Slide 2
Who are they, the new masters of life?
Slide 3
“Finished with past settlement!”
“...This same Ermolai bought an estate, the most beautiful of which is nothing in the world. I bought an estate where my grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen.” -Read the monologue to the end. How did the acquirer Lopakhin appear to you? -How does this acquisition of Lopakhin differ from previous purchases?
Slide 4
Knight of Capital “I can pay for everything!”
...A little man... 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 row... Just now he's rich, there's a lot of money, but if you think about it and figure it out, then he's a man... (He flips through the book.) I read the book and didn't understand anything. I read and fell asleep.
Slide 5
Lopakhin. You know, I get up at five o’clock in the morning, work from morning to evening, well, I always have my own money and other people’s, and I see what kind of people are around me. You just have to start doing something to understand how few honest, decent people there are. Sometimes, when I can’t sleep, I think: “Lord, you gave us huge forests, vast fields, the deepest horizons, and living here, we ourselves should really be giants...” Comment on Lopakhin’s monologue Extraordinary Chekhov's hero
Slide 6
-What does Lopakhin’s new life look like?
Hey musicians, play, I want to listen to you! Come and watch how Ermolai Lopakhin takes an ax to the cherry orchard and how the trees fall to the ground! We will set up dachas, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see a new life here... Music, play!
Slide 7
“Tender soul” or “predatory beast”?
Trofimov. I, Ermolai Alekseich, understand this: you are a rich man, you will soon be a millionaire. This is how you need it in terms of metabolism beast of prey who eats everything that gets in his way, so you are needed. -So who is more useful: Ranevskaya or Lopakhin?
Slide 8
Why, why didn’t you listen to me? My poor, good one, you won’t get it back now. (With tears.) Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change. -What can you say about Lopakhin the man? -Remember its other advantages, noble deeds and gestures. Which beginning wins in Lopakhino?
Slide 9
Who is right in the dispute about the garden: Ranevskaya or Lopakhin?
Lopakhin. (Looking at his watch.) Your estate is located only twenty miles from the city, near the railway, and if cherry orchard and divide the land along the river into dacha plots and then rent them out as dachas, then you will have at least twenty-five thousand a year in income. . But, of course, we need to clean it up, clean it up... for example, say, demolish all the old buildings, this house, which is no longer good for anything, cut down the old cherry orchard... Lyubov Andreevna. Cut it down? My dear,...if there is anything...wonderful in the whole province, it is only our cherry orchard. Lopakhin. The only remarkable thing about this garden is that it is very large. Cherries are born once every two years, and there’s nowhere to put them, no one buys them. Gaev. And in " Encyclopedic Dictionary"This garden is mentioned.
Slide 10
Russia of the future
Slide 11
“The Eternal Student” Petya Trofimov
To bypass those small and illusory things that prevent us from being free and happy, this is the goal and meaning of our life. Forward! We are moving uncontrollably towards the bright star that is burning there in the distance! Forward! Don't lag behind, friends!
Slide 12
I have a presentiment of happiness!..
“If you have the keys to the farm, then throw them into the well and leave! Be free like the wind." The romantic plan of the play, but also the ironic one, is grouped around Trofimov. Prove it! What contradictions do you find in Petit’s calls and actions?
Slide 13
“That youth can be recognized as healthy, which does not put up with the old orders and fights against them stupidly or intelligently - this is what nature wants and progress is based on this.” A.P.Chekhov Anya. 17 years old
Lopakhin, as stated in the author's remark at the beginning of the play, is a merchant. His father was a serf of Ranevskaya’s father and grandfather, and traded in a shop in the village. Now Lopakhin has become rich, but he says with irony about himself that he remains “a man, a man”: “My dad was a man, an idiot, he didn’t understand anything, he didn’t teach me, he only beat me when he was drunk... In essence, I’m just such a fool and idiot. I haven’t studied anything, my handwriting is bad, I write in such a way that people are ashamed of me, like a pig.”
Lopakhin sincerely wants to help Ranevskaya and offers to divide the garden into plots and rent them out. He feels himself enormous power, which requires an application and exit. In the end, he buys a cherry orchard, and this minute becomes the moment of his highest triumph: he becomes the owner of the estate where his “father and grandfather were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen.” The further he goes, the more he acquires the habit of “waving his arms”: “I can pay for everything!” - he is intoxicated by the consciousness of his strength, luck and the power of his money. Triumph and compassion for Ranevskaya conflict in him at the moment of his highest triumph.
Chekhov emphasized that Lopakhin’s role is central, that “if it fails, then the whole play will fail,” “Lopakhin, it’s true, is a merchant, but a decent person in every sense, he must behave quite decently, intelligently, quietly, without tricks " At the same time, Chekhov warned against a simplified, petty understanding of this image. He is a successful businessman, but with the soul of an artist. When he talks about Russia, it sounds like a declaration of love. His words are reminiscent of Gogol's lyrical digressions V " Dead souls" The most heartfelt words about the cherry orchard in the play belong to Lopakhin: “an estate that is not more beautiful in the world.”
In the image of this hero, a merchant and at the same time an artist at heart, Chekhov introduced features characteristic of some Russian entrepreneurs of the early twentieth century who left their mark on Russian culture - Savva Morozov, Tretyakov, Shchukin, the publisher Sytin.
