The Cherry Orchard" as a lyrical tragicomedy. The meaning of the play "The Cherry Orchard" The theme of the past, present and future of Russia

The meaning of the play "The Cherry Orchard"

A.I. Revyakin. "Ideological meaning and artistic features of the play "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov"
Collection of articles "Creativity of A.P. Chekhov", Uchpedgiz, Moscow, 1956
OCR site

9. The meaning of the play "The Cherry Orchard"

"The Cherry Orchard" is deservedly considered the deepest, most fragrant of all dramatic works Chekhov. Here, more clearly than in any other play, the ideological and artistic possibilities of his charming talent were revealed.
In this play, Chekhov gave a basically correct picture of pre-revolutionary reality. He showed that the estate economy, associated with serf labor conditions, as well as its owners, are relics of the past, that the power of the nobility is unfair, that it prevents further development life.
Chekhov opposed the bourgeoisie to the nobility as a vital class, but at the same time emphasized its crudely exploitative nature. The writer also outlined the prospect of the future, in which both feudal and bourgeois exploitation should be absent.
Chekhov's play, which convexly outlined the contours of Russia's past and present and expressed dreams about its future, helped viewers and readers of that time to become aware of the reality around them. Its high ideological, patriotic, moral pathos also contributed to the progressive education of readers and viewers.
The play "The Cherry Orchard" belongs to those classical works pre-October literature, the objective meaning of which was much broader than the writer's intention. Many viewers and readers perceived this comedy as a call for revolution, for the revolutionary overthrow of the then socio-political regime.
Of known interest in this sense are the letters to Chekhov by Viktor Borikovsky, a 3rd year student of the natural department of Kazan University.
“About a week ago,” V. N. Borikovsky wrote on March 19, 1904, “I heard for the first time your last play, The Cherry Orchard, staged here on stage. Previously, I did not have the opportunity to get it and read it, just like your story “The Bride”, which preceded in time. You know, as soon as I saw this "eternal" student, I heard his first speeches, his passionate, bold, cheerful and confident call to life, to this living, new life, not to a dead one, which decomposes and destroys everything, a call to an active, energetic and vigorous work, to a brave, fearless struggle, - and further until the very end of the play - I cannot convey this to you in words, but I experienced such pleasure, such happiness, such inexplicable, inexhaustible bliss! In the intermissions after each act, I noticed on the faces of all those present at the performance such radiant, joyful and cheerful smiles, such a lively, happy expression! The theater was full full, the uplift of the spirit was enormous, extraordinary! I don’t know how to thank you, how to express my heartfelt and deepest gratitude for the happiness that you gave me, him, them, all of humanity!” (Manuscript department of the Library named after V. I. Lenin. Chekhov, p. 36, 19/1 - 2).
In this letter, V. N. Borikovsky informed Chekhov that he wanted to write an article about the play. But in the next letter, written on March 20, he already abandons his intention, believing that no one will publish his article, and most importantly, it can be disastrous for the author of the play.
“Last time I,” writes V. N. Borikovsky, “wrote to you that I want to publish an article about your Cherry Orchard. After a little thought, I came to the conclusion that it would be completely useless, and indeed impossible, because no one, not a single body would dare to place my article on their pages.
