The main conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard. The originality of the conflict and its resolution in A. P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” (Unified State Examination in Literature) Features of the conflict The Cherry Orchard

14.07.2020

In the play “The Cherry Orchard” there is no pronounced conflict. A.P. Chekhov hid it behind the everyday difficulties of the characters. Key way drama, of course, is the garden around which events develop.

The thoughts and memories of the characters in the play are connected with the cherry orchard. The action takes place on a specific estate; the author replaced the external conflict with the drama of the experiences of the stage characters.

Through his description of sad everyday life, Chekhov shows the inevitability of change - the change of times and generations.

The moribund serf Russia is personified by Ranevskaya, Gaev, Firsa, Varya. Bourgeois modernity is embodied in the image of the merchant Lopakhin, and the uncertain future is represented by Anya and Petya Trofimov. There is no confrontation between the old and new worlds as such in the work; rather, there is a conflict of moral values. The businesslike Lopakhin tries to help Ranevskaya with organizing her affairs, advises a realistic option for saving the estate, offers his services, but the hostess does not heed his speeches.

The garden appears in the play as a symbol of the passing lifestyle of the nobles, who even

They don't try to save their property.

The psychologism of the play enhances the “undercurrent” - a term coined by Stanislavsky. The essence of this technique is to take the main event off stage - the sale of the estate under the hammer. The viewer learns that the clever Lopakhin purchased it at an auction only from short remarks from the characters. Everything important in the drama is shown through the prism of trifles and particulars.

The psychological state of the characters is conveyed by emotionally charged speeches. The joyful and upbeat mood at the beginning gradually gives way to anxiety, and by the time the estate is sold, the situation is clearly tense. But after the auction, the sad excitement goes away, everyone has a bright feeling in anticipation of a new life.

The combination of comic and lyrical situations, the internal drama of the characters’ feelings and experiences is called a genre lyrical comedy, the creator of which was Chekhov. The subtle use of “undercurrent” along with artistic details raised the “low” comedy genre to unattainable heights. And this is the merit of the brilliant author.

(No Ratings Yet)

The external conflict in the drama “The Cherry Orchard” lies openly on the surface for everyone. It is associated with the loss of property by selling one’s estate for debts, “which is not more beautiful in the world.” Already in the first act, Lopakhin made a proposal to save the estate by dividing the garden into summer cottages and renting them out to the townspeople. But with this […]...
CLASSICS BY A. P. CHEKHOV THE ORIGINALITY OF CONFLICT IN A. P. CHEKHOV’S PLAY “THE CHERRY ORCHARD” A. P. Chekhov was primarily interested inner world his heroes. The standard composition with turbulent events did not suit him. “Let everything on stage be as complicated and at the same time as simple as in life,” said Chekhov, “[...]
1903 A new century is on the threshold - the century of oil, steam and electricity, the century of high speeds and the triumph of human thought. The habitually measured, unhurried flow of life in Russia has been disrupted, society is agitated and seething, like a large river in flood, and a reassessment of centuries-old values is underway. At the same time, the discontent hidden in the eighties under the shell of external prosperity begins to come out, [...]
A.P. Chekhov completed work on “The Cherry Orchard” in 1903. The beginning of the century was a turning point for Russia; a revaluation of traditional values began. The aristocracy was ruined and stratified. The doomed nobility was replaced by an enterprising bourgeoisie. It was this fact that became the basis of Chekhov's play. “The Cherry Orchard” presents characters of different classes with a different worldview. The dying class of nobility is represented in the images of […]...
What constitutes the conflict in Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard”? What is the “spring” in it that drives the actions, experiences and thoughts of the heroes? At first glance, the work gives a clear arrangement of social forces in Russian society at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries and outlines the struggle between them: the outgoing nobility - Ranevskaya and Gaev; the rising bourgeoisie - Lopakhin; new revolutionary forces coming [...]
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov is a great playwright of Russian literature. This writer brought a lot of novelty. And before analyzing one of his plays, it is necessary to say what exactly was new in Chekhov’s work. First of all, his innovation lay in the fact that his plays are based not on conflict, but on a deep analysis of the characters’ characters, their [...]
Many authors, one way or another, touched on the theme of love in their works. This topic will never cease to be relevant. Anton Pavlovich Chekhov did not ignore her either. In his works, the theme of love is revealed deeply and in a special way, according to Chekhovsky. What does A.P. Chekhov tell us about love? Let us turn to the heroes of the play “The Cherry Orchard”. Already on [...]
“The Cherry Orchard” by A.P. Chekhov leaves an indelible impression on the soul. Until the end of the play, the reader is left with a feeling of anxiety and confusion. What does the writer warn about with his work? It seems to me that the author’s position is expressed in the very idea of the work - the inevitability of future changes both for landed nobility(using the example of the destinies of aristocrats Ranevskaya and Gaev), and for the state, […]...
The Cherry Orchard house is one of the most famous works Russian classic A.P. Chekhov, which he wrote shortly before his death. It is noteworthy that he himself grew a garden in Melikhovo, and in Crimea, next to his house, he had another beautiful southern garden. Thus, the garden meant a lot to him, as well as to his heroes. […]...
Gaev Leonid Andreevich Gaev is one of the main characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard” (1903), the brother of the landowner Ranevskaya. A man of the old school, like his sister, he is sentimental. He is very worried about the sale of the family estate and the loss of the cherry orchard. By nature, Gaev is an idealist and romantic. He is not particularly adapted to the “new” life. He considers himself one of the people of the 80s [...]
A gentle soul or a cunning beast When creating his last work, Anton Pavlovich Chekhov paid great attention to the depiction of the main characters and their social significance. One of the main characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is Ermolai Lopakhin, a suddenly rich man from the serfs. Ranevskaya knew his father, and Ermolai himself grew up before her eyes. It is not surprising that […]...
However, the apparently central event - the struggle for the cherry orchard - is devoid of the significance that a classical drama would assign to it and that the very logic of the arrangement of characters in the play would seem to require. The conflict, based on the confrontation of social forces, is muted in Chekhov. Lopakhin, the Russian bourgeois, is devoid of the predatory grip and aggressiveness towards the nobles of Ranevskaya and […]...
Which of the characters in the drama touched me? The play “The Cherry Orchard” is one of the best works by A.P. Chekhov, which showed the drama of the Russian intelligentsia within a single family. The owners of the estate with the cherry orchard are people from a respected and previously wealthy family - Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya and her brother Leonid Andreevich Gaev. In addition to these characters, the play features a seventeen-year-old […]...
The Problem of Happiness They say about Chekhov's plays that they are pervaded by a certain feeling of constant unhappiness. And, indeed, even the most inattentive reader will notice that all the heroes, despite the resolution of problems and obvious changes, remain unhappy. What is the problem and what is happiness for these people? For some, happiness lies in achieving love, success, recognition, justice, health, material well-being, […]...
Perhaps the main character in the play is the cherry orchard. He is dear to all residents of the estate, and especially to the older generation. For Ranevskaya and Gaev, the garden reminds them of a time when life seemed cheerful and cloudless, of a carefree childhood: Gaev (opens another window). The garden is all white. Have you forgotten, Lyuba? This long alley goes straight, straight, like a stretched belt, [...]
The main themes of the play “The Cherry Orchard,” written in 1904, are: death noble nest, the victory of an enterprising merchant-industrialist over the obsolete Ranevskaya and Gaev, and an essay on the topic of the future of Russia, associated with the images of Petya Trofimov and Anya. Farewell of the new, young Russia to the past, to the obsolete, aspiration to tomorrow Russia – this is […]...
Life and Garden The play “The Cherry Orchard” was written by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov shortly before his death. It is imbued with bitterness, a premonition of the inevitable and concern for the fate of one’s country, one’s home, family, and garden. Reading this work, we understand that by the term “cherry orchard” the author meant the whole country. Thus, one of the key characters, Petya Trofimov, exclaims: “All of Russia is ours […]...
To begin with, let's speculate what would have happened if the garden had not been sold to Lopakhin. Let's just imagine that no one had money at the auction except the aunt from Yaroslavl. The house would have gone for 15 thousand, everyone would have been happy. But what next? This would brighten up the family’s financial situation a little, because roughly speaking, the house […]...
Dispute between generations Anton Pavlovich Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is unusual and surprising. Unlike other works of the playwright, it places not a person at the center of all events, but the lyrical image of a beautiful cherry orchard. He is like the personification of the beauty of Russia of old times. Several generations are intertwined in the work and, accordingly, the problem of differences in thinking and perception of reality arises. The Cherry Orchard [...]
Hello, new life The play “The Cherry Orchard” was written by A.P. Chekhov during a period of significant changes in the social life of Russian society, namely at the very beginning of the twentieth century. There was hope in the air new life promised by the revolutionaries. This is precisely the idea that the author wanted to convey to readers. Not the least place in the theme of the work is occupied by the cherry orchard and its [...]
“The Cherry Orchard” is the last work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, completing his creative biography, his ideological and artistic quest. The new stylistic principles he developed, new “techniques” for plotting and composition were embodied in this play in such figurative discoveries that elevated the realistic depiction of life to broad symbolic generalizations, to an insight into future forms of human relations in the hidden depths of the current […]...
Analysis of the work Chekhov conceived this work as a comedy, as a funny play, “where the devil would walk with a yoke.” But K. S. Stanislavsky and V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, highly appreciating the work, perceived it as a drama. The external plot of “The Cherry Orchard” is a change of owners of the house and garden, the sale of an ordinary estate for debts. The businesslike and practical merchant Lopakhin is opposed here to the beautiful, but [...]
The plot of Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is as follows: there is a change of owners of the family estate. In the play there is a kind of collision: a new era, led by decisive, business people with the lives of nobles who do not want and cannot imagine life in the new century. The poetry of the cherry orchard gives way to the sounds of axes. This is one of the narrow interpretations of the essence of this work. Readers […]...
Which heroes are called klutzes? A.P. Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” was written in 1903 and is considered one of the most famous in Russian literature. She managed to convey old ideas in a new style and became an example of innovation. The author himself is sure that a person in his soul is deeply unhappy and helpless in front of the world. For this reason, in the play […]...
Lopakhin Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich is one of the main characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard”, a merchant, a descendant of serfs who worked for Ranevskaya’s father and grandfather. Lopakhin's father was uneducated and rude, often beating him. Ranevskaya was kind to the boy and protected him. He says that he loves her more than his own, as she has done a lot for him. About himself he […]...
So, in “Three Sisters” the heroines express their innermost desires and dreams “about” Vershinin’s arrival in the city, his acquaintance with Andrei... So, Uncle Vanya says, or rather, shouts out, his confessional confessions about a life lived in vain and only shoots at Serebryakov - Apparently - because he offered to mortgage the estate. Behind this shot is the accumulated […]
A.P. Chekhov was not only a master of the story, his talent extended to other genres. Thus, Chekhov’s plays, filled with subtle symbolism and vitality, have long become immortal. “The Cherry Orchard” is considered one of the best and most famous works of this genre. This play was written in 1903, almost before the writer's death. In “The Cherry Orchard” Chekhov reveals his […]...
In every dramatic work, the connection between composition, conflict and genre is very close, these three components of the work simply cannot help but echo each other, and often, having read the genre definition, highlighted in small print on the title page, we already guess not only the form, but sometimes and the plot, and with it the idea, the theme of the entire work, respectively […]...
Love for home In the work of the great Russian classic A.P. Chekhov “The Cherry Orchard” the central place is given to the theme of home and homeland. Like a cherry orchard that fell at the hands of an ax, the former homeland is slowly dying. Or, if you look at it from the other side, it does not die, but is reborn: the old generation is replaced by a new, young generation, full of faith in a happy […]...
Plan Conflict in a dramatic work The origins of the conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard” and its originality Lopakhin is the central character in revealing the main conflict of the play Conflict in a dramatic work One of the features of Chekhov’s dramaturgy was the absence of open conflicts, which is quite unexpected for dramatic works, because it is conflict that is the driving force of the entire play, but Anton Pavlovich was [...]
The play “The Cherry Orchard” was written in 1903, shortly before the death of A.P. Chekhov. Like any play, it is populated by various characters: among them are the main ones, the secondary ones, and the episodic ones. They all talk, suffer, rejoice. Each hero has his own face, clothes, habits, age, social status. But there is one hero on whom a lot depends, almost everything, and his [...]
Varya Varvara Mikhailovna is one of the main characters in the play “The Cherry Orchard”, the adopted daughter of the landowner Ranevskaya. She is 24 years old and she runs the entire Ranevsky household, acting as both an adopted daughter and a housekeeper. By nature, Varya is a very modest and pious girl who conscientiously treats her duties. She is often busy with petty household chores and, unlike [...]
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” tells the story of the life of 3 generations. One of the main characters, the garden itself, embodied the beauty of the past, especially in the perception of Gaev and Ranevskaya, who spent their childhood years there. They walked through this garden, played in it, watched it from the windows of the house. Other characters in the play, for example, [...]
In the play “The Cherry Orchard” A.P. Chekhov raises the most important social theme of the turn of the 19th-20th centuries - the theme of the death of “noble nests”. This work clearly shows the farewells of the new, young, tomorrow's Russia to the past, obsolete, doomed. The “old” and “new” times in the play are symbolized by the characters: representatives of the old, patriarchal Russia - Ranevskaya, her brother Gaev, Simeonov-Pishchik, a man of the new time - […]...
“This is the best role, I don’t like the rest” - this is how the author described Charlotte in Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” in his letter. Why was this episodic heroine so important for Chekhov? It's not hard to say. According to the text of the play, Charlotte does not have any social markers: neither her age, nor her nationality, nor her origin are known either to the viewer or to her […]...
What are the reasons general ill-being characterizing the state of the characters, the general atmosphere in the play “The Cherry Orchard”? At the center of the work is the struggle for the future of the cherry orchard, part of the Gaevs’ estate. The cherry orchard symbolically embodies the beauty of a passing life, the past, and the entire changing homeland. His former owners are devoid of any striking shortcomings; social exposure is not the element of Chekhov, who loves halftones and understatement. Everyone loves Ranevskaya, [...]
In the mid-1890s, A.P. Chekhov returned to dramatic works. And it seems that in the play the playwright is trying to transfer the basic principles of “objective” prose. Plot sharpness is replaced by an outwardly calm course of events. Many of Chekhov's plays can be called such. But let’s turn to the comedy “The Cherry Orchard”. Here we are presented with a rather banal plot picture, characteristic of the reflection […]...
As you know, drama is that type of literature where the role of the author in the work is reduced to a minimum (stage directions), and the characters, their words and actions come to the fore. But we understand that all this “action” is controlled by the author, but detecting his presence is sometimes very difficult. Thus, in Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” the author manifests himself, first of all, in […]...
A.P. Chekhov was primarily interested in the inner world of his heroes. The standard composition with turbulent events did not suit him. “Let everything on stage be as complicated and at the same time as simple as in life,” said Chekhov, “people have lunch, just have lunch, and at this time their happiness is formed and broken […]...