The final assessment that Petya Trofimov gives to his seemingly antagonist is significant: “After all, I still love you. You have thin, delicate fingers, like an artist, you have thin, gentle soul..." About a real entrepreneur, about Savva Morozov, M. Gorky said similar enthusiastic words: "And when I see Morozov behind the scenes of the theater, in the dust and trembling for the success of the play - I am ready to forgive him for all his factories, in which he, however, he doesn’t need it, I love him, for he disinterestedly loves art, which I can almost feel in his peasant, merchant, acquisitive soul.”
Lopakhin does not propose to destroy the garden, he proposes to rebuild it, divide it into summer cottages, make it publicly available for a reasonable fee, “democratic.” But at the end of the play, the hero who achieved success is shown not as a triumphant winner (and the old owners of the garden - not only as defeated, that is, victims on some battlefield - there was no “battle”, but only something absurd, sluggishly everyday, certainly not “heroic”). Intuitively, he feels the illusory nature and relativity of his victory: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, incompetent nature would soon change.” happy life" And his words about “an awkward, unhappy life”, which “you know it’s passing,” are supported by his fate: he alone is able to appreciate what a cherry orchard is, and he himself destroys it with his own hands. Personal it good qualities, good intentions for some reason are absurdly at odds with reality. And neither he himself nor those around him can understand the reasons.
And Lopakhin was not given personal happiness. His relationship with Varya results in his actions that are incomprehensible to her and others; he still does not dare to propose. In addition, Lopakhin has a special feeling for Lyubov Andreevna. He awaits Ranevskaya’s arrival with special hope: “Will she recognize me? We haven’t seen each other for five years.”
In the famous scene of the failed explanation between Lopakhin and Varya in the last act, the characters talk about the weather, about broken thermometer- and not a word about the most important thing at this moment. Why did the explanation not take place, why did love not take place? Throughout the entire play, Varya’s marriage is discussed as a matter almost decided, and yet... The point, apparently, is not that Lopakhin is a businessman incapable of showing feelings. Varya explains their relationship to herself precisely in this spirit: “He has a lot to do, he has no time for me,” “He is either silent or joking. I understand, he’s getting rich, he’s busy with business, he has no time for me.” But, probably, Varya is not a match for Lopakhin: he is a broad-minded person, a man of great scope, an entrepreneur and at the same time an artist at heart. Her world is limited by housekeeping, economy, keys on her belt... Moreover, Varya is a homeless woman who has no rights even to a ruined estate. For all the subtlety of Lopakhin’s soul, he lacks the humanity and tact to bring clarity to their relationship.
The dialogue of the characters in the second act at the text level does not clarify anything in the relationship between Lopakhin and Varya, but at the subtext level it becomes clear that the characters are infinitely distant. Lopakhin has already decided that he will not be with Varya (Lopakhin here is a provincial Hamlet, deciding for himself the question “to be or not to be”): “Okhmelia, go to the monastery... Okhmelia, oh nymph, remember me in your prayers!”
What separates Lopakhin and Varya? Perhaps their relationship is largely determined by the motif of the cherry orchard, its fate, and the attitude of the characters in the play towards it? Varya (along with Firs) is sincerely worried about the fate of the cherry orchard and estate. Lopakhin condemned the cherry orchard to cutting down. “In this sense, Varya cannot connect her life with Lopakhin’s life, not only for the “psychological” reasons prescribed in the play, but also for ontological reasons: the death of the cherry orchard comes between them literally, and not metaphorically.” It is no coincidence that when Varya finds out about the sale of the garden, she, as stated in Chekhov’s remark, “takes the keys from her belt, throws them on the floor, in the middle of the living room, and leaves.”
But it seems that there is one more reason, not formulated in the play (like many things - sometimes the most important thing in Chekhov) and lying in the sphere of the psychological subconscious - Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya.
The play outlines another line, piercingly tender and elusive, outlined with exceptional Chekhovian tact and psychological subtlety: the line of Lopakhin and Ranevskaya. Let's try to formulate its meaning as it appears to us.
Once in childhood, still a “boy”, with a bloody nose from his father’s fist, Ranevskaya took Lopakhin to the washstand in her room and said: “Don’t cry, little man, he’ll heal before the wedding.” Moreover, in contrast to her father’s fist, Ranevskaya’s sympathy was perceived as a manifestation of tenderness and femininity itself. Actually, Lyubov Andreevna did what her mother should have done, and isn’t she involved in the fact that this strange merchant has a “subtle, gentle soul”? Lopakhin kept this wonderful vision, this love and gratitude in his soul. Let us remember his words in the first act, addressed to Lyubov Andreevna: “My father was a serf to your grandfather and father, but you, in fact, you once did so much for me that I forgot everything and love you like my own... . more than my own." This, of course, is a “confession” of long-standing love, first love - tender, romantic, love - filial gratitude, youthfully bright love for a beautiful vision, not obligating to anything and not demanding anything in return. Perhaps there is only one thing: so that this romantic image, sunk into the soul of a young man entering the world, is not somehow destroyed. I don’t think that this confession by Lopakhin had any other meaning than the ideal one, as this episode is sometimes perceived.
But once experienced is irrevocable, and this “dear” Lopakhin was not heard, was not understood (they did not hear or did not want to hear). This was probably the moment for him. psychologically a turning point, it became his farewell to the past, a reckoning with the past. Began new life and for him. But now he has become more sober.