... I understood everything, everything from the first word to the last. What a fool our censorship has been playing for allowing such a thing to be presented and printed! All salt in Lopakhin and student Trofimov. You raise the question of what is called an edge, directly, decisively and categorically offer an ultimatum in the person of this Lopakhin, who has risen and is aware of himself and all the surrounding conditions of life, who has seen and understood his role in this whole situation. This question is the same one that Alexander II was clearly aware of when, in his speech in Moscow on the eve of the emancipation of the peasants, he said among other things: "Emancipation from above is better than revolution from below." You ask exactly this question: “From above or from below?”... And you solve it in the sense from below. The "eternal" student is a collective person, it is all students. Lopakhin and the student are friends, they go hand in hand to that bright star that burns there ... in the distance ... And I could say a lot more about these two personalities, but anyway, it's not worth it, you yourself know very well who they are, what they are, and me - I also know. Well, that's enough for me. All the faces of the play are allegorical images, some material, others abstract. Anya, for example, is the personification of freedom, truth, goodness, happiness and prosperity of the motherland, conscience, moral support and stronghold, the good of Russia, the very bright Star towards which mankind is irresistibly advancing. I understood who Ranevskaya was, I understood everything, everything. And I am very, very grateful to you, dear Anton Pavlovich. Your play can be called a terrible, bloody drama, which, God forbid, if it breaks out. How creepy, scary it becomes when the muffled blows of an ax are heard behind the scenes !! It's terrible, terrible! Hair stands on end, frost on the skin! .. What a pity that I never saw you and never said a single word to you! Farewell and forgive, dear, beloved Anton Pavlovich!
The Cherry Orchard is the whole of Russia ”(Manuscript Department of the V.I. Lenin Library. Chekhov, p. 36, 19/1 - 2).
V. Borikovsky not in vain mentioned censorship. This play greatly embarrassed the censors. Allowing it to be staged and printed, the censorship excluded the following passages from Trofimov's speeches: "... before everyone's eyes, the workers eat disgustingly, sleep without pillows, thirty to forty in one room."
“To own living souls - after all, it has reborn all of you, who lived before and are now living, so that your mother, you, uncle no longer notice that you live in debt, at someone else’s expense, at the expense of those people whom you do not let go on front” (A.P. Chekhov, Complete Works and Letters, vol. 11, Goslitizdat, pp. 336 - 337, 339).
On January 16, 1906, The Cherry Orchard was banned from folk theaters as a play depicting “in vivid colors the degeneration of the nobility” (“A.P. Chekhov”. Collection of documents and materials, Goslitizdat, M., 1947, p. 267).
The play "The Cherry Orchard", which played a huge cognitive and educational role at the time of its appearance, did not lose its social and aesthetic significance in the subsequent time. It gained exceptional popularity in the post-October era. Soviet readers and viewers love and appreciate her as a wonderful art document pre-revolutionary period. Her ideas of freedom, humanity, patriotism are dear to them. They admire its aesthetic merits. "The Cherry Orchard" is a highly ideological play containing images of broad generalization and bright individuality. It is distinguished by deep originality and organic unity of content and form.
The play retains and will retain for a long time a huge cognitive, educational and aesthetic value.
“For us, playwrights, Chekhov has always been not only a close friend, but also a teacher ... Chekhov teaches us a lot, which we still cannot achieve in any way ...
Chekhov left us the baton of struggle for a brighter future. Soviet culture"Dated July 15, 1954)," the Soviet playwright B. S. Romashov rightly wrote.

