FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

State educational institution higher professional education

CHELYABINSK STATE UNIVERSITY

Department of Industries and Markets IEkoBiA

“Analysis of the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Seagull"»

Performed:

student gr. 22

Petrova I.V.

Chelyabinsk

Introduction

1. Summary works

2. Interpretation of the play "The Seagull"

2.1 "Seagull" R.K. Shchedrin

2.2 "The Seagull" B. Akunin

3. Action-Psychological Analysis of The Seagull as a Basis for Literary Interpretation

3.1 Subtext or "undercurrent" of the play

3.2 Director's analysis of the play

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

Anton Pavlovich Chekhov is a Russian writer, author of short stories, novels and plays, recognized as one of the the greatest writers in world literature. Chekhov created four works that have become classics of world drama, and his best stories highly acclaimed by writers and critics.

In 1895-1896, the play "The Seagull" was written, and was first published in the 12th issue of 1896 of the journal "Russian Thought". The premiere of the ballet "The Seagull" took place on October 17, 1896 on the stage of the St. Alexandrinsky Theater. However, this premiere was not successful.

In 1896, after the failure of The Seagull, Chekhov, who had already written several plays by that time, renounced the theater. However, in 1898, the production of The Seagull by the Moscow Art Theater, founded by Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko, was a huge success with the public and critics, which prompted Anton Chekhov to create another three masterpieces- plays "Uncle Vanya", "Three Sisters" and " The Cherry Orchard».

At first, Chekhov wrote stories only to earn money, but as his creative ambitions grew, he created new moves in literature, greatly influencing the development of modern short story. The originality of it creative method is to use a technique called "stream of consciousness", later adopted by James Joyce and other modernists, and the absence of a final morality, a much-needed structure classic story that time. Chekhov did not seek to give answers to the reading public, but believed that the role of the author was to ask questions, not to answer them.

Perhaps none of Chekhov's plays caused so much controversy both among the writer's contemporaries and later researchers of his work. This is not accidental, since it is with The Seagull that Chekhov's formation as a playwright, his innovation in this area of ​​literature, is associated.

The variety of approaches to Chekhov's work inevitably leads to the appearance of sometimes directly opposite views. One of these disagreements deserves special attention, as it has existed for many decades, and this is a dispute between theater critics and philologists: “Often theater critics, under the guise of research, propose and try to play their performance on paper. The temptation to write about “my Chekhov” or “Chekhov in a changing world” is magnificent, but let directors, writers, critics-artists deal with essays and interpretations. More interesting is “Chekhov's Chekhov”... the view is not from the outside, from the audience, from our time, but from the inside - from the text, ideally - "from the author's consciousness."

The reasons for such distrust of philologists towards theater critics and especially directors are understandable: the search for the latter is conditioned by the laws of the theater, which is sensitive to the needs of the time, and, therefore, are associated with the introduction of subjective “non-Chekhovian” elements into the work, which are not acceptable in literary criticism. But if you look at the literary interpretations of The Seagull, it is easy to see that some productions nevertheless had a rather strong influence on them. The first to be singled out here are the production of the Moscow Art Theater in 1898, which is considered the most “Chekhovian”, despite all the disagreements between the author and the Art Theater, and the score by K.S. Stanislavsky for this performance. The performance of Komissarzhevskaya on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater in 1896, and especially her assessment by Chekhov himself, for a long time inclined the sympathy of many researchers in favor of Zarechnaya. The productions of A. Efros (1966) and O. Efremov (1970) focused on the disunity of the characters, their withdrawal into themselves, and although the performances were perceived as a modernized Chekhov, the interest of philologists in this feature increased.

Speaking about the reasons for the gap between literary and stage interpretations, Z.S. Paperny expresses the idea that "the play turned out to be unattainable for full theatrical realization." Each production of "The Seagull" reflected only its individual aspects, but in general the play is "wider than the capabilities of one theater."

Shakh-Azizova, analyzing the tendencies of the Chekhov theater of the 60s and 70s, concludes that “epic thoroughness and tender lyrics are leaving the performances ... the dramatic nature is being exposed Chekhov's plays... "She sees the reason for this in a new solution to the question of the role of events that the theater not only emphasized emotionally, but also often brought to the stage what Chekhov himself tried to hide: "... the behavior of the characters often became highly nervous and the audience did not something to hint, but directly indicate what is in the soul of the heroes ... "

Shakh-Azizova sees the one-sidedness of the search in "that the theater seeks to explore Chekhov's theatricality in its pure form. To do this, it is singled out, extracted from the complex unity of drama, epic and lyrics ... "But similar disadvantage Literary studies also suffer, where drama completely falls out of sight.

To give holistic analysis, based on the correct ratio of the three principles (dramatic, epic and lyrical), it is necessary to overcome this gap. The difficulty here is that the performance is a new work of art that cannot be unambiguously interpreted: the “Chekhovian” in it is inseparable from the “director’s”, from individual features actors and modern layers. Therefore, the way to overcome the gap is seen not in the analysis of productions and related materials, but in the application of some of the methods and techniques of analysis used by directors. literary text for the purposes of literary interpretation.

But effective analysis, the problems of which this work is devoted, cannot be associated exclusively with theatrical practice, where text analysis is inseparable from other tasks. Moreover, although directors seeking to proceed from human nature often turn to psychology and physiology for confirmation of intuitive findings, in practical work they try not to use precise scientific terminology, developing their own language, understandable to the actors and helping to wake them up creative imagination. Therefore, in this work, along with the use practical experience directors, a purely theoretical justification for effective analysis will be given, based on psychological theory activities.

