Analysis of the play by A.P. Chekhov" The Cherry Orchard"

The play “The Cherry Orchard” (1903) is the last work of A.P. Chekhov, completing his creative biography.

The action of the play, as the author reports with the very first remark, takes place on the estate of the landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, on an estate with a cherry orchard, surrounded by poplars, with a long alley that “goes straight, straight, like an outstretched belt” and “glitters on moonlit nights.”

Ranevskaya and her brother Leonid Andreevich Gaev are the owners of the estate. But they brought him, with their frivolity and complete lack of understanding of real life, to a pitiful state: he was about to be sold at auction. The rich peasant son, merchant Lopakhin, a friend of the family, warns the owners about the impending disaster, offers them his rescue projects, calls on them to think about the impending disaster. But Ranevskaya and Gaev live with illusory ideas. Gaev is rushing around with fantastic projects. Both of them shed many tears over the loss of their cherry orchard, without which, as it seems to them, they cannot live. But things go on as usual, auctions take place, and Lopakhin himself buys the estate. When the disaster is over, it turns out that no special drama seems to be happening for Ranevskaya and Gaev. Lyubov Andreevna returns to Paris, to her absurd “love”, to which she would have returned anyway, despite all her words that she cannot live without her homeland. Leonid Andreevich also comes to terms with what happened. The “terrible drama” does not turn out to be so difficult for its heroes for the simple reason that they cannot have anything serious, nothing dramatic at all. This is the comedic, satirical basis of the play. The way in which Chekhov emphasized the illusory, frivolous nature of the world of the Gaev-Ranevskys is interesting. He surrounds these central characters comedies with characters that reflect the comic worthlessness of the main figures. The figures of Charlotte, the clerk Epikhodov, the footman Yasha, and the maid Dunyasha are caricatures of “gentlemen.”

In the lonely, absurd, unnecessary fate of the hanger-on Charlotte Ivanovna, there is a similarity with the absurd, unnecessary fate of Ranevskaya. Both of them regard themselves as something incomprehensibly unnecessary, strange, and both of them see life as foggy, unclear, somehow illusory. Like Charlotte, Ranevskaya also “everyone thinks she’s young,” and Ranevskaya lives like a hanger-on during her lifetime, not understanding anything about her.

The buffoonish figure of Epikhodov is remarkable. With his “twenty-two misfortunes”, he also represents a caricature - of Gaev, and of the landowner Simeonov-Pishchik, and even of Petya Trofimov. Epikhodov is a “klutz,” using old man Firs’ favorite saying. One of Chekhov’s contemporary critics correctly pointed out that “The Cherry Orchard” is “a play by klutzes.” Epikhodov focuses on this theme of the play. He is the soul of all “incompetence.” After all, both Gaev and Simeonov-Pishchik also have constant “twenty-two misfortunes”; like Epikhodov, nothing comes of all their intentions; comic failures haunt them at every step.

Simeonov-Pishchik, constantly on the verge of complete bankruptcy and, out of breath, running around to all his acquaintances asking for a loan of money, also represents “twenty-two misfortunes.” Boris Borisovich is a man “living on debt,” as Petya Trofimov says about Gaev and Ranevskaya; these people live at someone else's expense - at the expense of the people.

Petya Trofimov is not one of the advanced, skillful, strong fighters for future happiness. In his entire appearance one can feel the contradiction between the strength, scope of the dream and the weakness of the dreamer, characteristic of some of Chekhov's heroes. “The eternal student,” “the shabby gentleman,” Petya Trofimov is pure, sweet, but eccentric and not strong enough for the great struggle. He has the traits of “klutziness” that are characteristic of almost all the characters in this play. But everything that he says to Anya is dear and close to Chekhov.

Anya is only seventeen years old. And youth for Chekhov is not only a biographical and age sign. He wrote: “... That youth can be accepted as healthy, which does not put up with the old orders and fights against them stupidly or intelligently - that’s what nature wants and progress is based on this.”

