home Landscape design

The theme and idea, the severity of the conflict and artistic features of A. P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard. Essays The Cherry Orchard analysis problems

« The Cherry Orchard"is a social play by A.P. Chekhov about the death and degeneration of the Russian nobility. It was written by Anton Pavlovich in last years life. Many critics say that it is this drama that expresses the writer’s attitude towards the past, present and future of Russia.

Initially, the author planned to create a light-hearted and funny play, where the main driving force The action will involve selling the estate under the hammer. In 1901, in a letter to his wife, he shared his ideas. Previously, he had already raised a similar topic in the drama “Fatherlessness,” but he considered that experience unsuccessful. Chekhov wanted to experiment, and not resurrect stories buried in his desk. The process of impoverishment and degeneration of the nobles passed before his eyes, and he watched, creating and accumulating vital material to create artistic truth.

The history of the creation of “The Cherry Orchard” began in Taganrog, when the writer’s father was forced to sell his family nest for debts. Apparently, Anton Pavlovich experienced something similar to Ranevskaya’s feelings, which is why he so subtly delved into the experiences of seemingly fictional characters. In addition, Chekhov was personally familiar with Gaev’s prototype - A.S. Kiselev, who also sacrificed his estate in order to improve his shaky financial situation. His situation is one of hundreds. The entire Kharkov province, where the writer visited more than once, became shallow: the nests of the nobility disappeared. Such a large-scale and controversial process attracted the attention of the playwright: on the one hand, the peasants were liberated and received the long-awaited freedom, on the other, this reform did not increase anyone’s well-being. Such obvious tragedy could not be ignored; the light comedy conceived by Chekhov did not work out.

Meaning of the name

Since the cherry orchard symbolizes Russia, we can conclude that the author dedicated the work to the question of its fate, as Gogol wrote “ Dead Souls”for the sake of the question “Where is the bird-three flying?” In essence, we are not talking about selling the estate, but about what will happen to the country? Will they sell it off, will they cut it down for profit? Chekhov, analyzing the situation, understood that the degeneration of the nobility, the supporting class for the monarchy, promised troubles for Russia. If these people, called by their origin to be the core of the state, cannot take responsibility for their actions, then the country will sink. Such gloomy thoughts awaited the author on the other side of the topic he touched upon. It turned out that his heroes were not laughing, and neither was he.

The symbolic meaning of the title of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is to convey to the reader the idea of the work - the search for answers to questions about the fate of Russia. Without this sign, we would perceive the comedy as a family drama, a drama from private life, or a parable about the problem of fathers and children. That is, an erroneous, narrow interpretation of what was written would not allow the reader even a hundred years later to understand the main thing: we are all responsible for our garden, regardless of generation, beliefs and social status.

Why did Chekhov call the play “The Cherry Orchard” a comedy?

Many researchers actually classify it as a comedy, since along with tragic events (the destruction of an entire class), comic scenes constantly occur in the play. That is, it cannot be unambiguously classified as a comedy; it would be more correct to classify “The Cherry Orchard” as a tragifarce or tragicomedy, since many researchers attribute Chekhov’s dramaturgy to a new phenomenon in the theater of the 20th century - antidrama. The author himself stood at the origins of this trend, so he did not call himself that. However, the innovation of his work spoke for itself. This writer has now been recognized and brought into school curriculum, and then many of his works remained misunderstood, as they were out of the general rut.

The genre of “The Cherry Orchard” is difficult to determine, because now, given the dramatic revolutionary events that Chekhov did not see, we can say that this play is a tragedy. An entire era dies in it, and hopes for revival are so weak and vague that it’s somehow impossible to even smile in the finale. An open ending, a closed curtain, and only a dull knock on wood is heard in my thoughts. This is the impression of the performance.

main idea

The ideological and thematic meaning of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is that Russia finds itself at a crossroads: it can choose the path to the past, present and future. Chekhov shows the mistakes and inconsistency of the past, the vices and predatory grip of the present, but he still hopes for a happy future, showing exalted and at the same time independent representatives of the new generation. The past, no matter how beautiful it may be, cannot be returned; the present is too imperfect and wretched to accept it, so we must invest every effort in ensuring that the future lives up to bright expectations. To achieve this, everyone must try now, without delay.

