Cherry Orchard read analysis. The main character of "The Cherry Orchard": analysis, characteristics and features

Chekhov's last play became an outstanding work of world drama of the 20th century.

Actors, directors, readers, spectators of all countries have turned and are turning to comprehend its meaning. Therefore, as in the case of Chekhov's stories, when we try to understand a play, we must keep in mind not only what it excited Chekhov's contemporaries, and not only what it is understandable and interesting to us, the playwright's compatriots, but also this universal , its all-human and all-time content.

The author of The Cherry Orchard (1903) sees life and human relationships differently and speaks about it differently than his predecessors. And we will understand the meaning of the play if we do not reduce it to sociological or historical explanations, but try to understand this Chekhov's way of depicting life in a dramatic work.

If we do not take into account the novelty of Chekhov's dramatic language, much in his play will seem strange, incomprehensible, overloaded with unnecessary things (from the point of view of the previous theatrical aesthetics).

But the main thing - let's not forget: behind the special Chekhov's form is a special concept of life and man. “Let everything on the stage be as complicated and at the same time as simple as in life,” said Chekhov. “People dine, just dine, and at this time their happiness is added up and their lives are broken.”

FEATURE OF THE DRAMATURGICAL CONFLICT. Let's start with something that catches the eye: how are the dialogues in The Cherry Orchard structured? It is unconventional when the replica is a response to the previous one and requires a response in the next replica. Most often, the writer reproduces a disordered conversation (take, for example, a disorderly chorus of remarks and exclamations immediately after Ranevskaya's arrival from the station). The characters, as it were, do not hear each other, and if they listen, they answer at random (Dunyasha - Anya, Lopakhina - Ranevskaya and Gaev, Petya - everyone else, except Anya, and she obviously reacts not to the meaning, but to the sound of Petya's monologues: “ How well you speak! .. (In delight.) How well you said!”).

What is behind this structure of dialogues? Striving for greater credibility (to show how it happens in life)? Yes, but not only that. Disunity, self-absorption, inability to take the point of view of another - this is what Chekhov sees and shows in the communication of people.

Again, arguing with his predecessors, Chekhov the playwright completely abandons external intrigue, the struggle of a group of characters around something (for example, inheritance, transfer of money to someone, permission or prohibition of marriage or marriage, etc.).

The nature of the conflict, the arrangement of characters in her play are completely different, which will be discussed later. Each episode is not a step in the unfolding of intrigue; the episodes are filled with lunchtime, outwardly incoherent conversations, everyday trifles, insignificant details, but at the same time they are colored by a single mood, which then turns into another. Not from intrigue to intrigue, but rather from mood to mood, the play unfolds, and here the analogy with a plotless piece of music is appropriate.

There is no intrigue, but what then is the event - something without which there can be no dramatic work? The event that is most talked about - the sale of the estate at auction - does not take place on the stage. Starting with "The Seagull" and even earlier, with "Ivanov", Chekhov consistently uses this technique - to take the main "incident" off the stage, leaving only its reflections, echoes in the speeches of the characters. Invisible (to the viewer), off-stage events and characters (in The Cherry Orchard, this is the Yaroslavl aunt, the Parisian lover, Pishchik's daughter Dashenka, etc.) are important in the play in their own way. But their absence on the stage emphasizes that for the author they are only a background, an occasion, a concomitant circumstance of what is fundamental. With the apparent absence of the traditional external “action”, Chekhov, as always, has a rich, continuous and intense internal action.

The main events take place, as it were, in the minds of the characters: the discovery of something new or clinging to familiar stereotypes, understanding or misunderstanding - “movement and displacement of ideas”, if we use the formula of Osip Mandelstam. As a result of this movement and displacement of ideas (events invisible, but quite real), someone's destinies are broken or formed, hopes are lost or arise, love succeeds or fails...

These significant events in the life of every person are found not in spectacular gestures, deeds (Chekhov consistently portrays everything that has an effect in an ironic light), but in modest, everyday, everyday manifestations. There is no underlining, artificial drawing of attention to them, much of the text goes into subtext. "Undercurrent" - this is how the Artistic Theater called this development of action, characteristic of Chekhov's plays. For example, in the first act, Anya and Varya first talk about whether the estate has been paid for, then whether Lopakhin is going to propose to Varya, then about a brooch in the form of a bee. Anya replies sadly: “Mom bought it.” Sad - because both felt the hopelessness of the main thing on which their fate depends.

The line of behavior of each character, and especially the relationship between the characters, is not built in deliberate clarity. Rather, it is outlined in dotted lines (actors and directors should draw a solid line - this is the difficulty and at the same time the temptation of staging Chekhov's plays on stage). The playwright leaves a lot to the reader's imagination, giving in the text the main guidelines for correct understanding.

So, the main line of the play is connected with Lopakhin. His relationship with Varya results in his antics incomprehensible to her and others. But everything falls into place if the actors play the absolute incompatibility of these characters and at the same time Lopakhin's special feeling towards Lyubov Andreevna.

The famous scene of the failed explanation between Lopakhin and Varya in the last act: the characters talk about the weather, about a broken thermometer - and not a word about the most obviously important thing at that moment. Why does the relationship between Lopakhin and Varya end in nothing, when the explanation did not take place, love did not take place, happiness did not take place? The point, of course, is not that Lopakhin is a businessman incapable of expressing feelings. Approximately this is how Varya explains their relationship to himself: “He has a lot to do, he is not up to me”; “He is either silent or joking. I understand that he is getting richer, busy with business, he is not up to me. But much closer to Chekhov's subtext, to Chekhov's technique of "undercurrent" will come the actors, if by the time of the explanation between these characters they make it clear to the viewer that Varya is really not a match for Lopakhin, she is not worth it. Lopakhin is a man of great scope, capable of mentally looking over, like an eagle, “huge forests, vast fields, the deepest horizons.” Varya, if we continue this comparison, is a gray jackdaw, whose horizons are limited by farming, economy, keys on her belt ... A gray jackdaw and an eagle - of course, an unconscious feeling of this prevents Lopakhin from taking the initiative where any merchant in his place saw would be the possibility of a “decent” marriage for himself.

