The play "The Cherry Orchard" by Igor Ilyinsky became the first production in the history of the Maly Theater based on the play of the same name by Anton Chekhov. Previously, the works of the great playwright did not enjoy the interest of this theater. Igor Ilyinsky tried to get as close as possible to the author's reading of the play as a comedy (comedy of life), where human fate was decided behind ridiculous and, at first glance, meaningless conversations. The heroes had fun, pretending not to notice how their lives were crumbling, their past was being erased into dust. The play brought to the fore the image of the cherry orchard as a symbol of dreams and dreams, something unattainably beautiful, without which human life is impossible and meaningless. The garden literally filled the stage space, its snow-white branches visible through the wide-open windows.
The landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya (Tatyana Eremeeva) returns from Paris to her family estate, which was on the verge of ruin. The main value of this estate is the magnificent cherry orchard as a memory of family, childhood and home. Ranevskaya had not been to her homeland for more than five years, trying to overcome the longing for her early deceased son, who drowned in a pond not far from the estate. And so for her, coming home is both joyful and anxious. Everything reminds of a tragic event and foreshadows a bleak end. But it is here that Ranevskaya feels warmth and comfort, the joy of meeting her family and family. “I love my Motherland, I love it dearly,” she says. But the estate, together with the garden, goes under the hammer to a wealthy merchant Lopakhin (Viktor Korshunov), secretly in love with Ranevskaya, who once saved him, as a boy, from his father's beatings.
The garden was sold to Lopakhin, a man of advanced views, businessman and owner of the new era. He is going to cut down the cherry orchard and build summer cottages in its place. And this means that Ranevskaya, her brother Gaev (Nikolai Annenkov), two daughters - Anya (Elena Tsyplakova) and Varya (Lyudmila Pirogova) - say goodbye to the past forever. What awaits them in the future is unknown. Guests are having fun in the estate to music, congratulating the new owner, and the former owners froze in tense anticipation. Ranevskaya Lopakhin, regular guest Epikhodov (Vladimir Dubrovsky) and the maid Dunyasha (Olga Titaeva) at the beginning of the first act are waiting in the same alarming tension.
In the performance of the Maly Theater, the episodic hero, the old and decrepit servant Firs, played by Igor Ilyinsky himself, became the central figure. He - as the chief keeper of the home - took care of the estate in a proprietary manner. There is no servility or servility in him, he is full of self-esteem, calmness and confidence. And he is the only one, like the captain of a sinking ship, who does not leave his home when the windows are boarded up and the lock is hung on the door. One of the critics called Firs performed by Ilyinsky "King Lear of the Russian estate." An era is leaving with him.
In Ilyinsky's play, the conflict was not limited to a clash of people of the old and new generations, but consisted in the presence or absence of striving for something higher than everyday reality. After all, the thoughts of Ranevskaya-Eremeeva were all this time far from worries about the estate. She thinks about the lover she left in Paris. This humiliating and bitter love torments her, but she does not have the strength to cope with it. In a dispute with Petya Trofimov, Anya's fiancé, she defends her rights as a loving and suffering woman. But the sale of the estate frees Ranevskaya from worries, no matter how sublime the memories are. Likewise, Gaev-Annenkov, a lazy man and a rhetoric, cut off from reality, internally feels relief from the sale of the estate, which was too much of a burden for him. He protects the estate from Lopakhin, primarily guided by aesthetic considerations: a cherry orchard is more attractive than dachas. However, he easily comes to terms with his fate. Unlike Ranevskaya and Gaev, Lopakhin is a man of action. But he also strives for beauty, for beauty, the embodiment of which for him was Ranevskaya. The sisters also look at the sale of the estate in different ways: Varya is frightened of the impending disorder, Anya is full of hopes, faith in a new life.
"CHERRY GARDEN" - DRAMA, COMEDY OR TRAGEDY? The play "The Cherry Orchard" was written by A. P. Chekhov in 1903. Not only the socio-political world, but also the world of art felt the need for renewal. A.P. Chekhov, being a talented person who showed his skill in short stories, enters drama as an innovator.
After the premiere of the play "The Cherry Orchard", a lot of controversy broke out among critics and spectators, among actors and directors about the genre features of the play. What is "The Cherry Orchard" from the point of view of the genre - drama, tragedy or comedy? While working on the play, A. P. Chekhov in letters spoke about its character as a whole: “It was not a drama that came out for me, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce ...” In letters to Vl.
A. P. Chekhov warned I. Nemirovich-Danchenko that Anya should not have a “crying” tone, so that in general there should not be “many crying” in the play.
The performance, despite the resounding success, did not satisfy A.P. Chekhov. Anton Pavlovich expressed dissatisfaction with the general interpretation of the play: “Why is my play so persistently called a drama on posters and in newspaper advertisements? Nemirovich and Alekseev (Stanislavsky) in my play see positively not what I wrote, and I am ready to give any word that both of them have never read my play carefully. " Thus, the author himself insists that The Cherry Orchard is a comedy. This genre did not at all exclude A.
