by many as a drama. For the first time, such an interpretation of The Cherry Orchard was given by the Art Theater. On October 20, 1903, K. S. Stanislavsky, after reading The Cherry Orchard, wrote to Chekhov: “This is not a comedy ... this is a tragedy, whatever the outcome a better life No matter how you opened it in the last act... I was afraid that the second reading of the play would not captivate me. Where is it!! I cried like a woman, I wanted to, but I could not restrain myself ”(K, S. Stanislavsky, Articles. Speeches. Conversations. Letters, ed. Art, M., 1953 , pp. 150 - 151).
In his memoirs of Chekhov, dating back to about 1907, Stanislavsky characterizes The Cherry Orchard as "the heavy drama of Russian life" (Ibid., p. 139).
K.S. Stanislavsky misunderstood, underestimated the power of accusatory pathos directed against the representatives of the then departing world (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik), and in this regard, unnecessarily emphasized the lyric-dramatic line associated with these characters in his directorial decision of the play.
Taking seriously the drama of Ranevskaya and Gaev, unduly promoting a sympathetic attitude towards them and to some extent muffling the accusatory and optimistic direction of the play, Stanislavsky staged The Cherry Orchard in a dramatic vein. Expressing the erroneous point of view of the leaders of the Art Theater on The Cherry Orchard, N. Efros wrote:
“...no part of Chekhov's soul was with Lopakhin. But part of his soul, rushing into the future, belonged to the "mortuos", the "Cherry Orchard". Otherwise, the image of the doomed, dying, leaving the historical stage would not have been so tender ”(N. Efros, The Cherry Orchard staged by the Moscow Art Theater, Pg., 1919, p. 36).
Proceeding from the dramatic key, evoking sympathy for Gaev, Ranevskaya and Pishchik, emphasizing their drama, all their first performers played these roles - Stanislavsky, Knipper, Gribunin. So, for example, characterizing the game of Stanislavsky - Gaev, N. Efros wrote: “this is a big child, pitiful and funny, but touching in its helplessness ... There was an atmosphere of the finest humor around the figure. And at the same time, she radiated great touching... everyone in the auditorium, together with Firs, felt something tender for this stupid, decrepit child, with signs of degeneration and spiritual decline, the "heir" of a dying culture... And even those who are by no means inclined to sentimentality, to which the harsh laws of historical necessity and the change of class figures on the historical stage are sacred - even they probably gave moments of some compassion, a sigh of sympathetic or condoling sadness to this Gaev ”(Ibid., p. 81 - 83).
In the performance of the artists of the Art Theater, the images of the owners of the Cherry Orchard turned out to be clearly larger, more noble, beautiful, spiritually complex than in Chekhov's play. It would be unfair to say that the leaders of the Art Theater did not notice or bypassed the comedy of The Cherry Orchard.
When staging this play, K. S. Stanislavsky used its comedy motives so widely that he aroused sharp objections from those who considered it a consistently pessimistic drama.
A. Kugel, based on his interpretation of The Cherry Orchard as a consistently pessimistic drama (A. Kugel, Sadness of the Cherry Orchard, Theater and Art, 1904, No. 13), accused the leaders of the Art Theater of that they abused comedy. “My amazement was understandable,” he wrote, “when The Cherry Orchard appeared in a light, funny, cheerful performance ... It was the resurrected Antosha Chekhonte” (A. Kugel, Notes on the Moscow Art Theater, “ Theater and Art”, 1904, No. 15, p. 304).
Dissatisfaction with the excessive, deliberate comedy of the stage performance of The Cherry Orchard at the Art Theater was also expressed by the critic N. Nikolaev. “When,” he wrote, “the oppressive present portends an even more difficult future, Charlotta Ivanovna appears and passes, leading a little dog on a long ribbon and with all her exaggerated, highly comical figure causes laughter in the auditorium ... For me, this laughter was a tub cold water... The mood turned out to be irreparably spoiled ”(N. Nikolayev, U Artists,“ Theater and Art ”, 1904, No. 9, p. 194).
But the real mistake of the first directors of The Cherry Orchard was not that they beat many of the comic episodes of the play, but that they neglected comedy as the leading beginning of the play. Revealing Chekhov's play as a heavy drama of Russian life, the leaders of the Art Theater gave place to its comedy, but only a subordinate one; secondary.
