Live like a lord: who will save the destroyed noble nests. Who will save the destroyed noble nests

Fiction that’s why it’s called artistic,
that depicts life as it really is.
Its purpose is unconditional and honest.”
A.P. Chekhov

After the play “Three Sisters,” which was somewhat tragic, Chekhov conceived new play. On March 7, 1901, in a letter to O.L. Knipper he admits: “The next play I write will definitely be funny, very funny, at least in concept.”.

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

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

Work on the play “The Cherry Orchard” required A.P. Chekhov great effort. “I write four lines a day, and those with unbearable torment”, he told his friends. However, overcoming illness and everyday disorder, Chekhov created a “great play.”

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

The writer was seriously ill, but still came to the premiere. The audience did not expect to see him and his appearance caused thunderous applause. All artistic and literary Moscow gathered in the hall. Among the spectators were Andrei Bely, Valery Bryusov, Maxi Gorky, Sergei Rachmaninov, Fyodor Chaliapin and others.

Identifying the genre

Chekhov called The Cherry Orchard a comedy: “What I came out with was not a drama, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce.”(from a letter to M.P. Alekseeva). “The whole play is cheerful and frivolous”(from a letter from O.L. Knipper).

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

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

There are critics who consider the play a tragicomedy. A.I. Revyakin writes: “To recognize The Cherry Orchard as a drama means to recognize the experiences of the owners of the cherry orchard, the Gaevs and Ranevskys, as truly dramatic, capable of evoking deep sympathy and compassion of people looking not back, but forward, to the future. But this could not and did not happen in the play... The play “The Cherry Orchard” cannot be recognized as a tragicomedy. For this, it lacks neither tragicomic heroes nor tragicomic situations.”.

Conclusion

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

One of Chekhov's letters contains the following lines:

“After summer there must be winter, after youth there must be old age, after happiness there must be unhappiness and vice versa; a person cannot be healthy and cheerful all his life, losses are always expected of him, he cannot protect himself from death, even if he was Alexander the Great - and one must be prepared for everything and treat everything as inevitably necessary, no matter how sad it is. You just need to fulfill your duty to the best of your ability - and nothing more.”. These thoughts are consonant with the feelings that the play “The Cherry Orchard” evokes.

Conflict and problems of the play

Question

What kind of “unconditional and honest” truth could Chekhov see in late XIX centuries?

Answer

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

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

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

The characters in Chekhov's play are essentially inactive. Dynamic tension “is created by the painful imperfection” of actions and actions.

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

Literature

1. D.N. Murin. Russian literature second half of the 19th century century. Methodical recommendations in the form of lesson planning. 10th grade. M.: SMIO Press, 2002.

2. E.S. Rogover. Russian literature XIX century. M.: Saga; Forum, 2004.

3. Encyclopedia for children. T. 9. Russian literature. Part I. From epics and chronicles to classics of the 19th century century. M.: Avanta+, 1999.

A.P. Chekhov more than once approached the topic of the collapse of noble nests in his works. The author writes about the impending death of the noble nests in the stories “In the Estate”, “Someone else’s Trouble”, “In the Native Corner”, “With Friends”, etc.

In the play “The Cherry Orchard,” Chekhov seems to generalize the theme of the death of noble nests and sums up his thoughts about the fate of the nobility.

Before us is a typical noble estate, surrounded by an old cherry orchard. “What an amazing garden! White masses of flowers, blue sky!..” - says the heroine of the play Ranevskaya enthusiastically.

The noble nest survives last days. The property was not only mortgaged, but also remortgaged. Soon, in case of non-payment of interest, it will go under the hammer. What are its owners doing to save the estate? And what exactly are these last owners of the cherry orchard, living more in the past than in the present?

In the past, this was a rich noble family that traveled to Paris on horseback and at whose balls generals, barons, and admirals danced. Ranevskaya had a dacha even in the south of France in Meton.

The past now stands before Lyubov Andreevna in the form of a blooming cherry orchard, which must be sold for debts.