The author shows how important action is, but not the mechanical pursuit of profit, but spiritual, meaningful, moral action. It’s him that Pyotr Trofimov is talking about, it’s him that Anechka wants to see. However, we also see in the student the harmful legacy of past years - he talks a lot, but has done little for his 27 years. And yet the writer hopes that this age-old slumber will be overcome on a clear and cool morning - tomorrow, where the educated, but at the same time active descendants of the Lopakhins and Ranevskys will come.

Theme of the work

The author used an image that is familiar to each of us and understandable to everyone. Cherry orchards many still have them to this day, and then they were an indispensable attribute of every estate. They bloom in May, beautifully and fragrantly defend the week allotted to them, and then quickly fall off. Just as beautifully and suddenly, the nobility, once the support Russian Empire, mired in debt and endless controversy. As a matter of fact, these people were unable to live up to the expectations placed on them. Many of them, with their irresponsible attitude to life, only undermined the foundations of Russian statehood. What should have been a centuries-old oak forest was just a cherry orchard: beautiful, but quickly disappearing. The cherry fruits, alas, were not worth the space they occupied. This is how the theme of the death of noble nests was revealed in the play “The Cherry Orchard.”
The themes of the past, present and future are realized in the work thanks to a multi-level system of images. Each generation symbolizes the time allotted to it. In the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev, the past dies away, in the image of Lopakhin the present rules, and the future awaits its day in the images of Anya and Peter. The natural course of events takes on human face, the change of generations is shown with specific examples.
The theme of time also plays an important role. Its power turns out to be destructive. Water wears away a stone - so time erases human laws, destinies and beliefs into powder. Until recently, Ranevskaya could not even imagine that her former serf would settle in the estate and cut down the garden that had been passed on by the Gaevs from generation to generation. This unshakable order of social structure collapsed and sank into oblivion, in its place capital and its market laws were installed, in which power was ensured by money, and not by position and origin.

Issues

The problem of human happiness in the play “The Cherry Orchard” is manifested in all the fates of the heroes. Ranevskaya, for example, experienced many troubles in this garden, but is happy to return here again. She fills the house with her warmth, remembers her native lands, and feels nostalgic. She doesn’t care at all about debts, the sale of her estate, or her daughter’s inheritance, in the end. She is happy with forgotten and relived impressions. But the house is sold, the bills are paid off, and happiness is in no hurry with the arrival of a new life. Lopakhin tells her about calm, but only anxiety grows in her soul. Instead of liberation comes depression. Thus, what is happiness for one is misfortune for another, all people understand its essence differently, which is why it is so difficult for them to get along together and help each other.
The problem of preserving memory also worries Chekhov. The people of the present are mercilessly cutting down what was the pride of the province. Noble nests, historically important buildings, are dying from inattention, being erased into oblivion. Of course, active businessmen will always find arguments to destroy unprofitable junk, but this is how historical monuments, cultural and artistic monuments will perish ingloriously, which the Lopakhins’ children will regret. They will be deprived of connections with the past, continuity of generations, and will grow up as Ivans who do not remember their kinship.
The problem of ecology in the play does not go unnoticed. The author asserts not only the historical value of the cherry orchard, but also its natural beauty and its importance for the province. All the inhabitants of the surrounding villages breathed from these trees, and their disappearance is a small ecological catastrophy. The area will be orphaned, the gaping lands will become impoverished, but people will fill every patch of inhospitable space. The attitude towards nature must be as careful as towards humans, otherwise we will all be left without the home that we love so much.
The problem of fathers and children is embodied in the relationship between Ranevskaya and Anechka. The alienation between relatives is visible. The girl feels sorry for her unlucky mother, but does not want to share her lifestyle. Lyubov Andreevna pampers the child with tender nicknames, but cannot understand that in front of her is no longer a child. The woman continues to pretend that she still doesn’t understand anything, so she shamelessly builds her personal life to the detriment of its interests. They are very different, so they make no attempt to find a common language.
The problem of love for the homeland, or rather, its absence, can also be seen in the work. Gaev, for example, is indifferent to the garden, he only cares about his own comfort. His interests do not rise above consumer interests, so the fate of his father’s house does not bother him. Lopakhin, his opposite, also does not understand Ranevskaya’s scrupulousness. However, he also does not understand what to do with the garden. He is guided only by mercantile considerations; profits and calculations are important to him, but not the safety of his home. He clearly expresses only his love for money and the process of obtaining it. A generation of children dreams of a new kindergarten; they have no use for the old one. This is also where the problem of indifference comes into play. Nobody needs the Cherry Orchard except Ranevskaya, and even she needs memories and the old way of life, where she could do nothing and live happily. Her indifference to people and things is expressed in the scene where she calmly drinks coffee while listening to the news of her nanny's death.
The problem of loneliness plagues every hero. Ranevskaya was abandoned and deceived by her lover, Lopakhin cannot establish relations with Varya, Gaev is an egoist by nature, Peter and Anna are just beginning to get closer, and it is already obvious that they are lost in a world where there is no one to give them a helping hand.
The problem of mercy haunts Ranevskaya: no one can support her, all the men not only do not help, but do not spare her. Her husband drank himself to death, her lover abandoned her, Lopakhin took away her estate, her brother doesn’t care about her. Against this background, she herself becomes cruel: she forgets Firs in the house, they nail him inside. In the image of all these troubles lies an inexorable fate that is unmerciful to people.
The problem of finding the meaning of life. Lopakhin clearly does not satisfy his meaning in life, which is why he rates himself so low. For Anna and Peter, this search is just ahead, but they are already meandering, unable to find a place for themselves. Ranevskaya and Gaev, with the loss of material wealth and their privilege, are lost and cannot find their way again.
The problem of love and selfishness is clearly visible in the contrast between brother and sister: Gaev loves only himself and does not particularly suffer from losses, but Ranevskaya has been looking for love all her life, but did not find it, and along the way she lost it. Only crumbs fell to Anechka and the cherry orchard. Even loving person may become selfish after so many years of disappointment.
Problem moral choice and responsibility concerns, first of all, Lopakhin. He gets Russia, his activities can change it. However, he lacks the moral foundations to understand the importance of his actions for his descendants and to understand his responsibility to them. He lives by the principle: “After us, even a flood.” He doesn’t care what will happen, he sees what is.

