The pinnacle of Chekhov's work, his "swan song" is the comedy The Cherry Orchard, completed in 1903. The era of the greatest aggravation of social relations, a stormy social movement, found clear expression in the last major work. In The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov's general democratic position had an effect. In the play, the world of the nobility-bourgeois is shown in a critical way and people who are striving for a new life are depicted in bright colors. Chekhov responded to the most topical demands of the time.
The ideological pathos of the play is in the denial of the nobility-local system as obsolete. At the same time, the writer argues that the bourgeoisie, which is replacing the nobility, despite its vital activity, brings with it destruction and the power of the chistogan.
Chekhov saw that the "old" was doomed to wither, for it had grown on fragile, unhealthy roots. A new, worthy owner must come. And this owner appears in the form of a merchant-entrepreneur Lopakhin, to whom the cherry orchard passes from the former owners, Ranevskaya and Gaev. Symbolically, the garden is the whole homeland (“the whole of Russia is our garden”). Therefore, the main theme of the play is the fate of the motherland, its future. The old masters, the noblemen Ranevskys and Gaevs, are leaving the stage, and the capitalists Lopakhins are replacing them.
The image of Lopakhin occupies a central place in the play. Chekhov attached particular importance to this image: “... the role of Lopakhin is central. If it fails, then the whole play will fail.” Lopakhin is a representative of post-reform Russia, attached to progressive ideas and striving not only to round off capital, but also to fulfill his social mission. He buys up landowners' estates to rent them out as dachas, and believes that his activities are bringing a better new life closer. This person is very energetic and businesslike, smart and enterprising, he works "from morning to evening", inactivity is simply painful for him. His practical advice, if Ranevskaya had accepted them, would have saved the estate. Taking away her favorite cherry orchard from Ranevskaya, Lopakhin sympathizes with her and Gaev. That is, he has both spiritual subtlety, and grace externally and internally. No wonder Petya notes the subtle soul of Lopakhin, his thin fingers, like those of an artist.
Lopakhin is passionate about his work, and is sincerely convinced that Russian life is arranged “incoherently”, it needs to be redone so that “grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see a new life.” He complains that there are few honest, decent people around. All these features were in Chekhov's time inherent in a whole stratum of the bourgeoisie. And fate makes them masters, even to some extent heirs of the values ​​created by previous generations. Chekhov emphasizes the dual nature of the Lopakhins: the progressive views of an intellectual citizen and the entanglement of prejudices, the inability to rise to the defense of national interests. “Come and watch how Yermolai Lopakhin hits the cherry orchard with an ax, how the trees fall to the ground! We will set up dachas, and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will see a new life here!” But the second part of the speech is doubtful: it is unlikely that Lopakhin will build a new life for posterity. This creative part is beyond his power, he only destroys what was created in the past. It is no coincidence that Petya Trofimov compares Lopakhin to a beast that eats everything that gets in its way. And Lopakhin himself does not consider himself a creator, he calls himself a “man-man”. The speech of this hero is also very remarkable, which fully reveals the character of a businessman-entrepreneur. His speech changes depending on the circumstances. Being in a circle of intelligent people, he uses barbarisms: auction, circulation, project; in communication with ordinary people, colloquial words slip through his speech: I suppose, what, you need to clean it up.
In the play The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov argues that the Lopakhins' dominance is short-lived, for they are the destroyers of beauty. The wealth of mankind accumulated over the centuries should belong not to monetary people, but to truly cultured people, “capable of answering before the strict court of history for their own deeds.”

TEST 1

A. P. Chekhov

(Please fill in the appropriate numbers in the boxes)

Exercise 1

Find the definition of humor:

1. The image in a literary work of any shortcomings, vices of a person or society for their ridicule. It denies the ridiculed phenomenon and opposes the ideal to it.

2. Caustic, angry, mocking mockery.

3. A type of comedic-aesthetic attitude that expresses cheerfulness and affirms it as an inevitable and necessary side of being. He sees in his object some aspects that do not conflict with the ideal.

Task 2

Name the magazine that first published the stories of A.P. Chekhov:

1. "Dragonfly".

2. "Contemporary".

3. "Domestic Notes".

4. "Shards".

Task 3

Did A.P. Chekhov adhere to any political movements and groups:

Task 4

The theme of the artwork is:

1. Facts and phenomena of life that the writer depicts, typical characters and situations selected by the author and transformed in a certain way in the system of this artistic world.

2. The main episodes of the event series of a literary work in their artistic sequence, determined by the composition.

3. The main generalizing thought of a literary work or a system of such thoughts, reflecting the author's attitude to reality.

Task 5

In the stories of A.P. Chekhov, the shortcomings of his time, expressed in a satirical form, are vividly presented. Select works that correspond to the indicated problems:

1. Adaptation, servility.

2. Voluntary self-abasement.

3. Disinterested espionage, gendarme stupidity.

4. Reflection of social injustice in the personal misfortune of people.

□ "Unter Prishibeyev" □ "Death of an official"

□ Longing

□ Chameleon

Task 6

The idea of ​​a work of art is:

1. Visible representation of the appearance of a person, object, phenomenon.

2. The main generalizing idea of ​​a literary work, reflecting the author's attitude to reality.

3. Facts and phenomena of life that the writer depicts, typical characters and situations displayed by the author and transformed in the system of this work.

Task 7

Select the works of A.P. Chekhov according to the proposed topics:

1. Generalizing picture of despotism in Russia.

2. A typical picture of philistine life, corrupting the human soul.

3. The greatness of human labor, the social value of a person, the true and imaginary significance of a person in society.

4. Condemnation of spiritual stagnation, exposure of the narrow-minded Russian intelligentsia.

□ Gooseberry

□ Jumper

□ "Ionych"

□ "Ward No. 6"

Task 8

The Moskovskie Vedomosti newspaper wrote: “We must cherish the school like the apple of our eye, not allowing anything in it that would be unclean or doubtful in any respect, and mercilessly removing from it everything impure and doubtful, which in one way or another managed to sneak into it.”

Which of Chekhov's heroes expressed the ideas of the newspaper and the time of the 90s:

2. Belikov.

3. Burkin.

Task 9

The distinctive features of the work of A.P. Chekhov are (find the odd one):

1. The objectivity of the depicted.

2. Brevity of works.

3. Moralization, edification.

4. Contrast in the image of the characters.

Task 10

The play is:

1. One of the literary genres, involving the creation of the artistic world of a literary work in the form of a stage embodiment.

2. Any dramatic work without specifying the genre, intended to be staged.

3. Dramatic genre, which is built on the tragic conflict between the hero and circumstances.

Task 11

What theater did A.P. Chekhov closely cooperate with:

1. Small theater.

2. "Contemporary".

3. Art theater.

4. Theater named after Stanislavsky.

Task 12

Artistic conflict is:

1. Quarrel of heroes.

2. Collision, confrontation of characters, any feelings, impulses in the soul of the characters underlying the action.

Task 13

Chekhov's depth of conflict in plots and situations is based on:

1. Direct clashes of characters caused by the defeats of some and the victories of others.

2. Disclosure of the characters of the heroes, showing them not in the struggle, but in the awareness of the contradictions of life.

