The play The Cherry Orchard was completed by A.P. Chekhov in 1903. It was a time of exacerbation of social contradictions and the rapid rise of the social movement. "The Cherry Orchard" became the peak work of the writer, his swan song.
The newly written play immediately aroused fierce debate: “what is it: a comedy or a drama?” And now there are different opinions on this issue. The fact is that Chekhov himself understood comedy as a drama, ridiculing vulgarity with the subtlest irony. That is why in The Cherry Orchard he laughs and is sad along with his heroes.
Here we have Ranevskaya and Gaev, the old owners of the cherry orchard. What are they? And what is Chekhov's attitude to these characters. Ranevskaya - at first glance, a kind and easy person. She is characterized by sincerity, grace, emotionality. She sincerely rejoices at her return home, kisses her loved ones, cannot hold back her tears when she meets them. Ranevskaya is generous and merciful, she can give the last penny to a passerby. Lopakhin recalls how Lyubov Andeevna once took pity on him: “Don’t cry, little man, he will live before the wedding” ... It may seem that Gaev is also spiritually generous. He dearly loves his niece Anya, appreciates the beauty of the cherry orchard and cannot imagine that it would be cut down and divided into suburban areas.
Why does Chekhov laugh at Ranevskaya and her brother? Of course, because they are helpless in life, they do not know how to do anything themselves. Both of them are not able to do anything useful and live with empty ideas: either they take money from a rich merchant, or they hope to “receive an inheritance from someone” or “marry” ... Anya for a very rich person. The writer laughs at their empty talk. But at the same time, Chekhov is sad, showing his heroes. The writer is sad because the “noble nest” is dying, people are dying who could live it interestingly, fully, but did not use their abilities and opportunities. And beauty dies with these people.
Presenting to us all his heroes, as it were, in double illumination, A.P. Chekhov, it seems to me, created an entirely new genre of lyrical drama. The play "The Cherry Orchard" awakens our thoughts, forcing us to think, think about the important issues of human life, laugh and cry.
"The Cherry Orchard" is a lyrical play by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov in four acts, the genre of which the author himself defined as a comedy.
Article menu:
The success of the play, written in 1903, was so obvious that on January 17, 1904, the comedy was shown at the Moscow Art Theater. The Cherry Orchard is one of the most famous Russian plays created at that time. It is noteworthy that it is based on Anton Pavlovich Chekhov's own painful impressions of his friend A.S. Kiselev, whose estate was also auctioned off.
An important thing in the history of the creation of the play is that Anton Pavlovich Chekhov wrote it already at the end of his life, being seriously ill. That is why the work on the work progressed very difficult: about three years passed from the beginning of the play to its production.
This is the first reason. The second lies in Chekhov's desire to fit into his play, intended for staging on the stage, the whole result of reflections on the fate of his characters, the work on the images of which was carried out very scrupulously.
The artistic originality of the play became the pinnacle of the work of Chekhov the playwright.
The heroes of the play - Lopakhin Ermolai Alekseevich, the maid Dunyasha, the clerk Epikhodov Semyon Panteleevich (who is very clumsy, "22 misfortunes", as those around him call him) - are waiting for the mistress of the estate, the landowner Ranevskaya Lyubov Andreevna, to arrive. She is due to return after a five-year absence, and the household is in turmoil. Finally, Lyubov Andreevna and her daughter Anya crossed the threshold of their house. The hostess is incredibly glad that she has finally returned to her native land. Nothing has changed here in five years. Sisters Anya and Varya are talking to each other, rejoicing at the long-awaited meeting, the maid Dunyasha is preparing coffee, ordinary household trifles make the landowner tender. She is kind and generous - and to the old lackey Firs, and to other household members, she willingly talks with her own brother, Leonid Gaev, but her beloved daughters evoke special quivering feelings. Everything, it would seem, goes on as usual, but suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, the message of the merchant Lopakhin: "... Your estate is being sold for debts, but there is a way out... Here is my project..." , after cutting it out. He claims that this will bring a considerable income to the family - 25 thousand a year and save him from complete ruin, but no one agrees to such a proposal. The family does not want to part with the cherry orchard, which they consider the best and to which they are attached with all their hearts.
