The play The Cherry Orchard, past present and future. The past, present and future of Russia in Anton Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard
Features of Chekhov's dramaturgy
Before Anton Chekhov, Russian theater was going through a crisis; it was he who made an invaluable contribution to its development, breathing new life into it. The playwright snatched small sketches from the everyday life of his characters, bringing drama closer to reality. His plays made the viewer think, although they did not contain intrigues or open conflicts, but they reflected the internal anxiety of a turning point in history, when society froze in anticipation of imminent changes, and all social strata became heroes. The apparent simplicity of the plot introduced the stories of the characters before the events described, making it possible to speculate what would happen to them after. In this way, the past, present, and future were mixed in an amazing way in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” by connecting people not so much from different generations, but from different eras. And one of the “undercurrents” characteristic of Chekhov’s plays was the author’s reflection on the fate of Russia, and the theme of the future took center stage in “The Cherry Orchard.”
Past, present and future on the pages of the play “The Cherry Orchard”
So how did the past, present and future meet on the pages of the play “The Cherry Orchard”? Chekhov seemed to divide all the heroes into these three categories, depicting them very vividly.
The past in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is represented by Ranevskaya, Gaev and Firs - the oldest character in the entire performance. They are the ones who talk most about what happened; for them, the past is a time in which everything was easy and wonderful. There were masters and servants, each had their own place and purpose. For Firs, the abolition of serfdom became the greatest grief; he did not want freedom, remaining on the estate. He sincerely loved the family of Ranevskaya and Gaev, remaining devoted to them until the very end. For aristocrats Lyubov Andreevna and her brother, the past is a time when they did not need to think about such base things as money. They enjoyed life, doing what brings pleasure, knowing how to appreciate the beauty of intangible things - it is difficult for them to adapt to the new order, in which highly moral values are replaced by material values. For them, it is humiliating to talk about money, about ways to earn it, and Lopakhin’s real proposal to rent out land occupied by an essentially worthless garden is perceived as vulgarity. Unable to make decisions about the future of the cherry orchard, they succumb to the flow of life and simply float along it. Ranevskaya, with her aunt’s money sent for Anya, leaves for Paris, and Gaev goes to work in a bank. The death of Firs at the end of the play is very symbolic, as if saying that the aristocracy as a social class has outlived its usefulness, and there is no place for it, in the form in which it was before the abolition of serfdom.
Lopakhin became a representative of the present in the play “The Cherry Orchard”. “A man is a man,” as he says about himself, thinking in a new way, able to make money using his mind and instincts. Petya Trofimov even compares him to a predator, but a predator with a subtle artistic nature. And this brings Lopakhin a lot of emotional distress. He is well aware of the beauty of the old cherry orchard, which will be cut down according to his will, but he cannot do otherwise. His ancestors were serfs, his father owned a shop, and he became a “white farmer”, amassing a considerable fortune. Chekhov placed special emphasis on the character of Lopakhin, because he was not a typical merchant, whom many treated with disdain. He made himself, paving the way with his work and desire to be better than his ancestors, not only in terms of financial independence, but also in education. In many ways, Chekhov identified himself with Lopakhin, because their pedigrees are similar.
Anya and Petya Trofimov personify the future. They are young, full of strength and energy. And most importantly, they have a desire to change their lives. But, it’s just that Petya is a master at talking and reasoning about a wonderful and fair future, but he doesn’t know how to turn his speeches into action. This is what prevents him from graduating from university or at least somehow organizing his life. Petya denies all attachments - be it to a place or to another person. He captivates the naive Anya with his ideas, but she already has a plan for how to arrange her life. She is inspired and ready to “plant a new garden, even more beautiful than the previous one.” However, the future in Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is very uncertain and vague. In addition to the educated Anya and Petya, there are also Yasha and Dunyasha, and they, too, are the future. Moreover, if Dunyasha is just a stupid peasant girl, then Yasha is a completely different type. The Gaevs and Ranevskys are being replaced by the Lopakhins, but someone will also have to replace the Lopakhins. If you remember history, then 13 years after this play was written, it was precisely these Yashas who came to power - unprincipled, empty and cruel, not attached to anyone or anything.