P. Chekhov serious and sad. Stanislavsky obviously violated Chekhov's measure in the ratio of the dramatic to the comic, the sad to the funny. The result was a drama where A.P. Chekhov insisted on a lyrical comedy. One of the features of The Cherry Orchard is that all the characters are presented in a dual, tragicomic light. The play contains purely comic characters: Charlotte Ivanovna, Epikhodov, Yasha, Firs.
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov makes fun of Gayev, "who lived his fortune on candy", over the sentimental Ranevskaya and her practical helplessness, which is not for her age. Even about Petya Trofimov, who, it would seem, symbolizes the renewal of Russia, A. Chekhov sneers, calling him "an eternal student." Petya Trofimov earned this attitude of the author with his verbosity, which A.P.
Chekhov could not stand it. Petya gives monologues about workers who "eat disgustingly, sleep without pillows", about the rich who "live on debt, at someone else's expense," about a "proud man." At the same time, he warns everyone that he is "afraid of serious conversations." Petya Trofimov, doing nothing for five months, repeats to others that "we have to work." And this is with the hardworking Vara and the business Lopakhin! Trofimov does not study, because he cannot both study and support himself.
Petya Ranevskaya gives a very sharp but precise characterization in relation to “spirituality” and “tact” by Trofimov: “... You have no purity, but you are just a neat girl”. A.P. Chekhov speaks with irony about his behavior in remarks. Trofimov now cries out "with horror", then, panting with indignation, cannot utter a word, then he threatens to leave and cannot do it in any way. A.
P. Chekhov in the image of Lopakhin. He is doing everything possible to help Ranevskaya keep the estate. Lopakhin is sensitive and kind. But in double illumination, he is far from ideal: there is business winglessness in him, Lopakhin is not able to get carried away and love. In a relationship with Varya, he is comical and awkward. The short-term celebration associated with the purchase of a cherry orchard quickly gives way to feelings of despondency and sadness. Lopakhin utters a significant phrase with tears: "Oh, it would be more likely that all this would pass, sooner our awkward, unhappy life would change somehow."
Here Lopakhin directly touches the main source of drama: it is not concluded in the struggle for the cherry orchard, but in dissatisfaction with life, which is experienced in different ways by all the heroes of the Liesa. Life goes on ridiculously and awkwardly, bringing neither joy nor happiness to anyone. This life is unhappy not only for the main characters, but also for Charlotte, lonely and unnecessary to anyone, and for Epikhodov with his constant failures. Determining the essence of the comic conflict, literary scholars argue that it rests on a discrepancy between appearance and essence (sitcom, comedy of characters, etc.). In the new comedy by A.P.
Chekhov's words, deeds and actions of the heroes are in just such a discrepancy. The inner drama of each is more important than the external events (the so-called "undercurrents"). Hence the "tearfulness" of the actors, the persons, which is not at all tragic. Monologues and remarks “through tears” speak, most likely, of excessive sentimentality, nervousness, and sometimes even irritability of the characters. Hence the all-pervading Chekhovian irony. It seems that the author, as it were, asks questions to viewers, readers, and to himself: why do people waste their lives so ineptly? Why are they so frivolous about loved ones? Why is it so irresponsible to waste words and vitality, naively believing that they will live forever and there will be an opportunity to live life completely, anew? The heroes of the play deserve both pity and merciless "laughter through tears invisible to the world."
Traditionally, in Soviet literary criticism, it was customary to "group" the heroes of the play, calling Gaev and Ranevskaya the representatives of the "past" of Russia, her "present" - Lopa-khin, and the "future" - Petya and Anya. It seems to me that this is not entirely true. In one of the stage versions of the play "The Cherry Orchard", the future of Russia turns out to be in such people as the lackey Yasha, who looks to where power and money are. A. P. Chekhov, in my opinion, is not without irony here either. After all, a little more than ten years will pass, and where will the Lopakhins, Gaevs, Ranevskys and Trofimovs end up when the Jacob will decide on them? With bitterness and regret A.
P. Chekhov is looking for a Man in his play and, it seems to me, does not find him. Certainly, the play "The Cherry Orchard" is a complex and ambiguous play. That is why the attention of directors from many countries is riveted to it, and four productions were presented at the penultimate theater festival in Moscow. The controversy about the genre is still ongoing. But do not forget that A.P. Chekhov himself called the work a comedy, and I tried in the essay to prove, as far as possible, why this is so
AP Chekhov wrote in 1903 the wonderful play "The Cherry Orchard". The world of art, just like the socio-political world, felt the need for renewal. A.P. Chekhov, already a gifted writer who showed his skill in short stories, enters drama as a discoverer of new ideas. The premiere of the play "The Cherry Orchard" gave rise to a lot of discussions among critics and spectators, among actors and directors about the genre characteristics of the play. Let us consider what is "The Cherry Orchard" from the point of view of the genre - drama, tragedy or comedy.
While working on the play, A. P. Chekhov in letters spoke about its character as a whole: "It was not a drama that came out, but a comedy, in some places even a farce ..." In letters to Vl. A. P. Chekhov warned I. Nemirovich-Danchenko that Anya should not have a "crying" tone, so that there should not be "many crying" in the play. The performance, despite the resounding success, did not satisfy A.P. Chekhov. Anton Pavlovich expressed dissatisfaction with the general interpretation of the play: "Why is my play so persistently called a drama on posters and in newspaper advertisements? Nemirovich and Alekseev (Stanislavsky) in my play see positively not what I wrote, and I am ready to give any word that both of them never read my play carefully. " Thus, the author himself insists that "The Cherry Orchard" is a comedy. This genre did not at all exclude the serious and sad from A.P. Chekhov. Stanislavsky obviously violated Chekhov's measure in the ratio of the dramatic to the comic, the sad to the funny. The result was a drama where A.P. Chekhov insisted on a lyrical comedy.