So, no one listens to Lopakhin. Ranevskaya pretends that nothing is happening and continues to answer meaningless questions about the trip to Paris, not wanting to accept reality as it is. Again, a casual conversation starts about nothing.
Petya Trofimov, the former teacher of the deceased son of Ranevskaya Grisha, who at first was unrecognized by her, enters, causing tears in his mother with his reminder. The day is ending... Finally, everyone goes to bed.
The action takes place in nature, near an old church, from where you can see both the cherry orchard and the city. There is very little time left before the sale of the cherry orchard at auction - literally a matter of days. Lopakhin is trying to convince Ranevskaya and her brother to rent the garden for summer cottages, but no one wants to hear him again, they hope for the money that the Yaroslavl aunt will send. Lyubov Ranevskaya recalls the past, perceiving her misfortunes as a punishment for sins. First, her husband died from champagne, then Grisha's son drowned in the river, after which she left for Paris so that memories of the area where such grief happened would not stir her soul.
Lopakhin suddenly opened up, talking about his difficult fate in childhood, when his father “did not teach, but only beat him while drunk, and everything with a stick ...” Lyubov Andreevna invites him to marry Vara, her adopted daughter.
Enter student Petya Trofimov and both daughters of Ranevskaya. Trofimov and Lopakhin start a conversation. One says that “in Russia, very few people are still working”, the other calls to evaluate everything that is given by God and start working.
The attention of the conversers is attracted by a passerby who recites poetry, and then asks to donate thirty kopecks. Lyubov Andreevna gives him a gold coin, for which her daughter Varya reproaches her. “People have nothing to eat,” she says. “And you gave him the gold…”
After Varya leaves, Lyubov Andreevna, Lopakhina and Gaev Anya and Trofimov are left alone. The girl confesses to Petya that she no longer loves the cherry orchard, as before. The student argues: “... To live in the present, you must first redeem the past ... by suffering and continuous work ...”
Varya is heard calling for Anya, but her sister is only annoyed, not responding to her voice.
The third act of The Cherry Orchard takes place in the living room in the evening. Couples dance, but no one feels joy. Everyone is depressed about looming debt. Lyubov Andreevna understands that they started the ball quite inopportunely. Those in the house are waiting for Leonid, who should bring news from the city: whether the garden has been sold or the auction has not taken place at all. But Gaev is still no and no. The family is starting to get worried. The old footman Firs confesses that he does not feel well.
Trofimov teases Varya with Madame Lopakhina, which irritates the girl. But Lyubov Andreevna really offers to marry a merchant. Varya seems to agree, but the catch is that Lopakhin has not yet made an offer, and she does not want to impose herself.
Lyubov Andreevna is experiencing more and more: whether the estate has been sold. Trofimov reassures Ranevskaya: "Does it matter, there is no turning back, the path is overgrown."
Lyubov Andreevna takes out a handkerchief, from which a telegram falls, in which it is reported that her beloved has fallen ill again and calls her. Trofimov begins to argue: “he is a petty scoundrel and a nonentity,” to which Ranevskaya replies with anger, calling the student a klutz, a clean-cut and a funny eccentric who does not know how to love. Petya is offended and leaves. A roar is heard. Anya reports that a student has fallen down the stairs.