Then a person will become better when

we will show him what he is.

A. P. Chekhov

How clear were the conflicts in classical plays before Chekhov: Hamlet and Claudius, Chatsky and Famusov, Katerina and Kabanova. It's not like that with Chekhov. You don't know who to sympathize with. They all seem to be good people: Ranevskaya, Lopakhin, Trofimov.

But why don't they understand each other? Who is to blame that their good feelings, spiritual disposition towards each other do not warm, do not please, and life remains gray, dirty, vulgar and unhappy? There are no people to blame, just as there are no direct opponents in the play. Chekhov does not like to pit his heroes against each other.

They live on their own. He also does not like open moralizing. Chekhov would never have written at the end of the play: “Here are the evil worthy fruits! Let the viewer say this, the author only helps the reader understand the work.

Is it difficult to understand Ranevskaya? Look at her servants. Dunyasha tries to copy her mistress, and it turns out to be a caricature. But Chekhov is still lenient towards Dunyasha. All her attempts to seem educated only cause laughter. But I don’t want to laugh looking at Yasha. It is difficult to find an image in Chekhov’s work depicted with such open contempt. Yasha is not funny, but disgusting when he reads a sermon to the crying Dunyasha: “Why cry? Behave decently, then you won’t cry.” The clerk Epikhodov is more likable, but the persistent demonstration of “education” is annoying and disturbing. Chekhov brings us to the idea: a terrible danger of lack of spirituality is approaching. Here is a drunkard passer-by quoting poems from Nadson, Nekrasov; Lopakhin distorts the name of Shakespeare’s heroine (“Okhmelia!”), Epikhodov, parodying Hamlet, reflects: “Should I live or shoot myself...” And then there’s Dashenka, the daughter of Simeonov-Pishchik, who claims that “the greatest... the most famous” The philosopher Nietzsche says that it is possible to make counterfeit pieces of paper. None of this is funny at all.

Chekhov is extremely demanding of his heroes. Chekhov's best heroes are mentally subtle and delicate people, they live a deep and complex inner life, and most importantly, they carry a high culture. There is not a single positive character in The Cherry Orchard. It is not in Gogol’s famous “The Inspector General,” but Gogol was sorry that no one noticed honest person in his play: “This honest, noble face was laughter.” Chekhov has the only positive hero stands out as a symbolic image of a cherry orchard. The main conflict of the play is built around him. The cherry orchard represents beauty, happiness, homeland, and cultural values that must be preserved. Unfolding the action against the backdrop of a cherry orchard, Chekhov seems to be weighing whether his heroes are worthy of the surrounding beauty. Along the way, another conflict arises related to the past and the future.

For Ranevskaya and Gaev, representatives of the past, the cherry orchard is the only place on earth where they can still feel at home. They are happy here. Here Ranevskaya saw her late mother. In Chekhov's play, the ghost of the deceased mother is seen only by Ranevskaya. Only she is able to sense something familiar in the white cherry tree, reminiscent of maternal affection, unique childhood, beauty and poetry. It seems that the image of the mother appears to remind us of the past and prevent catastrophe. But in vain. It was Ranevskaya who spent all the money on her lover that should have been used to pay interest. Moreover, she is now taking to Paris all the money sent by her grandmother for Anya. “Long live grandma!” - this exclamation does not paint Ranevskaya; one can hear in it not only despair, but also open cynicism. Material from the site

The present time is represented in the play by Ermolai Lopakhin. He also likes the estate, “there is nothing more beautiful in the world.” But why does Lopakhin need poetry? The main thing for him is personal self-affirmation and benefit. And he orders the garden to be cut down, without even waiting for the former owners to leave.

Anya and Petya Trofimov, young representatives of the future, leave the cherry orchard without regret, hoping that they will plant a new, even more beautiful one. However, the reader has a doubt: where, when and for what money will they do this? In relation to the cherry orchard, all the heroes - for various reasons - act as a single force that destroys beauty.

More than a dozen years have passed since the first production of The Cherry Orchard, but this play has not left the theater stage. Russian classics help us resist lack of spirituality, well-fed contentment, and the deification of material wealth. It would be very good if the well-known Chekhov’s lines became the motto of all people: “Everything in a person should be beautiful: his face, his clothes, his soul, and his thoughts.”

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

quotes conflict plays cherry garden
the main conflict in Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard
the main conflict of the play The Cherry Orchard
conflict in Chekhov's drama The Cherry Orchard brief
Features of the plot and conflict in the play The Cherry Orchard

The image of time in the play. The conflict of the comedy “The Cherry Orchard” and its development.

In the last lesson, we talked in detail about the heroes of Chekhov's comedy, identified their relationship to each other, their relationship to the garden, and also gave brief characteristics of the characters. Based on what we talked about, we can conclude that each character in the play belongs to a certain time.

By what principle do you think the characters in the play are grouped?

We can identify 3 groups:

People of the passing “noble era” (past) - Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, Gaev Leonid Andreevich.

In other words, these are the old owners of the garden. It can also be assumed that this group also includes the image of Varia and the lackey Firs.

A bright representative of the present is Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, whom we cannot attribute either to the previous group or to the group of youth.

He is energetic and steadily moves towards his goal.

“Young generation” (future) – Anya and Petya Trofimov.

They are united by a common aspiration away from the old life towards some wonderful future, which is depicted in Trofimov’s speeches.

Let us draw brief conclusions about these people:

Why do you think the characters in the play are opposed to each other?

The characters have different values and concepts, each of them is a representative of their time, because of this they often do not understand each other. Ranevskaya and Gaev personify a past life with old ways of life, Lopakhin is a representative of the time when practicality and hard work come first, and Anya and Petya are a new generation with new outlooks on life, and the future of Russia depends on them.

However, despite everything, these people sincerely love each other and are even ready to help each other.

What do we call an image system?

System of images - a set of artistic images literary images.

What groups are characters divided into in the image system?\

Main, secondary, episodic, off-stage.

Who is the main character in the song? se?

In Chekhov there is no division into main and secondary characters, all the characters are not background, they are all independent heroes.

How does Chekhov relate to his heroes?

The author's position: he feels sorry for his heroes and is at the same time ironic towards them. Ch. Treats all heroes equally; they all make up our Russia. He is objective in relation to his heroes, so we cannot distinguish between them, Ch. There is no hierarchy, as in classical drama.

How does Ch. reveal the human characters in the play?

Ch. Comes to a new revelation of human character. In classical drama, the hero revealed himself in actions, actions aimed at achieving a goal, Ch. Zhe discovered new possibilities for depicting character through the hero’s experiences and thoughts.

As you and I already know, Chekhov has nothing on the surface, he has no open struggle, no passions. We don’t see any clear conflict; everything seems to be going as usual. The heroes behave calmly, there are no open quarrels or clashes between them. But the presence of a hidden, internal conflict is still felt.

What does Chekhov bring “to the surface”? What do we classify as an external conflict?

The attitude of the characters in the play towards the cherry orchard.

Do the characters conflict with each other?

No. There is a clash of views on the cherry orchard and the estate.

How do we know this?

From the very beginning of the play, we see that the characters’ attention is focused on the cherry orchard and the family estate. Everyone wants to save the garden and the estate. Already in the first act, Lopakhin announces that there is a way out, although the way out seems “vulgar” to the owners.

How can we trace the internal conflict? By what means is it expressed in the play?

What is hidden behind ordinary conversations? What moods of the characters does the author show us?

Misunderstanding of each other, loneliness of the characters, confusion is the main motive of the play.

For example: Charlotte: "Who am I? Why me? Unknown..."

Epikhodov: “I just can’t figure out whether I should live or shoot myself.”

What can we say about Chekhov's dialogue? What function does it perform in revealing internal conflict?

There is no dialogue, remarks are random, the present seems unsteady, and the future is alarming. Ch. has many such random remarks, they are everywhere. The dialogue is torn, broken. Gets confused about some little things. Through such dialogue, we can easily plunge into the thoughts of the characters; through unnecessary little things, we learn the character’s well-being in life.

We can also call internal conflict an “undercurrent.”

What do you think “p. T."?

"P.t" - this is some kind of subtext. The main idea of the play does not lie “on the surface”, but is hidden in the subtext.

Open Act 1, the scene with the wardrobe (we start reading from the stage directions “Varya and Yasha enter”, we end with Gaev’s words “I’m cutting to medium!”) Reading by roles.

