Literature lesson “Reading and analyzing the fourth act of the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” (Grade 9). Lesson "A million torments". Analysis of the IV act of A.S. Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit". The meaning of the name of the play Computers are preparing testing

Lesson topic: “Analysis of the third, fourth acts of the comedy “Woe from Wit”

Goals: in the course of the analysis of the third and fourth acts, generalize ideas about the lifestyle and ideals of the Moscow nobility, show the role of Repetilov in the play, and determine the climax and denouement of the comedy.

1. I. Organizational moment.

A summary of the second act of the comedy.

The development of love and social comedy conflict.

Views on the life of Chatsky and Famusov.

1. II. Analysis of the third act.
2. Molchalin and his role in comedy. Dialogue between Sofia and Chatsky about Molchalin.

What is Molchalin, according to Sophia?

Molchalin in the perception of Sophia - moral ideal, essentially Christian, with its humility, love for one's neighbor, spiritual purity, readiness for self-sacrifice, unwillingness to judge, etc.

Why Chatsky perceives Sophia's words as a mockery

over Molchalin?

Molchalin in the perception of Chatsky is a low-flyer, a person deprived of independence, a flatterer, a saint,

extremely unintelligent.

What impression did Molchalin make on you?

Why is Molchalin scary?

He is a hypocrite, hides his true face, changes his behavior all the time depending on the situation, nothing is dear to him, he is a man without principles and honor.

Chatsky and Molchalin as antipodes.

1. Ball scene analysis.

Describe the guests at the ball. What is the role of supporting characters in comedy?

In the play, events follow one after another, but suddenly seem to stop, giving way to a panoramic image of a ball in Famusov's house. Invited people come to the house. The ball begins with a peculiar parade of guests, each of whom appears for the first time in the play. But with just a few expressive strokes, above all speech characteristics, Griboyedov manages to create a three-dimensional image, a lively, full-blooded character.

The couple is the first in the guest gallery Gorichey. Platon Mikhailovich, former colleague Chatsky, now not just a retired military man, but "adorable husband" a man without a will, completely submissive to his wife. His remarks are monotonous and short, and he does not have time to answer Chatsky, his wife does it for him. All he can say ex friend. "Now, brother, I'm not the one...".

He seems to be "not the one" because he fell under the heel of his wife. But in fact, he is “not the same” primarily because he has lost his former ideals. Not having the will to defend Chatsky decisively against the slanderers, he eventually betrays his friend. And it is no coincidence that in the fourth act, at the departure, Gorich grumbles about boredom and does not remember his slandered comrade in a word.

A string of guests pass in front of the audience.

Princes Tugoukhovsky concerned only with the successful marriage of their daughters; evil and vicious granddaughter countess who finds flaws in everyone present, "notorious swindler, rogue" Anton Antonych Zagorets cue, gossiper and sharper, but a master of obsequiousness; old woman Khlestov, an old Moscow lady, distinguished by her rude frankness.

The dispute between Khlestova and Famusov is indicative of how many serf souls Chatsky has. Everything is significant here: and the exact knowledge of the state of another person ( “I don’t know other people’s estates!” ), and the famous Khlestov "Everybody Lies Calendars" , and that the last word appears behind her.

All the characters of the second plan are important in the comedy not in themselves - in the aggregate they represent the world of noble Moscow, where their own laws and rules reign. In their midst, Chatsky's foreignness is especially clearly manifested. If in a collision with Molchalin, Famusov, Skalozub they "converged" one on one, then the ball scene revealed the complete loneliness of Chatsky.

1. The climax of the play.

What is the climax of comedy?

The culmination of the whole comedy is gossip about the hero's madness.

How did it happen? How and why was the rumor about Chatsky's madness born?

Sophia's first line: "He has a screw loose" - just fell off her tongue, at first she was frightened: "Not at all." but the social gossips G.N., then G.D. saw an opportunity to amuse themselves by spreading rumors. Then Sophia made a conscious decision, which was dictated by resentment for Molchalin: “Ah, Chatsky, do you like to dress everyone up as jesters, / Do you want to try on yourself?”

