Chekhov as an artist is no longer

compare with former Russians

writers - with Turgenev,

Dostoevsky or with me. Chekhov's

its own shape like

impressionists. Look how

like a man without anything

parsing paints which

come across his arm, and

no relationship with each other

these smears do not. But you will move away

some distance

look, and in general

the whole impression is obtained.

L. Tolstoy

Chekhov's plays seemed unusual to contemporaries. They differed sharply from the usual dramatic forms. They did not have the seemingly necessary set-ups, climaxes and, strictly speaking, dramatic action as such. Chekhov himself wrote about his plays: “People are only having dinner, wearing jackets, and at this time their fates are being decided, their lives are being destroyed”. In Chekhov's plays there is a subtext that acquires special artistic significance

"The Cherry Orchard" is the last work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, completing his creative biography, his ideological and artistic quest. New stylistic principles developed by him, new "techniques" for plotting and composition were embodied in this play in such figurative discoveries that elevated the realistic depiction of life to broad symbolic generalizations, to the insight of future forms of human relations.

1. "The Cherry Orchard" in the life of AP Chekhov. The history of the play

Encouraged by the excellent performances at the Art Theater "The Seagulls", "Uncle Vanya", "Three Sisters", as well as the huge success of these plays and vaudeville in the capital and provincial theaters, Chekhov plans to create a new "funny play, where the devil walks with a yoke." “... In minutes, a strong desire finds me to write a four-act vaudeville or comedy for the Moscow Art Theater. And I will write, if no one interferes, only I will give it to the theater not earlier than the end of 1903 ”.

The news of the idea of \u200b\u200ba new Chekhov play, reaching the artists and directors of the Moscow Art Theater, caused a great enthusiasm and a desire to speed up the work of the author. “I said in the troupe,” says O. L. Knipper, “they all picked up, shouted and thirsty.” Letter from O.L. Knipper to A.P. Chekhov dated 23 December. 1901 Correspondence between A.P. Chekhov and O. L. Knnpper.

Director V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, who, according to Chekhov, “demands a play,” wrote to Anton Pavlovich: “I remain firmly convinced that you must write plays. I'm going very far to give up fiction for plays. You have never developed so much as on stage. " "ABOUT. L. whispered to me that you are resolutely taking up a comedy ... The sooner your play is, the better. There will be more time for negotiations and elimination of various mistakes ... In a word ... write plays! Write plays! " Letters from V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko to A.P. Chekhov from April and December 1901. But Chekhov was in no hurry, nurtured, "experienced in himself" the idea, did not share with anyone for a while, pondered the "magnificent" (according to his words) the plot, not yet finding satisfying forms of artistic embodiment. The play "a little bit dawned in my brain, like the earliest dawn, and I myself do not yet understand what it is, what will come of it, and it changes every day."

In his notebook, Chekhov introduced some particulars, many of which were later used by him in The Cherry Orchard: “For the play: a liberal old woman dresses like a young woman, smokes, cannot live without society, is pretty”. This record, albeit in a transformed form, entered the characterization of Ranevskaya. "The character smells like fish, everyone tells him about it." This will be used for the image of Yasha and Gaev's attitude towards him. The word "idiot" found and written in a notebook will become the leitmotif of the play. Some of the facts inscribed in the book will be reproduced with changes in the comedy in connection with the image of Gayev and the off-stage character - the second husband of Ranevskaya: “The cabinet has been in the presence of a hundred years, as can be seen from the papers; officials are seriously celebrating his anniversary "," The gentleman owns a villa near Menton, which he bought with the money he received from the sale of an estate in the Tula province. I saw him in Kharkov, where he came on business, lost the villa, then served on the railroad, then died. "

On March 1, 1903, Chekhov told his wife: "For the play, I have already laid out the paper on the table and wrote the title." But the process of writing was hampered, hampered by many circumstances: Chekhov's grave illness, the fear that his method was "outdated" and that he would not be able to successfully process the "difficult plot."

KS Stanislavsky, "languishing" for Chekhov's play, informs Chekhov about the loss of all taste for other plays ("Pillars of Society", "Julius Caesar") and about the director's preparation for the future play that he started "gradually": "Keep in mind that I, just in case, recorded the shepherd's pipe into the phonograph. It turns out wonderful. " Letters from K.S. Stanislavsky to A.P. Chekhov, 21 Feb. and June 22, 1903

OL Knipper, like all the other artists of the troupe, who “with hellish impatience” awaited the play, also in her letters to Chekhov dispelled his doubts and fears: “As a writer, you are needed, terribly needed ... Each of your phrases is needed, and you are even more needed ahead ... Cast out unnecessary thoughts ... Write and love every word, every thought, every soul that you take out, and know that all this is necessary for people. There is no such writer as you ... Your plays are awaiting like manna from heaven. " Letter from O.L. Knipper to A.P. Chekhov, 24 Sept. 1903 g.

In the process of creating the play, Chekhov shared with his friends - the workers of the Art Theater - not only doubts, difficulties, but also further plans, changes and successes. They learn from him that he barely succeeds in "one main character", it is still "insufficiently thought out and interferes", that he is reducing the number of characters ("so intimate"), that the role of Stanislavsky - Lopakhin - "came out nothing myself ", the role of Katchalov - Trofimov -" good ", the end of the role of Knipper - Ranevskaya -" not bad ", and Lilina with her role Vary" will be satisfied "that Act IV," meager, but effective in content, is being written easy, as if smoothly ", but in the whole play," no matter how boring it is, there is something new, "and, finally, that its genre qualities are both original and well-defined:" The whole play is funny, frivolous. " Chekhov also expressed concern that some passages might be "censored".

At the end of September 1903, Chekhov finished the play in draft and began to correspond. His attitude to "The Cherry Orchard" at this time fluctuates, then he is satisfied, the characters seem to him "living people", then he reports that he has lost all appetite for the play, roles, except for the governess, "do not like". The rewriting of the play proceeded slowly; Chekhov had to redo, change his mind, and rewrite some passages that did not satisfy him especially.

On October 14, the play was sent to the theater. After the first emotional reaction to the play (excitement, "thrill and delight"), the theater began intense creative work: "trying on" roles, choosing the best performers, looking for a common tone, thinking about the decoration of the performance. They exchanged views with the author, first in letters, and then in personal conversations and at rehearsals: Chekhov arrived in Moscow at the end of November 1903. This creative communication, however, did not give full, unconditional unanimity, it was more difficult. In some ways, the author and theatrical figures came to a unanimous opinion, without any "bargains with conscience", something aroused doubt or rejection of one of the "parties", but the one that did not consider the issue to be of principle for itself made concessions; there are some differences.