M. N. Stroeva is right in defining the stage interpretation of the play The Cherry Orchard at the Art Theater as a tragicomedy (M. Stroeva, Chekhov and the Art Theatre, ed. Art, M., 1955, p. 178 and etc.).
Interpreting the play in this way, the direction of the Art Theater showed the representatives of the outgoing world (Ranevskaya, Gaeva, Pishchika) more inwardly rich, positive than they really are, and excessively increased sympathy for them. As a result, the subjective drama of the departing people sounded more deeply in the performance than was necessary.
As for the objectively comic essence of these people, exposing their insolvency, this side was clearly not sufficiently disclosed in the performance. Chekhov could not agree with such an interpretation of The Cherry Orchard. S. Lubosh recalls Chekhov at one of the first performances of The Cherry Orchard - sad and torn off. “In the filled theater there was a noise of success, and Chekhov sadly repeated:
- Not that, not that...
- What's wrong?
- Everything is not the same: both the play and the performance. I didn't get what I wanted. I saw something completely different, and they couldn’t understand what I wanted” (S. Lubosh, The Cherry Orchard. Chekhov’s anniversary collection, M., 1910, p. 448).
Protesting against the false interpretation of his play, Chekhov wrote in a letter to O.L. Nemirovich and Alekseev see positively in my play not what I wrote, and I am ready to give any word - that both of them have never read my play attentively ”(A.P. Chekhov, Complete Works and letters, vol. 20, Goslitizdat, M., 1951, p. 265).
Chekhov was outraged by the purely slow pace of the performance, especially by the painfully drawn-out Act IV. “The act, which should last 12 minutes maximum, you have,” he wrote to O. L. Knipper, “is 40 minutes. I can say one thing: Stanislavsky ruined my play” (Ibid., p. 258).
In April 1904, talking with the director of the Alexandrinsky Theater, Chekhov said:
“Is this my Cherry Orchard? .. Are these my types? .. With the exception of two or three performers, all this is not mine ... I write life ... This is a gray, ordinary life ... But, this is not boring whining... They make me either a crybaby, or just a boring writer... And I wrote several volumes of funny stories. And criticism dresses me up as some kind of mourners ... They invent from their heads what they themselves want, but I didn’t think about it, and I didn’t see it in a dream ... It starts to make me angry ”(E. P. K arpov, The last two meetings with Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, Yearbook of the Imperial Theatres, 1909, issue V, p. 7).
According to Stanislavsky himself, Chekhov could not come to terms with the interpretation of the play as a heavy drama, “until his death” (K. S. Stanislavsky, Articles. Speeches. Conversations. Letters, ed. "Art", M., 1953. p. 139).
This is understandable, since the perception of the play as a drama dramatically changed its ideological orientation. What Chekhov laughed at, with such a perception of the play, already required deep sympathy.
Defending his play as a comedy, Chekhov, in fact, defended the correct understanding of it. ideological sense. The leaders of the Art Theater, in turn, could not remain indifferent to Chekhov's statements that they were embodiing The Cherry Orchard in a false way. Thinking about the text of the play and its stage embodiment, Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko were forced to admit that they had misunderstood the play. But misunderstood, in their opinion, not in its main key, but in particular. The show has changed along the way.
In December 1908, V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko wrote: “Look at The Cherry Orchard, and you will not at all recognize in this lacy graceful picture that heavy and heavy drama that The Garden was in the first year” (V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Letter to N. E. Efros (second half of December 1908), Theater, 1947, No. 4, p. 64).
In 1910, in a speech to the artists of the Art Theater, K. S. Stanislavsky said:
“Let many of you confess that you did not immediately understand The Cherry Orchard. Years passed, and time confirmed the correctness of Chekhov. The need for more decisive changes in the performance in the direction indicated by Chekhov became clearer and clearer to the leaders of the Art Theater.
Resuming the play The Cherry Orchard after a ten-year break, the leaders of the Art Theater made major changes to it: they significantly accelerated the pace of its development; they animated the first act in a comedic way; removed excessive psychologism in the main characters and increased their exposure. This was especially evident in the game of Stanislavsky - Gaev, “His image,” noted in Izvestia, “is now revealed primarily from a purely comedic side. We would say that idleness, lordly daydreaming, complete inability to take on at least some kind of work and truly childish carelessness are exposed by Stanislavsky to the end. The new Gaev of Stanislavsky is a most convincing example of harmful worthlessness. Knipper-Chekhova began to play even more openwork, even easier, revealing her Ranevskaya in the same way of “revealing” (Yur. Sobolev, The Cherry Orchard at the Art Theater, Izvestia, May 25, 1928, No. 120).
