The play " The Cherry Orchard” was created by Chekhov in 1903. Its main theme is death. noble nest as a result of the collapse
economics and psychology of the nobility. The characters and moods of the class leaving the historical stage are embodied in the play in the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev.
In front of us is a typical "noble nest", a manor surrounded by an old cherry orchard. “What an amazing garden! White masses of flowers, blue sky! .. ”- the heroine of the play Ranevskaya says enthusiastically.
The noble nest is living out last days. The estate was not only mortgaged, but also re-mortgaged. Soon, in case of non-payment of interest, it will go under the hammer. What are these last owners of the cherry orchard, living more in the past than in the present?
In the past - it's rich noble family, who traveled to Paris on horseback and at whose balls generals, barons, admirals danced. Ranevskaya even had a dacha in the south of France, in Menton.
The past reminds Ranevskaya of a blooming cherry orchard, which is to be sold for debts.
Lopakhin offers the owners of the estate a sure way to save the estate: break the cherry orchard into plots and rent it out as summer cottages.
But from the point of view of their aristocratic concepts, this means seems unacceptable to them, offensive to honor and family traditions. It contradicts their noble aesthetics. “The dacha and summer residents are so vulgar, sorry,” Ranevskaya arrogantly declares to Lopakhin. The "poetry" of the cherry orchard and its "noble past" obscures life from them and deprives them of practical calculation. Lopakhin correctly calls them "frivolous, unbusinesslike, strange people."
Lack of will, unsuitability, romantic enthusiasm, mental instability, inability to live characterize, first of all, Ranevskaya. The personal life of this woman was unsuccessful. Having lost her husband and son, she settled abroad and spends money on a man who deceived and robbed her.
Life never taught her anything. After the sale of the cherry orchard, she again leaves for Paris, nonchalantly declaring that the money sent by her aunt will not last long.
In the character of Ranevskaya, at first glance, there are many good traits. She is outwardly charming, loves nature and music. This, according to the reviews of others, is a sweet, “kind, glorious” woman, simple and direct.
In essence, Ranevskaya is selfish and indifferent to people. While her domestic servants "have nothing to eat", Ranevskaya litters money right and left and even arranges an unnecessary ball.
Her life is empty and aimless, although she talks a lot about her tender love for people, for the cherry orchard.
The same as Ranevskaya, a weak-willed, worthless person in life is her brother Gaev. All his life he lived in the estate without doing anything. He himself admits that he ate his fortune on candy. His only “occupation” is billiards. He is completely immersed in thoughts about various combinations of billiard moves: “... yellow in the middle ... Doublet in the corner!”, “I cut in the middle,” he casually inserts during conversations with others.
His "business" connection with the city is expressed only in the purchase of anchovies and Kerch herring.
In contrast to his sister, Gaev is somewhat rude. The lordly arrogance towards others is felt in his words “whom?” and "boor", and in remarks: "And here it smells of patchouli" or "Step away, my dear, you smell like chicken," thrown at either Lopakhin or Yasha.
These people, accustomed to live carelessly without working, cannot even comprehend the tragedy of their situation. Ranevskaya and Gaev lack genuine, deep feelings. A. M. Gorky subtly notes that the “teary” Ranevskaya and her brother are people “selfish, like children, and flabby, like old people. They were late in time to die and whine, not seeing anything around them, not understanding anything.
Both Ranevskaya and Gaev, in essence, do not love their homeland and live only by personal feelings and moods. Ranevskaya passionately exclaims: “God sees, I love my homeland, I love dearly,” and at the same time irresistibly rushes to Paris. They don't have a future. These are the last representatives of the degenerate nobility. In the play "The Cherry Orchard" Chekhov brought this gallery of images to the end.
A.P. Chekhov completed work on The Cherry Orchard in 1903. The beginning of the century was a turning point for Russia, a reassessment of traditional values began. The aristocracy was ruined and stratified. The doomed nobility was replaced by the enterprising bourgeoisie. It was this fact that became the basis of Chekhov's play.
The Cherry Orchard features characters of different classes with a different worldview.
The dying class of the nobility is represented in the images of Ranevskaya, Gaev, Vari and Firsa. Lopakhin represents the modern business bourgeois, while Anya and Petya Trofimov represent the still uncertain future.