Having sent away the play, Chekhov did not consider his work on it finished; on the contrary, fully trusting the artistic instincts of the directors of the theater and artists, he was ready to make “all the alterations that would be required to comply with the scene,” and asked for critical remarks: “I will correct; it's not too late, you can still redo the whole act. " In turn, he was ready to help directors and actors who approached him with requests to find the right ways to stage the play, and therefore rushed to Moscow for a rehearsal, and Knipper asked that she "not learn her role" before his arrival and not I would have ordered dresses for Ranevskaya before consulting with him.

The distribution of roles, which was the subject of passionate discussion in the theater, was very worried about Chekhov. He proposed his own distribution option: Ranevskaya - Knipper, Gaev - Vishnevsky, Lopakhin - Stanislavsky, Varya - Lilina, Anya - a young actress, Trofimov - Kachalov, Dunyasha - Khalyutina, Yasha - Moskvin, a passerby-- Gromov, Firs - Artem, Pishchik - Gribunin, Epikhodov - Luga. His choice in many cases coincided with the desire of the artists and the theater management: for Kachalov, Knipper, Artyom, Gribunin, Gromov, Khalyutina, after “fitting” the roles assigned to him by Chekhov were established. But the theater did not blindly follow Chekhov's instructions, put forward its own "projects", and some of them were readily accepted by the author. The proposal to replace Luzhsky in the role of Epikhodov with Moskvin, and in the role of Yasha Moskvin with Aleksandrov, aroused the full approval of Chekhov: "Well, this is very good, the play will only benefit from this." "Moskvin will come out splendid Epikhodov."

Less willingly, but nevertheless, Chekhov agrees to the rearrangement of the performers of the two female roles: Lilina is not Varya, but Anya; Varya - Andreeva. Chekhov also does not insist on his desire to see Vishnevsky in the role of Gayev, since he is quite convinced that Stanislavsky will be "a very good and original Gayev," but he painfully parted with the idea that Stanislavsky would not play Lopakhin: “When I wrote to Lopakhin, I thought it was your role ”(vol. XX, p. 170). Stanislavsky, fascinated by this image, as, incidentally, by other characters of the play, only then finally decides to transfer the role to Leonidov, when, after searching, “with renewed vigor in himself Lopakhin”, does not find a tone and pattern that satisfies him. KS Stanislavsky's letters to A.P. Chekhov dated October 20, 31, November 3, 1903. Muratova in the role of Charlotte also does not cause Chekhov's delight: “she may be good,” he says, “but not funny ”, But, however, in the theater opinions about her, as well as about the performers of Varya, diverged, there was no firm conviction that Muratova would succeed in this role.

Issues of decoration were discussed with the author. Although Chekhov wrote to Stanislavsky that he fully relies on the theater for this (“Please, do not hesitate about the scenery, I obey you, I am amazed and usually sit in your theater with my mouth open”, but still both Stanislavsky and the artist Somov summoned Chekhov to in the process of their creative quest for the exchange of opinions, they clarified some of the author's remarks, proposed their projects.

But Chekhov tried to shift all the viewer's attention to the inner content of the play, to social conflict, so he was afraid of being carried away by the setting, detailing everyday life, and sound effects: “I reduced the setting in the play to a minimum, no special decorations would be required.”

Act II caused a disagreement between the author and the director. While still working on the play, Chekhov wrote to Nemirovich-Danchenko that in the second act he “replaced the river with an old chapel and a well. That way it's quieter. Only ... You will give me a real green field and a road, and an extraordinary distance for the scene. " Stanislavsky, on the other hand, brought in a ravine, an abandoned cemetery, a railway bridge, a river in the distance, a hayfield in the foreground, and a small shock on which a walking company conducts a conversation in the scenery of Act II. “Allow me,” he wrote to Chekhov, “in one of the pauses to skip the train with a smoke,” and announced that at the end of the act there would be “a frog concert and a crake. KS Stanislavsky's letter to AP Chekhov dated November 19, 1903. In this act, Chekhov wanted to create only the impression of spaciousness, he was not going to clutter the viewer's mind with extraneous impressions, so his reaction to Stanislavsky's plans was negative. After the performance, he even called the stage II set “terrible”; at the time the theater was preparing the play, Knipper writes that Stanislavsky "needs to be kept" from "trains, frogs and steles", and in letters to Stanislavsky himself he delicately expresses his disapproval: “Haymaking usually happens on June 20-25, time the corncrake no longer seems to be screaming, the frogs are already silent by this time ... There is no cemetery, it was a long time ago. Two or three slabs lying randomly - that's all that remains. The bridge is very good. If the train can be shown without noise, without a single sound, then go ahead. "

The most fundamental discrepancy between the theater and the author was found in the understanding of the genre of the play. While still working on The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov called the play a “comedy”. In the theater, it was understood as "a true drama." "I can hear you say:" Excuse me, but this is a farce, "Stanislavsky begins an argument with Chekhov." ... No, for a common man it is a tragedy. " KS Stanislavsky's letter to A.P. Chekhov dated 20 October. 1903 g.

The understanding by the directors of the theater of the genre of the play, which was at variance with the author's understanding, determined many essential and particular moments of the stage interpretation of The Cherry Orchard.

2. The meaning of the title of the play "The Cherry Orchard"

Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky in his memoirs about A.P. Chekhov wrote: “'Listen, I found a wonderful title for the play. Wonderful! “- he announced, staring at me. "What?" - I was worried. "The Vimshnevy Garden" (with an emphasis on the letter "i"), and he burst into joyful laughter. I did not understand the reason for his joy and did not find anything special in the name. However, in order not to upset Anton Pavlovich, I had to pretend that his discovery made an impression on me ... Instead of explaining, Anton Pavlovich began repeating in different ways, with all sorts of intonations and sound coloration: “Vimshnevy Garden. Look, this is a wonderful name! Vimshnevy Garden. Vimshnevy! “After this meeting, several days or a week passed ... Once during a performance he came to my dressing room and sat down at my table with a solemn smile. “Listen, not Vimshnevy, but the Cherry Orchard,” he announced and burst out laughing. At the first minute I did not even understand what was being said, but Anton Pavlovich continued to savor the title of the play, emphasizing the delicate sound ё in the word "cherry", as if trying with his help to caress the old beautiful, but now unnecessary life, which he with tears destroyed in his play. This time I understood the subtlety: The Vimshnevy Garden is a business, commercial garden that generates income. Such a garden is needed now. But "The Cherry Orchard" does not bring any income, it keeps in itself and in its blossoming whiteness the poetry of the former lordly life. Such a garden grows and blooms for a whim, for the eyes of spoiled aesthetes. It is a pity to destroy it, but it is necessary, since the process of the country's economic development requires this.

The title of the play by A. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" seems to be quite natural. The action takes place in an old noble estate. The house is surrounded by a large cherry orchard. Moreover, the development of the plot of the play is connected with this image - the estate is being sold for debts. However, the moment of transition of the estate to a new owner is preceded by a period of stupid trampling in place of the previous owners, who do not want to dispose of their property in a businesslike manner, do not even really understand why this is necessary, how to do this, despite the detailed explanations of Lopakhin, a successful representative of the emerging bourgeois class.