In his position, Lopakhin can only count on Varya at best. And in the play, another line is clearly, although dottedly outlined: Lopakhin, “like his own, more than his own,” loves Ranevskaya. This would seem absurd, unthinkable to Ranevskaya and everyone around him, and he himself, apparently, is not fully aware of his feelings. But it is enough to follow how Lopakhin behaves, say, in the second act, after Ranevskaya tells him to propose to Varya. It was after this that he spoke with irritation about how good it was before, when the peasants could be fought, and began to tactlessly tease Petya. All this is the result of a decline in his mood after he clearly sees that Ranevskaya does not even think of taking his feelings seriously. And further in the play, this unrequited tenderness of Lopakhin will break through several more times. During the monologues of the characters of The Cherry Orchard about a failed life, Lopakhin's unexpressed feeling can sound like one of the most poignant notes of the performance (by the way, this is how Lopakhin was played by the best performers of this rodi in performances recent years- Vladimir Vysotsky and Andrey Mironov).

So, already all these external methods of organizing the material (the nature of the dialogue, the event, the development of the action) Chekhov persistently repeats, plays with - and his idea of ​​\u200b\u200blife is manifested in them.

But even more distinguishes Chekhov's plays from the previous dramaturgy is the nature of the conflict.

So, in Ostrovsky's plays, the conflict stems mainly from differences in the class position of the heroes - rich and poor, tyrants and their victims, possessing power and dependent: Ostrovsky's first, initial engine of action is the difference between characters (class, money, family), from from which their conflicts and clashes arise. Instead of death in other plays, on the contrary, there may be a triumph over a tyrant, an oppressor, an intriguer, etc. The denouement can be arbitrarily different, but the opposition within the conflict of the victim and the oppressor, the side of the sufferer and the side that causes suffering, is invariable.

Not so with Chekhov. Not on opposition, but on unity, the commonality of all the characters, his plays are built.

Let us take a closer look at the text of The Cherry Orchard, at the author's persistent and clear indications of the meaning of what is happening in it. Chekhov consistently departs from the traditional formulation of the author's thought "through the mouth of a character". Indications of the author's meaning of the work, as usual with Chekhov, are expressed primarily in repetitions.

In the first act, there is a repetitive phrase that is attached in different ways to almost every character.

Lyubov Andreevna, who has not seen her adopted daughter for five years, when she hears how she manages the house, says: “You are still the same, Varya.” And even before that, he notices: “But Varya is still the same, she looks like a nun.” Varya, in turn, sadly states: “Mommy is the same as she was, she has not changed at all. If she had the will, she would give everything away.” At the very beginning of the action, Lopakhin asks the question: “Lyubov Andreevna lived abroad for five years, I don’t know what she has become now.” And after some two hours, she is convinced: “You are still just as gorgeous.” Ranevskaya herself, entering the nursery, defines her permanent feature differently: “I slept here when I was little ... And now I am like a little ...” - but this is the same confession: I am the same.

“You are still the same, Lenya”; “And you, Leonid Andreevich, are still the same as you were”; “You again, uncle!” - this is Lyubov Andreevna, Yasha, Anya are talking about Gaev's invariable grandiosity. And Firs laments, pointing to the constant trait of his master's behavior: “Again, they put on the wrong trousers. And what am I to do with you!”

“You (you, she) are all the same (same)”. This is a constant indicated by the author at the very beginning of the play. This is a property of all actors, in this they vyingly assure themselves, each other.

“And this one is all his own,” Gaev says about Pishchik, when he once again asks for a loan. “You are all about one thing ...” - sleepy Anya answers Dunyashino's news about her next boyfriend. “He's been mumbling for three years now. We are used to it” is about Firs. “Charlotte talks all the way, presents tricks ...”, “Every day some kind of misfortune happens to me” - this is Epikhodov.

Each hero leads his own theme (sometimes with variations): Epikhodov talks about his misfortunes, Pishchik - about debts, Varya - about the economy, Gaev inappropriately falls into pathos, Petya - into denunciations, etc. The constancy, immutability of some characters is enshrined in their nicknames: “twenty-two misfortunes”, “eternal student”. And the most common, Firsovo: "Klut".

When repetition (endowing everyone with the same attribute) so many times, as in the first act of The Cherry Orchard, that it cannot but catch the eye, this is the strongest means of expressing the author's thought.

Parallel to this recurring motif, inseparably from it, persistently and just as applied to everyone, another one, as if opposite, is repeated. As if frozen in their immutability, the characters now and then talk about how much has changed, how time flies.

“When you left here, I was sort of ...” - Dunyasha indicates with a gesture the distance between the past and the present. She, as it were, echoes Ranevskaya's recollection of when she "was small." Lopakhin, in his very first monologue, compares what happened (“I remember when I was a boy of about fifteen ... Lyubov Andreevna, as I remember now, still young ...”) and what has happened now (“I’m just rich, there is a lot of money , but if you think and figure it out ...”). “Once...” - Gaev begins to remember, also about childhood, and concludes: “... and now I’m already fifty-one years old, oddly enough ...” The theme of childhood (irretrievably gone) or parents (deceased or forgotten) is also repeated in different ways by Charlotte, and Yasha, and Pishchik, and Trofimov, and Firs. Ancient Firs, like a living historical calendar, now and then from what is, returns to what “had happened”, what was done “once”, “before”.

A retrospective - from the present to the past - is opened by almost every actor, although at different depths. Firs has been muttering for three years now. Six years ago, her husband died and Lyubov Andreevna's son drowned. About forty-fifty years ago, they still remembered how to process cherries. The closet was made exactly one hundred years ago. And stones that were once gravestones remind of completely gray-haired antiquity ... In the other direction, from the present to the future, a perspective opens up, but also at a different distance for different characters: for Yasha, for Anya, for Vari, for Lopakhin, for Petya, for Ranevskaya, even for Firs, who was boarded up and forgotten in the house.

“Yes, time is ticking,” Lopakhin remarks. And this feeling is familiar to everyone in the play; this is also a constant, a constant circumstance on which each of the characters depends, no matter what he thinks and says about himself and others, no matter how he defines himself and his path. Everyone is destined to be grains of sand, chips in the stream of time.