When correlating effective-psychological analysis with literary criticism, a completely fair question arises, what is new we are introducing. After all, the essence of effective analysis is to restore the action in the broadest sense of the word: the actions of the characters, their motives, the events of the play - ultimately, the series of events or plot. But when it comes to such a work as "The Seagull", this task turns out to be one of the most difficult. It is no coincidence that the question of the role of events in Chekhov's dramaturgy causes so much controversy, and often there is a doubt not only about what is an event and what is not, but also whether they exist at all. Effective-psychological analysis helps to obtain information about events, and is especially necessary in cases where such information is not expressed verbally.

The applied method of analysis makes it possible to objectify the picture of what is happening in The Seagull, draws something like a "panorama of the life of the characters", restoring in time sequence all the events about which there is direct or indirect information in the play. In the context of this "panorama", many previously noted features of the play will appear in a new way: lyricism, narrative, symbolism. The results of the analysis will allow us to reconsider the traditionally accepted position in literary criticism that there is no conflict in Chekhov's dramaturgy based on the clash of different goals of the characters and that there is no trace of a "single stream of volitional aspiration" of the characters in Chekhov's dramas. This, in turn, makes it possible to talk about a new correlation of traditional and innovative elements in Chekhov's dramaturgy.

The results of an actionable analysis are not an interpretation and are themselves subject to further interpretation along with other elements of the form. The method used does not insure against subjective assessments and conclusions, and it cannot be argued that the work provides the only correct answers to all the questions posed, but something else is obvious - these questions should not remain out of the field of view of literary critics.

Summary of the work

The action takes place in the estate of Peter Nikolaevich Sorin. His sister, Irina Nikolaevna Arkadina, an actress, is visiting his estate with her son, Konstantin Gavrilovich Treplev, and with Boris Alekseevich Trigorin, a novelist. Konstantin Treplev himself is also trying to write. Those gathered in the estate are preparing to watch a play staged by Treplev among natural scenery. play it the only role owes Nina Mikhailovna Zarechnaya, a young girl, the daughter of wealthy landowners, with whom Konstantin is in love. Nina's parents are categorically against her passion for the theater, and therefore she must come to the estate secretly. Among those waiting for the performance are also Ilya Afanasyevich Shamraev, a retired lieutenant, Sorin's manager; his wife - Polina Andreevna and his daughter Masha; Evgeny Sergeevich Dorn, doctor; Semen Semenovich Medvedenko, teacher. Medvedenko is unrequitedly in love with Masha, but she does not reciprocate, because she loves Konstantin Treplev. Finally Zarechnaya arrives. Nina Zarechnaya, all in white, sitting on a large stone, reads a text in the spirit of decadent literature, which Arkadina immediately notes. Throughout the reading, the audience is constantly talking, despite Treplev's remarks. Soon he gets tired of it, and he, having lost his temper, stops the performance and leaves. Masha hurries after him to find him and calm him down.

In Chekhov's dramaturgy, "The Seagull" occupies a very special place. It doesn't have central characters- all heroes are equal, side and main destinies do not exist, therefore the main actor it doesn't.

The title of this work is very symbolic. In no other play written earlier, the figurative motif - the title, did not play such an active (albeit hidden) defining role. The writer boldly violated the dramatic laws familiar to the mass of viewers. While working on The Seagull, Chekhov admitted in one of his letters: "I am writing it not without pleasure, although it is scary against the conditions of the stage, there is a lot of talk about literature, little action, five pounds of love." After finishing this play, Chekhov admitted in a letter to Suvorin that he wrote it "against all the rules dramatic art". The plot here is not a single-track path, but rather a labyrinth of hobbies, fatal attachments, there is no way out of it. : TVGU, 2010. - S. 64.

The Seagull was staged for the first time in 1896 in St. Petersburg on the stage of the Alexandria Theatre. However, not all viewers understood the play correctly and few approved of it. The first show was a huge failure. "The theater breathed malice, the air was choked with hatred, and I - according to the laws of physics - flew out of St. Petersburg like a bomb," Chekhov wrote shortly after the performance. However, this failure meant only that a new, unusual dramaturgy was being born. Chekhov began to be persuaded to stage the play at the Moscow Art Theater (MKhAT). What happened next became a theatrical legend. K.S. Stanislavsky, who played the role of the writer Trigorin, recalled: “It seemed that we were failing. The curtain closed in deathly silence. The actors shyly pressed against each other and listened to the audience. Silence. Someone cried. We silently moved backstage. At that moment, the audience burst into groans and applause. The audience was a huge success, and it was a real Easter on stage. Everyone kissed, not excluding strangers who burst into the backstage. Someone lay in hysterics. Many, including myself, danced with joy and excitement wild dance"(K.S. Stanislavsky "A.P. Chekhov in the Art Theater"). Ibid.

Chekhov called "The Seagull" a comedy, which was unusual. This riddle of the playwright still excites the minds of researchers. It would seem that the author shows us only the tragedies associated with each hero. The comedy of Chekhov's play "The Seagull" is determined by the specifics of the ontological model implemented in it. This is what T.K. Shah-Azizov, referring to the "author's assessment": "The main genre sign- this is a way to resolve the conflict, in connection with which the plays are divided into dramas, tragedies, comedies. Here, there is a direct dependence on author's assessment what is happening: the capabilities and behavior of the characters, the availability of a way out for them, etc. "Karpova A.Yu. A.P. Chekhov's comedy in the context of the New Drama" / A.Yu. Karpova // Vestnik TSPU. - 2010. - No. 8 (98). - S. 11-15.

Some literary critics, agreeing with the author's definition of the genre, still consider "The Seagull" the most "tragic comedy of Russian comedy". "A unique situation develops in Chekhov's play: in the world of tragedy, filled with various signs fate, a hero is placed with a fundamentally different type of behavior characteristic of comedy, as a result of which such a genre as a comedy of rock is born. I. Fadeeva, Tver, 2000, p. 133.