In the play “The Cherry Orchard,” the heroes of the past, present and future were gathered in one place, but they were not united by an internal desire to be together and exchange their dreams, desires, and experiences. The old garden and house hold them together, and as soon as they disappear, the connection between the characters and the time they reflect is severed.
Connection of times today
Only the greatest creations are able to reflect reality even many years after their creation. This happened with the play “The Cherry Orchard”. History is cyclical, society develops and changes, moral and ethical standards are also subject to rethinking. Human life is not possible without memory of the past, inaction in the present, and without faith in the future. One generation is replaced by another, some build, others destroy. This is how it was in Chekhov’s time, and this is how it is now. The playwright was right when he said that “All of Russia is our garden,” and it depends only on us whether it will bloom and bear fruit, or whether it will be cut down at the very root.
The author's discussions about the past, present and future in comedy, about people and generations, about Russia make us think even today. These thoughts will be useful for 10th graders when writing an essay on the topic “Past, present, future in the play “The Cherry Orchard”.”
Work test
The era of the greatest aggravation of social relations, a stormy social movement, and the preparation of the first Russian revolution was clearly reflected in the writer’s last major work - the play “The Cherry Orchard.” Chekhov saw the growth of the revolutionary consciousness of the people, their dissatisfaction with the autocratic regime. Chekhov's general democratic position was reflected in The Cherry Orchard: the characters in the play, being in great ideological clashes and contradictions, do not reach the point of open hostility. However, the play shows the world of the noble-bourgeois in a sharply critical manner and depicts in bright colors people striving for a new life.
Chekhov responds to the most pressing demands of the time. The play “The Cherry Orchard,” being the culmination of Russian critical realism, amazed contemporaries with its unusual truthfulness and convexity of image.
Although “The Cherry Orchard” is based entirely on everyday material, in it everyday life has a general, symbolic meaning. This was achieved by the playwright through the use of an “undercurrent”. The cherry orchard itself is not the focus of Chekhov’s attention: the symbolic garden is the entire homeland (“all of Russia is our garden”) - Therefore, the theme of the play is the fate of the homeland, its future. Its old owners, the nobles Ranevskys and Gaevs, leave the stage, and the capitalists Lopakhins come to replace it. But their dominance is short-lived, for they are destroyers of beauty.
The real masters of life will come, and they will turn Russia into a blooming garden. The ideological pathos of the play lies in the denial of the noble-landowner system as outdated. At the same time, the writer argues that the bourgeoisie, which replaces the nobility, despite its vitality, brings with it destruction and oppression. Chekhov believes that new forces will come that will rebuild life on the basis of justice and humanity. The farewell of the new, young, tomorrow's Russia to the past, which has become obsolete and doomed to an early end, the aspiration to the tomorrow of the homeland - this is the content of “The Cherry Orchard.”
The peculiarity of the play is that it is based on showing clashes between people who are representatives of different social strata - nobles, capitalists, commoners and the people, but their clashes are not hostile. The main thing here is not the contradictions of property, but the deep revelation of the emotional experiences of the characters. Ranevskaya, Gaev and Simeonov-Pishchik form a group of local nobles. The playwright’s work was complicated by the fact that it was necessary to show positive qualities in these characters. Gaev and Pischik are kind, honest and simple, and Ranevskaya is also endowed with aesthetic feelings (love of music and nature). But at the same time, they are all weak-willed, inactive, incapable of practical affairs.
Ranevskaya and Gaev are the owners of an estate, “more beautiful than which there is nothing in the world,” as one of the characters in the play, Lopakhin, says - a delightful estate, the beauty of which lies in the poetic cherry orchard. The “owners” have brought the estate with their frivolity and complete lack of understanding of real life to a pitiful state; the estate is 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, and encourages them to think about the impending disaster. But Ranevskaya and Gaev live with illusory ideas. Both shed many tears over the loss of their cherry orchard, which they are sure they cannot live without. 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 is happening for Ranevskaya and Gaev. Ranevskaya 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 and without the cherry orchard. Gaev also comes to terms with what happened. “A terrible drama”, which for its heroes, however, did not turn out to be a drama at all for the simple reason that they cannot have anything serious, nothing dramatic at all. The merchant Lopakhin personifies the second group of images. Chekhov attached special importance to him: “... Lopakhin’s role is central. If it fails, then the whole play will fail.”