Why do you think the characters behave this way?

Ranevskaya received a telegram from Paris, her brother, a dear man, realizing that her sister is still worried after the breakup with her lover, begins to act out the scene with the closet, he himself finds himself in an absurd position, but, however, he manages to distract his sister.

What is “underwater”?

“Underwater” was the following truth of life. Lyubov Andreevna still deeply loves the man who “robbed her and abandoned her.” Now Lyubov Andreevna is tearing it up without reading it, because... everyone knows her sad story and she needs to “work for the public” - to show that she is a person with self-esteem.

From what conversation do we learn about Ranevskaya’s unquenched love for her lover?

Scene of conversation with Petya. (From the remark “Takes out a handkerchief, a telegram falls to the floor.” Act 3, p. 71)

What do you think is the internal conflict of other heroes? At Lopakhin, Gaev, Anya, Petit? Find and read episodes with undercurrents in the play.

Lopakhin. As we know, he and Varya are matched up throughout the play. But why doesn’t he propose to Varya in the decisive scene?(act 4 from the words of Lyubov Andreevna “Now you can go...”, ending with the remark “He leaves quickly”) + we remember the beginning of the play (waiting for Ranevskaya’s arrival and Lopakhin’s childhood memories).

We conclude that Lopakhin does not propose to Varya, not because he is shy in front of her, or is busy with some business, but because he is in love with another woman - Ranevskaya, who so amazed him in his youth. Lopakhin's internal conflict is that he was never able to confess his feelings to her.

Petya Trofimov. He is too carried away by his thoughts about a better future, considers himself “above love,” and therefore does not notice the feelings on Anya’s part. His problem is that he only talks, makes plans about what will lead people.(Episode of a conversation with Lopakhin from the remark Lopakhin “hugs him” to “you can hear an ax knocking on a tree in the distance”) Pay attention to why he doesn’t take money from Lopakhin.

Gaev. Why does he hide his real feelings behind billiard statements? A very vulnerable person, he loves his family, but, alas, cannot do anything for their happiness. He keeps everything to himself, and this is his internal conflict. Hides behind words like “Who?” or breaks off dialogue with other characters using phrases known to him, borrowed from billiards, thereby (in his opinion) defusing the situation.

Based on all this, we can say why Chekhov’s dialogue is not built: Each hero, due to his emotional experiences, thinks about his own, hence it is clear that the heroes are deaf to each other’s experiences and simply simply do not hear each other, therefore each of them is lonely and unhappy.

Which of the heroes is able to overcome their selfishness?

Anya. (End of Act 3) She is merciful to her mother.

Anya. ( At the end of 2 acts ), carried away by Petya’s words, she decides that she will leave home. From a distance, Varya’s voice is heard, looking for Anya. However, the answer to Varya’s cry is silence; Anya runs away with Petya to the river. Thus, the playwright emphasizes the young heroine’s determination to break with her old life and move towards a new, unknown, but tempting one.

I wrote that this episode is not an example of an undercurrent. In general, we can say about Anya that she is the only character in the play who is not tormented by internal conflict. She is a whole, bright nature, she has nothing to hide. That's why she is the only person who is capable of being merciful. Therefore, it is better to talk about Anya last.

Are any of the heroes still capable of showing mercy? Why?

No. The problem with heroes is that they do not know how and do not want to be merciful. (episode of Lopakhin buying a garden from the words of L.A.: “who bought it?” to “... awkward unhappy life”) WE CAN TALK WHAT CHARACTER TRAITS THE CHILDREN SAW IN THIS SCENE AND WHETHER PETYA TROFIMOV IS RIGHT. WHEN YOU CALLED LOPAKHIN A PREDATOR.

Let’s pay attention to Firs’ phrase “oh, you....klutz!” To whom can she be attributed?

This phrase is repeated throughout the play: act 1, scene, when Dunyasha forgot to take the cream (p. 33); Act 3, when Yasha tells him “I wish you would die soon.” (p.73); End of Act 4.

The phrase can be applied to all the characters in the play, even in the phrase “Yes.... (with a grin) I’ll go to bed, but without me, who will serve, who will give orders? One for the whole house” and then it sounds “Eh, you....klutz.”

The significance of the internal conflict and the presence of an undercurrent are indicated by numerous pauses in the text of the play. In the last act of the comedy there are 10 pauses designated by the author. This is not counting the numerous pauses indicated by ellipses in the characters' remarks. This gives the play extraordinary psychological depth.

In The Cherry Orchard the subtext became basis of action : to understand the essence of what is happening, it is not what is said that is important, but what is kept silent.

Homework: 1. Why did Chekhov call the play a comedy?Justify the author's choice based on the text (You can suggest making an abstract: one student will answer this question, and the other can briefly outline the opinions of critics on the genre of the play, then together with the class, by comparing these 2 abstracts, you can draw conclusions about the uniqueness of the genre -

for such a task it is necessary to provide the appropriate literature; working on an abstract requires time, but there is none)

2. Find and write down the definition of the symbol . Identify the symbols in the play " Cherry Orchard" (You can divide the task: someone looks for symbols in step 1, someone in the second, etc. We will comment together with the class) How do you look at this?There are not many symbols in the play: let them work with the entire text. Complete the task in writing (the symbol is its meaning).

RESPONSE PLAN

1. The origins of the play.

2. Genre features of the play.

4. The conflict of comedy and its features.

5. Basic images of comedy.

6. The main idea of the play.

7. The symbolic sound of the title of the play.

1. A.P. Chekhov finished his play “The Cherry Orchard” in 1903, when the new century was knocking on the door. There was a reassessment of centuries-old values. The nobility was ruined and stratified. It was a class doomed to destruction. It was replaced by a powerful force - the bourgeoisie. The dying of the nobility as a class and the arrival of capitalists is the basis of the play. Chekhov understands that the new masters of life will not last long as a class, since another, young force is growing up that will build a new life in Russia.

2. The play “The Cherry Orchard” is imbued with a bright, lyrical mood. The author himself emphasized that “The Cherry Orchard” is a comedy, since he managed to combine a dramatic, sometimes tragic beginning with a comic one.

3. The main event of the play is the purchase of the cherry orchard. All the problems and experiences of the characters are built around this. All thoughts and memories are connected with him. It is the cherry orchard that is centrally plays.

4. Truthfully depicting life, the writer talks about the fate of three generations, three social strata of society: the nobility, the bourgeoisie and the progressive intelligentsia. Distinctive feature The plot is the absence of a pronounced conflict. All events take place in the same estate with permanent characters. The external conflict in the play is replaced by the drama of the characters’ experiences.

5. Old world Serf Russia is personified by the images of Gaev and Ranevskaya, Varya and Firs. Today's world, the world of the business bourgeoisie, is represented by Lopakhin, the world of undecided trends of the future - by Anya and Petya Trofimov.

6. The expectation of change is the main leitmotif of the play. All the heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” are oppressed by the temporality of all things, the frailty of existence. In their life, as in the life of contemporary Russia, “the connecting thread has broken,” the old has been destroyed, but the new has not yet been built, and it is unknown what this new will be like. They all unconsciously grasp at the past, not realizing that it no longer exists.

Hence the feeling of loneliness in this world, the awkwardness of existence. Not only Ranevskaya, Gaev, Lopakhin are lonely and unhappy in this life, but also Charlotte and Epikhodov. All the characters in the play are closed in on themselves, they are so absorbed in their problems that they do not hear or notice others. The unknown and anxiety about the future still gives birth in their hearts to hope for something better. But what is this better future? Chekhov leaves this question open... Petya Trofimov looks at life exclusively from a social point of view. There is a lot of truth in his speeches, but they do not have a concrete idea of \u200b\u200bresolving eternal issues. He understands little about real life. Therefore, Chekhov gives us this image in contradiction: on the one hand, he is an accuser, and on the other, a “klutz,” “an eternal student,” “a shabby gentleman.” Anya is full of hope, vitality, but there is still so much inexperience and childhood in her.

7. The author does not yet see in Russian life a hero who could become the real owner of the “cherry orchard”, the guardian of its beauty and wealth. Glubokoye ideological content carries the very title of the play. The garden is a symbol of passing life. The end of the garden is the end of the outgoing generation - the nobles. But in the play, the image of a new garden grows, “more luxurious than this.” “All of Russia is our garden.” And this new blooming garden, with its fragrance, its beauty, will be cultivated by the younger generation.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

1. What is the problem and what is the fault of the former owners of the cherry orchard?

2. Why does Chekhov end the play with the sound of an ax?

47. Past, present, future in the play A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard". (Ticket 24)

Option 1

The cardinal conflict in Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is expressed by the complex opposition of three times - past, present and future.
The past is connected with the images of Ranevskaya and Chekhov.
“The Cherry Orchard” shows the historical change of social structures: the period of cherry orchards ends with the elegiac beauty of a passing manor life, with the poetry of memories of a former life. The owners of the cherry orchard are indecisive, not adapted to life, impractical and passive, they have paralysis of will. These traits are filled with historical meaning: these people are failing because their time has passed. People obey the dictates of history more than personal feelings.
Ranevskaya is replaced by Lopakhin, but she does not blame him for anything, he has sincere and heartfelt affection for her. “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,” he says.
Petya Trofimov, announcing the onset of a new life, pronouncing passionate tirades against old injustice, also dearly loves Ranevskaya and on the night of her arrival greets her with touching and timid delicacy: “I will just bow to you and immediately leave.”
But this atmosphere of universal goodwill cannot change anything. Leaving their estate forever, Ranevskaya and Gaev accidentally find themselves alone for a minute. “They were definitely waiting for this, they throw themselves on each other’s necks and sob restrainedly and quietly, afraid not to be heard.” Here, as if before the eyes of the audience, history is being made, its inexorable progress can be felt.
In Chekhov's play, “the century marches on its iron path.” Lopakhin's period begins, the cherry orchard is cracking under his ax, although as a person Lopakhin is subtler and more humane than the role imposed on him by history. He cannot help but rejoice that he has become the owner of the estate where his father was a serf, and his joy is natural and understandable. And at the same time, Lopakhin understands that his triumph will not bring decisive changes, that the general flavor of life will remain the same, and he himself dreams of the end of that “awkward, unhappy life” in which he and others like him will be the main force.
They will be replaced by new people, and this will be the next step in history, which Trofimov happily talks about. He himself does not embody the future, but he feels it approaching. No matter how “shabby gentleman” and klutz Trofimov may seem, he is a man difficult fate: according to Chekhov, he is “ever and again in exile.” Trofimov's soul is “full of inexplicable forebodings,” he exclaims: “All of Russia is our garden.”
The joyful words and exclamations of Trofimov and Anya set the tone for the entire play. Complete happiness is still far away, the Lopakhin era has yet to be experienced, a beautiful garden is being cut down, Firs has been forgotten in the boarded-up house. The tragedies of life are far from over.
Russia at the turn of two centuries had not yet developed a real ideal of man. Premonitions of an impending revolution are brewing in it, but people are not ready for it. There are rays of truth, humanity and beauty in each of the heroes. At the end there is a feeling that life is ending for everyone. People have not risen to the heights that the upcoming trials require of them.

Topic: “The main conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard.” Characters and the author’s attitude towards them.”