However, that memorable youthful episode also relates to the Lopakhin-Varya line. Romantic image Ranevskaya of her best times - the times of her youth - became the ideal-standard that, without realizing it, Lopakhin was looking for. And here is Varya, a good girl, practical, but... Indicative, for example, is Lopakhin’s reaction in the second act to the words of Ranevskaya (!), who directly asks him to propose to Varya. It was after this that Lopakhin spoke with irritation about how good it was before, when men could be beaten, and began tactlessly teasing Petya. All this is the result of a decline in his mood caused by a lack of understanding of his condition. In a beautiful perfect image youthful vision, a note was introduced that was sharply dissonant with all its harmonious sound.
Among the monologues of the characters in “The Cherry Orchard” about a failed life, Lopakhin’s unspoken feeling can sound like one of the most painful notes of the play; this is exactly how Lopakhin was played the best performers this role recent years V.V. Vysotsky and A.A. Mironov.
Purpose of the lesson. To give an idea of the complexity and inconsistency of the “new owner”, of the morality that disfigures Lopakhin’s soul.
Epigraph of the lesson. Lopakhin's role is central. If it fails, then that means the entire play will fail. /A.P. Chekhov/.
Lesson form. Lesson - discussion.
Progress of the lesson.
Opening remarks teachers to the topic of the lesson.
2. Conversation (discussion) on issues with students
IN. What do we know about Ermolai Lopakhin? Why, when creating his portrait, Chekhov special attention pays attention to the details of clothing (white vest, yellow shoes), gait (walks, waving his arms, striding widely, thinks while walking, walks in one line)? What do these details say?
IN. What features of Lopakhin are revealed in his affection for Ranevskaya? Why former owners do not accept Lopakhin's rescue project cherry orchard?
Lopakhin's affection for Ranevskaya is not a relic of servile affection for his former mistress, but a deep, sincere feeling that grew out of gratitude, out of respect for kindness and beauty. For the sake of Lyubov Andreevna, Lopakhin endures Gaev’s lordly neglect. For her sake, he is ready to sacrifice his interests: dreaming of taking possession of the estate, he nevertheless proposes a completely realistic project for preserving it in the ownership of Ranevskaya and Gaev. The owners do not accept the project, and this reflects their impracticality. But in in this case it has its own nice side: they are really unpleasant, disgusted to think that in place of the cherry orchard there will be summer cottages. When Ranevskaya says:“Cut it out? My dear, I’m sorry, you don’t understand anything,” - She is right in her own way.
Yes, Lopakhin does not understand that it is blasphemy to cut down such beauty, the most beautiful thing in the entire province. And, when Gaev, in response to Lopakhin’s speech that the summer resident will take care of the farm and make a gardenhappy, rich, luxurious , says with indignation:“What nonsense!” - He is also right in his own way.
It is no coincidence that Chekhov puts the words into Lopakhin’s mouth:“And we can say that in twenty years the summer resident will multiply to an extraordinary degree.” .
IN. Can this be said about the people who decorate the earth? Why?
IN. Why does Petya Trofimov say that he loves Lopakhin, believes that he has thin, gentle, soul and at the same time sees in him beast of prey ? How to understand this?
In Lopakhino two people live and fight among themselves -thin, gentle soul And beast of prey . By nature, this is apparently a remarkable person - an intelligent, strong-willed person and at the same time responsive to the grief of others, capable of generosity and selflessness. Although his father raised him with a stick, he did not knock out good inclinations. It is possible that Ranevskaya, with her responsiveness and kindness, helped their development.“You...did so much for me once” , - Lopakhin tells her.
Who will win - man or beast? Most likely a beast!
IN. Re-read the scene of Varya and Lopakhin’s explanation. Why did he never make an explanation?
Many times - under the gentle but persistent influence of Ranevskaya - he readily agreed to propose to Varya, and each time he shied away with some awkward joke:"Okhmelia, go to the monastery" or just “Me-e-e.”
What's the matter? Doesn't he like it? Shy, like every groom? Perhaps, but rather the poor “bride” is right.“For two years now, everyone has been telling me about him, but he is silent or jokes. I understand. He’s getting rich, he’s busy with business, he has no time for me.”
But is this the main reason? After all, Varya doesn’t have a penny.
IN. “We will set up dachas, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see a new life here,” - says Lopakhin. What might this life be like for him?
Lopakhin's ideals are vague. He is full of energy, he wants activity. “Sometimes when I can’t sleep, I think:“Lord, you gave us huge forests, vast fields, the deepest horizons, and living here, we ourselves should truly be giants...” But the activities of the acquirer increasingly influence his ideals. That's why a new, happy life seems possible to him.dacha tithes , based on some entrepreneurial activity. But this, of course, is a chimera. Petya Trofimov says for sure that these dreams of Lopakhin come from habitwave your arms, that is, to imagine that money can do anything.“And, too, to build dachas, to count on the fact that the dacha owners will eventually emerge as individual owners, to count like this is to make a big deal.”
Chekhov warned that Lopakhin is not a kulak, and explained that Varya, a serious, religious girl, would not love a kulak, but Lopakhin’s idea of future happiness is formulated by that atmosphere of acquisition, business, which increasingly draws her in.
IN. Lopakhin more than once throughout the play expresses dissatisfaction with life, calling it stupid, awkward, unhappy. What caused this?
Lopakhin sometimes cannot help but feel a contradiction between the desire for goodness, happiness - and the life he leads: after all, to earn moneyforty thousand net , it is impossible to become a millionaire without putting pressure on anyone, without robbing anyone, without pushing anyone out of the way. Lopakhin sometimes feels a painful split. This is especially clear in the scene of his courage after purchasing the cherry orchard. How democratic pride is mixed and mutually contradictory herebeaten, illiterate Ermolai, who ran barefoot in winter, a descendant of serf slaves, and the triumph of a businessman after a successful deal in which he beat a competitor, and the roar of a predatory beast, and pity for Lyubov Andreevna, and acute dissatisfaction with thisawkward, unhappy life . And yet Lopakhin’s last phrase in this scene:“I can pay for everything!” - this is as significant as the sound of the ax accompanying the last action and completing it.