- Let's try to trace the spread of this "news»/spreadsheet/

Was Chatsky's announcement crazy inevitable and followed from the whole development of the action, or is it still an accident?

Why did gossip about Chatsky's madness spread so quickly?

His thoughts, ideals are incomprehensible, he does not accept what they value, he is a man of a different breed, he is a "white crow". For them, his truth sounds like an insult for which they want to avenge

Do the guests fully believe in Chatsky's madness?

What do the guests and members of the Famusov family see as signs and causes of Chatsky's "madness"?

The gossip spread with unusual speed.

Firstly, from the point of view of the Famus society, Chatsky really looks crazy. All in chorus list the not quite normal actions of Chatsky to the doubting Platon Mikhailovich:

Try about the authorities - and knows what he will say! (Famusov)

I said something and he started laughing. (Khlestova)

He advised me not to serve in the Archives in Moscow. (Molchapin)

He deigned to call me a fashionista! (Countess granddaughter)

And he gave my husband advice to live in the countryside. (Natalya Dmitrievna)

And the general verdict - "mad about everything."

How did Chatsky insult them?

Each society develops its own moral standards, according to which it lives and requires their implementation from others. Chatsky does not fit into their moral standards. It is simply impossible to isolate him: he did not commit any illegal act. Declaring him crazy famusovsky society gets the right to kick him out.

Arriving at the ball, the granddaughter countess, entering the room, full of people say to grandma: Well, who arrives so early! We are first!

It is hard to imagine that she did not notice at least a dozen faces in the room at that moment. Of course not, it speaks arrogance. Griboyedov shows that there is no friendliness or "intimacy" among Famusov's guests. It is amazing how this mutual hostility will turn into complete unanimity, with which all those present, forgetting about their own strife, will fall upon Chatsky. And there will no longer be time for their own petty insults, because all in equally feel the danger posed by Chatsky for their world.

III. Conclusion.

The ball scene ends with Chatsky's famous monologue about "a million torments." Exploring Russian culture, Yu. Lotman wrote that the Decembrists loved to "rattle at the ball and in society", to publicly express their advanced views. But Chatsky utters his monologue into the void: having declared him insane, everyone immediately forgot about him. He talks passionately about "Empty, slavish, blind imitation" , But "everyone is waltzing with the greatest zeal." This episode reinforces Chatsky's loneliness and to some extent demonstrates the senselessness of his actions. No one shares the views of the hero, all his speeches are a knock on a closed door. Here, at the ball, he himself begins to feel his loneliness.

1. IV. Analysis of the fourth act.

Why is step 4 needed?

Here is the resolution of two conflicts:

public (Chatsky - Famus society)

and love (Chatsky - Sophia)

What are the two parts of Act 4?

With the center - Repetilov and with the center - Chatsky

What impression did Repetilov make on you?

How are Repetilov and Chatsky similar? By what parameters can we determine this?

Repetilov is a caricature, a parody of Chatsky, it exaggerates negative traits his character, for example, excessive sincerity, gullibility, verbosity, some "deafness" to the opinions of others, inadequate assessment of the situation, imperceptibility.

How are these heroes different?

Chatsky suffered his convictions. He is faithful to them to the end. People like Repetilov are “foam”, this is a “vulgarization” of advanced ideas. Chatsky is a Decembrist. Repetilov is given in the play in order to make it obvious to everyone.

Repetilov pretends to be a man of advanced convictions, although he has no convictions at all. His stories about "secret meetings" reveal all the vulgarity, pettiness, stupidity of this man. Repetilov is a kind of parody of Chatsky. His appearance further exacerbates the loneliness and drama of Chatsky's position.

1. V. Generalization.

In the third act, the way of life and ideals of the Moscow nobility were clearly revealed - emptiness and monotony, the absence of bright events, hatred of enlightenment and education.