One of the features of The Cherry Orchard is that all characters are presented in a dual, tragicomic light. The play contains purely comic characters: Charlotte Ivanovna, Epikhodov, Yasha, Firs. Anton Pavlovich Chekhov makes fun of Gayev, who "lived his fortune on candy", over the sentimental Ranevskaya and her practical helplessness, which is not for her age. Even over Petya Trofimov, who would seem to symbolize the renewal of Russia, A.P. Chekhov is ironic, calling him "an eternal student." Petya Trofimov earned this attitude of the author with his verbosity, which A.P. Chekhov did not tolerate. Petya delivers monologues about the workers who "eat disgustingly, sleep without pillows", about the rich who "live on debt, at someone else's expense," about a "proud man." At the same time, he warns everyone that he is "afraid of serious conversations." Petya Trofimov, doing nothing for five months, repeats to others that "we have to work." And this is with the hardworking Vara and the business Lopakhin! Trofimov does not study, because he cannot both study and support himself. Petya Ranevskaya gives a very sharp but precise characterization in relation to "spirituality" and "tact" by Trofimov: "... You have no purity, but you are just neat." A.P. Chekhov speaks with irony about his behavior in remarks. Trofimov now cries out "with horror", then, panting with indignation, cannot utter a word, then threatens to leave and cannot do it in any way.
A.P. Chekhov has certain sympathetic notes in the image of Lopakhin. He is doing everything possible to help Ranevskaya keep the estate. Lopakhin is sensitive and kind. But in double illumination, he is far from ideal: there is business winglessness in him, Lopakhin is not able to get carried away and love. In a relationship with Varya, he is comical and awkward. The short-term celebration associated with the purchase of a cherry orchard quickly gives way to feelings of despondency and sadness. Lopakhin utters a significant phrase with tears: "Oh, it would be more likely that all this would pass, sooner our awkward, unhappy life would change somehow." Here Lopakhin directly touches the main source of drama: it is not concluded in the struggle for a cherry orchard, but in dissatisfaction with life, which is experienced in different ways by all the characters in the play. Life goes on ridiculously and awkwardly, bringing neither joy nor happiness to anyone. This life is unhappy not only for the main characters, but also for Charlotte, lonely and unnecessary to anyone, and for Epikhodov with his constant failures.
Determining the essence of the comic conflict, literary scholars argue that it rests on a discrepancy between appearance and essence (sitcom, comedy of characters, etc.). In the "new comedy of A. P. Chekhov, the words, deeds and actions of the characters are precisely in such a discrepancy. The inner drama of each turns out to be more important than external events (the so-called" undercurrents "). Hence the" tearfulness "of the characters, which does not have a tragic connotation Monologues and remarks "through tears" most likely speak of excessive sentimentality, nervousness, sometimes even irritability of the characters. Hence the all-pervading Chekhovian irony. It seems that the author as if asks the audience, and readers, and himself: why is this people are ineptly wasting their lives? Why are they so frivolous about their loved ones? Why are they so irresponsible wasting words and vitality, naively believing that they will live forever and there will be an opportunity to live life completely, anew? The characters of the play deserve both pity and merciless "laughter through invisible to the world of tears. "
In Soviet literary criticism, it was traditionally accepted to "group" the heroes of a play, naming Gaev and Ranevskaya as representatives of Russia's "past", Lopakhin as its "present", and Petya and Anya as the "future". I think this is not entirely true. According to one of the theatrical versions of the play "The Cherry Orchard", the future of Russia is in the hands of people like the lackey Yasha, who looks to where power and finances are. In my opinion, A.P. Chekhov does not do without sarcasm here either, since he does not see the place where the Lopakhins, Gaevs, Ranevskys and Trofimovs will end up after a little over ten years, when such Yakovs will judge them? A.P. Chekhov with bitterness and regret is looking for a Man in his play and, it seems to me, is not looking for him.
Undoubtedly, the play "The Cherry Orchard" is characterized by complexity and ambiguity. That is why today the interest of directors from many countries of the world is riveted to it, "The Cherry Orchard" does not leave the stage. Disputes about the genre of the work do not subside either. However, one should not forget that A.P. Chekhov himself called his creation a comedy.
The remarkable merits of the play "The Cherry Orchard", 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 a difference of opinion. Some see the play "The Cherry Orchard" as a comedy, others - a drama, and still others - a tragicomedy. What is this play - a drama, a comedy, a tragicomedy?
Before answering this question, it should be noted that Chekhov, striving for the truth of life, for naturalness, created plays not of a purely dramatic or comedic, but of a very complex form.
In his plays, the dramatic is realized in organic mixing with the comic, and the comic is manifested in organic interweaving with the dramatic.