Ranevskaya and her brother are intelligent, good-natured people, but their time has passed, which is expressed in behavior and speeches. They live in memories, do not try to think critically and therefore are not capable of active actions. Gaev and Ranevskaya are helpless in the reality that has come, they cannot solve the problems that have piled up and have already become superfluous in this life. The author constantly emphasizes the discrepancy between the words of the nobles and their deeds. They don't think later life without a garden loved since childhood, but after the sale of the estate, they easily come to terms with the loss and quickly leave the house.
The ruined aristocrats did not even make an attempt to save their cherry orchard.
Chekhov shows the representative of the bourgeoisie as a businesslike person, devoid of stinginess and aggressiveness. Lopakhin has neither envy nor contempt for the recent "masters of life." He tries to help them solve problems with the estate, offers to take care of the chores, but the owners are deaf to sensible suggestions. As a result, Lopakhin acquires the former property of the nobles from an auction, but is not happy about the realization of his dream. The merchant understands that he is only the owner of the land, but not the owner of the garden.
At that period of Russian history, Chekhov did not see for himself a hero capable of becoming a true custodian of the beauty and wealth of the cherry orchard. Idea content inherent in the very title of the play, symbolizing the passing era. The end of the garden is a sentence for a generation of nobility. At the same time, in the finale, the image of a "more luxurious than this" garden appears - "all of Russia is our garden." And this new blooming garden is to be cultivated by the younger generation.
Updated: 2017-02-04
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
The characters created by Chekhov are complex, they contradictory mix good and evil, comic and tragic. Creating images of the inhabitants of the ruined noble nest Ranevskaya and her brother Gaev, Chekhov emphasized that such "types" had already "outlived". They show love for their estate, the cherry orchard, but do nothing to save the estate from destruction. Because of idleness, impracticality, the “nests” so “holy loved” by them are ruined, cherry orchards are destroyed.
Ranevskaya is shown in the play as very kind, affectionate, but frivolous, sometimes indifferent and careless towards people (she gives the last gold to a random passerby, and at home the servants live from hand to mouth); affectionate to the lackey Firs, takes care of his health and leaves him sick in a boarded up house. She is smart, warm-hearted. Emotional, but an idle life corrupted her, deprived her of her will, turned her into a helpless creature.
We learn that she left Russia 5 years ago, that she was “drawn to Russia” from Paris only after a disaster in her personal life. At the end of the play, she nevertheless leaves her homeland and, no matter how she regrets the cherry orchard and the estate, pretty soon “calmed down and cheered up in anticipation of leaving for Paris.
|
Leonid Andreevich Gaev.
Gaev is 51 years old, and just like Ranevskaya, he is helpless, inactive, careless. His gentle treatment of his niece and sister is combined with his contempt for the “grimy” Lopakhin, “a peasant and a boor”, with a contemptuous and squeamish attitude towards the servants. All his life energy goes into sublime unnecessary talk, empty verbosity. Like Ranevskaya, he is used to living at "someone else's expense", does not rely on his own strength, but only outside help: "it would be nice to get an inheritance, it would be nice to marry Anya to a rich person."
So, throughout the play, Ranevskaya and the gays experience the collapse of their last hopes, a severe emotional shock, they lose their family, their home, but they are unable to understand anything, learn anything, do anything useful. Their evolution throughout the play is a ruin, a collapse not only material but also spiritual. They voluntarily or involuntarily betray everything that, it would seem, is dear to them: the garden, and relatives, and the faithful slave Firs.
Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich
Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich - merchant. His father was a serf with Ranevskaya's ancestors. Ranevskaya herself did a lot for L. He is grateful to her for this, says that he loves her like his own. Under the new conditions, L. got rich, but remained, in his own words, "a peasant is a peasant." L. sincerely wants to help Ranevskaya save their cherry orchard, which is being sold for debts. He proposes a plan - to divide the garden into plots and rent it out as summer cottages. To do this, you need to cut down the garden. L. does not feel any nostalgic feelings for the cherry orchard, he only notices that the orchard is "big".