Chekhov does not have “villains” and “angels”; he does not even differentiate heroes into positive and negative. In his works there are often “good bad” heroes. Such principles of typology, unusual for previous dramaturgy, lead to the appearance in the play of characters that combine contradictory, and moreover, mutually exclusive traits and properties.

Ranevskaya is impractical, selfish, she is petty and gone in her love interest, but she is also kind, sympathetic, and her sense of beauty does not fade. Lopakhin sincerely wants to help Ranevskaya, expresses genuine sympathy for her, and shares her passion for the beauty of the cherry orchard. Chekhov emphasized in letters related to the production of “The Cherry Orchard”: “Lopakhin’s role is central... After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word... He is a gentle man... a decent person in every sense, he should behave quite decently, intelligently , not petty, without tricks.” But this gentle man is a predator. Petya Trofimov explains to Lopakhin his purpose in life: “Just as in the sense of metabolism a predatory beast is needed that eats everything that gets in its way, so you are needed.” And this gentle, decent, intelligent man “eats” the cherry orchard...

The Cherry Orchard appears in the play as the personification of beauty. creative life, and the “judge” of the characters. Their attitude towards the garden as the highest beauty and determination are the author’s measure of the moral dignity of this or that hero.

Ranevskaya was not able to save the orchard from destruction, and not because she was unable to turn the cherry orchard into a commercial, profitable one, as it was 40-50 years ago... Her mental strength and energy were absorbed love passion, drowning out her natural responsiveness to the joys and troubles of those around her, making her indifferent to the ultimate fate of the cherry orchard and to the fate of loved ones. Ranevskaya turned out to be lower than the idea of ​​the Cherry Orchard, she betrays it.

This is precisely the meaning of her recognition that she cannot live without the man who abandoned her in Paris: not the garden, not the estate is the focus of her innermost thoughts, hopes and aspirations. Lopakhin also does not rise to the idea of ​​the Cherry Orchard. He sympathizes and worries, but he is only concerned about the fate of the owner of the orchard; in the entrepreneur’s plans, the cherry orchard itself is doomed to destruction. It is Lopakhin who brings to its logical conclusion the action that develops in its climactic inconsistency: “Silence sets in, and you can only hear how far in the garden an ax is knocking on a tree.”

I.A. Bunin blamed Chekhov for his “The Cherry Orchard,” since nowhere in Russia there were all cherry orchards, but rather mixed ones. But Chekhov's garden is not a concrete reality, but a symbol of a fleeting and at the same time eternal life. His garden is one of the most complex symbols of Russian literature. The modest radiance of cherry blossoms is a symbol of youth and beauty; Describing a bride in a wedding dress in one of his stories, Chekhov compared her to a cherry tree in blossom. The cherry tree is a symbol of beauty, kindness, humanity, confidence in the future; this symbol contains only positive meaning and does not have any negative meanings.

Chekhov's characters transformed the ancient genre of comedy; it had to be staged, played and watched completely differently from the way the comedies of Shakespeare, Moliere or Fonvizin were staged.

The cherry orchard in this play is least of all a setting against which the characters philosophize, dream, and quarrel. The garden is the personification of the value and meaning of life on earth, where each new day branches off from the past, like young shoots coming from old trunks and roots.

A.P. Chekhov. "The Cherry Orchard". general characteristics plays. Analysis of the third act.

Chekhov brings everyday life to the stage - without effects, beautiful poses, or unusual situations. He believed that in the theater everything should be as simple and at the same time complex as it is in life. In everyday life he sees both beauty and significance. This explains the unique composition of his dramas, the simplicity of the plot, the calm development of the action, the lack of stage effects, and the “undercurrent.”

“The Cherry Orchard” is the only play by Chekhov in which one can see, although not quite clearly, a social conflict. The bourgeoisie is replacing the doomed nobility. Is it good or bad? An incorrect question, says Chekhov. It is a fact. “What I came out with was not a drama, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce,” wrote Chekhov. According to Belinsky, comedy reveals how real life deviated from the ideal. Wasn't this Chekhov's task in The Cherry Orchard? Life, beautiful in its possibilities, poetic, like a blooming cherry orchard - and the powerlessness of the “klutzes” who are unable to either preserve this poetry, or break through to it, to see it.