3. Requiring active actions from the characters and their participation in the fight against the opposing forces.

Task 14

The theme of A.P. Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" is:

1. The fate of Russia, its future.

2. The fate of Ranevskaya and Gaev.

3. Intrusion into the life of the local nobility of the capitalist Lopakhin.

Task 15

The ideological pathos of comedy is:

1. Reflection of the obsolete nobility and estate system.

2. The role of the bourgeoisie, which came to replace, and bearing the destruction and power of money.

3. Waiting for real "masters of life" who will turn Russia into a blooming garden.

Task 16

Find the correspondence of the given characteristics to the heroes of the play "The Cherry Orchard":

1. “My dad was a man, an idiot, he didn’t understand anything, he didn’t teach me, he just beat me drunk, and everything with a stick. In essence, I am the same blockhead and idiot. I didn’t study anything ... I write in such a way that people are ashamed, like a pig.

2. “She is a good person. Easy, simple man. “She is good, kind, nice, I love her very much, but no matter how you think of extenuating circumstances, nevertheless, I must admit, she is vicious. It is felt in her every movement.

□ Lopakhin

□ Petya Trofimov

□ Ranevskaya

Task 17

Find the speech characteristics corresponding to the characters:

1. Sensitive sincerity, mannerisms, pomposity.

2. Vernacular with liberal rantings, billiard vocabulary.

3. Scientific speech, saturated with political terms.

□ Petya Trofimov

□ Ranevskaya

Task 18

According to the characteristic features, determine the belonging of speech:

1. “... My treasure, my dear, beautiful room”, “a white tree bowed like a woman”, “dear student”.

2. “What, I suppose, huge, you need to clean it up, add five by five, earned forty thousand chistogan, auction, circulation.” "This is a figment of your imagination, covered in the darkness of the unknown."

3. "... Rich and poor, workers, intelligentsia, feudal lords, truth, truth, labor, philosophizing." “Trust me, Anya, believe me! Forward! We march irresistibly towards the bright star that burns far away! Keep up, friends!"

□ Ranevskaya

□ Petya Trofimov

□ Lopakhin

Task 19

The speech of the characters in the play reflects the characters of the characters. To whom do these words belong?

“Humanity is moving forward, improving its forces. Everything that is inaccessible to him now will someday become close, understandable, but now you have to work, help with all your might to those who seek the truth.

1. Lopakhin.

2. Peter Trofimov.

4. Simeonov-Pishchik.

Task 20

The symbol is one of the tropes, a hidden comparison. Determine the meaning of the symbols used in the play by the author:

1. Cherry Orchard.

2. Ax blows, sounds of a broken string.

3. Clothing of an old footman: livery, white waistcoat, white gloves, tailcoat, boarded up house.

□ symbol of the past

□ symbol of the beauty of the Motherland and life

□ symbol of the end of the old life

Task 21

The age of Pyotr Sergeevich Trofimov can be judged from the replicas of the characters in the play. Which of the characters is closer to the truth:

1. Lopakhin: "He is fifty soon, but he is still a student."

2. Ranevskaya: "You are twenty-six or twenty-seven, and you are still a second-grade schoolboy."

Task 22

Each of the two lackeys depicted in the play by A.P. Chekhov also symbolizes his time. Which of them owns the following replicas:

1. “My lady has arrived! I waited!”, “Wherever you order, I’ll go there.”

2. “If you go to Paris, take me with you, be so kind! It's impossible for me to stay here."

Task 23

The final scene is a kind of summing up of life.

“Life has passed, as if it had not lived.”

To which of the other heroes of the play can this statement of Firs be attributed (several answers are possible):

2. Ranevskaya.

3. Lopakhin.

4. Trofimov.

5. Simeonov-Pishchik.

Answers to tests

The originality of the play "The Cherry Orchard" Ideological features

A.P. Chekhov sought to force the reader and viewer of The Cherry Orchard to recognize the logical inevitability of the ongoing historical “change” of social forces: the death of the nobility, the temporary domination of the bourgeoisie, the triumph in the near future of the democratic part of society. The playwright more clearly expressed in his work the belief in "free Russia", the dream of it.

The democrat Chekhov had sharp accusatory words that he threw to the inhabitants of the “noble nests.” Therefore, choosing subjectively not bad people from the nobility for the image in The Cherry Orchard and abandoning burning satire, Chekhov laughed at their emptiness, idleness, but did not completely refuse them in the right to sympathy, and thereby somewhat softened the satire.

Although there is no open sharp satire on the nobles in The Cherry Orchard, there is undoubtedly a (hidden) denunciation of them. Raznochinets Democrat Chekhov had no illusions, he considered it impossible to revive the nobles. Having posed in the play "The Cherry Orchard" a theme that bothered Gogol in his time (the historical fate of the nobility), Chekhov, in a true depiction of the life of the nobles, turned out to be the heir to the great writer. The ruin, lack of money, idleness of the owners of noble estates - Ranevskaya, Gaev, Simeonov-Pishchik - remind us of the pictures of impoverishment, the idle existence of noble characters in the first and second volumes of Dead Souls. A ball during a auction, a calculation for a Yaroslavl aunt or some other accidental favorable circumstance, luxury in clothes, champagne for elementary needs in a house - all this is close to Gogol's descriptions and even to individual Gogol's eloquent realistic details, which, as time itself showed, general meaning. “Everything was based,” Gogol wrote about Khlobuev, “on the need to suddenly get one hundred or two hundred thousand from somewhere,” they counted on the “three millionth aunt.” In Khlobuev's house, "there is no piece of bread, but there is champagne," and "children are taught to dance." “Everything seems to have lived, all around in debt, no money from anywhere, but sets dinner.”

However, the author of The Cherry Orchard is far from Gogol's final conclusions. On the verge of two centuries, historical reality itself and the democratic consciousness of the writer suggested to him more clearly that it was impossible to revive the Khlobuevs, Manilovs and others. Chekhov also understood that the future did not belong to entrepreneurs like Kostonzhoglo and not to the virtuous tax-farmers Murazovs.

In the most general form, Chekhov guessed that the future belongs to the democrats, the working people. And he appealed to them in his play. The peculiarity of the position of the author of The Cherry Orchard lies in the fact that he, as it were, went to a historical distance from the inhabitants of noble nests and, having made his allies the spectators, people of a different - working - environment, people of the future, together with them from the "historical distance" laughed at the absurdity, injustice, emptiness of people who had passed away, and no longer dangerous, from his point of view, people. Chekhov found this peculiar angle of view, an individual creative method of depiction, perhaps not without reflection on the works of his predecessors, in particular, Gogol, Shchedrin. “Don't get bogged down in the details of the present,” Saltykov-Shchedrin urged. “But cultivate in yourselves the ideals of the future; for these are a kind of sunbeams... Look often and intently at the luminous dots that flicker in the perspective of the future” (“Poshekhonskaya antiquity”).

Although Chekhov consciously did not arrive at either a revolutionary-democratic or a social-democratic program, life itself, the strength of the liberation movement, the influence of the progressive ideas of the time made him feel the need to suggest to the viewer the need for social transformations, the proximity of a new life, i.e. not only to catch “luminous dots that flicker in the perspective of the future”, but also to illuminate the present with them.

