Conclusion of the play The Cherry Orchard. "The Cherry Orchard": analysis of Chekhov's play

Chekhov as an artist can no longer be compared
with former Russian writers - with Turgenev,
Dostoevsky or with me. Chekhov has his own
own form like the impressionists.
You look like a person without anything
parsing, smears with whatever paints he comes across
under his arm, and no relation
These strokes have no relationship with each other.
But go some distance and look,
and in general the impression is complete.
L. Tolstoy

Oh, I wish it would all go away, I wish I could
Our awkward, unhappy life has changed.
Lopakhin

Analysis of Chekhov's play " The Cherry Orchard" contains the following sections:

New generation, young Russia in the play: The future of Russia is represented by the images of Anya and Petya Trofimov. Chekhov’s “New People” - Anya and Petya Trofimov - are also polemical in relation to the tradition of Russian literature, like Chekhov’s images of “little” people: the author refuses to recognize as unconditionally positive, to idealize “new” people only for being “new”, for that they act as denouncers of the old world.

“The Cherry Orchard” is the pinnacle of Russian drama of the early 20th century, a lyrical comedy, a play that marked the beginning new era development of Russian theater.

The main theme of the play is autobiographical - a bankrupt family of nobles sells their family estate at auction. The author, as a person who went through such life situation, describes with subtle psychologism state of mind people who will soon be forced to leave their homes. The innovation of the play is the absence of division of heroes into positive and negative, into main and secondary ones. They are all divided into three categories:

• people of the past - noble aristocrats (Ranevskaya, Gaev and their lackey Firs);
• people of the present - their bright representative, the merchant-entrepreneur Lopakhin;
• people of the future - the progressive youth of that time (Petr Trofimov and Anya).

History of creation

Chekhov began work on the play in 1901. Due to serious health problems, the writing process was quite difficult, but nevertheless, in 1903 the work was completed. First theatrical performance The play took place a year later on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater, becoming the pinnacle of Chekhov's work as a playwright and a textbook classic of the theatrical repertoire.

Analysis of the play

Description of the work

The action takes place on the family estate of landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who returned from France with her young daughter Anya. On railway station they are met by Gaev (Ranevskaya's brother) and Varya (her adopted daughter).

The financial situation of the Ranevsky family is nearing complete collapse. Entrepreneur Lopakhin offers his version of a solution to the problem - break land plot on shares and give them to summer residents for use for a certain fee. The lady is burdened by this proposal, because for this she will have to say goodbye to her beloved cherry orchard, with which many warm memories of her youth are associated. Adding to the tragedy is the fact that her beloved son Grisha died in this garden. Gaev, imbued with his sister’s feelings, reassures her with a promise that their family estate will not be put up for sale.

The action of the second part takes place on the street, in the courtyard of the estate. Lopakhin, with his characteristic pragmatism, continues to insist on his plan to save the estate, but no one pays attention to him. Everyone turns to the teacher Pyotr Trofimov who has appeared. He delivers an excited speech dedicated to the fate of Russia, its future and touches on the topic of happiness in a philosophical context. The materialist Lopakhin is skeptical about the young teacher, and it turns out that only Anya is capable of being imbued with his lofty ideas.

The third act begins with Ranevskaya using her last money to invite an orchestra and organize a dance evening. Gaev and Lopakhin are absent at the same time - they went to the city for an auction, where the Ranevsky estate should go under the hammer. After a tedious wait, Lyubov Andreevna learns that her estate was bought at auction by Lopakhin, who does not hide his joy at his acquisition. The Ranevsky family is in despair.

The finale is entirely dedicated to the departure of the Ranevsky family from their home. The parting scene is shown with all the deep psychologism inherent in Chekhov. The play ends with a surprisingly deep monologue by Firs, whom the owners in a hurry forgot on the estate. The final chord is the sound of an axe. The cherry orchard is being cut down.

Main characters

A sentimental person, the owner of the estate. Having lived abroad for several years, she got used to a luxurious life and, by inertia, continues to allow herself many things that, given the deplorable state of her finances, according to the logic of common sense, should be inaccessible to her. Being a frivolous person, very helpless in everyday matters, Ranevskaya does not want to change anything about herself, while she is fully aware of her weaknesses and shortcomings.

A successful merchant, he owes a lot to the Ranevsky family. His image is ambiguous - he combines hard work, prudence, enterprise and rudeness, a “peasant” beginning. At the end of the play, Lopakhin does not share Ranevskaya’s feelings; he is happy that, despite his peasant origins, he was able to afford to buy the estate of his late father’s owners.

Like his sister, he is very sensitive and sentimental. Being an idealist and romantic, to console Ranevskaya, he comes up with fantastic plans to save the family estate. He is emotional, verbose, but at the same time completely inactive.

Petya Trofimov

An eternal student, a nihilist, an eloquent representative of the Russian intelligentsia, advocating for the development of Russia only in words. In pursuit of " the highest truth“He denies love, considering it a petty and illusory feeling, which immensely upsets Ranevskaya’s daughter Anya, who is in love with him.

A romantic 17-year-old young lady who fell under the influence of the populist Pyotr Trofimov. Recklessly believing in better life After the sale of her parents' estate, Anya is ready for any difficulties for the sake of shared happiness next to her lover.