The peculiarity of the genre is lyrical comedy. The characters are drawn by the author with slight mockery, but without sarcasm, without hatred. Chekhov's heroes are already looking for their place, but haven't found it yet, everyone stage time they are going somewhere. But they can never get it together. The tragedy of Chekhov's heroes comes from their lack of rootedness in the present, which they hate, which they fear. Authentic life, real, seems alien to them, wrong. They see a way out of the melancholy of everyday life (and the reason for it still lies in themselves, so there is no way out) in the future, in the life that should be, but which never comes. Yes, they don’t do anything to make it happen.

One of the main motives of the play is time. It starts with a late train, ends with a missed train. And the heroes don’t feel that time has changed. She entered the house, where (as it seems to Ranevskaya) nothing changes, and devastated and destroyed it. The heroes are behind the times.

The image of the garden in the play “The Cherry Orchard”

Composition of “The Cherry Orchard”: Act 1 - exposition, Ranevskaya’s arrival, the threat of loss of the estate, the exit offered by Lopakhin. Act 2 - senseless waiting for the owners of the garden, Act 3 - sale of the garden, Act 4 - departure of the previous owners, new owners taking possession, cutting down the garden. That is, Act 3 is the climax of the play.

The garden must be sold. He is destined to die, Chekhov insists on this, no matter how he feels about it. Why this will happen is shown quite clearly in Acts 1 and 2. The task of Act 3 is to show how.

The action takes place in the house, the stage directions introduce the viewer to the party that was discussed in Act 2. Ranevskaya calls it a ball and very accurately defines that “we started the ball at the wrong time” - from Petya’s words the viewer learns that it was at this time that auctions take place at which the fate of the estate is decided. Therefore, the mood of this scene is a contrast between external well-being (dancing, magic tricks, optional “ballroom” conversations) and the atmosphere of melancholy, bad feeling and about-to-ready hysteria.

How does Chekhov create this atmosphere? The idiotic speeches of Simeonov-Pishchik, to which no one reacts, as if this is how it should be, every now and then the conversations of the owners of the house about their sad things break through, as if they have no time for guests.

When the unnecessary ball fizzles out, Gaev and Lopakhin appear with a message about the sale of the estate. “Speech” by Lopakhin in new role leaves a complex, rather heavy impression, but the act ends on an optimistic note - with Anya’s remark addressed to Ranevskaya: “Mom, you have life left...” There is a meaning in this optimism - the most unbearable for the characters of the play (choice, the need to decide and take on responsibility) behind.

What new do we learn about the heroes in Act 3?

Ranevskaya.

It turns out that she is not only capable of infuriating with her impracticality, she is also not stupid. It seems that at this ball she woke up - sensible remarks about the Yaroslavl grandmother, about what the cherry orchard is for her. In a conversation with Petya, she is even wise, very accurately determines the essence of this person, and without pretense or playing with herself, she talks about herself and her life. Although, of course, she remains herself - she speaks truthful words to Petya in order to hurt someone else, because she herself is hurt. But in general, this is the peak of her reflection of life; already at the very beginning of Act 4 she will continue to play like an actress for whom only her own role is important and the entire play is inaccessible. And now she accepts the news of the sale of the estate not courageously, but with dignity, without play; her grief is genuine and therefore ugly: “She shrank all over and cried bitterly.”

Gaev.

He is almost absent from this act, and we learn nothing new about him. All he can say is: “How much I have suffered!” - in general, again “I”. It is very simple to console him in grief - with the sound of billiard balls.

Lopakhin.

