Cherry orchard analysis briefly. Features of the composition of the play “The Cherry Orchard”

General description of comedy.

This lyrical comedy, as Chekhov himself calls it, is aimed at revealing the social theme of the death of old noble estates. The action of the comedy takes place on the estate of L.A. Ranevskaya, a landowner, and is tied to the fact that, due to debts, the inhabitants have to sell the cherry orchard so beloved by everyone. Before us is a nobility in a state of decline. Ranevskaya and Gaev (her brother) are impractical people and do not know how to manage things. Being people of weak character, they abruptly change their mood, easily shed tears over a trivial matter, willingly talk idle talk and organize luxurious holidays on the eve of their ruin. In the play, Chekhov also shows people of the new generation, perhaps the future lies with them. These are Anya Ranevskaya and Petya Trofimov (former teacher of Ranevskaya’s deceased son Grisha). New people must be strong fighters for future happiness. True, it is difficult to classify Trofimov as one of such people: he is a “klutz,” not too strong and, in my opinion, not smart enough for the great struggle. Hope is for young Anya. “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this...” - she believes, and in this faith is the only option in the play for a happy development of the situation for Russia.

1) Form: a) problem part (subjective beginning), the world of a work of art: Main characters (images): landowner Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, her daughters Anya and Varya, her brother Gaev Leonid Andreevich, merchant Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, student Trofimov Pyotr Sergeevich, landowner Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, governess Charlotte Ivanovna, clerk Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, maid Dunyasha, footman Firs and Yasha, as well as several minor characters (passerby, station master, postal official, guests and servants). In addition, we highlight the “garden” as an independent hero; it takes its place in the system of images of the play. b) Structure (composition) of the work, organization of the work at the macrotext level: the comedy consists of four acts. All of them are intertwined plotwise and chronologically, forming a single picture of events. c) Artistic speech

This work is a comedy, so it is very emotional. We note that the text of the play is full of historicisms and archaisms, denoting objects and phenomena from the life of people of the early 20th century (lackey, nobles, master). There is colloquial vocabulary and colloquial forms of words in the servants’ remarks (“I’m good, what a fool I’ve been!”, “Charming, after all, I’ll take one hundred and eighty rubles from you... I’ll take it...”), and there are also numerous borrowings from French and German languages, direct transliteration and foreign words as such (“Pardon!”, “Ein, zwei, drei!”, “They are dancing grand-rond in the hall”).

subject - This is a phenomenon of the external and internal life of a person, which is the subject of study of a work of art. Work under study polythematic, because contains more than one topic.

According to the method of expression, topics are divided into: 1) explicitly expressed: theme of love for home(“Children’s room, my dear, beautiful room...”, “Oh, my garden!”, “Dear, dear closet! I greet your existence, which for more than a hundred years has been directed towards the bright ideals of goodness and justice”), theme of family, love for relatives(“My darling has arrived!”, “my beloved child”, “I suddenly felt sorry for my mother, so sorry, I hugged her head, squeezed her with my hands and couldn’t let go. Then my mother kept caressing her and crying”), old age theme(“I’m tired of you, grandfather. I wish you would die sooner,” “Thank you, Firs, thank you, my old man. I’m so glad that you’re still alive”), love theme(“And what’s there to hide or remain silent about, I love him, that’s clear. I love him, I love him... This is a stone on my neck, I’m going to the bottom with it, but I love this stone and I can’t live without it,” “ You have to be a man, at your age you have to understand those who love. And you have to love yourself... you have to fall in love"; 2) implicitly expressed: nature conservation theme, the theme of the future of Russia.

2) cultural and historical topics: the theme of the future of Russia

According to the classification of philologist Potebnya:

2) Internal form (shaped structures, plot elements, etc.)

3) External form (words, text structure, composition, etc.)

Problems of the work.

The main problems of this play are questions about the fate of the Motherland and the duty and responsibility of the younger generation. The problem is implicitly expressed, since the author conveys this idea through the symbol of the cherry orchard, revealed from various aspects: temporal, figurative and spatial).

Specific issues: a) social (social relationships, building a new life, the problem of a noble leisurely society); b) socio-psychological (inner experiences of the characters); d) historical (the problem of nobles getting used to the abolition of serfdom).

Chronotope.

Straightforward, the action takes place in May 1900, immediately after the abolition of serfdom, and ends in October. Events take place in chronological order on Ranevskaya’s estate, but there are references to the heroes’ past.

Characteristics of heroes.

It is worth noting that there are no sharply positive or sharply negative characters in the work.

Appearance The heroes are given very briefly, and mainly only clothing is described. The text does not contain characteristics of all heroes.

Lopakhin - “in a white vest, yellow shoes”, “with a pig’s snout”, “thin, delicate fingers, like an artist’s”

Trofimov – 26-27 years old, “in a shabby old uniform, with glasses”, “hair is not thick”, “How ugly you have become, Petya”, “stern face”

Firs - 87 years old, “in a jacket and white vest, shoes on his feet.”

Lyubov Ranevskaya, landowner - “She is a good person. An easy, simple person,” very sentimental. He lives idly out of habit, despite the fact that he is completely in debt. It seems to the heroine that everything will work out by itself, but the world collapses: the garden goes to Lopakhin. The heroine, having lost her estate and her homeland, goes back to Paris.

Anya, Ranevskaya's daughter, is in love with Petya Trofimov and is under his influence. She is passionate about the idea that the nobility is guilty before the Russian people and must atone for their guilt. Anya believes in future happiness, a new, better life (“We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this”, “Goodbye, home! Goodbye, old life!”).

Varya is described by her adoptive mother Ranevskaya as “simple, works all day,” “a good girl.”