Everyone who has become acquainted with this work involuntarily asks the question: what is comic in it, because. there is no more funny in the play than in real life. And as in life, joy, love, success are given to the heroes very sparingly or not at all, life paths they are not smooth, the characters are complex. "The Seagull" is the most tragic comedy in Russian comedy. Deceived hopes, unhappy love, thoughts about a life lived in vain - the fate of almost all the heroes of the play. The love interests in "The Seagull" are sad contrasts that have no direct outlet to the plot, woeful dead ends, the movement goes past them. Teacher Medvedenko loves Masha, Masha is hopelessly in love with Treplev, whom she is just as hopelessly in love with Nina, she is in Trigorin, who, after a short affair with her, returns to Arkadina. Of course, Treplev has much more "rights" to Nina, but she loves Trigorin. In all these "buts", illogicalities, inconsistencies, the disharmony of the structure of the play is manifested again and again, unique comedy, not turning into the usual drama.

Calling his work a comedy, Chekhov seems to emphasize that " main character"his plays are routine, which burns through the best human feelings and a relationship that destroys personality and makes the characters petty, almost comical. This is how it appears before us famous writer Trigorin. He does not perceive life with his heart with all its joys and tragedies, but becomes only an outside observer, and everything that happens around and with him is for him only "a plot for short story". Such Arkadina, talented actress, which can convey any high feelings on stage, and in everyday life she feels sorry for money even for her son and brother, she is indifferent to everything except her own success. It is no coincidence that Treplev in his last remark, when he has already decided to commit suicide, says that his mother may be upset by a meeting with Nina. He does not seem to believe that his mother will perceive his death tragically. Other characters in the play are such victims of everyday life. Chekhov wrote: "On the stage - the most ordinary people. They cry, fish, play cards, laugh and get angry, like everyone else ... ". Quoted from: Razumova N.E. "The Seagull" by A.P. Chekhov and " new drama" / N.E. Razumova // Literary criticism and journalism. - Saratov, 2000. - P. 117-128.

Outwardly bright stage actions do not attract Chekhov. For example, there are at least two episodes in a play that would have been played out in traditional dramaturgy. The first is Treplev's attempt to commit suicide after the failure of his performance and Nina's "betrayal". The second is Treplev's suicide at the end of the play. Chekhov, on the other hand, takes these scenically "advantageous" episodes off stage. Such a rejection of spectacular scenes was subordinated to the author's intention: to show the characters of people, their relationships, problems arising from misunderstanding between people.

A feature of the dramatic work is the absence of author's digressions. And since the creator of the drama does not have the opportunity to give a textual assessment of the characters and actions of his characters, he does this through speech. So, in "The Seagull", as in all other dramatic creations of Chekhov, there are so-called dominant words that determine the main meanings of the work. These are such words as "life", "love", "art". These words exist on different levels.

The concept of "life" for Chekhov is both a problem and an experience of its values. Chekhov, as a creator and as a person, was especially keenly aware of the transience of life. Art (for the characters of The Seagull, this is mainly literature and theater) constitutes a huge layer of the heroes' ideals, this is their profession and hobby. The two main characters of the play - Arkadina and Zarechnaya - are actresses, Trigorin and Treplev are writers; Sorin also dreamed of once connecting his life with literature, but did not take place as a writer; Although Shamraev is not directly a person of art, nevertheless, he is close to him, is interested in him, in particular literary creativity; Dorn can also be called a "para-literary character".

Love in "The Seagull", as in almost all dramatic works, is one of the most important engines of the plot. True, in Chekhov's drama No happy people. Heroes are usually unlucky in love. The innovation of Chekhov the playwright was that he creates his work, referring to moral issues human life. What is truth and love? Is it possible, having overcome all the trials of fate, to maintain faith in people? What is art? Should a person engaged in creativity selflessly serve art, or is it possible for him to please his own pride? At the same time, the author did not offer his viewers ready-made answers to all questions. He simply showed life as it is, giving him the right to make his own choice. Instead of sharp passions and bright love ups and downs, it told about provincial youth who dreams of directing. He puts on a play for friends and relatives, on leading role in it invites the girl Nina, whom he is in love with. However, the audience does not like the play, not only because the author could not convey his feelings and understanding of the meaning of life in it, but also because the mother of the protagonist, a well-known and already elderly actress, does not like her son and does not believe in him. success. As a result, the fate of Nina is tragic, she rushes into love like an abyss. Dreaming about family life and the stage. However, at the end of the play, the audience learns that Nina, having run away with her lover Trigorin, ended up alone. She lost her child and is forced to work on the stage of third-rate theaters. However, despite all the trials, Nina does not lose faith in life and people. She tells the man who once fell in love with her that she understood the essence of life. In her opinion, the meaning of human existence is patience, the need to overcome everything. life difficulties and tests. At the same time, all the characters in the analyzed play are united by one common quality: each alone experiences his fate, and no one can help a friend. All the characters are dissatisfied with life to some extent, focused on themselves, on their personal experiences and aspirations.

Without exception, Chekhov unites all the heroes in single system, where each has its own task in the creative intent of the author. Therefore, he avoids external effects, and forces him to closely monitor all the heroes. The speech of each character has a "subtext", which gives the whole play a richness of content, artistic truthfulness and persuasiveness. Thus, another feature of the play "The Seagull" is the speech of the characters. It is ordinary, remarks are often given at random, dialogues are intermittent. Heroes are distracted every now and then, often giving the impression of an accident of the spoken phrases. The play contains verbal dominants. At Arkadina - "how I played."; at Nina - "I am a seagull, I believe."; Sorin's - I'm dangerously ill. "; at Shamraev - "I can't give horses. "; at Dorn - "I was, I wanted to be. "It's hard to live with Medvedenko." At the same time, Chekhov managed to masterfully develop the subtlest subtext. Words in a play are very often not tied to action. The course of the play is almost not expressed in words and deeds. The author emphasizes the routine of what is happening. Stenanenko A.A. Subtext in A.P. Chekhov 1890-1900: diss. for the competition uch. Art. Ph.D. n. / A.A. Stenanenko. - Sugrut: SSU, 2007. - S. 22.

