The play "The Cherry Orchard" is called Chekhov's swan song. This is his last play, written a year before his early death.

Written in 1903. First staged on January 17, 1904 at the Moscow Art Theater. The playwright passed away on July 15, 1904. He was 44 years old.

The play was written on the threshold of the first Russian revolution of 1905 -07, it contains a moment of anticipation by Chekhov of subsequent historical events, which he could no longer see.

The central image in the work is the image of a cherry orchard, all the characters are located around it, each of them has his own perception of the garden. And this image is symbolic. The image of Russia is behind the image of the cherry orchard, and the main theme of the play is the fate of Russia.

The play is imbued with the author's reflections on the past, present and future of Russia, the symbol of which is the cherry orchard.

Ranevskaya and Gaev personify the past of the cherry orchard and, at the same time, the past of Russia. In the play, the garden is cut down, and in life noble nests are disintegrating, old Russia, the Russia of the Ranevskys and Gayevs, are becoming obsolete.

Ranevskaya and Gaev are the images of the ruined noble landowners. They are the descendants of the wealthy owners of a magnificent estate with a beautiful cherry orchard. In the old days, their estate brought income, on which his idle owners lived.

The habit of living by the labors of others, not caring about anything, made Ranevskaya and Gayev people unadapted to any serious activity, weak-willed and helpless.

Ranevskaya, outwardly charming, kind, simple, is basically the personification of frivolity. She is sincerely concerned about the unsettledness of her adopted daughter Varya, feels sorry for her faithful servant Firs, and simply kisses the maid Dunyasha after a long separation. But her kindness is the result of an abundance not created by her own hands, a consequence of the habit of spending money without counting.

Ranevskaya's double, but a less significant person, is Gaev in the play. And he is able to sometimes say clever things, sometimes be sincere, self-critical. But his sister's shortcomings - frivolity, impracticality, lack of will - become caricature in Gayev. Lyubov Andreevna only kisses the cupboard in a fit of emotion, while Gaev delivers a speech in front of him in a "high style."

Gaev is frankly ridiculous in his attempts to live as if nothing had changed, as if he had not eaten his fortune on candies. He speaks almost always inappropriately, utters meaningless billiard terms reminiscent of the days of his gay youth. Gaev is pitiful with his empty pompous speeches, with the help of which he is trying to revive the familiar atmosphere of the former well-being.

Brother and sister have everything in the past. But Gaev and Ranevskaya are somehow attractive to us. They are able to feel the beauty, and the cherry orchard itself is perceived mainly aesthetically, and not utilitarian - as a source of berries that can be used for food or sold, or as a large piece of land, which, again, has commercial value.

The play has an elegiac mood, the sadness of parting with the dying past, in which there was a lot of bad, but there was also good. At the same time, this is a kind of Chekhov's lyricosatirical comedy, which, with a certain sly good nature, but still quite severely, with Chekhov's sobriety and clarity, laughs at the nobility leaving the historical stage.

Critics who responded to the staging of the play at the Art Theater regarded it as the final verdict of the noble class. One of the reviewers of the play stated that in The Cherry Orchard "a monument over the grave of pretty little white-handed orchids that faded behind someone else's coffin" was erected, and "their languid obedience and meekness fills the heart with horror and pity."

People like Gaev and Ranevskaya are being replaced by a completely different kind of people: strong, enterprising, dexterous. One of these people is another character in the play, Lopakhin.

There are different paths in studying action-by-action drama. Some suggest commented reading, where the main goal is given to reading, which is subject to analysis; others - analysis with reading of individual phenomena with accompanying commentary. Each individual action takes its place in the ideological and dramatic terms, in the development of the plot, in solving the artistic task of the entire play.

Observing the development of the plot (action) is inseparable from the work on the characters of the heroes. When preparing for a lesson in a play, one must select phenomena for reading and analysis, and raise basic questions. It is necessary to determine which scenes are reference, which phenomena should be highlighted for detailed analysis.

1. Work on the play: reading individual scenes and analyzing 1, 2 acts. Questions and tasks:

Your impressions of the first pages of the play "The Cherry Orchard";

Why are comedy characters so unusual?

Around what event does 1 act of the play unfold? Why is it so important to the author?

Find in 1 act the stylistic elements characteristic of Chekhov's depiction (lyricism, symbolism, recollections, lexical repetitions, pauses, cutoffs of phrases, author's remarks);

What role do you think the secondary characters (Epikhodov, Charlotte, etc.) play in creating the socio-psychological "subtext" of the play?