Leonid Andreevich Gaev is Ranevskaya’s brother, “a man of the eighties,” a man confused by words, whose vocabulary consists mainly of “billiard words” (“Cut into a corner!”, “Doublet into a corner... Croise in the middle..”) .") and complete nonsense (“Dear, dear closet! I greet your existence, which for more than a hundred years has been directed towards the bright ideals of goodness and justice; your silent call for fruitful work has not weakened for a hundred years, supporting (through tears) in the generations of our kind, vigor, faith in a better future and nurturing in us the ideals of goodness and social self-awareness"). One of the few who comes up with various plans to save the cherry orchard.

Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin is a merchant, “he is a good, interesting person,” he characterizes himself as “a man with a man.” He himself comes from a family of serfs, and now is a rich man who knows where and how to invest money. Lopakhin is a very contradictory hero, in whom callousness and rudeness fight with hard work and ingenuity.

Pyotr Trofimov - Chekhov describes him as an “eternal student”, already old, but still not graduated from the university. Ranevskaya, angry at him during an argument about love, shouts: “You are twenty-six or twenty-seven years old, and you are still a second-grade high school student!” Lopakhin ironically asks, “How many years have you been studying at the university?” This hero belongs to the generation of the future, he believes in it, denies love and is in search of truth.

Epikhodov, Ranevskaya and Gaev’s clerk, is madly in love with their maid Dunyasha, who speaks of him a little ambiguously: “He is a meek man, but sometimes when he starts talking, you won’t understand anything. It’s both good and sensitive, just incomprehensible. I kind of like him. He loves me madly. He is an unhappy person, something happens every day. They tease him like that: twenty-two misfortunes...” “You walk from place to place, but don’t do anything. We keep a clerk, but no one knows why”: in these words of Varya is Epikhodov’s whole life.

Portraits, as we described earlier, are brief – they are not an independent element of the work.

The interior is an intrinsic element in the work (i.e. it is needed for description as such), because, among other things, it creates an image of time: in the first and third acts, this is an image of the past and present (the comfort and warmth of one’s home after a long separation (“My room, my windows, as if I had never left”, “The living room, separated by an arch from the hall . The chandelier is burning")), in the fourth and last act - this is a picture of the future, the realities of the new world, the emptiness after the departure of the heroes (“The scenery of the first act. There are no curtains on the windows, no paintings, there is a little furniture left, which is folded in one corner, definitely for sale. You feel the emptiness. Suitcases, travel items, etc. are stacked near the exit door and at the back of the stage. The door to the left is open").

Thus, the interior performs a descriptive and characteristic function.

The work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov “The Cherry Orchard” was created more than a century ago in 1903. But until now this play has not lost its relevance. It is read with pleasure and performed on the stages of the most famous theaters. It reflects the problems of the noble class of pre-revolutionary Russia and the aspirations of ordinary people of that time.

I must say that this is one of the last works of the great writer. A year after it was written, Chekhov died of illness.

In contact with

Characters of the play

Supporting characters

The play takes place on the estate of Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. She returns to her homeland from France, where she lived for a long time with her young daughter Anya. They are met by relatives and friends, including Gaev, the owner’s brother, and her adopted daughter Varya. They lived on the estate all this time, trying to maintain order in it.

Ranevskaya herself is not distinguished by her ability to ensure her comfortable existence. During travel and an idle life, the family’s fortune has melted like snow, and something needs to be decided in order to pay off debts and find money for future life.

The merchant Lopakhin understands this very well, who offers her to sell the estate in order to cut down the garden and build it up with houses for summer residents. This option could save the landowner and bring big profits to Lopakhin himself.

But Lyubov Andreevna is very attached to her father’s house. After all, it was here that her childhood and teenage years passed, and her beloved Grisha, her son, died. The brother and adopted daughter are trying to save the situation by any means, but nothing comes of it.

In parallel with this action The play develops a philosophical and love line:

In the third act, Gaev and Lopakhin go to the auction, and dances are held on the estate. In the midst of the fun, Gaev returns and announces the sale of the estate to Lopakhin. The merchant, of course, is beside himself with happiness and demands cheerful music from the musicians. He doesn’t feel sorry for the ruined owners at all.

In the finale, Ranevskaya and her family leave the sold estate to start a new life. Lopakhin triumphs, and only the old footman Firs pronounces his sad monologue to the sound of an ax - they are cutting down a cherry orchard.

Critics' reaction

After the publication of “The Cherry Orchard,” it was noted that the work reflected the state of the noble class at the beginning of the last century. Almost before our eyes, the death of an entire class is happening. It is this, and not the economic issue, that is the main concern of readers. Ranevskaya understands that her life is over and is not trying to benefit from what is happening.

Artistic basis

The play was conceived as a comedy, but after reading it to the end, you begin to understand that it is more of a tragicomedy or even a drama.

The main feature of the work is symbolism, which is unique to Chekhov. Even the dialogue in the play is unusual, since the lines in most cases are not an answer to the questions that are asked. Chekhov tried to write and show that the characters simply do not try to understand each other. They don't hear anyone but themselves.

The garden itself is the central “hero” here, symbolizing the collapse of the noble life of Russia.

This is a brief retelling of the play “The Cherry Orchard,” the plan of which consists of four acts. The full version of the work can be read online or by ordering a printed version of the book.

"The Cherry Orchard": analysis of Chekhov's play

Let's remember Chekhov's stories. Lyrical mood, piercing sadness and laughter... These are his plays too - unusual plays, and even more so that seemed strange to Chekhov's contemporaries. But it was in them that the “watercolor” nature of Chekhov’s colors, his soulful lyricism, his piercing accuracy and frankness were most clearly and deeply manifested.