But the owners do not agree to do this with their dear garden. L. is surprised at the frivolity and idleness of Ranevskaya and her brother. He himself gets up at 5 am and works until night. At the end of the play, it is L. who acquires the cherry orchard. This is the moment of his highest triumph: the peasant's son, "illiterate Yermolai", becomes the owner of a noble estate, where his "father and grandfather were slaves." Here, in L., a rude, predatory beginning, merchant prowess emerges (“I can pay for everything!”) He no longer thinks about the feelings of the former owners of the estate. Joy bursts from L., he laughs and stamps his feet. L is a very controversial image. Diligence, practical mind, ingenuity coexist in him with callousness, rudeness, predation.
Anya is the daughter of Ranevskaya. Girl 17 years old. A. is in love with Petya Trofimov and is under his influence. Fascinated by his ideas that the nobility is guilty before the Russian people and must atone for their guilt. A. says that he no longer loves the cherry orchard as before. She wants to leave her home with Petya. Anna has faith in happiness, in her own strength, in another life. She tells her mother after the sale of the estate: “We will plant new garden, more luxurious than this ”and sincerely rejoices at the departure from the parental home. Anya recklessly believes Trofimov, is ready to follow him anywhere. But, perhaps, she will be disappointed, because Petya says more than he does.
Trofimov Petya - former teacher the deceased son of Ranevskaya, a commoner of 26 or 27 years old. Trofimov is an eternal student who will never finish the course. Fate throws him from place to place. This hero preaches faith in a better future. For this, in his opinion, "we must work, help with all our might those who seek the truth."
He scolds everything that hinders the development of Russia - "dirt, vulgarity, Asianism", criticizes Russian intelligentsia, which looks for nothing and does not work. But the hero does not notice that he himself is a bright representative of such an intelligentsia: he only speaks beautifully, without doing anything. Trofimov’s characteristic phrase: “I will reach or show others the way how to reach” (to “higher truth”). Trofimov denies love, considering it to be something "small and ghostly." He only urges Anya to believe him, as he anticipates happiness. Ranevskaya reproaches Trofimov for coldness when he says that it makes no difference whether the estate is sold or not. In general, Ranevskaya does not like the hero, calls him a klutz and a second-class high school student. At the end of the play, Trofimov searches for forgotten galoshes, which become a symbol of his worthless, albeit illuminated, beautiful words, life.
The "old" owners of the cherry orchard are Gaev and Ranevskaya. The garden itself and the whole estate belong to them from childhood. The cherry orchard for them is just a memory of the past.
According to the story, Ranevskaya is a kind, interesting, charming, carefree woman, her flaw is indecision, because of which she does not know how to manage the estate and her life at all. It is because of this quality that she loses the garden and hopes that someone else will save it.
Did not show himself better and Gaev. About the hero, the author says: "stupid" and constantly shows his inability to make vital and everyday decisions. The fate of the cherry orchard in his hands is destructive, and he is definitely not able to save a piece of his estate.
Under the image of the garden, Chekhov depicts Russia, and under the heroes described above - the average inhabitants, transiently and meaninglessly living their lives.
Lopakhin became the "new" owner. The writer speaks very positively about him - he says that he is very "decisive". This hero is a treasure trove best qualities, collected in one person. Energetic, active, resolute. The only, as it seems to many, Lopakhin's "minus" is his life position- "time is money". But precisely because of this, the hero looks at the cherry orchard as his future property, which he is ready to defend and defend. For him, there are no beautiful poppies and the fragrance of cherries - for him this is just the territory that he needs.
Updated: 2017-10-30
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
1. (lesson one).
The Cherry Orchard is a play about people who not only lost a beautiful estate, but also lost their sense of time. How is this motif supported by the replicas of the characters complaining about the fact that “everywhere they are late”?
The characters in the play really lost their sense of time. They live as if in their own time. Having nothing in the present, they live either in a sense of the past, or in anticipation of the future, begging for one thing: that this present, indefinite, tormenting thing pass; rather, their future would come, which would somehow change their awkward, unhappy present.
In Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" we see not the drama in the life of the former owners of the cherry orchard, we see the drama of life itself. We get to know the owners of the garden at that moment of their tragic sobering up, when they realize with sudden frightening clarity that life has not been lived as it should be, that it is too late to redo it (there is nothing to pay the debts, but they are not capable of something radical), they start talking desperately. But what are they talking about? Only not about the events, the affairs of his life. They remember the past carefree life, languish in anticipation of Lopakhin, who will determine their future.
