Cherry Orchard old generation. Three generations in play A

With his play, the author poses the question - who is destined to be the creator of a new life. Neither the author nor life itself gives an answer to this question, but Chekhov emphasizes the readiness for the new in two heroes - Anya and Petya. Where Petya talks about instability old life and calls for a new life, the author sympathizes with him, for this is the thought of Chekhov himself. But in Petya’s reasoning there is no personal strength, no ability to implement what was said. Like all the klutzes in the play, he is awkward and powerless in the face of his new life, but the words of his speech can excite listeners, in particular Anya, in whose image youth and inexperience are emphasized above all. Anya is also ready to change her life and the foreboding of the coming revolution is maturing in society and finding a response in the souls of people like Anya.

Each character has its own significance for understanding the problems of the work: Semyonov Pishchik - based on his example, a different fate of a nobleman is given. His fate is not for sale yet, but his well-being rests on chance. In the image of Charlotte, fate is absurd and paradoxical, emphasizing the role of chance in a person’s life. Epikhodov is a man who does not live his own life. For him, who pretended to be educated and elevated in his feelings, fate had only 22 misfortunes in store for him. The character traits of the old masters of life are exaggerated in the images of the servants. Firs is heavenly devotion to masters and a forgotten personality, a manifestation of the remnants of the serfdom era. Firsa is the fault of owners who treat people as things. Main image play, its center is the Cherry Orchard. This image combines the concrete and the eternal (youth, memories, purity, happiness). The essay on the topic of the future of Russia is connected with this image. Around the image Cherry Orchard All the characters are located and each of them has their own garden. It highlights the spiritual capabilities of each of the characters. The garden deepens philosophical problem plays - the loneliness of unloved characters in the eternal cycle of life.

In the play there is no traditional, pronounced confrontation between the parties and the clash of various life positions. The source of drama is not in the struggle for the Cherry Orchard, but in the subjective dissatisfaction with life that ALL the heroes experience. Life goes on awkwardly and awkwardly, bringing no joy or happiness to anyone, and therefore all the heroes have a sense of the temporary nature of their stay in the world.

Chekhov: “What I came out with was not a drama, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce.” Outwardly, the events are dramatic, but in Chekhov the sad turns out to be comical, sometimes farcical ( theatrical play light playful content with external comic effects).

It is interesting that Pavlovich Chekhov himself grew a garden in Melikhovo. In Crimea, the writer laid out a southern garden near his house on a high hill, which became his brainchild. He raised him according to a well-thought-out plan and created him as a work of art.

The Cherry Orchard in the play - the embodiment of everything beautiful, the personification of beauty and poetry. This is one of the heroes of the play. He appears in her constantly, as if reminding her of himself. Introduced into the characters' lines, the garden becomes a participant in the action.

Fabulous Chekhov's garden is connected in the play with the destinies of three generations: past, present and future. Thus, Chekhov very widely expands the time captured in his play. The garden itself embodies past culture and beauty. This is how Ranevskaya and Gaev perceive him. For them it is associated with childhood. According to Ranevskaya, “happiness woke up” with her every morning when she looked out the window at these trees.

For Lopakhin, the garden is wonderful only as a good “location”. According to him, “the only remarkable thing about this garden is that it is very large.” For him, this is a business commercial area. He believes that cherries “do not bring any income now”; a poppy field is another matter! He is going to cut down the old one, and now the threat hangs over the trees like the sword of Damocles.

Lopakhin feels like the master of life. “Come everyone and watch how Yermolai Lopakhin takes an ax to the cherry orchard and how the trees fall to the ground!” There is so much cynicism and courage in these words! “We’ll set up the dachas!” - he says. At the end of the play, the threat is put into action: the ax knocks, trees fall.

Indifference to what is happening can be felt in the words of Petya Trofimov. To the eternal human value- beauty - he approaches from a narrow class position and begins to denigrate the cherry orchard, seeing for some reason a tortured slave-serf behind every tree. “The earth is great and beautiful, there are many wonderful places on it,” he reassures Anya.