This is a surprise. Until now we knew him good friend this family that didn't deserve such a friend. He was more worried about saving the cherry orchard than all these fools combined. And the thought did not arise that he himself wanted to buy the garden, that for him this was not just another transaction, but an act of triumph of justice. Therefore, now his honesty is worth more. We also didn’t know about him that he was capable of getting carried away, forgetting himself, rejoicing to the point of madness, he was so even and calm until now. And what a “genetic” hatred he has for his former masters - not personally for Gaev and Ranevskaya, but for the class: “...Grandfather and father were slaves,... they weren’t even allowed into the kitchen...” And he is also weak because he thinks about life: “If only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change...”, and what to think about is not enough: “Let everything be as I wish!”

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

Progress of a double lesson

I. The comedy “The Cherry Orchard,” which completes the trilogy, can be considered as the writer’s testament, his last word.

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

2. Reading Act I.

Homework work.

Homework results.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's remember what a chronotope is?

Chronotope is the spatiotemporal organization of an image.

Working with stage directions for the play. Let us trace how the image of time and space is created in the play. The action is “cherry orchard” - house.

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

II. "Field. An old, crooked, long-abandoned chapel... big stones, once former, apparently gravestones...To the side, towering, the poplars darken: there the cherry orchard begins. In the distance there is a row of telegraph poles, and far, far away on the horizon a large city is vaguely visible, which is visible only in very good, clear weather. The sun will set soon.”

III. “The living room...a Jewish orchestra is playing in the hallway...Evening. Everyone is dancing". At the end of the action: “There is no one in the hall and living room except Lyubov Andreevna, who sits and...cries bitterly. The music is playing quietly.”

IV. “The scenery of the first act. There are no curtains on the windows, no paintings, there is only a little furniture left, which is folded in one corner, as if for sale. One feels the emptiness...The door to the left is open...” At the end of the action: “The stage is empty. You can hear all the doors being locked and then the carriages driving away.”

Results of observations.

In the first act, events do not go beyond the room, which “is still called the nursery.” The feeling of enclosed space is achieved by mentioning closed windows. The author emphasizes the lack of freedom of the heroes, their dependence on the past. This is reflected in Gaev’s “odes” to the hundred-year-old “cabinet”, and in Lyubov Andreevna’s delight at the sight of the nursery. The topics of the characters' conversations are related to the past. They talk about the main thing - selling the garden - in passing.

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

Act III– culmination, as in development external conflict(the garden is sold), and internal. We again find ourselves in the house, in the living room, where an absolutely absurd event is taking place: a ball. “And the musicians came at the wrong time, and we started the ball at the wrong time” (Ranevskaya). The tragedy of the situation is overcome by the technique of carnivalization of reality, tragedy is combined with farce: Charlotte shows her endless tricks, Petya falls down the stairs, they play billiards, everyone dances. The misunderstanding and disunity of the heroes reach their apogee.

Work with text. Let's read Lopakhin's monologue, which concludes Act III, and follow the author's remarks for changes in psychological state hero.

“The new landowner, the owner of the cherry orchard” does not feel happy. “If only our awkward, unhappy life would change,” Lopakhin says “with tears.” Lyubov Andreevna cries bitterly, “there is no one in the hall and living room.”

The image of an empty house dominates Act IV. Order and peace have been disrupted. We are again, as in Act I, in the nursery (ring composition). But now everything feels empty. Former owners leaving the house. The doors are locked, forgetting about Firs. The play ends with the sound of a “distant sound, as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string, fading, sad.” And in the silence “you can hear how far in the garden an ax is knocking on a tree.”

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

The house has been sold. The heroes are no longer connected by anything, their illusions are lost.

Firs, the personification of ethics and duty, is locked in the house. The “ethical” is over.

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

What then do Chekhov's heroes gain?

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

II. Generalization.

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

We invite the children to summarize the lesson material on their own.

The result of the work.

Let us define the criteria for this community.

1. In every play the hero is in conflict with the world around him; everyone also experiences internal discord. Thus, the conflict acquires a total character - almost all people bear it. Heroes are characterized by an expectation of change.