Symbolism of the play

The main image in Chekhov's play is the garden. It not only symbolizes estate life, but also connects times and eras. The image of the Cherry Orchard is a noble Russia, with the help of which Anton Pavlovich predicted the future changes that awaited the country, although he himself could no longer see them. It also expresses the author’s attitude to what is happening.

The episodes depict ordinary everyday situations, “little things in life,” through which we learn about the main events of the play. Chekhov mixes the tragic and the comic, for example, in the third act Trofimov philosophizes and then absurdly falls down the stairs. In this one can see a certain symbolism of the author’s attitude: he is ironic at the characters, casting doubt on the veracity of their words.

The system of images is also symbolic, the meaning of which is described in a separate paragraph.

Composition

The first action is exposition. Everyone is waiting for the arrival of the owner of the estate, Ranevskaya, from Paris. In the house, everyone thinks and talks about their own things, without listening to others. The disunity located under the roof illustrates the discordant Russia, where people so different from each other live.

The beginning - Lyubov Andreeva and her daughter enter, gradually everyone learns that they are in danger of ruin. Neither Gaev nor Ranevskaya (brother and sister) can prevent it. Only Lopakhin knows a tolerable rescue plan: cut down the cherries and build dachas, but the proud owners do not agree with him.

Second action. During sunset, the fate of the garden is once again discussed. Ranevskaya arrogantly rejects Lopakhin's help and continues to remain inactive in the bliss of her own memories. Gaev and the merchant constantly quarrel.

Third act (climax): while the old owners of the garden are throwing a ball, as if nothing had happened, the auction is going on: the estate is acquired by the former serf Lopakhin.

Act four (denouement): Ranevskaya returns to Paris to squander the rest of her savings. After her departure, everyone goes their separate ways. Only the old servant Firs remains in the crowded house.

Innovation of Chekhov - playwright

It remains to be added that it is not without reason that the play cannot be understood by many schoolchildren. Many researchers attribute it to the theater of the absurd (what is this?). This is a very complex and controversial phenomenon in modernist literature, debates about the origin of which continue to this day. The fact is that Chekhov's plays, according to a number of characteristics, can be classified as the theater of the absurd. The characters' remarks very often do not have a logical connection with each other. They seem to be directed into nowhere, as if they are being uttered by one person and at the same time talking to himself. The destruction of dialogue, the failure of communication - this is what the so-called anti-drama is famous for. In addition, the alienation of the individual from the world, his global loneliness and life turned to the past, the problem of happiness - all these are features of the existential problems in the work, which are again inherent in the theater of the absurd. This is where the innovation of Chekhov the playwright manifested itself in the play “The Cherry Orchard”; these features attract many researchers in his work. Such a “provocative” phenomenon, misunderstood and condemned by public opinion, is difficult to fully perceive even for an adult, not to mention the fact that only a few people involved in the world of art managed to fall in love with the theater of the absurd.