Pauses play a special role in Chekhov's plays. They seem to complement the subtext and arise when the characters cannot and do not want to talk about the most intimate. In the third act, for example, Nina and Trigorin say goodbye before leaving. Nina gives him a medallion as a keepsake. Trigorin promises to remember the girl the way he saw her for the first time. "We talked. even then on the bench lay White seagull". Nina thoughtfully repeats:" Yes, a seagull. "Pause. "We can't talk anymore, they're coming here." "about a girl, "one person" ruined the campaign. But the entire multidimensional content of the conversation of the characters becomes clear much later. The pause creates a certain emotional tension, the viewer seems to expect the characters to explain, reveal something very important, but this does not happen. And the viewer himself must contemplate what is hidden behind this silence.

The play contains three iconic symbols: a lake, a seagull, and the soul of the world.

The lake symbolizes the beauty of the Central Russian landscape - an important element of Chekhov's plays. We do not see descriptions of the urban environment. The landscape becomes a participant in dramatic events. Sunset, moon, lake - all these are projections mental life heroes. The seagull - this image-symbol that passes through each character - stands for the motif of an eternal disturbing flight, an incentive for movement, a rush into the distance. Wingless people are eager to take off, to escape from everyday life. It was not a banal "plot for a short story" that the writer extracted from the story of a shot seagull, but an epically broad theme of bitter dissatisfaction with life, awakening cravings, longing, longing for a better future. Only through suffering does Nina Zarechnaya come to the idea that the main thing is "not fame, not brilliance", not what she once dreamed of, but "the ability to endure." "Know how to bear your cross and believe" - ​​this hard-won call for courageous patience opens tragic image Seagulls aerial perspective, flight to the future. And the fact that a stuffed animal is made from a seagull is scary; the deadening of a seagull means the deadening of the soul, art, love. At the beginning of the drama, Treplev puts on a play about the Soul of the World. This image reveals a complex relationship between natural and human. Treplev is looking for a general idea that would be able to explain the imperfection of life. In each character of the play, there is a struggle between the material and spiritual principles. Razumova N.E. Creativity A.P. Chekhov in the aspect of space. Monograph / N.E. Razumova. - Tomsk: TSU, 2010. - S. 123.

Thus, Chekhov opened up a genre that made it possible to raise broad generalizations, depict the life and mood of entire social strata. The author wrote a drama about the fate of the provincial intelligentsia, deprived of serious life tasks and prospects. At the same time, comic and tragic are intricately intertwined in The Seagull. Each character throughout the action is constantly striving to achieve some ideal happiness. Of course, everyone represents the ideal in their own way. But the heroes are united by this almost manic perseverance. Everyone longs to be happy, to embody themselves in art, to find the perfect love. At some stage, the author makes the reader and the viewer understand the simple truth that attempts to find their ideal without humor, without the opportunity to look at the situation from a comic point of view, are doomed to failure. Everything that seemed ridiculous and absurd turned out to be "terrible and disastrous." Treplev's final shot clearly testifies to the tragedy of life. Never before has the tragic reached such a prosaic, ordinariness, never before have such simple characters acted as tragic heroes and heroines. In the play, the action of which is built according to the laws of comedy, the author assigns the central place precisely to tragic characters. In a word, sad comedy wrote Chekhov - to the pain, to the scream, to the shot, here comes the feeling of the general disorder of life.

These are the features of the dramaturgy of "The Seagull" by Chekhov, which are combined with the understatement of the play, the incompleteness of the fate of its characters, with general principle images of life as a continuous process, not decomposable into closed, complete episodes. This was the innovation of Chekhov the playwright. The enduring significance of Chekhov's plays lies not only in innovation, lofty words and dramatic clashes, but also in lyricism, tenderness and subtlety.

The pattern is completely invalid
evil in all creation.
A. Koni

New times have come. The epoch of reaction, the period of violence against the individual, the cruel suppression of any free thought, was receding. In the mid-1990s, it was replaced at times by a public upsurge, a revival of the liberation movement, and the awakening of spring forebodings of imminent changes. The writer felt that Russia was standing at the break of epochs, on the verge of the collapse of the old world, he heard the distinct noise of the voices of the renewal of life. With this new atmosphere of boundary, transition, the end and beginning of eras on the verge of the XIX-XX centuries, the birth of the mature dramaturgy of A.P. Chekhov is connected. These are four great works for the stage "The Seagull", "Uncle Vanya", "Three Sisters", "The Cherry Orchard", which made a revolution in world drama.

"The Seagull" (1896) - for Chekhov himself, the most autobiographical, personal work, because we are talking about the author's lyrical self-expression." In a play written in a small Melikhovo wing, Chekhov, perhaps for the first time, so frankly expressed his life and aesthetic position.

This play is about people of art, about the torments of creativity, about restless, restless young artists, and about the self-satisfied, well-fed older generation, guarding the won positions. This play is also about love (“a lot of talk about literature, little action, five pounds of love,” Chekhov joked), about an unrequited feeling, about a mutual misunderstanding of people, about the cruel disorder of personal destinies. Finally, this is a play about the painful search for the true meaning of life, " common idea", the purpose of existence, " certain worldview", Without which life is "a complete mess, horror." On the material of art, Chekhov speaks about everything here human existence, gradually expanding the circles artistic research reality.

The play develops as a polyphonic, polyphonic, "multi-motor" work, in which different voices, intersect different topics, plots, destinies, characters. All heroes coexist equally: there are no main and secondary destinies, then one, then another hero comes to the fore, in order to then go into the shadows. Obviously, therefore, it is impossible and hardly necessary to single out the main character of The Seagull. This question is not indisputable. There was a time when Nina Zarechnaya was undoubtedly the heroine, later Treplev became the hero. In one performance, the image of Masha comes forward, in another, Arkadin and Trigorin overshadow everything.