Only Anya, bright, gentle and enthusiastic, focused on the future, is ready to plant new garden more beautiful than before. She alone is worthy of the beauty that lies in the cherry orchard.

The play presents, as it were, two worlds: the world of dreams and the world of reality. Ranevskaya and Lopakhin live in different worlds. That's why they don't hear each other. Lyubov Andreevna lives in dreams, she is all in her love, in her fantasies. It’s as if she’s not here: part of her remained in Paris, despite the fact that at first she doesn’t even read messages from there, and part of her returned to this house, to this garden, but not today, but to the one that she remembers from childhood . From her shell, filled with the pink ether of dreams, she sees life, but cannot experience it as it really is. Her phrase: “I know, they wrote to me,” referring to the death of the nanny, her attitude towards Varvara is not at all cruelty, not indifference. Ranevskaya is just not here, she is in her own world.

It is generally accepted that Gaev, Ranevskaya’s brother, is, as it were, a distorted image of her. There is an obvious “stretch” in this. He simply lies on the border of these two worlds. He is not an idle dreamer, but, apparently, his existence is not entirely real if at his age they talk about him as “young and green.”

But Lopakhin is, perhaps, the only person from reality. But it's not that simple. Lopakhin combines both reality and dream. But his “dreams” lead to action: the memory of all the good that Ranevskaya did for him forces him to look for a way out of the situation in which they found themselves. But the matter ends with the purchase of a cherry orchard.

The comparison of director Efros seems very accurate, who said, while working on this play at the Taganka Theater, that all the heroes of the play are children playing in a minefield, and only Lopakhin, a serious person, warns of the danger, but the children captivate him with their play, he is forgotten, but soon remembers again, as if waking up. Only he alone constantly remembers the danger. One Lopakhin.

The question of the relationship between dreams and reality in the play “The Cherry Orchard” was also reflected in debates about the genre. It is known that Chekhov himself called the play a comedy, but Stanislavsky staged it as a drama. Still, let’s listen to the author’s opinion. Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is more of a sad thought about the fate of Russia than a revolutionary call, as they sometimes try to present it.

There are no ways to reorganize life, no specific actions in the play. It is generally accepted that Chekhov saw the future of Russia in the images of Trofimov and Anya. But the owners of the garden are the hereditary nobles Gaev and Ranevskaya. This garden has belonged to their family for many, many years. And the author deeply likes these people, despite their idleness and idleness. And here the question arises about the ambiguity of the play.

Take, for example, the image of the owner of the garden herself, Ranevskaya. It is known that Chekhov worked on this role with great enthusiasm and intended it for the actress O. L. Knipper, his wife. This image has always caused controversy and has become one of Chekhov’s mysteries. In response to the question of how this image should be played, Chekhov replied: “Fingers, fingers in rings; she grabs onto everything, but everything falls out of her hands, and her head is empty.” This is the key to the image, proposed by the author himself.

Ranevskaya has such wonderful character traits as kindness and devotion to the feeling of love. She is busy with the arrangement of her adopted daughter Varya, takes pity on the servant Firs, and gives her wallet to the peasants who came to say goodbye to her. But sometimes this kindness is simply the result of the wealth that she possesses and which reveals itself in the sparkle of rings on her fingers. She herself admits to her extravagance: “I have always wasted money without restraint, like crazy.”

Ranevskaya does not take her care for people to its logical conclusion. Varya is left without a livelihood after the sale of her estate and is forced to go to strangers. Firs remains in a locked house because Lyubov Andreevna forgot to check whether he was sent to the hospital.

Ranevskaya is characterized by frivolity and quick changes of feelings. So, she turns to God and begs to forgive her sins, but at the same time she offers to have a “party”. The duality of experiences also affects Russia. She tenderly treats her homeland, the cherry orchard, her old house with huge windows through which unruly branches climb. But this feeling is unstable. As soon as she receives a telegram from ex-lover who robbed her, she forgets the insult and is going to Paris. It seems that Ranevskaya is devoid of an inner core. Her frivolity and carelessness lead to the fact that the garden is sold and the estate goes into the wrong hands.