And one more recurring motif covering all the characters. This is a theme of confusion, misunderstanding in the face of relentlessly running time.

In the first act, these are Ranevskaya's bewildered questions. What is death for? Why are we getting old? Why does everything disappear without a trace? Why is everything forgotten? Why does time lie like a stone on the chest and shoulders like a burden of mistakes and misfortunes? Further on in the course of the play, everyone else echoes it. Confused in rare moments of reflection, although Gaev is incorrigibly careless. “Who I am, why I am, is unknown,” Charlotte says in bewilderment. Epikhodov has his own bewilderment: “... I just can’t understand the direction of what I actually want, should I live or shoot myself ...” For Firs, the former order was understandable, “and now everything is scattered, you won’t understand anything.” It would seem that for Lopakhin it is clearer than for others the course and state of things, but he also admits that he only sometimes “seems” that he understands why he exists in the world. They close their eyes to their situation, Ranevskaya, Gaev, Dunyasha do not want to understand it.

It seems that many characters still oppose each other and one can distinguish somewhat contrasting pairs. “I am below love” by Ranevskaya and “we are above love” by Petya Trofimov. Firs has all the best in the past, Anya is recklessly directed to the future. Varya has an old woman’s refusal of herself for the sake of her relatives, she keeps the estate, Gaev has purely childish egoism, he “ate” the estate on candy”. The complex of a loser in Epikhodov and a brazen conqueror in Yasha. The heroes of The Cherry Orchard often oppose themselves to each other.

Charlotte: "These smart guys are all so stupid, I have no one to talk to." Gaev is arrogant towards Lopakhin, towards Yasha. Firs teaches Dunyasha. Yasha, in turn, fancies himself higher and more enlightened than the rest. And how much exorbitant pride in Petya’s words: “And everything that you all, rich and poor, value so highly, has not the slightest power over me ...” Lopakhin correctly comments on this endlessly repeating situation: “We are shitting our noses in front of each other, and life, you know, goes by.”

The heroes are convinced of the absolute opposite of their “truths”. The author, however, each time points to a commonality between them, to a hidden similarity, which they do not notice or reject with indignation.

Doesn't Anya repeat Ranevskaya in many ways, and Trofimov often reminds the fool of Epikhodov, and Lopakhin's confusion does not echo Charlotte's bewilderment? In Chekhov's play, the principle of repetition and mutual reflection of characters is not selective, directed against one group, but total, all-encompassing. Unshakably stand on your own, be absorbed in your “truth”, not noticing the similarities with the rest - in Chekhov this looks like a common lot, an indispensable feature of human existence. This in itself is neither good nor bad: it is natural. What is obtained from the addition, the interaction of various truths, ideas, modes of action - this is what Chekhov studies.

All relationships between the characters are illuminated by the light of a common understanding. It is not simply a matter of new, increasingly complex accents in an old conflict. The conflict itself is new: a visible opposite with a hidden similarity.

People who do not change (each holding on to his own) against the background of time absorbing everything and everyone, confused and not understanding the course of life ... This misunderstanding is revealed in relation to the garden. Everyone contributes to his ultimate destiny.

A beautiful garden, against which the heroes are shown who do not understand the course of things or understand it in a limited way, is connected with the fate of several of their generations - past, present and future. The situation in the life of individual people is internally correlated in the play with the situation in the life of the country. The multifaceted symbolic content of the image of the garden: beauty, past culture, finally, all of Russia ... Some see the garden as it was in the irretrievable past, for others, talking about the garden is just a reason for fanabery, and others, thinking about saving the garden, in fact destroy it, the fourth hail the death of this garden...

GENRE UNIQUENESS. COMIC IN THE PLAY. The perishing garden and failed, even unnoticed love - two cross-cutting, internally connected themes - give the play a sadly poetic character. However, Chekhov insisted that he did not create "a drama, but a comedy, in places even a farce." Remaining true to his principle of endowing the heroes with an equally passive position in relation to life they do not understand, a hidden commonality (which does not exclude an amazing variety of external manifestations), Chekhov found in his last great play a completely special genre form adequate to this principle.

The play does not lend itself to an unambiguous genre reading - only sad or only comic. It is obvious that Chekhov realized in his "comedy" the special principles of combining the dramatic and the comic.

In The Cherry Orchard, it is not individual characters that are comical, such as Charlotte, Epikhodov, Varya. Misunderstanding of each other, inconsistency of opinions, illogical conclusions, remarks and answers out of place - all the heroes are endowed with such imperfections of thinking and behavior, which make it possible for a comic performance.

The comic of resemblance, the comic of repetition is the basis of the comic in The Cherry Orchard. Everyone is funny in their own way, and everyone participates in a sad event, hastening its onset - this is what determines the ratio of the comic and the serious in Chekhov's play.

Chekhov puts all the heroes in a position of constant, continuous transition from drama to comedy, from tragedy to vaudeville, from pathos to farce. This position is not one group of heroes as opposed to another. The principle of such an uninterrupted genre transition has a comprehensive character in The Cherry Orchard. Every now and then in the play there is a deepening of the ridiculous (limited and relative) to sympathy for him and vice versa - simplification of the serious to the ridiculous.

The play, designed for a qualified, sophisticated spectator, able to catch its lyrical, symbolic subtext, Chekhov saturated with the techniques of the square theater, the booth: falling from stairs, gluttony, hitting the head with a stick, tricks, etc. After the pathetic, agitated monologues that almost every character in the play has - up to Gaev, Pishchik, Dunyasha, Firs - a farcical decline immediately follows, then a lyrical note reappears, allowing you to understand the subjective excitement of the hero, and again his self-absorption turns into a mockery over it (this is how Lopakhin's famous monologue in the third act is constructed: “I bought it! ..”).

To what conclusions does Chekhov lead in such unconventional ways?

A.P. Skaftymov in his works showed that the main object of the image in The Cherry Orchard is not one of the characters, but the device, the order of life. Unlike the works of previous dramaturgy, in Chekhov's play it is not the person himself who is responsible for his failures, and it is not the evil will of another person who is to blame. No one is to blame, "the source of sad ugliness and bitter dissatisfaction is the very composition of life."