Do the guests fully believe in Chatsky's madness? Yes and no. Of course, his actions are illogical from the point of view of the Moscow nobility, but in many ways their desire to declare the hero insane is similar to revenge, reprisal against a dissident. This is exactly what they will do not in the play, but in life with P. Ya. Chaadaev, who is somewhat similar to Chatsky.

The comedy conflict reached its logical conclusion at a ball in Famusov's house. Chatsky's freethinking has become synonymous with madness for his opponents.

1. VI. Homework.

Prepare characteristics of representatives of the Famus society

(Famusov, Skalozub, off-stage characters, guests at the Famusov ball)

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was created in 1816-1824. - during the period when the first secret societies. Comedy is, as it were, an artistic chronicle and the history of Decembrism. The main conflict of the comedy is the clash between the camp of young Russia, represented by Chatsky, and the camp of serf-owners, represented by Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin and others. This is not an invention of the author, but a reflection of the social struggle that was characteristic of Russian life. early XIX century. What is Chatsky rebelling against, about whom A. Herzen said that he was a Decembrist who went straight to hard labor? Serfdom

This is what fettered the creative forces of the “smart, vigorous Russian people”, hindered the economic and cultural development Russia.

It was Repetilov who, in the front hall of Famusov's house, opened up to Chatsky. At first he admitted that under Chatsky he felt miserable and ridiculous, and then he told that he had now changed a lot, was participating in secret meetings in an English club with smartest people.

There is no time to explain everything to him, but it is impossible not to mention that Prince Grigory participates in the meetings, the other is Vorkulov Evdokim, an excellent singer, but Repetilov considers Udushyev Ippolit Markelych to be a genius, who writes books: "an excerpt, a look, and something - about everything." Repetilov himself can write a pun. So the four of them, looking, blind the vaudeville. “God didn’t reward me with abilities, he gave me a good heart, that’s why I’m nice to people, I’ll lie - they’ll forgive me ...”

In Woe from Wit, the socio-historical situation itself is typical, since it correctly and deeply reflects the conflict that is quite characteristic of this era. That is why all are typical human images created by Griboyedov.

Let in the time of Griboyedov, on the eve of the Decembrist uprising, Famusovism still seemed a solid foundation public life in an autocratic-feudal state, even if the Famusovs, Skalozubs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others like them still occupied a dominant position then, but as a social force, Famusism was already rotting and was doomed to die. There were still very few Chatskys, but they embodied that fresh, youthful force that was destined to develop and which was therefore irresistible.

Understanding the pattern historical development and expressing their understanding artistic images"Woe from wit", Griboyedov reflected the objective truth of life, created a typical image of a "new man" - a public Protestant and a fighter - in the typical circumstances of his historical time.

Equally typical and historically characteristic are representatives of another social camp acting in Griboyedov's comedy. Famusov, Molchalin, Khlestova, Repetilov, Skalozub, Zagoretsky, Princess Tugoukhovskaya, Countess Khryumina and all the other characters of old baroque Moscow, each in their own way, in their individual artistic embodiment, express with remarkable fullness and sharpness the essence of that social force that stood guard the preservation of the old, reactionary orders of the feudal-serf world.

Boldly, innovatively solving the problem of typicality in Woe from Wit, Griboyedov thereby, with complete clarity, not allowing any misunderstandings, said in his work, in the name of what, in the name of what ideals, he exposed the Famusism. Having penetrated with creative thought into the essence of the main social and ideological contradictions of his time, showing that Chatsky represented in himself the growing and developing force of Russian society, generously endowing his character with heroic traits, Griboyedov thereby solved the political problem. In this, first of all, Griboedov's socio-political position had an effect, and in this it was manifested most convincingly. ideological orientation his creativity.

The play raises two layers of questions. At the social level, this is the question “who is to blame?”, And at the philosophical level – “what to do?”. Until the last action, such global issues did not worry the heroes, what or who excited their minds and souls? Of course, this is the appearance of Luke in their lives. At first, everyone treated him differently, but it is this wanderer who changes the worldview of the heroes.

All replicas of heroes carry certain meaning. By random, fleeting phrases, one can predict behavior, behind words, aphorisms, a clearly defined character is revealed.