2. Problems of happiness and time become leading in the trilogy.

All heroes have:

happiness is in the past

unhappiness in the present

hopes for happiness in the future.

3. Image of the house (“ noble nest”) is central to all three plays.

The house embodies the characters’ idea of ​​happiness - it preserves the memory of the past and testifies to the troubles of the present; its preservation or loss inspires hope for the future.

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

4. In the plays, the idealistic hero degrades.

In “Uncle Vanya” it is Doctor Astrov;

in “Three Sisters” - Colonel Vershinin;

in The Cherry Orchard - student Trofimov.

Work in rows. Call them “positive programs.” What do they have in common?

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

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

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

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

You can trace other parallels between the heroes of the plays:

Marina - Anfisa;

Ferapont - Firs;

Telegin - Epikhodov;

Salty - Yasha;

Serebryakov - Prozorov.

There is also an external similarity:

religiosity, deafness, failed professorship, and so on.

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

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

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

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

or continue to multiply illusions, eking out an untrue existence, hoping for the future.

The ending of the trilogy is open; we will not find answers to the questions posed in Chekhov’s plays, because this is not the task of art, according to the playwright. Now in beginning of XXI century, we ask ourselves questions about the meaning of existence that so worried A.P. Chekhov, and the wonderful thing is that everyone has the opportunity to give their answer, make their choice...

Chekhov as an artist can no longer be
compare with previous Russians
writers - with Turgenev,
Dostoevsky or with me. Chekhov's
its own shape, like
impressionists. Look how
like a person without anything
parsing smears with paints, what
come across his hand, and
no relationship between each other
these smears do not. But you'll move away
to some distance,
look, and in general
it gives a complete impression.
L. Tolstoy

Oh, I wish it would all go away
I wish ours would change
awkward, unhappy life.
Lopakhin

To analyze a play you need a list characters, and with the author's remarks and comments. We will present it here in full, which will help you enter the world of “The Cherry Orchard”; The action takes place on the estate of Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. So, the characters in the play:

Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, landowner.

Anya, her daughter, 17 years old. Varya, her adopted daughter, 24 years old. Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya. Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, merchant.

Chekhov wrote: “What I came out with was not a drama, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce.” The author denied the characters in The Cherry Orchard the right to drama: they seemed to him incapable of deep feelings. K. S. Stanislavsky at one time (in 1904) staged a tragedy, with which Chekhov did not agree. The play contains tricks of the show, tricks (Charlotte Ivanovna), blows to the head with a stick, pathetic monologues are followed by farcical scenes, then a lyrical note appears again... There is a lot of funny stuff in The Cherry Orchard: Epikhodov is ridiculous, Gaev’s pompous speeches are funny (“respected closet"), funny, inappropriate remarks and inappropriate answers, comic situations arising from the characters’ misunderstanding of each other. Chekhov's play is funny, sad, and even tragic at the same time. There are a lot of people crying in it, but these are not dramatic sobs, and not even tears, but only the mood of the faces. Chekhov emphasizes that the sadness of his heroes is often frivolous, that their tears hide the tearfulness common to weak and nervous people. The combination of the comic and the serious is a distinctive feature of Chekhov's poetics, starting from the first years of his work.