Chekhov's dramaturgy has several plans, and what the characters say is by no means what the author himself hides behind their remarks. And what he is hiding may not be what he would like to convey to the viewer...

This diversity makes it difficult to define the genre. For example, a play

As we know from the very beginning, the estate is doomed; The heroes are also doomed - Ranevskaya, Gaev, Anya and Varya - they have nothing to live for, nothing to hope for. The solution proposed by Lopakhin is impossible for them. Everything for them symbolizes the past, some long-ago, wonderful life, when everything was easy and simple, and they even knew how to dry cherries and send them by cart to Moscow... But now the garden has grown old, fruitful years are rare, the method of preparing cherries has been forgotten... Constant trouble is felt behind all the words and actions of the heroes... And even the hopes for the future expressed by one of the most active heroes - Lopakhin - are unconvincing. Petya Trofimov’s words are also unconvincing: “Russia is our garden,” “we need to work.” After all, Trofimov himself is an eternal student who cannot begin any serious activity. The trouble is in the way the relationship between the characters develops (Lolakhin and Varya love each other, but for some reason they don’t get married), and in their conversations. Everyone talks about what interests him at the moment, and does not listen to others. Chekhov's heroes are characterized by a tragic “deafness,” so the important and the small, the tragic and the stupid get in the way in the dialogues.

Indeed, in “The Cherry Orchard,” as in human life, tragic (material difficulties, inability of the heroes to act), dramatic (the life of any of the heroes) and comic (for example, Petya Trofimov’s fall from the stairs at the most tense moment) are mixed. Discord is visible everywhere, even in the fact that servants behave like masters. Firs says, comparing the past and present, that “everything is fragmented.” The existence of this person seems to remind the young that life began a long time ago, even before them. It is also characteristic that he is forgotten on the estate...

And the famous “sound of a breaking string” is also a symbol. If a stretched string means readiness, determination, efficiency, then a broken string means the end. True, there is still a vague hope, because the neighboring landowner Simeonov-Pishchik was lucky: he is no better than others, but they either found clay or had a railroad...

Life is both sad and funny. She is tragic, unpredictable - this is what Chekhov talks about in his plays. And that is why it is so difficult to determine their genre - because the author simultaneously shows all aspects of our life...

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

Actors, directors, readers, and spectators from 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 the play, we need to keep in mind not only what it excited Chekhov’s contemporaries, and not only what makes it 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 people’s 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 method of depicting life in a dramatic work developed by Chekhov.

If you 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 previous theatrical aesthetics).

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

FEATURES OF DRAMATURGIC CONFLICT. Let's start with something that catches your eye: how are the dialogues constructed in “The Cherry Orchard”? It is unconventional when a 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, the disorderly chorus of remarks and exclamations immediately after Ranevskaya’s arrival from the station). The characters don’t seem to hear each other, and if they listen, they respond at random (Anya to Dunyasha, Ranevskaya and Gaev to Lopakhin, everyone else except Anya to Petya, and even she clearly reacts not to the meaning, but to the sound of Petya’s monologues: “ How well you speak!.. (Delighted.) How well you said it!”).

What is behind this structure of dialogues? The desire for greater verisimilitude (to show how it happens in life)? Yes, but not only that. Disunity, self-absorption, inability to take the point of view of another - Chekhov sees and shows this 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, an inheritance, transferring money to someone, permission or prohibition for marriage, etc.).

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

There is no intrigue, but what then does the event consist of - something without which there cannot be a dramatic work? The event that is most talked about - the sale of an estate at auction - does not take place on stage. Beginning with “The Seagull” and even earlier, with “Ivanov,” Chekhov consistently carries out this technique - to take the main “incident” off stage, leaving only reflections of it, echoes in the speeches of the characters. Invisible (by 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 their own way in the play. But their absence on stage emphasizes that for the author they are only a background, an occasion, an accompanying circumstance of what is main. Despite the apparent absence of 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,” to use Osip Mandelstam’s formula. As a result of this movement and displacement of ideas (events invisible, but very real), someone’s destinies are broken or changed, hopes are lost or arisen, love succeeds or fails...

These significant events in the life of every person are revealed not in spectacular gestures and actions (Chekhov consistently presents everything that has an effect in an ironic light), but in modest, everyday, everyday manifestations. There is no emphasis on them, no artificial drawing of attention to them; much of the text goes into subtext. “Undercurrent” - this is how the Art 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 shape of a bee. Anya answers sadly: “Mom bought this.” It’s sad - because both felt the hopelessness of that fundamental thing on which their fate depended.

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 a dotted line (actors and directors must draw a solid line - this is the difficulty and at the same time tempting of staging Chekhov’s plays on stage). The playwright leaves a lot to the reader’s imagination, giving the text basic guidelines for correct understanding.

So, the main line of the play is connected with Lopakhin. His relationship with Varya results in his antics that are 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 a failed explanation between Lopakhin and Varya in the last act: the characters talk about the weather, about the broken thermometer - and not a word about what is obviously important 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 showing feelings. Varya explains their relationship to herself approximately this way: “He has a lot to do, he has no time for me”; “He is either silent or joking. I understand, he’s getting rich, he’s busy with business, he has no time for me.” But the actors will come much closer to the Chekhovian subtext, to the Chekhovian “undercurrent” technique, if by the time of the explanation between these characters they clearly make it clear to the viewer that Varya is really not a match for Lopakhin, she is not worth him. Lopakhin is a man of great scope, capable of mentally looking around, like an eagle, “huge forests, vast fields, deepest horizons.” Varya, if we continue this comparison, is a gray jackdaw, whose horizons are limited to housekeeping, 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 would have seen would be the opportunity for a “decent” marriage for myself.