The place of the image of Lopakhin in the comedy by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard" 1. The alignment of social forces in the play. 2. Lopakhin as "master of life". 3. Features of Lopakhin's character.

One of the most famous plays by A.P. Chekhov is the comedy The Cherry Orchard. Its plot is based on absolutely everyday material - the sale of an old noble estate, the property of which is The Cherry Orchard. But Chekhov is not interested in the cherry orchard itself, the garden is only a symbol that means all of Russia. Therefore, it is the fate of the Motherland, its past, present and future, that becomes the main thing for Chekhov. The past in the play is symbolized by Ranevskaya and Gaev, the present by Lopakhin, and the future by Anya and Petya Trofimov. At first glance, the play gives a clear alignment of social forces in Russian society and the prospect of a struggle between them is a thing of the past. Russian nobility to be replaced by the bourgeoisie.

These motifs are also seen in the characters of the main characters. Gaev and Ranevskaya are careless and helpless, while Lopakhin is businesslike and enterprising, but spiritually limited. But although the conflict is based on the confrontation of social forces, it is muted in the play. The Russian bourgeois Lopakhin is devoid of predatory grip and aggressiveness towards the nobles Ranevskaya and Gaev, and the nobles do not resist him at all. It turns out as if the estate with the cherry orchard itself floats into Lopakhin's hands, and he, as it were, reluctantly buys it.
The ideological pathos of the play consists in the denial of the nobility-landowner system as obsolete. But at the same time, Chekhov argues that new class the bourgeoisie, despite its activity and strength, brings destruction with it.
Capitalists like Lopakhin are indeed replacing the nobility and becoming masters of life. But their dominance is short-lived, because they are the destroyers of beauty. After them, new, young forces will come, which will turn Russia into a flowering garden. Chekhov attached special importance to the image of Lopakhin. He wrote: “The role of Lopakhin is central. If it fails, then the whole play has failed.” Lopakhin as the "master of life" comes to replace Ranevskaya and Gaev. If the former masters of life are worthless and helpless, then Lopakhin is energetic, efficient, smart. Oi refers to the type of people who work from morning to evening. By social origin, Lopakhin is much lower than the nobles. His father was a peasant and worked for the ancestors of Ranevskaya and Gaev. He knows how hard it was for his family, so he does everything in order to take more high position in society, earn more money because it was with their help that much could be achieved.
Lopakhin understands this, so he works tirelessly. He has that business acumen that distinguishes the new people from the fading landowners who are accustomed to living at the expense of the peasants. Everything that Lopakhin achieved, he achieved only thanks to his intelligence, hard work and ambition, which the former masters of life are deprived of. Lopakhin gives Ranevskaya efficient and practical advice, following which Lyubov Andreevna could have saved her estate and the cherry orchard. At the same time, Lopakhin acts completely disinterestedly. He, of course, is a businessman, and it is in his advantage to buy out a cherry orchard, but, nevertheless, he respects Ranevskaya and her family, so he tries to help in any way he can.
Chekhov writes that Lopakhin has a "thin, tender soul", thin fingers, like an artist's. But at the same time he is a real businessman, thinking about his own profit and money.
This is the contradiction in the image of Lopakhin, which is intensified in the scene when he announces that he has bought a cherry orchard. He is proud that he was able to buy an estate where his ancestors did not dare to go beyond the threshold. In his behavior, both resentment for centuries of serfdom, and the joy of victory over the former masters of life, and faith in his future are merged. He cuts down a beautiful cherry orchard in order to build dachas in its place. But there is a clear inconsistency here. Lopakhin is going to build the future by destroying beauty. But he builds dachas - temporary structures, so it becomes clear that Lopakhin himself is a temporary worker. A new generation will come to meet him, who will create a wonderful future for Russia. But for now, he is the owner and owner. No wonder Petya Trofimov calls him a "predatory beast" who imagines that you can buy everything and sell everything. And this "predatory beast" cannot be stopped yet. His joy conquers all other feelings. But Lopakhin's triumph is short-lived, it is quickly replaced by a feeling of despondency and sadness. Soon he turns to Ranevskaya with words of reproach and reproach: “Why, why didn’t you listen to me? My poor, good, you will not return now. And as if in unison with all the heroes of the play, Lopakhin says: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.”
Like other heroes, Lopakhin feels dissatisfied with life, he understands that it is somehow going wrong, in the wrong direction. It does not bring joy or happiness. Lopakhin is aware of this and is therefore worried. He seems to feel that the power of people like him is short-lived, that new people will soon come to replace them, and they will become the real masters of life.

"The Cherry Orchard" is the pinnacle work of A.P. Chekhov. Comedy finished in 1903. The era of the greatest aggravation of social relations, a stormy social movement, the preparation of the first Russian revolution was clearly reflected in the last major work playwright. In The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov's general democratic position had an effect. In the play, the world of the nobility-bourgeois is shown in a critical way and people who are striving for a new life are depicted in bright colors. Chekhov responded to the most topical demands of the time. The play "The Cherry Orchard", being the completion of the Russian critical realism, struck contemporaries with its extraordinary truthfulness.

Although The Cherry Orchard is based entirely on everyday material, life in it has a generalizing symbolic meaning. The cherry orchard itself is not the focus of Chekhov's attention: symbolically, the garden is the whole Motherland. Therefore, the theme of the play is the fate of Russia, its future. Its old masters, the nobles, are leaving the stage, and the capitalists are replacing it. But their dominance is short-lived, because they are destroyers of beauty. However, the real masters of life will come and turn Russia into a blooming garden.

The ideological pathos of the play is in the denial of the noble-manorial system, as having become obsolete. At the same time, the writer argues that the bourgeoisie, which is replacing the nobility, despite its vital activity, brings destruction with it.