Image system

Chekhov doesn't have speaking names, like Ostrovsky, Fonvizin, Griboyedov, but there are off-stage heroes (for example, a Parisian lover, a Yaroslavl aunt) who are important in the play, but Chekhov does not bring them into “external” action. In this drama there is no division into bad and good heroes, but there is a multi-faceted character system. The characters in the play can be divided:

on the heroes of the past (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Firs). They only know how to waste money and think, not wanting to change anything in their lives.
on the heroes of the present (Lopakhin). Lopakhin is a simple “man” who, with the help of work, got rich, bought an estate and is not going to stop.
on the heroes of the future (Trofimov, Anya) - this is the young generation dreaming of the highest truth and the highest happiness.

The heroes of The Cherry Orchard constantly jump from one topic to another. Despite the apparent dialogue, they do not hear each other. There are as many as 34 pauses in the play, which are formed between many “useless” statements of the characters. The phrase “You are still the same” is repeated repeatedly, which makes it clear that the characters do not change, they stand still.

The action of the play “The Cherry Orchard” begins in May, when the fruits of the cherry trees begin to bloom, and ends in October. The conflict does not have a pronounced character. All the main events that decide the future of the heroes take place behind the scenes (for example, estate auctions). That is, Chekhov completely abandons the norms of classicism.

Interesting? Save it on your wall!
A.I. Revyakin. "Ideological meaning and artistic features of the play "The Cherry Orchard" by A.P. Chekhov"
Collection of articles "The Work of A.P. Chekhov", Uchpedgiz, Moscow, 1956.
OCR site