Due to his position, Lopakhin can, at best, only count on Varya. 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 observe 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 men could be beaten, and began tactlessly teasing Petya. All this is the result of a decline in his mood after he clearly sees that it does not even occur to Ranevskaya to take his feelings seriously. And later in the play this unrequited tenderness of Lopakhin will break through several more times. During the monologues of the characters in “The Cherry Orchard” about a failed life, Lopakhin’s unspoken feeling can sound like one of the most painful notes of the play (by the way, this is exactly how Lopakhin was played by the best performers of this family in performances of recent years - Vladimir Vysotsky and Andrei Mironov).

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

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

Thus, in Ostrovsky’s plays, the conflict stems primarily from differences in the class position of the heroes - rich and poor, tyrants and their victims, those with power and dependents: the first, initial driver of action in Ostrovsky is the difference between the characters (class, money, family), from from which their conflicts and clashes arise. Instead of death, in other plays there may be, on the contrary, triumph over a tyrant, oppressor, intriguer, etc. The outcomes can be as different as you like, but the opposition within the conflict between the victim and the oppressor, the side suffering and the side causing suffering, is invariable.

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

Let us take a closer look at the text of “The Cherry Orchard”, at the persistent and clear indications placed in it by the author about the meaning of what is happening. Chekhov consistently moves away 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 in Chekhov, are expressed primarily in repetitions.

In the first act there is a repeated phrase that is applied in different ways to almost every character.

Lyubov Andreevna, who had not seen her adopted daughter for five years, heard how she was managing the house and said: “You are still the same, Varya.” And even before this he notes: “But Varya is still the same, she looks like a nun.” Varya, in turn, sadly states: “Mommy is the same as she was, she hasn’t changed at all. If she had her way, 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 about two hours he is convinced: “You are still just as magnificent.” Ranevskaya herself, upon entering the nursery, defines her constant trait differently: “I slept here when I was little... And now I’m like a little girl...” - but this is the same confession: I’m the same.

“You are still the same, Lenya”; “And you, Leonid Andreich, are still the same as you were”; “You again, uncle!” - this is Lyubov Andreevna, Yasha, Anya talking about Gaev’s constant eloquence. And Firs laments, pointing out a constant feature of his master’s behavior: “They put on the wrong trousers again. And what should I do with you!”

“You (you, she) are still the same (the same).” This is a constant indicated by the author at the very beginning of the play. This is a property of all characters; they vying with each other to assure themselves of this.

“And this one is all his,” says Gaev about Pishchik, when he once again asks for a loan of money. “You’re all about one thing...” - half-asleep Anya responds to Dunyashino’s news about her next suitor. “He’s been mumbling for three years now. We’re used to it” - this is about Firs. “Charlotte talks all the way, performs tricks...”, “Every day some misfortune happens to me” - this is Epikhodov.

Each character develops his own theme (sometimes with variations): Epikhodov talks about his misfortunes, Pishchik talks about debts, Varya talks about her household, Gaev inappropriately becomes pathetic, Petya talks about denunciations, etc. The constancy and immutability of some characters are enshrined in their nicknames: “twenty-two misfortunes”, “eternal student”. And the most general thing, Firsovo: “klutz.”

When repetition (giving everyone the same attribute) is so repeated as in the first act of “The Cherry Orchard” that it cannot help but be striking, it is the strongest means of expressing the author’s thought.

In parallel with this recurring motif, inseparably from it, persistently and just as applied to everyone, another, seemingly opposite, is repeated. As if frozen in their immutability, the characters constantly talk about how much has changed, how time flies.

“When you left here, I was like this...” - Dunyasha gestures to indicate the distance between the past and the present. She seems to echo Ranevskaya’s memory of when she “was little.” In his first monologue, Lopakhin compares what happened (“I remember when I was a boy of about fifteen... Lyubov Andreevna, as I remember now, is still young...”) and what has become now (“I’ve just become rich, there’s a lot of money , but if you think about it and figure it out...”). “Once upon a time...” - Gaev begins to remember, also about childhood, and concludes: “... and now I’m already fifty-one years old, strange as it may seem...” The theme of childhood (irretrievably gone) or parents (dead) or forgotten) is repeated in different ways by Charlotte, and Yasha, and Pischik, and Trofimov, and Firs. Ancient Firs, like a living historical calendar, every now and then returns from what is, to what “happened,” what was done “once upon a time,” “before.”

Retrospective - from the present to the past - is opened by almost every character, although to different depths. Firs has been mumbling for three years now. Six years ago, Lyubov Andreevna’s husband died and Lyubov Andreevna’s son drowned. About forty to fifty years ago they still remembered the methods of processing cherries. The cabinet was made exactly one hundred years ago. And the stones that were once gravestones remind us of a completely hoary 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 Varya, for Lopakhin, for Petya, for Ranevskaya, even for Firs, boarded up and forgotten in the house.

“Yes, time is passing,” notes Lopakhin. 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 that covers all the characters. This is a theme of confusion, misunderstanding in the face of relentlessly passing time.

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

It seems that many characters still oppose each other and somewhat contrasting pairs can be distinguished. “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 focused on the future. Varya has an old woman’s refusal of herself for the sake of her family, she holds on to her estate, Gaev has pure childish egoism, he “ate” his estate on candy.” Epikhodov has a complex of a loser and Yasha has a complex of an arrogant conqueror. The heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” often contrast themselves with each other.