Luke believes in each person individually, does not rely on God and intervenes in destinies, very often fails, and only those whom he tried to help suffer from this. The Wanderer inspires hope in souls, illuminates low existence with unrealizable dreams. But only the highest can help a person life force and only those who already have it will take this help.

Tsvetaeva wrote:

“You can only give to the rich,

You can only help the strong."

And Luka promised Anna happiness in the afterlife, the Actor - a cure for alcoholism, Vaska Peplu - a joyful life with Natasha in Siberia. Yes, Luke supported people out of pity, he understood that they could not stand the harsh truth. But what leads to his pity? This is what we see in the fourth act, the denouement of the whole play.

Let's try to deal with social problem plays. Who is to blame? I believe that it cannot be said that only people are to blame, society is also to some extent to blame. After all, we can say that the Actor is a kind of successor to the Marmeladovs. He complains about life, prays, but has no strength to fight, he even lost his name. He finds no sympathy. Of course, he is largely to blame. But wasn't society to blame for the fate of the Marmeladovs? Note that only two heroes leave the rooming house on their own. Luke and Actor. The second finds the courage and strength in himself to commit suicide. Although Satin believes that this is cowardice, his views may not coincide with the opinions of others.

As for the highest universal level, Gorky once again tries to answer the question of what to do and how to relate to a person. We understand that Bubnov does not believe in anything, not even money. His passions have “devoured” everything from him, he does not respect death. He is characterized by cynicism, the absence of any convictions. The Baron is also tormented by doubts and unresolved issues. “It seems to me that all my life I have only changed clothes ... but why? ... and that's it ... like in a dream ... why? ... A?" Would a tramp think about such moral aspects of life before the arrival of Luke?

The atmosphere of communication in the hostel is changing. If earlier each of the heroes existed on his own, not paying attention to those around him, now the inhabitants of the rooming house listen to each other, try to think together. The baron first yelled at Nastya, and then he is looking for her. “I’ll go and see… where is she? Still ... she ... ”The characters awaken sympathy, pity, a kind of tenderness for each other. But some remain cynicism (Bubnov) and a sense of superiority (Nastya). A former prostitute, no different from the rest, shouts: "I wish you were swept away like rubbish ... somewhere in a hole!" And in what hole, if all of them are already at the bottom ...

Of course, Satin takes the leading role in the fourth act, and his monologue about Man is the climax. It seems that he changes his views and supports the old man: “The old man is not a charlatan! Be silent! But from his phrases it is clear that he also considers himself superior to everyone else. “Lie is the religion of slaves and masters… Truth is the God of a free man!” He did not buy into Luke's lies, he considers himself strong personality. "You are all cattle!" Does that mean he doesn't? He who? He wants to elevate himself above the rest with pathos phrases: “Man! It's great! It sounds… proud! Human! You have to respect the person! Sateen seems to believe in humanity and in each individual, but he does not notice how people toil next to him. True, he does not have an evil will, but this does not mean the presence of a good one! It seems to me that he does not change his views. He lies to all the inhabitants of the rooming house, because all his words are unrealizable in this world.

At the end of the play, we still don't get answers to eternal questions: "What to do?" and “Who is to blame?”. Gorky, a human worshiper, puts his thoughts into the words of Satin: “Everything is for a person!” But is it possible in our world? The suicide of the Actor, the death of Ash, the disappearance of Natasha, the hopelessness of Nastya were the answer to the stories about the “promised land” that was “destined for them”.

He bitterly complains alone with himself: he expected to find in Moscow the joy of meeting with acquaintances and lively participation from them, but he did not find either one or the other. (See full text of "Woe from Wit".)

Chatsky's footman cannot find a coachman for a long time. In the meantime, fussy Repetilov, who arrived late, stumbles upon Chatsky. He begins to hurriedly tell: he broke with his former wild life - and got along with the smartest people. In the English Club they formed a "most secret alliance" with secret meetings on Thursdays. They talk about "cameras", about the jury, "About Byron, well, about important mothers." He offers to bring Chatsky with his friends (“What kind of people, mon cher! Juice of smart youth!”). Chatsky: “Yes, why are you raging so much?” - "We make noise, brother, we make noise." – “Are you making noise? but only?"