Hence the peculiar combination in the play "The Cherry Orchard" of lyrical and accusatory beginnings. To critically show contemporary reality and at the same time express patriotic love for Russia, faith in its future, in the great possibilities of the Russian people - such was the task of the author of The Cherry Orchard. The wide expanses of their native country (“gave”), giant people who “would be so to face” them, a free, working, just, creative life that they will create in the future (“new luxurious gardens”) - this is the lyrical the beginning that organizes the play "The Cherry Orchard", that author's norm, which is opposed to the "norms" of the modern ugly unfair life of dwarf people, "stupid". This combination of lyrical and accusatory elements in The Cherry Orchard constitutes the specifics of the genre of the play, accurately and subtly called by M. Gorky "lyrical comedy".

3.2 Genre features

The Cherry Orchard is a lyrical comedy. In it, the author conveyed his lyrical attitude to Russian nature and indignation at the plunder of her wealth “Forests crack under an axe”, rivers become shallow and dry, magnificent gardens are destroyed, luxurious steppes perish.

The “tender, beautiful” cherry orchard, which they only knew how to admire contemplatively, is dying, but which the Ranevskys and Gaevs could not save, whose “wonderful trees” were rudely “grabbed with an ax by Yermolai Lopakhin”. In the lyrical comedy, Chekhov sang, as in the Steppe, a hymn to Russian nature, the “beautiful homeland”, expressed the dream of creators, people of labor and inspiration, who think not so much about their own well-being as about the happiness of others, about future generations. “A person is gifted with reason and creative power in order to increase what is given to him, but so far he has not created, but destroyed” - these words are spoken in the play “Uncle Vanya”, but the thought expressed in them is close to thoughts author of The Cherry Orchard.

Outside of this dream of a man-creator, outside of the generalized poetic image of a cherry orchard, one cannot understand Chekhov's play, just as one cannot truly feel Ostrovsky's The Thunderstorm, The Dowry, if one remains immune to the Volga landscapes in these plays, to Russian open spaces, alien "cruel morals" of the "dark kingdom".

Chekhov's lyrical attitude to the motherland, to its nature, the pain for the destruction of its beauty and wealth constitute, as it were, the "undercurrent" of the play. This lyrical attitude is expressed either in the subtext or in the author's remarks. For example, in the second act, the expanses of Russia are mentioned in the remark: a field, a cherry orchard in the distance, a road to the estate, a city on the horizon. Chekhov specifically directed the filming of the directors of the Moscow Art Theater to this remark: "In the second act, you will give me a real green field and a road, and an extraordinary distance for the stage."

The remarks relating to the cherry orchard are full of lyricism (“it's already May, the cherry trees are blooming”); sad notes sound in remarks that mark the approaching death of the cherry orchard or this death itself: “the sound of a broken string, fading, sad”, “the dull thud of an ax on a tree, sounding lonely and sad.” Chekhov was very jealous of these remarks, worried that the directors would not quite fulfill his plan: “The sound in the 2nd and 4th acts of The Cherry Orchard should be shorter, much shorter, and be felt from quite afar ...”.

Expressing his lyrical attitude to the Motherland in the play, Chekhov condemned everything that hindered her life and development: idleness, frivolity, narrow-mindedness. “But he,” as V. E. Khalizev rightly noted, “was far from a nihilistic attitude to the former poetry of noble nests, to noble culture,” he was afraid of losing such values ​​as cordiality, goodwill, gentleness in human relations, without enthusiasm stated the coming dominance of the dry efficiency of the Lopakhins.

"The Cherry Orchard" was conceived as a comedy, as "a funny play, wherever the devil walks like a yoke." “The whole play is cheerful, frivolous,” the author informed friends at the time of work on it in 1903.

This definition of the genre of the comedy play was deeply principled for Chekhov; it was not for nothing that he was so upset when he learned that on the posters of the Art Theater and in newspaper advertisements the play was called a drama. “I didn’t get a drama, but a comedy, in some places even a farce,” Chekhov wrote. In an effort to give the play a cheerful tone, the author indicates about forty times in remarks: “joyfully”, “fun”, “laughs”, “everyone laughs”.

3.3 Compositional features

There are four acts in the comedy, and there is no division into scenes. Events take place over several months (from May to October). The first action is exposure. Here is a general description of the characters, their relationships, connections, and also here we learn the whole background of the issue (the reasons for the ruin of the estate).

The action begins in the estate of Ranevskaya. We see Lopakhin and Dunyasha, the maid, waiting for the arrival of Lyubov Andreevna and her youngest daughter Anya. For the last five years, Ranevskaya and her daughter lived abroad, while Ranevskaya's brother, Gaev, and her adopted daughter, Varya, remained on the estate. We learn about the fate of Lyubov Andreevna, about the death of her husband, son, we learn the details of her life abroad. The estate of the landowner is practically ruined, the beautiful cherry orchard must be sold for debts. The reasons for this are the extravagance and impracticality of the heroine, her habit of overspending. The merchant Lopakhin offers her the only way to save the estate - to break the land into plots and rent them out to summer residents. Ranevskaya and Gaev, on the other hand, resolutely reject this proposal, they do not understand how it is possible to cut down a beautiful cherry orchard, the most “wonderful” place in the whole province. This contradiction, emerging between Lopakhin and Ranevskaya-Gaev, constitutes the plot of the play. However, this plot excludes both the external struggle of the actors and the sharp internal struggle. Lopakhin, whose father was a serf of the Ranevskys, only offers them a real, reasonable, from his point of view, way out. At the same time, the first act develops at an emotionally growing pace. The events that take place in it are extremely exciting for all the actors. This is the expectation of the arrival of Ranevskaya, who is returning to her home, a meeting after a long separation, a discussion by Lyubov Andreevna, her brother, Anya and Varya of measures to save the estate, the arrival of Petya Trofimov, who reminded the heroine of her dead son. In the center of the first act, therefore, is the fate of Ranevskaya, her character.

In the second act, the hopes of the owners of the cherry orchard are replaced by a disturbing feeling. Ranevskaya, Gaev and Lopakhin again argue about the fate of the estate. Internal tension grows here, the characters become irritable. It is in this act that “a distant sound is heard, as if from the sky, the sound of a broken string, fading, sad,” as if foreshadowing an impending catastrophe. At the same time, Anya and Petya Trofimov fully reveal themselves in this act, in their remarks they express their views. Here we see the development of the action. The external, social conflict here seems a foregone conclusion, even the date is known - "auctions are scheduled for the twenty-second of August." But at the same time, the motif of ruined beauty continues to develop here.

The third act of the play contains the climactic event - the cherry orchard is sold at auction. Characteristically, the off-stage action becomes the culmination here: the auction takes place in the city. Gaev and Lopakhin go there. In their expectation, the rest arrange a ball. Everyone is dancing, Charlotte is doing magic tricks. However, the disturbing atmosphere in the play is growing: Varya is nervous, Lyubov Andreevna is impatiently waiting for her brother's return, Anya transmits a rumor about the sale of the cherry orchard. Lyrical and dramatic scenes are interspersed with comic ones: Petya Trofimov falls down the stairs, Yasha enters into a conversation with Firs, we hear the dialogues of Dunyasha and Firs, Dunyasha and Epikhodov, Varya and Epikhodov. But then Lopakhin appears and reports that he bought an estate in which his father and grandfather were slaves. Lopakhin's monologue is the pinnacle of dramatic tension in the play. The climactic event in the play is given in the perception of the main characters. So, Lopakhin has a personal interest in buying the estate, but his happiness cannot be called complete: the joy of making a successful deal struggles in him with regret, sympathy for Ranevskaya, whom he has loved since childhood. Lyubov Andreevna is upset by everything that is happening: the sale of the estate for her is a loss of shelter, “parting from the house where she was born, which became for her the personification of her usual way of life (“After all, I was born here, my father and mother lived here, my grandfather, I I love this house, I don’t understand my life without a cherry orchard, and if you really need to sell it, then sell me along with the garden ...”). For Anya and Petya, the sale of the estate is not a disaster, they dream of a new life. The cherry orchard for them is the past, which is “already over”. Nevertheless, despite the difference in the attitudes of the characters, the conflict never turns into a personal clash.