But does Chekhov remove responsibility from the heroes and shift it to the "composition of life" that exists outside of their ideas, actions, relationships? Having taken a voluntary trip to the hard labor island of Sakhalin, he spoke about the responsibility of everyone for the existing order, for the general course of things: "We are all to blame." Not “no one is to blame”, but “we are all to blame”.

THE IMAGE OF LOPAKHIN. The persistence with which Chekhov pointed to the role of Lopakhin as the central one in the play is well known. He insisted that Stanislavsky play Lopakhin. He emphasized more than once that the role of Lopakhin is “central”, that “if it fails, then the whole play will fail”, that only a first-class actor, “only Konstantin Sergeyevich”, can play this role, but she is simply not suitable for a talented actor. force, he “will lead either very palely, or he will be acting out”, will make Lopakhin “a fist ... After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word, this must be understood.” Chekhov warned against a simplistic, petty understanding of this image, obviously dear to him.

Let's try to understand what in the play itself confirms the playwright's conviction in the central position of the role of Lopakhin among other roles.

The first, but not the only and not the most important thing, is the significance and extraordinaryness of Lopakhin's personality itself.

It is clear that Chekhov created an image of a merchant that is not traditional for Russian literature. A businessman, and very successful, Lopakhin is a man "with the soul of an artist." When he talks about Russia, it sounds like a declaration of love for the motherland. His words are reminiscent of Gogol's lyrical digressions in " Dead souls”, Chekhov’s lyrical digressions in the story “The Steppe” about the heroic scope of the Russian steppe road, which would have been “huge, wide-walking people”. And the most heartfelt words about the cherry orchard in the play - one should not lose sight of this - belong precisely to Lopakhin: "the estate, which is not more beautiful in the world."

In the image of this hero - a merchant and at the same time an artist at heart - Chekhov introduced features characteristic of a certain part of Russian entrepreneurs who left a noticeable mark in the history of Russian "culture on turn of XIX and XX centuries. These are Stanislavsky himself (the owner of the factory Alekseev), and the millionaire Savva Morozov, who gave money for the construction of the Art Theater, and the creators of art galleries and theaters Tretyakov, Shchukin, Mamontov, and the publisher Sytin ... Artistic sensitivity, disinterested love for beauty were fancifully combined in natures of many of these merchants with characteristic features dealers and hoarders. Without making Lopakhin like any of them individually, Chekhov introduces into the character of his hero features that unite him with many of these entrepreneurs.

And the final assessment that Petya Trofimov gives to his seemingly antagonist (“After all, I still love you. You have thin, tender fingers, like an artist, you have a thin, tender soul ...”), finds a well-known parallel in Gorky’s review of Savva Morozov: “And when I see Morozov behind the scenes of the theater, in dust and trembling for the success of the play, I am ready to forgive him all his factories, which, however, he does not need, I love him, because he disinterestedly loves art, which I can almost feel in his muzhik, merchant, acquisitive soul.” K.S. Stanislavsky bequeathed to the future performers of Lopakhin to give him the “scale of Chaliapin”.

Breaking down the garden into summer cottages- the idea that Lopakhin is obsessed with is not just the destruction of the cherry orchard, but its reconstruction, the device, so to speak, of a public cherry orchard. With that former, luxurious, which served only a few gardens, this new, thinned and accessible to anyone for a moderate fee, Lopakhinsky's garden correlates as a democratic urban culture of the Chekhov era with the marvelous manor culture of the past.

Chekhov proposed an image that is clearly unconventional, unexpected for the reader and viewer, breaking the established literary and theatrical canons.

The main storyline of The Cherry Orchard is also connected with Lopakhin. Something expected and prepared in the first act (saving the garden), as a result of a number of circumstances turns into something directly opposite in the last act (the garden is cut down). Lopakhin at first sincerely strives to save the garden for Lyubov Andreevna, but in the end he “accidentally” takes possession of it himself.

But at the end of the play, Lopakhin, having achieved success, is shown by Chekhov by no means as a winner. The entire content of "The Cherry Orchard" reinforces the words of this hero about the "clumsy, unhappy life", which "know to yourself passes." In fact, a person who alone is able to truly appreciate what a cherry orchard is must destroy it with his own hands (after all, there are no other ways out of this situation). With merciless sobriety, Chekhov in The Cherry Orchard shows the fatal discrepancy between personal good qualities person, his subjectively good intentions and the results of his social activities. And Lopakhin is not given personal happiness.

The play begins with Lopakhin obsessed with the thought of saving the cherry orchard, but in the end everything turns out wrong: he did not save the garden for Ranevskaya as he wanted, and his luck turns into a mockery of the best hopes. Why this is so - the hero himself is unable to understand, none of those around him could explain this.

In a word, it is with Lopakhin that one of the long-standing and main themes of Chekhov's work enters the play - hostility, unbearable complexity, the incomprehensibility of life for an ordinary (“average”) Russian person, whoever he may be (remember Ionya). In the image of Lopakhin, Chekhov remained faithful to this theme of his to the end. This is one of the heroes standing on the main line of Chekhov's creativity, being related to many of the characters in the writer's previous works.

SYMBOLISM.“Remote, as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string, fading, sad”, the sound of an ax announcing the death of the garden, like the image of the cherry orchard itself, were perceived by contemporaries as deep and capacious symbols.

Chekhov's symbolism differs from the concept of a symbol in works of art and theories of symbolism. He even has the most mysterious sound - not from the sky, but “as if from the sky”. The point is not only that Chekhov leaves the possibility of a real explanation (“... somewhere in the mines a bucket broke. But somewhere very far away”). The heroes explain the origin of sound, perhaps incorrectly, but the unreal, mystical is not required here. There is a mystery, but it is a mystery generated by an earthly cause, although unknown to the heroes or misunderstood by them, not fully realized.

The Cherry Orchard and his death are symbolically ambiguous, not reducible to visible reality, but there is no mystical or unreal content here. Chekhov's symbols expand the horizons, but do not lead away from the earthly. The very degree of assimilation, comprehension of everyday life in Chekhov's works is such that the existential, general and eternal shine through in them.