A.P. Chekhov

Educational goal:
- textual study of Chekhov’s comedy “The Cherry Orchard”;
- continued study creative method Chekhov;
- deepening knowledge of the “new drama” and Chekhov’s dramaturgy in particular;
- repetition of literary studies and theatrical concepts(“undercurrent”, “new drama”, symbolic images).
Developmental goal:
- consolidation and testing of skills in analyzing a dramatic work;
- development of literary knowledge and theatrical performances students;
- development of intellectual and creative abilities of students;
- continued development of research skills.
Educational goal:
- nurturing a love for the art of words;
- deepening interest in the work of A.P. Chekhov;
- development of students’ creative abilities;
- formation of a humanistic worldview.
Lesson type:
Type of lesson (according to N.I. Kudryashov’s classification) – a lesson in the study of a literary work.
Methods: reproductive, heuristic, research.
Basic concepts:
a) terms: “undercurrent”, new drama, symbolic images (symbols);
b) moral concepts: love for others, striving for the ideal.
Equipment:
A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard". Illustrative material: portrait of A.P. Chekhov, illustrations for the play “The Cherry Orchard”. Presentation, screen, projector.Internet resources: Lesson plan:

1. Opening remarks. 2. History of creation and production. 3. 4. 5. Image system. Heroes " Cherry Orchard». 6. 7. Genre originality plays.8. Conclusions and summing up.9.Homework.

Introductory teacher's word:

SLIDE №1

The cultural situation at the end of the 19th century was influenced by a number of factors, both social and cultural.

If we bear in mind the social relations that reigned in the country, then this was the time when, as one of the heroes of the drama “Dowry” says, “the triumph of the bourgeoisie” came. The transition to new forms of life is carried out quickly, even rapidly. “Another life” is coming. As M.V. correctly noted. Otradin, “this transition to a new life was sharply manifested in the development and approval of another system moral values, which primarily interested writers.”

SLIDE No. 2

Chekhov was a cultured and sensitive representative of that best part of the intelligentsia of his era, who realized that it was impossible to live the way Russia lived at the end of the 19th century and that one must believe in some other life, bright and beautiful. To the alarming question of the time: “What should we do?” Chekhov had no answer. He did not look for any new ways, did not invent means of salvation. He simply loved Russia, loved it sincerely, with all its shortcomings and weaknesses, and painted life as it is in its daily flow.

Unlike his predecessors, the writer makes the hero of his works not some outstanding personality, but the most ordinary person. He is interested in the spiritual world of a person immersed in the flow of everyday life.

SLIDE No. 3

The main theme of the mature Chekhov’s work is the observation of the process of gradual moral degradation, the loss of true spiritual values by man. At the same time, what is important for the writer is not the thoughts of the hero, but his emotions and experiences.

Since 1896, it has been writing dramatic works becomes the main direction in creativity for Chekhov. This year he wrote “The Seagull”, in 1897 “Uncle Vanya”, in 1901 “Three Sisters” and, finally, in 1903 he created his farewell play “The Cherry Orchard”. “The Cherry Orchard” is the last work of A.P. Chekhov, completing his creative biography, his ideological quest. It is this play that we will talk about today.

SLIDE No. 4

Topic of our lesson: “The main conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard.” Characters and the author’s attitude towards them.”

Epigraph: “All of Russia is our garden.”

A.P. Chekhov

SLIDE No. 5

Student message (suggested answer):

History of creation and production.

The creation of the “Cherry Orchard” dates back to 1903-1904. According to the story of K. S. Stanislavsky, the idea for the play arose already during the rehearsal of “Three Sisters”, in 1901. He conceived it as a comedy, “like a funny play, where the devil would walk like a yoke.” In 1903, in the midst of work on The Cherry Orchard, he wrote to friends: “The whole play is cheerful and frivolous.” Its theme - “the estate goes under the hammer” - was not new for Chekhov; it was touched upon by him in his early drama “Fatherlessness”. The situation of the sale of the estate and the loss of the house interested the writer throughout creative path.
Chekhov took a long time to write it, the copying of the manuscript also took place slowly, and much was subject to alteration. “I really don’t like some passages, I write them again and rewrite them again,” the writer told one of his friends. Working on the play required A.P. Chekhov great effort. “I write four lines a day, and those with unbearable pain,” he told his friends.

By the time of the production of “The Cherry Orchard,” the Art Theater had developed its own stage production method based on the material of Chekhov’s lyrical dramas (“The Seagull,” “Uncle Vanya,” “Three Sisters”). That's why and new play Chekhov, conceived by the writer in different tones and executed mostly in a comedic way, was interpreted on stage by the leaders of the Art Theater largely in accordance with their previous principles.

The premiere took place on January 17, 1904. The play was prepared in the absence of the author and the production (judging by Chekhov’s numerous comments) did not satisfy him. “Yesterday my play was on, so I’m not in a good mood,” he wrote to I. L. Shcheglov the day after the premiere. The acting seemed to him “confused and lackluster.” Stanislavsky recalled that the performance was difficult to put together. Nemirovich-Danchenko also noted that the play did not reach the audience right away. Subsequently, the power of tradition brought to our time precisely the original stage interpretation of “The Cherry Orchard,” which did not coincide with the author’s intention.

SLIDE 6

Teacher's word:

The problematic and ideological orientation of the play.

To the surprise of A.P. Chekhov, the first readers saw in the play primarily drama and even tragedy. One of the reasons is the “dramatic” plot taken from real life. In the 1880-90s Russian press was full of announcements about mortgaged estates and auctions for non-payment of debts. A.P. Chekhov witnessed a similar story as a child. His father, a Taganrog merchant, went bankrupt in 1876 and fled to Moscow. Family friend G.P. Selivanov, who served in the commercial court, promised to help, but later he himself bought the Chekhovs’ house at a cheap price.

In the play "" reflects the process of socio-historical development of Russia at the turn of the century and the changes occurring in society.The change of owners of the cherry orchard in the play symbolizes these changes: A huge era of Russian life is passing into the past along with the nobility, new times are coming in which other people feel like masters - prudent, businesslike, practical, but devoid of the old spirituality, the personification of which is a beautiful garden.

SLIDE No. 7

The plot of the play. The nature of the conflict and the originality of the stage action.

While working on The Cherry Orchard, A.P. Chekhov was guided by a new concept of depicting reality: “Let everything on stage be as complex and at the same time as simple as in life. People have lunch, they only have lunch, and at this time their happiness is formed and their lives are broken.”

SLIDE No. 8

The plot of The Cherry Orchard is simple. The landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya arrives from Paris to her estate (the beginning of the first act) and after some time returns to France (the end of the fourth act). Between these events are episodes of ordinary home life on the mortgaged estate of Gaev and Ranevskaya. The characters in the play gathered on the estate unwillingly, in some vain, illusory hope of saving the old garden, the old family estate, preserving their past, which now seems so beautiful to them, themselves.

SLIDE No. 9

Let's break it down step by step:

Action 1: Arrival of Ranevskaya (May) - hope for saving the estate. Lyrical memories, tender meetings.
Action 2: Conversations - nervousness, sobering up. Trading is approaching.
Action 3: Sale of the estate (August) - the heroes are in confusion, waiting for fate to decide. The premonitions are justified - the cherry orchard was sold for debts.
Act 4: Departure of everyone (except Firs, the old servant), cutting down the garden (October) - parting with the past, departure, farewell.

Meanwhile, the event for which they came together takes place offstage, and on the stage itself there is no action in the traditional sense of the word, therefore there is no external plot : everyone is in a state of anticipation, ordinary, meaningless conversations are being conducted - this is one of the signs of a “new drama”.

Behind everyday scenes and details hides a continuously moving “internal” emotional plot - The personal experiences of the characters, their feelings and aspirations allow us to understand the spiritual processes of the time.All this amounts to "undercurrent" plays.

SLIDE No. 10

“Undercurrent” is an internal, invisible conflict that often develops out of connection with the outside and is not directly expressed in the events of the work.
In his play, Chekhov not only created images of people whose lives occurred at a turning point, but captured time itself in its movement. The course of history is the main nerve of comedy, its plot and content.In The Cherry Orchard, external action has temporary boundaries - from May to October.

SLIDE No. 11

Heroes of The Cherry Orchard.

In the play there is no development of action in the usual sense. The writer wants to talk about the collision of the past and present of Russia, about the emergence of its future. The affirmation of the unviability of the noble way of life is the ideological core of the play

The characters of Chekhov's heroes are complex and ambiguous; by depicting them, the writer shows the contradictory, changing spiritual appearance of a person.

It's important to feel the changing internal states of the characters from the initial to the last scene.

1. Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, landowner.

2. Anya, her daughter, 17 years old.

3. Varya, her adopted daughter, 24 years old.

4. Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, merchant.

5. Trofimov Petr Sergeevich, student.

6. Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, landowner.

7. Charlotte Ivanovna, governess.

8. Semyon Panteleevich Epikhodov, clerk.

9. Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya.

10. Dunyasha, maid.

11.Firs, footman, old man 87 years old.

12. Yasha, young footman.

Discussion with students:

The system of images in the play is presented different social forces who connect their lives with a specific time:

Local nobles Ranevskaya and Gaev live with memories of the past;

Merchant Lopakhin is a man of the present;

Raznochinets Petya Trofimov and Ranevskaya's daughter Anya , denying both the old and new owners of the cherry orchard, mark the future.

This lyrical plot is formed not by a sequence of events and not by the relationships of the characters (all this only determines it), but by “cross-cutting” themes, echoes, poetic associations and symbols. What is important here is not the external plot, but the atmosphere that determines the meaning of the play.

SLIDE No. 12

The role of images and symbols in the play. The meaning of the name.

Symbol - (from the Greek symbolon - sign, identifying mark) - an idea, image or object that has its own content and at the same time represents some other content in a generalized, unexpanded form.

The Cherry Orchard is a complex and ambiguous image. This is not only a specific garden, which is part of the estate of Gaev and Ranevskaya, but also an image - a symbol.

- What do you think the garden symbolizes in Chekhov’s play?

The cherry orchard in A.P. Chekhov’s comedy symbolizes not only the beauty of Russian nature, but most importantly the beauty of the life of the people who nurtured this garden and admired it, that life.

Let's turn to the main characters of the comedy.

Question for the class:

- What associations arose in your mind when you mentioned the name Gaev?

SLIDE No. 13

Through a “search for associations,” students should see pictures of a green “gai,” or forest, and conclude that all the ancestors of the Gaevs (and Lyubov Andreevna and Anya are also representatives of this genus) lived in the greenery of forests.

The surname Ranevskaya is associated with autumn apples “Ranet”, therefore, with a garden, with a plant origin. And her name - Love - turned out to be associated with “love of the garden.” There may also be associations of this name with “wound”, with “wounded garden”.

Anya, although she has the last name Ranevskaya, has a different name, so she has no love for the garden.

SLIDE No. 14

The surname Lopakhin can be associated with a “shovel” throwing earth, with strong hands that are not afraid of anything, and the name Ermolai connects the hero with a low class, with a common people’s way of life.

SLIDE No. 15

As in any highly artistic work, everything in Chekhov's play is motivated. The names of the main characters correlate with the garden.

- Based on these quotes, let's determine what attitude the characters in the play have towards the garden?

Ranevskaya -

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

Gaev - a garden is the past, childhood, but also a sign of prosperity, pride, a memory of happiness.

“And the Encyclopedic Dictionary mentions this garden.”

Anya - 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.”

Lopakhin - garden - 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 for 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.”

For Firs - 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!”

For 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.

SLIDE No. 16

Thus, we can conclude:

The owners of the estate, nobles Ranevskaya and Gaev, are dear, good people. They cannot live without the cherry orchard, but they do nothing to save it; their time has passed.

Merchant Lopakhin is a businesslike and practical person. He loves Ranevskaya “More than his own” and tries to help her. But Ranevskaya does not listen to him. And Lopakhin acts like a real capitalist: he buys an estate in order to divide the cherry orchard into summer cottages.

Petya Trofimov and Anya are honest and noble young people. Their thoughts are directed to the future: Petya speaks of “continuous work,” Anya speaks of a “new garden.” However, beautiful words do not lead to concrete actions and therefore do not inspire confidence.