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

The characters are convinced of the absolute opposite of their “truths.” The author each time points out the commonality between them, the hidden similarities that they do not notice or reject with indignation.

Doesn’t Anya repeat Ranevskaya in many ways, and doesn’t Trofimov often resemble the klutz Epikhodov, and doesn’t Lopakhin’s confusion 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. To stand unshakably on one’s own, to be absorbed in one’s “truth”, without noticing the similarities with others - in Chekhov this looks like a common lot, an irreducible feature of human existence. In itself this is neither good nor bad: it is natural. What results 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 single understanding. It's not just a matter of new, increasingly complex accents in an old conflict. The conflict itself is new: visible opposition with hidden similarity.

Unchanging people (each holding on to his own) against the backdrop 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 final destiny.

A beautiful garden, against the backdrop of which characters are shown who do not understand the course of things or have a limited understanding of it, is associated with the destinies of several of their generations - past, present and future. The situation in the lives of individual people is internally correlated in the play with the situation in the life of the country. The symbolic content of the image of the garden is multifaceted: beauty, past culture, and 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 fanaberia, while others, thinking about saving the garden, in reality they are destroying it, the fourth are welcoming the death of this garden...

GENRE ORIGINALITY. THE COMIC IN THE PLAY. A dying garden and failed, even unnoticed love - two cross-cutting, internally connected themes - give the play a sad and poetic character. However, Chekhov insisted that he created not “a drama, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce.” Remaining true to his principle of endowing the heroes with an equally suffering position in relation to a life they do not understand, a hidden community (which does not exclude an amazing variety of external manifestations), Chekhov found in his last great play a completely special genre form that is 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 implemented in his “comedy” special principles of combining the dramatic and the comic.

In “The Cherry Orchard” it is not individual characters who are comical, such as Charlotte, Epikhodov, Varya. Misunderstanding of each other, diversity of opinions, illogical conclusions, remarks and answers inappropriately - all heroes are endowed with similar imperfections of thinking and behavior that make it possible to perform comically.

The comic of similarity, the comic of repetition are the basis of the comic in “The Cherry Orchard.” Everyone is funny in their own way, and everyone participates in the sad event, accelerating its onset - this is what determines the relationship between 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. In this situation there is not one group of heroes as opposed to another. The principle of such a continuous genre transition is comprehensive in The Cherry Orchard. Every now and then in the play there is a deepening of the funny (limited and relative) to sympathy for it and back - a simplification of the serious to the funny.

The play, designed for a qualified, sophisticated viewer capable of grasping its lyrical, symbolic subtext, Chekhov filled the play with the techniques of the square theater, the booth: falling from stairs, gluttony, hitting the head with a stick, magic tricks, etc. After the pathetic, excited monologues that almost every character in the play has - right up to Gaev, Pischik, Dunyasha, Firs - a farcical decline immediately follows, then a lyrical note appears again, allowing us to understand the subjective emotion of the hero, and again his self-absorption turns into mockery above it (this is how Lopakhin’s famous monologue in the third act is structured: “I bought it!..”).

What conclusions does Chekhov lead to in such unconventional ways?

A.P. Skaftymov in his works showed that the author makes the main object of the image in “The Cherry Orchard” not any of the characters, but the structure, the order of life. Unlike the works of previous drama, in Chekhov's play it is not the person himself who is to blame for his failures and it is not the evil will of another person that is to blame. There is no one 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, and relationships? Having taken a voluntary trip to the penal island of Sakhalin, he spoke about everyone’s responsibility for the existing order, for the general course of things: “We are all to blame.” Not “there is no one to blame,” but “we are all to blame.”

IMAGE OF LOPAKHIN. The persistence with which Chekhov pointed to the role of Lopakhin as central to the play is well known. He insisted that Lopakhin be played by Stanislavsky. 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 Sergeevich” can play this role, and that it is not suitable for a simply talented actor. force, he will “play it very palely, or act out,” and make Lopakhin “a little kulak... After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word, you need to understand this.” Chekhov warned against a simplified, petty understanding of this image, which was obviously dear to him.

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

The first, but not the only and not the most important thing, is the significance and extraordinary nature of Lopakhin’s personality itself.

It is clear that Chekhov created an image of a merchant that is unconventional for Russian literature. A businessman, and a very successful one, Lopakhin is at the same time a man “with the soul of an artist.” When he talks about Russia, it sounds like a declaration of love for his homeland. 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 suit “huge, wide-stepping people.” And the most heartfelt words about the cherry orchard in the play - this should not be lost sight of - belong precisely to Lopakhin: “an estate that 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 at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. These are Stanislavsky himself (the owner of the Alekseev factory), 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 intricately combined in the nature of many of these merchants with the characteristic features of businessmen and money-grubbers. Without making Lopakhin similar to any of them individually, Chekhov introduces traits into the character of his hero 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, gentle fingers, like an artist, you have a thin, gentle 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 trepidation 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 unselfishly loves art, which I can almost feel in his peasant, merchant, acquisitive soul.” K.S. Stanislavsky bequeathed Lopakhin’s future performers to give him “the scope of Chaliapin.”

Dividing 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 creation, so to speak, of a publicly accessible cherry orchard. With that former, luxurious garden, which served only a few, this new, thinned out and accessible to anyone for a reasonable fee, Lopakhin’s garden correlates like the democratic urban culture of Chekhov’s era with the marvelous estate culture of the past.