The mysterious sound, twice mentioned in The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov actually heard in childhood. But, in addition to the real predecessor, one can recall one literary predecessor. This is the sound that the boys heard in Turgenev's story "Bezhin Meadow". This parallel is reminiscent of the similarity of the environment in which an incomprehensible sound is heard, and the mood that it causes in the heroes of the story and the play: someone shudders and gets scared, someone thinks, someone reacts calmly and judiciously.

Turgenev's sound in The Cherry Orchard acquired new shades, became like the sound of a broken string. In Chekhov's last play, it combines the symbolism of life and homeland, Russia: a reminder of its immensity and time flowing over it, of something familiar, eternally sounding over Russian expanses, accompanying countless comings and goings of new generations.

In his last play, Chekhov captured the state of Russian society, when there was only a step left from general disunity, listening only to themselves, to final disintegration and general enmity. He urged not to be deceived by one's own idea of ​​the truth, not to absolutize many "truths" that actually turn into "false ideas", to realize the guilt of everyone, everyone's responsibility for the general course of things. In Chekhov's depiction of Russian historical problems, humanity saw problems that concern all people at any time, in any society.

Innovation A.P. Chekhov as a playwright lies in the fact that the action of his plays does not develop around a single conflict in which two main polar characters in their qualities oppose. A.P. Chekhov simultaneously develops several storylines, the relationships of his characters are complex, and even minor characters have their own history and their own experiences.

An atmosphere of confusion and indecision is created by people who have no clear goal at all for various reasons. At youngest daughter Ranevskaya Anya and lackey Firs, the lack of purpose can be explained by their age. Anya does not yet have her own life experience, assimilates other people's ideas (Trofimov), without subjecting them to a critical assessment, having no idea how to implement them. For Firs, "life has passed as if it had never lived." At the end of the play, he lies down on the sofa, and there is no need for him to get up, because those who can be taken care of have left. Governess Charlotte does not know who her parents were, who she is and why she exists.

The landlords Gaev and Simeonov-Pishchik would not have any goal with pleasure, everything suits them, and only extreme necessity forces them to do something.

Gaev writes a letter to a rich aunt-countess with a request for money, gets a job at a bank. Simeonov-Pishchik asks everyone to lend money until the British found him land plot valuable white clay, which was generously paid for the right to mine. The footman Yasha is also accustomed to a prosperous existence with a rich mistress in Paris. His only and fulfilled desire was to go abroad again, away from "ignorance". These heroes, so different in social status, united by the habit of living at the expense of others.

The clerk Epikhodov suffers from unrequited love for the maid Dunyasha, and she fell in love with the footman Yasha in vain. The goals of these characters are dictated by their feelings, but come to nothing. After the sale of the cherry orchard, Ranevskaya returns to her lover, having forgiven betrayal in order to take care of him when he is sick. Ranevskaya is driven by love and compassion. Eldest daughter Ranevskoy Varya would have agreed to marry the merchant Lopakhin, if only he had decided to propose to her. The love experiences of the listed characters do not lead to any changes.

Finally, the most interesting, especially in comparison with each other, are the figures of Lopakhin and Trofimov. One has a specific goal and specific ways to achieve it, the other has an abstract goal and plans known to him alone.

The merchant Lopakhin spends his days in tireless work, cannot stand inactivity, admires the immensity and wealth of his homeland. He is upset by his own illiteracy and the insufficient number of honest, decent people. He measures the result of his activity in figures: how much poppy was sown, how many thousands of rubles were received for it, what could be the income from summer residents-tenants. Lopakhin is a successful entrepreneur, but he is visited by thoughts that he needs to have a goal other than the pursuit of profit. He admits: “When I work for a long time, without getting tired, my thoughts are easier, and it seems as if I also know why I exist.”

Student Trofimov believes that it is necessary to “work, help with all his might to those who seek the truth,” shares with Anya an inexplicable presentiment of future happiness. Ranevskaya believes that Trofimov looks ahead so boldly, because he has not yet had time to “suffer” a single of his questions. However, he tells Anya that he has been to many places, managed to endure hunger, illness and poverty.

In the fourth act, Lopakhin offers Trofimov a loan, but Trofimov refuses, saying that he is a free man with other values. Trofimov believes that "humanity is moving towards the highest truth, towards the highest happiness." What kind of happiness Trofimov had in mind, what ways he was going to go to him - the play does not give answers to these questions.

An analysis of the statements and actions of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard from the point of view of the presence of a goal and means to achieve it leads to the conclusion that all of them, with the exception of Lopakhin, do not know specific means, and their goals, if they exist at all, are not very significant and arose under the influence of circumstances. Such a number of "helpless" actors was necessary for A.P. Chekhov to present to the viewer a fading society of idle dreamers, symbolized by the cherry orchard.

A.P. Chekhov wrote his famous play "The Cherry Orchard" in 1903. In this play, the central place is occupied not so much by the personal experiences of the characters as by an allegorical vision of the fate of Russia. Some characters personify the past (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Firs, Varya), others - the future (Lopakhin, Trofimov, Anya). The heroes of Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" serve as a reflection of the society of that time.

Main characters

The heroes of Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" are lyrical characters with special features. For example, Epikhodov, who was constantly unlucky, or Trofimov, the "eternal student." Below will be presented all the heroes of the play "The Cherry Orchard":

• Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, mistress of the estate.
• Anya, her daughter, 17 years old. Not indifferent to Trofimov.
• Varya, her adopted daughter, 24 years old. In love with Lopakhin.
• Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya.
• Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, a native of peasants, now a merchant. He likes Varya.
• Trofimov Pyotr Sergeevich, eternal student. Sympathizes with Anya, but he is above love.
• Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, a landowner who constantly has no money, but he believes in the possibility of unexpected enrichment.
• Charlotte Ivanovna, the maid, loves to perform tricks.
• Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, clerk, unlucky person. Wants to marry Dunyasha.
• Dunyasha, the maid, considers herself like a lady. In love with Yasha.
• Firs, an old footman, constantly takes care of Gaev.
• Yasha, Ranevskaya's spoiled lackey.