IN. Does he feel confident? How long does Lopakhin still have to “reign” on Russian soil?
IN. The last sound that ends the play is the sound of an axe. Why?
The persistent blows of the ax make you think that your old life is dying, that your old life is gone forever, and that the beauty bought by a predatory capitalist is dying.
Chekhov seeks to “ennoble” Lopakhin. He wrote to Stanislavsky: “Lopakhin, it’s true, is a merchant, but a decent person in every sense, he should behave quite decently, intelligently, not petty, without tricks,” A putting the words into Trofimov’s mouth:“After all, I still love you. You have thin, delicate fingers, like an artist. You have a subtle, gentle soul" , wanted to show living face, and not a poster image of a merchant.
3.Reflection: Who, from your point of view, is Lopakhin?
4.Homework.
Compare the characters in the play (Anya and Petya) with the characters in the story “The Bride.” How did the younger generation see Chekhov?
What does Lopakhin's new life look like? Why does Chekhov end the play with the sounds of an ax hitting wood? and got the best answer
Answer from Alexey Khoroshev[guru]
The work of A.P. Chekhov falls on late XIX- the beginning of the 20th century, when the feudal system was replaced by a capitalist formation, which made it possible to introduce new forms of economy.
However, representatives landed nobility reluctantly entered into a new life. The conservatism of most of them, the inability to abandon feudal methods of farming, and the inability to take advantage of the current situation led the landowners' estates to ruin.
Against the backdrop of the impoverishment of the nobility, a new layer of society enters the economic life of Russia, new people - entrepreneurs, “masters of life.”
In the play “The Cherry Orchard” this new master of life is Lopakhin, an intelligent, energetic businessman, industrialist. Compared to the impractical, weak-willed nobles Ranevsky and Gaev, who live more in the past than in the present, he is distinguished by his enormous energy, wide scope of work, and thirst for education. He knows his place both in life and in society and does not lose his dignity anywhere.
While Lopakhin realizes the hopeless situation of the owners of the cherry orchard and gives them practical advice, they compose pathetic hymns to the house and garden, talk to things - to the closet, to the table, kiss them and are carried away with their thoughts into a sweet, carefree past, so irretrievably gone.
Lopakhin directly and simply calls a spade a spade (“...your cherry orchard is being sold for debts...”), is ready to help in trouble, but he has no common language with the Gaevs. His sober, realistic approach to reality seems to them “rudeness,” an insult to their honor, a lack of understanding of beauty. Lopakhin has his own understanding of beauty: “We will set up dachas, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see a new life here.”
Lack of will, inability to live, and carelessness characterize these gentlemen. They are behind the times and must give up their home and their garden, their place to the new masters of life, sober, practical, intelligent and businesslike.
Lopakhin's philosophy: work is the basis of life. “When I work for a long time, tirelessly, then my thoughts are lighter, and it seems as if I also know why I exist. And how many people, brother, are there in Russia who exist for no one knows why.” He is able to feel beauty, admires the picture of a blooming poppy. According to Trofimov, he has “thin, gentle fingers, like an artist... a subtle, gentle soul.” He understands that “with a pig’s snout in the Kalash row...” he is climbing. But with what triumph he says: “The cherry orchard is now mine!” My! (Laughs.) My God, gentlemen, my cherry orchard!..”
Chekhov judges strictly, he wants to be heard: “Yes, if you love your garden, beauty, do at least something to protect it from the ax, take responsibility for the family hearth, and don’t just shed tears of tenderness over them.” . Wake up from carelessness when trouble is on the doorstep! “And only one Firs remained devoted to that life to the end, and that is why he found himself forgotten in a boarded-up house, despite all the cares of Ranevskaya, Varya, Anya, Yasha. The guilt of the heroes before him is also a symbol of universal guilt for the death of the beautiful that was in the passing life. With the words of Firs, the play ends, and then only the sound of a broken string and the sound of an ax cutting down a cherry orchard can be heard.
The new owner of the garden, the house, and all such gardens and houses, and all this life, has come. What is the future for Lopakhin? Probably, having become even more rich in the years remaining before the revolution, he will contribute to the economic prosperity of Russia and become a philanthropist. Maybe he will build schools and hospitals for the poor with his own money. There were many such people in Russian life: Morozovs, Mamontovs, Ryabushinskys, Alekseevs, Soldatenkovs, Tretyakovs, Bakhrushins. And today, entrepreneurs business people could play significant role in the country's economy. But their behavior, disregard for spirituality, culture, desire only for personal enrichment can lead to a decline in the spiritual forces of society, to the decline of the state, their ability to destroy, without thinking about the future, a beautiful cherry orchard - a symbol of Russia in Chekhov - can lead to sad consequences .
Debate is necessary for a person to modern world. It would be legitimate to include the debate as educational technology V educational process. The debate is different high level motivation, a perceived need to acquire knowledge and skills, performance and compliance with social norms.
- stimulation research activities students;
- development of communication and interaction skills in small group;
- formation of value-oriented unity of the group;
- adoption of moral norms and rules of joint activities.