An 87-year-old man, a footman in the Ranevskys' house. The type of servant of old times, surrounds his masters with fatherly care. He remained to serve his masters even after the abolition of serfdom.

A young lackey who treats Russia with contempt and dreams of going abroad. A cynical and cruel man, he is rude to old Firs and even treats his own mother with disrespect.

Structure of the work

The structure of the play is quite simple - 4 acts without dividing into separate scenes. The duration of action is several months, from late spring to mid-autumn. In the first act there is exposition and plotting, in the second there is an increase in tension, in the third there is a climax (the sale of the estate), in the fourth there is a denouement. Characteristic feature The play is the lack of genuine external conflict, dynamism, and unpredictable twists in the plot line. The author's remarks, monologues, pauses and some understatement give the play a unique atmosphere of exquisite lyricism. Artistic realism The play is achieved through the alternation of dramatic and comic scenes.

(Scene from a modern production)

The development of the emotional and psychological plane dominates in the play; the main driver of the action is the internal experiences of the characters. The author expands art space works using input large quantity characters who never appear on stage. Also, the effect of expanding spatial boundaries is given by the symmetrically emerging theme of France, giving an arched form to the play.

Final conclusion

Chekhov's last play, one might say, is his “swan song.” The novelty of her dramatic language is a direct expression of Chekhov’s special concept of life, which is characterized by extraordinary attention to small, seemingly insignificant details, and a focus on the inner experiences of the characters.

In the play “The Cherry Orchard,” the author captured the state of critical disunity of Russian society of his time; this sad factor is often present in scenes where the characters hear only themselves, creating only the appearance of interaction.

Chekhov as an artist can no longer be
compare with previous Russians
writers - with Turgenev,
Dostoevsky or with me. Chekhov's
its own shape, like
impressionists. Look how
like a person without anything
parsing smears with paints, what
come across his hand, and
no relationship between each other
these smears do not. But you'll move away
to some distance,
look, and in general
it gives a complete impression.
L. Tolstoy

Oh, I wish it would all go away
I wish ours would change
awkward, unhappy life.
Lopakhin

To analyze the play, you need a list of characters, with the author's remarks and comments. We will present it here in full, which will help you enter the world of “The Cherry Orchard”; The action takes place on the estate of Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. So, the characters in the play:

Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, landowner. Anya, her daughter, 17 years old. Varya, her adopted daughter, 24 years old. Gaev Leonid Andreevich, brother of Ranevskaya. Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, merchant. Trofimov Petr Sergeevich, student. Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, landowner. Charlotte Ivanovna, governess. Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich, clerk. Dunyasha, maid. Firs, footman, old man 87 years old. Yasha, a young footman. Passerby. Station manager. Postal official. Guests, servants.

The problem of genre. The genre nature of The Cherry Orchard has always caused controversy. Chekhov himself called it a comedy - “a comedy in four acts” (albeit a comedy of a special type). K. S. Stanislavsky considered it a tragedy. M. Gorky called “ lyrical comedy" The play is often defined as a “tragicomedy”, “ironic tragicomedy”. The question of genre is very important for understanding the work: it determines the code for reading the play and characters. What does it mean to see a tragicomic beginning in a play? This means “to a certain extent agree with their [heroes. - V.K.] originality, to consider them sincerely and truly suffering, to see in each of the characters a fairly strong character. But what could they be? strong characters“weak-willed”, “whining”, “whining”, “lost faith” heroes?”

Chekhov wrote: “What came out of me was not a drama, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce.” The author denied the characters in The Cherry Orchard the right to drama: they seemed to him incapable of deep feelings. K. S. Stanislavsky at one time (in 1904) staged a tragedy, with which Chekhov did not agree. The play contains farce techniques, tricks (Charlotte Ivanovna), blows to the head with a stick, pathetic monologues are followed by farcical scenes, then a lyrical note appears again... There is a lot of funny stuff in The Cherry Orchard: Epikhodov is ridiculous, Gaev’s pompous speeches are funny (“dear closet"), funny, inappropriate remarks and inappropriate answers, comic situations arising from the characters’ misunderstanding of each other. Chekhov's play is funny, sad, and even tragic at the same time. There are a lot of people crying in it, but these are not dramatic sobs, and not even tears, but only the mood of the faces. Chekhov emphasizes that the sadness of his heroes is often frivolous, that their tears hide the tearfulness common to weak and nervous people. The combination of the comic and the serious is a distinctive feature of Chekhov's poetics, starting from the first years of his work.