But the cherry orchard also has a symbolic meaning in the play. Thanks to the way the characters in the play relate to the garden, their sense of time, their perception of life is revealed. For Lyubov Ranevskaya, the garden is her past, a happy childhood and a bitter memory of her drowned son, whose death she perceives as a punishment for her reckless passion. All thoughts and feelings of Ranevskaya are associated with the past. She just can't understand that she needs to change her habits, since the circumstances are different now. She is not a wealthy mistress, a landowner, but a ruined madcap, who will soon have neither a family nest, nor a cherry orchard if she does not take any decisive action.

For Lopakhin, a garden is primarily land, that is, an object that can be put into circulation. In other words, Lopakhin argues from the point of view of the priorities of the present time. The descendant of the serfs, who has become a man, thinks sensibly and logically. The need to independently pave his way in life taught this person to evaluate the practical usefulness of things: “Your estate is located only twenty miles from the city, there is a railway near it, and if the cherry orchard and land along the river are divided into summer cottages and then leased out for summer cottages , then you will have at least twenty-five thousand a year of income. " Sentimental arguments of Ranevskaya and Gaev about the vulgarity of dachas, that the cherry orchard is a landmark of the province, irritate Lopakhin. In fact, everything they say has no practical value in the present, does not play a role in solving a specific problem - if no action is taken, the garden will be sold, Ranevskaya and Gaev will lose all rights to their family estate, and dispose of it will have other owners. Of course, Lopakhin's past is also associated with the cherry orchard. But what is the past? Here his “grandfather and father were slaves”, here he himself, “beaten, illiterate,” “ran barefoot in winter”. Not too rosy memories are associated with a successful business man with a cherry orchard! Maybe that is why Lopakhin is so jubilant, having become the owner of the estate, that is why he talks with such joy about how he will “stop with an ax in the cherry orchard”? Yes, according to the past, in which he was nobody, he meant nothing in his own eyes and in the opinion of those around him, probably any person would be glad to have enough with an ax like that ...

“... I no longer like the cherry orchard,” says Anya, Ranevskaya's daughter. But for Anya, as well as for her mother, childhood memories are associated with the garden. Anya loved the cherry orchard, despite the fact that her childhood impressions are far from being as cloudless as those of Ranevskaya. Anya was eleven years old when her father died, her mother was carried away by another man, and soon her little brother Grisha drowned, after which Ranevskaya went abroad. Where did Anya live at that time? Ranevskaya says that she was drawn to her daughter. From the conversation between Anya and Varya, it becomes clear that Anya only at the age of seventeen went to her mother in France, from where they both returned to Russia. It can be assumed that Anya lived on her own estate, with Varya. Despite the fact that Anya's entire past is connected with the cherry orchard, she breaks up with him without much melancholy or regret. Anya's dreams are directed to the future: "We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this ...".

But in Chekhov's play, one can find another semantic parallel: the cherry orchard - Russia. “All Russia is our garden,” says Petya Trofimov with optimism. The obsolete noble life and tenacity of business people - after all, these two poles of the worldview are not just a special case. This is indeed a feature of Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. In the society of that time, there were many projects on how to equip the country: someone remembered the past with a sigh, someone briskly and efficiently suggested “clean up, clean up,” that is, carry out reforms that would put Russia on a par with the leading powers the world. But, as in the story with the cherry orchard, at the turn of the eras in Russia there was no real force capable of positively influencing the fate of the country. However, the old cherry orchard was already doomed ...

Thus, it can be noted that the image of the cherry orchard has quite a symbolic meaning. He is one of the central images of the work. Each hero treats the garden in his own way: for some it is reminiscent of childhood, for some it is just a place to relax, and for some it is a means of making money.

3. The originality of the play "The Cherry Orchard"

3.1 Ideological features

AP Chekhov tried to force the reader and viewer of The Cherry Orchard to recognize the logical inevitability of the ongoing historical “change” of social forces: the death of the nobility, the temporary domination of the bourgeoisie, the triumph of the democratic part of society in the near future. The playwright more clearly expressed in his work the belief in "free Russia", the dream of her.

The democrat Chekhov had harsh accusatory words that he threw at the inhabitants of the "noble nests. Therefore, having chosen subjectively not bad people from the nobility to be depicted in The Cherry Orchard and abandoning the burning satire, Chekhov laughed at their emptiness, idleness, but did not completely refuse them in the right to sympathy, and thus somewhat softened the satire.

Although in "The Cherry Orchard" there is no open sharp satire on the nobles, there is undoubtedly (hidden) denunciation of them. The commoner democrat Chekhov had no illusions, he considered it impossible to revive the nobles. Putting in the play "The Cherry Orchard" a theme that once worried Gogol (the historical fate of the nobility), Chekhov, in a truthful depiction of the life of the nobles, turned out to be the heir to the great writer. The ruin, lack of money, idleness of the owners of noble estates - Ranevskaya, Gaev, Simeonov-Pishchik - remind us of the pictures of impoverishment, idle existence of noble characters in the first and second volumes of Dead Souls. A ball during the auction, relying on a Yaroslavl aunt or other random favorable circumstance, luxury in clothes, champagne for basic needs in the house - all this is close to Gogol's descriptions and even to individual eloquent Gogol realistic details, which, as time itself showed, generalizing meaning. “Everything was based,” Gogol wrote about Khlobuev, “on the need to get a hundred or two hundred thousand from somewhere suddenly,” they counted on “a three-millionth aunt”. In Khlobuev's house "there is no piece of bread, but there is champagne", and "children are taught to dance." "Everything seems to have lived, all around in debt, nowhere from any funds, but sets dinner."

However, the author of The Cherry Orchard is far from Gogol's final conclusions. On the verge of two centuries, the very historical reality and the democratic consciousness of the writer suggested to him more clearly that it was impossible to revive the Khlobuevs, Manilovs and others. Chekhov also realized that the future did not belong to entrepreneurs like Kostonzhoglo and not to the virtuous tax farmers Murazovs.

In the most general form, Chekhov guessed that the future belongs to the democrats and the working people. And he appealed to them in his play. The originality of the position of the author of The Cherry Orchard lies in the fact that he, as it were, went a historical distance from the inhabitants of the noble nests and, having made his allies the audience, people of a different - working - environment, people of the future, together with them from the "historical distance" laughed at the absurdity, injustice, emptiness of those who had passed away, and no longer dangerous, from his point of view, people. This peculiar angle of view, an individual creative method of depicting Chekhov, perhaps not without reflection on the works of his predecessors, in particular, Gogol, Shchedrin. “Don't get bogged down in the details of the present,” Saltykov-Shchedrin urged. - But cultivate in yourself the ideals of the future; for it is a kind of sunbeams ... Gaze often and intently at the luminous points that flicker in the future ”(“ Poshekhonskaya antiquity ”).