SLIDE No. 17

In addition to the cherry orchard, there are other symbolic images and motifs in the play.

The image and fate of Gaev’s old servant, Firs, are symbolic. At the end of the play, all the characters leave, leaving him in a locked house to fend for himself. They leave their past in this house, embodied by the old servant. The word klutz uttered by Firs can be applied to each of the heroes. The problem of humanism is also connected with this image. Almost no one remembered the faithful servant, who even at such a moment thinks not about himself, but about his master, who did not put on a warm fur coat. The blame for the dramatic outcome of Firs' life is placed on all the main characters of The Cherry Orchard.

Slide No. 18

Traditional symbol of time - clock - becomes key to the play. Lopakhin is the only hero who looks at his watch all the time; the rest have lost their sense of time. The movement of the clock hand is symbolic, correlating with the life of the heroes: the action begins in the spring and ends in late autumn, the May flowering time is replaced by the October cold.

Slide No. 19

The sound background of the play is symbolic: the ringing of keys, the knock of an ax on wood, the sound of a broken string, music - helping to create a certain atmosphere of what is happening on stage.

SLIDE No. 20

Conclusion:

The image of cherry unites all the characters in the play around itself. At first glance, it seems that these are only relatives and old acquaintances who, by chance, have gathered at the estate to solve their everyday problems. But that's not true. The writer connects the characters different ages And social groups, and they must one way or another decide the fate of the garden, and therefore their own fate.

- What is the symbol of the cherry orchard in A.P.’s play? Chekhov?

Chekhov's word garden means long peaceful life, going from great-grandfathers to great-grandchildren, tireless creative work. The symbolic content of the image of the garden is multifaceted: beauty, past, culture, and finally, all of Russia.

(Garden is a symbol of home, a symbol of beauty, a symbol of the past, a symbol of the present, a symbol of the future)

SLIDE No. 21

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.

Let's return to the epigraph of the lesson.

Students comment on the epigraph to the lesson: “All of Russia is our garden.”

So what is this play about?

Answer: 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.

Who will be a renewing force for Russia? Let's return to our heroes.

SLIDE No. 22

Conclusions regarding Ranevskaya and Gaev:
These are sensitive people with a subtle mental organization. Weak-willed. We got used to living without working. Degenerate nobility.

SLIDE No. 23
“Then let’s take a closer look at Lopakhin.” Maybe the author connects the ideal with this image?
Conclusions according to Lopakhin:
Energetic, enterprising, but overly pragmatic. The desire for profit and enrichment prevails over emotional sensitivity.
It is unlikely that Chekhov could call such a person a man of the future.

But we also have Petya and Anya. Perhaps they are the hope of Russia?

SLIDE No. 24 Conclusions about Petya and Anya:
They are idealistic, strive for the best, but their dreams are not supported by real actions.

Anticipating the proximity and possibility of social change, Chekhov connected dreams of a bright future for Russia with the new, younger generation. With all the uncertainty of the future (“all of Russia is our garden”), it belongs to him. The play contains reflections about people and time.

Petya feels that the garden is not only disgraced by the feudal past, but also doomed by the present, in which there is no place for beauty. The future is depicted to him as a triumph not only of justice, but also of beauty. Anya and Petya want all of Russia to be like a beautiful blooming garden.

Genre originality of the play.

As you can see, the picture is quite sad.

- Why did Chekhov call his play a comedy? What are your opinions?

– Well, the question is really difficult. Let's remember what comedy is in general?

(This is a work that makes the reader laugh, etc.)

SLIDE No. 25 The teacher's word about the comedy genre and the drama genre :
- In general, something like this.
Comedy - genre dramatic kind, whose task is to make a comic impression on the audience (readers), causing them to laugh with the help of:
a) funny looking
b) speeches (the so-called comic word)
c) actions that violate socio-psychological norms and customs of society (the comic nature of the characters’ actions).

SLIDE No. 26 – What does “The Cherry Orchard” do? comedy?

Answer: A.P. Chekhov considered The Cherry Orchard a comedy, because the play contains comic elements based on misunderstandings and the absurdity of what is happening:

Epikhodov complains about the misfortunes that haunt him, drops a chair, after which the maid Dunyasha reports that he proposed to her;

Gaev is worried about the fate of the cherry orchard, but instead of taking decisive action, he makes an exalted speech in honor of the ancient cabinet;

Petya Trofimov talks about a wonderful future, but cannot find his galoshes and falls down the stairs. Nevertheless, the general mood of the play is rather sad and poetic than cheerful: its characters live in an atmosphere of total trouble.

But we must not forget that for many “The Cherry Orchard” is a drama. The first production - at the Moscow Art Theater - revealed this play as a drama.

-What is the task? dramas ?
(Show a clash of interests, a conflict of worldviews in order to identify the best, the truest, the most correct from the author’s point of view).

SLIDE No. 27

We found that all of the characters in the play had some kind of comic element associated with them. But the content of the play is deeply tragic.

So is The Cherry Orchard a comedy or a drama?

A) The play “The Cherry Orchard” has a dual genre nature. It contains closely intertwined elements of the comic and tragic.
B) The author does not confirm the unequivocal correctness of any character. The worldview of each of the characters in the play deserves respect, and the conflict between them is caused by the structure of life itself.

Conclusions on the topic and summing up.

SLIDE No. 28

“I cried like a woman, I wanted to, but I couldn’t hold back. No, for common man this is a tragedy. I feel special tenderness and love for this play” (K.S. Stanislavsky).

“...I imagined that The Cherry Orchard was not a play, but a piece of music, a symphony. And this play must be played especially truthfully, without real rudeness” (M.P. Lilina).

P. Weil, assessing the play, wrote: “Destroying all symbolism in his characters, Chekhov transferred the semantic, metaphorical and metaphysical emphasis to an inanimate object - the garden. Is he really that inanimate? Garden - the peak image Chekhov's works. The garden is a symbol of conciliarity, which Russian literature prophesied. The garden is a general symbol of faith.”

SLIDE No. 29

Homework: write an essay “Time and Memory” based on an analysis of the work of A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard".

SLIDE No. 30

Conflict in a dramatic work

One of the features of Chekhov’s dramaturgy was the absence of open conflicts, which is quite unexpected for dramatic works, because it is the conflict that is the driving force of the entire play, but it was important for Anton Pavlovich to show people’s lives through a description of everyday life, thereby bringing closer stage characters to the viewer. As a rule, the conflict finds expression in the plot of the work, organizing it; internal dissatisfaction, the desire to gain something, or not to lose, pushes the heroes to commit certain actions. Conflicts can be external and internal, and their manifestation can be obvious or hidden, so Chekhov successfully hid the conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard” behind the everyday difficulties of the characters, which is present as an integral part of that modernity.

The origins of the conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard” and its originality

To understand the main conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” it is necessary to take into account the time when this work was written and the circumstances of its creation. Chekhov wrote “The Cherry Orchard” at the beginning of the twentieth century, when Russia was at the crossroads of eras, when revolution was inevitably approaching, and many felt the impending enormous changes in the entire habitual and established way of life of Russian society. Many writers of that time tried to comprehend and understand the changes taking place in the country, and Anton Pavlovich was no exception. The play “The Cherry Orchard” was presented to the public in 1904, becoming the final play in the work and life of the great writer, and in it Chekhov reflected his thoughts about the fate of his country.

The decline of the nobility, caused by changes in the social structure and the inability to adapt to new conditions; separation from their roots not only of landowners, but also of peasants who began to move to the city; the emergence of a new bourgeois class that came to replace the merchants; the appearance of intellectuals who came from the common people - and all this against the backdrop of the emerging general discontent of life - this is, perhaps, the main source of the conflict in the comedy “The Cherry Orchard”. The destruction of dominant ideas and spiritual purity affected society, and the playwright grasped this on a subconscious level.

Feeling the impending changes, Chekhov tried to convey his feelings to the viewer through the originality of the conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” which became a new type, characteristic of all his drama. This conflict does not arise between people or social forces, it manifests itself in the discrepancy and repulsion of real life, its denial and replacement. And this could not be played, this conflict could only be felt. By the beginning of the twentieth century, society was not yet able to accept this, and it was necessary to rebuild not only the theater, but also the audience, and for a theater that knew and was able to reveal open confrontations, it was practically impossible to convey the features of the conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard.” That's why Chekhov was disappointed with the premiere show. After all, out of habit, conflict meant the clash between the past, represented by impoverished landowners, and the future. However, the future is closely connected with Petya Trofimov and Anya does not fit into Chekhov’s logic. It is unlikely that Anton Pavlovich connected the future with the “shabby gentleman” and “eternal student” Petya, who was unable to even monitor the safety of his old galoshes, or Anya, when explaining whose role, Chekhov placed the main emphasis on her youth, and this was the main requirement for performer.

Lopakhin is the central character in revealing the main conflict of the play

Why did Chekhov focus on the role of Lopakhin, saying that if his image fails, then the whole play will fail? At first glance, it is Lopakhin’s confrontation with the frivolous and passive owners of the garden that is a conflict in its classical interpretation, and Lopakhin’s triumph after the purchase is its resolution. However, this is precisely the interpretation that the author feared. The playwright said many times, fearing the roughening of the role, that Lopakhin is a merchant, but not in his traditional sense, that he is a soft man, and in no case can one trust his portrayal to a “screamer”. After all, it is through correct opening The image of Lopakhin makes it possible to understand the entire conflict of the play.

So what is the main conflict of the play? Lopakhin is trying to tell the owners of the estate how to save their property, offering the only real option, but they do not heed his advice. To show the sincerity of his desire to help, Chekhov makes it clear about Lopakhin’s tender feelings for Lyubov Andreevna. But despite all attempts to reason with and influence the owners, Ermolai Alekseevich, “man by man,” becomes the new owner of a beautiful cherry orchard. And he is happy, but this is joy through tears. Yes, he bought it. He knows what to do with his acquisition in order to make a profit. But why does Lopakhin exclaim: “If only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change!” And it is these words that serve as a pointer to the conflict of the play, which turns out to be more philosophical - the discrepancy between the needs of spiritual harmony with the world and reality in a transitional era and, as a result, the discrepancy between a person and himself and with historical time. In many ways, this is why it is almost impossible to identify the stages of development of the main conflict of the play “The Cherry Orchard”. After all, it arose even before the beginning of the actions described by Chekhov, and never found its resolution.

Work test

Chekhov's dramas in Russia are associated with overcoming the theater crisis in turn of XIX-XX centuries, renewal of performing arts. His dramaturgy has written new pages in the history of world theater. Chekhov revised the traditional concepts of 19th-century drama theory. “The Cherry Orchard,” which premiered on January 17, 1904, is still included in the repertoire of various theaters around the world.

In accordance with the historical reality of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, The Cherry Orchard presents the balance of social forces: the departing nobility, the rising bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia. As noted by the remarkable researcher of Chekhov’s dramaturgy A.P. Skaftymov, in pre-Chekhov everyday drama- with such an arrangement of characters - the driving force for the development of dramatic action would be economic and property competition between the heroes. This tradition is not continued in Chekhov's comedy: in The Cherry Orchard there is no direct confrontation between the heroes, which would determine the movement of the entire dramatic process as a whole.

At the center of Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” is an event (the sale of the cherry orchard), which acts as the focus of a conflict situation. This event is a potential source of life changes for all the characters in the play. The conflict in The Cherry Orchard is multi-component, it has a whole range of aspects.