Design: statements by critics, portrait of A.P. Chekhov, rules of debate.
Vocabulary work: debate, problem, hypothesis, speaker, case, opponent, time speaker, reflection.
Teacher. Today we are teaching an unusual lesson. Its form is debate. I would like to remind you of the rules of debate:
- It is important not only the ability to speak, but also the ability to listen;
- it is necessary to speak clearly, to speak out on the problem, avoiding redundancy of information;
- you need to be able to ask questions to help you understand the message;
- We criticize ideas, not individuals.
Teacher: Today we are teaching an unusual lesson. Its form is debate. In the process of discussion, we will learn to listen to each other, accept someone else’s point of view, give in or, on the contrary, without offending, prove the correctness of a position or opinion.
I. Statement of the problem: A.P. Chekhov created the play “The Cherry Orchard” (1903), overcoming a fatal illness. He insisted that he created “not a drama, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce.” The relationships and dialogues of literally all the characters reveal a lack of understanding of each other and a difference of opinions. We have already met the main characters of the play. The image of Ermolai Lopakhin occupies a special place in the play. Chekhov himself said more than once that the role of Lopakhin is central, and at the same time contradictory. Two people live and fight in it - a “subtle, gentle soul” and a “predatory beast”. Today we have to find out who he really is. The affirmative side will defend the position - “Lopakhin is a subtle, gentle soul”, the refuting side - “Lopakhin is a predatory beast”. At the end of the debate, we will hold a vote to determine whose arguments were more convincing.
II. Progress of the debate.
- Presentation of the debating parties;
- Proposing hypotheses.
Speaker U-1 (speech time - 5 minutes): Resolution of today's debate: “Ermolai Lopakhin is a subtle, gentle soul.” In accordance with the resolution, we provide definitions of key concepts:
A) Thin - in S.I. Ozhegov’s Russian language dictionary this word is given in 6 meanings, we decided to take the interpretation of this word in 3, 4, 5 meanings: 3. refined, not rough; 4. sharp, insightful, intelligent; 5. sensitive, quickly perceiving something (all meanings are given in a figurative sense)
B) Gentle–1. Affectionate, showing love; 2. pleasant, subtle, not rough; 3. weak, fragile (p. 398).
IN) Soul– 1. the inner psychological world of a person, his consciousness; 2. this or that character property, as well as a person with certain properties; 3. Peren. The inspirer of something, the main person; 4. about a person (usually in stable combinations) (p. 178)
Our criterion:“You have thin, delicate fingers, like an artist, you have a subtle, gentle soul” (remark by Petya Trofimov, act 1U). On February 5, 1903, A.P. Chekhov informed Stanislavsky: “After February 20, I expect to sit down to the play and finish it by March 20. In my head it is already ready. It’s called “The Cherry Orchard”, four acts, in act 1 you can see through the windows cherry blossoms, a solid white garden. And ladies in white dresses.” The play was written after all. Among characters one of the main ones is Ermolai Lopakhin, a merchant, age not specified. The fact that Lopakhin’s role is one of the main ones is emphasized by the author himself in a letter to his wife O.L. Knipper dated October 30, 1903: “After all, Lopakhin’s role is central. If it fails, then the whole play will fail” (A.P. Chekhov. Complete Works, volume 20, p. 169). And in a letter to Stanislavsky, whom he wanted to see in the role of Lopakhin, Chekhov said: “Lopakhin, it’s true, is a merchant, but a decent person in every sense, he should behave quite decently, intelligently, not petty, without tricks..” In connection with with this we put forward first argument to confirm the voiced resolution that A.P. Chekhov sought to create a living face that would make one think about the fundamental issues of life, and not a poster image of a merchant. grief, capable of generosity and selflessness. Let's remember the beginning of the play. Lopakhin sat all night on Ranevskaya’s estate, waiting for their arrival. In a conversation with the maid Dunyasha, he mentions how “as a boy of about fifteen, having been beaten by his own father, he saw Lyubov Andreevna for the first time: “Lyubov Andreevna, so thin, took me to the washstand, here in in this very room, in the nursery. “Don’t cry, he says, little man, he’ll heal before the wedding. In this regard, we put forward second argument- Lopakhin’s attachment to Ranevskaya is not a relic of servile attachment to the former mistress, but a deep, sincere feeling that grew out of gratitude, out of respect for kindness and beauty. For the sake of Lyubov Andreevna, Lopakhin endures Gaev’s lordly neglect. For her sake, he is ready to sacrifice his interests: dreaming of taking possession of the estate, he nevertheless proposes a completely realistic project for preserving it in the ownership of Ranevskaya. Everything said here, in my opinion, completely proves the correctness of our resolution, that Lopakhin is a subtle and gentle person. Thank you for your attention! Ready for cross-examination.
Question from Speaker O-3 to U-1 (time – 3 minutes)
– From your speech, we understood that Lopakhin still dreamed of taking possession of the estate. Do you agree with the interpretation of the word “quiet” given in the same dictionary of the Russian language by S.I. Ozhegov, p. 789, “cunning, dexterous”. In my opinion, this definition suits him better!
Answer U-1: No, I don’t agree. We brought, in my opinion, as much as possible and correct interpretations the words “quiet” confirming our resolution. I can’t attribute the definition of “cunning, dexterous” to Lopakhin.
Question O-3: A researcher of the work of A.P. Chekhov, A. Revyakin, claims that “Lopakhins are people who control the economic wealth of the country, the “masters” of life, those in power.” What do you say to this?