Lopakhin replaces Ranevsky and Gaev. The playwright persistently emphasizes the relative progressiveness of this bourgeois. He is energetic, businesslike, intelligent and enterprising; he works “from morning to evening.” His practical advice, if Ranevskaya had accepted them, would have saved the estate. Lopakhin has a “thin, gentle soul”, thin fingers, like an artist. However, he recognizes only utilitarian beauty. Pursuing the goals of enrichment, Lopakhin destroys beauty - he cuts down the cherry orchard.
The dominance of the Lopakhins is transitory. New people will come to the stage for them - Trofimov and Anya, who make up the third group of characters. The future is embodied in them. It is Trofimov who pronounces the verdict on the “nests of the nobility.” “Whether the estate is sold today,” he says to Ranevskaya, “or not sold, does it matter? It’s been over for a long time, there’s no turning back..."
In Trofimov, Chekhov embodied aspirations for the future and devotion to public duty. It is he, Trofimov, who glorifies work and calls for work: “Humanity moves forward, improving its strength. Everything that is out of reach for him now will someday become close and understandable, but he must work and help with all his might those who are seeking the truth.”
True, the specific ways to change the social structure are not clear to Trofimov. He only declaratively calls for the future. And the playwright endowed him with features of eccentricity (remember the episodes of searching for galoshes and falling down the stairs). But still, his service to public interests, his calls awakened the people around him and forced them to look forward.
Trofimov is supported by Anya Ranevskaya, a poetic and enthusiastic girl. Petya Trofimov encourages Anya to turn her life around. Anya’s connections with ordinary people and her reflections helped her notice the absurdity and awkwardness of what she observed around her. Conversations with Petya Trofimov made clear to her the injustice of the life around her.
Influenced by conversations with Petya Trofimov, Anya came to the conclusion that her mother’s family estate belonged to the people, that it was unfair to own it, that one must live by labor and work for the benefit of disadvantaged people.
Enthusiastic Anya was captivated and carried away by Trofimov’s romantically upbeat speeches about a new life, about the future, and she became a supporter of his beliefs and dreams. Anya Ranevskaya is one of those who, having believed in the truth of working life, parted with their class. She does not feel sorry for the cherry orchard, she no longer loves it as before; she realized that behind him were the reproachful eyes of the people who planted and raised him.
Smart, honest, crystal clear in her thoughts and desires, Anya happily leaves the cherry orchard, the old manor house in which she spent her childhood, adolescence and youth. She says with delight: “Farewell, home! Goodbye old life! But Anya’s ideas about a new life are not only vague, but also naive. Turning to her mother, she says: “We will read on autumn evenings, we will read many books, and a new, wonderful world will open before us...”
Anya's path to a new life will be extremely difficult. After all, she is practically helpless: she is used to living, ordering numerous servants, in complete abundance, carefree, not thinking about her daily bread, about tomorrow. She is not trained in any profession, is not prepared for constant, hard work and for everyday deprivation of the most necessary things. Striving for a new life, she, by way of life and habits, remained a young lady of the noble-landed circle.
It is possible that Anya will not withstand the temptation of a new life and will retreat before its trials. But if she finds the necessary strength within herself, then her new life will be in studying, in educating the people and, maybe (who knows!), in the political struggle for their interests. After all, she understood and remembered Trofimov’s words that redeeming the past, putting an end to it “can only be done through suffering, only through extraordinary, continuous labor.”
The pre-revolutionary politicized atmosphere in which society lived could not but affect the perception of the play. “The Cherry Orchard” was immediately understood as Chekhov’s most social play, embodying the fate of entire classes: the departing nobility, the capitalism that replaced it, and the people of the future already living and acting. This superficial approach to the play was picked up and developed by literary criticism of the Soviet period.
However, the play turned out to be much higher than the political passions that flared up around it. Already contemporaries noted the philosophical depth of the play, dismissing its sociological reading. Publisher and journalist A. S. Suvorin argued that the author of “The Cherry Orchard” is aware that “something very important is being destroyed, it is being destroyed, perhaps out of historical necessity, but still this is a tragedy of Russian life.”