Moreover, it is quite obvious that all Chekhov's sympathies are on the side of the young, searching generation, those who are just entering life. Although here the writer sees different, non-merging paths. A young girl who grew up in an old noble estate on the shore of the lake, Nina Zarechnaya, and a half-educated student in a shabby jacket, Konstantin Treplev, both strive to get into the wonderful world of art. They start together: the girl plays in a play written by a talented young man in love with her. The play is strange, abstract, it speaks of the eternal conflict of spirit and matter. “We need new forms! Treplev proclaims. - New forms are needed, and if they are not, then nothing is better!

A stage has been hastily put together in the evening garden. “There are no decorations - the view is right on the lake.” And the excited girlish voice drops strange words: “People, lions, eagles and partridges, horned deer, geese, spiders, in a word, all lives, all lives, all lives, having completed a sad circle, died out ... Cold, cold, cold. Empty, empty, empty...” Maybe this is a new work of art being born...

But the play remains unfinished. Treplev's mother famous actress Arkadina, defiantly does not want to listen to this "decadent nonsense." The show is broken. This exposes the incompatibility of two worlds, two views on life and positions in art. “You routiners have seized the primacy in art and consider legitimate and real only what you do yourself, and you oppress and strangle the rest! - Treplev rebels against his mother and the successful writer Trigorin. - I do not recognize you! I don't recognize you or him!"

In this conflict, a crisis situation emerges in Russian art and in life. late XIX century, when "the old art went wrong, and the new one has not yet been adjusted" (N. Berkovsky). Old classical realism, in which "imitation of nature" has become an end in itself ("people eat, drink, love, walk, wear their jackets"), degenerated only into a clever technical craft. The art of the new, coming age is born in pain, and its paths are not yet clear. “Life must be portrayed not as it is, and not as it should be, but as it appears in dreams” - this program of Treplev still sounds like a vague and pretentious declaration. He, with his talent, pushed off the old shore, but has not yet stuck to the new one. And life without a “certain worldview” turns into a chain of continuous torment for the young seeker.

The loss of "a common idea - the god of a living person" divides the people of the transitional era. Contacts are broken, everyone exists on his own, alone, incapable of understanding the other. That is why the feeling of love is so especially hopeless here: everyone loves, but everyone is unloved and everyone is unhappy. Nina can neither understand nor love Treplev, he, in turn, does not notice Masha's devoted, patient love. Nina loves Trigorin, but he leaves her. Arkadina, with a last effort of will, keeps Trigorin near her, but there has been no love between them for a long time. Polina Andreevna constantly suffers from the indifference of Dorn, the teacher Medvedenko - from the callousness of Masha ...

Non-contact threatens to turn into not only indifference and callousness, but even betrayal. Nina Zarechna betrays Treplev so thoughtlessly when, headlong, she rushes after Trigorin, for “noisy fame.” And maybe that’s why Chekhov doesn’t make her a “winner” in the finale. So a mother is able to betray her son, become his enemy , do not notice that he is on the verge of suicide.

“Help me. Help, otherwise I will do something stupid, I will laugh at my life, spoil it ... ”- Masha prays to Dr. Dorn, confessing to him her love for Konstantin. “How nervous everyone is! And how much love... Oh, witch's lake! But what can I do, my child? What? What?" The question remains unanswered. This is the drama of the irresponsibility, the incompatibility of people in this sad " lyrical comedy» Chekhov.

Although the play "The Seagull" is called a "comedy" (here is another mystery of Chekhov the playwright), there is little fun in it. All of it is imbued with the languor of the spirit, the anxieties of mutual misunderstanding, unrequited feelings, general dissatisfaction. Even the most seemingly prosperous person is the famous writer Trigorin, and he secretly suffers from dissatisfaction with his fate, his profession. Far from people, he will silently sit with fishing rods by the river, and then suddenly break into a truly Chekhovian monologue, and it will become clear that even this person is also, in essence, unhappy and lonely.

In a word, Chekhov wrote a sad comedy - to the pain, to the scream, to the shot, here comes the feeling of the general disorder of life. Why, then, is the play called "The Seagull"? And why is it that when you read it, you are seized and captivated by a special sense of poetry in its entire atmosphere? Most likely, because Chekhov extracts poetry from the very disorder of life.

The symbol of the seagull is deciphered as the motif of the eternal disturbing flight, the stimulus of movement, a rush into the distance. It was not a banal “plot for a short story” that the writer extracted from the story of a shot seagull, but an epically broad theme of bitter dissatisfaction with life, awakening cravings, longing, longing for a better future. Only through suffering does Nina Zarechnaya come to the idea that the main thing is “not glory, not brilliance”, not what she once dreamed of, but “the ability to endure”. “Know how to bear your cross and believe” - this hard-won call for courageous patience opens up an aerial perspective to the tragic image of a seagull, a flight into the future, does not close it with historically outlined time and space, puts not a dot, but an ellipsis in its fate.

With "The Seagull" (1896) Chekhov's great dramaturgy begins. The plot here is not a one-track path, but rather a labyrinth of hobbies, fatal attachments, there is no way out of it. "The Seagull" differs sharply from Chekhov's previous plays in its lyricism, symbolism and vividly delineated clash of various concepts of art, concepts of life. The Seagull is the most tragic comedy in Russian comedy.

Chekhov began working on the play in Melikhovo in 1895. The writer himself called the Melikhovo outbuilding the “place” of her birth. On May 5, 1895, Chekhov informed one of his correspondents: "I will write something strange."

"...Comedy, three female roles, six male, four acts, landscape (view of the lake); a lot of talk about literature, little action, five pounds of love,” Chekhov wrote on October 21, 1895, A.S. Suvorin, and in November he announces the name of the play - "The Seagull", noting that it will be written "contrary to all the rules of dramatic art."