External plot and external conflict. External plot of “The Cherry Orchard” - change of owners of the house and garden, sale family estate for debts. At first glance, the play clearly identifies opposing forces that reflect the alignment of social forces in Russia at that time: old, noble Russia (Ranevskaya and Gaev), rising entrepreneurs (Lopakhin), young, future Russia (Petya and Anya). It would seem that the collision of these forces should give rise to main conflict plays. The characters are focused on the most important event in their lives - at the sale of the cherry orchard, scheduled for August 22. However, the viewer does not witness the sale of the garden itself: the seemingly culminating event remains off stage. Social conflict in the play is not relevant, not social status the characters are the main thing. Lopakhin - this “predator” entrepreneur - is depicted not without sympathy (like most of the characters in the play), and the owners of the estate do not resist him. Moreover, the estate, as if by itself, ends up in his hands, against his desire. It would seem that in the third act the fate of the cherry orchard was decided; Lopakhin bought it. Moreover, the outcome of the external plot is even optimistic: “Gaev (cheerfully). In fact, everything is fine now. Before the sale of the cherry orchard, we were all worried, suffering, and then, when the issue was finally, irrevocably resolved, everyone calmed down, even cheered up... I’m a bank employee, now I’m a financier... yellow in the middle, and you, Lyuba, like... no way, you look better, that’s for sure.” But the play does not end; the author writes the fourth act, in which nothing new seems to happen. But the garden motif sounds again here. At the beginning of the play, the garden, which is in danger, attracts the entire family, gathered after five years of separation. But no one can save him, he is no longer there, and in the fourth act everyone leaves again. The death of the garden led to the disintegration of the family and scattered all the former inhabitants of the estate to cities and villages. Silence falls - the play ends, the garden motif falls silent. This is the external plot of the play.

Ideological and artistic originality of the play The Cherry Orchard

1.Theme of the past, present and future of Russia.

2. The nature of the conflict and features of the stage action.

In the article “On the question of the principles of constructing plays by A.P. Chekhov" A.P. Skaftymov pointed out the lack of stage and length of the play, the weakness of the plot, and the lack of action. In contrast to this point of view, other researchers, and in particular, K. S. Stanislavsky and V. D. Nemirovich-Danchenko noted the unusualness dramatic conflict and the presence in Chekhov’s play of “undercurrents – intimate and lyrical flows that are felt behind the external everyday details.”

The genre of “The Cherry Orchard” is considered to be a comedy, although the satirical pathos of the play is greatly weakened. Chekhov continued the traditions of Ostrovsky (depiction of everyday life in plays). However, for Ostrovsky, everyday life is the background, the basis for the actual dramatic events. In Chekhov, events only externally organize the plot. Every hero experiences drama - Ranevskaya, Gaev, Varya, and Charlotte. Moreover, the drama lies not in the loss of the cherry orchard, but in everyday life itself. The characters experience a conflict “between what is given and what is desired” - between vanity and the dream of a person’s true purpose. In the souls of most heroes, the conflict is not resolved.

3. The meaning of “underwater currents”.

The meaning of individual characters' remarks is in no way connected with the events taking place. These remarks are important only in the context of understanding the conflict between the given and the desired (Ranevskaya: “I’m still waiting for something, as if the house was about to collapse above us,” Gaev’s “billiard” remarks, etc.).

4. The role of the detail.

The detail is the most important for Chekhov visual means in conveying the psychology of heroes, conflict, etc.

a) Replies from the heroes that do not help in the development of the plot, but illustrate the fragmentation of consciousness, the alienation of the heroes from each other, their inorganicity with the world around them.

“Everyone is sitting, thinking. Suddenly a distant sound is heard, as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string, fading, sad.

Lyubov Andreevna. What's this?

L o pakhin. Don't know. Somewhere far away in the mines a tub fell off. But somewhere very far away.

G aev. Or maybe some kind of bird... Like a heron.

Trofimov. Or an owl...

Lyubov Andreevna (shudders). It's unpleasant for some reason. (Pause.)

F and r s. It was the same before the disaster. And the owl screamed, and the samovar hummed endlessly.

Gaev. Before what misfortune?

F and r s. Before the will. (Pause).

Lyubov Andreevna. You know, friends, let's go, it's already getting dark. (But not). There are tears in your eyes... What are you doing, girl? (Hugs her.) x

Anya. That's right, mom. Nothing".

b) Sound effects.

The sound of a broken string (“voiced melancholy”). The sound of an ax cutting down a cherry orchard.

c) Landscape.