External plot and external conflict. The external plot of “The Cherry Orchard” is a change of owners of the house and garden, the sale of the family estate for debts. At first glance, the play clearly identifies opposing forces that reflect the alignment of social forces in Russia at that time: old, noble Russia (Ranevskaya and Gaev), rising entrepreneurs (Lopakhin), young, future Russia (Petya and Anya). It would seem that the collision of these forces should give rise to main conflict plays. The characters are focused on the most important event in their lives - at the sale of the cherry orchard, scheduled for August 22. However, the viewer does not witness the sale of the garden itself: the seemingly culminating event remains off stage. Social conflict in the play is not relevant, not social status the characters are the main thing. Lopakhin - this “predator” entrepreneur - is depicted not without sympathy (like most of the characters in the play), and the owners of the estate do not resist him. Moreover, the estate, as if by itself, ends up in his hands, against his desire. It would seem that in the third act the fate of the cherry orchard was decided; Lopakhin bought it. Moreover, the outcome of the external plot is even optimistic: “Gaev (cheerfully). In fact, everything is fine now. Before the sale of the cherry orchard, we were all worried, suffering, and then, when the issue was finally, irrevocably resolved, everyone calmed down, even became cheerful... I am a bank employee, now I am a financier... yellow in the middle, and you, Lyuba, are like... no way, you look better, that’s for sure.” But the play does not end; the author writes the fourth act, in which nothing new seems to happen. But the garden motif sounds again here. At the beginning of the play, the garden, which is in danger, attracts the entire family, gathered after five years of separation. But no one can save him, he is no longer there, and in the fourth act everyone leaves again. The death of the garden led to the disintegration of the family, scattering, dispersing all the former inhabitants of the estate to cities and villages. Silence falls - the play ends, the garden motif falls silent. This is the external plot of the play.

Chekhov's last play became an outstanding work of world drama of the 20th century.

Actors, directors, readers, and spectators from all countries have turned and are turning to comprehend its meaning. Therefore, as in the case of Chekhov’s stories, when we try to understand the play, we need to keep in mind not only what it excited Chekhov’s contemporaries, and not only what makes it understandable and interesting to us, the playwright’s compatriots, but also this universal , its all-human and all-time content.

The author of “The Cherry Orchard” (1903) sees life and people’s relationships differently and speaks about it differently than his predecessors. And we will understand the meaning of the play if we do not reduce it to sociological or historical explanations, but try to understand this method of depicting life in a dramatic work developed by Chekhov.

If you do not take into account the novelty of Chekhov's dramatic language, much in his play will seem strange, incomprehensible, overloaded with unnecessary things (from the point of view of previous theatrical aesthetics).

But the main thing - let's not forget: behind the special Chekhovian form there is a special concept of life and man. “Let everything on stage be as complicated and at the same time as simple as in life,” said Chekhov. “People have lunch, they just have lunch, and at this time their happiness is formed and their lives are broken.”

FEATURES OF DRAMATURGIC CONFLICT. Let's start with something that catches your eye: how are the dialogues constructed in “The Cherry Orchard”? It is unconventional when a replica is a response to the previous one and requires a response in the next replica. Most often, the writer reproduces a disordered conversation (take, for example, the disorderly chorus of remarks and exclamations immediately after Ranevskaya’s arrival from the station). The characters don’t seem to hear each other, and if they listen, they respond at random (Anya to Dunyasha, Ranevskaya and Gaev to Lopakhin, everyone else to Petya except Anya, and even she clearly reacts not to the meaning, but to the sound of Petya’s monologues: “ How well you speak!.. (Delighted.) How well you said it!”).

What is behind this structure of dialogues? The desire for greater verisimilitude (to show how it happens in life)? Yes, but not only that. Disunity, self-absorption, inability to take the point of view of another - Chekhov sees and shows this in the communication of people.

Again, arguing with his predecessors, Chekhov the playwright completely abandons external intrigue, the struggle of a group of characters around something (for example, an inheritance, transferring money to someone, permission or prohibition for marriage, etc.).

The nature of the conflict and the arrangement of characters in her play are completely different, which will be discussed further. Each episode is not a stepping stone in the unfolding of intrigue; The episodes are filled with lunchtime, seemingly incoherent conversations, trifles of everyday life, insignificant details, but at the same time they are colored by a single mood, which then turns into another. The play unfolds not from intrigue to intrigue, but rather from mood to mood, and here an analogy with a plotless piece of music is appropriate.

There is no intrigue, but what then does the event consist of - something without which it cannot exist? dramatic work? The event that is most talked about - the sale of an estate at auction - does not take place on stage. Beginning with “The Seagull” and even earlier, with “Ivanov,” Chekhov consistently carries out this technique - to take the main “incident” off stage, leaving only reflections of it, echoes in the speeches of the characters. Invisible (by the viewer), off-stage events and characters (in “The Cherry Orchard” this is the Yaroslavl aunt, the Parisian lover, Pishchik’s daughter Dashenka, etc.) are important in their own way in the play. But their absence on stage emphasizes that for the author they are only a background, an occasion, an accompanying circumstance of what is main. Despite the apparent absence of traditional external “action,” Chekhov, as always, has a rich, continuous and intense internal action.

The main events take place, as it were, in the minds of the characters: the discovery of something new or clinging to familiar stereotypes, understanding or misunderstanding - “movement and displacement of ideas,” to use Osip Mandelstam’s formula. As a result of this movement and displacement of ideas (events invisible, but very real), someone’s destinies are broken or changed, hopes are lost or arisen, love succeeds or fails...