The play “The Cherry Orchard,” the last dramatic work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, can be considered a kind of testament of the writer, which reflected Chekhov’s cherished thoughts, his thoughts about the past, present and future of Russia.
The plot of the play is based on the history of a noble estate. As a result of the changes taking place in Russian society, the former owners of the estate are forced to give way to new ones. This plot outline is very symbolic; it reflects important stages in the socio-historical development of Russia. The destinies of Chekhov's characters turn out to be connected with the cherry orchard, in the image of which the past, present and future intersect. The characters remember the past of the estate, about those times when the cherry orchard, cultivated by serfs, still generated income. This period coincided with the childhood and youth of Ranevskaya and Gaev, and they remember these happy, carefree years with involuntary nostalgia. But serfdom was abolished long ago, the estate is gradually falling into disrepair, and the cherry orchard is no longer profitable. The time of telegraphs and railways is coming, the era of business people and entrepreneurs.
The representative of this new formation in Chekhov's play is Lopakhin, who comes from the Ranevskaya family of former serfs. His memories of the past are of a completely different nature; his ancestors were slaves on the very estate of which he now becomes the owner.
Conversations, memories, disputes, conflicts - all the external action of Chekhov's play is centered around the fate of the estate and the cherry orchard. Immediately after Ranevskaya’s arrival, conversations begin about how the mortgaged and remortgaged estate can be saved from auction. As the play progresses, this problem will become increasingly acute.
But, as is most often the case with Chekhov, there is no real struggle, no real clash between the former and future owners of the cherry orchard in the play. Just the opposite. Lopakhin does everything possible to help Ranevskaya save the estate from sale, but a complete lack of business skills prevents the hapless owners of the estate from taking advantage of useful advice; they are enough only for complaints and empty rantings. It is not the struggle between the emerging bourgeoisie and the nobility that is giving way to it that interests Chekhov; the fate of specific people, the fate of all of Russia, is much more important to him.
Ranevskaya and Gaev are doomed to lose the estate that is so dear to them and with which it is connected
so many memories, and the reason for this lies not only in their inability to heed Lopakhin’s practical advice. The time is coming to pay old bills, but the debt of their ancestors, the debt of their family, the historical guilt of their entire class has not yet been atoned for. The present stems from the past, their connection is obvious, it’s not for nothing that Lyubov Andreevna dreams of her late mother in a white dress in a blooming garden. This reminds us of the past itself. It is very symbolic that Ranevskaya and Gaev, whose fathers and grandfathers did not allow those at whose expense they fed and lived, even into the kitchen, are now entirely dependent on Lopakhin, who has become rich. In this Chekhov sees retribution and shows that the lordly way of life, although it is covered in a poetic haze of beauty, corrupts people, destroys the souls of those who are involved in it. This is, for example, Firs. For him, the abolition of serfdom is a terrible misfortune, as a result of which he, useless and forgotten by everyone, will be left alone in an empty house... The same lordly way of life gave birth to the footman Yasha. He no longer has the devotion to masters that distinguishes old man Firs, but without a twinge of conscience he enjoys all the benefits and conveniences that he can derive from his life under the wing of the kindest Ranevskaya.
Lopakhin is a man of a different type and a different formation. He is businesslike, has a strong grip and firmly knows what and how to do today. It is he who gives specific advice on how to save the estate. However, being a businesslike and practical person, and differing favorably from Ranevskaya and Gaev, Lopakhin is completely devoid of spirituality and the ability to perceive beauty. The magnificent cherry orchard is interesting to him only as an investment, it is remarkable only because it is “very large”; and based on purely practical considerations, Lopakhin proposes to cut it down in order to rent out the land for summer cottages - this is more profitable. Disregarding the feelings of Ranevskaya and Gaev (not out of malice, no, but simply because of a lack of spiritual subtlety), he orders the garden to begin to be cut down, without waiting for the former owners to leave.