The younger generation of “The Cherry Orchard” by A.P. Chekhov

Grade 10

The younger generation includes Petya Trofimov and Anya. Let’s focus on Petya, since he bears the main semantic load of the word “young” (here – “beginning to live”, “promising”). Petya Trofimov is 26 years old; six years ago he was the teacher of the son of the owner of the Ranevskaya estate. The boy drowned, his mother, in order to forget the grief, leaves for Paris. Petya settles somewhere nearby. Ranevskaya arrives, having spent all her money abroad, and Petya comes to the house only to bow and leave immediately. It is difficult for him to understand that his behavior is tactless. Others understand this (Anya, Varya). With his appearance, he reminds the woman of her loss. Brings her to tears. He is actually caring for Anya on the estate. That's why it's here. Ranevskaya considers him a good man. Lopakhin sincerely loves him. Varya is strict with him. Anya admires him and is almost in love. Everyone around him thinks Petya is smart, honest, proud man. But the characterization of Petya by other heroes is very laconic. Limits himself to the words brother, funny man. We can't make up full portrait hero. Petya, in his words, free man. Fits well into the image of a revolutionary. But where does this sickly man, in glasses, in a student uniform, get his strength? One woman called him in the carriage a shabby gentleman, to his face they call him a “klutz”, “an eternal student”. He enjoys authority. What kind of authority can he use with his appearance? Let us remember Dunyasha’s words: “On the third day Pyotr Sergeich arrived. They sleep in the bathhouse and live there.” Appearance is not the main thing here. Petya pronounces monologues about the Russian intelligentsia, about workers, about serf owners, about the rich. At the same time, he warns that he is afraid of serious conversations. Let's look behind Petya's words. Petya sees only dirt around him. In front of you are white-handed women who live at the expense of others. Sometimes he switches from denunciation to self-flagellation. He may be right, because he himself has not done anything for 5 months. But he tells others that they need to work. And this is with the hardworking Vara and the energetic, businesslike Lopakhin. Petya believes that “humanity is moving towards the highest truth, towards the highest happiness that is possible on earth.” The monologue “humanity is coming” is pronounced at the request of the bored Ranevskaya and after Lopakhin’s ironic remark to the words about Petya’s intelligence. An apt description given by Petya to Lopakhin (about “ beast of prey"), begins and ends with laughter. Petya's life was difficult, he was expelled from the university 2 times. Trofimov does not study because he cannot study and support himself at the same time. When Petya is asked why he didn’t complete the course? Petya is silent in response. Trofimov has fallen behind the “new”; he lives in the provinces, does nothing, reads nothing. He sees only dirt around him. He speaks beautifully and energetically calls to go forward, but he does not shine with wealth, beauty, or tact. Every other character is more humane than him. His honesty is worthless. He hasn't suffered anything in his life. In the play, Petya not only criticizes the existing order, his main role is a call for a change in life. Petya invites you to follow him because he sees himself in the “front row”. He himself has no idea where or why to go. The goal for him is unclear. He just has a presentiment. He does not know life and is afraid of it, what could be the goal? He hides from fear of life behind beautiful words and even closes his eyes from “fear.” At the end of the play, Petya and Anya are going to Moscow to plant a new garden there. Begin new life. And what kind of luggage will he travel with, if he can’t even leave the house, he’s looking for galoshes. He was sucked into the life of people like Ranevskaya and Gaev, he is not able to go beyond words. According to Chekhov, the Trofimovs’ task in life and image in the play is to give an impetus to Anya’s movement. Just like Anya. Anya is the bearer of new futures revolutionary ideas. Young, with character, without the burden of the past on her feet, she evokes sympathy. It is people like her who move forward. Anya talks about life.

On the topic: methodological developments, presentations and notes

Symbolism of names in A.P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard”

In the 18th century, theatergoers knew before the start of the performance which characters they would see on stage. The playwright was instructed to give the characters “speaking” surnames. After reading the list of characters...

Presentation "Symbolism of names in A.P. Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard"

In the 18th century, theatergoers knew before the start of the performance which characters they would see on stage. The playwright was instructed to give the characters “speaking” surnames. Having read in the list of characters “S...

In Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard, Anya and Petya are not the main characters. They are not directly connected to the garden like others characters, for them it does not play such a significant role, which is why they, in some way, fall out of common system characters. However, in the work of a playwright of Chekhov's stature there is no room for accidents; therefore, it is no coincidence that Petya and Anya are isolated. Let's take a closer look at these two heroes.

Among critics, there is a widespread interpretation of the images of Anya and Petya depicted in the play “The Cherry Orchard” as a symbol younger generation Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; generation, which is replacing the long-outdated “Ranevskys” and “Gayevs”, as well as the “Lopakhins”, creatures of a turning point. In Soviet criticism, this statement was considered undeniable, since the play itself was usually viewed in a strictly defined manner - based on the year of writing (1903), critics associated its creation with social changes and the brewing revolution of 1905. Accordingly, the understanding of the cherry orchard as a symbol of the “old” was affirmed. pre-revolutionary Russia, Ranevskaya and Gaev as images of the “dying” noble class, Lopakhin - the emerging bourgeoisie, Trofimov - the various intelligentsia. From this point of view, the play was seen as a work about the search for a “savior” for Russia, in which inevitable changes are brewing. Lopakhin, as the bourgeois master of the country, should be replaced by the commoner Petya, full of transformative ideas and aimed at a bright future; the bourgeoisie must be replaced by the intelligentsia, which, in turn, will carry out a social revolution. Anya here symbolizes the “repentant” nobility, which accepts Active participation in these transformations.

Such a “class approach,” inherited from ancient times, reveals its inconsistency in the fact that many characters do not fit into this scheme: Varya, Charlotte, Epikhodov. We do not find any “class” subtext in their images. In addition, Chekhov was never known as a propagandist, and most likely would not have written such a clearly decipherable play. We should not forget that the author himself defined the genre of “The Cherry Orchard” as a comedy and even a farce - not the most successful form for demonstrating high ideals...

Based on all of the above, it is impossible to consider Anya and Petya in the play “The Cherry Orchard” solely as an image of the younger generation. Such an interpretation would be too superficial. Who are they for the author? What role do they play in his plan?

It can be assumed that the author deliberately brought out two characters not directly related to the main conflict as “outside observers.” They have no vested interest in the auction and the garden, and there is no clear symbolism associated with it. For Anya and Petya Trofimov, the cherry orchard is not a painful attachment. It is the lack of attachment that helps them survive in general atmosphere devastation, emptiness and meaninglessness, so subtly conveyed in the play.

The general characterization of Anya and Petya in The Cherry Orchard inevitably includes a love line between the two heroes. The author outlined it implicitly, half-hintly, and it is difficult to say for what purposes he needed this move. Perhaps this is a way to show a collision in the same situation of two qualitatively different characters We see young, naive, enthusiastic Anya, who has not yet seen life and at the same time full of strength and readiness for any changes. And we see Petya, full of bold, revolutionary ideas, an inspired speaker, a sincere and enthusiastic person, moreover, absolutely inactive, complete internal contradictions, therefore absurd and sometimes funny. It can be said that love line brings two extremes together: Anya - force without a vector, and Petya - a vector without force. Anya's energy and determination are useless without a guide; Petya's passion and ideological spirit inner strength dead.

In conclusion, it can be noted that the images of these two heroes in the play today, unfortunately, are still viewed in a traditional “Soviet” way. There is reason to believe that a fundamentally different approach to the system of characters and Chekhov’s play as a whole will allow us to see many more shades of meaning and will reveal a lot interesting moments. In the meantime, the images of Anya and Petya are waiting for their unbiased critic.

Work test

Three generations in A.P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” 1. “The Cherry Orchard” is Chekhov’s “swan song”. 2. Ranevskaya and Gaev are representatives of the passing life. 3. Lopakhin is the personification of the present. 4. Petya Trofimov and Anya as representatives of the new generation, the future of Russia.