Why does Chekhov mark the age of only 3 characters?

What, in your opinion, is the theme of the play?

How does the comprehension of the essence of the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev take place?

2. Questions and tasks for 3, 4 actions:

What amazes you in the deeds and actions of Ranevskaya and Gaev?

What changes and why are taking place in our attitude towards the owners of the cherry orchard?

Track how they behave in truly dramatic situations?

Give a detailed answer-characteristic "Old owners of the garden."

(The characters created by Chekhov are complex, they contradictably mix good and evil, comic and tragic. Creating images of the inhabitants of the ruining noble nest of Ranevskaya and her brother Gaev, Chekhov emphasized that such “types” have already “outlived.” They show love for their estate , cherry orchard, but they do nothing to save the estate from destruction, because of their idleness and impracticality, the “nests” so “sacred” by them are ruined, beautiful cherry orchards are destroyed.

Ranevskaya is shown in the play as very kind, affectionate, but frivolous, sometimes indifferent and careless in relation to people (the last gold is given to a random passer-by, and the servant lives from hand to mouth at home); affectionate to Firs and leaves him sick in a boarded-up house. She is smart, warm-hearted, emotional, but an idle life has corrupted her, deprived her of will, turned her into a helpless being.

Reading, we learn that she left Russia 5 years ago, that she was suddenly drawn from Paris to Russia only after a catastrophe in her personal life. In the finale of the play, she nevertheless leaves her homeland and, no matter how regrets about the cherry orchard and the estate, she soon calmed down and cheered up "in anticipation of leaving for Paris.

Chekhov makes one feel with the whole course of the play that the narrow vital interests of Ranevskaya and Gaev testify to their complete oblivion of the interests of their homeland. One gets the impression that for all their good qualities, they are useless and even harmful, since they contribute not to creation, "not to increase the wealth and beauty" of the homeland, but to destruction.

Gaev is 51 years old, and he, like Ranevskaya, is helpless, inactive, careless. His gentle treatment of his niece and sister is combined with disdain for the “grimy” Lopakhin, “a man and a boor,” with a contemptuous disdain for the servants. All his vital energy is spent on elevated unnecessary conversations, empty verbosity. Like Ranevskaya, he is used to living "at someone else's expense", does not count on his own strength, but only outside help: "it would be nice to get an inheritance, it would be nice to marry Anya off as a rich man ..."

So, throughout the play, Ranevskaya and Gaev are experiencing the collapse of their last hopes, a severe emotional shock, they are deprived of their family, home, but they are unable to understand anything, learn anything, or do something useful. Their evolution over the course of the play is a ruin, a collapse not only material, but also spiritual. Ranevskaya and Gayev, willingly or unwillingly, betray everything that seems to be dear to them: the garden, and relatives, and the faithful slave of Firs. The final scenes of the play are amazing).

Tell us about Lopakhin's fate. How does the author debunk him?

What is the meaning of comparing the owners of the cherry orchard and Lopakhin?

Explanations:

When characterizing Lopakhin, it is necessary to reveal his complexity and inconsistency, objectivity and a comprehensive approach to his image. Lopakhin differs from Gaev and Ranevskaya in his energy, activity, and business acumen. His activities undoubtedly mark progressive shifts.

At the same time, the author forces us to disagree with the idea that progressive designs should lead to the devastation of the earth, the destruction of beauty. It is no coincidence that the glee of the new owner is replaced by sadness and bitterness: "Oh, it would be more likely that all this would pass, it would sooner change somehow awkward, unhappy life." In him, conflicting feelings are constantly fighting. One cannot miss such a significant detail as the episode in the finale of the play, when the sound of the ax on the cherry trees is heard. At the request of Ranevskaya, Lopakhin orders to interrupt the cutting of the garden. But as soon as the old owners left the estate, the axes knock again. The new owner is in a hurry ...

Teacher's word.

But Chekhov looks at Lopakhin as if from a "historical distance", therefore he sees behind his subjectively good intentions only predatory and limited activity. He bought both the estate and the cherry orchard somehow "by chance". Only next to the Ranevskys, Gayevs, Lopakhin can give the impression of a figure, but Trofimov's plans for Lopakhin "to set up dachas" "seem untenable, narrow."

So what is the role of the young characters in the play?