It is noteworthy that there is not a single happy person in Chekhov's play. Ranevskaya, who came from Paris to repent of her sins and find peace in the family estate, is forced to return back with old sins and problems, since the estate is being auctioned off and the garden is being cut down. The faithful servant Firs is buried alive in a boarded-up house, where he served all his life. Charlotte's future is unknown; years pass without bringing joy, and dreams of love and motherhood are never realized. Varya, who did not wait for Lopakhin’s offer, is hired by some Ragulins. Perhaps Gaev's fate turns out a little better - he gets a place in the bank, but it is unlikely that he will become a successful financier.
The cherry orchard, in which the past and present intersect so intricately, is also associated with thoughts about the future.
Tomorrow, which, according to Chekhov, should be better than today, is personified in the play by Anya and Petya Trofimov. True, Petya, this thirty-year-old “eternal student”, is hardly capable of real deeds and actions; he only knows how to talk a lot and beautifully. Another thing is Anya. Realizing the beauty of the cherry orchard, she at the same time understands that the garden is doomed, just as her past slave life is doomed, just as the present, full of unspiritual practicality, is doomed. But in the future, Anya is sure, there must be a triumph of justice and beauty. In her words: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this,” there is not only a desire to console her mother, but also an attempt to imagine a new, future life. Inheriting Ranevskaya’s spiritual sensitivity and sensitivity to beauty, Anya is at the same time full of a sincere desire to change and remake life. She is focused on the future, ready to work and even sacrifice in its name; she dreams of a time when the whole way of life will change, when it will turn into a blooming garden, giving people joy and happiness.
How to arrange such a life? Chekhov does not give recipes for this. Yes, they cannot exist, because it is important that every person, having experienced dissatisfaction with what is, is fired up with a dream of beauty, so that he himself seeks the path to a new life.
“All of Russia is our garden” - these significant words are heard repeatedly in the play, turning the story of the ruin of the estate and the death of the garden into a capacious symbol. The play is full of thoughts about life, its values, real and imaginary, about the responsibility of each person for the world in which he lives and in which his descendants will live.
Chekhov gave his last play the subtitle “comedy.” But in the first production of the Moscow Art Theater, during the author’s lifetime, the play appeared as a heavy drama, even a tragedy. Who is right? It must be borne in mind that drama is a literary work designed for stage life. Only on stage will drama acquire a full-fledged existence, will reveal all the meanings inherent in it, including gaining genre definition, so the last word in answering the question posed will belong to the theater, directors and actors. At the same time, it is known that the innovative principles of Chekhov the playwright were perceived and assimilated by theaters with difficulty and not immediately.
Although the Moscow Art Theater, sanctified by the authority of Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko, the traditional interpretation of “The Cherry Orchard” as a dramatic elegy was entrenched in the practice of domestic theaters, Chekhov managed to express dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction with “his” theater with their interpretation.
“The Cherry Orchard” is the farewell of the now former owners to their ancestral noble nest. This topic was repeatedly raised in Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century, both tragically, dramatically, and comically. What are the features of Chekhov's embodiment of this theme?
In many ways, it is determined by Chekhov’s attitude towards the nobility, which is disappearing into social oblivion and the capital that is replacing it, which manifested itself in the images of Ranevskaya and Lopakhin. In both classes and their interaction, Chekhov saw the continuity of bearers of Russian culture. For Chekhov, the noble nest is, first of all, a center of culture. Of course, this is also a museum of serfdom, and this is mentioned in the play, but the playwright still sees the noble estate primarily as a historical place. Ranevskaya is his mistress, the soul of the house. That is why, despite all her frivolity and vices, people are drawn to her. The mistress returned, and the house came to life; the former inhabitants, who had apparently left it forever, began to flock into it.
Lopakhin matches her. This is a poetic nature, he has, as Petya Trofimov says, “thin, gentle fingers, like an artist... a subtle, gentle soul.” And in Ranevskaya he feels the same kindred spirit. The vulgarity of life comes at him from all sides, he acquires the features of a rakish merchant, begins to boast of his democratic origins and flaunt his lack of culture (and this was considered prestigious in the “advanced circles” of that time), but he is also waiting for Ranevskaya in order to cleanse himself and be reborn around her. This portrayal of a capitalist was based on real facts, because many Russian merchants and capitalists helped Russian art. Mamontov, Morozov, Zimin maintained theaters, the Tretyakov brothers founded an art gallery in Moscow, the merchant son Alekseev, who took the stage name Stanislavsky, brought to the Art Theater not only creative ideas, but also his father’s wealth, and quite a lot.