These significant events in the life of every person are revealed not in spectacular gestures and actions (Chekhov consistently presents everything that has an effect in an ironic light), but in modest, everyday, everyday manifestations. There is no emphasis on them, no artificial drawing of attention to them; much of the text goes into subtext. “Undercurrent” - this is how the Art Theater called this development of action, characteristic of Chekhov’s plays. For example, in the first act, Anya and Varya first talk about whether the estate has been paid for, then whether Lopakhin is going to propose to Varya, then about a brooch in the shape of a bee. Anya answers sadly: “Mom bought this.” It’s sad, because both felt the hopelessness of that fundamental thing on which their fate depended.

The line of behavior of each character and especially the relationship between the characters is not built in deliberate clarity. Rather, it is outlined in a dotted line (actors and directors must draw a solid line - this is the difficulty and at the same time tempting of staging Chekhov's plays on stage). The playwright leaves a lot to the reader’s imagination, giving the text basic guidelines for correct understanding.

So, the main line of the play is connected with Lopakhin. His relationship with Varya results in his antics that are incomprehensible to her and others. But everything falls into place if the actors play the absolute incompatibility of these characters and at the same time Lopakhin’s special feeling towards Lyubov Andreevna.

The famous scene of a failed explanation between Lopakhin and Varya in the last act: the characters talk about the weather, about broken thermometer- and not a word about what is obviously most important at this moment. Why does the relationship between Lopakhin and Varya end in nothing, when the explanation did not take place, love did not take place, happiness did not take place? The point, of course, is not that Lopakhin is a businessman incapable of showing feelings. Varya explains their relationship to herself approximately this way: “He has a lot to do, he has no time for me”; “He is either silent or joking. I understand, he’s getting rich, he’s busy with business, he has no time for me.” But the actors will come much closer to the Chekhovian subtext, to the Chekhovian “undercurrent” technique, if by the time of the explanation between these characters they clearly make it clear to the viewer that Varya is really not a match for Lopakhin, she is not worth him. Lopakhin is a man of great scope, capable of mentally looking around, like an eagle, “huge forests, vast fields, deepest horizons.” Varya, if we continue this comparison, is a gray jackdaw, whose horizons are limited to housekeeping, economy, keys on her belt... A gray jackdaw and an eagle - of course, an unconscious feeling of this prevents Lopakhin from taking the initiative where any merchant in his place would have seen would be the opportunity for a “decent” marriage for myself.

Due to his position, Lopakhin can count on best case scenario only on Varya. And in the play another line is clearly, although dottedly, outlined: Lopakhin, “like his own, more than his own,” loves Ranevskaya. This would seem absurd, unthinkable to Ranevskaya and everyone around him, and he himself, apparently, is not fully aware of his feelings. But it is enough to observe how Lopakhin behaves, say, in the second act, after Ranevskaya tells him to propose to Varya. It is after this that he talks with irritation about how good it was before, when men could be beaten, and begins tactlessly teasing Petya. All this is the result of a decline in his mood after he clearly sees that it does not even occur to Ranevskaya to take his feelings seriously. And later in the play this unrequited tenderness of Lopakhin will break through several more times. During the monologues of the characters in “The Cherry Orchard” about a failed life, Lopakhin’s unspoken feeling can sound like one of the most painful notes of the play (by the way, this is exactly how Lopakhin was played best performers this family in performances recent years- Vladimir Vysotsky and Andrei Mironov).

So, Chekhov persistently repeats and plays with all these external methods of organizing the material (the nature of the dialogue, the event, the unfolding of the action) - and in them his idea of ​​​​life is manifested.

But what distinguishes Chekhov’s plays even more from previous dramaturgy is the nature of the conflict.

Thus, in Ostrovsky’s plays, the conflict stems primarily from differences in the class position of the heroes - rich and poor, tyrants and their victims, those with power and dependents: the first, initial driver of action in Ostrovsky is the difference between the characters (class, money, family), from from which their conflicts and clashes arise. Instead of death, in other plays there may be, on the contrary, triumph over a tyrant, oppressor, intriguer, etc. The outcomes can be as different as you like, but the opposition within the conflict between the victim and the oppressor, the side suffering and the side causing suffering, is invariable.

Not so with Chekhov. His plays are built not on opposition, but on unity, the commonality of all characters.

Let's take a closer look at the text of “The Cherry Orchard”, at the persistent and clear indications placed in it by the author about the meaning of what is happening. Chekhov consistently moves away from the traditional formulation of the author’s thought “through the mouth of a character.” Indications of the author's meaning of the work, as usual in Chekhov, are expressed primarily in repetitions.

In the first act there is a repeated phrase that is applied in different ways to almost every character.

Lyubov Andreevna, who had not seen her adopted daughter for five years, heard how she was managing the house and said: “You are still the same, Varya.” And even before this he notes: “But Varya is still the same, she looks like a nun.” Varya, in turn, sadly states: “Mommy is the same as she was, she hasn’t changed at all. If she had her way, she would give everything away.” At the very beginning of the action, Lopakhin asks the question: “Lyubov Andreevna lived abroad for five years, I don’t know what she has become now.” And after about two hours he is convinced: “You are still just as magnificent.” Ranevskaya herself, upon entering the nursery, defines her constant trait differently: “I slept here when I was little... And now I’m like a little girl...” - but this is the same confession: I’m the same.