Although Chekhov deliberately did not arrive at either a revolutionary-democratic or a social-democratic program, life itself, the strength of the liberation movement, the impact of the advanced ideas of the time aroused in him the need to prompt the viewer the need for social transformations, the proximity of a new life, that is, they did not make only to catch “luminous points that flicker in the future perspective”, but also to illuminate the present with them.

Hence the original combination in the play "The Cherry Orchard" of the lyrical and accusatory principles. Critically showing modern reality and at the same time expressing patriotic love for Russia, faith in its future, in the great opportunities of the Russian people - this was the task of the author of The Cherry Orchard. The wide open spaces of their native country ("gave"), the giant people who "would be so to face" them, free, labor, fair, creative life that they will create in the future ("new luxurious gardens") - this is the lyrical the beginning, which organizes the play "The Cherry Orchard", the author's norm, which is opposed to the "norms" of the modern ugly unjust life of dwarf people, "idiot". This combination of lyrical and accusatory elements in The Cherry Orchard constitutes the specificity of the genre of the play, precisely and subtly called by M. Gorky "lyrical comedy".

3.2 Genre features

The Cherry Orchard is a lyrical comedy. In it, the author conveyed his lyrical attitude towards Russian nature and his indignation at the plundering of its riches "Forests crack under an ax", rivers become shallow and dry, magnificent gardens are destroyed, luxurious steppes are dying.

The "tender, beautiful" cherry orchard is dying, which they could only contemplatively admire, but which the Ranevskys and Gayevs could not save, over whose "wonderful trees" Yermolai Lopakhin roughly grabbed with an ax. In the lyrical comedy, Chekhov sang, as in The Steppe, a hymn to Russian nature, a “beautiful homeland,” expressed his dream of creators, people of labor and inspiration, who think not so much about their own well-being as about the happiness of others, about future generations. "A person is gifted with reason and creative power in order to multiply what is given to him, but until now he did not create, but destroyed", - these words were uttered in the play "Uncle Vanya", but the thought expressed in them is close to thoughts author of "The Cherry Orchard".

Outside of this dream of a man-creator, outside of the generalized poetic image of the cherry orchard, one cannot understand Chekhov's play, just as one cannot truly feel Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm", "Dowry" if one remains immune to the Volga landscapes in these plays, to Russian expanses, alien The "cruel morals" of the "dark kingdom".

Chekhov's lyrical attitude to the Motherland, to its nature, pain for the destruction of its beauty and riches constitute, as it were, the "undercurrent" of the play. This lyrical attitude is expressed either in the subtext or in the author's remarks. For example, in the second act, the remarks about the vastness of Russia are: a field, a cherry orchard in the distance, a road to a manor, a city on the horizon. Chekhov specifically directed the filming of the directors of the Moscow Art Theater to this remark: "In the second act you will give me a real green field and a road, and an extraordinary distance for the stage."

The directions related to the cherry orchard are full of lyricism (“it's already May, the cherry trees are blooming”); sad notes sound in the remarks marking the approach of the death of the cherry orchard or this very death: “the sound of a broken string, fading, sad”, “the dull thud of an ax on a tree, sounding lonely and sad”. Chekhov was very jealous of these remarks, worried that the directors would not quite accurately fulfill his plan: “The sound in acts 2 and 4 of The Cherry Orchard should be shorter, much shorter, and felt from afar ...”.

Expressing his lyrical attitude towards the Motherland in the play, Chekhov condemned everything that interferes with her life and development: idleness, frivolity, limitation. “But he,” as V. Ye. Khalizev rightly noted, “was far from a nihilistic attitude to the former poetry of noble nests, to noble culture”, he feared the loss of such values \u200b\u200bas cordiality, benevolence, gentleness in human relations, without delight ascertained the coming domination of the dry efficiency of the Lopakhins.

"The Cherry Orchard" was conceived as a comedy, as "a funny play, where the devil would walk with a yoke." “The whole play is funny, frivolous,” the author told his friends when he was working on it in 1903.

This definition of the genre of the comedy play was deeply principled for Chekhov; it was not without reason that he was so upset when he learned that the play was called a drama on the posters of the Art Theater and in newspaper advertisements. “It was not a drama that came out, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce,” Chekhov wrote. In an effort to give the play a cheerful tone, the author points out about forty times in his remarks: “joyfully”, “merrily”, “laughing”, “everyone is laughing”.

3.3 Compositional features

The comedy has four acts, and there is no division into scenes. Events take place over several months (May to October). The first action is the exposure. Here is a general description of the characters, their relationships, connections, and also here we learn the entire background of the issue (the reasons for the ruin of the estate).

The action begins in the Ranevskaya estate. We see Lopakhin and the maid Dunyasha awaiting the arrival of Lyubov Andreevna and her youngest daughter Anya. For the last five years, Ranevskaya and her daughter have lived abroad, while Ranevskaya's brother, Gaev, and her adopted daughter, Varya, remained on the estate. We learn about the fate of Lyubov Andreevna, about the death of her husband, son, learn the details of her life abroad. The landowner's estate is practically ruined, the beautiful cherry orchard must be sold for debts. The reasons for this are the extravagance and impracticality of the heroine, her habit of wasting money. The merchant Lopakhin offers her the only way to save the estate - to break the land into plots and lease them to summer residents. Ranevskaya and Gaev, however, resolutely reject this proposal, they do not understand how they can cut down a beautiful cherry orchard, the most "wonderful" place in the entire province. This contradiction, which has emerged between Lopakhin and Ranevskaya - Gaev, constitutes the plot of the play. However, this connection excludes both the external struggle of the characters and the acute internal struggle. Lopakhin, whose father was a serf Ranevsky, only offers them a real, reasonable, from his point of view, way out. At the same time, the first act develops at an emotionally increasing pace. The events that take place in it are extremely exciting for all the characters. This is the expectation of the arrival of Ranevskaya, who is returning to her home, a meeting after a long separation, the discussion by Lyubov Andreevna, her brother, Anya and Varya on measures to save the estate, the arrival of Petya Trofimov, which reminded the heroine of her deceased son. In the center of the first act, therefore, is the fate of Ranevskaya, her character.

In the second act, the hopes of the owners of the cherry orchard are replaced by anxiety. Ranevskaya, Gaev and Lopakhin again argue about the fate of the estate. Internal tension builds up here, the characters become irritable. It is in this act that "a distant sound is heard, as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string, fading, sad," as if heralding an impending catastrophe. At the same time, Anya and Petya Trofimov are comprehensively revealed in this act, in their remarks they express their views. Here we see the development of action. The external, social conflict here seems a foregone conclusion, even the date is known - "the auction is scheduled for the twenty-second of August." But at the same time, the motive of ruined beauty continues to develop here.