This is the drama of life itself. Only time showed them, counted the number of their senseless years lived. They were late everywhere, did not keep up with life. And this is evidenced by the replicas of the heroes, starting with the first. “The train was two hours late…” Gaev will say. As if catching him, Dunyasha echoes: “We have been waiting for ...” And a little earlier, while waiting for the train, in anticipation of a meeting with Lyubov Andreevna, Lopakhin will remember: “Lyubov Andreevna lived abroad for five years, I don’t know what she is now ... I remember when I was a boy of about fifteen…”
He delayed the train on the way, they were waiting here at home, the memories were transferred fifteen years into the past - and everywhere they were late. Late with the return, did not keep up with the time and at home.
And here is the final scene. Sick, forgotten by the owners, locked up at home, Firs mutters to himself: "Life has passed, as if it had not lived." Isn't it about being late former owners. They were too late to remember the fate of their faithful servant. They forgot, so they didn’t have time, they were late to put him in the hospital, to think about his fate.
And all the remarks between the first and fourth acts can serve as confirmation that former owners"Late everywhere."
“You left in Lent…” Dunyasha recalls. “I slept here ...” - a replica of Lyubov Andreevna.
“In the old days, 40-50 years ago ... It used to be that dried cherries were sent in carts to Moscow ...” recalls Firs.
And Firs will also remember something else: “In the past, generals, barons, admirals danced at our balls, and now we send for the postal official and the stationmaster, and even they are not willing to go.”
Gaev will pronounce solemn speech closet: “Dear, respected closet! I salute your existence, which for more than a hundred years has been directed towards the bright ideals of goodness and justice; your silent call to fruitful work has not weakened for a hundred years ... ".
There is no present, only verbs of memory, past tense. Everything is “in the old days”, everything once “happened”. Isn't it about being "late". And Gaev was late with his anniversary speech. Say it earlier, maybe you would have reminded yourself of the need for "productive work." Late again.
As a metronome counts the time of being late to the former owners.
Lopakhin, constantly looking at his watch, hurries the hosts so as not to be late: "Make up your mind ...". "We must finally decide - time does not wait ...". "Yes, time is running out." Time, indeed, goes by, but the owners are not in a hurry, they are already in the habit of “being late everywhere”.
“I am a man of the eighties,” Gaev will say. Even the age indicates how long ago the owners of the garden began to be late.
Gaev’s attempts are also in vain when he says: “On Thursday I was in the district court ... and it seems that it will be possible to arrange a loan ... I’ll go on Tuesday, I’ll talk again ...”. And again the owner was late, it would have been worthwhile to show zeal much earlier. "Another five minutes, you can ...". "I'll sit for another minute..."
The time of being late passes to the days of the week, to the day, to the minutes… But Lyubov Andreevna will not be saved by moments of time. Nothing can be changed. Much too late.
And here is the final phrase of Lopakhin: “So life in this house ended ...”. Varya picks up this remark: “Yes, life in this house is over, ... there will be no more.”
And the chord sounds complete the final of the eternal delays of the owners of the cherry orchard - this is the sound of a broken string and the sounds of an ax. All - "the train has left." Time cannot be turned back. They, the owners of a beautiful estate, were everywhere and always late, and therefore they have no present, their future is illusory. Their life is only in the sensations of the time of the past.
2. Describe Ranevskaya and Gaev. Why is the image of Simeonov-Pishchik needed in the play?
Sentimental by nature landowner. Lyubov Andreevna easily passes from thought to fun, from laughter to tears. She asks God to forgive her sins and immediately offers to arrange a "party". Change of mood - such is Lyubov Andreevna. She can make a touching speech to her nursery: "Children's, my dear, beautiful room ...".