Chekhov's plays are peculiar genre formations that can be called dramas or comedies, only bearing in mind their leading genre tendency, and not 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 to Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko: "I will call the play a comedy" (A. P. Chekhov, Complete Works and Letters, vol. 20, Goslitizdat, Moscow, 1951, p. 129).
On September 15, 1903, he informed MP Alekseeva (Lilina): “It was not a drama that came out for me, but a comedy, in some places even a farce” (T and e, p.
Calling the play a comedy, Chekhov relied on the comic motives prevailing in it. If, when answering the question about the genre of this play, we have in mind the leading tendency in the structure of its images and plot, then we will have to admit that it is based not on the dramatic, but on the comedic principle. Drama suggests drama goodies plays, that is, those to whom the author gives his main sympathies.
In this sense, such plays by A. Chekhov as "Uncle Vanya" and "Three Sisters" are dramas. In the play "The Cherry Orchard", the author's main sympathies belong to Trofimov and Anya, who do not experience any drama.
To recognize The Cherry Orchard as a drama means to recognize the experiences of the owners of the cherry orchard, Gayevs and Ranevskys, as truly dramatic, capable of evoking deep sympathy and compassion from people who go not backward, but forward into the future.
But this in the play could not be and is not. Chekhov does not defend, does not assert, but exposes the owners of the cherry orchard, he shows their emptiness and insignificance, their complete inability for serious experiences.
The play "The Cherry Orchard" cannot be recognized as a tragicomedy either. For this she lacks neither tragicomic heroes, nor tragicomic propositions that run through the entire play, defining its through action. Gaev, Ranevskaya, Pishchik are too small as tragicomic heroes. Yes, in addition, in the play the leading optimistic idea emerges with all clarity, expressed in positive images. This play is more correctly called a lyrical comedy.
The comedic character of The Cherry Orchard is determined, firstly, by the fact that its positive images, such as Trofimov and Anya, are by no means shown dramatically. The drama is not typical of 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 not dramatic, which, in comparison with the images of the local nobles, is shown as relatively positive and major. The comedic character of the play is affirmed, secondly, by the fact that of the two owners of the cherry orchard, one (Gaev) is given mainly comically, and the second (Ranevskaya) in such dramatic situations that mainly contribute to showing their negative essence.
The comic basis of the play is clearly visible, thirdly, and in the comic-satirical depiction of almost all secondary characters: Epikhodov, Pishchik, Charlotte, Yasha, Dunyasha.
"The Cherry Orchard" also includes obvious motives of vaudeville, even farce, expressed in jokes, tricks, jumping, Charlotte's dressing up. In terms of problems and the nature of its artistic interpretation, The Cherry Orchard is a deeply social play. It has very strong incriminating motives.
Here the most important for that time questions of liquidation of the noble-landed economy, its final replacement with capitalist, the growth of democratic forces, etc.
With a clearly pronounced socio-comedic basis in the play "The Cherry Orchard" lyric-dramatic and socio-psychological motives are clearly manifested: lyric-dramatic and socio-psychological motives are most fully illustrated by Ranevskaya and Varya; lyrical and socio-psychological, especially in the image of Ani.
The originality of the genre of "The Cherry Orchard" was very well revealed by M. Gorky, who defined this play as a l and richeskuyu mediu.
"AND. P. Chekhov, - he writes in the article "0 plays", - created ... a completely original type of play - a lyric comedy "(M. Gor'kii, 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, KS Stanislavsky, having read 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 in the second reading the play will not capture me. Where is there !! I cried like a woman, I wanted to, but could not restrain myself "(K, S. Stanislavsky, Articles. Speeches. Conversations. Letters, Publishing House" Art ", Moscow, 1953 , pp. 150 - 151).
In his memoirs about Chekhov, dating back to about 1907, Stanislavsky characterizes The Cherry Orchard as "a difficult drama of Russian life" (Ibid., P. 139).
K.S. Stanislavsky misunderstood, underestimated the strength of the accusatory pathos directed against the representatives of the then leaving world (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik), and in this regard, in his directorial decision of the play, he over-emphasized the lyric and dramatic line associated with these characters.
Taking seriously the drama of Ranevskaya and Gayev, improperly putting forward 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 directors 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, aspiring to the future, also belonged to "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 play of Stanislavsky - Gaev, N. Efros wrote: “this is a big child, miserable and funny, but touching in its helplessness ... There was an atmosphere of subtle humor around the figure. And at the same time, she radiated great touching ... everyone in the auditorium, together with Firs, felt something tender towards 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 inclined 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 compassion, a sigh of sympathetic or condolent sadness to this Gayev ”(T am e, p. 81 - 83).
Performed by the artists of the Art Theater, the images of the owners of the Cherry Orchard turned out to be clearly larger, noble, beautiful, spiritually complex than in Chekhov's play. It would be unfair to say that the directors of the Art Theater did not notice or bypassed the comedy of The Cherry Orchard.
Staging this play, KS Stanislavsky made such a wide use of her comedic motives that he provoked sharp objections from those who considered it a consistently pessimistic drama.