Lopakhin offers the estate owners the surest way to save the estate: break it up cherry orchard to plots and rent them out as dachas. But from the point of view of lordly concepts, this means seems unacceptable, offensive to honor and family traditions. It also contradicts noble ethics. “The dacha and summer residents are so vulgar, sorry,” Ranevskaya lordly and arrogantly declares to Lopakhin. The poetry of the cherry orchard and its noble past obscure life and the demands of practical calculation from the owners of the estate.

Lack of will, inadaptability, romantic enthusiasm, mental instability, and inability to live characterize Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. The personal life of this heroine was unsuccessful. Having lost her husband and son, she settled abroad and spends her money on a man who deceived and robbed her.

At first glance, Ranevskaya’s character has many good traits. She is charming, loves nature and music. According to others, she is a “kind, nice” woman, simple and spontaneous.

She is trusting and sincere to the point of enthusiasm. But there is no depth in her emotional experiences, her moods are fleeting, she is sentimental and easily moves from tears to carefree laughter. She seems to be sensitive and attentive to people. And yet, what spiritual emptiness is hidden behind this external complacency, what indifference and indifference to everything that goes beyond the boundaries of the cherry orchard and her personal well-being.

Ranevskaya is essentially selfish and indifferent to people. While her house servant “has nothing to eat,” Ranevskaya wastes money left and right and even throws a ball that no one needs.

Her life is empty and aimless, although she talks a lot about her tender love for people, for the cherry orchard.

The same as Ranevskaya, weak-willed, worthless in life. Her brother Gaev is also human. He lived his whole life on the estate, doing nothing. He himself admits that he spent his fortune on candy. His only occupation is billiards. He is completely immersed in thoughts about various combinations billiard moves.

In contrast to his sister, Gaev is somewhat rude. The lordly arrogance towards others can be heard in his words “who?”, “boor”.

Both Ranevskaya and Gaev are people who are accustomed to living carelessly, without working, they cannot even comprehend the tragedy of their situation. They have no future. These are the last representatives of the degenerating nobility.

Another significant figure for understanding the problem of the death of noble nests is the servant Firs. A product of the serf era, he lives with memories of a happy past. He is full of worries about his master and looks after him like a small child. “They wore the wrong trousers again. And what should I do with you? - he turns to fifty-year-old Gaev.

The fact that Firs found himself in a boarded-up house and essentially doomed to death is a symbolic episode in the play. His death coincides with the death of the cherry orchard and marks the end of the era of noble nests.

A.P. Chekhov. “The Cherry Orchard”: history of creation, genre, heroes. The destruction of the noble nest.
You can start the lesson with the teacher telling you about the history of the play.

After the play “Three Sisters,” which was somewhat tragic, Chekhov conceived a new play. On March 7, 1901, in a letter to O. L. Knipper, he admits: “The next play I write will certainly be funny, very funny, at least in concept.”

“He imagined,” Stanislavsky recalls, “an open window with a branch of white cherry blossoms climbing from the garden into the room. Artyom had already become a footman, and then, out of the blue, a manager. His master, and sometimes it seemed to him that it was his mistress, is always without money, and in critical moments she turns for help to her lackey or manager, who has quite a lot of money saved up from somewhere.”

In a letter to Stanislavsky dated February 5, 1903, we read: “It’s already ready in my head. It's called "The Cherry Orchard", four acts, in the first act you can see through the window cherry blossoms, a solid white garden. And ladies in white dresses. In a word, Vishnevsky will laugh a lot - and, of course, no one knows for what reason.”

Speaking about the history of the play, three points should be emphasized:

This is the writer’s last play, so it contains his most intimate thoughts about life, about the fate of the Motherland;

Chekhov insisted that this was a comedy, warned that both the role of Varya and the role of Lopakhin were comic;

For Chekhov, the garden is associated with joy, beauty, work, the future, but not with sadness about the past. In a letter from 1889, he writes: “The weather is wonderful. Everything sings, blooms, sparkles with beauty. The garden is already completely green, even the oak trees have blossomed. The trunks of apple, pear, cherry and plum trees are painted to prevent worms white paint, all these trees bloom white, making them strikingly similar to brides during their wedding.”