“You are still the same, Lenya”; “And you, Leonid Andreich, are still the same as you were”; “You again, uncle!” - this is Lyubov Andreevna, Yasha, Anya talking about Gaev’s constant eloquence. And Firs laments, pointing out a constant feature of his master’s behavior: “They put on the wrong trousers again. And what should I do with you!”

“You (you, she) are still the same (the same).” This is a constant indicated by the author at the very beginning of the play. This is a property of all characters; they vying with each other to assure themselves of this.

“And this one is all his,” says Gaev about Pishchik when he is in Once again asks for a loan. “You’re all about one thing...” - half-asleep Anya responds to Dunyashino’s news about her next suitor. “He’s been mumbling for three years now. We’re used to it” - this is about Firs. “Charlotte talks all the way, performs tricks...”, “Every day some misfortune happens to me” - this is Epikhodov.

Each character develops his own theme (sometimes with variations): Epikhodov talks about his misfortunes, Pishchik talks about debts, Varya talks about her household, Gaev inappropriately becomes pathetic, Petya talks about denunciations, etc. The constancy and immutability of some characters are enshrined in their nicknames: “twenty-two misfortunes”, “eternal student”. And the most general thing, Firsovo: “klutz.”

When repetition (giving everyone the same attribute) is so repeated as in the first act of “The Cherry Orchard” that it cannot help but be striking, it is the strongest means of expressing the author’s thought.

In parallel with this recurring motif, inseparably from it, persistently and just as applied to everyone, another, seemingly opposite, is repeated. As if frozen in their immutability, the characters continually talk about how much has changed, how time flies.

“When you left here, I was like this...” - Dunyasha gestures to indicate the distance between the past and the present. She seems to echo Ranevskaya’s memory of when she “was little.” In his first monologue, Lopakhin compares what happened (“I remember when I was a boy of about fifteen... Lyubov Andreevna, as I remember now, is still young...”) and what has become now (“I’ve just become rich, there’s a lot of money , but if you think about it and figure it out...”). “Once upon a time...” - Gaev begins to remember, also about childhood, and concludes: “... and now I’m already fifty-one years old, strange as it may seem...” The theme of childhood (irretrievably gone) or parents (dead) or forgotten) is repeated in different ways by Charlotte, and Yasha, and Pischik, and Trofimov, and Firs. Ancient Firs, like a living historical calendar, every now and then returns from what is, to what “happened,” what was done “once upon a time,” “before.”

Retrospective - from the present to the past - is opened by almost everyone actor, although to different depths. Firs has been mumbling for three years now. Six years ago, Lyubov Andreevna’s husband died and Lyubov Andreevna’s son drowned. About forty to fifty years ago they still remembered the methods of processing cherries. The cabinet was made exactly one hundred years ago. And the stones that were once gravestones remind us of a completely hoary antiquity... In the other direction, from the present to the future, a perspective opens up, but also at a different distance for different characters: for Yasha, for Anya, for Varya, for Lopakhin, for Petya, for Ranevskaya, even for Firs, boarded up and forgotten in the house.

"Yes, time is running”, notes Lopakhin. And this feeling is familiar to everyone in the play; this is also a constant, a constant circumstance on which each of the characters depends, no matter what he thinks and says about himself and others, no matter how he defines himself and his path. Everyone is destined to be grains of sand, chips in the stream of time.

And one more recurring motif that covers all the characters. This is a theme of confusion, misunderstanding in the face of relentlessly passing time.

In the first act, these are Ranevskaya’s perplexed questions. What is death for? Why are we getting old? Why does everything disappear without a trace? Why is everything that happened forgotten? Why does time, with the burden of mistakes and misfortunes, fall like a stone on your chest and shoulders? Further on in the course of the play, everyone else echoes her. Gaev is confused in rare moments of thought, although he is incorrigibly careless. “Who I am, why I am, is unknown,” Charlotte says in bewilderment. Epikhodov expressed his own bewilderment: “... I just can’t understand the direction of what I actually want, should I live or shoot myself...” For Firs, the previous order was clear, “but now everything is fragmented, you won’t understand anything.” It would seem that for Lopakhin the course and state of things is clearer than for others, but he also admits that only sometimes “it seems” to him that he understands why he exists in the world. Ranevskaya, Gaev, Dunyasha turn a blind eye to their situation and do not want to understand it.

It seems that many characters still oppose each other and somewhat contrasting pairs can be distinguished. “I am below love” by Ranevskaya and “we are above love” by Petya Trofimov. Firs has all the best in the past, Anya is recklessly focused on the future. Varya has an old woman’s refusal of herself for the sake of her family, she holds on to her estate, Gaev has pure childish egoism, he “ate” his estate on candy.” Epikhodov has a loser complex and Yasha has a arrogant conqueror complex. The heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” often contrast themselves with each other.

Charlotte: “These smart guys are all so stupid, I have no one to talk to.” Gaev is arrogant towards Lopakhin and Yasha. Firs teaches Dunyasha. Yasha, in turn, imagines himself higher and more enlightened than the rest. And how much exorbitant pride there is in Petya’s words: “And everything that you all value so highly, rich and poor, does not have the slightest power over me...” Lopakhin correctly comments on this endlessly repeating situation: “We are pulling our noses at each other, and life, you know, passes.”