The third stage of Russian liberation movement, characterized by the complication of social relations and contradictions, determined a new, higher level of development of progressive fiction.
At this stage of the liberation movement, Russian critical realism entered the final stage of its development.
The achievements of critical realism of this time were expressed in the further deepening of its best traditions, that is, an even greater approach to life, an even greater truthfulness in the artistic depiction of reality.
A.P. Chekhov emphasized the need for an organic, ultimate connection between literature and life. " Fiction“, he argued, “that’s why it’s called artistic because it paints life as it really is” (A. P. Chekhov, Complete collection works and letters, vol. 13, Goslitizdat, M., 1949, p. 262).
Showing life “as it really is” is Chekhov’s fundamental artistic principle. This principle found clear expression both in the content and in the form of “The Cherry Orchard.”
At the time of the appearance of the comedy “The Cherry Orchard,” the theme of the death of old noble estates and their transfer into the hands of the bourgeoisie, capitalist entrepreneurs, was not new and original. Many writers of the 19th century responded to this topic, in particular M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin (“Shelter of Monrepos”) and A. N. Ostrovsky (“Warm Heart,” “Wolves and Sheep,” “It Shines, but Doesn’t Warm”) . This topic became especially widespread at the very end of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Among the numerous plays that embodied this theme, the most noteworthy are “Sunset” by A. I. Sumbatov (1899), “The Business of Life” by N. I. Timkovsky (staged at the Moscow Maly Theater in 1903) and “Atonement” by I. N. Potapenko (1903).
But in comparison with the comedy “The Cherry Orchard,” all these plays lack either thematic breadth, ideological and psychological depth, or artistic mastery.
The play “Sunset” by A. I. Sumbatov depicts the economic and moral impoverishment of the nobility, the arrogant-cynical predation of the bourgeoisie, but does not show any enlightenment, a way out of the current situation, except for the arrival of a prominent St. Petersburg official in the province to clarify measures to prevent the disastrous situation population.
In the play “The Work of Life” by N. I. Timkovsky, the shameless predation of the nobility and bourgeoisie is contrasted with the noble activities of the landowner Cheremisov and the zemstvo doctor Koryagin, embraced by populist ideas and striving to make life easier for the peasants through zemstvo and charitable events.
Characterizing the life of the peasants, Koryagin says: “They live in cramped conditions, in the mud, they all sleep together” (D. 1, 10), and Cheremisov adds: “The soil is poor, the people are ignorant, there are crop failures from year to year, the ruin of farms "(D. 1, Rev. 11).
Cheremisov and Koryagin work tirelessly for the benefit of the people, but their works do not improve their situation. And Cheremisov is overcome by doubts, which he expresses to his daughter: “We are waiting for some sun to rise and illuminate everything around us, we believe in it. Will it rise? Will it illuminate? What if everything continues to drizzle and there is no end to this hopeless turbidity? I’m tired... (Approaches Tanya.) And you, I see, my little dove, are tired... or does your soul hurt?.. (Puts his hand on her head.) Isn’t it time for you and me, Tanyusha, to take up for the mind, eh? Stop straining yourself, live at least a year calmly, carefree? After all, life floats away, floats away...” (4th, Rev. 9).
These pessimistic thoughts are interrupted by cries about a fire in the neighboring village, where there is “complete helplessness” and the “last thing” can burn. The Cheremisovs go to the fire to help the peasants.
The Cheremisovs will not abandon their social activities, they will not betray the people - this is the meaning of their going to the fire. But this does not remove the feeling of complete hopelessness in the condition of the peasants who were in bondage to the landowners and merchants.
The play “Redemption” by I. N. Potapenko depicts the economic impoverishment and spiritual degeneration of the once noble and wealthy noble family of the Sandalovs.
The Sandalovs, moral monsters, degenerates, have unraveled their huge estate, already designated for auction for debts, and demand from the guardian, the honest worker Valezhnikov, the ex-husband of their sister, that he mortgage their second, small estate. The guardian is trying to preserve the estate, part of which belongs to his minor son. But the Sandalovs drive Valezhnikov almost to the point of madness with threats, insinuations and blackmail. Driven out of patience by his meanness ex-wife, he shoots at her from a accidentally turned up revolver.
Before shooting, he tells her: “You have corrupted and disfigured the soul of my son... You are breaking into my house, insulting my family, trampling my sacred thing with your dirty feet... You have taken away my ability healthy life, you poisoned my brain, I am no longer a rational being, responsible for my every step."
These plays, like others, for example “The Barren Flower” by N. L. Persianinova (1903) or “The Question” by A. S. Suvorin (1903), revealed the topic that interests us primarily in a moral, psychological, intimate and everyday sense and did not give it needs a social turnaround. Their conflicts were narrowly personal.
Chekhov approached the same topic differently. He saw in it a complex conflict of great social significance.
The play “The Cherry Orchard” is distinguished by its breadth and depth of content. This is a play about the past, present and future of Russia, as it seemed to Chekhov at the very beginning of the twentieth century.
The main theme of “The Cherry Orchard” is the liquidation of noble nests and the loss of economic and social influence by their owners (Ranevskaya and Gaev), the triumph of the bourgeoisie replacing the nobility (Lopakhin), the growth in life of a new social force opposing both the nobility and the bourgeoisie (Trofimov and Anya) .
In the play “The Cherry Orchard” the main conflict, reflecting deep social contradictions late XIX- the beginning of the 20th century, consists of a struggle for a cherry orchard scheduled for auction.
The owners of the cherry orchard, Ranevskaya and Gaev, want to retain the cherry orchard, which is a symbol of the old, feudal-serf foundations of life, in the form in which it is located. Lopakhin considers it necessary to turn the cherry orchard into an industrial capitalist enterprise.
Lopakhin is not an enemy of Ranevskaya and Gaev. He is their friend and ally. Proposing to turn the cherry orchard into an industrial enterprise, Lopakhin had in mind the economic interests of Ranevskaya and Gaev. His proposal was the only way to preserve the cherry orchard under the old owners.
Ranevskaya and Gaev did not listen to Lopakhin’s business advice. Unable to find the necessary funds to pay interest on their debts, they lost their estate. At the auction, the cherry orchard was bought by Lopakhin.
The conflict between Ranevskaya - Gaev, on the one hand, and Lopakhin, on the other, does not exhaust the content of the play. It organically unites other conflicts revealed in the play.
Deepening the achievements of his predecessors, striving for the most complete, multifaceted reflection of the life process, Chekhov complicated the main plot conflict of the play “The Cherry Orchard” (the struggle for the estate) with parallel conflicts (Trofimov - Ranevskaya, Gaev and Lopakhin; Varya - Lopakhin; Dunyasha - Yasha; Epikhodov - Yasha), motives (Pishchik - Ranevskaya - Gaev; Ranevskaya - Charlotte) and episodes (meeting with Passerby).
Along with depicting the replacement of the nobility by the bourgeoisie and the formation of new, democratic forces dissatisfied with the capitalist order, Chekhov poses in this play the problems of labor and the position of workers, true happiness, true beauty, true love and effective patriotism.
The main ideological pathos of “The Cherry Orchard” is manifested in the denial of the remnants of the lordly-manorial, autocratic-serf system, which has long since become obsolete, associated with the hopelessly difficult situation of the working people, with lack of culture; the play recognizes the role of the bourgeoisie as a relatively progressive, temporarily necessary force capable of bringing partial improvements to life; This also affirms the indisputable fact that a new social force is being formed in life, opposing not only the nobility, but also the bourgeoisie.
Chekhov believed that this new social force was called upon to rebuild life on the principles of true humanity, humanity and justice.
Denouncing his past and contemporary life, the writer welcomed the Russia of the future in the person of Petya Trofimov and Anya.
Trofimov, calling on everyone to work for the common good, to participate in the reconstruction of life, says: “in front of everyone, the workers eat disgustingly, sleep without pillows, thirty, forty in one room, there are bedbugs everywhere, stench, dampness, moral impurity. .. We are at least two hundred years behind...”
It is important to note that in this play criticism of social conditions is carried out not only by Trofimov, but also by others actors, of course, from other positions.
Lopakhin complains about the stupid life, Gaev grumbles about the unsatisfactory order, Ranevskaya points out the dullness of life.
With the entire set of images in the play, Chekhov convinces his readers and spectators that the whole life of that time, based on false social principles, was absurd.
There is not a single character in the play who is satisfied with his existence or the reality surrounding him. The life of all the people inhabiting the play is awkward. Here all the people are disunited, disconnected. Their lives are more or less broken and unhappy.
Dunyasha and Yasha are spoiled by the bad influence of their masters. The fate of Dunyasha is correctly revealed by the words of Firs: “You will spin.” Charlotte is deeply unhappy and lonely: “Where I come from and who I am, I don’t know,” she says. “... I really want to talk, but not with anyone... I don’t have anyone.”
The life around him did not give Epikhodov the right direction, and he does not even know what he wants: “To live... or shoot himself.”
Varya, tired of her awkward life, dreams of a monastery.
Firs said very well about the general turmoil of life at that time: “Now everything is in pieces, you won’t understand anything.”