“She is a good person. An easy, simple person ... ”Lopakhin will say about her. And indeed, Lopakhin remembers how she felt sorry for him, the “boy”, “Don’t cry, he says, little man, he will heal before the wedding ...”. Kind, gentle, compassionate. He simply kisses the maid Dunyasha, takes pity on Firs, gives his wallet to the peasants who came to say goodbye to her. A random passerby can give the last money. And most importantly, she has a sense of beauty. “My dear, I’m sorry, you don’t understand anything. If there is anything interesting, even remarkable, in the whole province, it is only our cherry orchard. "What an amazing garden!" Lyubov Andreevna never ceases to admire. It is this sense of beauty against the ordinary, even vulgar in her understanding - "dachas and summer residents", that is the reason that she does not accept Lopakhin's plan.
But if you take a closer look, it turns out, behind external kindness, humanity. Ranevskaya also shows signs of indifference and indifference. “God knows, I love my homeland, I love dearly ...” But is this love sincere? After all, she left her for five whole years, and after the sale of the estate, she irresistibly rushes to Paris. And she left her twelve-year-old daughter Anya alone for five whole years, and she left Varya without means to live, and she did not take care of Firs.
How sincere her love for the cherry orchard, for the motherland, shows her attitude to telegrams from Paris. Or rather, remarks. Immediately vomits without reading: "It's all over with Paris ..." The second one - vomits after reading. And after the third, he will say: "... I should have gone to Paris, to be near him." So in fact, it turns out that she has long scattered her love for her homeland in Parisian cafes and nightclubs. Ranevskaya is self-critical at times. “Oh my sins ... I have always littered with money without restraint ...” She always littered them: both in Paris and at the train station, demanding the most expensive meal when the money was already running out. She littered them even when Varya, out of savings for all the household, kept on pea soup.
Lyubov Andreevna got used to being wasteful, because she lived all her life at someone else's expense, at the expense of income received from the cherry orchard. Due to the labor of serfs.
The characterization of the sister is supplemented in his own way by Gaev. The character is somewhat comical. The comedy of his character is in his constant (and out of place, as always) question: whom? His lexicon- all in the use of the terminology of a billiard game: “I cut into the corner!”, His stupid solemn anniversary speech “to a respected closet”. He believes in a miracle: “It would be nice to receive an inheritance from someone, it would be nice to go to Yaroslavl and try your luck with the aunt countess, it would be nice to pass off our Anya as a very rich person ...”. But the miracle doesn't happen. The impossible cannot be made possible.
The only time, nevertheless, Gaev will utter smart, soberly evaluating true position, the words: "If many remedies are offered against any disease, then this means that the disease is incurable."
He, like his sister, loves the cherry orchard, is proud that he is even in " encyclopedic dictionary is mentioned.
But just like his sister, who lived his life in debt, he is deprived of economic acumen, efficiency.
By the capacious and ambiguous definition of Firs, they are “stupid people” whom one wants to both pity and scold. And make a conclusion for yourself: for happiness, disinterestedness and kindness, good intentions and honest confessions are not enough, you need to feel responsible for every act, for the fate of the created values.
Simeonov - Pishchik, this "wonder of nature" (as defined by Lopakhin) in the play plays the same role of the "clunk" of Russian life.
He also lives with the feeling of the past. And the past is in a sense of pride in one's ancient family, which came "as if from the very horse that Caligula planted in the Senate ...".
The same eccentric "klutz" who can suddenly snore and immediately wake up. As "a hungry dog believes only in meat," Pishchik believes only in money. And he, like the owners of the garden, does not have them. I owe everyone. He also believes that God will help. Chance helped him. He, unlike the owners of the garden, rented out his plot of land with clay for twenty-four years. There is no present, the past is in memory. He will say about the future: “And a rumor will reach you that the end has come to me, remember this very ... horse and say:“ There was such and such in the world ... Simeonov - Pishchik ... the kingdom of heaven to him ... ". And for the first time he leaves "in great embarrassment." In a word, "stupid". But the meaning of this word contains both a negative and a positive connotation.
3. (lesson two)
Chekhov's contemporary VN Baranovsky spoke enthusiastically about Petya Trofimov.
“... as soon as I saw that “eternal” student, I heard his first speeches, his passionate, bold, cheerful and confident call to life, to this living, and not all corrupting and destroying, call to active, energetic and ebullient work, to courageous, fearless, struggle ... I experienced such pleasure!