Let's see what the representatives of the past are like in The Cherry Orchard. Andreevna Ranevskaya is a frivolous, empty woman who sees nothing around her but love interests, striving to live beautifully, easily. She is simple, outwardly charming, and also outwardly kind: she gives five rubles to a drunken beggar tramp, easily kisses the maid Dunyasha, and treats Firs affectionately. But her kindness is conditional, the essence of her nature is selfishness and frivolity: Ranevskaya distributes large alms, while domestic servants are starving; arranges an unnecessary ball when there is nothing to pay debts; outwardly, she takes care of Firs, ordering him to be sent to the hospital, but he is forgotten in the boarded up house. Ranevskaya also neglects maternal feelings: her daughter remained in the care of a careless uncle for five years. She rejoices at her native places only on the day of arrival, she is saddened by the sale of the estate, but here she rejoices at the possibility of leaving for Paris. And when she talks about love for the Motherland, she interrupts herself with the remark: “However, you must drink coffee!” Accustomed to command, Ranevskaya orders Lopakhin to give her money. Lyubov Andreevna's transitions from one mood to another are unexpected and quick: from tears she turns to fun. In my opinion, the character of this woman is very repulsive and unpleasant.

Gaev, Ranevskaya's brother, is also helpless and lethargic. Everything about him is ridiculous and absurd: both his ardent assurances that the interest on the estate will be paid, accompanied by sending a candy to his mouth, and a pathetic speech addressed to the closet. The frivolity and inconstancy of this man is also evidenced by the fact that he cries, having brought the news of the sale of the estate, but, having heard the sound of billiard balls, he stops crying.

Servants in comedy are also a symbol of the old life. They live according to the rule “muzhiks with the masters, the lords with the peasants” and they cannot imagine anything else.

Chekhov attached particular importance to the merchant Lopakhin: “The role of Lopakhin is central. If it doesn’t work, then the whole play will fail.” Lopakhin replaces Ranevsky and Gaev. The playwright sees the relative progressiveness of this bourgeois in the fact that he is energetic and efficient, smart and enterprising; he works from morning to evening. His practical advice, if Ranevskaya had accepted them, would have saved the estate. Lopakhin has a "thin, tender soul", thin fingers, like an artist's. However, he recognizes only utilitarian beauty. Pursuing the goals of enrichment, Lopakhin destroys beauty and cuts down the cherry orchard.

The reign of the Lopakhins is transient. They will be replaced by new people Trofimov and Anya. They embody the future of the country.

In Petya, Chekhov embodied aspiration for the future. The Trofimovs are involved in the social movement. It is Peter who glorifies work and calls for work: “Humanity is moving forward, perfecting its strength. Everything that is inaccessible to him now will someday become close, understandable, but now you have to work, help with all your might to those who are looking for the truth. True, specific ways to change the social structure are not clear to Trofimov. He only declaratively calls to the future. And the playwright endowed him with the features of eccentricity (remember the episode of searching for galoshes or falling down the stairs). But still, his calls awakened the surrounding people and forced them to look ahead.

Trofimov is supported by Anya, a girl who is poetically minded and enthusiastic. Petya calls on Ranevskaya's daughter to turn her life around. And at the end of the comedy, Anya and Trofimov say goodbye to the past and enter into a new life. "Goodbye, old life!" Anya says. And Petya echoes her: “Hello, new life!" With these words, the writer himself welcomed the new era in the life of his country.

So, in The Cherry Orchard, as in other Chekhov's plays, there is a realistic symbolism. The very name "Cherry Orchard" is symbolic. The garden is reminiscent of a difficult past. “Your grandfather, great-grandfather and all your ancestors were feudal lords who owned living souls, and are human beings looking at you from every cherry in the garden, from every leaf, from every trunk,” says Trofimov. But a blooming garden is a symbol of the beauty of the Motherland, of life in general. The sounds are symbolic, especially at the end of the piece: the blow of an ax on a tree, the sound of a broken string. They are associated with the end of the old life. The symbolism here is very transparent: the old life is leaving, it is being replaced by a new one.