The fourth act is the denouement of the play. The dramatic tension in this act weakens. After the problem is resolved, everyone calms down, rushing to the future. Ranevskaya and Gaev say goodbye to the cherry orchard, Lyubov Andreevna returns to her former life - she is preparing to leave for Paris. Gaev calls himself a bank employee. Anya and Petya welcome the "new life" without regretting the past. At the same time, a love conflict between Varya and Lopakhin is resolved - the matchmaking never took place. Varya is also getting ready to leave - she has found a job as a housekeeper. In the confusion, everyone forgets about old Firs, who was supposed to be sent to the hospital. And again the sound of a broken string is heard. And in the finale, the sound of an ax is heard, symbolizing sadness, the death of the passing era, the end of the old life. Thus, we have a circular composition in the play: in the finale, the theme of Paris reappears, expanding the artistic space of the work. The author's idea of ​​the inexorable course of time becomes the basis of the plot in the play. Chekhov's heroes seem to be lost in time. For Ranevskaya and Gaev, real life seems to have remained in the past, for Anya and Petya it lies in a ghostly future. Lopakhin, who has become the owner of the estate in the present, also does not feel joy and complains about the "awkward" life. And the very deep motives of the behavior of this character do not lie in the present, but also in the distant past.

In the very composition of The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov sought to reflect the empty, sluggish, boring nature of the existence of his noble heroes, their eventful life. The play is devoid of "spectacular" scenes and episodes, external diversity: the action in all four acts is not carried outside the Ranevskaya estate. The only significant event - the sale of the estate and the cherry orchard - takes place not in front of the viewer, but behind the scenes. On the stage - everyday life in the estate. People talk about everyday little things over a cup of coffee, during a walk or an impromptu “ball”, quarrel and make peace, rejoice at the meeting and are saddened by the upcoming separation, remember the past, dream about the future, and at this time - “their destinies are being formed”, ruined their "nest".

In an effort to give this play a life-affirming, major key, Chekhov accelerated its pace, in comparison with previous plays, in particular, reduced the number of pauses. Chekhov was especially concerned that the final act should not be drawn out and that what was happening on the stage would thus not produce the impression of "tragism", drama. “It seems to me,” wrote Anton Pavlovich, “that in my play, no matter how boring it is, there is something new. In the whole play, not a single shot, by the way. “How awful! An act that should last 12 minutes maximum, you have 40 minutes.

3.4 Heroes and their roles

Deliberately depriving the play of "events", Chekhov directed all his attention to the state of the characters, their attitude to the main fact - the sale of the estate and the garden, to their relationships, collisions. The teacher should draw students' attention to the fact that in a dramatic work the author's attitude, the author's position is the most hidden. In order to clarify this position, in order to understand the playwright's attitude to the historical phenomena of the life of the motherland, to the characters and the event, the viewer and reader need to be very attentive to all the components of the play: the system of images carefully thought out by the author, the arrangement of characters, the alternation of mise-en-scenes, the interlocking of monologues, dialogues, individual replicas of the characters, author's remarks.

Sometimes Chekhov consciously exposes the clash of dreams and reality, the lyrical and comic beginnings in the play. So, while working on The Cherry Orchard, he introduced into the second act after the words of Lopakhin (“And living here we ourselves should really be giants ...”) Ranevskaya’s response: “You needed giants. They are only good in fairy tales, otherwise they frighten. To this Chekhov added another mise-en-scène: the ugly figure of the “klutz” Epikhodov appears in the depths of the stage, clearly contrasting with the dream of giant people. To the appearance of Epikhodov, Chekhov specially attracts the attention of the audience with two remarks: Ranevskaya (thoughtfully) "Epikhodov is coming." Anya (thoughtfully) "Epikhodov is coming."

In the new historical conditions, Chekhov the playwright, following Ostrovsky and Shchedrin, responded to Gogol's call: “For God's sake, give us Russian characters, give us ourselves, our rogues, our eccentrics! To their stage, to the laughter of everyone! Laughter is a great thing! ("Petersburg Notes"). "Our eccentrics", our "stupid" seeks to lead Chekhov to ridicule the public in the play "The Cherry Orchard".

The author's intention to arouse the viewer's laughter and at the same time make him think about modern reality is most clearly expressed in the original comic characters - Epikhodov and Charlotte. The function of these "clunkers" in the play is very significant. Chekhov makes the viewer catch their inner connection with the central characters and thereby denounces these eye-catching faces of the comedy. Epikhodov and Charlotte are not only ridiculous, but also pathetic with their unfortunate "fortune" full of inconsistencies and surprises. Fate, in fact, treats them "without regret, like a storm to a small ship." These people are ruined by life. Epikhodov is shown as insignificant in his meager ambition, miserable in his misfortunes, in his pretensions and in his protest, limited in his "philosophy". He is proud, painfully proud, and life has put him in the position of a half-lackey and a rejected lover. He claims to be “educated”, lofty feelings, strong passions, and life “prepared” for him daily “22 misfortunes”, petty, ineffectual, offensive.

Chekhov, who dreamed of people in whom “everything would be beautiful: face, clothes, soul, and thoughts,” saw so far many freaks who have not found their place in life, people with a complete confusion of thoughts and feelings, actions and words which are devoid of logic and meaning: “Of course, if you look from the point of view, then you, let me put it this way, excuse my frankness, completely put me in a state of mind.”

The source of Epikhodov's comedy in the play also lies in the fact that he does everything inopportunely, out of time. There is no correspondence between his natural data and behavior. Close-minded, tongue-tied, he is prone to lengthy speeches, reasoning; clumsy, mediocre, he plays billiards (breaking his cue), sings "terribly like a jackal" (by Charlotte's definition), darkly accompanying himself on the guitar. At the wrong time he declares his love to Dunyasha, inappropriately asks thoughtful questions (“Have you read Buckle?”), inappropriately uses many words: “Only people who understand and older can talk about that”; “and so you look, something extremely indecent, like a cockroach”, “recover from me, let me express myself, you cannot.”

The function of Charlotte's image in the play is close to that of Epikhodov's image. The fate of Charlotte is absurd, paradoxical: a German, a circus actress, an acrobat and a conjurer, she turned out to be a governess in Russia. Everything is uncertain, accidental in her life: the appearance at the Ranevskaya estate is accidental, and the departure from it is accidental. Charlotte is always in for the unexpected; how her life will be determined further after the sale of the estate, she does not know how incomprehensible the purpose and meaning of her existence is: “All alone, alone, I have no one and ... who I am, why I am unknown.” Loneliness, unhappiness, confusion constitute the second, hidden underlying basis of this comic character of the play.