Lopakhin is exactly like that. That is why his marriage to Vara did not work out; they are not a match for each other: the subtle, poetic nature of a rich merchant and the down-to-earth, everyday, everyday adopted daughter of Ranevskaya, completely immersed in the everyday life of life. And now comes another socio-historical turning point in Russian life. The nobles are thrown out of life, their place is taken by the bourgeoisie. How do the owners of the cherry orchard behave? In theory, you need to save yourself and the garden. How? To be socially reborn, to also become a bourgeois, which is what Lopakhin proposes. But for Gaev and Ranevskaya this means changing themselves, their habits, tastes, ideals, and life values. And so they silently reject the offer and fearlessly go towards their social and life collapse.
In this regard, the figure of a minor character, Charlotte Ivanovna, carries deep meaning. At the beginning of the second act, she says about herself: “I don’t have a real passport, I don’t know how old I am... where I come from and who I am, I don’t know... Who are my parents, maybe they didn’t get married... not I know. I want to talk so much, but with whom... I don’t have anyone... I’m all alone, alone, I don’t have anyone and... and who I am, why I am, is unknown.” Charlotte personifies the future of Ranevskaya - all this will soon await the owner of the estate. But both of them, in different ways, of course, show amazing courage and even maintain good spirits in others, because for all the characters in the play, with the death of the cherry orchard, one life will end, and whether there will be another is unknown.
The former owners and their entourage (that is, Ranevskaya, Varya, Gaev, Pischik, Charlotte, Dunyasha, Firs) behave funny, and in the light of the social oblivion approaching them, stupid and unreasonable. They pretend that everything is going on as before, nothing has changed and will not change. This is deception, self-deception and mutual deception. But this is the only way they can resist the inevitability of inevitable fate. Lopakhin sincerely grieves, he does not see class enemies in Ranevskaya and even in Gaev, who bullies him, for him these are dear, dear people.
The universal, humanistic approach to man dominates in the play over the class-class approach. The struggle in Lopakhin’s soul is especially strong, as can be seen from his final monologue of the third act.
How are young people behaving at this time? Badly! Due to her young age, Anya has the most uncertain and at the same time rosy idea about the future awaiting her. She is delighted with Petya Trofimov’s chatter. The latter, although 26 or 27 years old, is considered young and seems to have turned his youth into a profession. There is no other way to explain his immaturity and, most surprisingly, the general recognition he enjoys. Ranevskaya cruelly but rightly scolded him, and in response he fell down the stairs. Only Anya believes his beautiful speeches, but her youth excuses her.
Much more than what he says, Petya characterizes his galoshes, “dirty, old.”
But for us, who know about the bloody social cataclysms that shook Russia in the 20th century and began literally immediately after the applause died down at the play’s premiere and its creator died, Petya’s words, his dreams of a new life, Anya’s desire to plant another garden - we are all this should lead to more serious conclusions about the essence of Petit’s image. Chekhov was always indifferent to politics; both the revolutionary movement and the fight against it passed him by. Stupid girl Anya believes these words. Other characters chuckle and sneer: this Petya is too much of a klutz to be afraid of. And it was not he who cut down the garden, but a merchant who wanted to build summer cottages on this site. Chekhov did not live to see the other dachas built in the vast expanses of his and our long-suffering homeland by the successors of Petya Trofimov’s work. Fortunately, most of the characters in “The Cherry Orchard” did not have to “live in this wonderful time.”
Chekhov is characterized by an objective manner of narration; in his prose the author’s voice is not heard. It is generally impossible to hear it in drama. And yet, is “The Cherry Orchard” a comedy, drama or tragedy? Knowing how much Chekhov did not like certainty and, therefore, the incompleteness of coverage of a life phenomenon with all its complexities, one should carefully answer: everything at once. The theater will have the last word on this issue.