Questions for discussion

1. How to determine the genre of a play? Comedy? Drama? Tragicomedy?

a) Chekhov called “The Cherry Orchard” a comedy: “What came out of me was not a drama, but a comedy, in some places even a farce” (from a letter to M.P. Alekseeva). “The whole play is cheerful and frivolous” (from a letter from O. L. Knipper).

b) The theater staged it as a difficult drama of Russian life. “This is not a comedy, this is a tragedy... I cried like a woman...” (K. S. Stanislavsky).

c) There are opinions that consider the play a tragicomedy. A. I. Revyakin writes: “To recognize The Cherry Orchard as a drama means to recognize the experiences of the owners of the cherry orchard, the Gaevs and Ranevskys, as truly dramatic, capable of evoking deep sympathy and compassion of people looking not back, but forward, into the future. But this could not and did not happen in the play... The play “The Cherry Orchard” cannot be recognized as a tragicomedy. For this, it lacks tragicomic heroes or tragicomic situations.” This is a lyrical comedy. Lyricism is confirmed by the active presence of the author. And comedy is non-dramatic goodies, Lopakhin’s lack of drama, the comic nature of the garden owners and almost all the minor characters.

3. What is comical about the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev? What makes them so dramatic? Who is to blame for the drama of their lives?

4. Prove that minor characters are also comical (Yasha, Dunyasha, Charlotte, Simeonov-Pishchik, Epikhodov).

5. Describe the conflict and issues of the play.

6. “Fiction is called fiction because it depicts life as it really is. Its purpose is truly unconditional and honest,” wrote Chekhov. What kind of “unconditional and honest” truth could Chekhov see at the end of the 19th century? (Destruction of noble estates, their transfer into the hands of capitalists.)

7. How is the theme of the withering of noble nests shown in “The Cherry Orchard”? What does Firs represent? And Yasha?

8. How does Chekhov show the impoverishment of the nobility? Why do Gaev and Ranevskaya refuse Lopakhin’s offer?

9. How is the image of Lopakhin interpreted? Why doesn't Gaev like him?

10. What role does the auction play in the play? Why is he taken off stage?

11. There is a struggle for the garden: the rich man Deriganov is going to buy it, Ranevskaya and Gaev send Anya to her grandmother for money, Lopakhin is thinking about possible participation. Is this the main thing in the play?

12. What is the main thing? (Relations between people, different social classes, but without hostility and irreconcilable struggle.)

To explore the system of images and characters in the play, you can use group work.

Group 1. Local nobility(Gaev, Ranevskaya, Simeonov-Pishchik), old owners of the cherry orchard.

Find the positive and negative in the images of the local nobility. (Kindness, simplicity, honesty, sympathy for people, spontaneity, love for nature, for one’s “nest”, for music and superficiality of experiences, inability to protect the property dear to them, inability to work, disorderly kindness, selfishness. These are not bad people, but the author exposes them.)

Tell us about Ranevskaya. Compare how Lopakhin and Trofimov talk about it. How is her attitude towards Varya, towards Anya, towards the servants, towards Lopakhin, Trofimov? How does her refusal of Lopakhin’s proposal characterize her? How can you evaluate the kindness of Ranevskaya?

How to understand Chekhov’s words: “It’s not difficult to play Ranevskaya, you just need to take the right tone from the very beginning; you need to come up with a smile and a way to laugh, you need to know how to dress”?

Work on the image of Ranevskaya should be carried out according to the text in two plans. Outer line: charming woman, simple, spontaneous. But in the external (event) line there is also more than one plan (for example, he loves Anya, cries for his dead son, but leaves 12-year-old Anya for 5 years with his unlucky brother; hugs Firs, kisses Dunyasha, but does not think about what is in the house there is nothing to eat, etc.). The internal (author's) line arises when comparing remarks, in the contrast between speech and actions. For example:

“Love Andreevna. The locker is my own. (Kisses the closet.) The table is mine.

G aev. And without you, the nanny died here.