It is significant in this regard that, while continuing to work on the image of Charlotte during rehearsals of the play at the Art Theater, Chekhov did not retain the previously planned additional comic episodes (tricks in Acts I, III, IV) and, on the contrary, strengthened the motif of Charlotte's loneliness and unhappy fate: at the beginning of Act II, everything from the words: “I so want to talk, but not with anyone ...” to: “why I am unknown” - was introduced by Chekhov into the final edition.

"Happy Charlotte: Sing!" Gaev says at the end of the play. With these words, Chekhov also emphasizes Gaev's misunderstanding of Charlotte's position and the paradoxical nature of her behavior. At a tragic moment in her life, even as if she were aware of her situation (“so you, please find me a place. I can’t do this ... I have nowhere to live in the city”), she shows tricks, sings. Serious thought, awareness of loneliness, unhappiness is combined in her with buffoonery, buffoonery, a circus habit of amusing.

In Charlotte's speech, there is the same bizarre combination of different styles, words: along with purely Russian ones, distorted words and constructions ("I want to sell. Does anyone want to buy?"), foreign words, paradoxical phrases ("These wise men are all so stupid" , "You, Epikhodov, are a very smart person and very scary; women must love you madly. Brrr! ..").

Chekhov attached great importance to these two characters (Epikhodov and Charlotte) and was concerned that they be correctly and interestingly interpreted in the theater. The role of Charlotte seemed to the author the most successful, and he advised the actresses Knipper, Lilina to take her, and wrote about Epikhodov that this role was short, "but the real one." With these two comic characters, the author, in fact, helps the viewer and reader to understand not only the situation in the life of the Epikhodovs and Charlotte, but also to extend to the rest of the characters the impressions that he receives from the convex, pointed image of these "klutzes", makes him see the "wrong side" of life phenomena, to notice in some cases the "unfunny" in the comic, in other cases - to guess the funny behind the outwardly dramatic.

We understand that not only Epikhodov and Charlotte, but also Ranevskaya, Gaev, Simeonov-Pishchik "exist for who knows what". To these idle inhabitants of the ruined noble nests, living "at someone else's expense", Chekhov added faces not yet acting on the stage and thereby strengthened the typicality of the images. The serf master, the father of Ranevskaya and Gaev, corrupted by idleness, the morally lost second husband of Ranevskaya, the despotic Yaroslavl grandmother-countess, showing class arrogance (she still cannot forgive Ranevskaya that her first husband was "not a nobleman") - all these "types", together with Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik, "have already become obsolete." To convince the viewer of this, according to Chekhov, neither malicious satire nor contempt was needed; it was enough to make them look at them through the eyes of a person who had gone a considerable historical distance and was no longer satisfied with their living standards.

Ranevskaya and Gaev do nothing to save, save the estate and the garden from destruction. On the contrary, it is precisely because of their idleness, impracticality, carelessness that the “nests” so “holy loved” by them are being ruined, poetic beautiful cherry orchards are being destroyed.

Such is the price of these people's love for their homeland. “God knows, I love my homeland, I love dearly,” says Ranevskaya. Chekhov makes us confront these words with actions and understand that her words are impulsive, do not reflect a constant mood, depth of feeling, and are at odds with actions. We learn that Ranevskaya left Russia five years ago, that she was “suddenly drawn to Russia” from Paris only after a catastrophe in her personal life (“there he robbed me, left me, got together with another, I tried to poison myself ...”) , and we see in the finale that she still leaves her homeland. No matter how sorry Ranevskaya is about the cherry orchard and the estate, she pretty soon “calmed down and cheered up” in anticipation of leaving for Paris. On the contrary, Chekhov throughout the play says that the idle anti-social nature of the life of Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik testifies to their complete oblivion of the interests of their homeland. He creates the impression that, with all their subjectively good qualities, they are useless and even harmful, since they contribute not to creation, not to “multiplying the wealth and beauty” of the homeland, but to destruction: thoughtlessly Pishchik rents a piece of land to the British for 24 years for the predatory exploitation of Russian natural wealth, the magnificent cherry orchard of Ranevskaya and Gaev perishes.

By the actions of these characters, Chekhov convinces us that one cannot trust their words, even spoken sincerely, excitedly. “We’ll pay the interest, I’m convinced,” Gaev bursts out without any reason, and he already excites himself and others with these words: “By my honor, whatever you want, I swear, the estate will not be sold! .. I swear by my happiness! Here's my hand, then call me a lousy, dishonorable person if I let you go to the auction! I swear with all my being!” Chekhov compromises his hero in the eyes of the viewer, showing that Gaev "allows the auction" and the estate, contrary to his oaths, is sold.

Ranevskaya in Act I resolutely tears, without reading, telegrams from Paris from the person who insulted her: "It's over with Paris." But Chekhov, in the further course of the play, shows the instability of Ranevskaya's reaction. In the following acts, she is already reading telegrams, tends to reconcile, and in the finale, reassured and cheerful, she willingly returns to Paris.

Combining these characters according to the principle of kinship and social affiliation, Chekhov, however, shows both similarities and individual traits of each. At the same time, he makes the viewer not only question the words of these characters, but also think about the justice, the depth of other people's opinions about them. “She is good, kind, nice, I love her very much,” Gaev says about Ranevskaya. “She is a good person, an easy, simple person,” Lopakhin says about her and enthusiastically expresses his feeling to her: “I love you like my own ... more than my own.” Anya, Varya, Pishchik, Trofimov, and Firs are attracted to Ranevskaya like a magnet. She is equally kind, delicate, affectionate with her own, and with her adopted daughter, and with her brother, and with the "man" Lopakhin, and with the servants.

Ranevskaya is cordial, emotional, her soul is open to beauty. But Chekhov will show that these qualities, combined with carelessness, spoiledness, frivolity, very often (although regardless of the will and subjective intentions of Ranevskaya) turn into their opposite: cruelty, indifference, carelessness towards people. Ranevskaya will give the last gold to a random passerby, and at home the servants will live from hand to mouth; she will say to Firs: “Thank you, my dear,” kiss him, sympathetically and affectionately inquire about his health and ... leave him, a sick, old, devoted servant, in a boarded-up house. With this final chord in the play, Chekhov deliberately compromises Ranevskaya and Gaev in the eyes of the viewer.

Gaev, like Ranevskaya, is gentle and receptive to beauty. However, Chekhov does not allow us to fully trust Anya's words: "Everyone loves you, respects you." "How good you are, uncle, how smart." Chekhov will show that Gaev’s gentle, gentle treatment of close people (sister, niece) is combined with his estate disregard for the “grimy” Lopakhin, “a peasant and a boor” (by his definition), with a contemptuous-squeamish attitude towards servants (from Yasha “smells like chicken”, Firs is “tired”, etc.). We see that, along with the lordly sensitivity, grace, he absorbed the lordly swagger, arrogance (Gaev’s word is characteristic: “whom?”), Conviction in the exclusivity of people of his circle (“white bone”). He feels more than Ranevskaya himself and makes others feel his position as a gentleman and the advantages associated with it. And at the same time, he flirts with proximity to the people, claims that he “knows the people”, that “the man loves” him.