The characters of the play

A.P. Chekhov always very accurately and subtly noticed in each character his features, whether it be appearance or character. This Chekhovian feature is also supported by the play "The Cherry Orchard" - the images of the characters here are lyrical and even a little touching. Each has its own unique features. Characteristics of the heroes of "The Cherry Orchard" can be divided into groups for convenience.

old generation

Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna appears as a very frivolous, but kind woman who cannot fully understand that all her money has run out. She's in love with some scoundrel who left her penniless. And then Ranevskaya returns with Anya to Russia. They can be compared with people who left Russia: no matter how good it is abroad, they still continue to yearn for their homeland. The image chosen by Chekhov for his homeland will be written below.

Ranevskaya and Gaev are the personification of the nobility, the wealth of past years, which at the time of the author began to decline. Both brother and sister may not be fully aware of this, but nevertheless they feel that something is happening. And by the way they begin to act, one can see the reaction of Chekhov's contemporaries - it was either a move abroad, or an attempt to adapt to new conditions.

Firs is the image of a servant who was always faithful to her masters and did not want any change in order, because they did not need it. If with the first main characters of The Cherry Orchard it is clear why they are considered in this group, then why can Varya be included here?

Because Varya occupies a passive position: she meekly accepts the emerging position, but her dream is to be able to walk around holy places, and strong faith was characteristic of the older generation. And Varya, despite his seemingly stormy activity, does not take an active part in conversations about the fate of the cherry orchard and does not offer any solutions, which shows the passivity of the rich class of that time.

Younger generation

Here the representatives of the future of Russia will be considered - these are educated young people who put themselves above any feelings, which was fashionable in the early 1900s. At that time, public duty and the desire to develop science were put in the first place. But one should not assume that Anton Pavlovich portrayed revolutionary-minded youth - it is rather an image of most of the intelligentsia of that time, which was engaged only in talking on high topics, putting itself above human needs, but was not adapted to anything.

All this was embodied in Trofimov - "an eternal student" and "a shabby gentleman", who could not finish anything, had no profession. Throughout the play, he only talked about various matters and despised Lopakhin and Varia, who was able to admit the thought of his possible romance with Anya - he is "above love."

Anya is a kind, sweet, still quite inexperienced girl who admires Trofimov and listens carefully to everything he says. She personifies the youth, who have always been interested in the ideas of the intelligentsia.

But one of the most striking and characteristic images of that era turned out to be Lopakhin - a native of peasants who managed to make a fortune for himself. But, despite the wealth, remained essentially a simple man. This is an active person, a representative of the so-called class of "kulaks" - wealthy peasants. Yermolai Alekseevich respected work, and work was always in the first place for him, so he kept postponing the explanation with Varya.

It was during that period that the hero of Lopakhin could have appeared - then this "risen" peasantry, proud of the realization that they were no longer slaves, showed a higher adaptability to life than the nobles, which is proved by the fact that it was Lopakhin who bought Ranevskaya's estate.

Why was the characterization of the heroes of "The Cherry Orchard" chosen specifically for these characters? Because it is on the characteristics of the characters that their internal conflicts will be built.

Internal conflicts in the play

The play shows not only the personal experiences of the heroes, but also the confrontation between them, which makes it possible to make the images of the heroes of "The Cherry Orchard" brighter and deeper. Let's consider them in more detail.

Ranevskaya - Lopakhin

The main conflict is in the pair Ranevskaya - Lopakhin. And it is due to several reasons:

• belonging to different generations;
• opposition of characters.

Lopakhin is trying to help Ranevskaya save the estate by cutting down a cherry orchard and building dachas in its place. But for Raevskaya, this is impossible - after all, she grew up in this house, and "dachas - it's so common." And in the fact that it was Ermolai Alekseevich who bought the estate, she sees in this a betrayal on his part. For him, buying a cherry orchard is a solution to his personal conflict: he, a simple man whose ancestors could not go beyond the kitchen, has now become the owner. And therein lies its main triumph.

Lopakhin - Trofimov

The conflict in a pair of these people is due to the fact that they have opposing views. Trofimov considers Lopakhin an ordinary peasant, rude, limited, who is not interested in anything but work. The same one believes that Pyotr Sergeevich is simply wasting his mental abilities, does not understand how one can live without money, and does not accept the ideology that a person is above everything earthly.

Trofimov - Varya

The confrontation is built, most likely, on personal rejection. Varya despises Peter because he is not busy with anything, and fears that with the help of his smart speeches, Anya will fall in love with him. Therefore, Varya tries in every possible way to prevent them. Trofimov, on the other hand, teases the girl "Madame Lopakhina", knowing that everyone has been waiting for this event for a long time. But he despises her because she equated him and Anya with herself and Lopakhin, because they are above all earthly passions.

So, the above was briefly written about the characters of the heroes of "The Cherry Orchard" by Chekhov. We have described only the most significant characters. Now we can move on to the most interesting - the image of the protagonist of the play.

The protagonist of The Cherry Orchard

The attentive reader has already guessed (or guesses) that this is a cherry orchard. In the play, he personifies Russia itself: its past, present and future. Why is the garden itself the main character of The Cherry Orchard?

Because it is to this estate that Ranevskaya returns after all the misadventures abroad, because it is because of him that the heroine’s internal conflict escalates (fear of losing the garden, awareness of her helplessness, unwillingness to part with it), and a confrontation arises between Ranevskaya and Lopakhin.

The Cherry Orchard also helps to resolve Lopakhin's internal conflict: he reminded him that he was a peasant, an ordinary peasant who surprisingly managed to get rich. And the opportunity to cut down this garden, which appeared with the purchase of the estate, meant that now nothing else in those parts could remind him of his origin.

What did the garden mean for heroes

For convenience, you can write the ratio of the characters to the cherry orchard in the table.

The symbolism of the cherry orchard in the play

But how, then, is the image of the protagonist of "The Cherry Orchard" connected with the image of the Motherland? Through this garden, Anton Chekhov showed the past: when the country was rich, the estate of the nobility was in its prime, no one thought about the abolition of serfdom. In the present, a decline in society is already outlined: it is divided, landmarks are changing. Russia already then stood on the threshold of a new era, the nobility became smaller, and the peasants gained strength. And the future is shown in Lopakhin's dreams: the country will be ruled by those who are not afraid to work - only those people can lead the country to prosperity.