A. Kugel, proceeding from 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).
The critic N. Nikolaev also expressed dissatisfaction with the superfluous, deliberate comedy of the stage embodiment of The Cherry Orchard in the Art Theater. “When,” he wrote, “the oppressive present foreshadows an even more difficult future, Charlotte Ivanovna appears and passes by, leading a dog on a long ribbon and, with her exaggerated, highly comic figure, causes laughter in the auditorium ... For me this laughter was a cold tub water ... The mood turned out to be irreparably spoiled "(N. Nikolayev, 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 played on 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 Moscow Art Theater gave space to her comedy, but only subordinate; secondary.
MN 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, Izd. Art, Moscow, 1955, p. 178 and etc.).
Treating the play in this regard, the direction of the Moscow Art Theater showed the representatives of the outgoing world (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik) more internally 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 play than was necessary.
As for the objectively comic essence of these people, the exposure of their inconsistency, this side was clearly not revealed in the play. 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 distressed. “In a packed theater there was a clamor of success, and Chekhov sadly repeated:
- Not that, not that ...
- What's wrong?
- It's not that: both the play and the performance. I didn't get what I wanted. I saw something completely different, and they could not understand what I want ”(S. Lyubosh,“ The Cherry Orchard. ”Chekhov's Jubilee Collection, Moscow, 1910, p. 448).
Protesting against the false interpretation of his play, Chekhov wrote in a letter to OL Knipper on April 10, 1904: “Why is my play so persistently called a drama on posters and in newspaper advertisements? Nemirovich and Alekseev in my play see positively not what I wrote, and I am ready to give whatever word they like - that both of them have never carefully read my play "(A. P. Chekhov, Complete Works and letters, v. 20, Goslitizdat, Moscow, 1951, p. 265).
Chekhov was outraged by the especially slow tempo of the performance, especially the painfully prolonged Act IV. “The act, which should last 12 minutes maximum, for you,” he wrote to OL Knipper, “lasts 40 minutes. I can say one thing: Stanislavsky ruined my play ”(T also, 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 a crybaby, sometimes just a boring writer ... And I wrote several volumes of funny stories. And criticism makes me look like some kind of mourners ... They think of me out of their heads what they themselves want, but I never thought of that, and I did not see it in my dreams ... It starts to make me angry ”(E. P. K arpov, Two last meetings with Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, Yearbook of Imperial Theaters, 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 directors of the Art Theater, in turn, could not remain indifferent to Chekhov's statements that the "Cherry Orchard" is being embodied in a false way. Thinking about the text of the play and its stage implementation, Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko were forced to admit that they had misunderstood the play. But they are misunderstood, in their opinion, not in their main way, but in particulars. The play underwent changes on the fly.
In December 1908, V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko wrote: "Look at The Cherry Orchard, and you will absolutely not recognize in this lacy, graceful picture that heavy and heavy drama, which" The Garden "was in the first year" (V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Letter to N. Ye. 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 admit that you didn't immediately understand The Cherry Orchard. Years passed, and time confirmed the correctness of Chekhov. It became clearer and clearer to the directors of the Art Theater that more decisive changes in the performance were required in the direction indicated by Chekhov.
Resuming the play "The Cherry Orchard" after a ten-year break, the directors of the Art Theater made major changes to it: they significantly accelerated the pace of its development; the first act was comically revived; removed unnecessary psychologism in the main characters and increased their exposure. This was especially evident in the play of Stanislavsky - Gaev, “His image,” it was noted in Izvestia, “is now revealed primarily from a purely comedic side. We would say that idleness, lordly daydreaming, sheer inability to take on any kind of work and truly childish carelessness were fully exposed by Stanislavsky. The new Gaev of Stanislavsky is the most convincing example of harmful worthlessness. Knipper-Chekhova began to play even more delicately, even easier, revealing her Ranevskaya in the same sense of "exposing" (Yur. Sobolev, "The Cherry Orchard" at the Art Theater, "Izvestia" dated May 25, 1928, No. 120).
The fact that the initial 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 the Art Theater's artists, but also in front of the general public. VI Nemirovich-Danchenko, speaking in 1929 on the occasion of 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 rearrangements, 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 pick up the text and you will see: there - “crying”, in another place - “crying”, but in vaudeville they will not cry! " Vl. I. Nemirov and ch-Danchenko, Articles. Speeches. Conversations. Letters, ed. "Art", 1952, pp. 108 - 109).
That The Cherry Orchard is not a vaudeville is true. But it is unfair that they do not cry in vaudeville, and on the basis of the presence of crying "The Cherry Orchard" is considered a heavy drama. For example, in Chekhov's vaudeville "Bear" the landowner and her footman cry, and in his own vaudeville "The Proposal" Lomov cries and Chubukova groans. Lyubushka and Akulina cry in the vaudeville "Az and Firth" by P. Fedorov. Lyudmila and Dasha cry in the vaudeville "Teacher and student" by A. Pisarev. In the vaudeville Hussar Girl, Laura is crying. The point is not in the presence or even in the number of crying, but in the nature of the cry.
When, through tears, Dunyasha says: “she broke the saucer,” and Pischik - “where is the money?”, This causes not a dramatic, but a comic reaction. Sometimes tears express joyful excitement: at Ranevskaya's first entrance to the nursery upon returning to her homeland, at the devoted Firs, who had waited for the arrival of his mistress.