The owners of the cherry orchard are the hereditary nobles Ranevskaya and Gaev. The estate and garden have been the property of their family for many years, but they can no longer manage here. They are the personification of Russia's past; there is no future for them. Why?
Gaev and Ranevskaya are helpless, idle people, incapable of any active action. They admire beauty blooming garden, it brings back nostalgic memories for these people, but that’s all. Their estate is ruined, and these people cannot and do not try to do anything to somehow improve the situation. The price of such “love” is small. Although Ranevkaya says: “God knows, I love my homeland, I love it dearly.” But the question arises, what kind of love is this if she left Russia five years ago and has returned now only because she suffered a fiasco in her personal life. And in the finale of the play, Ranevskaya again leaves her homeland.
Of course, the heroine gives the impression of a person with with an open soul, she is warm-hearted, emotional, impressionable. But these qualities are combined with such traits of her character as carelessness, spoiledness, frivolity, bordering on callousness and indifference to others. We see that in fact Ranevskaya is indifferent towards people, even sometimes cruel. How else to explain the fact that she gives the last gold to a passerby, and the servants in the house are left to live from hand to mouth. She thanks Firs, inquires about his health, and... leaves the old, sick man in a boarded-up house, simply forgetting about him. This is monstrous to say the least!
Like Ranevskaya, Gaev has a sense of beauty. I would like to note that he gives the impression of a gentleman more than Ranevskaya. Although this character can be called exactly as inactive, careless and frivolous as his sister. As if Small child Gaev cannot give up the habit of sucking lollipops and even in small things he counts on Firs. His mood changes very quickly; he is a fickle, flighty person. Gaev is upset to the point of tears that the estates are being sold, but as soon as he heard the sound of balls in the billiard room, he immediately cheered up, like a child.
Of course, Gaev and Ranevskaya are the embodiment of a past passing life. Their habit of living “in debt, at someone else’s expense” speaks of the idleness of the existence of these heroes. They are definitely not the masters of life, since even their material well-being depends on some chance: either it will be an inheritance, or the Yaroslavl grandmother will send them money to pay off their debts, or Lopakhin will lend them money. People like Gaev and Ranevskaya are being replaced by a completely different type of people: strong, enterprising, dexterous. One of these people is another character in the play Lopakhin.
Lopakhin embodies the present of Russia. Lopakhin's parents were serfs, but after the abolition of serfdom, the fate of this man changed. He rose to prominence, became rich, and is now able to buy the estate of those who were once his masters. Lopakhin feels superior to Ranevskaya and Gaev, and even they treat him with respect, because they realize their dependence on this man. It is clear that Lopakhin and people like him will very soon oust the well-born nobles.
However, Lopakhin gives the impression of a person who is the “master of life” only for a given, short period of time. He is not the owner of the cherry orchard, but only its temporary owner. He plans to cut down the cherry orchard and sell the land. It seems that, having increased his capital from this profitable enterprise, he will still not occupy a dominant place in the life of the state in the future. In the image of this character, Chekhov masterfully managed to portray a bizarre and contradictory combination of features of the past and present. Lopakhin, although proud of his current position, does not forget for a second about his low origins; his resentment towards life, which, as it seems to him, was unfair to him, is too strong. Very soon the reader and viewer understands that Lopakhin is just an intermediate step between the past and future generations.
In Chekh'bva's play we also see characters contrasted with the destructive activities of Lopakhin and the inaction of Ranevskaya and Gaev. This is Anya and Petya Trofimov. According to the author, the future of Russia lies with such people. Trofimov is an ardent seeker of truth who sincerely believes in triumph fair life soon. Student Petya Trofimov is poor, suffers hardships, but as an honest person he refuses to live at the expense of others. He talks a lot about the need to restructure society, but has not yet taken any real actions. But he is an excellent propagandist. This is one of those whom young people follow and believe in. Anya is carried away by Trofimov’s call to change her life, and at the end of the play we hear her words calling to “plant a new garden.” The author does not give us the opportunity to see the fruits of the activities of representatives of the new generation. He only leaves us with hope that the words of Petya Trofimov and Anya will not diverge from their deeds.
Chekhov portrayed three generations of people in his play “The Cherry Orchard,” and each character personifies the life of Russia: Ranevkaya and Gaev - the past, Lopakhin - the present, Trofimov and Anya - the future. Time has shown that Chekhov was absolutely right - in the near future, a revolution awaited the Russian people, and it was people like Trofimov who made history.