Answer U-1: Perhaps I will not agree with him. Lopakhin is a representative of the emerging bourgeoisie, which, in comparison with the nobility, was thought of by A.P. Chekhov as a positive social force.
ABOUT- 3: I have no questions.
Judges: If there are no questions, we move on to the rebutting party.
Speaker O-1 (speech time – 5 minutes):
“We don’t agree with the resolution of the Romantics faction, so we put forward our own: “Yermolai Lopakhin is a beast of prey.” Our definitions:
Predatory-1. About animals: eating animal food. 2. trans. Greedy, full of desire to take possession of someone or something; 3. Grab something (p.849).
Beast – 1. A wild, usually predatory animal; 2. trans. about a cruel, ferocious person (S.I. Ozhegov “Dictionary of the Russian Language (p. 223).
Our criterion: “Just as in the sense of metabolism we need a predatory beast that eats everything that gets in its way, so we need you” (Petya Trofimov to Lopakhin, act 2). From the first pages of the play, something cold and vile emanates from Lopakhin. Even the very fact that the owners of the estate were waiting for him all night speaks of his bad intentions, and he was not in such close family relations with Ranevskaya as to wait all night for their arrival: “How late was the train? For at least two hours (yawns and stretches) I'm good. what a fool you have been! I came here on purpose (I emphasize this word!) to meet him at the station and suddenly overslept... I fell asleep while sitting. It’s a shame..” He already knew that Ranevskaya’s estate was for sale, so he specially came to find out everything. The owners of the estate, when they met him, were not even happy; Gaev, Ranevskaya’s brother, tries to belittle him in the presence of everyone, no one listens to his words. I quote: “Lopakhin: Yes, time passes. Gaev: Who? Lopakhin: Time, I say, is ticking. Gaev: And here it smells like patchouli” And first argument, supporting our resolution will sound like this: Lopakhin is a large predator, feeding on animal food, looking for food where they don’t even think about it. Knowing about Mount Ranevskaya, pretending to be a supposedly sympathetic person, he is looking for where and what he can devour. He even has a “speaking” surname: Lopakhin - from the word “to burst.” After further harassment from Gaev, Lopakhin declares to Ranevskaya: “Your brother, Leonid Andreich, says about me that I am a boor, I am a kulak, but I absolutely don’t care. Let him talk. I just wish that you would still believe me, that your amazing, touching eyes would look at me as before...” and then he offers his project for saving the cherry orchard by cutting down trees and distributing land for dachas with an annual income of twenty-five thousand . Lopakhin doesn’t even understand that it is blasphemy to cut down such beauty, the most beautiful thing in the entire province. “The only remarkable thing about this garden is that it is very large. Cherries are born once every two years, and there’s nowhere to put them, no one buys them,” he tells the owners. It is no coincidence that Chekhov puts the words into Lopakhin’s mouth: “And one can say that in 20 years the summer resident will multiply (I emphasize!) to the extreme.” This could only be said about animals, but not about people! In this regard, we put forward our second argument that in Lopakhin there is more animal than human. He even speaks like an animal, using coarse, vulgar vocabulary and phraseology: “With an animal’s snout in a row; What a breakthrough; I write...like a pig; It's called crying out."
Thus, the Lopakhins in their lives are guided primarily by the interests of personal, predatory good. Their enormous energy, sober mind, tenacity for life are aimed at satisfying the interests of personal gain, personal well-being, personal saturation.
Thank you for your attention! Ready for cross-examination.
Question from Speaker U-3 to O-1 (time 2 min):
– Here the idea was voiced that Lopakhin was pretending that he loved Ranevskaya, that he was grateful to her for everything that she once did for him. And the critic G.P. Berdnikov claims that “Lopakhin is so attached to Ranevskaya that he is even ready to endure Gaev’s humiliation and oppression”? Do you agree with this?
Answer O-1: No, I do not agree. These are not sincere feelings, but simply a person’s disposition towards himself. In the end, each of us should have at least a drop of pride.
Question U-3: Do you consider the project for saving the cherry orchard proposed by Lopakhin to be the only and correct one? After all, he warns that if you don’t come up with anything, then the entire estate and the cherry orchard will be sold at auction and that there is no other way out.
What would you suggest if you were Lopakhin?
Answer O-1: If we consider this from the heights of our time, Lopakhin turned out to be far-sighted: now there are a lot of dachas and summer residents. But at that time, dachas were not listed; it was a manifestation of ignorance and rudeness. And if he loved Ranevskaya so much, why not lend him money?! If I were Lopakhin, I would have done just that! Instead of throwing words to the wind, it is better to actually prove your love and affection, and, in the end, to thank for all the good things!
U-3: No questions.
Judges: If there are no questions, the cross-examination is over. Let's move on to the speech of the second speaker of the approving team. Speech time – 4 minutes.