The young lackey Yasha, talking with Ranevskaya, asks to go to Paris if she has the opportunity to go there. Everyone seems to be busy talking, but they are anxiously waiting for the outcome of the auction for the cherry orchard. Lyubov Andreevna is especially worried, she literally cannot find a place for herself. Finally, Lopakhin and Gaev enter. It can be seen that Leonid Andreevich is crying. Lopakhin reports that the cherry orchard has been sold, and when asked who bought it, he answers: “I bought it.” Ermolai Alekseevich reports the details of the auction. Lyubov Andreevna sobs, realizing that nothing can be changed. Anya consoles her, trying to focus on the fact that life goes on, no matter what. She seeks to inspire hope that they will plant "a new garden, more luxurious than this ... and a quiet, deep joy will descend on the soul like the sun."
The property has been sold. In the corner of the children's room are packed things ready for pickup. Peasants come to say goodbye to their former owners. The sounds of cherries being cut down can be heard from the street. Lopakhin offers champagne, but no one except Yasha, the footman, wants to drink it. Each of the former residents of the estate is depressed by what happened, family friends are also depressed. Anya voices her mother's request that, until she leaves, they do not cut down the garden.
“Really, is there really a lack of tact,” says Petya Trofimov, and leaves through the hall.
Yasha and Ranevskaya are going to Paris, Dunyasha, in love with a young lackey, asks him to send a letter from abroad.
Gaev hurries Lyubov Andreevna. The landowner sadly says goodbye to the house and garden, but Anna admits that a new life begins for her. Gaev is also happy.
Governess Charlotte Ivanovna, leaving, sings a song.
Simeonov-Pishchik Boris Borisovich, a neighbor-landowner, comes into the house. To the surprise of everyone, he repays both Lyubov Andreevna and Lopakhin. He tells the news about a successful deal: he managed to lease the land to the British for the extraction of rare white clay. The neighbor did not even know that the estate was sold, so he is surprised to see the packed suitcases and the preparations of the former owners for departure.
Lyubov Andreevna, firstly, worries about the sick Firs, because it is still not known for certain whether he was sent to the hospital or not. Anya claims that Yasha did it, but the girl is mistaken. Secondly, Ranevskaya is afraid that Lopakhin will never make an offer to Varya. They seem to be indifferent to each other, however, no one wants to take the first step. And although Lyubov Andreevna makes the last attempt to leave young people alone to solve this difficult issue, nothing comes of such an undertaking.
After the former mistress of the house looks longingly at the walls and windows of the house for the last time, everyone leaves.
In the bustle, they did not notice that they locked up the sick Firs, who mutters: “Life has passed, as if it had not lived.” The old lackey does not hold a grudge against the owners. He lays down on the sofa and passes into another world.
We bring to your attention the story of Anton Chekhov, where, with the subtle and inimitable irony inherent in the writer, he describes the character of the main character - Shchukina. What was the peculiarity of her behavior, read in the story.
It is known from literary sources that Anton Pavlovich Chekhov was very happy when he came up with the name for the play - The Cherry Orchard.
It seems natural, because it reflects the very essence of the work: the old way of life is changing to a completely new one, and the cherry orchard, which the former owners valued, is ruthlessly cut down when the estate passes into the hands of the enterprising merchant Lopakhin. The Cherry Orchard is a prototype of old Russia, which is gradually disappearing into oblivion. The past is fatefully crossed out, giving way to new plans and intentions, which, according to the author, are better than the previous ones.
"The Cherry Orchard" - drama or comedy? BUT. P. Chekhov called The Cherry Orchard a comedy. But the play has everything: tragedy, farce, and lyrical comedy. How to determine the genre of such a complex play? How to explain why I. S. Turgenev calls such sad plays as "The Freeloader", "A Month in the Country" comedies? Why did A. N. Ostrovsky classify such works as "The Forest", "The Last Victim", "Guilty Without Guilt" as a comedy genre?
The Cherry Orchard is a 20th century play. Pushkin's understanding of high comedy, which, according to him, comes close to tragedy, can now be conveyed using another term: tragicomedy. In tragicomedy, the playwright reflects the same phenomena of life in both comic and tragic coverage. At the same time, the tragic and the comic, interacting, reinforce each other, and an organic unity is obtained, which can no longer be divided into its component parts.