The history of writing a play begins with how long it was not written. Researchers believe that in the alternation of plays by A.P. Chekhov has its own rhythm. After working on "Fatherlessness", on "Ivanov" and "Leshy", on "The Seagull" and "Uncle Vanya", on "Three Sisters" every time there are pauses. The greatest rise in the creative activity of Chekhov the playwright dates back to the end of the 80s - the plays Ivanov and Leshy were written, as well as almost all vaudeville.

Then comes a break - perhaps the largest in the history of Chekhov's dramaturgy.

The first mention of the intention to write a play dates back to 1892. On March 31, Chekhov informs A.S. Suvorin: "When I write a play, I will need Berne." Two years later, in a letter to Suvorin on February 16, 1894, Chekhov again mentions the play, referring to the same idea as in the first letter: “I want to bring out in the play a gentleman who constantly refers to Heine and Ludwig Berne. To the women who love him, he says, like Insarov in "On the Eve": "So hello, my wife before God and people!" Remaining on the stage solo or with a woman, he breaks down, poses as Lassalle, the future president of the republic ... "

A note in a notebook dates back to the same time: “To the play: From Turgenev: Hello, my wife before God and people!”

Reading Chekhov's notebooks, one can see how two ideas for a new play struggled in the author's mind - one related to the gentleman who poses as Lassalle, and the other, already related to the future "The Seagull". So, after the note "From Turgenev ..." we read: "How much is a pood of paper." This is a replica of teacher Medvedenko - in the manuscript he refers to Dorn: “Let me ask you, doctor, how much is a ream of writing paper abroad?”

Even earlier, in the same second notebook, a note appears: “We hit the zapendya.”

Gradually, the idea of ​​a mannered gentleman fades into the background. There remains one leading to the "Seagull". This idea matures very slowly. Chekhov's letters of 1894-1895 show how long his intention to write new play did not pass into the writing itself. Here are excerpts from his letters for 1894:

“In March I will write a play” (to A.S. Suvorin, January 10); “I did not write plays in the Crimea, although I intended to” (to him, April 10); “From July 16 I sit down to write a play, the contents of which I told you” (to him, June 22); “The play can be written somewhere on the banks of the Como, or even not written at all, for this is such a thing that not a bear and will not go into the forest, and if it leaves, then to hell with it” (to him on July 11).

But the idea of ​​a play is like a boomerang. Chekhov discards her, she returns.

In a letter to A.S. Suvorin on November 27, 1894, we read: “I was appointed trustee of a school in a village bearing the following name: Talezh. The teacher receives 23 rubles. a month, has a wife, four children and is already gray despite his 30 years. He is so overwhelmed with poverty that whatever you talk to him about, he reduces everything to the question of salary. In his opinion, poets and prose writers should write only about an increase in salaries; When new king change ministers, teachers’ salaries will probably be increased, etc.”

And an entry appears in the notebook: "A play": a teacher, 32 years old, with a gray beard.

This note, as if spun off from a letter to Suvorin and foreshadowing the teacher Medvedenko, is adjacent to other notes - Treplev's future remarks.

Thus, Chekhov says in his letters that he is going to write a play, but has not yet written it, but in notebooks already falling out, like crystals in a saturated solution, future phrases, replicas of "The Seagull".

Chekhov does not write a play, but it is already invisibly being written, taking shape, entering the author's mind as a still unrecognized "Seagull" - as a blank, which only then will be included in the general plan.

“I don’t write plays, and I don’t feel like writing. He has grown old, and there is no longer ardor ”(V.V. Bilibin, January 18); “I will write plays, but not soon. I don’t want to write dramas, but I haven’t come up with comedies yet. Perhaps I’ll sit down to play a play in the fall, if I don’t go abroad ”(A.S. Suvorin, April 18); "I'll write a play<…>I will write something strange” (to him, August 21).

And only on October 21, 1895, as if surprised at himself, Chekhov told Suvorin: “You can imagine, I am writing a play, which I will also finish, probably not earlier than at the end of November. I write it not without pleasure, although I lie terribly against the conditions of the stage.

Several years have passed since Chekhov first mentioned his intention to write a new play.

The same surprise that the play is finally being written is felt in the letter of I.L. Leontiev (Shcheglov) dated November 14, 1895: “Can you imagine, I am writing a play!”

On October 16, 1900, he will say in a letter to Gorky: “Can you imagine, he wrote a play” (“Three Sisters”). The same work is mentioned in a letter to O.L. Knipper: "I am rewriting my play and I wonder how I could write this thing, why write it" (December 15, 1900).

According to literary critics, this is not at all the unconsciousness of the creative process. But precisely uncontrollability, not subject to simple logic, calculation, ordinary intention (2, p.6-11).

The Seagull is rightfully considered Chekhov's most autobiographical play; it catches Chekhov's responses to the thoughts that agitated him about art, about the struggle with routine, about the search for new forms, about the pangs of creativity, about the responsibility of talent before the demands of life. An interesting observation by the English playwright D. Priestley is that Chekhov “divided his own personality between three characters: Trigorin, a popular fiction writer - something that he himself was tired of, Treplev, struggling, like himself, for new forms of expressiveness, and Dr. Dorn, like himself, a doctor who, not by chance, sympathizes with Treplev's searches.