Why, bringing together the images of Petya Trofimov and Varya, the author opposes them to each other?

How is the contradictory character of Petya Trofimov expressed and why does the author treat him ironically?

Conclusions on the image of Petya Trofimov (can be done by a teacher or trained student):

While creating the image of Trofimov, Chekhov had difficulties. He assumed possible censorship attacks: “I was mainly frightened ... by some unfinished student Trofimov. After all, Trofimov is now and then in exile, he is now and then expelled from the university ... "

Indeed, student Trofimov appeared in front of the audience at a time when the public was agitated by student riots.

In the image of the "eternal student" - the commoner son of the doctor Trofimov, superiority over other heroes is shown. He is poor, suffers deprivation, but resolutely refuses to "live on someone else's expense", to borrow.

Trofimov's observations and generalizations are broad, intelligent and fair: the nobles live on someone else's expense; intellectuals do nothing. Its principles (work, live for the future) are progressive. His life can inspire respect, excite young minds and hearts. His speech is agitated, varied, although, at times, and not devoid of banality ("We are going uncontrollably to a bright star ...").

But Trofimov also has features that bring him closer to other characters in the play. The life principles of Ranevskaya and Gaev affect him as well. Trofimov indignantly speaks of idleness, “philosophizing,” but he also talks a lot, loves teaching. The author sometimes puts Trofimov in a comic position: Petya falls down the stairs, unsuccessfully looking for old galoshes. Epithets: "neat", "funny freak", "fool", "shabby gentleman" - reduce the image of Trofimov, sometimes cause a mocking smile. Trofimov, according to the plan of the writer, should not look like a hero. Its role is to awaken the consciousness of young people who will themselves be looking for ways to fight for the future. Therefore, Anya, in a youthful way, enthusiastically absorbs Trofimov's ideas.

A.P. Chekhov turned to the genre of drama in his early work. But his true success as a playwright began with the play The Seagull. The play "The Cherry Orchard" is called Chekhov's swan song. She completed the creative path of the writer. In The Cherry Orchard, the author expressed his beliefs, thoughts, hopes. Chekhov believes that the future of Russia belongs to people like Trofimov and Anya. In one of his letters, Chekhov wrote: “Students and female students are good and honest people. This is our hope, this is the future of Russia. " It is they, according to Chekhov, who are the true owners of the cherry orchard, which the author identified with his homeland. “All Russia is our garden,” says Petya Trofimov.