So, The Cherry Orchard is most likely a tragicomedy. Recall the third act: on the very day when the estate is sold at auction, a holiday is arranged in the house. Let's read the author's note. The conductor of ballroom dancing turns out to be ... Simeonov-Pishchik. It is unlikely that he changed into a tailcoat. So, as always, in a coat and harem pants, fat, out of breath, he shouts out the necessary ballroom commands, and he does it in French, which he does not know. And then Chekhov mentions Varya, who “weeps quietly and, dancing, wipes her tears!” The situation is tragicomic: dancing, crying. It's not just Var. Lyubov Andreevna, singing a lezginka, anxiously asks about her brother. Anya, who had just excitedly conveyed to her mother the rumor that the cherry orchard had already been sold, immediately goes to dance with Trofimov.
All this cannot be put on the shelves: here it is comic, and there it is tragic. This is how a new genre arises, which allows you to simultaneously convey pity for the characters of the play, and anger, and sympathy for them, and their condemnation - all that followed from the ideological and artistic intention of the author.
Chekhov's judgment is interesting: “No plots are needed. There are no plots in life, everything is mixed in it - deep with small, great with insignificant, tragic with funny. Obviously, Chekhov had reasons for not making a sharp distinction between the funny and the dramatic.
He did not recognize the division of genres into high and low, serious and funny. There is no such thing in life, nor should there be in Art. In the memoirs of T. L. Shchepkina-Kupernik there is such a conversation with Chekhov:
“- I wish I could write such a vaudeville: two people wait out the rain in an empty barn, joke, laugh, declare their love - then the rain passes, the sun - and suddenly he dies of a broken heart!
God with you! I wondered. - What kind of vaudeville will it be?
But it's vital. Doesn't that happen? Here we are joking, laughing - and suddenly - bang! End!"
I think that the genre of tragicomedy fully reflects the diversity of life, the mixture of joyful and mournful, farcical and sad in it.
High comedy is not based
solely on laughter ... and often
comes close to tragedy.
A. S. Pushkin
Why did A.P. Chekhov call The Cherry Orchard a comedy? It is very difficult to answer this question. In the 19th century, there is a certain mixture of genres, their interaction. There are such plays as tragic comedy, drama-comedy, drama-tragi-comedy, lyrical comedy, comic drama.
The difficulty lies in the fact that the play "The Cherry Orchard" has everything: tragedy, farce, and lyrical comedy. How to determine the genre of such a complex play?
A.P. Chekhov was not alone in this respect. How to explain why I. S. Turgenev calls such sad plays as "The Freeloader", "A Month in the Village" comedies? Why did A. N. Ostrovsky classify such works as "The Forest", "The Last Victim", "Guilty Without Guilt" as a comedy genre?
Probably, this is connected with the then still alive traditions of serious, high comedy, as A. S. Pushkin called it.
In Russian literature, starting with A. S. Griboyedov, a special genre form has been developing, which is called just that: high comedy. In this genre, the universal human ideal usually comes into conflict with some comically illuminated phenomenon. We see something similar in Chekhov's play: the collision of a lofty ideal, embodied in the symbolic image of a cherry orchard, with the world of people who are unable to preserve it.
But The Cherry Orchard is a 20th-century play. Pushkin's understanding of high comedy, which, according to him, comes close to tragedy, can now be conveyed using another term: tragicomedy.
In tragicomedy, the playwright reflects the same phenomena of life in both comic and tragic coverage. At the same time, the tragic and the comic, interacting, reinforce each other, and an organic unity is obtained, which can no longer be divided into its component parts.