The remarkable merits of The Cherry Orchard and its innovative features have long been unanimously recognized by progressive critics. But when it comes to the genre features of the play, this unanimity is replaced by dissent. Some see the play "The Cherry Orchard" as a comedy, others as a drama, others as a tragicomedy. What is this play - drama, comedy, tragicomedy?
Before answering this question, it should be noted that Chekhov, striving for the truth of life, for naturalness, created plays not of purely dramatic or comedic, but of very complex formation.
In his plays, the dramatic is realized in an organic mixture with the comic, and the comic is manifested in an organic interweaving with the dramatic.
Chekhov's plays are a kind of genre formations that can be called dramas or comedies, only keeping in mind their leading genre trend, and not the consistent implementation of the principles of drama or comedy in their traditional sense.
A convincing example of this is the play "The Cherry Orchard". Already completing this play, Chekhov on September 2, 1903 wrote Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko: “I will call the play a comedy” (A. P. Chekhov, Complete Works and Letters, vol. 20, Goslitizdat, M., 1951, p. 129).
On September 15, 1903, he informed M.P. Alekseeva (Lilina): “I did not get a drama, but a comedy, in places even a farce” (Ibid., p. 131).
Calling the play a comedy, Chekhov relied on the comic motives prevailing in it. If, answering the question about the genre of this play, we keep in mind the leading trend in the structure of its images and plot, then we must admit that it is based on not a dramatic, but a comedic beginning. Drama presupposes the dramatic nature of the positive characters of the play, that is, those to whom the author gives his main sympathies.
In this sense, such plays by A.P. Chekhov as "Uncle Vanya" and "Three Sisters" are dramas. In the play The Cherry Orchard, the main sympathies of the author belong to Trofimov and Anya, who do not experience any drama.
Recognizing The Cherry Orchard as a drama means recognizing the experiences of the owners of the Cherry Orchard, the Gaevs and Ranevskys, as truly dramatic, capable of evoking deep sympathy and compassion for people who are not going back, but forward, into the future.
But this in the play could not be and is not. Chekhov does not defend, does not affirm, but exposes the owners of the cherry orchard, he shows their emptiness and insignificance, their complete incapacity for serious experiences.
The play "The Cherry Orchard" cannot be recognized as a tragicomedy either. To do this, she lacks neither tragicomic heroes, nor tragicomic situations that run through the entire play, defining its through action. Gaev, Ranevskaya, Pishchik are too small as tragicomic heroes. Yes, besides, in the play the leading optimistic idea comes through with all distinctness, expressed in positive images. This play is more correctly called a lyrical comedy.
The comedy of The Cherry Orchard is determined, firstly, by the fact that its positive images, such as Trofimov and Anya, are shown by no means dramatic. Dramaticity is unusual for these images either socially or individually. Both in their inner essence and in the author's assessment, these images are optimistic.
The image of Lopakhin is also clearly undramatic, which, in comparison with the images of the local nobles, is shown as relatively positive and major. The comedy of the play is confirmed, secondly, by the fact that of the two owners of the cherry orchard, one (Gaev) is given primarily comically, and the second (Ranevskaya) in such dramatic situations, which mainly contribute to showing their negative essence.
The comic basis of the play is clearly visible, thirdly, in the comic-satirical depiction of almost all the minor characters: Epikhodov, Pishchik, Charlotte, Yasha, Dunyasha.
"The Cherry Orchard" also includes explicit vaudeville motifs, even farce, expressed in jokes, tricks, jumps, dressing up Charlotte. In terms of the issues and the nature of its artistic interpretation, The Cherry Orchard is a deeply social play. It has very strong motives.
Here the most important questions for that time were raised: the liquidation of the nobility and estate economy, its final replacement by capitalism, the growth of democratic forces, etc.
With a clearly expressed socio-comedy basis in the play "The Cherry Orchard", lyrical-dramatic and socio-psychological motives are clearly manifested: lyric-dramatic and socio-psychological motives are most complete in the depiction of Ranevskaya and Vari; lyrical and socio-psychological, especially in the image of Anya.
The originality of the genre of The Cherry Orchard was very well revealed by M. Gorky, who defined this play as a lyrical comedy.
"A. P. Chekhov, he writes in the article “0 plays”, “created ... a completely original type of play - a lyrical comedy” (M. Gorky, Collected Works, vol. 26, Goslitizdat, M., 1953, p. 422).
But the lyrical comedy "The Cherry Orchard" is still perceived by many as a drama. For the first time, such an interpretation of The Cherry Orchard was given by the Art Theater. On October 20, 1903, K. S. Stanislavsky, after reading The Cherry Orchard, wrote to Chekhov: “This is not a comedy ... this is a tragedy, no matter what outcome to a better life you open in the last act ... I was afraid that with the secondary reading the play won't capture me. Where is it!! I cried like a woman, I wanted to, but I could not restrain myself ”(K, S. Stanislavsky, Articles. Speeches. Conversations. Letters, ed. Art, M., 1953 , pp. 150 - 151).
In his memoirs of Chekhov, dating back to about 1907, Stanislavsky characterizes The Cherry Orchard as "the heavy drama of Russian life" (Ibid., p. 139).
K.S. Stanislavsky misunderstood, underestimated the power of accusatory pathos directed against the representatives of the then departing world (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik), and in this regard, unnecessarily emphasized the lyric-dramatic line associated with these characters in his directorial decision of the play.
Taking seriously the drama of Ranevskaya and Gaev, unduly promoting a sympathetic attitude towards them and to some extent muffling the accusatory and optimistic direction of the play, Stanislavsky staged The Cherry Orchard in a dramatic vein. Expressing the erroneous point of view of the leaders of the Art Theater on The Cherry Orchard, N. Efros wrote:
“...no part of Chekhov's soul was with Lopakhin. But part of his soul, rushing into the future, belonged to the "mortuos", the "Cherry Orchard". Otherwise, the image of the doomed, dying, leaving the historical stage would not have been so tender ”(N. Efros, The Cherry Orchard staged by the Moscow Art Theater, Pg., 1919, p. 36).
Proceeding from the dramatic key, evoking sympathy for Gaev, Ranevskaya and Pishchik, emphasizing their drama, all their first performers played these roles - Stanislavsky, Knipper, Gribunin. So, for example, characterizing the game of Stanislavsky - Gaev, N. Efros wrote: “this is a big child, pitiful and funny, but touching in its helplessness ... There was an atmosphere of the finest humor around the figure. And at the same time, she radiated great touching... everyone in the auditorium, together with Firs, felt something tender for this stupid, decrepit child, with signs of degeneration and spiritual decline, the "heir" of a dying culture... And even those who are by no means prone to sentimentality, to which the harsh laws of historical necessity and the change of class figures on the historical stage are sacred - even they probably gave moments of some compassion, a sigh of sympathetic or condoling sadness to this Gaev ”(Ibid., p. 81 - 83).
In the performance of the artists of the Art Theater, the images of the owners of the Cherry Orchard turned out to be clearly larger, more noble, beautiful, spiritually complex than in Chekhov's play. It would be unfair to say that the leaders of the Art Theater did not notice or bypassed the comedy of The Cherry Orchard.
When staging this play, K. S. Stanislavsky used its comedy motives so widely that he aroused sharp objections from those who considered it a consistently pessimistic drama.
A. Kugel, based on his interpretation of The Cherry Orchard as a consistently pessimistic drama (A. Kugel, Sadness of the Cherry Orchard, Theater and Art, 1904, No. 13), accused the leaders of the Art Theater of that they abused comedy. “My amazement was understandable,” he wrote, “when The Cherry Orchard appeared in a light, funny, cheerful performance ... It was the resurrected Antosha Chekhonte” (A. Kugel, Notes on the Moscow Art Theater, “ Theater and Art”, 1904, No. 15, p. 304).
Dissatisfaction with the excessive, deliberate comedy of the stage performance of The Cherry Orchard at the Art Theater was also expressed by the critic N. Nikolaev. “When,” he wrote, “the oppressive present portends an even more difficult future, Charlotta Ivanovna appears and passes, leading a little dog on a long ribbon and with all her exaggerated, highly comical figure causes laughter in the auditorium ... For me, this laughter was a tub of cold water ... The mood turned out to be irreparably spoiled ”(N. Nikolayev, At the Artists,“ Theater and Art ”, 1904, No. 9, p. 194).
But the real mistake of the first directors of The Cherry Orchard was not that they beat many of the comic episodes of the play, but that they neglected comedy as the leading beginning of the play. Revealing Chekhov's play as a heavy drama of Russian life, the leaders of the Art Theater gave place to its comedy, but only a subordinate one; secondary.
M. N. Stroeva is right in defining the stage interpretation of the play The Cherry Orchard at the Art Theater as a tragicomedy (M. Stroeva, Chekhov and the Art Theatre, ed. Art, M., 1955, p. 178 and etc.).
Interpreting the play in this way, the direction of the Art Theater showed the representatives of the outgoing world (Ranevskaya, Gaeva, Pishchika) more inwardly rich, positive than they really are, and excessively increased sympathy for them. As a result, the subjective drama of the departing people sounded more deeply in the performance than was necessary.
As for the objectively comic essence of these people, exposing their insolvency, this side was clearly not sufficiently disclosed in the performance. Chekhov could not agree with such an interpretation of The Cherry Orchard. S. Lubosh recalls Chekhov at one of the first performances of The Cherry Orchard - sad and torn off. “In the filled theater there was a noise of success, and Chekhov sadly repeated:
- Not that, not that...
- What's wrong?
- Everything is not the same: both the play and the performance. I didn't get what I wanted. I saw something completely different, and they couldn’t understand what I wanted” (S. Lubosh, The Cherry Orchard. Chekhov’s anniversary collection, M., 1910, p. 448).
Protesting against the false interpretation of his play, Chekhov wrote in a letter to O.L. Nemirovich and Alekseev see positively in my play not what I wrote, and I am ready to give any word - that both of them never carefully read my play ”(A.P. Chekhov, Complete Works and letters, vol. 20, Goslitizdat, M., 1951, p. 265).
Chekhov was outraged by the purely slow pace of the performance, especially by the painfully drawn-out Act IV. “The act, which should last 12 minutes maximum, you have,” he wrote to O. L. Knipper, “is 40 minutes. I can say one thing: Stanislavsky ruined my play” (Ibid., p. 258).