Chekhov's optimism is very strongly felt. The writer believed that a bright, joyful life would come. However, no matter how rude it may sound, today it is a poor dumping ground for the world's waste, and not a flowering garden. AND modern life makes you doubt the words of the great playwright

Need to download an essay? Press and save - "The play" The Cherry Orchard ", being the completion of Russian critical realism. And the finished essay appeared in the bookmarks.

The pinnacle of Chekhov's work, his " swan song”is the comedy The Cherry Orchard, completed in 1903. The era of the greatest aggravation of social relations, a turbulent social movement, found a clear expression in the last major work. In The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov's general democratic position had an effect. In the play, the world of the nobility-bourgeois is shown in a critical way and people who are striving for a new life are depicted in bright colors. Chekhov responded to the most topical demands of the time.
The ideological pathos of the play is in the denial of the nobility-local system as obsolete. At the same time, the writer argues that the bourgeoisie, which is replacing the nobility, despite its vital activity, brings with it destruction and the power of the chistogan.
Chekhov saw that the "old" was doomed to wither, for it had grown on fragile, unhealthy roots. A new, worthy owner must come. And this owner appears in the form of a merchant-entrepreneur Lopakhin, to whom the cherry orchard passes from the former owners, Ranevskaya and Gaev. Symbolically, the garden is the whole homeland (“the whole of Russia is our garden”). Therefore, the main theme of the play is the fate of the motherland, its future. The old masters, the nobles Ranevsky and Gaev, are leaving the stage, and the capitalists Lopakhins are replacing it.
The image of Lopakhin occupies a central place in the play. Chekhov attached particular importance to this image: “... the role of Lopakhin is central. If it fails, then the whole play will fail.” Lopakhin is a representative of post-reform Russia, attached to progressive ideas and striving not only to round off capital, but also to fulfill his social mission. He buys landlord estates to rent them out as dachas, and believes that his activities are bringing a better new life closer. This person is very energetic and businesslike, smart and enterprising, he works "from morning to evening", inactivity is simply painful for him. His practical advice, if Ranevskaya had accepted them, would have saved the estate. Taking away her favorite cherry orchard from Ranevskaya, Lopakhin sympathizes with her and Gaev. That is, he has both spiritual subtlety, and grace externally and internally. No wonder Petya notes the subtle soul of Lopakhin, his thin fingers, like those of an artist.
Lopakhin is passionate about his work, and is sincerely convinced that Russian life is arranged “incoherently”, it needs to be redone so that “grandchildren and great-grandchildren see a new life.” He complains that there are few honest, decent people around. All these features were in Chekhov's time inherent in a whole stratum of the bourgeoisie. And fate makes them masters, even to some extent heirs of the values ​​created by previous generations. Chekhov emphasizes the dual nature of the Lopakhins: the progressive views of an intellectual citizen and the entanglement of prejudice, the inability to rise to the defense of national interests. “Come and watch how Yermolai Lopakhin hits the cherry orchard with an ax, how the trees fall to the ground! We will set up dachas, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see a new life here!” But the second part of the speech is doubtful: it is unlikely that Lopakhin will build a new life for posterity. This creative part is beyond his power, he only destroys what was created in the past. It is no coincidence that Petya Trofimov compares Lopakhin to a beast that eats everything that gets in its way. And Lopakhin himself does not consider himself a creator, he calls himself a “man-man”. The speech of this hero is also very remarkable, which fully reveals the character of a businessman-entrepreneur. His speech changes depending on the circumstances. Being in a circle of intelligent people, he uses barbarisms: auction, circulation, project; in communication with ordinary people, colloquial words slip through his speech: I suppose, what, you need to clean it up.
In the play The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov argues that the Lopakhins' dominance is short-lived, for they are the destroyers of beauty. The wealth of mankind accumulated over the centuries should belong not to monetary people, but to truly cultured people, “capable of answering before the strict court of history for their own deeds.”

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

This last play writer, so it contains his most intimate thoughts about life, about the fate of the motherland. It reflected many life experiences. These are memories of the sale of their home in Taganrog, and acquaintance with Kiselev, the owner of the Babkino estate near Moscow, where the Chekhovs lived in the summer months of 1885–1887. A.S. Kiselev, who, after selling his estate for debts, entered the service as a member of the board of a bank in Kaluga, was in many ways the prototype of Gaev.