In addition, the fate of people close to Chekhov was reflected in the play. So, in the complex plot outline of The Seagull, the story of an unsuccessful attempt on suicide by I.I. Levitan, who lived in the estate of A.N. Turchaninova on the shore of the lake in the province of Tver, where Chekhov was summoned. The seagull killed by Levitan is remembered by A.N. Turchaninova and artist S.P. Kuvshinnikov. Chekhov witnessed how Levitan shot a woodcock while hunting and could not look at the suffering of a wounded bird (letter to A.S., Suvorin on April 8, 1892) (1, p. 629). Here is how brother A.P. comments on this fact in his book. Chekhov Mikhail Chekhov: “I don’t know exactly where Brother Anton got the plot of The Seagull, but here are the details I know. Somewhere on one of the northern railways, in someone's rich estate, Levitan lived in a dacha. He started a very complicated affair there, as a result of which he had to shoot himself or fake suicide. He shot himself in the head, but unsuccessfully: the bullet passed through the skin of the head without hitting the skull. The alarmed heroines of the novel, knowing that Anton Chekhov was a doctor and friend of Levitan, urgently telegraphed the writer to immediately go to treat Levitan. Brother Anton reluctantly packed up and left. I don’t know what was there, but upon returning from there, he told me that he was met by Levitan with a black bandage on his head, which he immediately tore off and threw on the floor while explaining to the ladies. Then Levitan took a gun and went out to the lake. He returned to his lady with a poor seagull that he had killed for nothing, which he threw at her feet. These two motifs are brought out by Chekhov in The Seagull. Sofya Petrovna Kuvshinnikova later argued that this episode happened to her and that she was the heroine of this motif. But this is not true. I vouch for the correctness of what I am writing now about Levitan from the words of my late brother. Brother Anton could not mislead me, and it was pointless. Or maybe Levitan repeated this story again - I won’t argue ”(3, pp. 156-157).

L.S. Mizinova believed that in The Seagull a lot was “borrowed” from her life: Mizinova meant the ups and downs of her romance with the writer I.N. Potapenko, well known to Chekhov. Writer L.A. Avilova recalled the key ring presented to Chekhov, where the page and lines of Chekhov's book were indicated - if you find these lines, you can read: "If you ever need my life, then come and take it." Rereading "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoevsky, one can come across the following phrase: "... If... you need... my whole life, then call me, I will come." This episode entered the play, becoming an important milestone in the relationship between Nina and Trigorin. In the character of Arkadina, contemporaries recognized some features of the actress L.B. Yavorskaya, who at one time was fascinated by Chekhov.

The premiere of The Seagull took place on October 17, 1896 at the Alexandrinsky Theater in St. Petersburg and entered the history of the theater as an unprecedented, scandalous failure. Staged a play by E.P. Karpov, a mediocre director whom Chekhov never liked (1, p. 630).

By the time Chekhov's The Seagull was staged on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater, the need to search for "new tones" had finally matured in the minds of young playwrights, but had not yet penetrated the minds of the large public. And the theatrical bosses, however, who were always rather indifferent to the Russian drama theater, did not think about innovations.

MM. Chitau, an actress of the Alexandria Theater, wrote: “Behind the scenes, they already said that The Seagull was written “in a completely, completely new tone”, this interested future performers and frightened, but not very much. At the reading of "The Seagull" we gathered in the foyer of the artists. Only the author was missing. Without any use for the understanding of the "new tones" and even without simple sense Kornev reported the play to us, and then we began to take it home for reading.

When I later admired the performance of The Seagull at the Moscow Art Theatre, it seemed to me that, compared with its first edition, much had been changed and more successfully applied to the stage. Maybe I'm wrong, and the point is not in the text and not in the directors, but in our poor performance of this play. Not a single play was performed so painfully badly on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater and we never happened to hear not only hissing, but precisely such a friendly hissing at attempts at applause and shouts of “everyone” or “author”. The performers plunged into the darkness of failure. But it was recognized by everyone that Komissarzhevskaya remained shining over him with a bright light, and when she went out to bow before the public alone, she was received enthusiastically. And if the audience, who came to the benefit performance of the comic artist to laugh a lot, at the same time laughed at the gesture of Komissarzhevskaya with the “calico sheet” (as one of the memoirists put it on this occasion), then the artist is innocent of this, but the general performance of “The Seagull” could not contribute to to force this idle audience to radically change their mood. I don't remember during which act I went into the beneficiary's restroom and found her alone with Chekhov. She looked at him, half guiltily, half compassionately, with her bulging eyes, and did not even fidget with her hands. Anton Pavlovich was sitting with his head slightly bowed, a strand of hair had slipped over his forehead, his pince-nez was crookedly held on the bridge of his nose... They were silent. I also silently stood next to them. So a few seconds passed. Suddenly Chekhov jumped up and quickly left. He left not only from the theater, but also from St. Petersburg.

Even during rehearsals, he wrote to his sister from the theater that everyone around was false, evil, petty, that the performance, by all appearances, would go gloomy and that his mood was not good. On the day of the first performance of The Seagull, his sister went to Petersburg and, as she told me later, he met her at the station gloomy, gloomy, and when she asked what was the matter, he answered that the actors of the play did not understand, they did not know the roles at all , the author is not listened to ... The Seagull was staged as a benefit performance for the comic actress Levkeeva, and the public expected the comic from the play. As Chekhov's sister reported, there was a scandal from the very first scenes in the theater. Noisy, shouting, hissing, there was a complete confusion, everything turned into one continuous, shapeless chaos. Chekhov disappeared from the theatre. They searched for him everywhere by phone, but he was not found. At one in the morning, sister Maria Pavlovna came to the Suvorins, barely able to stand on her feet from the excitement and anxiety she had endured, and inquired where Anton was, but even there they could not answer her. Chekhov wrote a postcard to his sister from St. Petersburg: “The play fell flat,” and left immediately back to Melikhovo, without saying goodbye to anyone in St. Petersburg. So the sister did not see him after the performance.

But according to Chekhov's reviews of the performance, it was still known that only V.F. Komissarzhevskaya in the role of Nina played "amazingly". But on the day of the premiere, she, as the author later recalled, “succumbed to the general mood, hostile<...>"Seagull", and as if timid, slept from her voice. However, the most sensitive audience appreciated the talent of this "strange" play. Well-known lawyer A.F. Koni wrote to Chekhov on November 7, 1896: "The Seagull" is a work that leaves the series in its design, in the novelty of thoughts, in thoughtful observation of everyday situations. This is life itself on the stage, with its tragic alliances, eloquent thoughtlessness and silent suffering, everyday life, accessible to everyone and almost no one understands in its internal cruel irony - a life so accessible and close to us that sometimes you forget that you are sitting in theater, and is able to take part in the conversation taking place in front of you.