M. Gorky assessed the image differently: “The crappy student Trofimov speaks eloquently about the need to work and is idle, out of boredom having fun with a stupid mockery of Varya.”
Which of them is closer to the author's interpretation of the image?
Petya Trofimov is an image of the present. And he had to endure so much in it. “Like winter, so I am hungry, sick, poor, like a beggar, and - wherever fate has driven me, wherever I have been!” Knowing the value of the present, Petya Trofimov is all directed towards the future. To Lopakhin's question: Will you get there? - will answer: "I will reach ... (pause, expressing my doubt): I will reach or show others the way how to reach." And points the way to the future with lofty speeches.
One cannot but agree with Baranovsky's statement that in such words of Trofimov as: “All Russia is our garden. The earth is great and beautiful, there are many wonderful places on it ... ". Mankind is moving towards the highest truth, towards the highest happiness possible on earth, and I am in the forefront,” one can hear a passionate, bold, cheerful call to life, living, active.
Gorky was also right when he accused Trofimov of inaction. Condemning the old masters that they lived their lives "in debt, at someone else's expense, at the expense of those people" who were not allowed "further than the front", condemning the order in Russia, in which "few are still working", calling for "continuous labor”, he himself does nothing for the well-being of life.
In Trofimov, next to the high, there is a lot of low. His speeches, not supported by deeds, give the impression that all of his good talk, in his remark, "to avert the eyes of oneself and others."
The inconsistency between words and deeds puts Trofimov in the same row of "klutzes", giving his figure a certain comedy.
Therefore, Chekhov's interpretation is still closer to Gorky's. Trofimov's phrase sounds beautiful: "All Russia is our garden." But if you think about it: who says these words? " Eternal student”,“ shabby gentleman ”,“ funny eccentric ”. No, Chekhov is not instructing him to save, to protect the cherry orchard from Lopakhin's axe.
Do I agree with the statement of V. Yermilov: “There is only one image in the play that does not contradict the beauty of the cherry orchard, but could harmoniously merge with it?”
Anya Ranevskaya is the brightest character in the play. Her image, indeed, as Ermilova says, does not contradict the beauty of the cherry year: she always exudes light, goodness. And in the "rainy autumn", and in " cold winter". Like the garden, young, full of hopes and aspirations. Anya lives with a sense of the future and is ready to bring it closer: “I will prepare, pass the exam at the gymnasium and then I will work ...” But still, it will be later. In the meantime ... In the meantime, she still has no serious life experience, she has a very unclear idea of \u200b\u200bthe future. It is rather an impulse, the obvious influence of Petya. But not a symbol of the future. Anya is the author's hope for a brighter future.
Epikhodov in the play is rooted in the present with its monotonous and dreary rhythm. He is also one of the "klutzes" of Russian life. It can be called Gaev's double. His speech is babble big baby with his nonsensical expressions like "let me put it this way," "let you say it." Like the old owners - no decisive action that would interrupt the somehow even, monotonous flow of everyday life. “You go from place to place and do nothing. We keep a clerk, but it is not known for what, ”in these words of Vari, Epikhodov’s whole life is in his present. Comic character. "Twenty-two misfortunes" - by the definition of domestic. Reads various wonderful books, developed person calls, the global question decides: “what do I really want, do I live or shoot myself, in fact ...”
In Epikhodov, the same thing as in Gaev is the weakness of nature, the pettiness of thoughts, the lack of goals, the inability to resist life's trials, do not rely on them.
6. About Charlotte Chekhov wrote: "This is the best role, I don't like the rest." Why did the author attach such importance to it? How does the behavior and jokes of this heroine express author's attitude to the characters and to everything that happens?
The key to understanding The Cherry Orchard may be an excerpt from A.P. Chekhov’s letter: “Be cheerful, look at life not so intricately ...” And in this regard, the author took Charlotte best role. Her funny tricks bring into the monotonous, dreary, monotonous life of the owners of the cherry orchard a kind of respite, a little rest from painful, empty thoughts.
But behavior and harmless jokes Charlottes embody something else: they complement the main images of the play with new semantic nuances, help us, the readers, to better understand the author's attitude to the characters and to everything that happens.