The sale of Ranevskaya's cherry orchard for debts and the purchase by Lopakhin is a symbolic transfer of the country from the wealthy class to ordinary workers. By debt here is meant a debt for how the owners treated them for a long time, how they exploited the common people. And the fact that power in the country passes to the common people is a natural result of the path that Russia has taken. And the nobility had to do what Ranevskaya and Gaev did - go abroad or go to work. And the younger generation will try to fulfill the dreams of a brighter future.

Conclusion

After such a small analysis of the work, one can understand that the play "The Cherry Orchard" is a deeper creation than it might seem at first glance. Anton Pavlovich was able to masterfully convey the mood of the society of that time, the position in which it was. And the writer did this very gracefully and subtly, which allows this play to remain loved by readers for a long time.

Lesson 4.5. “We would rather change somehow our awkward, unhappy life.” Analysis of the play "The Cherry Orchard". Generalization

Double lesson progress

I. The comedy The Cherry Orchard, which concludes the trilogy, can be seen as the writer's testament, his last word.

1. Student's message. The history of the creation of the play, its perception by contemporaries (K. Stanislavsky, V. Nemirovich-Danchenko, M. Gorky, V. Meyerhold).

2. Reading of the I action.

Homework.

Homework results.

In assessing the plot, it is important to pay attention to the absence of a plot characteristic of plays; the mood of the characters, their loneliness, disunity determine the development of the plot. They propose a lot of projects to save the cherry orchard, but are decidedly unable to act.

The motifs of time, memories, unresolved fate, the problem of happiness are also leading in The Cherry Orchard, as in previous plays, but now they play a decisive role, completely subjugating the characters. The motives of “purchase - sale”, “departure - stay” in the house open and complete the action of the play. Let us draw the students' attention to the fact that the motive of death here sounds more insistent.

The arrangement of heroes becomes more complicated. In act I, we have new, but easily recognizable heroes. They have aged a lot, gained the ability to take a sober look at the world, but they do not want to part with their illusions.

Ranevskaya knows that the house needs to be sold, but she hopes for Lopakhin’s help, she asks Petya: “Save me, Petya!” Gaev perfectly understands the whole hopelessness of the situation, but diligently fences himself off from the world of reality, from thoughts about death with the absurd phrase “Whom?” He is absolutely helpless. Epikhodov becomes a parody of these heroes, who cannot decide whether to live or shoot himself. He adapted to the world of the absurd (this explains his nickname: “22 misfortunes”). He also turns the tragedy of Voinitsky (“Uncle Vanya”) into a farce and brings to its logical conclusion the storyline associated with the idea of ​​suicide. The “young generation” in the play looks no less helpless: Anya is naive, full of illusions (a sure sign of the failure of the hero in Chekhov's world). The image of Petya clearly illustrates the idea of ​​the degradation of the idealist hero (in previous plays, these are Astrov and Vershinin). He is an “eternal student”, a “shabby gentleman”, is not busy with anything, he says - and that is inopportune. Petya does not accept the real world at all, the truth does not exist for him, which is why his monologues are so unconvincing. He is "above love". Here the obvious irony of the author sounds, emphasized on the stage (in Act III, in the ball scene, he falls down the stairs and everyone laughs at him). Lyubov Andreevna calls him “Chistyulka”. The most sensible, at first glance, looks Ermolai Lopakhin. A man of business, he gets up at five o'clock in the morning, cannot live without work. His grandfather was a serf at Ranevskaya, and Yermolai is now rich. It is he who breaks the illusions of Ranevskaya and Gaev. But he also buys a house, which is the focus of illusions; he cannot arrange his own happiness; Lopakhin lives in the power of memories, the past.

3. Thus, the main character in the play becomes the house - the “cherry garden”.

Let's think about the question why in relation to the comedy "The Cherry Orchard" it is more appropriate to speak of the chronotope of the house, while in relation to the first two plays of the trilogy it is more correct to speak of the image of the house?

Let's remember what a chronotope is.

Chronotope - spatio-temporal organization of the image.

Work with stage directions of the play. Let's see how the image of time and space is created in the play. The action “cherry orchard” is a house.

I. “The room, which is still called the nursery ... Dawn, the sun will soon rise. It's already May, cherry trees are blooming, but it's cold in the garden, it's a matinee. The windows in the room are closed.”

II. "Field. An old, crooked, long-abandoned chapel .., large stones, once, apparently, tombstones ... To the side, towering, poplar trees grow dark: a cherry orchard begins there. In the distance there is a row of telegraph poles, and far, far away on the horizon, a large city is indistinctly marked, which is visible only in very good, clear weather. The sun will set soon."

III. “The living room…a Jewish orchestra is playing in the hallway…Evening. Everyone is dancing". At the end of the action: “There is no one in the hall and living room except Lyubov Andreevna, who is sitting and ... crying bitterly. The music plays softly."

IV. “The scenery of the first act. There are no curtains on the windows, no paintings, there is a little furniture left, which is folded into one corner, as if for sale. It feels empty... The door to the left is open...” At the end of the action: “The scene is empty. You can hear how all the doors are locked with a key, how the carriages then drive off.

Results of observations.

In the first act, the events do not go beyond the room, which "is still called the nursery." The feeling of an enclosed space is achieved by the mention of closed windows. The author emphasizes the lack of freedom of the characters, their dependence on the past. This is reflected both in Gaev's “odes” to the centenary “cupboard”, and in Lyubov Andreevna's delight at the sight of the nursery. The topics of conversation of the characters are connected with the past. They talk about the main thing - the sale of the garden - in passing.

In the second act on the stage - a field (boundless space). The images of a long-abandoned chapel and stones that were once gravestones become symbolic. With them, the play includes the motive not only of death, but also of overcoming the heroes of the past, memories. The image of another, real space is included in the designation on the horizon big city. This world is alien to the heroes, they are afraid of it (the scene with the passer-by), but the destructive impact of the city on the cherry orchard is inevitable - one cannot escape reality. Chekhov emphasizes this idea with the sound instrumentation of the scene: in the silence “suddenly a distant sound is heard, as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string, fading, sad.”