“... You cannot imagine how glad your letter made me,” Chekhov replied to Koni on November 11. - I saw from the auditorium only the first two acts of my play, then I sat backstage and all the time I felt that The Seagull was failing. After the performance, at night and the next day, I was assured that I brought out only idiots, that my play was clumsy in terms of stage, that it was stupid, incomprehensible, even meaningless, and so on and so forth.<...>I am now calm and remember the play and the performance without disgust.

The failure of The Seagull was a severe blow for Chekhov - the play was ridiculed and booed, asserting the rejection of the routine, the stamp, paving new paths in art.

However, the near future showed that this was not a failure of The Seagull, but of the old, routine, obsolete theatrical traditions, which Chekhov resolutely opposed in his play, and, what was decisive, his play itself, its new poetics, which demanded radical theatrical reforms. Soon this reform was carried out by K.S. Stanislavsky and V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, founders of the Moscow Public Art Theatre.

With its triumphant premiere on December 17, 1898 Artistic theater rehabilitated Chekhov's The Seagull.

IN AND. Nemirovich-Danchenko compiled a new repertoire with strict analysis and a delicate literary taste. He created it from the classic plays of Russian and foreign literature, on the one hand, and from the works of young actors, in which the pulse of life of that time beat, on the other.

IN AND. Nemirovich-Danchenko began with Chekhov, whom he highly valued as a writer and loved as a friend. Of course, the first dream of Nemirovich-Danchenko was to show on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater the play "The Seagull" by Chekhov, who found new ways, the most faithful and necessary to the art of that time. But there was an obstacle to fulfilling this dream. The fact is that after the failure of The Seagull at the Alexandrinsky Theater, Chekhov did not even want to think about a new production. A lot of work cost Vladimir Ivanovich to convince him that his work did not die after the failure, that it had not yet been shown in the proper form. He wrote to Chekhov: "... I am ready to answer with anything, that these hidden dramas and tragedies in every figure of the play, with a skillful, unbanal, extremely conscientious production, will also capture the theater hall." According to Nemirovich-Danchenko, "The Seagull is the only modern play" that captures him as a director, and Chekhov is "the only modern writer" who represents big interest for a theater with an exemplary repertoire".

Chekhov did not dare to relive the torments of the author he had experienced. However, Nemirovich-Danchenko won - permission to stage The Seagull was received. But here a new obstacle arose before Nemirovich-Danchenko: few at that time understood Chekhov's play, which now seems so simple to us. It seemed that she was not stage, and monotonous, and boring. But work began and, finally, Stanislavsky, who wrote the director's plan for staging the play, received a message that Chekhov himself, who was at the rehearsal of The Seagull in Moscow, approved the work. The circumstances in which The Seagull was staged were difficult and difficult. The fact is that Anton Pavlovich Chekhov became seriously ill. He had a complication of the tuberculosis process. At the same time, his state of mind was such that he would not have endured the second failure of The Seagull, similar to the one that occurred during its first production in St. Petersburg. The failure of the performance could be disastrous for the writer himself. Stanislavsky was warned about this by Chekhov's agitated sister Maria Pavlovna, who begged the directors to cancel the performance. Meanwhile, the performance of the Moscow Art Theater was desperately needed, since the material affairs of the theater were going badly, and a new production was required to raise fees. The actors went out to play a play at the premiere, which gathered far from full halls (the collection was six hundred rubles) and, standing on the stage, listened to the inner voice that whispered to them: “Play well, splendidly, achieve success, triumph. And if you do not achieve it, then know that upon receipt of the telegram, the writer you love will die, executed by your hands. You will become his executioners."

The premiere of The Seagull took place on December 17, 1898, the play was an extraordinary success; among the performers - O.L. Knipper (Arkadina), K.S. Stanislavsky (Trigorin), V.E., Meyerhold (Treplev), M.L. Roxanova (Nina Zarechnaya), M.N. Lidina (Masha). The director's score was designed by K.S. Stanislavsky, artist - V.A. Simov.

K.S. Stanislavsky says in his book “My Life in Art”: “I don’t remember how we played. The first act ended in the deathly silence of the auditorium. One of the artists fainted, I myself could hardly stand on my feet from despair. But suddenly, after a long pause, a roar, crackling, and frenzied applause arose in the audience. The curtain went ... parted ... moved again, and we stood like stunned. Then again the roar... and again the curtain... We all stood motionless, not realizing that we should bow. Finally, we felt success, and incredibly excited, we began to hug each other, as they hug on Easter night. M.P. Lilina, who played Masha and with her final words broke the ice in the hearts of the viewer, we gave a standing ovation. Success grew with each act and ended in triumph. A detailed telegram was sent to Chekhov.

Critic N.E. Efros, the most ardent admirer of Chekhov's work, was the first to rush to the stage at the premiere of The Seagull and began defiantly applauding. He was the first to glorify Chekhov the playwright, artists and the theater for the collective creation of this performance.

The silhouette of a flying seagull became the emblem of the theater, and Chekhov became its permanent author.

"The Seagull" went around the stages of many domestic theaters, was successfully staged abroad. One of the best performances was staged in France by Zh. Pitoev in 1939. “The whole of Paris, all the spectators applauded Chekhov and Pitoev,” wrote Jean Richard Blok.

Well-known Soviet directors turned to The Seagull, giving it their stage interpretation (A. Tairov, B. Livanov, O. Efremov, A. Efros).

The Seagull was filmed by the Soviet director Yu. Karasik (1970), the motives of the play were used in the films Plot for a Short Story by S. Yutkevich (1964) and Success by K. Khudyakov (1984).