The third act of the play contains the culminating event - the cherry orchard is sold at auction. It is characteristic that the culmination here is an off-stage action: the auction takes place in the city. Gaev and Lopakhin went there. While waiting for them, the rest of them hold a ball. Everyone is dancing, Charlotte is performing magic tricks. However, the alarming atmosphere in the play is growing: Varya is nervous, Lyubov Andreevna is impatiently waiting for her brother's return, Anya transmits a rumor about the sale of the cherry orchard. Lyric and dramatic scenes are interspersed with comic ones: Petya Trofimov falls down the stairs, Yasha enters into a conversation with Firs, we hear dialogues between Dunyasha and Firs, Dunyasha and Epikhodov, Varya and Epikhodov. But then Lopakhin appears and reports that he bought an estate in which his father and grandfather were slaves. Lopakhin's monologue is the pinnacle of dramatic tension in the play. The culminating event in the play is given in the perception of the main characters. So, Lopakhin has a personal interest in buying the estate, but his happiness cannot be called complete: the joy of making a successful deal fights in him with regret, sympathy for Ranevskaya, whom he loves since childhood. Lyubov Andreevna is upset with everything that happens: the sale of an estate for her is a loss of home, “parting with the house where she was born, which became for her the personification of her usual way of life (“ After all, I was born here, my father and mother lived here, my grandfather, I I love this house, I don’t understand my life without a cherry orchard, and if you really need to sell, then sell me along with the garden ... ”)”. For Anya and Petit, the sale of the estate is not a disaster; they dream of a new life. The cherry orchard for them is the past, with which "is already over." Nevertheless, despite the difference in the outlook of the heroes, the conflict nowhere turns into a personal clash.

The fourth act is the denouement of the play. The dramatic tension in this act is eased. After solving the problem, everyone calms down, rushing into the future. Ranevskaya and Gaev say goodbye to the cherry orchard, Lyubov Andreevna returns to her former life - she is preparing to leave for Paris. Gaev calls himself a bank clerk. Anya and Petya welcome the "new life" without regretting the past. At the same time, a love conflict between Varya and Lopakhin is resolved - the matchmaking never took place. Varya is also preparing to leave - she has found a place as a housekeeper. In the confusion, everyone forgets about the old Firs, who was supposed to be sent to the hospital. And again the sound of a broken string is heard. And in the finale, the sound of an ax is heard, symbolizing sadness, the death of a passing era, the end of an old life. Thus, we have a circular composition in the play: in the finale, the theme of Paris reappears, expanding the artistic space of the work. The plot is based on the author's idea of \u200b\u200bthe inexorable passage of time. Chekhov's heroes seem to be lost in time. For Ranevskaya and Gayev, true life seemed to have remained in the past, for Anya and Petit it was imprisoned in a ghostly future. Lopakhin, who became the owner of the estate in the present, also does not feel joy and complains about the "awkward" life. And the very deep motives of this character's behavior do not lie in the present, but also in the distant past.

In the very composition of The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov strove to reflect the vacuous, sluggish, boring nature of the existence of his noble heroes, their life poor in events. The play is devoid of "spectacular" scenes and episodes, external variety: the action in all four acts is not carried outside the Ranevskaya estate. The only significant event - the sale of the estate and the cherry orchard - takes place not in front of the viewer, but behind the stage. On the stage is everyday life in the estate. People talk about everyday little things over a cup of coffee, during a walk or an impromptu "ball", quarrel and reconcile, rejoice at the meeting and upset about the upcoming separation, remember the past, dream of the future, and at this time - "their destinies are formed", ruined their "nest".

In an effort to give this piece a life-affirming, major key, Chekhov speeded up its tempo, in comparison with previous pieces, in particular, reduced the number of pauses. Chekhov was especially concerned that the final act would not be prolonged and that what was happening on the stage would not produce the impression of “tragedy” and drama. “It seems to me,” wrote Anton Pavlovich, “that in my play, no matter how boring it is, there is something new. By the way, not a single shot was fired in the whole play ”. “How awful! The act, which should last 12 minutes maximum, you have 40 minutes. "

3.4 Heroes and their roles

Deliberately depriving the play of "events", Chekhov directed all attention to the state of the characters, their attitude to the main fact - the sale of the estate and the garden, to their relationships, collisions. The teacher should draw the students' attention to the fact that in a dramatic work the author's attitude, the author's position is the most hidden. To find out this position, in order to understand the attitude of the playwright to the historical phenomena of the life of the homeland, to the characters and the event, the viewer and reader need to be very attentive to all the components of the play: the system of images carefully thought out by the author, the arrangement of the characters, the alternation of mise-en-scenes, the cohesion of monologues, dialogues, individual replicas of heroes, author's remarks.

Sometimes Chekhov deliberately exposes the collision of dreams and reality, lyrical and comic principles in the play. So, working on "The Cherry Orchard", he introduced into the second act after the words of Lopakhin ("And living here we ourselves should really be giants ...") Ranevskaya's response: "You need giants. They are only good in fairy tales, but so they scare. " To this, Chekhov added a mise-en-scène: the ugly figure of the "idiot" Epikhodov appears in the back of the stage, clearly contrasting with the dream of giant people. To the appearance of Epikhodov, Chekhov especially attracts the attention of the audience with two remarks: Ranevskaya (thoughtfully) “Epikhodov is coming”. ANYA (thoughtfully) "Epikhodov is coming."

In the new historical conditions, Chekhov the playwright, following Ostrovsky and Shchedrin, responded to Gogol's call: “For God's sake, give us Russian characters, give us ourselves, our rogues, our eccentrics! To their stage, to everyone's laughter! Laughter is a great thing! " ("Petersburg Notes"). "Our eccentrics", our "idiots" are trying to bring Chekhov to the ridicule of the public in the play "The Cherry Orchard".

The author's intention to make the viewer laugh and at the same time make him think about modern reality is most clearly expressed in the original comic characters - Epikhodov and Charlotte. The function of these "idiots" in the play is very significant. Chekhov makes the viewer catch their inner connection with the central characters and thereby denounces these eye-witted comedy faces. Epikhodov and Charlotte are not only funny, but also pitiful because of their unhappy "fortune" full of incongruities and surprises. Fate, in fact, treats them "without regret, like a storm to a small ship." These people are disfigured by life. Epikhodov is shown to be insignificant in his penniless ambition, pitiful in his misfortunes, in his claims and in his protest, limited in his "philosophy." He is proud, painfully proud, and life has put him in the position of a half-footed and rejected lover. He claims to be "educated", lofty feelings, strong passions, and life "prepared" for him daily "22 misfortunes", petty, ineffective, offensive. "

Chekhov, who dreamed of people in whom "everything would be beautiful: face, clothes, soul, and thoughts", has seen many freaks who have not found their place in life, people with complete confusion of thoughts and feelings, actions and words which are devoid of logic and meaning: "Of course, if you look from the point of view, then you, let me put it this way, excuse my frankness, completely brought me into a state of mind."