III. Confirmation and refutation of hypotheses.
Speaker U-2: (speaking time – 4 minutes)
In my speech, I continue to defend our resolution and want to provide the following evidence. But first, I want to express my disagreement with the opinion of the speaker who spoke before me that there is more of a predatory, bestial quality in Lopakhin. So what if Lopakhin waits all night for the owners of the estate? After all, he hasn’t seen them for 5 whole years, he feels only respect for Ranevskaya, gratitude for everything that she once did for him. “My father was a serf to your grandfather and father, but you, in fact, you once did so much for me that I forgot everything and love you like my own, more than my own,” Lopakhin tells her (act 1 ). If he wished them harm, he would come the next day, two days later, or he might not come at all and not talk about the upcoming auction: come what may! He even warns them that the rich man Deriganov will personally come to the auction! As for the project to save the garden, in my opinion, Lopakhin is precisely interested in preserving this garden for Ranevskaya as a sign of gratitude. I don’t see anything predatory in dividing the garden plot into dachas; on the contrary, it would generate income. How many people would have dachas! How much benefit they would bring to people! Man with subtle soul Lopakhin felt the opportunity to help people and earn gratitude from them. I continue to argue that in Lopakhin there is more tenderness and purity than predatory. Look how he loves Varya! He doesn't even propose to her because he feels he's not ready for it. He, like a true gentleman, does not play with high feelings. But he could “pretend” to be a loving groom and deceive her. He doesn't do this. Because he is not indifferent to the fate of Varya and any person in general. He retains respect not only for Ranevskaya personally, but also for her family members. This once again confirms the truth of our criterion. Thank you for your attention! Ready for cross-examination.
Question O-1 to U-2:
You claim that Lopakhin loves Varya, that he does not make a serious proposal to her because he is not ready for marriage. Varya is 24 years old, Lopakhin is older than her, financially secure (a merchant), and he admits to Ranevskaya that Varya is a “good girl.” It turns out that Lopakhin is not unready for marriage, and Varya is not ready to become his worthy wife (after all, Will she soon become a beggar, without a dowry?
Answer U-2: No, Lopakhin - smart person. He will not ruin Varya's life. Marriage is sacred, so you need to think carefully about it.
Question O-1: Think about what? How much money does your beloved have, will she remain the mistress of at least the cherry orchard?
U-2: The play takes place when women without dowries are not very valued. Take, for example, A. Ostrovsky’s drama “Dowry.” But the point is not in them, but in Lopakhin’s nobility.
O-1: No questions.
Judges: If there are no questions, we will give the floor to the second speaker of the denying team. Speech time 4 minutes.
Speaker O-2 (speaking time – 4 minutes)
– I want to express my disagreement with the opinion of the speaker who spoke before me. Excuse me, but what kind of nobility of Lopakhin are you talking about? What kind of love? Lopakhin is lower than love! A person who thinks only about personal gain, a person who seeks only material gain in everything, how can he talk about something unearthly, I mean love! For clarity, let’s look at the history of Lopakhin’s relationship with Varya. Many times - under the gentle but persistent influence of Ranevskaya - he readily agrees to propose. And every time at the last moment he evaded with some awkward joke, like
“Okhmelia, go to the monastery!” or simply “Me-e-e!” . In this “Me-e-e!” his bestial, bestial nature slips through again! Let us remember the end of the play, act 4. When all the owners, after the sale of the cherry orchard, collect their belongings, Lyubov Andreevna herself says to Lopakhin: “My second sadness is Varya. She was used to getting up early and working... I dreamed of marrying her to you, and everyone could see that you were getting married. She loves you, you like her, and I don’t know why you’re avoiding each other.” To which your “noble” Lopakhin says: “I don’t understand it myself either, I must admit. Everything is somehow strange. If there is still time, then I’m ready right now... Let’s finish it right away and that’s it, but without you I (I emphasize!), I feel, won’t make an offer” And this is what your man says with a subtle and tender soul afraid of hurting someone's heart? Yes, he is most likely afraid of hurting his heart! Left alone with Varya, he didn’t even utter a word about marriage, and when he was called from the yard, he was simply delighted, as if he had been waiting for this call for a long time, and quickly left. In my opinion, the point is not that Lopakhin did not want to hurt Varya’s heart, and not that he is not ready for marriage. Varya herself gives the answer: “For two years now, everyone has been telling me about him, but he is silent or jokes. I understand. He he’s getting rich, busy with business, he has no time for me.”.
The poor “bride” is right: Lopakhin has no time for Varya! In a dialogue with Petya Trofimov, Lopakhin says: “You just need to start doing something to understand how few honest, decent people there are.” It seems to me that he talks about himself like that. There is just little decency in Lopakhin. He rejected Varya because she, being the keeper of old traditions associated with owning a cherry orchard, did not meet his commercial aspirations and plans. Thank you for your attention! Ready for cross-examination.
Question U-1 to O-2 (2 min):
Do you think that Lopakhin did not intend to connect his life with Varya, since she does not meet his plans. What are his plans, what does his new life look like?
Answer O-2: He in no way connects the idea of future happiness, of a happy new life with Varya - this is a 100% guarantee. A new, happy life seems possible to him on “dacha tithes”, on the basis of some kind of entrepreneurial activity. After all, Chekhov warned that Lopakhin is not a kulak, and explained that Varya, a serious and religious girl, would not love a kulak. The idea of future happiness is formed by that atmosphere of acquisition, sharing, which increasingly draws him in.
U-1: No questions.
Judges: If there are no questions, we will give the floor to the 3rd speaker of the “Romantics” faction.