Historical and social aspect

The historical and social aspect is one of them. It is associated with a change in social structures. “Chekhov depicted in The Cherry Orchard the ruin of the landowner-nobles and the transfer of the estate into the hands of the merchant-entrepreneur” - this long-standing opinion of one of the researchers has not lost its validity to this day. At the same time, it needs significant clarification: the estate is not simply transferred to hands of a merchant-entrepreneur - the grandson of the serf landowner Gaevs becomes the new owner of the estate.

In the third act, the merchant Lopakhin will buy the Gaevs' estate. Petya Trofimov will rightly say in connection with Lopakhin: “ beast of prey", in nature necessary "in the sense of metabolism", "eats everything that comes in its way." But the point here is not so much that the enterprising merchant did not miss another opportunity to invest his capital profitably. In the future, income from the estate is unlikely to exceed what was spent on it. Not everything is cleared up by the fact that he purchased the estate at auction in a frenzy of excitement. Something different happened to Lopakhin. He unintentionally, unexpectedly not only for everyone, but also for himself, becomes the owner of the cherry orchard. In history theatrical productions“The Cherry Orchard” contains examples of just such a solution to the scene in which the amazed and happy Lopakhin announces his purchase of the estate. When talking about the auction, he “laughs,” “laughs,” and “stomps his feet.” “The cherry orchard is now mine! My! My God, my God, my cherry orchard!” - he exclaims. Lopakhin’s delight can be explained: it is into his hands – the grandson of serf slaves – that the estate passes. Thus, unexpectedly and naturally, an act of historical retribution is carried out that lasts more than one decade in the life of Russia.

This historical and social conflict - one of the aspects of the general conflict of The Cherry Orchard - is presented in a far from traditional way. Its roots go back to previous periods of Russian reality. The conflict of the play “is rooted not so much in today The inhabitants of the estate, many in the deep past, draw their motives from distant, several human generations, life” (E. M. Gushanskaya).

The social difference between the characters in the play is not emphasized. Everyone is sincerely happy about Ranevskaya’s return to her homeland. Lopakhin “came on purpose” to meet her. The old footman Firs “cries with joy”: “My lady has arrived! Waited for it! Now at least I’ll die...” Ranevskaya herself is sincerely glad to meet her adopted daughter Varya, her maid Dunyasha. With the words: “Thank you, my old man,” she kisses Firs. It has long been noticed, for example, that both masters and servants in The Cherry Orchard experience the same emotions, speak the same language, and the servants forget themselves in communication with the masters. At the very beginning of the first act, the maid Dunyasha says: “My hands are shaking, I’m going to faint.” In the second act, the young footman Yasha, laughing, declares to Gaev: “I cannot hear your voice without laughing.” At the ball of the landowners of the Gayevs, it is no longer the “generals, barons, admirals” that Firs recalls, but the postal official, the station chief, “and even those are not willing to go” - different times have come, the social structure of Russia has changed.

In “The Cherry Orchard,” which is also rightly noted by researchers, it is not social types that appear, but rather social exceptions: the merchant Lopakhin gives practical advice to the landowner Ranevskaya on how to avoid ruin. This hero can hardly fit into the framework of the usual ideas about a “predatory” merchant. Petya Trofimov gives him diametrically opposite characteristics: “Just as in the sense of metabolism, a predatory beast is needed that eats everything that gets in its way, so you are needed”; “You have thin, delicate fingers, like an artist, you have thin, gentle soul...". Chekhov himself will explain: “Lopakhin should not be played as a loudmouth, he should not necessarily be a merchant. He is a gentle man." The artistic system of Chekhov's play makes it difficult to perceive the relationship between the characters as opposition, confrontation.

Social conflict does not motivate any of the characters to take any decisive action. The action of Chekhov's play begins in May, and an auction is scheduled for August, at which Ranevskaya's estate can be sold for debts. The upcoming event somehow unites all the characters: everyone gathers in the old estate. The anticipation of inevitable changes confronts the heroes with the need to do something or at least outline one or another plan for further action. Lopakhin offers his project to Ranevskaya and promises to borrow money. Gaev, judging by his conversation with Anya at the end of the first act, hopes to “arrange a loan against bills”, believes that Ranevskaya will have to talk with Lopakhin, and Anya will have to go to her grandmother in Yaroslavl. “This is how we will act from three ends, and our job is in the bag. We will pay the interest, I am convinced...” Gaev says enthusiastically.

The viewer (reader) expects some changes in the situation with the upcoming sale of the estate. However, the second act betrays these expectations. Months have already passed since Ranevskaya’s return, and summer has arrived. It remains unclear whether Ranevskaya, Gaev, Anya did anything. It is no coincidence that this part of the play of the first stage performances of The Cherry Orchard was perceived by directors and actors as the most static. K. S. Stanislavsky, who worked on the first production of “The Cherry Orchard” at the Moscow Art Theater in 1903, noted: “The play took a long time to complete. Especially the second act. It has no action, in a theatrical sense, and seemed very monotonous during rehearsals. It was necessary to portray the boredom of doing nothing in a way that was interesting. And it didn’t work out..."

In the first act of Chekhov's play, however, groups of characters are defined, the relationships between which are fraught with the potential for possible collisions and even conflict clashes. Lopakhin, for example, has long been considered by everyone to be Varya’s fiancé, but he is in the most sincere feelings confesses only to Ranevskaya (“... and I love you like my own... more than my own”), he wants to tell her “something very pleasant, funny.” One of the modern Czech scholars expressed an opinion about Lopakhin’s love for Ranevskaya as one of the decisive, key springs of dramatic action in the play. This is rather an exaggeration, but the very possibility of the development of a collision determined by such relationships between the characters in The Cherry Orchard is not excluded.

Gaev treats Lopakhin with hostility. In the first act, he flatly refuses to accept Lopakhin’s offer to rent out the estate to summer residents. A special place in the continuation of this scene belongs to Gaev’s speech addressed to the bookcase. Ranevskaya had just received and immediately torn up, without reading, a telegram from Paris. Gaev helps his sister overcome heartache, turning everyone’s attention to another subject, but not only this emotional impulse moves the hero. Gaev’s speech is dedicated to a hundred-year-old wardrobe, made well and built to last. The cabinet is not only a repository of books (intellectual, spiritual treasures), but also a companion of “generations of our kind”, a material sign of what happened. Its hundred-year durability is an indirect refutation of Lopakhin’s opinion about the “worthlessness” of old buildings, the Gaev family home.

However, Gaev himself does not read books, and in this he is indistinguishable from Lopakhin, who falls asleep over a book. Gaev persistently reminds us of the line that exists between him and the “man.” He selflessly boasts of his nobility. His antipathy towards people of other origins is expressed in his squeamish sensitivity to their smells. This lordly disgust extends to both the arrogant lackey Yasha and Lopakhin.

The character's reaction to smells is reminiscent of the main character of the fairy tale by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin " Wild landowner" In the fairy tale, God heeded the landowner’s pleas and delivered him from the peasant, and therefore there was no more “slave smell” in his possessions. True, the landowner, who had no one to look after him, soon lost his human image: “a bear is not a bear, a man is not a man,” “a bear-man.” “The disappearance of the peasant from the face of the earth” was not in vain: there was no one in the district to pay taxes, no one to feed and wash the landowner. With the return of the peasant, there was immediately a smell of “chaff and sheepskins,” and at the market, “flour and meat and all kinds of living creatures immediately appeared,” and in one day the treasury was replenished with “piles of money.” And having caught the master, they immediately blew his nose, washed him and cut his nails.

Chekhov's character is filled with a “wild”, especially at the beginning of the new 20th century, lordly arrogance in relation to everything peasant. At the same time, Gaev himself is helpless and lazy, he is tirelessly looked after by the old lackey Firs. At the end of the play, the sick, forgotten Firs laments that without his supervision Gaev “didn’t put on a fur coat, he went in a coat.” Firs is right: Gaev, as noted in the remark, is wearing “a warm coat with a hood.” Gaev’s lordly arrogance in fact turns into an almost Oblomov-like “inability to live” without the supervision of the devoted Firs. The motive of inability to adapt to real hard life, along with the motives of billiard addictions and constant candy (a rudiment of early childhood, at once touching and abnormal in an elderly man) will accompany this character throughout the entire play.

In the context of the entire scene (in the sum of all its “components”), Gaev’s emerging confrontation with Lopakhin, which contains the possibility of a dramatic clash, is noticeably smoothed out. The lofty solemn speech addressed to the “dear, respected closet” and Gaev’s sensitivity to the point of tears create a comic effect. The comic in the scene with the wardrobe balances Gaev’s opposition to Lopakhin, but, however, does not completely remove it.

The second act ends with Petya Trofimov and Anya talking about the wonderful future of Russia. In the play, it would seem, a new semantic perspective arises related to the future, the relationships of the characters, and possible changes in the lives of the characters. However, in the third act this semantic perspective will not be translated into dramatic action. It is at odds with the actions of the heroes, with what is really happening in their lives. Petya Trofimov is tactless, first with Varya, then with Ranevskaya. After half-angry, half-joking accusations of Ranevskaya (“a little girl, a funny eccentric, a freak,” “a klutz”), he falls down the stairs, causing laughter from those around him.

So, in Chekhov’s play, on the one hand, the arrangement of characters appears quite traditional for a social drama, the social conflict is not removed, on the other hand, their real embodiment in the play from beginning to end is distinguished by its fundamental novelty.

Moral and philosophical aspect

In the conflict of “The Cherry Orchard” the moral and philosophical aspect is also important. It is associated with the image of a cherry orchard, with the theme of memory, with the theme of the inextricable unity of time - past, present, future. Eighty-seven-year-old Firs remembers that “a gentleman once went to Paris... on horseback,” that in “former times” the cherry orchard provided a good income. The pragmatic “connection of times” seemed to have “broken up”: now no one remembers the way to dry cherries. However, it is also partially restored in Chekhov’s play: Firs’ memory, after “forty to fifty” years, retains shades of the taste of cherries (“And dried cherries then were soft, juicy, sweet, fragrant...”).

The memory of heroes is historically and socially specific. Firs remembers that on the eve of the abolition of serfdom: “And the owl screamed, and the samovar hummed endlessly.” An incident was deeply imprinted in Lopakhin’s soul when he was fifteen years old and his father hit him in the face with his fist. Then the “young” young lady Ranevskaya, the “peasant”, consoled him. He, the son of a man who sold in a shop, has now become a rich man. “With a pig’s snout,” in his own words, he ended up “in the Kalash line.” He still has not lost the idea of the need for everyone to know their place in a socially hierarchical society. At the very beginning of the play, he remarks to Dunyasha: “You are very gentle, Dunyasha. And you dress like a young lady, and so does your hairstyle. This is not possible. We must remember ourselves."

The cultural memory of the characters in the play is different. In Lopakhin’s work, compared to Ranevskaya and Gaev, it is not wide. Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin, moved by the kindest feelings, including sincere gratitude, gives advice to Ranevskaya on how to save the estate: “break up the cherry orchard and the land along the river into dacha plots and then rent them out as dachas,” and first demolish the old buildings, the lordly house, “cut down the old cherry orchard.” For Gaev, all this is defined by only one word - “nonsense!” In the second act, Lopakhin again offers Ranevskaya the same plan: “I teach you every day. Every day I say the same thing. Both the cherry orchard and the land must be rented out for dachas, this must be done now, as quickly as possible—the auction is just around the corner!” And now Ranevskaya declares: “Dachas and summer residents - it’s so vulgar, sorry.” Gaev unconditionally supports her.