In 1888 and 1889 Chekhov rested at the Lintvarev estate, near Sumy in the Kharkov province, where he saw many neglected and dying noble estates. Thus, the idea of ​​a play gradually matured in the mind of the writer, which would reflect many details of the life of the inhabitants of the old noble nests.

Work on the play "The Cherry Orchard" required great efforts from A.P. Chekhov. “I write four lines a day, and those with unbearable torment,” he told his friends. However, overcoming illness, domestic disorder, Chekhov wrote a "big play".

The first performance of The Cherry Orchard on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater took place on the birthday of A.P. Chekhov - January 17, 1904. For the first time, the Art Theater honored its beloved writer and author of plays of many productions of the group, timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of his literary activity.

The writer was seriously ill, but still came to the premiere. The audience did not expect to see him, and this appearance caused thunderous applause. All artistic and literary Moscow gathered in the hall. Among the spectators were Andrey Bely, V.Ya. Bryusov, A.M. Gorky, S.V. Rachmaninov, F.I. Chaliapin.

About the genre

Chekhov called The Cherry Orchard a comedy: “I didn’t get a drama, but a comedy, in some places even a farce.”(From a letter to M.P. Alekseeva). "The whole play is cheerful, frivolous". (From a letter from O.L. Knipper).

The theater staged it as a heavy drama of Russian life: "This is not a comedy, this is a tragedy ... I cried like a woman ...".(K.S. Stanislavsky).

A.P. It seemed to Chekhov that the theater was doing the whole play in the wrong tone; he insisted that he wrote a comedy, not a tearful drama, he warned that both the role of Varya and the role of Lopakhin were comic. But the founders of the Art Theater K.S. Stanislavsky and Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, highly appreciating the play, perceived it as a drama.

There are critics who consider the play a tragicomedy. A.I. Revyakin writes: “To recognize The Cherry Orchard as a drama means to recognize the experiences of the owners of the Cherry Orchard, Gaev and Ranevsky, as truly dramatic, capable of arousing deep sympathy and compassion for people who look not back, but forward, into the future. But this could not be and is not in the play ... The play "The Cherry Orchard" cannot be recognized as a tragicomedy either. For this, she lacks neither tragicomic heroes, nor tragicomic situations.

The debate over the genre of the play continues to this day. The range of director's interpretations is wide: comedy, drama, lyrical comedy, tragicomedy, tragedy. It is impossible to answer this question unambiguously.

One of Chekhov's letters contains the following lines: "After the summerthere should be winter, after youth old age, after happiness misfortune and vice versa; a person cannot be healthy and cheerful all his life, losses always await him, he cannot save himself from death, even if he were Alexander the Great - and you must be ready for everything and treat everything as inevitably necessary, no matter how sad it may be. All you have to do is do your duty to the best of your ability, and nothing else.” These thoughts are in tune with the feelings that the play "The Cherry Orchard" evokes.

Conflict and problems of the play

« Fiction therefore it is called artistic because it depicts life as it really is. Her appointment is unconditional and honest truth.

A.P. Chekhov

Question:

What "unconditional and honest" truth could Chekhov see in late XIX century?

Answer:

The destruction of noble estates, their transfer into the hands of the capitalists, which indicates the onset of a new historical era.

The external plot of the play is the change of owners of the house and garden, the sale of the family estate for debts. But in Chekhov's works there is a special nature of the conflict, which makes it possible to detect internal and external action, internal and external plots. Moreover, the main thing is not the external plot, developed quite traditionally, but the internal one, which Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko called the "second plan", or "undercurrent" .

Chekhov is interested in the hero's experiences that are not declared in monologues (“They don’t feel what they say,”- wrote K.S. Stanislavsky), but manifested in "random" remarks and going into subtext - the "undercurrent" of the play, which implies a gap between the direct meaning of the replica, dialogue, stage direction and the meaning that they acquire in the context.

Characters in Chekhov's play, in fact, they are inactive. Dynamic tension is “created by the painful impermanence” of actions and deeds.

"Underwater" Chekhov's play conceals the meanings hidden in it, reveals the duality and conflict inherent in the human soul from the very beginning.