Often tears denote a special cordiality: in Gayev, when addressing Anya in the first act ("my baby. My child" ...); at Trofimov, who calms Ranevskaya (in the first act) and then tells her: “after all, he robbed you” (in the third act); from 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 read: in Ranevskaya in the first act, when she met Trofimov, who reminded her of her drowned son, and in the third act, in a dispute with Trofimov, when she again recalls her son; from Gaev - upon his return from the auction; for Varya - 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 form the basis of the drama of the entire play.
Chekhov strongly disagreed that there were many crying 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 sad feeling in the viewer. I often find it “through tears,” but this shows only the mood of the faces, not tears ”(AP Chekhov, Complete Works and Letters, vol. 20, Goslitizdat, Moscow, 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 the representatives of not the old, but 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 associated in its essence with the protection of the outgoing forms of life.
The drama associated with the defense of the outgoing, selfish forms of life cannot evoke the sympathy of progressive readers and viewers and is unable to become the 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 viewer. Ranevskaya cannot be compassionate in the main - in the loss of the cherry orchard, in her bitter love affairs. But when she remembers and cries about her seven-year-old son drowned in the river, she is humanly sorry. You can sympathize with her when she, wiping away her tears, 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, youth passed ...
The drama of "The Cherry Orchard" is of a private, not defining, not leading character. The stage embodiment 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 conformity, it is not necessary to make special corrections, but to radically change the first edition of the play.
Revealing the completely optimistic pathos of the play, it is necessary to replace the dramatic basis of the performance with a co-medi and richesky one. The prerequisites for this are in the statements of KS Stanislavsky himself. Emphasizing the importance of a more vivid stage transmission of Chekhov's dream, he wrote:
“In fiction at the end of the last and the beginning of this century, he was one of the first to feel the inevitability of revolution, when it was only in its infancy and society continued to bathe in excesses. He was one of the first to give an alarm call. Who, if not him, began to cut down the beautiful, blooming cherry orchard, realizing that his time had passed, that the old life was irrevocably condemned to be scrapped ... Give Lopakhin in The Cherry Orchard the scope of Chaliapin, and young Anya the temperament of Yermolova, and let the first one cuts the obsolete with all her might, and the young girl, anticipating, together with Petya Trofimov, the approach of a new era, will shout to the whole world: “Hello, new life! " - and you will understand that "The Cherry Orchard" is a living, close, contemporary play for us, that Chekhov's voice sounds in it cheerfully, incendiary, for he himself looks not backward, but forward "(K.S.Stan and Slavskii., Collected works in eight volumes, vol. 1, publishing house "Art", 1954, pp. 275 - 276).
There is no doubt that the first theatrical version of The Cherry Orchard did not have the pathos that sounds in the words of Stanislavsky just quoted. These words already contain a different understanding of The Cherry Orchard than that which was characteristic of the leaders of the Art Theater in 1904. But affirming the comedy-lyrical beginning of "The Cherry Orchard", it is important, in an organic fusion with comic-satirical and major-lyrical motives, to fully reveal the lyric-dramatic, elegiac motives, embodied in the play with such amazing subtlety and power. Chekhov not only denounced and ridiculed the heroes of his play, but also showed their subjective drama.
The abstract humanism of Chekhov, associated with his general democratic position, limited his satirical possibilities and conditioned the well-known notes of the sympathetic depiction of Gaev and Ranevskaya.
Here one should beware of one-sidedness and simplification, which, by the way, have already existed (for example, in the production of "The Cherry Orchard" by director A. Lobanov at the theater-studio under the direction of R. Simonov in 1934).
As for the Art Theater itself, the change of the dramatic key to the comedy-lyric one should not cause a decisive change in the interpretation of all roles. A lot of this wonderful performance, especially in its latest version, is given correctly. It should be remembered that, while sharply rejecting the dramatic solution of his play, Chekhov found even in its first, still far from mature performances in the Art Theater, many beautiful things that were performed correctly.
This is the last play of the writer, therefore, it contains his most intimate thoughts about life, about the fate of his homeland. It reflected many life experiences. These are memories of the sale of their home in Taganrog, and acquaintance with Kiselev, the owner of the Babkino estate, near Moscow, where the Chekhovs lived in the summer months of 1885-1887. A.S. Kiselev, who, after the sale of the estate for debts, entered the service as a member of the bank's board in Kaluga, was in many ways the prototype of Gaev.
In 1888 and 1889. Chekhov rested at the Lintvarevs' estate, near Sumy, Kharkov province, where he saw many neglected and dying noble estates. Thus, in the mind of the writer, the idea of \u200b\u200ba play was gradually ripening, which would reflect many details of the life of the inhabitants of the old noble nests.
Work on the play "The Cherry Orchard" required great efforts from A.P. Chekhov. "I write four lines a day, and those with unbearable torment", - he informed friends. However, overcoming the illness, everyday disorder, Chekhov wrote "a big play".
The first performance of "The Cherry Orchard" at the Moscow Art Theater took place on the birthday of A.P. Chekhov - January 17, 1904 The Art Theater for the first time honored its beloved writer and author of plays for many productions of the collective, timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of his literary activity.
The writer was seriously ill, but nevertheless came to the premiere. The audience did not expect to see him, and this appearance caused thunderous applause. All artistic and literary Moscow gathered in the hall. Among the spectators were Andrey Bely, V.Ya. Bryusov, A.M. Gorky, S.V. Rachmaninov, F.I. Chaliapin.