Chekhov proposed an image that was 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 action (saving the garden), as a result of a number of circumstances, turns into something directly opposite in the last action (the garden is chopped 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, who achieved success, is not shown by Chekhov as a winner. The entire content of “The Cherry Orchard” reinforces the words of this hero about “a clumsy, unhappy life” that “you know it’s passing.” In fact, the 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 shows in “The Cherry Orchard” the fatal discrepancy between a person’s personal good qualities, his subjectively good intentions and the results of his social activities. And Lopakhin was 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 orchard for Ranevskaya as he wanted, and his luck turns into a mockery of his best hopes. The hero himself cannot understand why this is so, and none of those around him could explain it.

In a word, it is with Lopakhin that one of the long-standing and main themes of Chekhov’s work enters into the play - hostility, unbearable complexity, the incomprehensibility of life for an ordinary (“average”) Russian person, no matter who he is (remember Ionia). In the image of Lopakhin, Chekhov remained faithful to this theme to the end. This is one of the heroes standing on the main line of Chekhov's work, being related to many of the characters in the writer's previous works.

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

Chekhov's symbolism differs from the concept of 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 tub fell off. 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 reason, although unknown to the heroes or misunderstood by them, not fully realized.

The Cherry Orchard and its death are symbolically polysemantic and cannot be reduced to visible reality, but there is no mystical or surreal content here. Chekhov's symbols expand horizons, but do not lead away from the earthly. The very degree of mastery and comprehension of the everyday in Chekhov’s works is such that the existential, the general and the eternal shine through in them.

The mysterious sound, mentioned twice in “The Cherry Orchard,” was actually heard by Chekhov in childhood. But, in addition to the real predecessor, we can also recall one literary predecessor. This is the sound that the boys heard in Turgenev’s story “Bezhin Meadow”. This parallel is reminded by the similarity of the situation in which an incomprehensible sound is heard, and the mood that it evokes in the characters 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 and became like the sound of a broken string. In Chekhov's last play, it combined the symbolism of life and homeland, Russia: a reminder of its immensity and the time passing over it, of something familiar, eternally resounding over the Russian expanses, accompanying the countless comings and goings of ever 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 oneself to the final collapse and general hostility. He urged not to be deluded by one’s own idea of ​​truth, not to absolutize many “truths” that actually turn into “false ideas”, to realize everyone’s guilt, everyone’s responsibility for the general course of things. In Chekhov's depiction of Russian historical problems, humanity saw problems affecting all people at any time, in any society.

“The Cherry Orchard” is a social play by A.P. Chekhov about the death and degeneration of the Russian nobility. It was written by Anton Pavlovich in the last years of his life. Many critics say that it is this drama that expresses the writer’s attitude towards the past, present and future of Russia.

Initially, the author planned to create a light-hearted and funny play, where the main driving force of the action would be the sale of the estate under the hammer. In 1901, in a letter to his wife, he shared his ideas. Previously, he had already raised a similar topic in the drama “Fatherlessness,” but he considered that experience unsuccessful. Chekhov wanted to experiment, and not resurrect stories buried in his desk. The process of impoverishment and degeneration of the nobles passed before his eyes, and he watched, creating and accumulating vital material to create artistic truth.

The history of the creation of “The Cherry Orchard” began in Taganrog, when the writer’s father was forced to sell his family nest for debts. Apparently, Anton Pavlovich experienced something similar to Ranevskaya’s feelings, which is why he so subtly delved into the experiences of seemingly fictional characters. In addition, Chekhov was personally familiar with Gaev’s prototype - A.S. Kiselev, who also sacrificed his estate in order to improve his shaky financial situation. His situation is one of hundreds. The entire Kharkov province, where the writer visited more than once, became shallow: the nests of the nobility disappeared. Such a large-scale and controversial process attracted the attention of the playwright: on the one hand, the peasants were liberated and received the long-awaited freedom, on the other, this reform did not increase anyone’s well-being. Such obvious tragedy could not be ignored; the light comedy conceived by Chekhov did not work out.

Meaning of the name

Since the cherry orchard symbolizes Russia, we can conclude that the author devoted the work to the question of its fate, just as Gogol wrote “Dead Souls” for the sake of the question “Where is the bird-troika flying?” In essence, we are not talking about selling the estate, but about what will happen to the country? Will they sell it off, will they cut it down for profit? Chekhov, analyzing the situation, understood that the degeneration of the nobility, the supporting class for the monarchy, promised troubles for Russia. If these people, called by their origin to be the core of the state, cannot take responsibility for their actions, then the country will sink. Such gloomy thoughts awaited the author on the other side of the topic he touched on. It turned out that his heroes were not laughing, and neither was he.

The symbolic meaning of the title of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is to convey to the reader the idea of ​​the work - the search for answers to questions about the fate of Russia. Without this sign, we would perceive the comedy as a family drama, a drama from private life, or a parable about the problem of fathers and children. That is, an erroneous, narrow interpretation of what was written would not allow the reader even a hundred years later to understand the main thing: we are all responsible for our garden, regardless of generation, beliefs and social status.

Why did Chekhov call the play “The Cherry Orchard” a comedy?

Many researchers actually classify it as a comedy, since along with tragic events (the destruction of an entire class), comic scenes constantly occur in the play. That is, it cannot be unambiguously classified as a comedy; it would be more correct to classify “The Cherry Orchard” as a tragifarce or tragicomedy, since many researchers attribute Chekhov’s dramaturgy to a new phenomenon in the theater of the 20th century - antidrama. The author himself stood at the origins of this trend, so he did not call himself that. However, the innovation of his work spoke for itself. This writer has now been recognized and introduced into the school curriculum, but then many of his works remained misunderstood, as they were out of the general rut.