So, The Cherry Orchard is most likely a tragicomedy. Recall the third action: on the very day when the estate is sold at auction, a holiday is arranged in the house. Let's read the author's note. The conductor of ballroom dancing turns out to be ... Simeonov-Pishchik. It is unlikely that he changed into a tailcoat. So, as always, in a coat and wide trousers, fat, breathless, he shouts out the necessary ballroom commands, and he does it in French, which he does not know. And then Chekhov mentions Varya, who “cries softly and, dancing, wipes her tears!” Tragicomic situation: dancing, crying. It's not just Var. Lyubov Andreevna, singing a lezginka, anxiously asks about her brother. Anya, who had just excitedly conveyed to her mother the rumor that the cherry orchard had already been sold, immediately went to dance with Trofimov.
All this cannot be put on the shelves: here it is comic, and there it is tragic. This is how a new genre arises, which allows you to simultaneously convey pity for the characters of the play, and anger, and sympathy for them, and their condemnation - all that followed from the ideological and artistic intention of the author.
Chekhov's judgment is interesting: “No plots are needed. There are no plots in life, everything is mixed in it - the deep with the small, the great with the insignificant, the tragic with the funny. Obviously, Chekhov had reasons for not making a sharp distinction between the funny and the dramatic. material from the site
He did not recognize the division of genres into high and low, serious and funny. This is not the case in life, nor should it be in art. In the memoirs of T. L. Shchepkina-Kupernik there is such a conversation with Chekhov: “I wish I could write such a vaudeville: two people wait out the rain in an empty barn, joke, laugh, declare their love - then the rain passes, the sun - and suddenly it dying of a broken heart!
- God with you! I wondered. What kind of vaudeville will it be?
But it's vital. Doesn't that happen? Here we are joking, laughing - and suddenly - bang! End!"
I think the tragicomedy genre fully reflects the diversity of life, the mixture of joyful and mournful, farcical and sad in it.
Maybe in the future this genre will be given a different name. That's not the point. The play would be good!
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
On this page, material on the topics:
7. The genre of the play "The Cherry Orchard"
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, Gaev and Ranevsky, 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 obvious 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.
"BUT. 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, in his directorial decision of the play, he unnecessarily emphasized the lyric-dramatic line associated with these characters.
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 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” in the Art Theater as a tragicomedy (M. Stroeva, Chekhov and the Art Theater, 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 have never read my play attentively ”(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 for me from their own heads what they themselves want, but I didn’t think about it, and 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 embodied in 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); at 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 a wake-up 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.
So, for example, they recall that Chekhov, sick, tired, tired of the applause and honoring given to him at the first performance of The Cherry Orchard, seized a moment and whispered in the ear of A. R. Artyom, who played the role of Firs: “Great!” (S. Durylin, Chekhov's favorite actor, "Theatre and Drama", 1935, No. 2, p. 24).
He was very pleased with L. M. Leonidov - Lopakhin (L. M. Leonidov, Past and present. From the memoirs, published by the Museum of the Art Academic Theater of the USSR named after M. Gorky, M., 1948, p. 102) and found I. M. Moskvin’s performance of the role of Epikhodov wonderful (K. S. Stanislavsky, My life in art. Collected works in eight volumes, vol. 1, ed. Art, 1954, p. 267).
He liked the game of MP Lilina, who played the role of Anya. To Lilina’s question about the tone of her parting words, Chekhov answered: “goodbye house, goodbye old life” - you speak exactly the way you need to” (A.P. Chekhov, Complete Works and Letters, vol. 20, Goslitizdat, M., 1951, p. 238).
M. P. Lilina conveyed faith in the future well when she listened to Petya Trofimov with wide eyes. It is known that Chekhov liked the last departure of Gaev-Stanislavsky (K. S. Stanislavsky, Complete Works in eight volumes, vol. 1, ed. Art, 1954, p. 272).
Having retained all the achievements of the first theatrical edition of The Cherry Orchard and using all the acquisitions of his subsequent life, which went in the direction of Chekhov's requirements, the Art Theater, when changing the dramatic key to a comedy-lyrical one, will undoubtedly create a performance of enormous social and artistic significance, fully revealing the ideological richness of a wonderful work. Millions of Soviet viewers are looking forward to this performance.
