Characteristics of the hero Ranevskaya, The Cherry Orchard, Chekhov. The image of the character Ranevskaya. The image of Ranevskaya in A. P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” The images of Ranevskaya and Gaev in the play by A. P.

The fact that Alekhine and Anna Alekseevna fell in love with each other is not surprising. Two educated, kind people, equally dissatisfied with their current lives, could not help but see each other as a close person. But neither Alekhine nor Anna Alekseevna had the courage to abandon their usual way of life, to change something in themselves. Alekhine, a city man, accustomed to communicating with educated people, to mental work, lives in the village, is engaged in agriculture, works in the field with the peasants, he does not even have time to read newspapers. At first he is forced to take care of the estate in order to pay off his father’s debts, but then such a life becomes familiar to him and Alekhine does not want to change it. Therefore, he refuses Anna Alekseevna’s love, and at the same time justifies this refusal with his routine life: “She would follow me, but where? Where could I take her? It would be a different matter if I had a beautiful, interesting life, if, for example, I fought for the liberation of my homeland or was a famous scientist, artist, painter, otherwise I would have to carry her away from one ordinary everyday environment into another similar or even more more everyday." But Alekhine makes no attempts to change his “case life”. Anna Alekseevna is unhappy in her own way: an unloved, spiritually undeveloped husband, a gray everyday life that leaves no impressions, a fading beauty that is not recognized by anyone. In the person of Alekhine, she finds a spiritually close being who understands her, but she cannot confess her love to him, much less be with him: the “case” also does not let her in. Alekhine speaks about the insignificance of man before the conventions of society at the beginning of the story, when he conveys the love story of the cook Nikanor and Pelageya. Pelageya loves Nikanor, but does not want to marry him because he is a drunkard and has a “violent temperament,” she prefers to “live like that.” But Nikanor, citing “piety” and “religious beliefs,” wants to marry Pelageya. In fact, he is afraid to go against the foundations of society and his “piety” is a fear not of God, but of human judgment. A person is driven into a “case” by society. And Chekhov demonstrates this especially well through the example of Alekhine, who seemingly wants to change his monotonous life, to break out of the “case,” but at the same time does not dare to part with the peace and comfort of his established life. Anna Alekseevna also prefers a “case” existence and does not dare to change. She wants love, but the gray, familiar life with her husband and children is closer and clearer to her than the new one, in which, most likely, she will be rejected by a society that does not forgive any attempts to destroy the existing order. Anna Alekseevna is angry because of indecision both at herself and at Alekhine. She becomes irritable and is finally forced to undergo treatment for a nervous illness. Only the upcoming separation forces Anna Alekseevna and Alekhine to confess their love to each other, but they do this, realizing that their confessions will no longer be able to change anything. After Anna Alekseevna's departure, Alekhine continues to live as before, and he can only regret the failed happiness. Chekhov's heroes often evoke dual feelings in readers: indignation and pity. This reveals the writer’s ability to portray a person in all his manifestations. Alekhina and Anna Alekseevna cannot be clearly defined as positive or negative heroes. The complexity of characters is characteristic of almost all Chekhov's characters.

So many research works have been written about this play that it is strange that one still hears the words that “The Cherry Orchard” is not a comedy, there is nothing comedic or funny in it. But any sensible director who has an understanding of the theory of conflict can prove that this is a comedy, and a lyrical comedy. And there is no need to mislead anyone regarding the “controversial genre nature” of this play. It is possible that since so much has already been written and said about this play, one of the directors has already used it, proved and implemented everything. Well... then I will repeat myself.

"The Cherry Orchard" is one of my favorite plays. Since childhood. Chekhov is one of the most revered authors. I say this for those who dare to reproach me for disrespecting the author or perverting the author’s idea of ​​this play. I'm not going to do anything like that. The idea of ​​this work has been quite clearly described by many eminent people. But until recently, I personally didn’t know much about the intrigue on which this comedy is based.

Intrigue is the main key of the play. Chekhov uses an old comedic technique, known since the time of Gozzi-Goldoni: the love relationships of masters are duplicated by the love relationships of servants. But in the play “The Cherry Orchard” these are not just love duets, but love triangles!

You don’t even need to look for the love triangle of Yash-Dunyash-Epikhodov: it is visible from the first pages of the play. Dunyasha immediately tells Lopakhin that the clerk Epikhodov proposed to her. Then he shares this with Anya. But neither Lopakhin nor Anya take this seriously: they say, “you’re all about one thing.” And the average reader does not take this seriously either. But this is the author's hint! This is a hint that there should be a love-lyrical relationship in the play. This means that we need to look for them in the relationships between other heroes.
So, in this humble love triangle of servants, we see the classic pattern: successful lover-she-unlucky lover. Perhaps this “small” triangle is a parallel to the “big” one. Where is he? Let's try to find...

The main character of the play is Ranevskaya. This means that the main love affair needs to be looked for around her. Besides, her name is not Masha, not Olya or Ira. Her name is Lyubov Andreevna. Just think, Love itself! In addition, all the replicas of this heroine are marked not “Ranevskaya”, but “Lyubov Andreevna”. Therefore, the name matters.