Woe from the mind. Performance by the Maly Theatre, 1977

Repetilov begins to describe the members of the “most secret union”: Prince Grigory, an eccentric, makes us laugh with laughter, a century with the English, the whole English fold, and he speaks through his teeth in the same way; Evdokim Vorkulov - performer of Italian love arias; brothers Levon and Borinka, about whom “you don’t know what to say”; “But if you order a genius to be called: Udushyev Ippolit Markelych !!” [hint to Chaadaev]. He advises Chatsky to read his works, although Udushyev, however, writes almost nothing, you can only find him in magazines. excerpt, sight And something, “but we have a head that we don’t have in Russia”, although “strongly unclean; Yes clever man cannot but be a swindler.” However, Udushyev likes to talk about "high evil spirits" with a burning face, so much so that everyone around is crying. At meetings, members of the Repetilov "union" compose vaudevilles, put them to music - and themselves clap when they are given in theaters.

In the play "At the bottom", written by A.M. Gorky in 1902, the essential features of Gorky's dramaturgy manifested themselves with particular clarity. He approved in dramaturgy new type social and political drama. His innovation manifested itself both in the choice of dramatic conflict and in the method of depicting reality. The conflict in Gorky's plays is always expressed not externally, but in the internal movement of the play. Main conflict, which is the basis of the play "At the Bottom", is the contradiction between the people of the "bottom" and the orders that reduce a person to the tragic fate of a homeless tramp. The acuteness of the conflict has a social character in Gorky. It lies in the clash of ideas, in the struggle of worldviews, social principles. The composition of the play plays an important role. In a small exposition of the first act, the viewer gets acquainted with the situation of Kostylev's rooming house, with the characters living in this rooming house, their past. The plot is the appearance of the wanderer Luke in the rooming house, his struggle for the souls of dying people. The development of the action is the awareness by the rooming houses of the entire horror of their situation, the emergence of hope for a change in life for the better under the influence of Luka's "good" speeches, the culmination is the increase in the tension of the action, culminating in the murder of old Kostylev and the beating of Natasha. And, finally, the denouement is a complete collapse of the heroes' hopes for a renewal of life: Anna dies, the Actor tragically commits suicide, Pepel is arrested.

Act IV plays an important role in the composition of the play. Author's note emphasizes the changes on the stage that have taken place since the first act: “The setting of the first act. But Cinder's rooms are not, the bulkheads are broken. And in the place where the Tick was sitting, there is no anvil ... The Actor is fumbling and coughing on the stove. Night. The scene is illuminated by a lamp standing in the middle of the table. Outside is the wind." At the beginning of the action, Kleshch, Nastya, Satin, Baron and Tatarin participate in the dialogue. They remember Luka, and everyone tries to express their attitude towards him: “He was a good old man! .. And you ... are not people ... you are rust!” (Nastya), “A curious old man… yes! And in general ... for many it was ... like a crumb for the toothless ... "(Satin), "He ... was compassionate ... you have ... no pity" (Tick), "Like a plaster for abscesses" (Baron), "The old man was good ... the law had a soul! Whoever has the law of the soul is good! Whoever lost the law is gone” (Tatarin). Satin sums up the result: “Yes, it was he, the old yeast, who fermented our roommates ...” The word “fermented” perfectly reflects the essence of the situation in the rooming house after the old man left. Fermentation began, all the difficulties, conflicts escalated, most importantly, there appeared, albeit weak, but hope: to escape from the “cave-like basement” and live a normal life. human life. Klesh understands this well. He says: “He beckoned them somewhere ... but he didn’t say the way ...” Klesch’s words that the old man did not like the truth cause Satine’s indignation, and he utters a monologue about truth and lies: “Lie is the religion of slaves and masters ... Truth - the god of a free man! Satin explains to the roomers why the old man lied: "He lied ... but - it's out of pity for you, damn you!" But Satin himself does not support this lie and says why: “There is a comforting lie, a reconciling lie ... a lie justifies the heaviness that crushed the worker’s hand ... and blames those who are dying of hunger ...” No, Sateen does not need such a lie, because he is a free man: "And who is his own master ... who is independent and does not eat someone else's - why should he lie?" The words of Satin, recalling the old man's statement: "Everyone thinks that he lives for himself, but it turns out that for the best!" - make the overnight stays listen carefully. “Nastya stubbornly looks into the face of Satin. The tick stops working on harmony and also listens. The baron, bowing his head low, softly beats his fingers on the table. The actor, leaning out of the stove, wants to carefully climb down onto the bunk.