The fact that the original interpretation of The Cherry Orchard at the Art Theater was the result of a misunderstanding of the text of the play was acknowledged by its directors not only in correspondence, in a narrow circle of artists of the Art Theater, but also before the general public. V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, speaking in 1929 in connection with the 25th anniversary of the first performance of The Cherry Orchard, said: “And this beautiful work it was not understood at first .. maybe in our performance some changes, some rearrangements, at least in particulars, will be required; but regarding the version that Chekhov wrote a vaudeville, that this play should be staged in a satirical context, I say with complete conviction that this should not be. There is a satirical element in the play - both in Epikhodov and in other persons, but take the text in your hands and you will see: there - “cries”, in another place - “cries”, but in vaudeville they will not cry! Vl. I. N emir o v i ch-Danchenko, Articles. Speeches. Conversations. Letters, ed. Art, 1952, pp. 108 - 109).
It is true that The Cherry Orchard is not vaudeville. But it is unfair that vaudeville allegedly does not cry, and on the basis of the presence of crying, The Cherry Orchard is considered a heavy drama. For example, in Chekhov's vaudeville "The Bear" the landowner and her lackey cry, and in his vaudeville "Proposal" Lomov cries and Chubukova moans. In the vaudeville "Az and Firth" by P. Fedorov, Lyubushka and Akulina cry. In the vaudeville "Teacher and Student" by A. Pisarev, Lyudmila and Dasha are crying. In the vaudeville The Hussar Girl, Koni cries Laura. It's not the presence and not even the number of crying, but the nature of crying.
When Dunyasha says through tears: “I broke the saucer”, and Pishchik - “Where is the money?”, This causes not a dramatic, but a comic reaction. Sometimes tears express joyful excitement: at Ranevskaya at her first entrance to the nursery upon returning to her homeland, at the devoted Firs, who waited for the arrival of his mistress.
Tears often denote a special cordiality: in Gaev, when addressing Anya in the first act (“my baby. My child ...”); at Trofimov, calming Ranevskaya (in the first act) and then telling her: “because he robbed you” (in the third act); Lopakhin calming Ranevskaya (at the end of the third act).
Tears as an expression of acutely dramatic situations in The Cherry Orchard are very rare. These moments can be re-read: in Ranevskaya's first act, when she meets Trofimov, who reminded her of her drowned son, and in the third act, in a dispute with Trofimov, when she again remembers her son; at Gaev - upon return from the auction; Varya's - after a failed explanation with Lopakhin (fourth act); at Ranevskaya and Gaev - before the last exit from the house. But at the same time, the personal drama of the main characters in The Cherry Orchard does not evoke such sympathy from the author, which would be the basis of the drama of the entire play.
Chekhov strongly disagreed that there were many weeping people in his play. "Where are they? - he wrote to Nemirovich-Danchenko on October 23, 1903. - Only one Varya, but this is because Varya is a crybaby by nature, and her tears should not arouse a dull feeling in the viewer. Often I meet “through tears”, but this only shows the mood of faces, not tears ”(A. P. Chekhov, Complete collection of works and letters, vol. 20, Goslitizdat, M., 1951, pp. 162 - 163).
It is necessary to understand that the basis of the lyrical pathos of the play "The Cherry Orchard" is created by representatives not of the old, but of the new world - Trofimov and Anya, their lyricism is optimistic. The drama in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is obvious. This is the drama experienced by the representatives of the old world and is fundamentally associated with the protection of departing life forms.
The drama associated with the defense of egoistic forms of life that is passing away cannot arouse the sympathy of advanced readers and spectators and is incapable of becoming a positive pathos of progressive works. And naturally, this drama did not become the leading pathos of the play The Cherry Orchard.
But in the dramatic states of the characters in this play there is something that can evoke a sympathetic response from any reader and spectator. One cannot sympathize with Ranevskaya in the main - in the loss of the cherry orchard, in her bitter love wanderings. But when she remembers and cries about her seven-year-old son who drowned in the river, she is humanly sorry. One can sympathize with her when, wiping away her tears, she tells how she was drawn from Paris to Russia, to her homeland, to her daughter, and when she forever says goodbye to her home, in which the happy years of her childhood, youth, and youth passed. ...