In April 1904, talking with the director of the Alexandrinsky Theater, Chekhov said:
“Is this my Cherry Orchard? .. Are these my types? .. With the exception of two or three performers, all this is not mine ... I write life ... This is a gray, ordinary life ... But, this is not boring whining... They make me either a crybaby, or just a boring writer... And I wrote several volumes of funny stories. And criticism dresses me up as some kind of mourners ... They invent from their heads what they themselves want, but I didn’t think about it, and I didn’t see it in a dream ... It starts to make me angry ”(E. P. K arpov, The last two meetings with Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, Yearbook of the Imperial Theatres, 1909, issue V, p. 7).
According to Stanislavsky himself, Chekhov could not come to terms with the interpretation of the play as a heavy drama, “until his death” (K. S. Stanislavsky, Articles. Speeches. Conversations. Letters, ed. "Art", M., 1953. p. 139).
This is understandable, since the perception of the play as a drama dramatically changed its ideological orientation. What Chekhov laughed at, with such a perception of the play, already required deep sympathy.
Defending his play as a comedy, Chekhov, in fact, defended the correct understanding of its ideological meaning. The leaders of the Art Theater, in turn, could not remain indifferent to Chekhov's statements that they were embodiing The Cherry Orchard in a false way. Thinking about the text of the play and its stage embodiment, Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko were forced to admit that they had misunderstood the play. But misunderstood, in their opinion, not in its main key, but in particular. The show has changed along the way.
In December 1908, V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko wrote: “Look at The Cherry Orchard, and you will not at all recognize in this lacy graceful picture that heavy and heavy drama that The Garden was in the first year” (V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Letter to N. E. Efros (second half of December 1908), Theater, 1947, No. 4, p. 64).
In 1910, in a speech to the artists of the Art Theater, K. S. Stanislavsky said:
“Let many of you confess that you did not immediately understand The Cherry Orchard. Years passed, and time confirmed the correctness of Chekhov. The need for more decisive changes in the performance in the direction indicated by Chekhov became clearer and clearer to the leaders of the Art Theater.
Resuming the play The Cherry Orchard after a ten-year break, the leaders of the Art Theater made major changes to it: they significantly accelerated the pace of its development; they animated the first act in a comedic way; removed excessive psychologism in the main characters and increased their exposure. This was especially evident in the game of Stanislavsky - Gaev, “His image,” noted in Izvestia, “is now revealed primarily from a purely comedic side. We would say that idleness, lordly daydreaming, complete inability to take on at least some kind of work and truly childish carelessness are exposed by Stanislavsky to the end. The new Gaev of Stanislavsky is a most convincing example of harmful worthlessness. Knipper-Chekhova began to play even more openwork, even easier, revealing her Ranevskaya in the same way of “revealing” (Yur. Sobolev, The Cherry Orchard at the Art Theater, Izvestia, May 25, 1928, No. 120).
The fact that the original interpretation of The Cherry Orchard at the Art Theater was the result of a misunderstanding of the text of the play was acknowledged by its directors not only in correspondence, in a narrow circle of artists of the Art Theater, but also before the general public. V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, speaking in 1929 in connection with the 25th anniversary of the first performance of The Cherry Orchard, said: “And this wonderful work was not understood at first .. maybe our performance will require some some changes, some permutations, at least in particulars; but regarding the version that Chekhov wrote a vaudeville, that this play should be staged in a satirical context, I say with complete conviction that this should not be. There is a satirical element in the play - both in Epikhodov and in other persons, but take the text in your hands and you will see: there - “cries”, in another place - “cries”, but in vaudeville they will not cry! Vl. I. N emir o v i ch-Danchenko, Articles. Speeches. Conversations. Letters, ed. Art, 1952, pp. 108 - 109).
It is true that The Cherry Orchard is not vaudeville. But it is unfair that vaudeville allegedly does not cry, and on the basis of the presence of crying, The Cherry Orchard is considered a heavy drama. For example, in Chekhov's vaudeville "The Bear" the landowner and her lackey cry, and in his vaudeville "Proposal" Lomov cries and Chubukova moans. In the vaudeville "Az and Firth" by P. Fedorov, Lyubushka and Akulina cry. In the vaudeville "Teacher and Student" by A. Pisarev, Lyudmila and Dasha are crying. In the vaudeville The Hussar Girl, Koni cries Laura. It's not the presence and not even the number of crying, but the nature of crying.
When Dunyasha says through tears: “I broke the saucer”, and Pishchik - “Where is the money?”, This causes not a dramatic, but a comic reaction. Sometimes tears express joyful excitement: at Ranevskaya at her first entrance to the nursery upon returning to her homeland, at the devoted Firs, who waited for the arrival of his mistress.
Tears often denote a special cordiality: in Gaev, when addressing Anya in the first act (“my baby. My child ...”); at Trofimov, calming Ranevskaya (in the first act) and then telling her: “because he robbed you” (in the third act); Lopakhin calming Ranevskaya (at the end of the third act).
Tears as an expression of acutely dramatic situations in The Cherry Orchard are very rare. These moments can be re-read: in Ranevskaya's first act, when she meets Trofimov, who reminded her of her drowned son, and in the third act, in a dispute with Trofimov, when she again remembers her son; at Gaev - upon return from the auction; Varya's - after a failed explanation with Lopakhin (fourth act); at Ranevskaya and Gaev - before the last exit from the house. But at the same time, the personal drama of the main characters in The Cherry Orchard does not evoke such sympathy from the author, which would be the basis of the drama of the entire play.
Chekhov strongly disagreed that there were many weeping people in his play. "Where are they? - he wrote to Nemirovich-Danchenko on October 23, 1903. - Only one Varya, but this is because Varya is a crybaby by nature, and her tears should not arouse a dull feeling in the viewer. Often I meet “through tears”, but this only shows the mood of faces, not tears ”(A. P. Chekhov, Complete collection of works and letters, vol. 20, Goslitizdat, M., 1951, pp. 162 - 163).
It is necessary to understand that the basis of the lyrical pathos of the play "The Cherry Orchard" is created by representatives not of the old, but of the new world - Trofimov and Anya, their lyricism is optimistic. The drama in the play "The Cherry Orchard" is evident. This is the drama experienced by the representatives of the old world and is fundamentally associated with the protection of departing life forms.
The drama associated with the defense of egoistic forms of life that is passing away cannot arouse the sympathy of advanced readers and spectators and is incapable of becoming a positive pathos of progressive works. And naturally, this drama did not become the leading pathos of the play The Cherry Orchard.
But in the dramatic states of the characters in this play there is something that can evoke a sympathetic response from any reader and spectator. One cannot sympathize with Ranevskaya in the main - in the loss of the cherry orchard, in her bitter love wanderings. But when she remembers and cries about her seven-year-old son who drowned in the river, she is humanly sorry. One can sympathize with her when, wiping away her tears, she tells how she was drawn from Paris to Russia, to her homeland, to her daughter, and when she forever says goodbye to her home, in which the happy years of her childhood, youth, and youth passed. ...
The drama of The Cherry Orchard is private, not defining, not leading. The stage performance of The Cherry Orchard, given by the Art Theater in a dramatic vein, does not correspond to the ideological pathos and genre originality of this play. To achieve this correspondence, not minor amendments are required, but fundamental changes in the first edition of the performance.
Revealing the completely optimistic pathos of the play, it is necessary to replace the dramatic basis of the performance with a comedy-no-lyrical one. There are prerequisites for this in the statements of K. S. Stanislavsky himself. Emphasizing the importance of a more vivid stage rendering of Chekhov's dream, he wrote:
“In the fiction of the end of the last and the beginning of this century, he was one of the first to feel the inevitability of revolution, when it was only in its infancy and society continued to bathe in excesses. He was one of the first to give an alarm call. Who, if not he, began to cut down a beautiful, blooming cherry orchard, realizing that his time had passed, that the old life was irrevocably condemned to be scrapped... the first with all his might cuts the obsolete, and the young girl, anticipating the approach of a new era together with Petya Trofimov, will shout to the whole world: “Hello, new life!” - and you will understand that The Cherry Orchard is a lively, close, modern play for us, that Chekhov’s voice sounds cheerful, incendiary in it, because he himself looks not back, but forward ”(K. S. Stani from Slavic, Collected works in eight volumes, vol. 1, ed. Art, 1954, pp. 275 - 276).
Undoubtedly, the first theatrical version of The Cherry Orchard did not have the pathos that resounds in the words of Stanislavsky just quoted. In these words, there is already a different understanding of The Cherry Orchard than that which was characteristic of the leaders of the Art Theater in 1904. But asserting the comedy-lyrical beginning of The Cherry Orchard, it is important to fully reveal the lyrical-dramatic, elegiac motifs, embodied in the play with such amazing subtlety and power, in an organic fusion with comic-satirical and major-lyrical motifs. Chekhov not only denounced, ridiculed the heroes of his play, but also showed their subjective drama.
Chekhov's abstract humanism, associated with his general democratic position, limited his satirical possibilities and determined the well-known notes of the sympathetic portrayal of Gaev and Ranevskaya.
Here one must beware of one-sidedness, simplification, which, by the way, already existed (for example, in the production of The Cherry Orchard directed by A. Lobanov in the theater-studio under the direction of R. Simonov in 1934).
As for the Artistic Theater itself, the change of the dramatic key to the comedic-lyrical one should not cause a decisive change in the interpretation of all roles. A lot of things in this wonderful performance, especially in its latest version, are given correctly. It is impossible not to recall that, sharply rejecting the dramatic solution of his play, Chekhov found even in its first, far from mature performances in the Art Theater, a lot of beauty, carried out correctly.