Back in 1885, A.P. Chekhov remarked in one of his letters: “I terribly love everything that in Russia is called an estate. This word,” notes Chekhov, “has not yet lost its poetic connotation...” In accordance with Lopakhin’s plan, the poetry of noble nests will be replaced by the prose of dacha farms “on one tithe.” Lopakhin thinks within strictly limited limits: he thinks only about saving Ranevskaya’s material well-being, he gives purely practical advice, the implementation of which will bring concrete money - 25 thousand. The thoughts and experiences of the Gaevs are in a completely different dimension. Neither Gaev nor his sister, in order to avoid the ruin that inevitably threatens them, can be involved in the destruction of the most interesting, wonderful place in the entire province - the cherry orchard. Such a reaction is natural and logical for a person of noble culture with its high spirituality. But the point is not only that the Gaevs belong to a different culture.

They are not able to avert the threat of ruin, to ensure their own material well-being at the cost of destroying the garden, and such a sacrifice cannot be justified for them. At the same time, they are unlikely to harbor illusions that the new owner will save the garden, and this could partly relieve them of the burden of responsibility. Between the inevitable death of the garden and ruin, they choose the latter. Refusing Lopakhin's proposal, they defend their understanding of life, its enduring values, its unity. In their choice, Ranevskaya and Gaev are consistent from beginning to end, and their decision takes on a tragic connotation.

The inner world of each of the heroes of The Cherry Orchard is full of memories. But Gaev and Ranevskaya are connected with the past in a very special way. Researchers have noticed that Ranevskaya, who has just returned from Paris, experiences the meeting with her past so deeply that she infects those around her with her mood: they unexpectedly acutely begin to experience what has long been familiar to them. Varya, who had not gone anywhere, exclaims: “The sun has already risen, it’s not cold. Look, mommy: what wonderful trees! My God, the air! The starlings are singing! Before Ranevskaya’s gaze, the past comes to life: she sees her mother. In the fourth act everything will happen again. Ranevskaya intensely peers at the house she is leaving and has already changed: “It’s as if I had never seen before what kind of walls, what kind of ceilings are in this house, and now I look at them with greed, with such tender love...”. Gaev, usually prone to pompous speeches, speaks simply. He remembers being six years old and seeing the past with particular clarity: “... I sat on this window and watched as my father walked to church...”. Their separation from home is poignant in the intensity of the feelings they experience. Brother and sister, left alone, “throw themselves on each other’s necks and sob restrainedly, quietly, fearing that they will not be heard.” They part with youth, with happiness, with the tangible reality of the past - and therefore with life. “Oh my dear, my tender, beautiful garden!.. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye!.. Farewell!...” is one of Ranevskaya’s last lines in the play. For Ranevskaya and Gaev, the lives of their ancestors and their own life.

The world of thoughts, ideas, and experiences of Ranevskaya and Gaev is inaccessible to Lopakhin. He is a man of a different historical era, a bearer of a different cultural memory. He accurately characterizes himself: “He’s just rich, he has a lot of money, but if you think about it and figure it out, he’s a man...<...>I read the book and didn’t understand anything. I read and fell asleep." All his new luggage: a white vest, yellow shoes and money.

Behind a small episode from the life of people who gathered in the estate in the spring and left it in the fall, in “The Cherry Orchard” one can see the objective course of history, the process of changing social structures, the replacement of the landowner-noble culture with the bourgeois one. This transition is accompanied by both social contradictions and a cultural gap. The persistent commitment of Gaev and Ranevskaya to the values of noble culture takes on a high meaning in the play. However, even in this case, Chekhov’s heroes are not illuminated with any aura of exclusivity. It's hard to say that they consciously made their choice. Gaev and Ranevskaya most likely passed the test of strength, but they did not experience those feelings and torment that would have formed a spiritual experience that would have opened up new life prospects for them. Both remained committed to their weaknesses and habits. They remained within the boundaries of their passing time.

The heritage of noble culture is not passed on to another cultural generation. New times cannot automatically inherit, master and preserve the values of noble culture. The new, bourgeois Russia, even in the peasant version of Lop-Khin, does not find strong roots in national existence, and this threatens the inevitability of future upheavals.

Moral and psychological aspect

The moral and psychological aspect is another “component” of the conflict in “The Cherry Orchard.” The contradiction between the objective course of history, the movement of life as such and the subjective ideas of the heroes permeates the entire work.

Petya Trofimov, at the end of the second act, accuses the serf-owners of living souls; he includes among them, without hesitation, Gaev, Ranevskaya, even young Anya. In his opinion, they all live “on credit, at someone else’s expense,” at the expense of those whom they themselves do not allow further than the front hall. At the same time, Trofimov forgets that neither Gaev, nor Ranevskaya, and especially Anya never owned serf souls - they grew up after the abolition of serfdom. It is difficult to accuse Ranevskaya of inattention to ordinary people. Anya herself, the daughter of a sworn attorney, has no means of subsistence. She wants to become a teacher. With her work she will not so much “redeem” the past as earn her living. Firs, the only one among the characters who lived during the times of serfdom, calls, without a moment’s doubt, the freedom once granted to the peasants as a “misfortune.”

Petya Trofimov speaks unflatteringly about the modern intelligentsia, its attitude towards the peasant, the worker: “They call themselves the intelligentsia, but they say “you” to the servants, they communicate with the peasants like animals, they study poorly, they don’t read anything seriously, they do absolutely nothing, about the sciences They just talk, they understand little about art.” The theme of social confrontation between exploiters and exploited takes on somewhat retrospective shades of lordly arrogance towards those below them. Let us recall, for example, Gaev’s acute reaction to smells or Ranevskaya’s dissatisfaction at the beginning of the second act (“Who is this here smoking disgusting cigars...”).

Chekhov develops in a special way in his last play and the theme of the peasant, so relevant in Russian democratic literature of the 1850-1890s. The enterprising and successful Lopakhin, a man by birth, becomes a rich man. The old footman Firs tirelessly takes care of his masters and especially Gaev, and the young footman Yasha dreams of returning to Paris and in the third act laughs, causing bewilderment in Ranevskaya, when announcing the sale of the estate at auction. And he is not at all alien to Gay’s lordly manners: he, as he himself says, “is pleased to smoke a cigar in the fresh air...”.

In the second act, Trofimov accuses the Gaev family, who, in his opinion, live at the expense of those who are not allowed “further than the front.” In the third, Lopakhin declares: “I bought an estate where my grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen.” Petya Trofimov's monologue about historical continuity and the responsibility of today's people for the sins of their ancestors finds - in the context of the play - a direct response in Lopakhin's action. Trofimov hardly foresaw the very possibility of this, but both life and man turned out to be more complicated than he expected.

It is not only Petya Trofimov’s ideas that little correspond to the real state of affairs and the real complexity of life and man. Ranevskaya has a strong opinion about behavior with people from the people: on the way from Paris she “gives the lackeys a ruble each” (first act), gives it to the Passerby (second act), gives her wallet to the “common people” (last act). Varya will say at the very beginning: “Mommy is the same as she was, she hasn’t changed at all. If she had her way, she would give everything away.” The real state of affairs (the inevitability of ruin) cannot affect the behavior (habits) of Ranevskaya.

The extreme degree of discrepancy between the actually occurring events and the actions of the characters appears in the third act. Chekhov's heroes “fall out” of real life, “ranting” on lofty topics: they hired musicians - they have nothing to pay them with, there is an auction in the city - there is a ball on the estate. Music plays, everyone dances, Charlotte demonstrates her amazing tricks, comical troubles arise (Varya threatened Epikhodov and hit Lopakhin). Ranevskaya still cannot admit the inevitability of selling the estate: “Just to know: was the estate sold or not? The misfortune seems so incredible to me that I somehow don’t even know what to think, I’m at a loss...” It is no coincidence that the third act of The Cherry Orchard, to a greater extent than the others, is oriented towards the theatrical tradition of comedy, vaudeville, and farce.

The very relationship between the objective course of things and its subjective perception by man appears in “The Cherry Orchard” in complex lighting. First of all, with his comic side. In the play, “good conversations” arise every now and then about nature, about the past, about sins, about the future, about creation, about giants. Gaev talks too much every now and then. In the second act, Ranevskaya rightly reproaches her brother: “Today in the restaurant you spoke a lot again and all inappropriately. About the seventies, about the decadents. And to whom? Sexual talk about decadents!” Petya Trofimov, in the same second act, pronounces a long socially accusatory monologue, at the end of which he declares: “I am afraid and do not like very serious faces, I am afraid of serious conversations. We’d better keep quiet!” But at the end of the act, he speaks with inspiration to Anya about the future.

The theme of life and death, which runs through the entire play, is revealed more complexly. Pischik, who learned in the third act about the sale of the cherry orchard, will say: “Everything in this world comes to an end.” Lopakhin, in the fourth, remarks to Trofimov: “We are pulling our noses at each other, but life, you know, passes.” At the end of the play, Firs will say: “Life has passed as if you had never lived.”

The first act begins at dawn, in the spring. An amazing cherry orchard is blooming. The second act takes place at sunset, at the end “the moon rises”. Final scenes The entire play is shown in October. It is only partly included in the natural circle (change of seasons and time of day, dying and rebirth, renewal). human life: man is not given eternal renewal; he carries the weight of past years and memories. Even in the first act, Ranevskaya exclaims: “After a dark stormy autumn and cold winter again you are young, full of happiness, the heavenly angels have not abandoned you... If only the heavy stone could be removed from my chest and shoulders, if only I could forget my past!”

In the first act, the passage of time, which is irreversible for humans, is recorded by one or the other of the characters. Gaev and Ranevskaya reminisce about their childhood; their conversations mention their deceased mother, deceased nanny, deceased husband and Ranevskaya’s drowned son. The second act takes place, according to the stage directions, near an old, long-abandoned chapel, near stones that “apparently” were once gravestones.

In the second act, the theme of the eternal and the transitory begins to sound more clearly. Thus, Gaev almost recites: “O nature, wondrous, you shine with eternal radiance, beautiful and indifferent, you, whom we call mother, combine being and death, you live and destroy...” In the cultural memory of the viewer (reader) Gaev’s monologue is associated with I. S. Turgenev’s poem “Nature”. Creating and destroying Nature - in the perception of Turgenev's hero - is indifferent to him. In “The Cherry Orchard,” as in the poem by I. S. Turgenev, a collision is declared between the natural, infinite, timeless - and the human, finite, mortal, although the contradiction in the play by no means grows into conflict tension.

Stage directors of the Moscow art theater They planned to set the action in the second act against the backdrop of a cemetery. A.P. Chekhov protested: “There is no cemetery in the second act.” In a letter to Stanislavsky, Chekhov explained: “There is no cemetery, it was a very long time ago. Two or three slabs lying randomly - that’s all that remains.” In the scenery of the second act, behind the large stones, according to Chekhov’s recommendations, “a distance unusual for the stage” should open up. Gaev’s monologue to nature itself reminds, let us repeat, of his speech to the closet from the first act. The repetition of the situation in this case creates an effect unfavorable for the assessment of the character: the second monologue sounds even more comical than the first (speech to the closet). Gaev, like Lopakhin, is interrupted and not allowed to speak to the end.

Varya says pleadingly: “Uncle!” Anya picks up: “Uncle, you again!” And Trofimov prompts: “You are better than a yellow doublet in the middle.”

In “The Cherry Orchard” both topical and tragic questions of existence are outlined modern man, they appear differently than they did in creativity classics of the 19th century century. The theme of life and death, the eternal and the transitory, acquired a tragic resonance in a number of works by I. S. Turgenev and L. N. Tolstoy. In Chekhov this theme will not receive a tragic emphasis. In one of his letters to O. L. Knipper-Chekhova, A. P. Chekhov wrote: “You ask, what is life? It's like asking: what is a carrot? A carrot is a carrot and nothing else is known.” So in “The Cherry Orchard” the audience is presented with the everyday course of life, where birth and dying coexist, where the serious and the comic are inextricably linked.