About genre
Chekhov called The Cherry Orchard a comedy: “It was not a drama that came out, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce.” (From a letter to M.P. Alekseeva). "The whole play is funny, frivolous"... (From a letter to O. L. Knipper).
The theater staged it as a heavy drama of Russian life: "This is not a comedy, this is a tragedy ... I cried like a woman ...". (K.S. Stanislavsky).
A.P. It seemed to Chekhov that the theater was doing the whole play in the wrong tone; he insisted that he wrote a comedy, and not a tearful drama, warned that both the role of Varya and the role of Lopakhin were comic. But the founders of the Art Theater K.S. Stanislavsky and V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, appreciating the play, perceived it as a drama.
There are critics who consider the play a tragicomedy. A.I. Revyakin writes: “To recognize The Cherry Orchard as a drama means to recognize the experiences of the owners of the cherry orchard, Gayevs and Ranevskys, as truly dramatic, capable of evoking deep sympathy and compassion in people who are looking not backward but forward into the future. But this could not be and is not in the play ... The play "The Cherry Orchard" cannot be recognized as a tragicomedy either. For this she lacks neither tragicomic heroes, nor tragicomic positions. "
The debate about the genre of the play continues to this day. The range of director's interpretations is wide: comedy, drama, lyrical comedy, tragicomedy, tragedy. It is impossible to answer this question unequivocally.
One of Chekhov's letters contains the following lines: "After the summerthere must be winter, after youth, old age, after happiness, unhappiness and vice versa; a person cannot be healthy and cheerful all his life, losses always await him, he cannot protect himself from death, even if he was Alexander the Great, and one must be ready for everything and treat everything as inevitably necessary, no matter how sad it is. You just need to fulfill your duty to the best of your ability - and nothing else. " These thoughts are in tune with the feelings that the play "The Cherry Orchard" evokes.
Conflict and problems of the play
“Fiction is called fiction because it paints life as it really is. Its purpose is unconditional and honest truth. "
A.P. Chekhov
Question:
What "unconditional and honest" truth could Chekhov see at the end of the 19th century?
Answer:
The destruction of noble estates, their transfer into the hands of the capitalists, which indicates the onset of a new historical era.
The external plot of the play is the change of owners of the house and garden, the sale of the family estate for debts. But in Chekhov's works there is a special nature of the conflict, which makes it possible to detect internal and external action, internal and external plots. Moreover, the main thing is not the external plot, developed quite traditionally, but the internal one, which V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko called the "second plan", or Underwater .
Chekhov is interested in the experiences of the hero, not declared in monologues ("Feel not what they say", - wrote K.S. Stanislavsky), but manifested in “random” remarks and leaving in subtext - the “undercurrent” of the play, which implies a gap between the direct meaning of a remark, dialogue, remarks and the meaning that they acquire in context.
The characters in Chekhov's play are essentially inactive. Dynamic tension "creates a painful imperfection" of actions, deeds.
The “undercurrent” of Chekhov's play conceals hidden meanings, reveals the duality and conflict inherent in the human soul.
The last comedy play by A.P. Chekhov became "The Cherry Orchard". After the play "Three Sisters", a somewhat tragic work, Chekhov suddenly thought about a new one. And for some reason he wanted, and even wrote about it to his friends, so that this time she would be very funny, at least by design. To answer the question of whether "The Cherry Orchard" is a drama or a comedy, it is worth noting that the author himself defined it as the second genre. However, even during Chekhov's lifetime, when the first production took place at the Moscow Art Theater, the play was presented as a difficult drama and even a tragedy.
The Cherry Orchard - Drama or Comedy? The writing
Then where is the truth? Drama, by its definition, is a literary work, which is designed primarily for stage life. It is on the stage that she finds her full-fledged existence, reveals the meaning inherent in her, which further determines her genre. But the last word in the definition of the genre, be that as it may, has always been with the theater, directors and actors. Known factthat the innovative ideas of Chekhov as a playwright were assimilated by theaters and perceived reluctantly and not immediately, but for a long time and with very great difficulty. If you write about "The Cherry Orchard" - a drama or a comedy, an essay on this topic can be based on the Moscow Art Theater's traditional interpretation that it is a dramatic elegy - a definition that was assigned to the play by the authorities of theatrical art, such as Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko. Chekhov still managed to express his indignation at the theater with such an interpretation.
"The Cherry Orchard" - Drama or Comedy? Briefly about everything
According to the plot of the play, the former owners of the estate say goodbye to their family nest. In the second half of the 19th century, even before Chekhov, this topic was often covered in Russian literature both dramatically and tragically and comically. Let's try to figure out what are the features of solving this problem and how to perceive the "Cherry Orchard" correctly - it is a drama or a comedy.
This attitude of Chekhov was determined by the fact that capitalism replaced the nobility, which was gradually becoming obsolete and disappearing into social oblivion, and this is very clearly expressed in the images of Ranevskaya - a ruined noblewoman, and Lopakhin - a rich man, and the grandson of a former serf. In these two estates Chekhov saw the successors of Russian culture. In the nobility, the writer saw primarily the center of Russian culture. Here, of course, one should not forget about serfdom, which is mentioned in the play, but still, culture comes first.