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

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

Work on the play "The Cherry Orchard" required great efforts from A.P. Chekhov. “I write four lines a day, and those with unbearable torment,” he told his friends. However, overcoming illness, domestic disorder, Chekhov wrote a "big play".

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

The writer was seriously ill, but still came to the premiere. The audience did not expect to see him, and this appearance caused thunderous applause. All artistic and literary Moscow gathered in the hall. Among the spectators were Andrey Bely, V.Ya. Bryusov, A.M. Gorky, S.V. Rachmaninov, F.I. Chaliapin.

About the genre

Chekhov called The Cherry Orchard a comedy: “I didn’t get a drama, but a comedy, in some places even a farce.”(From a letter to M.P. Alekseeva). "The whole play is cheerful, frivolous". (From a letter from O.L. Knipper).

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

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

There are critics who consider the play a tragicomedy. A.I. Revyakin writes: “To recognize The Cherry Orchard as a drama means to recognize the experiences of the owners of the Cherry Orchard, Gaev and Ranevsky, as truly dramatic, capable of arousing deep sympathy and compassion for people who look not back, but forward, into the future. But this could not be and is not in the play ... The play "The Cherry Orchard" cannot be recognized as a tragicomedy either. For this, she lacks neither tragicomic heroes, nor tragicomic situations.

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

One of Chekhov's letters contains the following lines: "After the summerthere should be winter, after youth old age, after happiness misfortune and vice versa; a person cannot be healthy and cheerful all his life, losses always await him, he cannot save himself from death, even if he were Alexander the Great - and you must be ready for everything and treat everything as inevitably necessary, no matter how sad it may be. All you have to do is do your duty to the best of your ability, and nothing else.” These thoughts are consonant with the feelings that the play "The Cherry Orchard" evokes.

Conflict and problems of the play

“Fiction is called fiction because it depicts life as it really is. Her appointment is unconditional and honest truth.

A.P. Chekhov

Question:

What kind of “unconditional and honest” truth could Chekhov see at the end of the 19th century?

Answer:

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

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

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

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

The "undercurrent" of Chekhov's play conceals the meanings hidden in it, reveals the duality and conflict inherent in the human soul from the very beginning.