Introduction
1. Problems of the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"
2. The embodiment of the past - Ranevskaya and Gaev
3. Exponent of the ideas of the present - Lopakhin
4. Heroes of the future - Petya and Anya
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov is a writer of powerful creative talent and unique subtle skill, manifested with equal brilliance both in his stories and in novels and plays.
Chekhov's plays constituted an entire era in Russian drama and theater and had an immeasurable influence on all their subsequent development.
Continuing and deepening the best traditions of the dramaturgy of critical realism, Chekhov strove to ensure that his plays were dominated by the truth of life, unvarnished, in all its commonness and everyday life.
Showing the natural course of everyday life of ordinary people, Chekhov bases his plots not on one, but on several organically related, intertwined conflicts. At the same time, the leading and unifying conflict is predominantly the conflict of the characters not with each other, but with the entire social environment surrounding them.
Problems of the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"
The play “The Cherry Orchard” occupies a special place in Chekhov’s work. Before her, he awakened the idea of the need to change reality, showing the hostility of people's living conditions, highlighting those features of his characters that doomed them to the position of a victim. In The Cherry Orchard, reality is depicted in its historical development. The topic of changing social structures is being widely developed. The noble estates with their parks and cherry orchards, with their unreasonable owners, are becoming a thing of the past. They are being replaced by business-like and practical people; they are the present of Russia, but not its future. Only the younger generation has the right to cleanse and change life. Hence the main idea of the play: the establishment of a new social force, opposing not only the nobility, but also the bourgeoisie and called upon to rebuild life on the principles of true humanity and justice.
Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” was written during the period of social upsurge of the masses in 1903. It reveals to us another page of his multifaceted creativity, reflecting the complex phenomena of that time. The play amazes us with its poetic power and drama, and is perceived by us as a sharp exposure of the social ills of society, an exposure of those people whose thoughts and actions are far from moral standards of behavior. The writer clearly shows deep psychological conflicts, helps the reader to see the reflection of events in the souls of the heroes, makes us think about the meaning of true love and true happiness. Chekhov easily takes us from our present to the distant past. Together with its heroes, we live next to the cherry orchard, see its beauty, clearly feel the problems of that time, together with the heroes we try to find answers to complex questions. It seems to me that the play “The Cherry Orchard” is a play about the past, present and future not only of its characters, but also of the country as a whole. The author shows the clash between representatives of the past, the present and the future inherent in this present. I think that Chekhov managed to show the justice of the inevitable departure from the historical arena of such seemingly harmless persons as the owners of the cherry orchard. So who are they, the garden owners? What connects their lives with his existence? Why is the cherry orchard so dear to them? Answering these questions, Chekhov reveals an important problem - the problem of passing life, its worthlessness and conservatism.
The very name of Chekhov's play sets one in a lyrical mood. In our minds, a bright and unique image of a blooming garden appears, personifying beauty and the desire for a better life. The main plot of the comedy is related to the sale of this ancient noble estate. This event largely determines the fate of its owners and inhabitants. Thinking about the fate of the heroes, you involuntarily think about more, about the ways of development of Russia: its past, present and future.
The embodiment of the past - Ranevskaya and Gaev
Exponent of the ideas of the present - Lopakhin
Heroes of the future - Petya and Anya
All this involuntarily leads us to the idea that the country needs completely different people who will accomplish different great things. And these other people are Petya and Anya.
Trofimov is a democrat by origin, habits and beliefs. Creating images of Trofimov, Chekhov expresses in this image such leading features as devotion to public causes, desire for a better future and propaganda of the fight for it, patriotism, integrity, courage, and hard work. Trofimov, despite his 26 or 27 years, has a lot of difficult life experience behind him. He has already been expelled from the university twice. He has no confidence that he will not be expelled a third time and that he will not remain an “eternal student.”