The genre of “The Cherry Orchard” is difficult to determine, because now, given the dramatic revolutionary events that Chekhov did not see, we can say that this play is a tragedy. An entire era dies in it, and hopes for revival are so weak and vague that it’s somehow impossible to even smile in the finale. An open ending, a closed curtain, and only a dull knock on wood is heard in my thoughts. This is the impression of the performance.

main idea

The ideological and thematic meaning of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is that Russia finds itself at a crossroads: it can choose the path to the past, present and future. Chekhov shows the mistakes and inconsistency of the past, the vices and predatory grip of the present, but he still hopes for a happy future, showing exalted and at the same time independent representatives of the new generation. The past, no matter how beautiful it may be, cannot be returned; the present is too imperfect and wretched to accept it, so we must invest every effort in ensuring that the future lives up to bright expectations. To achieve this, everyone must try now, without delay.

The author shows how important action is, but not the mechanical pursuit of profit, but spiritual, meaningful, moral action. It’s him that Pyotr Trofimov is talking about, it’s him that Anechka wants to see. However, we also see in the student the harmful legacy of past years - he talks a lot, but has done little for his 27 years. And yet the writer hopes that this age-old slumber will be overcome on a clear and cool morning - tomorrow, where the educated, but at the same time active descendants of the Lopakhins and Ranevskys will come.

Theme of the work

1. The author used an image that is familiar to each of us and understandable to everyone. Many people still have cherry orchards to this day, but back then they were an indispensable attribute of every estate. They bloom in May, beautifully and fragrantly defend the week allotted to them, and then quickly fall off. Just as beautifully and suddenly, the nobility, once the support of the Russian Empire, fell into disgrace, mired in debt and endless polemics. As a matter of fact, these people were unable to live up to the expectations placed on them. Many of them, with their irresponsible attitude to life, only undermined the foundations of Russian statehood. What should have been a centuries-old oak forest was just a cherry orchard: beautiful, but quickly disappearing. The cherry fruits, alas, were not worth the space they occupied. This is how the theme of the death of noble nests was revealed in the play “The Cherry Orchard.”
2. The themes of the past, present and future are realized in the work thanks to a multi-level system of images. Each generation symbolizes the time allotted to it. In the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev, the past dies away, in the image of Lopakhin the present rules, and the future awaits its day in the images of Anya and Peter. The natural course of events takes on a human face, the change of generations is shown in specific examples.
3. The theme of time also plays an important role. Its power turns out to be destructive. Water wears away a stone - so time erases human laws, destinies and beliefs into powder. Until recently, Ranevskaya could not even imagine that her former serf would settle in the estate and cut down the garden that had been passed on by the Gaevs from generation to generation. This unshakable order of social structure collapsed and sank into oblivion, in its place capital and its market laws were installed, in which power was ensured by money, and not by position and origin.

Issues

1. The problem of human happiness in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is manifested in all the fates of the heroes. Ranevskaya, for example, experienced many troubles in this garden, but is happy to return here again. She fills the house with her warmth, remembers her native lands, and feels nostalgic. She doesn’t care at all about debts, the sale of her estate, or her daughter’s inheritance, in the end. She is happy with forgotten and relived impressions. But the house is sold, the bills are paid off, and happiness is in no hurry with the arrival of a new life. Lopakhin tells her about calm, but only anxiety grows in her soul. Instead of liberation comes depression. Thus, what is happiness for one is misfortune for another, all people understand its essence differently, which is why it is so difficult for them to get along together and help each other.
2. The problem of preserving memory also worries Chekhov. The people of the present are mercilessly cutting down what was the pride of the province. Noble nests, historically important buildings, are dying from inattention, being erased into oblivion. Of course, active businessmen will always find arguments to destroy unprofitable junk, but this is how historical monuments, cultural and artistic monuments will perish ingloriously, which the Lopakhins’ children will regret. They will be deprived of connections with the past, continuity of generations, and will grow up as Ivans who do not remember their kinship.
3. The problem of ecology in the play does not go unnoticed. The author asserts not only the historical value of the cherry orchard, but also its natural beauty and its importance for the province. All the residents of the surrounding villages breathed in these trees, and their disappearance is a small environmental disaster. The area will be orphaned, the gaping lands will become impoverished, but people will fill every patch of inhospitable space. The attitude towards nature must be as careful as towards humans, otherwise we will all be left without the home that we love so much.
4. The problem of fathers and children is embodied in the relationship between Ranevskaya and Anechka. The alienation between relatives is visible. The girl feels sorry for her unlucky mother, but does not want to share her lifestyle. Lyubov Andreevna pampers the child with tender nicknames, but cannot understand that in front of her is no longer a child. The woman continues to pretend that she doesn’t understand anything yet, so she shamelessly builds her personal life to the detriment of her interests. They are very different, so they make no attempt to find a common language.
5. The problem of love for the homeland, or rather, its absence, can also be seen in the work. Gaev, for example, is indifferent to the garden, he only cares about his own comfort. His interests do not rise above consumer interests, so the fate of his father’s house does not bother him. Lopakhin, his opposite, also does not understand Ranevskaya’s scrupulousness. However, he also does not understand what to do with the garden. He is guided only by mercantile considerations; profits and calculations are important to him, but not the safety of his home. He clearly expresses only his love for money and the process of obtaining it. A generation of children dreams of a new kindergarten; they have no use for the old one. This is also where the problem of indifference comes into play. Nobody needs the Cherry Orchard except Ranevskaya, and even she needs memories and the old way of life, where she could do nothing and live happily. Her indifference to people and things is expressed in the scene where she calmly drinks coffee while listening to the news of her nanny's death.
6. The problem of loneliness plagues every hero. Ranevskaya was abandoned and deceived by her lover, Lopakhin cannot establish relations with Varya, Gaev is an egoist by nature, Peter and Anna are just beginning to get closer, and it is already obvious that they are lost in a world where there is no one to give them a helping hand.
7. The problem of mercy haunts Ranevskaya: no one can support her, all the men not only do not help, but do not spare her. Her husband drank himself to death, her lover abandoned her, Lopakhin took away her estate, her brother doesn’t care about her. Against this background, she herself becomes cruel: she forgets Firs in the house, they nail him inside. In the image of all these troubles lies an inexorable fate that is unmerciful to people.
8. The problem of finding the meaning of life. Lopakhin clearly does not satisfy his meaning in life, which is why he rates himself so low. For Anna and Peter, this search is just ahead, but they are already meandering, unable to find a place for themselves. Ranevskaya and Gaev, with the loss of material wealth and their privilege, are lost and cannot find their way again.
9. The problem of love and selfishness is clearly visible in the contrast between brother and sister: Gaev loves only himself and does not particularly suffer from losses, but Ranevskaya has been looking for love all her life, but did not find it, and along the way she lost it. Only crumbs fell to Anechka and the cherry orchard. Even a loving person can become selfish after so many years of disappointment.
10. The problem of moral choice and responsibility concerns, first of all, Lopakhin. He gets Russia, his activities can change it. However, he lacks the moral foundations to understand the importance of his actions for his descendants and to understand his responsibility to them. He lives by the principle: “After us, even a flood.” He doesn’t care what will happen, he sees what is.