“Lyubov Andreevna (looks out the window at the garden). Oh my childhood, my purity! I slept in this nursery, looked at the garden from here, happiness woke up with me every morning, and then he was exactly the same, nothing has changed. (Laughs with joy.) All, all white! O my garden! After a dark, stormy autumn and cold winter again you are young, full of happiness, the heavenly angels have not abandoned you... If only I could take the heavy stone off my chest and shoulders, if only I could forget my past!

Gaev. Yes. And the garden will be sold for debts, oddly enough...

Lyubov Andreevna. Look, the late mother is walking through the garden... in a white dress! (Laughs with joy.) It’s her.

Gaev. Where?

Varya. The Lord is with you, mommy.

Lyubov Andreevna. Nobody here. It seemed to me. To the right, at the turn towards the gazebo, a white tree bent over, looking like a woman.”

d) Setting.

The closet to which either Ranevskaya or Gaev address their speech.

Yasha always speaks, barely holding back laughter. Lopakhin always addresses Varya mockingly.

e) Speech characteristics heroes.

Gaev's speech is full of billiard terms.

1. Features of the conflict in the play.
2. Character system.
3. Problems of “The Cherry Orchard”.
4. Genre originality"The Cherry Orchard".

“The Cherry Orchard” is one of the most famous plays in the world repertoire, and the fact that the theater constantly turns to it, and the possibilities of different readings, and the constant discovery of new meanings - all this is due to the new dramatic language that Chekhov created. What is unique about The Cherry Orchard? This can be seen when analyzing the main elements of the play: the nature of the dramatic conflict, the structure of the character system, the speech of the characters, and genre features.

Unusual, from the point of view of classical, pre-Chekhov drama, the move dramatic action. All its elements are present in the play. At the very beginning of the first act, a plot is given - the possibility of a dramatic unfolding of events: this is the upcoming sale of Ranevskaya's estate for debts. The climax - the sale of the estate - occurs in the fourth act, in the denouement - all the inhabitants of the estate leave it, go in different directions. But where are the actions and events that develop and connect these main nodes of the dramatic plot? There is none of them. There is no external intrigue that exists in any play; the action develops according to some other, internal laws. From the very beginning of the play, a theme is set that organizes the conflict, the theme of the cherry orchard. Throughout the play, no one talks about the loss of the estate (the Ranevskys’ old house only reminds of itself in the first act - in Lyubov Andreevna’s exclamation about her nursery, in Gaev’s address to the hundred-year-old closet) - there are disputes about the cherry orchard between Ranevskaya, Lopakhin and Petya, the cherry orchard buys Lopakhin. In the last act, an ax will hit the cherry trees, signaling the end of the established way of life. It, associated with the life of several generations, will become a symbol of the cross-cutting theme of the play - the theme of man and time, man and history.

Lack of consistently developing external action caused by the special nature of the conflict in Chekhov's play. Usually a conflict is associated with a clash of opposing forces, a struggle of interests different people, the desire to achieve that goal or avoid the danger that is defined in the beginning. There is no such conflict in The Cherry Orchard. The situation, traditional for Russian literature, of a clash between a wasteful and unadapted nobleman-landowner and a predatory and aggressive merchant (compare with the relationship between Gurmyzhskaya and Vosmibratov in Ostrovsky’s “The Forest”) is not even mentioned here. Moreover, there is no real threat of ruin for Gaev and Ranevskaya. IN initial situation of the first act, Lopakhin explains to them how they could maintain and even increase the income from the estate: by breaking it into parts, renting out the land to summer residents. As if by the way, Lopakhin says that in this case the cherry orchard, old and no longer bearing fruit, must of course be cut down. This is what Ranevskaya and Gaev cannot do; they are hampered by the special feelings they experience for the cherry orchard. It is this area of ​​feelings that becomes the subject of conflict.