1. Problems of A. P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard”.

2. Features of the genre of the play.

3. The main conflict of the play and its characters:

a) the embodiment of the past - Ranevskaya, Gaev;

b) exponent of the ideas of the present - Lopakhin;

c) heroes of the future - Anya and Petya.

4. The tragedy of the era is a break in the connection of times.

1. The play “The Cherry Orchard” was completed by A.P. Chekhov in 1903. And although it reflects real social phenomena of those years, the play turned out to be in tune with the sentiments of subsequent generations - primarily because it touches on eternal problems: dissatisfaction with life and the desire to change it, the destruction of harmony between people, their mutual alienation, loneliness, weakening of family connections and loss of spiritual roots.

2. Chekhov himself believed that his play was a comedy. It can be classified as a lyrical comedy, where the funny is intertwined with the sad, the comic with the tragic, just like in real life.

3. The central image of the play is the cherry orchard, which unites all the characters. The Cherry Orchard is both a concrete garden, common for estates, and an image-symbol - a symbol of the beauty of Russian nature, Russia. The whole play is permeated with a sad feeling from the death of the beautiful cherry orchard.

In the play we do not see a clear conflict; everything, it would seem, goes on as usual. The characters in the play behave calmly, there are no open quarrels or clashes between them. And yet one feels the existence of a conflict, but hidden, internal. Behind ordinary conversations, behind the calm attitude of the characters in the play towards each other, their misunderstanding of each other is hidden. The main conflict of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is misunderstanding between generations. It seems as if three times intersected in the play: past, present and future.