The source of Epikhodov's comic in the play is also that he does everything inappropriately, at the wrong time. There is no correspondence between his natural data and behavior. Close-minded, tongue-tied, he is prone to lengthy speeches, reasoning; awkward, talentless, he plays billiards (while breaking the cue), sings "terribly like a jackal" (by Charlotte's definition), grimly accompanying himself on the guitar. At the wrong time, he declares his love to Dunyasha, inappropriately asks thoughtful questions (“Have you read Buckle?”), Inappropriately uses many words: “Only people who understand and older can talk about this”; "And so you look, something extremely indecent, like a cockroach", "to exact from me, let me express myself, you cannot."

The function of Charlotte's character in the play is close to that of Epikhodov's. The fate of Charlotte is absurd, paradoxical: a German, circus actress, acrobat and magician, she turned out to be a governess in Russia. Everything is uncertain, accidental in her life: accidentally and the appearance in the estate of Ranevskaya, accidental and leaving it. Charlotte is always expected to be surprised; how her life will be determined after the sale of the estate, she does not know how incomprehensible the purpose and meaning of her existence: "All alone, alone, I have no one and ... who I am, why I am - unknown." Loneliness, misfortune, confusion constitute the second, hidden foundation of this comic character in the play.

It is significant in this respect that, while continuing to work on the image of Charlotte during the rehearsals of the play at the Art Theater, Chekhov did not retain the previously planned additional comic episodes (tricks in acts I, III, IV) and, on the contrary, strengthened the motive of Charlotte's loneliness and unhappy fate: at the beginning of Act II, everything from the words: "I really want to talk, but not with anyone ..." before: "Why am I - unknown" - was introduced by Chekhov into the final edition.

"Happy Charlotte: Singing!" - says Gaev at the end of the play. With these words, Chekhov also emphasizes Gaev's misunderstanding of Charlotte's position and the paradoxical nature of her behavior. At a tragic moment in her life, even as if conscious of her position ("so please, find me a place. I can't do that ... I have nowhere to live in the city"), she performs tricks, sings. Her serious thought, awareness of loneliness, unhappiness is combined with buffoonery, buffoonery, circus habit of amusement.

Charlotte's speech has the same bizarre combination of different styles and words: along with purely Russian words, there are distorted words and constructions ("I want to sell. Does anyone want to buy?"), Foreign words, paradoxical phrases ("These clever people are all so stupid" , "You, Epikhodov, are a very intelligent person and very scary; women must be madly in love with you. Brrr! ..").

Chekhov attached great importance to these two characters (Epikhodov and Charlotte) and was worried that they would be correctly and interestingly interpreted in the theater. The role of Charlotte seemed to the author the most successful, and he advised the artists Knipper and Lilina to take her, and about Epikhodov he wrote that this role was short, "but real." With these two comic characters, the author, in fact, helps the viewer and reader to understand not only the situation in the life of the Epikhodovs and Charlottes, but also to extend to the rest of the characters the impressions he gets from the convex, pointed image of these "idiots", makes them see The “wrong side” of life, to notice in some cases the “unfunny” in the comic, in other cases to guess the funny behind the outwardly dramatic.

We understand that not only Epikhodov and Charlotte, but also Ranevskaya, Gayev, Simeonov-Pishchik "exist for an unknown reason." To these idle inhabitants of the ruining noble nests, living "on someone else's expense," Chekhov added persons who were not yet acting on the stage and thereby strengthened the typicality of the images. The serf-owner, the father of Ranevskaya and Gaev, corrupted by idleness, the morally lost second husband of Ranevskaya, the tyrannical Yaroslavl grandmother-countess, showing class arrogance (she still cannot forgive Ranevskaya that her first husband was "not a nobleman") - all these "types", together with Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik, "have already outlived". To convince the viewer of this, according to Chekhov, neither evil satire nor contempt was needed; it was enough to make one look at them through the eyes of a person who had gone a considerable historical distance and was no longer satisfied with their living standards.

Ranevskaya and Gaev do nothing to preserve, save the estate and the garden from destruction. On the contrary, it is precisely because of their idleness, impracticality, and carelessness that the “nests” so “sacredly loved” by them are ruined, the beautiful poetic cherry orchards are destroyed.

The same is the price of the love of these people for their homeland. “God knows I love my homeland, I love it dearly,” says Ranevskaya. Chekhov makes us confront these words with deeds and understand that her words are impulsive, do not reflect a constant mood, depth of feeling, diverge from actions. We learn that Ranevskaya left Russia five years ago, that she was suddenly “drawn to Russia” from Paris only after a catastrophe in her personal life (“there he robbed me, left me, got in touch with another, I tried to poison myself ...”) , and we see in the finale that she still leaves her homeland. No matter how regrets Ranevskaya about the cherry orchard and the estate, she soon "calmed down and cheered up" in anticipation of leaving for Paris. On the contrary, Chekhov says throughout the entire course of the play that the idle antisocial character of the life of Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik testifies to their complete oblivion of the interests of their homeland. He creates the impression that for all their subjectively good qualities, they are useless and even harmful, since they contribute not to the creation, not to "increase the wealth and beauty" of the homeland, but to destruction: Pischik thoughtlessly surrenders a plot of land to the British for 24 years for the predatory exploitation of natural Russian resources, the magnificent cherry orchard of Ranevskaya and Gaev perishes.

By the actions of these characters, Chekhov convinces us that we cannot trust their words, spoken even sincerely, excitedly. “We will pay the interest, I am convinced,” Gayev breaks out without any reason, and he already excites himself and others with these words: “By my honor, whatever you want, I swear, the estate will not be sold! .. I swear by my happiness! Here's my hand, then call me a trashy, dishonest person, if I admit it to the auction! I swear with my whole being! " Chekhov compromises his hero in the eyes of the viewer, showing that Gaev "allows him to go to the auction" and the estate, contrary to his vows, turns out to be sold.

In Act I, Ranevskaya decisively tears up, without reading, the telegrams from Paris from the person who insulted her: "Paris is over." But Chekhov in the further course of the play shows the instability of Ranevskaya's reaction. In the following acts, she already reads telegrams, is inclined to reconcile, and in the finale, calmed and cheerful, she willingly returns to Paris.

Uniting these characters on the basis of kinship and social belonging, Chekhov, however, shows both similarities and individual traits of each. At the same time, he makes the viewer not only question the words of these characters, but also think about justice, the depth of reviews of other people about them. “She is good, kind, glorious, I love her very much,” says Gaev about Ranevskaya. “She is a good person, an easy, simple person,” Lopakhin says about her, and enthusiastically expresses his feelings to her: “I love you like my own ... more than my own.” Anya, Varya, Pischik, Trofimov, and Firs are attracted to Ranevskaya, like a magnet. She is equally kind, delicate, affectionate with her own, and with her adopted daughter, and with her brother, and with the "man" Lopakhin, and with the servant.