The drama of The Cherry Orchard is private, not defining, not leading. The stage performance of The Cherry Orchard, given by the Art Theater in a dramatic vein, does not correspond to the ideological pathos and genre originality of this play. To achieve this correspondence, not minor amendments are required, but fundamental changes in the first edition of the performance.
Revealing the completely optimistic pathos of the play, it is necessary to replace the dramatic basis of the performance with a comedy-no-lyrical one. There are prerequisites for this in the statements of K. S. Stanislavsky himself. Emphasizing the importance of a more vivid stage rendering of Chekhov's dream, he wrote:
"IN fiction the end of the past and the beginning present century he was one of the first to feel the inevitability of the revolution, when it was only in its infancy and society continued to bathe in excesses. He was one of the first to give a wake-up call. Who, if not he, began to cut down a beautiful, blooming cherry orchard, realizing that his time had passed, that the old life was irrevocably condemned to be scrapped... the first, with all his might, cuts down the obsolete, and the young girl, anticipating, together with Petya Trofimov, the approach new era, will shout to the whole world: "Hello, new life!" - and you will understand that The Cherry Orchard is a lively, close, modern play for us, that Chekhov’s voice sounds cheerful, incendiary in it, because he himself looks not back, but forward ”(K. S. Stani from Slavic, Collected works in eight volumes, vol. 1, ed. Art, 1954, pp. 275 - 276).
Undoubtedly, the first theatrical version of The Cherry Orchard did not have the pathos that resounds in the words of Stanislavsky just quoted. In these words, there is already a different understanding of The Cherry Orchard than that which was characteristic of the leaders of the Art Theater in 1904. But asserting the comedy-lyrical beginning of The Cherry Orchard, it is important to fully reveal the lyrical-dramatic, elegiac motifs, embodied in the play with such amazing subtlety and power, in an organic fusion with comic-satirical and major-lyrical motifs. Chekhov not only denounced, ridiculed the heroes of his play, but also showed their subjective drama.
Chekhov's abstract humanism, associated with his general democratic position, limited his satirical possibilities and determined the well-known notes of the sympathetic portrayal of Gaev and Ranevskaya.
Here one must beware of one-sidedness, simplification, which, by the way, already existed (for example, in the production of The Cherry Orchard directed by A. Lobanov in the theater-studio under the direction of R. Simonov in 1934).
As for the Artistic Theater itself, the change of the dramatic key to the comedic-lyrical one should not cause a decisive change in the interpretation of all roles. A lot of things in this wonderful performance, especially in its latest version, are given correctly. It is impossible not to recall that, sharply rejecting the dramatic solution of his play, Chekhov found even in its first, far from mature performances in the Art Theater, a lot of beauty, carried out correctly.
So, for example, they recall that Chekhov, sick, tired, tired of the applause and honoring given to him at the first performance of The Cherry Orchard, seized a moment and whispered in the ear of A. R. Artyom, who played the role of Firs: “Great!” (S. Durylin, Chekhov's favorite actor, "Theatre and Drama", 1935, No. 2, p. 24).
He was very pleased with L. M. Leonidov - Lopakhin (L. M. Leonidov, Past and Present. From the Memoirs, ed. of the Museum of Art academic theater USSR named after M. Gorky, M., 1948, p. 102) and found the performance of the role of Epikhodov by I. M. Moskvin wonderful (K. S. Stanislavsky, My life in art. Collected works in eight volumes, vol. 1, Art, 1954, p. 267).
He liked the game of MP Lilina, who played the role of Anya. To Lilina’s question about the tone of her parting words, Chekhov answered: “goodbye house, goodbye old life” - you speak exactly the way you need to” (A.P. Chekhov, Complete Works and Letters, vol. 20, Goslitizdat, M., 1951, p. 238).
M. P. Lilina conveyed faith in the future well when she listened to Petya Trofimov with wide eyes. It is known that Chekhov liked the last departure of Gaev-Stanislavsky (K. S. Stanislavsky, Complete Works in eight volumes, vol. 1, ed. Art, 1954, p. 272).
Having retained all the achievements of the first theatrical edition of The Cherry Orchard and using all the acquisitions of his subsequent life that went in the direction of Chekhov's requirements, the Art Theater, when changing the dramatic key to a comedy-lyrical one, will undoubtedly create a performance of enormous social and artistic value, fully revealing the ideological richness of a wonderful work. Millions of Soviet viewers are looking forward to this performance.