The older generation is Ranevskaya, Gaev, half-ruined nobles who personify the past. Today, the middle generation, is represented by Lopakhin. The youngest generation, whose fate is in the future, is represented by Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter, and Petya Trofimov, a commoner, teacher of Ranevskaya’s son.

a) The owners of the cherry orchard seem to us to be graceful, sophisticated people, full of love for others, capable of feeling the beauty and charm of nature. They carefully preserve the memory of the past, love their home: “I slept in this nursery, looked at the garden from here, happiness woke up with me every morning...” recalls Lyubov Andreevna. Once upon a time, Lyubov Andreevna, then still a young girl, consoled Ermolai Lopakhin, a fifteen-year-old “peasant” who was punched in the face by his shopkeeper father. Lopakhin cannot forget the kindness of Lyubov Andreevna, he loves her “like his own... more than his own.” She is affectionate with everyone: she calls the old servant Firs “my old man,” she is happy to meet him, and when leaving, she asks several times whether he has been sent to the hospital. She is generous not only to her loved one, who deceived her and robbed her, but also to a random passer-by, to whom she gives the last gold. She herself is penniless and asks to lend money to Semyonov-Pishchik. Relationships between family members are imbued with compassion and delicacy. No one blames Ranevskaya, who actually led to the collapse of her estate, or Gaev, who “ate his fortune on candy.” The nobility of Ranevskaya is that she does not blame anyone but herself for the misfortune that befell her - this is punishment for the fact that “we have sinned too much...”. Ranevskaya lives only with memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, and she does not even want to think about the future. Chekhov considers Ranevskaya and Gaev to be the culprits of their tragedy. They behave like little children who close their eyes in fear when they are in danger. That’s why both Gaev and Ranevskaya so diligently avoid talking about the real plan of salvation put forward by Lopakhin, hoping for a miracle: if Anya married a rich man, if the Yaroslavl aunt sent money... But neither Ranevskaya nor Gaev are trying anything change. Speaking of "beautiful" old life, they seem to have come to terms with their misfortune, letting everything take its course, giving in without a fight.

b) Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a man of the present. On the one hand, this is a person with a subtle and gentle soul, who knows how to appreciate beauty, is faithful and noble; he is a hard worker, works from morning to night. But on the other hand, the world of money has already subjugated him. Businessman Lopakhin has conquered his “subtle and gentle soul”: he cannot read books, he is incapable of love. His businesslike nature has eroded the spirituality in him, and he himself understands this. Lopakhin feels like the master of life. “The new owner of the cherry orchard is coming!” “Let everything be as I wish!” - he says. Lopakhin has not forgotten his past, and now the moment of his triumph has come: “the beaten, illiterate Ermolai” bought “an estate, the most beautiful of which there is nothing in the world,” an estate “where his father and grandfather were slaves.”

But Ermolai Lopakhin remained a “peasant”, despite the fact that he came out into the public eye. He is not able to understand one thing: the cherry orchard is not only a symbol of beauty, it is a kind of thread connecting the past with the present. You can't cut down your own roots. And the fact that Lopakhin does not understand this is his main mistake.

At the end of the play, he says: “If only our awkward, unhappy life would change!” But he knows how to do this only in words. But in reality he is cutting down the garden to build there summer cottages, thereby destroying the old, which was replaced by his time. The old has been destroyed, “the connecting thread of days has broken,” but the new has not yet been created, and it is unknown whether it will ever be created. The author is in no hurry to draw conclusions.

c) Petya and Anya, replacing Lopakhin, represent the future. Petya is an “eternal student”, always hungry, sick, unkempt, but proud; lives by labor alone, educated, smart. His judgments are profound. Denying the past, he predicts the short duration of Lopakhin's stay, as he sees his predatory essence. He is full of faith in new life: “Humanity is moving towards the highest truth, towards the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront!” Petya managed to inspire in Anya the desire to work and live at her own expense. She no longer feels sorry for the garden, because ahead of her is a life full of joyful work for the common good: “We will plant new garden, more luxurious than this..." Will her dreams come true? Unknown. After all, she doesn’t yet know life to change it. But Petya looks at everything too superficially: not knowing real life, he tries to rebuild it on the basis of ideas alone. And in the whole appearance of this hero one can see some kind of insufficiency, shallowness, lack of healthy vitality. The author cannot trust him. that beautiful future he talks about. Petya doesn’t even try to save the garden; he doesn’t care about the problem that worries the author himself.