Ranevskaya and Lopakhin
One of the main characters is Ranevskaya, she is also the owner of the estate and his soul. And for this reason, despite all her vices and frivolity (and many theaters emphasize that in Paris she became a drug addict), when she returned to her homeland to her father's house, everything around was transformed and revived. The inhabitants, who seemed to have left it forever, were drawn into the house.
Another key main character - Lopakhin, who is exactly the same as her. He also loves poetry, he has delicate and thin fingers, like an artist, a sensitive and vulnerable soul. In Ranevskaya, he strongly feels his soul mate. However, the vulgarity of life began to attack him from all sides, and he acquires some features of a boorish merchant who focuses on his democratic origins and even flaunts lack of culture, which was then a prestigious norm in "advanced circles". But he, too, is waiting for Ranevskaya, so that he can somehow cleanse himself around her and try again to renew his artistic and poetic passions and passions. To thoroughly deal with the question of whether "The Cherry Orchard" is a drama or a comedy, you need to go for a deeper analysis of the work.
Patronage
So, this vision of the capitalists in Chekhov was really based on real facts. Then, many people who became rich by the end of the century showed great interest, care and love for culture. This can be seen in the example of such large capitalist patrons as Mamontov, Zimin, Morozov, who supported entire theaters. Or take the Tretyakov brothers, who founded the famous art gallery in the capital, or the merchant's son Alekseev, who is best known to all of us under the pseudonym Stanislavsky. By the way, he brought not only a huge creative potential to the theater, but all his father's wealth, which was also considerable.
But if we talk about Lopakhin, he is a capitalist of a different order, and that is why he did not succeed in relations with Varya. After all, they are not at all a couple, she is a subtle poetic soul, he is already a rich merchant, a down-to-earth and ordinary nature. For him, Varya, Ranevskaya's adopted daughter, became, alas, the prose of life.
Chekhov
Taking a deeper look at the topic “The problem of genre. "The Cherry Orchard": Drama or Comedy ", it is worth noting that Anton Pavlovich reflected in it many of his life impressions and visions. This is the sale of his native estate in Taganrog, and the acquaintance with Kiselev, who became the prototype of the hero Gaev, in his Babkino estate the Chekhov family rested in the summer for two years in a row, from 1885 to 1887, it was sold for debts.
When Chekhov was visiting the Lintvarevs' estate in Kharkov province, he saw there many neglected and ruined noble estates, this prompted him to the plot of the play. It was in it that he wanted to display some details of the life of the former inhabitants of the old noble lands.
"The Cherry Orchard". Reviews
The work on the work "The Cherry Orchard" was very difficult, the ailing Chekhov wrote to his friends that he was working with unbearable torment and wrote four lines a day. He will also write to MP Alekseeva about the play "The Cherry Orchard" that he did not come out with a drama, but a comedy, and even a farce in places. OL Knipper will note that the play is quite funny and frivolous. But KS Stanislavsky referred it to the drama of Russian life, and he will write: "This is not a comedy, this is a tragedy ... I cried like a woman."
And now, returning to the question of whether "The Cherry Orchard" is a drama, a comedy or a tragedy, I must say that at the premiere of the play on his birthday, January 17, 1904, it seemed to Chekhov that the theater was presenting it in the wrong tone, that this is not a tearful drama, but the role of Lopukhin and Varya in general should be comic. But Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko, evaluating the play very highly, nevertheless perceived it more as a drama. There were critics who considered it a tragicomedy. But A.I. Revyakin writes in his review that if the play is recognized as a drama, then the experiences of all the owners of the Ranevsky and Gayevs must be recognized as truly dramatic, evoking compassion and deep sympathy for those people who looked not into the past, but into the future. But this is not and cannot be. Therefore, the play cannot be taken as a tragicomedy, because for this it lacks either tragicomic situations or heroes.
Controversy
Disputes about the genre - "The Cherry Orchard" - a drama or a comedy, still do not stop. Moreover, the range has also expanded to a circle or tragicomedy. Therefore, it is already practically impossible to answer unequivocally the question that Chekhov unwittingly created: "The Cherry Orchard" - a drama or a comedy? "
And once again, referring to the letters written by the great classic of Russian literature and playwright A.P. Chekhov, we will find lines that describe his true attitude to life, which indicates that after summer, winter will surely come, after young age will come, happiness and unhappiness will also periodically replace each other, and a person cannot always be healthy and cheerful, because failures, losses will always lie in wait for him, and he will never be able to protect himself from death, even if he is by the Macedonian himself. In life, no matter how sad and sad it may look, you need to be ready for everything and treat the events that are taking place as inevitability and necessary. "You just have to do your duty to the best of your ability - and nothing else." In The Cherry Orchard, all these thoughts are in tune with the feelings that it evokes.
Conclusion
Chekhov claims that fiction has such a name due to the fact that it describes life as it is. And it has its own purpose - to carry the truth, unconditional and honest. This is how you can end the discussion of the question of whether "The Cherry Orchard" is a tragedy, drama or comedy. Everyone can write their own essay on this topic, because it is quite extensive and requires consideration of various points of view.