At the center of Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” is the question of saving the cherry orchard, the estate of the landowner Ranevskaya. It is important that the garden represents all of Russia. Thus, the playwright poses in his work the question of whether it is possible to save “old” Russia - a noble country, with its centuries-old way of life, culture, philosophy, and worldview.

We can say that throughout the entire comedy the role of savior is “tried on” to many heroes. We look especially closely at young characters, because who, if not the youth, should we rely on for the salvation of Russia?

First of all, Petya and his “follower” Anya attract attention - youngest daughter Ranevskaya. These heroes are young, full of strength and energy, but they are passionate about completely different ideas - to transform the whole world, to create a wonderful future for all humanity. What is the old cherry orchard to them! For Anya, he is a symbol of everything old and inert; she does not feel any warm feelings towards her mother’s estate. The girl thinks that Russian nobility guilty before common people and must atone for his guilt. This is exactly what Anya wants to devote her life to together with Petya Trofimov.

Trofimov scolds everything that slows down the development of Russia - “dirt, vulgarity, Asianism”, criticizes Russian intelligentsia, which does not search for anything and does not work. But the hero does not notice that he himself is bright representative such an intelligentsia: he speaks beautifully without doing anything. Petya’s characteristic phrase: “I’ll get there or show others the way to get there...” to “ higher truth" He also doesn’t care about the cherry orchard. Trofimov’s plans are much larger - to make all humanity happy!..

But, I think, these heroes will remain at the stage of words and will not get down to business. Petya spends too much energy on abstract plans, but he is not able to do anything concrete. Let us remember that Trofimov cannot even complete the course or receive a diploma. This is a sure sign that all his affairs will also “hang in the air” and end in “zilch.”

Maybe Anya will be stronger than her " ideological inspirer"and will be able to really participate in the transformation of Russia? The character of this girl allows me to think so, but... It seems to me that Anya is in love with Trofimov, in her eyes he is romantic hero, pronouncing beautiful words, to which the girl listens with delight. So now, I think, the ideas of transformation and salvation are her true, real interest. Perhaps in the future, having matured and become stronger, she will be able to contribute to a good cause, but not now.

The most likely candidate for the role of the savior of the cherry orchard in the play is, in my opinion, Lopakhin. From the very beginning, he appears before us as a man who deeply sympathizes with the ruined Ranevskaya, attached to her since childhood.

This hero is a merchant, a representative of the formation that becomes the “masters of life” in new Russia. Lopakhin came from the peasantry, he simple origin: “My father, it’s true, was a man, but here I am in a white vest and yellow shoes. With a pig's snout in a Kalash line... Only he's rich, he has a lot of money, but if you think about it and figure it out, he's a man..."

Thanks to his enterprise and acumen, Lopakhin was able to “make” himself a decent fortune. His rational brain is aimed primarily at obtaining benefits. Lopakhin does not understand any “sentiments, tenderness”, sublime feelings due to his make-up and level of education. He advises Ranevskaya to cut down the trees and rent out the garden to summer residents, dividing it into plots.

The merchant is, of course, right; this is exactly what should have been done in the current situation with economic point vision. But... in this case, the old cherry orchard, that is, the old Russia, will fade into oblivion and sink into oblivion. This is what happens in the finale. And Lopakhin even rejoices at the departure of old Russia.

Indeed, what good did he see under serfdom? His father and grandfather were slaves there, and the same fate awaited him. And in new country Lopakhin rose to prominence, became a respected man, and even gained power over his former masters. Therefore, this hero will not save the old Russia. But will he save the new one? I think yes. From history we know that before the events of 1917, Russia was one of the world leaders in economic and cultural development. The country was gradually rebuilt, preserving old traditions, but, of course, introducing new trends into it. And only October Revolution 1917 radically changed everything.

Thus, there are several young heroes in the play, but among them there is no character capable of saving the old, former Russia. But there is a hero who is the future. In my opinion, this is businessman Lopakhin.