4. There is no connection between times in the play; the gap between generations is heard in the sound of a broken string. The author does not yet see in Russian life a hero who could become the real owner of the “cherry orchard”, the guardian of its beauty.

The problem of the theme of the play “The Cherry Orchard”

In the last play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" the theme was a situation common at the turn of the century - the sale of the estate and the once luxurious cherry orchard to bankrupt nobles. However, the sale of an orchard is something that lies on the very surface, but in fact the theme and idea of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is much deeper.

The decline of the nobility as a class and their loss of their family nests, the destruction of a way of life that had been formed over centuries, the emergence of a new class of entrepreneurs replacing the nobility, revolutionary ideas about changing life, which raise doubts in the author - all this served as the idea of the play. However, Chekhov's skill was so great that his final play turned out to be so multi-layered that its meaning turned out to be much deeper than the original plan. In addition to the most visible topic, a number of other equally significant ones can be identified. This is the conflict of generations, and misunderstanding of each other, the internal discord of the characters, concluded in the inability to love and hear others, the conscious destruction of their roots, the oblivion of the memory of their ancestors. But the most relevant theme of the work “The Cherry Orchard” today is the destruction of the beauty of human life and the disappearance of connecting links between generations. And the garden itself in this context becomes a symbol of the destruction of an entire culture. And it is no coincidence that in the second act Charlotte Ivanovna has a gun, because, according to Chekhov himself, the gun must definitely fire. But in this play the shot was never fired, and meanwhile the murder of the garden, which personifies beauty, occurs.

The main theme of the play

So what topic can be identified as the main one? The theme of the play “The Cherry Orchard” was not chosen by chance; Chekhov was very interested in this problem, since his family at one time lost their house, sold for debts. And all the time he tried to understand the feelings of people who were losing their native nest, forced to break away from their roots.

While working on the production of the play, A.P. Chekhov was in close correspondence with the actors involved in it. It was extremely important to him that the characters were presented to the public exactly as he intended. Why was this so important to the playwright? Anton Pavlovich became the first writer who did not divide heroes into positive or negative. Each image he created is so close to real people that it is easy to find in them some features of themselves and their friends. His expression: “The whole meaning and drama of a person is inside, and not in external manifestations: People dine, and only dine, and at this time their destinies are formed and their lives are broken” prove that for Chekhov, interest in human characters came first. After all, just as in life there are no people who represent absolute evil or good, so on stage. And it is no coincidence that Chekhov was called a realist.

It can be concluded that main topic“The Cherry Orchard” by Chekhov is life shown through created images. A life in which very often what is desired diverges from reality. After all, history is made by people, but there are no ideal people, as Anton Pavlovich showed very clearly.

The system of images as a means of revealing the theme of the work

The system of images in the play is divided according to the characters’ belonging to a certain time. These are past, present and future. What's left in the past? Lightness, beauty, a centuries-old way of life, understandable to everyone. After all, there were only “men” and “gentlemen”. The gentlemen lived for their own pleasure, and the common people worked. Both of them went with the flow, and there was no need to make firm decisions about their lives, because everything was so established. But the old regime was replaced by the abolition of serfdom. And everything got mixed up. It turned out that smart, sensitive, sympathetic and generous aristocrats could not fit into the new era. They still know how to see and feel the beauty that surrounds them, but they are not able to save them. They are opposed to the present. The real thing is harsh and cynical. Lopakhin is the real thing. He knows how to see and appreciate beauty, but the ability to make a profit is firmly in his mind. He is bitter to realize that he is destroying the past, but he cannot do otherwise.

And finally, the future. It is so foggy and gloomy that it is impossible to say what it will be: joyful or bitter. However, it is clear that the future in the present has a break with the past. Family ties and attachment to one’s home lose their significance, and another theme of the work becomes noticeable: loneliness.

Chekhov was many years ahead of the development of theater. His works are so subtle in their content that it is very difficult to single out any one main theme of the plays. After all, analyzing them, it becomes clear that he sought to show the full depth of life, thereby becoming an unsurpassed master in depicting “undercurrents.”

Work test

The problem of the theme of the play “The Cherry Orchard”

The main theme of the play

We can conclude that the main theme of Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” is life shown through the created images. A life in which very often what is desired diverges from reality. After all, history is made by people, but there are no ideal people, as Anton Pavlovich showed very clearly.

The system of images as a means of revealing the theme of the work

Work test