Reflecting on Luke's words, the Baron recalls his past life: a house in Moscow, a house in St. Petersburg, carriages with coats of arms, “high post ... wealth ... hundreds of serfs ... horses ... cooks ...” Nastya responds to every replica of the Baron with the words: “It didn’t happen!”, Which drives the Baron into a frenzy. Satin thoughtfully remarks: “In the carriage of the past, you won’t go anywhere ...”

The ongoing skirmish between Nastya and the Baron ends with an explosion of hatred from Nastya: “I wish you all ... would go to hard labor ... sweep you away like rubbish ... somewhere in a pit! .. Wolves! For you to breathe! Wolves! And at this moment, Satine turns his attention to himself, delivering his famous monologue about man. According to Satin, a person is free in his choice of attitude to faith, and to life, to its structure, its order: “A person is free ... he pays for everything himself: for faith, for unbelief, for love, for the mind - a person for everything he pays himself, and therefore he is free!.. The man is the truth!” The maturity of Sateen's judgments has always amazed. However, for the first time he rises to the realization of the need to improve the world, although he cannot go beyond these reasonings: “What is a person? .. Do you understand? This is huge! In this - all beginnings and ends ... Everything is in a person, everything is for a person! Only man exists, everything else is the work of his hands and his brain! Human! It's great! It sounds… proud! Human! You have to respect the person! Do not pity ... do not humiliate him with pity ... you must respect! .. Let's drink for a man, Baron! So says the sharper and the anarchist, the slacker and drunkard. It is strange to hear these words from him. Gorky himself understood how much these speeches did not correspond to Satin. He wrote: “... Sateen's speech about the man-truth is pale. However - except for Sateen - there is no one to say it to, and it is better, more vividly to say - he cannot ... "

Bubnov and Medvedev appear in the rooming house. Both tipsy. Bubnov treats the inhabitants of the rooming house and gives all his money to Satin, as he feels goodwill towards him. The shelters sing their favorite song "The Sun Rises and Sets." The rooming house is still dark and dirty. But in it, however, some new sense of universal interconnectedness settles. The arrival of Bubnov reinforces this impression: “Where are the people? Why are there no people here? Hey, get out ... I ... treat! External cause- “take your soul away” (he got money). internal state this man, who came "to sing ... all night," is full of old, old bitterness: "I will sing ... I will cry!" In the song: “... I want to be free, but I can’t break the chain ...” - they all want to suffer their unfortunate fate. That is why Satin responds to the unexpected news of the Actor's suicide with the words concluding the drama: "Eh ... ruined the song ... fool!" Such a sharp response to the tragedy of the unfortunate has another meaning: the departure of the Actor is the result of the death of his illusions, again the step of a person who has failed to realize the true truth. Each of the last three acts of "At the Bottom" ends in death: Anna, Kostylev, Actor. The philosophical subtext of the play is revealed in the finale of the second act, when Satin shouts: “The dead do not hear! Dead people don't feel... Shout... roar... Dead people don't hear! The tramps who live here are as deaf and blind as the dead. Only in act IV complex processes take place in mental life heroes, and people begin to hear, feel, understand something. The "acid" of gloomy thoughts is cleared, like an "old, dirty coin", the thought of Satin. It is here that lies main point the final of the play.