The owners of the cherry orchard are hereditary noblemen Ranevskaya and Gaev, the Estate and the Garden have been the property of their family for many years, but they can no longer manage here. They are the personification of Russia's past, there is no future for them. Why?
Gaev and Ranevskaya are helpless, idle people, incapable of any active actions. They admire the beauty of a blooming garden, it evokes nose-thalgic memories in these people, but that's all. Their estate is being ruined, and these people cannot and do not try to do anything in order to somehow improve the situation. The price of such "love" is not high. Although Ranevkaya says: "God knows, I love my homeland, I love it dearly." But the question arises, what kind of love is this if she left Russia five years ago and returned now only because she suffered a fiasco in her personal life. And in the finale of the play, Ranevskaya again leaves her homeland.
Of course, the heroine gives the impression of a person with an open soul, she is cordial, emotional, impressionable. But these qualities are combined with such traits of her character as carelessness, spoiledness, frivolity, bordering on callousness and indifference to others. We see that in fact Ranevskaya is indifferent towards people, even sometimes cruel. How else to explain the fact that she gives the last gold to a passer-by, and the servant in the house remains to live from hand to mouth. She thanks Firs, inquires about his health, and ... leaves the old, sick man in the boarded-up house, simply forgetting about him. This is, to say the least, monstrous!
Like Ranevskaya, Gaev has a sense of beauty. I would like to note that he, more than Ranevskaya, gives the impression of a master. Although this character can be called exactly the same inactive, careless and frivolous, like his sister. Like a small child, Gaev cannot give up the habit of sucking lollipops and even counts on Firs in small things. His mood changes very quickly, he is a fickle, windy person. Gaev gets upset to tears from the fact that the estates are for sale, but as soon as he heard the sound of balls in the billiard room, he immediately cheered up, like a child.
Of course, Gaev and Ranevskaya are the embodiment of a past outgoing life. Their habit of living "on debt, at someone else's expense" speaks of the idleness of these heroes' existence. They are definitely not the masters of life, since even their material well-being depends on any chances: either it will be an inheritance, or the Yaroslavl grandmother will send them money in order to pay off their debts, or Lopakhin will lend money. People like Gaev and Ranevskaya are being replaced by a completely different kind of people: strong, enterprising, dexterous. One of these people is another character in the play, Lopakhin.
Lopakhin embodies the present of Russia. Lopakhin's parents were serfs, but after the abolition of serfdom, the fate of this man changed. He became a man, became rich, and is now able to buy the estate of those who were once his masters. Lopakhin feels his superiority over Ranevskaya and Gaev, and even they treat him with respect, since they realize their dependence on this person. It is clear that Lopakhin and people like him will very soon oust the noblemen.
However, Lopakhin gives the impression of a person who is the "master of life" only in a given, short period of time. He is not the owner of the cherry orchard, but only its temporary owner. He is going to cut down the cherry orchard and sell the land. It seems that, having increased his capital from this profitable enterprise, he still will not take a dominant place in the life of the state in the future. In the image of this character, Chekhov masterfully managed to portray a bizarre and contradictory combination of features of the past and the present. Lopakhin, although he is proud of the current situation, does not for a second forget about his low origin, he has too strong a resentment against life, which, as it seems to him, was unfair to him. Very soon the reader and viewer realizes that Lopakhin is just an intermediate stage between the past and future generations.
In the play Chech “Lva, we also see characters opposed to the destructive activities of Lopakhin and the inaction of Ranevskaya and Gaev. These are Anya and Petya Trofimov. It is precisely such people, according to the author, that the future of Russia. Trofimov is an ardent seeker of truth who sincerely believes in the triumph of a just life in the near future. Student Petya Trofimov is poor, suffers hardships, but as an honest person he refuses life at someone else's expense. He says a lot about the need to reorganize society, but he has not yet performed real actions. But he is a great propagandist. This is one of those who are followed by the youth, who is believed. Anya is carried away by Trofimov's call to change her life, and at the end of the play we hear her words calling for "planting a new garden." The author does not give us the opportunity to see the fruits of the activities of the representatives of the new generation. He only leaves us with hope that the words of Petya Trofimov and Anya will not diverge from their deeds.
Three generations of people were portrayed by Chekhov in his play "The Cherry Orchard", and each character personifies the life of Russia: Ranevkaya and Gaev - the past, Lopakhin - the present, Trofimov and Anya - the future. Time has shown that Chekhov was absolutely right - a revolution awaited the Russian people in the near future, and it was people like Trofimov who made history.

The system of images of the play "The Cherry Orchard" is unconventional: there are no main and secondary, positive and negative characters in it. It is customary to divide all the images of comedy into three groups: "heroes of the past", "heroes of the present" and "heroes of the future." Leonid Andreevich Gaev and his sister Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya are the owners of the cherry orchard, noblemen by origin. These are very ambiguous images.

Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya suffered a lot in life: her husband drank and “did nothing but debts,” her seven-year-old son drowned in the river a month after her husband's death, her lover, with whom she went to France, robbed her and left her. But Lyubov Andreevna remained a sensitive, kind person who is loved by everyone around her. At the same time, she is selfish, her understanding of beauty often turns into tearful sentimentality, and abstract kindness to casual passers-by is combined with indifference to loved ones, including her own daughter. She is generous to the point of wastefulness, accustomed to idleness, does not limit herself in anything - she only knows how to spend. Her brother, Leonid Andreevich Gaev, is also helpless. He is well educated, eloquent, but this did not translate into any specific activity. Gaev goes to the club, to restaurants, plays billiards, leads idle conversations. "Having made a fortune on candy", he is faced with financial ruin, but nothing can be done. Making empty promises to Anya, swearing by "honor and life" that the garden will not be sold, he can only dream of how nice it would be to receive an inheritance from someone or to marry Anya to a very rich man.

For both Gaev and Ranevskaya, the cutting down of the garden is unacceptable - the destruction of beauty, memory, everything related to their childhood and youth. But they cannot change anything and resignedly accept the news of the sale of the garden. How can they, accustomed to living at someone else's expense, fit into the new conditions? Ranevskaya again goes to Paris, intending to live on the money sent by the Yaroslavl grandmother to buy the estate, "and this money will not last long." Gaev got a place in the bank for six thousand a year, but, according to Lopakhin, "he will not sit still, he is very lazy."