Symbolism of the play

The main image in Chekhov's play is the garden. It not only symbolizes estate life, but also connects times and eras. The image of the Cherry Orchard is a noble Russia, with the help of which Anton Pavlovich predicted the future changes that awaited the country, although he himself could no longer see them. It also expresses the author’s attitude to what is happening.

The episodes depict ordinary everyday situations, “little things in life,” through which we learn about the main events of the play. Chekhov mixes the tragic and the comic, for example, in the third act Trofimov philosophizes and then absurdly falls down the stairs. In this one can see a certain symbolism of the author’s attitude: he is ironic at the characters, casting doubt on the veracity of their words.

The system of images is also symbolic, the meaning of which is described in a separate paragraph.

Composition

The first action is exposition. Everyone is waiting for the arrival of the owner of the estate, Ranevskaya, from Paris. In the house, everyone thinks and talks about their own things, without listening to others. The disunity located under the roof illustrates the discordant Russia, where people so different from each other live.

The beginning - Lyubov Andreeva and her daughter enter, gradually everyone learns that they are in danger of ruin. Neither Gaev nor Ranevskaya (brother and sister) can prevent it. Only Lopakhin knows a tolerable rescue plan: cut down the cherries and build dachas, but the proud owners do not agree with him.

Second action. During sunset, the fate of the garden is once again discussed. Ranevskaya arrogantly rejects Lopakhin's help and continues to remain inactive in the bliss of her own memories. Gaev and the merchant constantly quarrel.

Third act (climax): while the old owners of the garden are throwing a ball, as if nothing had happened, the auction is going on: the estate is acquired by the former serf Lopakhin.

Act four (denouement): Ranevskaya returns to Paris to squander the rest of her savings. After her departure, everyone goes their separate ways. Only the old servant Firs remains in the crowded house.

Innovation of Chekhov - playwright

It remains to be added that it is not without reason that the play cannot be understood by many schoolchildren. Many researchers attribute it to the theater of the absurd (what is this?). This is a very complex and controversial phenomenon in modernist literature, debates about the origin of which continue to this day. The fact is that Chekhov's plays, according to a number of characteristics, can be classified as the theater of the absurd. The characters' remarks very often do not have a logical connection with each other. They seem to be directed into nowhere, as if they are being uttered by one person and at the same time talking to himself. The destruction of dialogue, the failure of communication - this is what the so-called anti-drama is famous for. In addition, the alienation of the individual from the world, his global loneliness and life turned to the past, the problem of happiness - all these are features of the existential problems in the work, which are again inherent in the theater of the absurd. This is where the innovation of Chekhov the playwright manifested itself in the play “The Cherry Orchard”; these features attract many researchers in his work. Such a “provocative” phenomenon, misunderstood and condemned by public opinion, is difficult to fully perceive even for an adult, not to mention the fact that only a few people involved in the world of art managed to fall in love with the theater of the absurd.

Image system

Chekhov does not have telling names, like Ostrovsky, Fonvizin, Griboyedov, but there are off-stage characters (for example, a Parisian lover, a Yaroslavl aunt) who are important in the play, but Chekhov does not bring them into “external” action. In this drama there is no division into good and bad heroes, but there is a multifaceted system of characters. The characters in the play can be divided:

• on the heroes of the past (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Firs). They only know how to waste money and think, not wanting to change anything in their lives.
• on the heroes of the present (Lopakhin). Lopakhin is a simple “man” who, with the help of work, got rich, bought an estate and is not going to stop.
• on the heroes of the future (Trofimov, Anya) - this is the young generation dreaming of the highest truth and the highest happiness.

The heroes of The Cherry Orchard constantly jump from one topic to another. Despite the apparent dialogue, they do not hear each other. There are as many as 34 pauses in the play, which are formed between many “useless” statements of the characters. The phrase “You are still the same” is repeated repeatedly, which makes it clear that the characters do not change, they stand still.

The action of the play “The Cherry Orchard” begins in May, when the fruits of the cherry trees begin to bloom, and ends in October. The conflict does not have a pronounced character. All the main events that decide the future of the heroes take place behind the scenes (for example, estate auctions). That is, Chekhov completely abandons the norms of classicism.