Ranevskaya is cordial, emotional, her soul is open to beauty. But Chekhov will show that these qualities, combined with carelessness, spoiledness, frivolity, very often (although regardless of the will and subjective intentions of Ranevskaya) turn into their opposite: cruelty, indifference, negligence towards people. The last gold Ranevskaya will give to a random passer-by, and at home the servant will live from hand to mouth; she will say to Firs: "Thank you, my dear," she will kiss him, sympathetically and affectionately inquire about his health and ... will leave him, a sick, old, devoted servant, in a boarded-up house. With this final chord in the play, Chekhov deliberately compromises Ranevskaya and Gaev in the eyes of the viewer.

Gaev, like Ranevskaya, is gentle and sensitive to beauty. However, Chekhov does not allow us to fully trust Ani's words: "Everyone loves you, respects you." "How good you are, uncle, how smart." Chekhov will show that Gayev's gentle, gentle treatment of close people (sister, niece) is combined with class disdain for the “grimy” Lopakhin, “a man and a boor” (by his definition), with a contemptuous disdainful attitude towards servants (from Yasha "Smells of chicken", Firs "tired", etc.). We see that along with the lordly sensitivity, grace, he absorbed the lordly arrogance, arrogance (characteristic of Gaev's word: "who?"), The conviction of the exclusiveness of the people of his circle ("white bone"). He, more than Ranevskaya, feels himself and makes others feel his position as a master and the associated advantages. And at the same time flirts with closeness to the people, claims that he "knows the people", that "the man loves him."

Other compositions:

1. MA Bulgakov had a rather ambiguous, complex relationship with the government, like any writer of the Soviet era, who did not write works that praised this power. On the contrary, it is clear from his works that he blames her for the devastation that came with her arrival. Read More ......
2. The cherry orchard is a complex and ambiguous image. This is not only a specific garden, which is part of the Gayev and Ranevskaya estate, but also a symbolic image. It symbolizes not only the beauty of Russian nature, but, most importantly, the beauty of the life of the people who grew up this garden and admired it, that Read More ......
3. The Cherry Orchard, which is one of the last creations of AP Chekhov, is a very profound work, where the tragedy of their situations is almost always guessed behind the author's ironic mockery of the heroes. So, for example, the fate of representatives of the outgoing era, Gaev and Ranevskaya, is hard. Both are worthy Read More ......
4. In the play, Chekhov summarizes the theme of the death of the nobility's nests, reveals the doom of the nobility and the arrival of new social forces to replace it. The Russia of the past, the Russia of cherry orchards with their elegiac beauty is represented by the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev. These are the fragments of the local nobility. They are indecisive, not Read More ......
5. The play "The Cherry Orchard" was written by AP Chekhov in 1903, at the turn of the eras. At this time, the author is full of the feeling that Russia is on the eve of tremendous changes. Like any person, Chekhov dreamed of the future, of a new life that would bring Read More ......
6. Goncharov, like any other writer, tries to be loyal to what he is describing, and as a result, we cannot find specific words that express his author's position. But it can be learned through the opinions of the characters, through the situations in which they find themselves. Read More ......
7. "The Cherry Orchard" is one of the most famous plays by A. Chekhov. For the first time it was shown to the audience in 1904 and since then has not left the stage of the whole world. In his play, Chekhov reflected an important period in the history of Russia. Read More ......

The author's position in the images of the characters of the play "The Cherry Orchard"

For the first time A.P. Chekhov announced the start of work on a new play in 1901 in a letter to his wife O.L. Knipper-Chekhova. The work on the play was very difficult to progress, it was caused by a serious illness of Anton Pavlovich. In 1903 it was completed and presented to the directors of the Moscow Art Theater. The premiere of the play took place in 1904. And from that moment on, the play "The Cherry Orchard" has been analyzed and criticized for over a hundred years.

The play "The Cherry Orchard" became the swan song of A.P. Chekhov. It contains reflections on the future of Russia and its people, accumulated in his thoughts for years. And the very artistic originality of the play became the pinnacle of Chekhov's work as a playwright, showing once again why he is considered an innovator, who breathed new life into the entire Russian theater.

Theme of the play

The theme of the play "The Cherry Orchard" was the sale at auction of the family nest of impoverished nobles. By the early twentieth century, such stories were not uncommon. A similar tragedy happened in Chekhov's life, their house, along with his father's shop, was sold for debts back in the 80s of the nineteenth century, and this left an indelible mark on his memory. And already, being an accomplished writer, Anton Pavlovich tried to understand the psychological state of people who were deprived of their home.

Characters

When analyzing the play "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov's characters are traditionally divided into three groups, based on their temporary affiliation. The first group, representing the past, includes the aristocrats Ranevskaya, Gaev and their old lackey Firs. The second group is represented by the merchant Lopakhin, who has become a representative of the present time. Well, the third group is Petya Trofimov and Anya, they are the future.
The playwright does not have a clear division of heroes into major and minor, as well as strictly negative or positive. It is this representation of characters that is one of the innovations and features of Chekhov's plays.

Conflict and development of the plot of the play

There is no open conflict in the play, and this is another feature of A.P. Chekhov. And on the surface is the sale of an estate with a huge cherry orchard. And against the background of this event, one can discern the opposition of a bygone era to new phenomena in society. The ruined noblemen stubbornly hold on to their property, unable to take real steps to save it, and the offer to receive commercial profit by leasing land to summer residents is unacceptable for Ranevskaya and Gaev. Analyzing the work "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov, we can talk about a temporary conflict in which the past collides with the present, and the present with the future. The generational conflict itself is by no means new for Russian literature, but never before has it been revealed at the level of a subconscious premonition of changes in historical time, so clearly felt by Anton Pavlovich. He wanted to make the viewer or reader think about his place and role in this life.

It is very difficult to divide Chekhov's plays into phases of development of dramatic action, because he tried to bring the unfolding action closer to reality, showing the everyday life of his heroes, which make up most of life.

The exposition can be called a conversation between Lopakhin and Dunyasha, who are awaiting Ranevskaya's arrival, and almost immediately the plot of the play stands out, which consists in pronouncing the apparent conflict of the play - the sale of the estate at an auction for debts. The twists and turns of the play lie in the attempts to convince the owners to lease the land. The culmination is the news of the purchase of the estate by Lopakhin and the denouement is the departure of all the heroes from the empty house.

Song composition

The play "The Cherry Orchard" consists of four acts.

In the first act, you get to know all the characters in the play. Analyzing the first act of The Cherry Orchard, it is worth noting that the inner content of the characters is conveyed through their attitude to the old cherry orchard. And here one of the conflicts of the whole play begins - the confrontation between the past and the present. The past is represented by brother and sister Gaev and Ranevskaya. For them, the garden and the old house are a reminder and a living symbol of their former carefree life, in which they were rich aristocrats who owned a huge estate. For Lopakhin, who is opposed to them, the possession of a garden is primarily an opportunity to make a profit. Lopakhin makes Ranevskaya an offer, by accepting which, she can save the estate, and asks the impoverished landowners to think about it.