Lyubov Andreevna. (Sits down and drinks coffee.) Yes, the kingdom of heaven. They wrote to me."

When announcing the death of the nanny, Ranevskaya drinks coffee, and Gaev sucks lollipops.

What does Ranevskaya consider to be her sins and are they sins? What are her real sins? Who is to blame for Ranevskaya’s fate? Was there a choice?

Tell us about Gaev. How is he similar to Ranevskaya? What are you interested in? Compare their monologues in front of the closet. How do they characterize them?

Why did they all calm down after the sale of the cherry orchard?

What is close to the owners of the cherry orchard Simeonov-Pishchik?

Conclusions. The landed nobility is the embodiment of the world of the noble nest, for which time has stood still. The drama is in their vulnerability and simplicity. Comedy lies in the contrast of speech and actions. A life lived in vain, a future without hope, a life in debt, “at someone else’s expense.” “Selfish, like children, and flabby, like old people,” Gorky will say about them.

Group 2.“Parallels” to the owners: Yasha and Firs.

Questions and tasks for observations

What does Firs represent? (Firs - a serf background, selfless devotion to the master. “Then I did not agree to freedom, I stayed with the masters... And I remember, everyone is happy, but what they are happy about, they themselves don’t know.”)

Find the semantic subtext in Firs's last monologue. (Firs’s last monologue has two lines of meaning: “life has passed” and “klutz.” These thoughts are also about the owners.)

How is Yash different from Firs? How does he treat others? (Yasha is a servant of the new generation, arrogant (attitude towards his mother, towards Dunyasha, towards the Motherland).)

Group 3. Lopakhin is the bourgeoisie, replacing the nobility.

Questions and tasks for observations

Chekhov wrote to Stanislavsky: “Lopakhin, it’s true, is a merchant, but a decent person in every sense, he should behave quite decently, intelligently, without tricks.” What features of Lopakhin are attractive?

Why does Petya talk about him? beast of prey" And " gentle soul"? How to understand this? What are its contradictions? What quality will win in it?

Why doesn't Lopakhin propose to Varya? Why does he more than once call life “stupid”, “awkward”?

What future of Russia is he talking about?

What is unique about Lopakhin’s speech?

Conclusions. The meaning of Lopakhin’s character is the change of “masters of life.” The complexity and inconsistency of character speak of temporality. It exposes bourgeois practicality, but affirms hard work. Lopakhin's remarks contain judgments that are not typical of his image. Most likely, thoughts about the Motherland, about the awkward, unhappy life- this is the voice of the author himself.

Group 4.“Young Generation”: Petya and Anya.

Questions and tasks for observations

What is the role of these characters in the play? Does the author draw them the same way?

Why is Petya shown ironically? Why does his image decrease by combining diverse replicas?

Compare Lopakhin and Petya. Why does one work and the other speak?

In what ways is Petya’s image similar to Gaev’s?

What place does Anya occupy in the play? Why did Chekhov think that Anya should speak in a “young, ringing voice”?

Why are Anya’s lines at the end of each act?

- Individual task. Trace what role the image of time plays in the play. Why does Chekhov constantly remind the viewer of time throughout the play? Support your thoughts with quotes.

Conclusions. The future that Petya and Anya see is a romantic future. The inconsistency of the image of Petya, the irony of the author speaks of his uncertainty that people like Petya will be able to make the future wonderful. The embodiment of the writer's faith in the future is Anya. The author depicts the purity, spontaneity, and integrity of her character.

Summary of lessons. Genre originality, the character system helps you understand main conflict plays - between a person and time, which inexorably throws back those who cannot live in the present and do not think about the future.

Lesson 164. “Rus', where are you going, give me the answer?” 1

The symbol of the garden in the comedy “The Cherry Orchard”. Preparing for your home essay.
The title of the play should be perceived in two ways: specifically (the garden of a noble estate) and generally (a symbol of the Motherland, its natural poetic beauty). The comedy is based on the fate of the cherry orchard, everything is connected with it.