Experiencing hunger, poverty, and political persecution, he did not lose faith in a new life, which would be based on fair, humane laws and creative constructive work. Petya Trofimov sees the failure of the nobility, mired in idleness and inaction. He gives a largely correct assessment of the bourgeoisie, noting its progressive role in the economic development of the country, but denying it the role of creator and creator of new life. In general, his statements are distinguished by directness and sincerity. While treating Lopakhin with sympathy, he nevertheless compares him to a predatory beast, “which eats everything that gets in its way.” In his opinion, the Lopakhins are not capable of decisively changing life by building it on reasonable and fair principles. Petya causes deep thoughts in Lopakhin, who in his soul envies the conviction of this “shabby gentleman”, which he himself so lacks.
Trofimov's thoughts about the future are too vague and abstract. “We are heading uncontrollably towards the bright star that burns there in the distance!” - he says to Anya. Yes, his goal is wonderful. But how to achieve it? Where is the main force that can turn Russia into a blooming garden?
Some treat Petya with slight irony, others with undisguised love. In his speeches one can hear a direct condemnation of a dying life, a call for a new one: “I’ll get there. I’ll get there or show others the way to get there.” And he points. He points it out to Anya, whom he loves dearly, although he skillfully hides it, realizing that he is destined for a different path. He tells her: “If you have the keys to the farm, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free like the wind."
The klutz and “shabby gentleman” (as Varya ironically calls Trofimova) lacks Lopakhin’s strength and business acumen. He submits to life, stoically enduring its blows, but is not able to master it and become the master of his destiny. True, he captivated Anya with his democratic ideas, who expresses her readiness to follow him, firmly believing in the wonderful dream of a new blooming garden. But this young seventeen-year-old girl, who gained information about life mainly from books, is pure, naive and spontaneous, has not yet encountered reality.
Anya is full of hope and vitality, but she still has so much inexperience and childhood. In terms of character, she is in many ways close to her mother: she has a love for beautiful words and sensitive intonations. At the beginning of the play, Anya is carefree, quickly moving from concern to animation. She is practically helpless, she is used to living carefree, not thinking about her daily bread or tomorrow. But all this does not prevent Anya from breaking with her usual views and way of life. Its evolution is taking place before our eyes. Anya’s new views are still naive, but she says goodbye to the old home and the old world forever.
It is unknown whether she will have enough spiritual strength, perseverance and courage to complete the path of suffering, labor and hardship. Will she be able to maintain that ardent faith in the best, which makes her say goodbye to her old life without regret? Chekhov does not answer these questions. And this is natural. After all, we can only talk about the future speculatively.
Conclusion
The truth of life in all its consistency and completeness is what Chekhov was guided by when creating his images. That is why each character in his plays represents a living human character, attracting with great meaning and deep emotionality, convincing with its naturalness, the warmth of human feelings.
In terms of the strength of his direct emotional impact, Chekhov is perhaps the most outstanding playwright in the art of critical realism.
Chekhov's dramaturgy, responding to pressing issues of his time, addressing the everyday interests, experiences and worries of ordinary people, awakened the spirit of protest against inertia and routine, and called for social activity to improve life. Therefore, she has always had a huge influence on readers and viewers. The significance of Chekhov's drama has long gone beyond the borders of our homeland; it has become global. Chekhov's dramatic innovation is widely recognized outside the borders of our great homeland. I am proud that Anton Pavlovich is a Russian writer, and no matter how different the masters of culture may be, they probably all agree that Chekhov, with his works, prepared the world for a better life, more beautiful, more just, more reasonable.
If Chekhov looked with hope into the 20th century, which was just beginning, then we live in the new 21st century, still dreaming about our cherry orchard and about those who will grow it. Flowering trees cannot grow without roots. And the roots are the past and the present. Therefore, for a wonderful dream to come true, the younger generation must combine high culture, education with practical knowledge of reality, will, perseverance, hard work, humane goals, that is, embody the best features of Chekhov's heroes.
Bibliography
1. History of Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century / ed. prof. N.I. Kravtsova. Publisher: Prosveshchenie - Moscow 1966.
2. Exam questions and answers. Literature. 9th and 11th grades. Tutorial. – M.: AST – PRESS, 2000.
3. A. A. Egorova. How to write an essay with a "5". Tutorial. Rostov-on-Don, “Phoenix”, 2001.
4. Chekhov A.P. Stories. Plays. – M.: Olimp; LLC "Firm" Publishing house AST, 1998.