The fate of Ranevskaya and Gaev is typical for the entire noble class, which has lost the ground under their feet. That is why they belong to the "heroes of the past." The finale of the play is full of ambiguity and uncertainty. “Life has passed, as if it never lived,” says the forgotten Firs in the last scene, and his words are accompanied by the clatter of an ax in the cherry orchard. This scene has a deeply symbolic meaning - the nobility receding into the past, the collapse of hopes and an unclear future, in which there is no place for sentimental memories of better times.

In classic drama, heroes do things, speak monologues, win or die. In accordance with their role in the development of action, they are divided into positive and negative, main and secondary. There are no main and secondary characters in Chekhov's play. Epikhodov is as important to the author as Gaev, and Charlotte is as interesting to the author as Ranevskaya. Even the “casual” Passer-by, who appears in the finale of the second act, is an episodic person, from the point of view of traditional drama, plays a certain semantic role in Chekhov's play.

The task

Who represents the local nobility in the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"? Give a brief description of these characters.

Answer

The local nobility is represented in the play by the old owners of the cherry orchard - brother and sister Gaev and Ranevskaya, as well as Simeonov-Pischik.

Ranevskaya and Gaev are glorious, sweet, kind people in their own way. Ranevskaya is sentimental, accustomed to an idle life, she wastes money, her feelings are superficial, shallow.

The task

Tell us about Gaev. How does it look like Ranevskaya? What are you interested in? Compare their monologues in front of the closet. How do they characterize the characters?

Answer

Gaev is in many ways similar to his sister, completely helpless in practical matters, a phrase-monger. He is already over fifty, and he is still like a child. Gaeva still undresses Firs for the night.

When Ranevskaya returns to her home, she is worried about the resurrected past, she is surprised that everything is the same here; such as it was, if time does not move. This immutability of things delights Gaev. Only his enthusiasm is frankly ridiculous. Pompously and solemnly, he addresses the wardrobe. His love for the estate is limited by his own eloquence. He offers many plans for saving the estate, but it is clear that they are all untenable.

Question

How is Simeonov-Pischik close to the owners of the cherry orchard?

Answer

Those qualities that are surrounded by a haze of poetry in Ranevskaya, in Gaev are reduced to comic, and in Simeon Pischik they are reduced to a farce.

Question

How does Ranevskaya characterize the attitude in Var, towards Anya, towards the servants, towards Lopakhin, towards Trofimov? How can you assess the kindness of Ranevskaya?

Answer

Ranevskaya's kindness goes hand in hand with indifference. She kisses things and completely indifferently perceives the news of the death of the nanny: “My dear old man,” she calls Firs. And then he was left in the house where life ended forever.

Ranevskaya leaves Varya, whom she loves, "like a native." Ani's money goes to Paris. Loves Anya, cries about her lost son, but leaves 12-year-old Anya for 5 years with her unlucky brother; hugs Firs, kisses Dunyasha, but does not think that there is nothing to eat in the house, etc.

Question

How does the refusal of Lopakhin's proposal characterize it? Why did everyone calm down after selling the cherry orchard?

Answer

Ranevskaya is a garden, but her love is inactive. She hoped it would be okay. And in Act IV Ranevskaya and Gaev completely calmed down. What worried them has passed, they no longer feel responsibility to the cherry orchard.

Questions

1. How to understand Chekhov's words: “It is not difficult to play Ranevskaya, you just need to take the right tone from the very beginning; you have to come up with a smile and a way of laughing, you have to be able to dress?

2. What does Ranevskaya consider her sins and are they sins? And what are her real sins?

3. Who is to blame for the fate of Ranevskaya? Was there a choice?

The task

Find the positive and negative in the images of the local nobility.

conclusions

The images of Ranevskaya and Gaev are the embodiment of the world of the noble nest, for which time has stopped. Drama in their insecurity, innocence. Comic - in the contrast of speech and deeds. A life in vain, a future without hopes, a life in debt, "at someone else's expense." “Selfish, like children, and flabby, like old people,” Gorky will say about them.

Literature

1. D.N. Murin. Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century. Methodical recommendations in the form of lesson planning. Grade 10. M .: SMIO Press, 2002.

2. E.S. Rogover. Russian literature of the 19th century. M .: Saga; Forum, 2004.

3. Encyclopedia for children. T. 9. Russian literature. Part I. From epics and chronicles to the classics of the 19th century. M .: Avanta +, 1999.