Questions and tasks for observations

1. How does the image of the cherry orchard permeate all the actions of the play? I action: “Your cherry orchard is being sold for debts”; Act II: “The cherry orchard will be sold on August 22”; Act III: “Come everyone to watch Ermolai Lopakhin take an ax to the cherry orchard”; Act IV: “In the distance they are knocking on a tree with an ax.”

3. Find descriptions of the cherry orchard in the author’s stage directions. What mood do they create? How is it changing? Decoration Act I: “Dawn, soon the sun will rise. It’s already May, the cherry trees are blooming, but it’s cold in the garden, it’s morning.” Decoration Act II: “To the side, towering, the poplars darken: there the cherry orchard begins... The sun will set soon.” Decoration Act IV: “You can hear an ax knocking on a tree.” In the finale: “It’s getting quiet. In the midst of the silence, the dull knock of an ax on wood is heard, sounding lonely and sad.” “Silence falls, and you can only hear how far away in the garden an ax is knocking on a tree.”

4. How are the characters in the play related to the image of the cherry orchard? Support your positions with text.

R a nevskaya, G aev: the garden is the past, childhood, but also a sign of well-being, pride, a memory of happiness.

R anevskaya: “If there is anything interesting, even wonderful, in the entire province, it is only our cherry orchard.”

G aev: “And in” Encyclopedic Dictionary“This garden is mentioned”, etc.

F i r s: garden - lordly well-being. “In the old days, about forty to fifty years ago, cherries were dried, soaked, pickled, jam was made... There was money!”

L o pakhin: the garden is a memory of the past, grandfather and father were serfs; hopes for the future - cut down, divide into plots, rent out. A garden is a source of wealth, a source of pride. Lopakhin: “If the cherry orchard... is then rented out as dachas, then you will have at least twenty-five thousand a year in income.” “Cherry trees are born once every two years, and no one buys even that,” etc.

Trofimov: the cherry orchard symbolizes the serfdom past. “Aren’t human beings looking at you from every leaf, from every trunk...” “All of Russia is our garden” is his dream of a transformed homeland, but it is not clear by whose efforts this will be done.

A n I: a garden is a symbol of childhood, a garden is a home, but you have to part with childhood. “Why don’t I love the cherry orchard as much as I used to?” Garden - hopes for the future. “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this.”

5. What's it like author's attitude to the garden? (For the author, the garden embodies love for native nature; bitterness because they cannot preserve its beauty and wealth; the author’s idea about a person who can change lives is important; the garden is a symbol of a lyrical, poetic attitude towards the Motherland). In the author's remarks: “beautiful garden”, “wide open space”, the sound of a broken string, the sound of an ax. Chekhov: “In the second act you will give me a real green field and a road and a distance unusual for the stage.” “The sound... should be shorter and felt very far away.”

6. Individual task. Simultaneously with the play “The Cherry Orchard”, the story “The Bride” was written, which was close to it in its main content. There is also a May garden. Compare the image of the garden in the play and in the story “The Bride”. How is the image of Anya similar to the image of the heroine of the story?

Conclusions. The garden is a symbol of the Motherland, its past and future. The past is the childhood and happiness of Ranevskaya, Gaev, Ani; this is their pride from owning a beautiful estate, a “noble nest”; this is a symbol of serfdom for Petya and Lopakhin. The future is the construction of dachas, so that grandchildren and great-grandchildren, according to Lopakhin, will see here new life; this is the hope for better life for Anya: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this.”

What future awaits Russia? Chekhov leaves this Gogolian question open.

Lesson summary. The play “The Cherry Orchard” is a play about Russia, about its fate. Russia at a crossroads - an auction in the play. Who will be the owner of the country? Chekhov worries about his country, the play is his testament, but at the same time he understands that he needs to break the old, leave it.

For homework, schoolchildren can be given problematic questions to help them prepare for the Unified State Exam.

Lesson 165. "A hopeless sigh of compassion for people" 1

The originality of Chekhov's style.
The secret of Chekhov's mastery, the mystery of the impact on the reader has not yet been fully solved. But one thing is clear: Chekhov - unusual writer. Bunin said about him this way: “In addition to his artistic talent, what is amazing in all these stories is his knowledge of life, his deep penetration into human soul" And M. Gorky noted: “You are doing a huge job with your little stories, arousing in people disgust for this very half-dead life.”