The characters are convinced of the absolute opposite of their “truths.” The author each time points out the commonality between them, the hidden similarities that they do not notice or reject with indignation.

Doesn’t Anya repeat Ranevskaya in many ways, and doesn’t Trofimov often resemble the klutz Epikhodov, and doesn’t Lopakhin’s confusion echo Charlotte’s bewilderment? In Chekhov's play, the principle of repetition and mutual reflection of characters is not selective, directed against one group, but total, all-encompassing. To stand unshakably on one’s own, to be absorbed in one’s “truth”, without noticing the similarities with others - in Chekhov this looks like a common lot, an irreducible feature of human existence. In itself this is neither good nor bad: it is natural. What results from the addition, the interaction of various truths, ideas, modes of action - this is what Chekhov studies.

All relationships between the characters are illuminated by the light of a single understanding. It's not just a matter of new, increasingly complex accents in an old conflict. The conflict itself is new: visible opposition with hidden similarity.

Unchanging people (each holding on to his own) against the backdrop of time absorbing everything and everyone, confused and not understanding the course of life... This misunderstanding is revealed in relation to the garden. Everyone contributes to his final destiny.

A beautiful garden, against the backdrop of which characters are shown who do not understand the course of things or have a limited understanding of it, is associated with the destinies of several of their generations - past, present and future. The situation in the lives of individual people is internally correlated in the play with the situation in the life of the country. The symbolic content of the image of the garden is multifaceted: beauty, past culture, and finally, the whole of Russia... Some see the garden as it was in the irretrievable past, for others, talking about the garden is just a reason for fanaticism, while others, thinking about saving the garden, in reality they are destroying it, the fourth are welcoming the death of this garden...

GENRE ORIGINALITY. THE COMIC IN THE PLAY. A dying garden and failed, even unnoticed love - two end-to-end, internally related topics- give the play a sad-poetic character. However, Chekhov insisted that he created not “a drama, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce.” Remaining true to his principle of endowing the heroes with an equally painful position in relation to life they do not understand, a hidden community (which does not exclude an amazing variety of external manifestations), Chekhov found in his last great play a completely special genre form adequate to this principle.

The play does not lend itself to an unambiguous genre reading - only sad or only comic. It is obvious that Chekhov implemented in his “comedy” special principles of combining the dramatic and the comic.

In “The Cherry Orchard” it is not individual characters who are comical, such as Charlotte, Epikhodov, Varya. Misunderstanding of each other, diversity of opinions, illogical conclusions, remarks and answers inappropriately - all heroes are endowed with similar imperfections of thinking and behavior that make it possible to perform comically.

The comic of similarity, the comic of repetition are the basis of the comic in “The Cherry Orchard.” Everyone is funny in their own way, and everyone participates in the sad event, accelerating its onset - this is what determines the relationship between the comic and the serious in Chekhov's play.

Chekhov puts all the heroes in a position of constant, continuous transition from drama to comedy, from tragedy to vaudeville, from pathos to farce. In this situation there is not one group of heroes as opposed to another. The principle of such continuous genre transition is comprehensive in The Cherry Orchard. Every now and then in the play there is a deepening of the funny (limited and relative) to sympathy for it and back - a simplification of the serious to the funny.

The play, designed for a qualified, sophisticated viewer capable of grasping its lyrical, symbolic subtext, Chekhov filled the play with the techniques of the square theater, the booth: falling from the stairs, gluttony, hitting the head with a stick, magic tricks, etc. After the pathetic, excited monologues that almost every character in the play has - right up to Gaev, Pischik, Dunyasha, Firs - a farcical decline immediately follows, then a lyrical note appears again, allowing us to understand the subjective emotion of the hero, and again his self-absorption turns into mockery above him (this is how Lopakhin’s famous monologue in the third act is structured: “I bought it!..”).

What conclusions does Chekhov lead to in such unconventional ways?

A.P. Skaftymov in his works showed that the author makes the main object of the image in “The Cherry Orchard” not any of the characters, but the structure, the order of life. Unlike the works of previous drama, in Chekhov's play it is not the person himself who is to blame for his failures and it is not the evil will of another person that is to blame. There is no one to blame, “the source of sad ugliness and bitter dissatisfaction is the very composition of life.”

But does Chekhov remove responsibility from the heroes and shift it to the “composition of life” that exists outside of their ideas, actions, and relationships? Having taken a voluntary trip to the convict island of Sakhalin, he spoke of everyone’s responsibility for the existing order, for the general course of things: “We are all to blame.” Not “there is no one to blame,” but “we are all to blame.”

IMAGE OF LOPAKHIN. The persistence with which Chekhov pointed to the role of Lopakhin as central to the play is well known. He insisted that Lopakhin be played by Stanislavsky. He emphasized more than once that the role of Lopakhin is “central”, that “if it fails, then the whole play will fail”, that only a first-class actor, “only Konstantin Sergeevich” can play this role, and that it is not suitable for a simply talented actor. force, he will “play it either very palely, or make a joke”, make Lopakhin “a kulak... After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word, you need to understand this.” Chekhov warned against a simplified, petty understanding of this image, obviously dear to him.

Let's try to understand what in the play itself confirms the playwright's conviction in the central position of Lopakhin's role among other roles.