IV. Public advocacy and adjusting hypotheses.
Speaker U-3 (time - 4 minutes): I have to summarize our speeches and once again prove the correctness of the criterion we put forward: “Lopakhin is a subtle, gentle soul.” While continuing to defend our position, I would like to provide the following as evidence. Here the facts of Lopakhin’s dishonesty were presented. I generally deny this. Would a dishonest person feel any excitement or some embarrassment in front of Ranevskaya because it was he who acquired the cherry orchard? He even feels sorry for her, shows sympathy for her: “Why, why didn’t you listen to me? My poor, good ..” and with tears in his eyes he says: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would change!” Let us remember the episode of Lopakhin’s farewell to the former owners of the cherry orchard. He himself came to see them off personally, even brought a bottle of champagne, constantly reminding them that they could be late for the train. A dishonest person would not do such a thing! Lopakhin remains a “subtle soul” throughout the entire play. Even the heroes themselves speak only positively about him: Lyubov Andreevna: “Well, Varya, I will be very glad. He good man.” Simeonov - Pischik: “Man, we must tell the truth... most worthy.” Differing in many ways from Gaev, Lopakhin is active, practical activities, his individual properties are manifested in a certain kindness, gentleness, and desire for beauty. Sometimes he is even dissatisfied with himself. Remembering his father, he says: “In essence, I’m just as much of a blockhead and an idiot. I haven’t studied anything, my handwriting is bad, I write in a way that is typical of people.” Is such an individual feature of Lopakhin typical of the merchant class? A.P. Chekhov, in letters to O.L. Knipper dated October 28 and 30, wrote: “After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word, we must understand this... Lopakhin should not be played as a screamer, it does not have to be a merchant. This is a gentle person,” Critic A.V. Amphitheaters in his article “The Cherry Orchard” by A.P. Chekhov states: “one should not consider him a rude predator, a grabber and a worker for his own womb. And he is a dreamer in his own way...” And the critic G. Petrov, in the article “In Defense of Lopakhin,” argued that Chekhov depicted the future of Russia in Lopakhin: “Trofimov laughs at Lopakhin for waving his arms. Calls Lopakhin a beast of prey. But Lopakhin not only waves his hands. He also has a reach... Lopakhin has a gentle soul, a sharp mind, a wide reach, and the thin fingers of artists.”
Summarizing the above, I conclude that Ermolai Lopakhin is a gentle soul and for this reason I ask the respected judges to give their votes to our team. Thank you for your attention!.
Judges: The floor is given to the third speaker of the denying team.
Speaker O-3 (time – 4 minutes): Dear judges, guests present in this hall! I had the honor of summing up the speeches of the speakers of our faction. There were a lot of clashes over one argument or another, but, in my opinion, our arguments are much stronger and more weighty. I'll start in order. We already know that Ermolai Lopakhin became the new owner of the cherry orchard. The very process of acquiring this garden is considered dishonesty on his part, although the opposite was stated here. From the moment Lopakhin appeared on the estate of the mindlessly having fun Ranevskaya after the auction, something unpleasant smelled. To Ranevskaya’s question “Who bought it?” Lopakhin answers laughing: “I bought it!” Go gentlemen, do me a favor, my head is clouded, I can’t speak...”, he laughs: “The cherry orchard is mine now!” My! My God, my God, my cherry orchard! Tell me that I’m drunk, out of my mind, that all this is imagining me!..” Here, the pride of “the beaten, illiterate Ermolai, who ran barefoot in winter,” a descendant of serf slaves, and the triumph of an entrepreneur after a successful a deal in which he beat a competitor, and the roar of a predatory beast. Even Lopakhin’s last phrase in this scene “I can pay for everything!” so meaningful. And what he does on the day of the Ranevskys’ farewell to their estate is not subject to discussion at all! The nature of a predator is clearly visible here. Coming to a house where they don’t even want to see him, getting in the way (in the literal sense of the word!), locking the doors of every room with a key when the former owners have not yet left, constantly reminding about the departure time of the train - these are no longer manifestations of sympathy and pity, as our opponents tried to present to us here, but most likely a manifestation of the owner’s attitude towards the newly acquired cherry orchard, a manifestation of the habits of an animal that has found some kind of living creature and is afraid of losing it! Lopakhin feels like a new owner and with these rights he gives advice to Petya Trofimov, Gaev, and is even ready to lend them money at first. (It would be better if he lent money to buy out the garden!). Lopakhin, without waiting for the departure of Ranevskaya, to whom he owed a lot (according to him), clearly tactlessly began to cut down the cherry orchard, although he was asked not to do this. These persistent blows of the ax make us think that the beauty bought by the predatory capitalist is perishing. Lopakhin is a more practical, rude exploiter. vigorous. Showing this brute force, he shouts: “There is a new landowner, the owner of the cherry orchard!” So, Ermolai Lopakhin is a predatory beast, thinking only about his own personal gain, putting personal enrichment in the foreground, for which questions of morality and honor do not exist. A new happy life seems possible to him on “dacha tithes”, on the basis of some kind of entrepreneurial activity. Lopakhins have taken their roots deep. Even after so many years, they can be found among our contemporaries. Lopakhin’s words become the principle of their life: “I can pay for everything!”
I hope that the arguments presented by my teammates turned out to be more powerful, and for this reason I ask the respected judges to give their votes to our team. Thank you for your attention!
Judges: The debate is over. All speeches of both teams have been heard. Viewers present are asked to vote. (after the votes are counted, the results of the debate are announced).
V. General conclusion.
Teacher. The comedy “The Cherry Orchard” is an eternal mystery, the same mystery as its author, who with his play managed to put himself on a par with those whom we call the classics of great Russian literature. This play is also designed for a new viewer who is able to grasp its lyrical, symbolic context. In literary criticism, the image of Lopakhin is controversial. TO unanimous opinion the literary critics never came. And if we look at it more broadly, the main character of the play is new Russia. Time goes by! But who is destined to be the creator of new life, who will plant a new cherry orchard? The answer to this question remains open.
VI. Summing up the lesson: grading, homework.