The lesson can be conducted in the form of a workshop. In the stories indicated by the teacher, it is necessary to find the features of Chekhov’s writing style.

Grade: 11th grade

Subject: literature

Lesson topic: Peculiarities of Chekhov's dramaturgy

Objectives of the lesson: to talk about Chekhov the playwright, to give an idea of ​​some of the features of Chekhov’s dramaturgy: to identify the initial impression of the play “The Cherry Orchard.”

Lesson progress

1. Teacher's opening speech.

Story - basic literary genre Chekhov. In numerous stories, the writer managed to reflect the complexity of life in the “timeless era”, with its oppression of vulgarity and philistinism, and the typical moods of representatives of the intelligentsia.

In parallel with short stories and stories, Chekhov worked on dramas. The dramatic form made it possible to talk about the fate of several characters over the course of several acts and show a multifaceted picture of life. Main thesis Chekhov: “Let everything on stage be as complicated and at the same time as simple as in life. People are having lunch, and at this time their happiness is changing and their lives are being broken.”

The play “Ivanov” (1887) and the comedy “Leshy” (1889) caused controversy when they first appeared in the theater. On stage there are just people who are stressed out, disappointed in life. “...I’m tired, I don’t believe it, I spend my days and nights in idleness. Neither the brain, nor the arms, nor the legs obey”, “Where does this weakness come from in me, what happened to my nerves” - this is what Ivanov says about himself.

Critics consider the following to be Chekhov's best dramas: “The Seagull” (1896), “Uncle Vanya” (1897), “Three Sisters” (1901), “The Cherry Orchard” (1903). The main theme is the depiction of the fate of the provincial intelligentsia, deprived of any interesting life prospects.

1. Explanation of new material.

MAIN FEATURES OF INNOVATION OF CHEKHOV'S DRAMATURGY

There is no division into major and minor characters: there is no division of the act into phenomena, an “undercurrent”, i.e. the presence of text and subtext as two levels of reality: everyday, concrete, clear and spiritual, deep hidden. The interaction of text and subtext creates a feeling of undercurrent, a sense of duality human existence. A muted conflict is built on this. Dialogues and monologues are associated with this. Heroes often “don’t hear each other.” Allegories and omissions are “present” in the conversations of the heroes.

1. Work on the content of the play “The Cherry Orchard” (1903).

Staged at the Moscow Art Theater in the same year. Finding out the initial impression of the play and the characters.

1. Reading by roles of Act I.

Homework.

Prepare a report “A.P. Chekhov and the Moscow Art Theater"

MBOU Terlig-Khainskaya secondary school MR "Kyzyl kozhuun" RT

Teacher: Ondar Urana Anatolyevna

Grade: 11th grade

Subject: literature

Lesson topic: “The Cherry Orchard”: history of creation, genre, system of images. The destruction of the noble nest.

Lesson objectives: to deepen students’ understanding of Chekhov’s play; consider the main conflict, principles of grouping of characters, genre and compositional originality.

Lesson progress

1. Teacher's opening speech.

"The Cherry Orchard" - the final play by A.P. Chekhov, a play about the homeland, about the real and imaginary owners of the Russian land, about the imminent renewal of Russia.

About the plot.

The plot is based on the sale of a noble estate; the playwright told in the play about the fate of three social groups: the nobility. bourgeoisie and intelligentsia.

About the composition.

The composition of the play is interesting:

1. The first act is hope for saving the estate. Lyrical memories, tender meetings.

2. The second act is nervousness, sobering up. Trading is approaching.

3. The third act - the heroes are in confusion, waiting for fate to decide. The premonitions are justified - the cherry orchard was sold for debts.

4. The fourth act is parting with the past, departure, farewell.

II. Explanation of new material.

1. ORIGINALITY OF THE CONFLICT.

External, everyday conflict - the struggle for the cherry orchard; Internal conflict- dissatisfaction with life for all characters, a feeling of imminent death.