The first, but not the only and not the most important thing, is the significance and extraordinary nature of Lopakhin’s personality itself.

It is clear that Chekhov created an image of a merchant that is unconventional for Russian literature. A businessman, and a very successful one, Lopakhin is at the same time a man “with the soul of an artist.” When he talks about Russia, it sounds like a declaration of love for his homeland. His words are reminiscent of Gogol's lyrical digressions V " Dead souls”, Chekhov’s lyrical digressions in the story “Steppe” about the heroic scope of the Russian steppe road, which would be suitable for “huge, widely walking people”. And the most heartfelt words about the cherry orchard in the play - this should not be lost sight of - belong precisely to Lopakhin: “an estate that is not more beautiful in the world.”

In the image of this hero - a merchant and at the same time an artist at heart - Chekhov introduced features characteristic of a certain part of Russian entrepreneurs who left a noticeable mark on the history of Russian culture in turn of the 19th century and 20th centuries This is Stanislavsky himself (the owner of the factory Alekseev), and millionaire Savva Morozov, who gave money for construction Art Theater, and the creators art galleries and theaters Tretyakov, Shchukin, Mamontov, and publisher Sytin... Artistic sensitivity, selfless love to beauty were intricately combined in the natures of many of these merchants with characteristic features businessmen and money-grubbers. Without making Lopakhin similar to any of them individually, Chekhov introduces traits into the character of his hero that unite him with many of these entrepreneurs.

And the final assessment that Petya Trofimov gives to his seemingly antagonist (“After all, I still love you. You have thin, delicate fingers, like an artist, you have thin, gentle soul..."), finds a well-known parallel in Gorky’s review of Savva Morozov: “And when I see Morozov behind the scenes of the theater, in dust and trepidation for the success of the play, I am ready to forgive him all his factories, which, however, he does not need “I love him, because he unselfishly loves art, which I can almost feel in his peasant, merchant, acquisitive soul.” K.S. Stanislavsky bequeathed Lopakhin’s future performers to give him “the scope of Chaliapin.”

Dividing the garden into summer cottages - the idea that Lopakhin is obsessed with - is not just the destruction of the cherry orchard, but its reconstruction, the creation, so to speak, of a publicly accessible cherry orchard. With that former, luxurious garden, which served only a few, this new, thinned out and accessible to anyone for a reasonable fee, the Lopakhinsky garden correlates as a democratic urban culture Chekhov's era with the marvelous manor culture of the past.

Chekhov proposed an image that was clearly unconventional, unexpected for the reader and viewer, breaking the established literary and theatrical canons.

The main story line“The Cherry Orchard”. Something expected and prepared in the first action (saving the garden), as a result of a number of circumstances, turns into something directly opposite in the last action (the garden is chopped down). Lopakhin at first sincerely strives to save the garden for Lyubov Andreevna, but in the end he “accidentally” takes possession of it himself.

But at the end of the play, Lopakhin, who achieved success, is not shown by Chekhov as a winner. The entire content of “The Cherry Orchard” reinforces the words of this hero about “awkward, unhappy life”, which “you know it’s passing.” In fact, the person who alone is able to truly appreciate what a cherry orchard is must destroy it with his own hands (after all, there are no other ways out of this situation). With merciless sobriety, Chekhov shows in “The Cherry Orchard” the fatal discrepancy between personal good qualities a person, his subjectively good intentions and the results of his social activities. And Lopakhin was not given personal happiness.

The play begins with Lopakhin obsessed with the thought of saving the cherry orchard, but in the end everything turns out wrong: he did not save the orchard for Ranevskaya as he wanted, and his luck turns into a mockery of his best hopes. The hero himself cannot understand why this is so, and none of those around him could explain it.

In a word, it is with Lopakhin that one of the long-standing and main themes of Chekhov’s work enters into the play - hostility, unbearable complexity, the incomprehensibility of life for an ordinary (“average”) Russian person, no matter who he is (remember Ionia). In the image of Lopakhin, Chekhov remained faithful to this theme to the end. This is one of the heroes standing on the main line Chekhov's works, who is related to many of the characters in the writer’s previous works.

SYMBOLISM.“The distant, as if from the sky, sound of a broken string, fading, sad,” the sound of an ax announcing the death of the garden, as well as the image of the cherry orchard itself, were perceived by contemporaries as deep and meaningful symbols.

Chekhov's symbolism differs from the concept of symbol in works of art and theories of symbolism. He even has the most mysterious sound - not from the sky, but “as if from the sky.” The point is not only that Chekhov leaves the possibility of a real explanation (“... somewhere in the mines a tub fell off. But somewhere very far away”). The heroes explain the origin of sound, perhaps incorrectly, but the unreal, mystical is not required here. There is a mystery, but it is a mystery generated by an earthly reason, although unknown to the heroes or misunderstood by them, not fully realized.

The Cherry Orchard and its death are symbolically polysemantic and cannot be reduced to visible reality, but there is no mystical or surreal content here. Chekhov's symbols expand horizons, but do not lead away from the earthly. The very degree of mastery and comprehension of the everyday in Chekhov’s works is such that the existential, the general and the eternal shine through in them.