Analyzing the second action of The Cherry Orchard, it is necessary to note that the owners and servants do not walk in the beautiful garden, but in the field. Hence, we can conclude that the garden is in an absolutely neglected state, and it is simply impossible to walk through it. This action perfectly reveals Petya Trofimov's idea of \u200b\u200bwhat the future should be like.

The play climaxes in the third act. The estate was sold, and Lopakhin became the new owner. Despite the satisfaction of the deal, Lopakhin is saddened that he should decide the fate of the garden. This means that the garden will be destroyed.

The fourth action: the family nest is empty, the once united family breaks up. And just as the garden is cut down by the roots, so this surname remains without roots, without a refuge.

The author's position in the play

Despite the seeming tragedy of what was happening, the heroes did not evoke any sympathy from the author himself. He considered them narrow-minded people, incapable of deep feelings. This play became more of a philosophical reflection of the playwright about what awaits Russia in the near future.

The genre of the play is very peculiar. Chekhov called The Cherry Orchard a comedy. The first directors saw drama in it. And many critics agreed that "The Cherry Orchard" is a lyrical comedy.

Product test

The Cherry Orchard is the pinnacle of Russian drama at the beginning of the 20th century, a lyrical comedy, a play that marked the beginning of a new era in the development of Russian theater.

The main theme of the play is autobiographical - a bankrupt family of nobles sells their family estate at an auction. The author, as a person who has gone through a similar life situation, with a subtle psychologism, describes the state of mind of people who are soon forced to leave their home. The novelty of the play is the absence of a division of heroes into positive and negative, major and minor. They all fall into three categories:

• people of the past - noble aristocrats (Ranevskaya, Gaev and their lackey Firs);
• people of the present - their bright representative, the merchant-entrepreneur Lopakhin;
• the people of the future are the progressive youth of that time (Petr Trofimov and Anya).

History of creation

Chekhov began work on the play in 1901. Due to serious health problems, the writing process was rather difficult, but nevertheless, in 1903 the work was completed. The first theatrical production of the play took place a year later on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater, becoming the pinnacle of Chekhov's work as a playwright and a textbook classic of the theatrical repertoire.

Analysis of the piece

Description of the work

The action takes place in the family estate of the landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who returned from France with her young daughter Anya. At the railway station they are met by Gaev (Ranevskaya's brother) and Varya (her adopted daughter).

The financial situation of the Ranevsky family is approaching complete collapse. The entrepreneur Lopakhin offers his own version of the solution to the problem - to divide the land plot into shares and give them to summer residents for a certain fee. The lady is burdened by this proposal, because for this she will have to say goodbye to her beloved cherry orchard, which is associated with many warm memories of her youth. Adding to the tragedy is the fact that her beloved son Grisha died in this garden. Gayev, imbued with the feelings of his sister, reassures her with a promise that their family estate will not be put up for sale.

The action of the second part takes place on the street, in the yard of the estate. Lopakhin, with his characteristic pragmatism, continues to insist on his plan to save the estate, but no one pays attention to him. Everyone switches to the appeared teacher Peter Trofimov. He delivers an excited speech dedicated to the fate of Russia, its future and touches on the topic of happiness in a philosophical context. The materialist Lopakhin is skeptical about the young teacher, and it turns out that only Anya is capable of being imbued with his lofty ideas.

The third act begins with Ranevskaya's last money inviting the orchestra and arranging a dance evening. At the same time, Gaev and Lopakhin are absent - they left for the city for the auction, where the Ranevsky estate should go under the hammer. After anxious waiting, Lyubov Andreevna learns that her estate was bought at auction by Lopakhin, who does not hide the joy of his acquisition. The Ranevsky family is in despair.

The final is entirely devoted to the departure of the Ranevsky family from their home. The scene of parting is shown with all the deep psychologism inherent in Chekhov. The play ends with a remarkably deep monologue by Firs, which the owners in a hurry forgot in the estate. The final chord is the sound of an ax. The cherry orchard is being cut.

main characters

Sentimental person, owner of the estate. Having lived for several years abroad, she is accustomed to a luxurious life and, by inertia, continues to allow herself much that, given the deplorable state of her finances, according to the logic of common sense, should be inaccessible to her. Being a frivolous person, very helpless in everyday matters, Ranevskaya does not want to change anything in herself, while she is fully aware of her weaknesses and shortcomings.

A successful merchant, he owes a lot to the Ranevsky family. His image is ambiguous - it combines diligence, prudence, enterprise and rudeness, "peasant" principle. In the finale of the play, Lopakhin does not share Ranevskaya's feelings, he is happy that, despite his peasant origin, he was able to afford to buy the estate of his late father's owners.

Like his sister, he is very sensitive and sentimental. Being an idealist and romantic, to comfort Ranevskaya, he comes up with fantastic plans to save the family estate. He is emotional, verbose, but at the same time completely inactive.

Petya Trofimov

An eternal student, a nihilist, an eloquent representative of the Russian intelligentsia, who stands up for the development of Russia only in words. In pursuit of the "higher truth", he denies love, considering it a shallow and ghostly feeling, which immensely grieves Ranevskaya's daughter Anya, who is in love with him.

A romantic 17-year-old young lady who fell under the influence of the populist Peter Trofimov. Recklessly believing in a better life after the sale of her parental estate, Anya is ready for any difficulties for the sake of joint happiness next to her lover.

An 87-year-old man, a footman in the Ranevskys' house. A type of servant of the old times, he surrounds his masters with paternal care. He remained to serve his masters even after the abolition of serfdom.

A young lackey, with contempt for Russia, dreaming of going abroad. A cynical and cruel man, rude to old Firs, even disrespectful to his own mother.

The structure of the work

The structure of the piece is quite simple - 4 acts without dividing into separate scenes. The duration is several months, from late spring to mid-autumn. In the first act there is an exposition and a set-up, in the second - an increase in tension, in the third - the culmination (sale of the estate), in the fourth - the denouement. A characteristic feature of the play is the absence of a genuine external conflict, dynamism, and unpredictable twists in the plot line. The author's remarks, monologues, pauses and some understatement give the play a unique atmosphere of exquisite lyricism. The artistic realism of the play is achieved through the alternation of dramatic and comic scenes.

(Scene from a modern production)

The play is dominated by the development of the emotional and psychological plan, the main driver of the action is the inner experiences of the characters. The author expands the artistic space of the work by introducing a large number of characters who will never appear on the stage. The effect of expanding the spatial boundaries is also given by the symmetrically arising theme of France, which gives the arched form to the play.

Final conclusion

Chekhov's last play can be said to be his “swan song”. The novelty of her dramatic language is a direct expression of a special Chekhovian concept of life, which is characterized by an extraordinary attention to small, seemingly insignificant details, a focus on the inner experiences of the characters.

In the play "The Cherry Orchard" the author captured the state of critical disunity in Russian society of his time, this sad factor is often present in scenes where the characters hear only themselves, creating only the appearance of interaction.