Act III is the climax, both in the development of the external conflict (the garden is sold) and the internal one. We again find ourselves in the house, in the living room, where an absolutely absurd action takes place: a ball. “And the musicians came inopportunely, and we started the ball inopportunely” (Ranevskaya). The tragedy of the situation is overcome by the carnivalization of reality, the tragedy is combined with a farce: Charlotte shows her endless tricks, Petya falls down the stairs, they play billiards, everyone dances. Misunderstanding, disunity of heroes reach their climax.

Work with text. Let's read Lopakhin's monologue, which concludes the third act, follow the author's remarks for changes in the psychological state of the hero.

“The new landowner, the owner of the cherry orchard” does not feel happy. “Our clumsy, unhappy life would rather change,” Lopakhin says “with tears”. Lyubov Andreevna weeps bitterly, "there is no one in the hall and the living room."

The image of an empty house dominates act IV. Order, peace in it are violated. We are again, as in act I, in the nursery (circular composition). But now everything feels empty. The former owners leave the house. The doors are locked, forgetting about Firs. The play ends with “a distant sound, as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string, fading, sad” again. And in the silence “you can hear how far in the garden they knock on wood with an ax”.

What is the meaning of the last scene of the play?

The house is sold. Heroes no longer binds, illusions are lost.

Firs - the personification of ethics and duty - is locked in the house. Done with "ethical".

The 19th century is over. The 20th, “iron” age is coming. "Homelessness becomes the fate of the world." (Martin Heidegger).

What then do Chekhov's characters gain?

If not happiness, then freedom... This means that it is freedom in Chekhov's world that is the most important category, the meaning of human existence.

II. Generalization.

What makes it possible to combine A. Chekhov's plays "Uncle Vanya", "Three Sisters", "The Cherry Orchard" into a trilogy?

We invite the children to summarize the material of the lessons on their own.

Summary of work.

Let us define criteria for this generality.

1. In every play, the hero is in conflict with the outside world; everyone also experiences internal discord. Thus, the conflict acquires a total character - almost all persons are its carriers. Heroes are characterized by the expectation of change.

2. The problems of happiness and time become leading in the trilogy.

For all heroes:

happiness in the past

misfortune in the present

hope for happiness in the future.

3. The image of the house (“noble nest”) is central in all three plays.

The house embodies the heroes' idea of ​​happiness - it keeps the memory of the past, testifies to the troubles of the present; its preservation or loss inspires hope for the future.

Thus, the motives of “buying and selling” a house, “leaving or staying” in it become semantic and plot-organizing in plays.

4. In the plays, the hero-idealist is degrading.

In "Uncle Vanya" - this is Dr. Astrov;

in "Three Sisters" - Colonel Vershinin;

in the "Cherry Orchard" - student Trofimov.

Row work. Call them “positive programs”. What unites them?

Answer: The idea of ​​work and happiness in the future.

5. The heroes are in a situation of choosing their future fate.

Almost everyone feels the situation of the collapse of the world to a greater or lesser extent. In "Uncle Vanya" - this is, first of all, Uncle Vanya; in "Three Sisters" - sisters Olga, Masha and Irina Prozorova; in the "Cherry Orchard" - Ranevskaya.

There are also parodies of them in the plays: Telegin, Chebutykin, Epikhodov and Charlotte.

Other parallels can be traced between the heroes of the plays:

Marina - Anfisa;

Ferapont - Firs;

Telegin - Epikhodov;

Salty - Yasha;

Serebryakov - Prozorov.

There is also a superficial resemblance here:

religiosity, deafness, failed professorship, and so on.

Such a commonality of the conflict, the plot, the system of images allows us to introduce the concept of a metaplot.

Metaplot - a plot that unites everything storylines individual works, building them as an artistic whole.

It is the situation of choice in which the characters find themselves that determines the metaplot of the trilogy. Heroes must:

either open up, trust the world of the absurd, abandoning the usual norms and values;

or continue to multiply illusions, dragging out an untrue existence, relying on the future.

The finale of the trilogy is open, we will not find answers to the questions posed in the plays by Chekhov, because this is not the task of art, according to the playwright. Now in early XXI century, we ask ourselves questions about the meaning of being, which so disturbed A.P. Chekhov, and it is wonderful that everyone has the opportunity to give their answer, make their choice ...

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-Chekhov. Work on the play progressed very difficult, this was due to the serious illness of Anton Pavlovich. In 1903, it was completed and presented to the leaders of the Moscow Art Theater. The play premiered 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 situation of auctioning the family nest of impoverished nobles. By the early 20th century, such stories were not uncommon. A similar tragedy occurred in Chekhov's life, their house, together 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 lost their homes.

Characters

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

Conflict and plot development of the play

There is no open conflict in the play, and this is another feature of A.P. Chekhov. And on the surface there is a sale of the 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 nobles stubbornly hold on to their property, unable to take real steps to save it, and the proposal 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. In itself, the conflict of generations is by no means new to 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 their place and role in this life.

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

Lopakhin's conversation with Dunyasha, who are waiting for Ranevskaya's arrival, can be called an exposition, 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 auction for debts. The twists and turns of the play are trying to convince the owners to rent out the land. The climax 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.

Composition of the play

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 action of The Cherry Orchard, it is worth noting that the inner content of the characters is conveyed through their relationship 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 an old house- this is a reminder and a living symbol of their former carefree life, in which they were rich aristocrats who own a huge estate. For Lopakhin, who is opposed to them, owning a garden is, first of all, an opportunity to make a profit. Lopakhin makes an offer to Ranevskaya, by accepting which she can save the estate, and asks the impoverished landowners to think about it.

Analyzing the second act of The Cherry Orchard, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the masters and servants are walking not in a beautiful garden, but in a field. From this 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 ​​what the future should be like.

In the third act of the play comes the climax. The estate is sold, and Lopakhin becomes the new owner. Despite being satisfied with the deal, Lopakhin is saddened that he must decide the fate of the garden. This means that the garden will be destroyed.

Fourth act: the family nest is empty, the once united family is falling apart. And just as a garden is cut down to its roots, so this surname remains without roots, without shelter.

Author's position in the play

Despite the seeming tragedy of what is happening, the characters of the author himself did not cause any sympathy. He considered them narrow-minded people, incapable of deep feelings. This play has become 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.

Artwork test