The mysterious sound, mentioned twice in “The Cherry Orchard,” was actually heard by Chekhov in childhood. But, in addition to the real predecessor, we can also recall one literary predecessor. This is the sound that the boys heard in Turgenev’s story “Bezhin Meadow”. This parallel is reminded by the similarity of the situation in which an incomprehensible sound is heard, and the mood that it evokes in the characters of the story and the play: someone shudders and gets scared, someone thinks, someone reacts calmly and judiciously.

Turgenev's sound in “The Cherry Orchard” acquired new shades and became like the sound of a broken string. IN last play Chekhov, it combines the symbolism of life and homeland, Russia: a reminder of its immensity and of the time passing over it, of something familiar, eternally resounding over the Russian expanses, accompanying the countless comings and goings of ever new generations.

In his last play, Chekhov captured the state of Russian society when there was only a step left from general disunity, listening only to oneself to the final collapse and general hostility. He urged not to be deluded by one’s own idea of ​​truth, not to absolutize many “truths” that actually turn out to be “false ideas”, to realize everyone’s guilt, everyone’s responsibility for the general course of things. In Chekhov's depiction of Russian historical problems humanity saw problems affecting all people at any time, in any society.

The work “The Cherry Orchard” was created by Chekhov in 1903. This is a play about the decline of noble life on estates, about the imaginary and real owners of the Russian land, about the inevitable renewal of Russia. Chekhov presented Russia's obsolete past with his play The Cherry Orchard. A summary will follow below.

First, let's introduce the main characters:

Landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. Her own daughter Anya is 17 years old. Stepdaughter Varya is 24 years old. Ranevskaya's brother is Leonid Andreevich Gaev. Student Trofimov Petr Sergeevich. Governess Charlotte Ivanovna. Merchant Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich. Landowner Semionov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich. Maid Dunyasha. Young footman Yasha. Old footman Firs. Clerk Semyon Panteleevich Epikhodov.

"The Cherry Orchard": summary first act

Dawn. It’s spring outside, you can see cherry trees in bloom. Only it’s still cold in the garden, so all the windows are closed. Lopakhin and Dunyasha enter the room. They are talking about the train that was late. And Lopakhin is upset that he could not meet Lyubov Andreevna, who Lately lived abroad, at the station.

Then Epikhodov enters; he recently proposed to Dunyasha. Everyone hears two carriages approaching. The commotion begins. The footman Firs enters, dressed in an old livery. And behind him comes Ranevskaya, Gaev, Anya, Simionov-Pishchik and Charlotte Ivanovna. Anya and Ranevskaya remember the past.

Then Anya talks with Varya. She talks about how she found her mother there without money, among strangers. But Ranevskaya did not seem to understand her position. She gives the footmen a ruble tip, and they order the most exquisite and expensive dishes. But in fact, there was barely enough money to get home. And now the estate must be sold, the auction is scheduled for August.

“The Cherry Orchard”: a summary of the second act

Evening. Sunset. The action takes place near an abandoned chapel. Lopakhin is interested in plots for summer cottages. He believes that the land should be divided into plots and leased out. Only for this you will have to cut down the cherry orchard. But Ranevskaya and Gaev are against this, they call it vulgarity. Gaev dreams of some kind of inheritance, about a Yaroslavl aunt who promised to give money, but how much it will be and when is unknown. Merchant Lopakhin once again reminds us of the auction.

“The Cherry Orchard”: a summary of the third and fourth acts

A Jewish orchestra is playing. There are dancing couples around. Varya is worried that the musicians were invited, but they have nothing to pay them with. Ranevskaya cannot wait for her brother to arrive from the auction. Everyone hopes that he bought the estate with the money sent by the Yaroslavl aunt. Only she sent only fifteen thousand, and it’s not even enough for interest. Gaev and Lopakhin return from the auction. Gaev is crying. Ranevskaya learns that the garden has been sold, its new owner is Lopakhin. She almost faints.

The rooms have little furniture, no curtains or paintings. Luggage costs. Lopakhin warns that they need to leave in a few minutes. Gaev went to work at the bank. Ranevskaya goes to Paris with her aunt’s money sent from Yaroslavl. Yasha goes with her. Gaev and Ranevskaya are depressed and say goodbye to the house. Anya thinks that her mother will return to her soon. And she will study at the gymnasium, go to work and begin to help her mother. Everyone gets out noisily and leaves for the station. And only the forgotten Firs remained in closed house. Silence. The sound of an ax can be heard.

“The Cherry Orchard”: analysis. Basic moments

The summary tells us that Gaev and Ranevskaya are an outdated past. The cherry orchard is dear to them as a memory of childhood days, of prosperity, of youth, of an easy and graceful life. And Lopakhin understands this. He tries to help Ranevskaya by offering to rent out plots of land. There is simply no other way out. Only the lady is careless as always, she thinks that everything will somehow resolve itself. And when the garden was sold, she did not grieve for long. The heroine is not capable of serious experiences; she easily moves from anxiety to cheerful animation. And Lopakhin is proud of the purchase and dreams of his new life. Yes, he bought an estate, but he still remained a man. And although the owners of the cherry orchard went bankrupt, they are, as before, gentlemen.