Conflict in pre-Chekhov drama necessarily involves a clash between the suffering hero and someone who acts against him and represents the source of his suffering. Suffering is not necessarily of a material nature (cf. the role of money in Ostrovsky’s comedy), it can be caused by ideological reasons. “A million torments” are experienced by Griboedov’s hero, and his “torments” are connected with people, antagonists - the entire Famus circle appearing in the play. In The Cherry Orchard there is no source of external suffering, no evil will and no actions directed against the heroes. They are divided by their attitude to the fate of the cherry orchard, but are united by a common dissatisfaction. existing life, a passionate desire to change it. This is one line of dynamic development of action. There is also a second one. Chekhov gives the feelings of each character in a double light - from the inside and from the outside, in the perception and understanding of other people. This becomes a source of dramatic drama. Lopakhin does not share the feelings of Gaev and Ranevskaya: for him they are strange and surprising; he does not understand why his reasonable arguments about the structure of the estate do not work on them. And for Petya these feelings are alien. What Ranevskaya loves and is afraid to lose is subject to destruction for him; what she sees in her happy past, childhood and youth, is for him a reminder of the unfair structure of life, of the people tortured here. Lopakhin's feelings and truth are understandable and dear only to himself. Neither Ranevskaya nor Petya understands or accepts them. Petya Trofimov has his own feelings and ideas (“All of Russia is our garden”), but they are funny for Lopakhin and incomprehensible to Ranevskaya.

This the most important topic misunderstanding and divergence of people, their isolation in their own feelings and their own suffering is enhanced in the play by the role of minor persons. Each of them has a world of his own experiences, and each of them is lonely and misunderstood among the others. Charlotte, homeless and lonely, makes others laugh and is not taken seriously by anyone. Petya Trofimov and Lopakhin make fun of Varya, immersed in her own world. Simeonov-Pishchik is immersed in his circle of worries - he is constantly looking for money and just as constantly thinks about his daughter Dashenka, causing mocking irritation from those around him. Epikhodov is funny to everyone in his “misfortunes”, no one takes Dunyasha’s experiences seriously... The comic side is indeed strongly expressed in these characters, but in Chekhov’s play there is nothing absolutely funny, absolutely tragic or absolutely lyrical. Their complex mixture is carried out in each character.

The main content of “The Cherry Orchard”, which is that all its characters equally suffer from the disorder of life and at the same time they are all locked in this lonely suffering, inaccessible to others, is also reflected in the nature of the dramatic dialogue; many statements in the play are not related to common line conversation, not addressed to anyone. In the third act, Charlotte keeps everyone busy with her magic tricks. Everyone applauds. Ranevskaya reflects on her own thoughts: “But Leonid is still not there. I don’t understand what he’s been doing in the city for so long.” Charlotte's words about her loneliness at the beginning of the second act are not addressed to anyone, although she is among other people. Varya gives Ranevskaya a telegram. Ranevskaya: “This is from Paris... It’s over with Paris...” Gaev’s next remark: “Do you know, Lyuba, how old is this wardrobe?”

Even more significant in this situation of not listening to others are cases when the heroes seem to be responding to a cue, but the connection turns out to be mechanical - they are again immersed in their own thoughts. Trofimov says that he and Anya are “above love.” Ranevskaya: “But I must be below love... (In great anxiety.) Why is Leonid not there? Just to know: was the estate sold or not?”

The complex genre nature of the play, which Chekhov called a comedy and in which there is so much serious and sad, corresponds to his idea of ​​​​a drama in which everything should go as it happens in life. Chekhov finally destroyed any genre definition, removed all restrictions and partitions. And what was necessary for this was a new combination for drama of the comic and serious, their flow into each other. It has already been said that a comic element is present in each hero of the play, but in the same way, each has its own lyrical intonation. The farcical in the play is combined with the tragic. It's not even that the play is about suffering good people Chekhov uses farcical techniques (hitting with a stick, falling from the stairs), something else is more important: every moment of the play has, as it were, double coverage. Thus, the vaudeville confusion with Firs being sent to the hospital is connected with the image of the end - the end of the house and garden, the end human life, end of an era. The sad and the funny turn out to be reversible in the play. Lyrical beginning helps to understand the deep emotion and sincerity of the hero, the comic laughs at his self-absorption and one-sidedness.