1. PRINCIPLES OF GROUPING CHARACTERS.

There are fourteen main characters in The Cherry Orchard; in addition, there are heroes who do not appear on stage, but we learn about their existence.

The author identifies three ideological and compositional centers (around which the characters of the play are grouped): the past is connected with Ranevskaya and Gaev, the present - with the merchant Lopakhin, the future - with the young heroes Petya Trofimov and Anya Ranevskaya.

Homework.

Answer the question: 1. “Stages of development of the main conflict.”

1. “What place does the cherry orchard belong to in the system of images of the play?”

Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich!

We, citizens of Russia, residents of the city of Orel, strongly protest against the construction of a high-rise building on historical territory“The Noble Nest” - the reserved land of our city! We consider such construction a treacherous seizure of part of our small Motherland irresponsible and unscrupulous regional officials with the connivance of city authorities. We regard the destruction of a green square with centuries-old trees for this development as real barbarity. We consider all attempts to justify such construction in a reserved corner of the city with good goals to be blasphemous, and we consider the clash of the interests of children's healthcare with the patriotic feelings of Russian citizens to be gross and immoral moral blackmail aimed at splitting the city's population.

Since no one other than the current governor of the Oryol region initiated the seizure of such a dear place for construction, and these plans were not discussed with anyone, were not announced in the press and there were no public hearings on them, we believe that the demolition of the historical park and the beginning of construction, only he alone can and should bear responsibility.

From the very beginning of the brutal “clearing of the territory” for construction, the city public and a number of Oryol and regional media openly spoke out against this project. On August 26, a protest action was held in defense of “Dvorianka”, which was covered in the press, the Internet and on television by independent reporters and was completely ignored by the “tame” media of the city and region, some of which hastily erased the material they had already prepared about the picket. The picket participants sent a letter to the President of the Russian Federation, signed by 23 Russian citizens, to which only a response was received from the Presidential Administration confirming the fact of its receipt and registration. The head of the regional Department of Culture, A. Yu. Egorova, who received the letter from the picket participants to the President of Russia, considered it unworthy to answer it herself and entrusted this to her deputy. As a result, we have a three-page reply “from you”, which not only does not answer the essence of the issue, but also contains false statements, and only lack of faith in our justice stops us from going to court. Even earlier, on August 31, 2012, a letter was sent to your name, dear Vladimir Vladimirovich (copies to the ministers of culture, health and the chairman of VOOPIiK), written by I. S. Belyaeva - on behalf and on behalf of the citizens of the city of Orel, in which touched upon the most serious problems for all of us arising from this absolutely thoughtless construction. In addition to the question of the cultural value of this place, it spoke of gross violations of construction standards, the rights of citizens living nearby, and the lack of conditions for the infrastructural development of the launched project. The project of the paraclinical building itself was also criticized by specialists who saw it from the inside.

This appeal received several formal responses from all the mentioned, as well as lower authorities, including standard replies from local officials, saying that “everything has been agreed upon, signed at all levels” and that the work is supposedly “being carried out under public control.” Despite the complete or partial copying of these texts by officials from each other, fundamental differences in their assessment of the legality of the construction that began are immediately striking, which only convince us that the law was still violated.

October 16 p.m. A letter was sent to the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Medinsky, signed by famous cultural figures, engineers, publishers, designers, local historians and workers of museums in Moscow, Orel, Belgorod, Tambov, Penza, Stavropol, Bolkhov... We are still waiting for a response to this letter, although even there was no signal of its receipt and registration, and the only telephone number listed on the official website of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation gives the impression of being disconnected.

All this time, the main initiator of the destruction of the protected corner of the city of Oryol has been pointedly keeping silent, and the capital company he hired is only increasing the pace of construction, showing what the opinion of citizens really means to the authorities. At the same time, the governor demonstrated his attitude to what was happening around the problem he created by publicly insulting Oryol residents with a disparaging remark about the “Noble Nest”, which he casually threw out in his interview for Radio Russia - Orel on 08/15/2012 and later cleared from the transcript in his official blog.