“Good conversations,” according to Trofimov, only help people “take their eyes off themselves and others” from what is happening around them. The author's vision is certainly broader. Chekhov's heroes, immersed in the world of their feelings and beliefs, are distant from each other and lonely. Each of the characters in the play, living in the area of their personal, often speculative experience, significantly complicates life situations and, at the same time, moves away from life “simply.” However, life “without complications” is not presented in the best light in “The Cherry Orchard”. The young footman Yasha clearly falls out of the circle of heroes of Chekhov's last play. Yasha, upon returning from Paris, exclaims when he sees Dunyasha: “Cucumber!” He will repeat these words, kissing her, in the second act. He is not averse to “eating”, consuming Dunyasha, fresh as a young cucumber. He is free from filial feelings and duty to his mother (at the beginning of the play he is in no hurry to see her - at the end he is ready to leave without saying goodbye), he does not feel awkward saying goodbye to Dunyasha (in fact abandoning her), he does not bother to make sure whether Firs has been taken to hospital. A young footman enjoys champagne in anticipation of a quick date with Paris: “Viv la France!..*.” Lopakhin, seeing the empty glasses, remarks: “This is called lapping...”

All the other Chekhov heroes, although they are captive of their ideas about life, but in accordance with them they dream of something, they are faithful to their ideals, and therefore they are not in danger of losing their human appearance.

Chekhov's man is not limited to the world of everyday life, to momentary narrow practical activities. Chekhov's hero cannot escape the questions that arise before him. The characters remember the past (Ranevskaya, Firs) and dream about the future (Petya Trofimov, Anya - about a transformed Russia), talk about the importance of work in human life (Trofimov, Lopakhin). They tend to strive for a better future (Ranevskaya reproaches herself for her sins, Lopakhin enthusiastically dreams of the utopian prosperity of summer residents, Petya prophesies wonderful changes for Russia). They are not satisfied with their own life. Even Charlotte cannot avoid, albeit vague, reflections about her place in life: “And where I come from and who I am, I don’t know,” “...and who I am and why, it’s unknown...” The characters experience a discord between ideas about life, thoughts about a better time (for the heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” it is either in the future or the past) and real life flowing from cue to cue before the eyes of the audience. This discord from the beginning to the end of the play fuels not the “external action” (the actions and reactions of the characters), but the “internal” action.

In “The Cherry Orchard” the playwright recreates the everyday, everyday and at the same time full of inner drama flow of life. The development of dramatic action is least of all determined by the events or actions of the characters. It consists of moods and grows out of the experiences of almost all the characters. The “externally strong-willed” principle is extremely weakened, and this determines the peculiarity of the dialogues: each character talks about something of his own, one does not hear the other, the thoughts of one or another character are cut off mid-sentence. The viewer connects to the characters’ experiences.

Moral and ethical aspect

The moral and ethical aspect of the conflict in “The Cherry Orchard” is especially clearly manifested in the fourth act (E. M. Gushanskaya). Lopakhinsky's vitality and entrepreneurial energy triumph. Lopakhin is asked in vain to postpone cutting down the cherry orchard - the sound of an ax can be heard even before Ranevskaya leaves. The rhythm of Lopakhin's life subjugates all the participants in the play. In the fourth act, everyone is on the verge of departure, decisive changes in life. But at the same time, Lopakhin’s position among other characters changes radically. He, now the owner of the estate, invites him to drink champagne, but neither Ranevskaya, nor Gaev, nor Petya Trofimov wanted to do this. Everyone, except Yasha, seems to be avoiding him. The old friendly relations between Ranevskaya and Lopakhin are lost. For Lopakhin and Varya, the opportunity to start a family never came. Neither Petya Trofimov nor Anya are trying to establish friendly contact with the new owner of the estate. The latter are full of hopes that are associated with the wonderful – not Lopakhin’s – future of Russia. From now on there is an insurmountable gap between Lopakhin and all the heroes (except Yasha): he betrayed the values of their world.

The multi-component nature and complexity of the conflict in “The Cherry Orchard” determines its special genre nature. “What I came out with was not a drama, but a comedy,” Chekhov wrote after finishing work on the play. Chekhov's contemporaries perceived “The Cherry Orchard” as a deeply dramatic work, but the author did not give up his opinion, he persistently stood his ground: according to the genre, “The Cherry Orchard” is not a tragedy, not a drama, but a comedy. The source of comedy in Chekhov's last play is, first of all, the discrepancy between the ideas and behavior of the characters and the essence of the events taking place.

The uniqueness of the conflict
In A. P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard”

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov wrote the play " Cherry Orchard"in 1903. It still causes controversy. The author himself noted that in the theater it is played as a drama, but he called it a comedy. In his dramaturgy, Chekhov continued the traditions of Russian realistic comedy, established in the works of Gogol, Griboyedov, Ostrovsky.

In the play “The Cherry Orchard” there is no division of characters into positive and negative, but for classical comedies such a division of characters is mandatory. In every character Chekhov's plays combines both positive and negative qualities. For example, in Ranevskaya we see selfishness, laziness, lack of will, and lordship, but at the same time Ranevskaya is sincere, kind, and to some extent smart.
All the characters in the play are funny, comical (with the exception of Anya), of course, in their own way. Gaev - in billiard terms and his stupid habit of answering any question: “Who?” Ranevskaya - with her absent-mindedness and manner of expressing herself, Petya Trofimov - with her “incompetence”, Varya with her excessive thriftiness and tearfulness.

The play " Cherry Orchard" can rightly be called a "comedy of characters." But along with the comical behavior, we also see the dramatic nature of the characters’ experiences. Ranevskaya, complaining about her life, remembering the past, evokes in us a feeling of pity for her, sympathy.

The originality of the conflict in A. P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” embodied in the system of images and characters. Of course, the central image of the play is the cherry orchard. All problems and experiences are built around him. All thoughts and memories of the characters are connected with him. A revealing feature of the plot is the absence of a pronounced conflict; the action is not cross-cutting, but internal. All events take place in the same estate with permanent characters. The external conflict in the play is replaced by the drama of the characters’ experiences. The absence of an external stimulus in the play suggests that Chekhov wants to show us the inevitability and naturalness of the change of times and generations. The old world of serf Russia is personified by the images of Gaev, Ranevskaya, Varya, Firs. The world of today, the world of the business bourgeoisie, is personified by Lopakhin, the world of undefined trends of the future - Anya and Petya Trofimov. In general, there is no confrontation between past and present, between Ranevskaya and Lopakhin. Lopakhin wants to help Ranevskaya, gives advice on saving the estate, he even offers to take on the troubles of arranging affairs, but Ranevskaya refuses.

Strengthening the psychologism of the play is achieved by Chekhov due to the “undercurrent” (Stanislavsky’s term). The essence of this technique is that Chekhov takes the main event off stage - the sale of the estate at auction. We learn that the estate has been sold, that the buyer is Lopakhin, only from individual remarks from the characters. Chekhov shows the main thing through the prism of particulars, trifles, through “nonsense.” Thus, we can judge the psychological state of the characters by their emotionally charged speech. At the beginning of the play, everyone’s mood is upbeat and joyful, then anxiety for the estate gradually increases, the situation “heats up,” and after the sale of the estate, everyone’s feeling of anxiety disappears and a feeling of expectation for something new, a bright feeling, appears.

Artistic detail plays an important role in the play. With the help of symbolic details, Chekhov conveys an emotional state and shows the author's position. Examples of symbolic details are the sound of a broken string, a city that is visible only in clear weather, a random passer-by. With the help of such details as the sound of an ax and the cutting down of a cherry orchard, Chekhov shows the change of eras: the garden is cut down, the past makes room for the future.

The combination of the comic and lyrical in the behavior of the characters, the internal drama of experiences and feelings create that unique genre of comedy that Chekhov the playwright created - the genre of lyrical comedy. Skillful use of the "undercurrent" and artistic detail raised the “low” genre of comedy to unattainable heights. And this is Chekhov’s great merit.

“The Cherry Orchard” is not without reason recognized as the best work of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. In this play, many storylines are intricately intertwined, destinies collide different characters, developing into a multifaceted and realistic picture of the life of the departing Russian nobility. The plot of “The Cherry Orchard” is atypical for dramatic works. As a rule, in a play one can easily identify the main conflict - the point of conflict of interests and the subsequent struggle of the characters.

And between Chekhov's characters there is no fight going on. Moreover: they don’t even have any specific aspirations. It would seem that the cherry orchard and the estate are what the heroes of the play - the newly minted merchant and the nobles - are fighting for. However, we clearly see that the heroes are not really particularly concerned about whose hands the estate will end up in. Ranevskaya and Gaev do not take any serious steps to save their property; they are passive and lethargic. Lopakhin, having finally acquired a cherry orchard, does not rejoice for long: having forgotten about his victory, he launches into bitter speeches about the “awkward, absurd life” that they all have to drag out. Chekhov's heroes are immersed within themselves; It is obvious that their drama lies much deeper than the imaginary battles for the ancient estate.

It can also be noted that there is no interpersonal conflict in the play. And what kind of conflict are we talking about when the characters don’t communicate with each other at all? Everyone speaks or remains silent about his own things - and from others he hears only what he wants to hear. The tragedy of The Cherry Orchard lies within the characters themselves. For almost all of them, Chekhov creates a detailed life story. For example, we learn everything about Ranevskaya: from the death of her son to her relationship with her lover. This technique allows you to show each character in motion, in the past and present. It is clearly felt that all these people are unhappy. Their fate did not turn out at all as they would have liked; and now they regret it, not knowing how to come to terms with the mistakes of the past and find the strength to live on. Hiding from the harsh and unsightly reality, the heroes seek solace in memories and groundless hopes. Ranevskaya, who has lost so much in life that she loved and treasured, refuses to admit this even to herself; Continuing to hold on to the last fragments of her once happy past with all her might, she lives in her imaginary world. Lyubov Andreevna prefers to close her eyes to the estate floating away into Lopakhin’s hands, to the final ruin that threatens her, to her lover’s betrayals, to her crumbling family, to her loneliness. Gaev is the same - a person who has achieved nothing in life, never busy with anything, always out of work. Although he makes timid attempts to save the estate, he feels that this will not help him, that the cherry orchard will not return anyone to their former happiness - and therefore he is defeated. And Varya rushes between him and Lyubov Andreevna, who voluntarily laid down her youth at the feet of the family that sheltered and raised her. Varya carries the entire household on her shoulders, takes care of all family members, sincerely trying to be useful to them. But in vain she hopes that she will be loved for this; in vain he assures himself that she is needed. Like Gaev and Ranevskaya, Varya lives in constant self-deception: she does not dare admit to herself that she is a stranger in this house; even when in the end she turns out to be the housekeeper “attached” to the neighbors.

Using the example of one noble family, whose fate was forever broken by the changes that had come, Chekhov showed what Russia was like in the terrible years when thousand-year-old foundations were crumbling; when everything old was swept away from the face of the earth, when people who had lost their usual place in life found themselves at a crossroads - without goals, without meaning, without shelter, without happiness. So, against the background of the internal conflict of the heroes, a historical conflict arises, which most worried Chekhov and his contemporaries. The Cherry Orchard becomes a symbol of all of Russia, perishing under the merciless blows of the ax. As the “eternal student” Trofimov said: “All of Russia is our garden.” Ranevskaya loses the estate, and Lopakhin emerges victorious from a non-existent struggle; however, conflicts - both internal and social - remain unresolved. Having asked the question of what awaits Russia in the future, Chekhov does not give an answer. The heroes of the play are left alone with their unlived lives, and the country remains an old cherry orchard, which was destroyed without building anything new in its place.

Updated: 2019-03-02

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefits to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.