For example, Gaev, outraged by the delay of the train, will utter a phrase denouncing the existing order. “The train was two hours late. What is it? What are the orders? And immediately follows the phrase of Charlotte Pischiku: "My dog eats nuts." And quite serious question takes on a comical dimension.
Strengthens the semantic connotation and the phrase addressed to Epikhodov, who calls himself a developed person: “Brr (goes). These wise men are all so stupid, I have no one to talk to.”
But mostly extravagant, "Madam ventriloquist" is opposed to Lyubov Andreevna. And it is opposed by its tragicomism.
Charlotte's fate is tragic. It has, in essence, no present, no past, no future. “Where I come from and who I am - I don’t know ...” “I don’t have a real passport, I don’t know how old I am ...” And her future is illusory. She has nothing and no one. She has no one to talk to. And Gaev, looking at her, will say: “Happy Charlotte is singing.” Like her mistress, she squanders money. “I have nowhere to live in the city, I have to leave. It doesn't matter ... "- this final phrase with an ellipsis, which makes you think about the fate of the tragic, lonely. But Charlotte leaves into the unknown with a remark (singing).
And what is the power of the semantic shade in the final scene, helping us, the readers, to appreciate the maternal feelings of Lyubov Andreevna.
Again Ranevskaya leaves Russia, Again leaves Anya alone, the benefit is now an adult. In parting, he says: “I will come, my gold (hugs her daughter). And then Charlotte (takes up a bundle that looks like a folded child). My baby, bye-bye ... (A child’s cry is heard: “Wah! .. Wah ...”) I feel so sorry for you!” (Throws the bundle back.) Such is the meaning of the outwardly comic scene. It only adds to our sadness.
7. What meaning do the images of Firs, Yasha, Dunyasha carry in the play? Who in the play can be called "stupid"?
A devoted servant who gave his whole life to his masters, thinking not about himself, but only about them. His master, Gaev, cannot get dressed or undress without the help of Firs. Firs, who gave his whole life to the owners of the cherry orchard, was left alone, closed in empty house. "It's like he didn't live." Such is the gratitude of the bar. Such is their indifference, their indifference to their serfs.
Dunyasha experienced the corrupting influence of her masters, having lost the feeling of her real situation. A girl who got into the master's house, she lost the habit of a simple life. “It's scary,” she says. And it is alarming for us, the readers, because we understand that her life is in her ability to work, work. It will be difficult for her to arrange her life if her dream does not come true - to marry successfully.
Yasha ... One characteristic - lackey. Lackey in deeds and in the soul. Presumptuous, considering himself above the "mob", calling his country - uneducated, dreaming of one thing - Paris. There are no filial feelings in him, he is ashamed of his mother. The author's note is basically the same: (yawns) - from boredom, from the environment. He is not a "stupid". negative character that causes negative emotions in our soul.
Who in the play can be called "stupid"? Actually, Chekhov's entire play is a "play of idiots." Even Lopakhin is, in a way, a “clunker.” He calls himself a merchant, but a real merchant would not cut down a flowering garden. I would have waited for the harvest, picked cherries, sold them, and then - “under the axe”.
All the heroes of The Cherry Orchard are characterized by a certain eccentricity, strangeness, they are all poor fellows, wanderers, deprived of permanent shelter and shelter. Firs christened all of them "stupid", and himself too. And the meaning of this word can be negative, but also positive.
8. “I wanted to be original: I didn’t bring out a single villain, not a single angel ... I didn’t accuse anyone, I didn’t justify anyone ...” Chekhov wrote.
Comment on these words in relation to the heroes of The Cherry Orchard.
Indeed, in the play there is clearly no bad guys, and there are no positive ones either. Chekhov just showed us the action weak people unable to act. Suffering from the unknown, they direct all their efforts to distract themselves from their suffering.
Lopakhin also does not fit into the space allotted to him. social role. He, as Chekhov says, "walks along the same line", all his activities are directed to the field of entrepreneurship and profit. Anya personifies an impulse, hope for the future.
For me, the originality of the play is that in this small play everyone can see something important for themselves, understand that the weakness of nature, the pettiness of thoughts, the lack of goals, the inability to withstand life's trials can one day turn into a drama of life itself, as happened with the owners cherry orchard.