The city authorities of both branches also do not react to what is happening and do not take the proper position on such a pressing issue. At meetings of the city and regional Councils of People's Deputies, not once during the period of destruction of the protected area was the issue of it even put on the agenda. The official media have “closed themselves” to this topic. The governor hastily established a special structure, which, on his orders, will improve the image of Orel, although it was precisely thanks to its crude introduction into the historical appearance of the city that this image began to rapidly deteriorate. Despite this, in-depth and professionally written materials on the topic of attitudes towards historical and cultural monuments in Orel are regularly published in the region; they are reprinted by newspapers in other regions, and coverage of this topic on the Internet is expanding every day.

Summarizing all that has been said, we can conclude that the local authorities are simply testing the patience of indignant citizens, as if pushing them to the least civilized protest actions, even going beyond the law. And the latest initiatives of the City Council of People's Deputies, aimed at a complete revision of the state register of architectural monuments and the gradual liquidation of one of the oldest city parks in Russia, completely expose their irresponsible desire to deprive Orel of its identity in order to please the ideas of the visiting governor to transform the homeland of Turgenev, Bunin and Leskov in one continuous residential area with McDonald's, kebab shops, dry cleaners and shopping and entertainment centers.

This whole immoral and immoral “conspiracy of silence”, boycott public opinion from the outside local authorities It looks even more cynical because it is happening against the backdrop of demagogic conversations about preparations for the 450th anniversary of the ancient Russian city, about the upcoming “round dances and fairs,” poetry festivals, “competitions of Turgenev’s girls” and other “cultural events.” We have exhausted all legal means to “reach out to heaven,” and only the deafness of the authorities at all its levels forces us to break through the information blockade organized by them with this open letter to you.

If the already started project is implemented, the process of disappearance of the “Noble Nest” as a single and integral historical, architectural and natural complex will become irreversible. All projects to create a museum zone in this historical place, hotly discussed in recent years and in the wake of the latest protests, those that appeared again will turn out to be empty Manilovism, and the people who invested their talent, soul and part of their lives in them will simply be deceived. Despite the infill development that is disfiguring our architecturally established city, there is still enough space in Orel for the construction of any objects of social significance outside the museum zone. In addition, right opposite the construction that began for several years now, there has been a half-empty, huge 4-story building of a “laboratory building”, erected by a commercial institute during the period of the notorious “university boom”; next to the children's hospital there is a new empty five-story building that does not belong to anyone, and nearby there is a huge building of the long-dead Prodmash plant... However, the local authorities are not able to quickly transfer all these areas for the needs of the children's clinic, repurposing them for the purposes needed by society enough either ingenuity, or administrative resources, or in the decision taken“build at any cost” has a notorious corruption component.

In the clash of the interests of regional healthcare with the constitutional rights of all citizens and peoples of the Russian Federation to preserve and access the historical and cultural heritage, we see complete administrative failure and lack of professionalism of the regional authorities, for which they should finally bear responsibility. No one doubts the need for socially important facilities, but there is more than one, and quite real, possibility of placing them in another place, including, given the compactness of the city of Orel, and outside the city, where their construction would have environmental benefits and would not pose a threat to historical and cultural heritage.

The city of Orel is known primarily as a literary mecca with a rich cultural history, and the “Noble Nest”, glorified throughout the world by the great Turgenev, occupies a special place here. It should not be destroyed by a visiting governor who, by his own public admission, had not even heard of “The Noblewoman”! In less than four years of his reign, this official did nothing to preserve and maintain our historical heritage, and it’s not for him to decide his fate!

Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich! We demand the immediate cessation of ongoing construction, the restoration of the destroyed park at the children's hospital, the strictest state verification of the legality of this construction, the punishment of all those responsible for the current situation and guarantees that in the future no one will be allowed to trample on Russian cultural heritage and our historical pride.

With respect and hope for your surgical intervention,
citizens of the Russian
Federation, residents of Orel.
(About 300 signatures in total).