The article by Alexander Minkin http://mk.ru/numbers/1947/article66159.htm (hereinafter thanks to Sergei Raisky for the links) says that the main character of the play, Lopakhin, has been in love with Ranevskaya since his youth. And there is even a hint of the possibility of a closer relationship between them. I was assured that Minkin was not the first to discern Lopakhin’s love for Ranevskaya in the play.
For some, this is news to me. And the news is important, because I never thought about Lopakhin’s love for Ranevskaya.
But I drew attention to the possibility of another character’s love for Ranevskaya, namely Petya Trofimov. Remember how Trofimov rushes to meet Ranevskaya, passionately kisses her hand, and how he admits that he did not have the patience to wait until the morning, although Varya ordered. Moreover, Chekhov emphasizes this meeting.

Trofimov: Lyubov Andreevna! She looked back at him.

The author clearly describes the moment of assessment. The actors have to play it. This means it is necessary.
But Trofimov knows that Ranevskaya does not love him and he has nothing to hope for. Therefore, he strives to be close, but does not want to embarrass her: he came, but lives in a bathhouse; I just met and said: “I’ll just bow and then leave.”

From this point of view, the dialogue between Ranevskaya and Trofimov in the third act is read completely differently: she flirts with him, he loves her and hopes. When she realizes that she has played too much, she fights back. He's offended. Note that it was not he who offended her with his careless statements, but she who offended him, and not only offended him, but sealed him so hard that he shouted: “It’s all over between us!” A person who is not in love or in love with someone else is unlikely to say such things, even when succumbing to emotions.

Then, we must pay attention that all the characters in the play address Trofimov by name, and an incomplete name, and call him childishly “Petya.” And Chekhov signs Petya’s remarks “Trofimov.” This means that this character is equal in importance to Lopakhin.

So we discovered the second, main love triangle Lopakhin-Ranevskaya-Trofimov.
If Lopakhin and Trofimov are rivals, then it immediately becomes clear why in the presence of Ranevskaya they behave like “two roosters.” They are not just having an ideological dispute, they are fighting for a woman! Hence all these insults towards each other, teasing and bullying.

In addition, Chekhov gives this love triangle the possibility of a happy resolution. He introduces two more heroines – Ranevskaya’s daughters. Varya, the eldest, may go to Lopakhin, and the youngest Anya to Trofimov. Due to the fact that the text of the play says a lot about the relationship between Varya and Lopakhin, as well as Trofimov and Anya, the reader does not immediately see that the attention of men is actually focused on Ranevskaya and does not notice this intrigue.

We have another couple: Charlotte Ivanovna and Simeonov-Pishchik. Pishchik is constantly surprised by Charlotte's antics, and all the other characters are constantly waiting for her tricks, applauding, and rejoicing.
There is an opinion that Anya, Ranevskaya and Charlotte are the same person, only at different times in their lives. Now I don’t remember where I got this information in my head, perhaps something was left over from the theater studies course taught to us by the wonderful teacher Irina Yakovlevna Dorofeeva.

But there is evidence in the play. Anya is very similar to her mother, everyone tells her about it. She is literally Ranevskaya in her youth. And Charlotte is a foreigner in a foreign land, living at the expense of others. This is the fate that awaits Ranevskaya after she leaves for Paris, after she squanders the fifteen thousand she received from her Yaroslavl grandmother. Therefore, if there is a connection between these images, we must monitor the attitude of the heroes of the play not only to the main character herself, but also to her “young” and “old” images. It can be assumed that Pishchik’s reactions to Charlotte are a parody of the attitude of men towards Ranevskaya.

Then, it should be noted that each of the heroes has his own idea of ​​the cherry orchard. For Lopakhin, this is “the estate where his father and grandfather were slaves,” for Ranevskaya, this is “life and youth,” for Trofimov, “all of Russia.”
Lopakhin is a merchant, originally from peasant background. Trofimov is a home-grown poor intellectual. And the main character Ranevskaya, a woman named Lyubov, is the personified cherry orchard, the very subject of the dispute.

This is the main intrigue: who will get Ranevskaya and her cherry orchard, her life, her youth?

The climax is the purchase of a cherry orchard by Lopakhin. Now let's see how the relationships of the heroes change after this event: the physical victory goes to Lopakhin. He bought a cherry orchard, and what’s more, he threw money at Ranevskaya, adding an extra debt of 90 thousand, which means Ranevskaya can receive a large sum after paying off the debt. More details about this are written in the article by Alexander Minkin http://mk.ru/numbers/1946/article66094.htm
In fact, Lopakhin “bought” Ranevskaya. And he is the winner. Trofimov is a loser. But…

At the end of the play, Petya Trofimov, saying goodbye to Lopakhin, leaves with Anya. He lost to Ranevskaya. But with him is Anya, whom Trofimov convinced to give up her former life, her former “cherry orchard”!
Ranevskaya will not take money from Lopakhin: she is a noble woman, a noblewoman, and she cannot “sell herself” to a man. She is Love itself! And Love is not for sale. The man “cut it down at the roots,” but didn’t buy it. Anya – youth and beauty. She leaves with Trofimov. Will she take the money? Hardly. Youth and beauty are not for sale.
Who does Lopakhin end up with? What did he “buy” then? And he won’t marry Vara...
Charlotte (takes a bundle that looks like a rolled up child): My baby, bye, bye... A child is heard crying: “Wa, wa!...” Shut up, my good, my dear boy. “Waah!.. waa!..” I feel so sorry for you! (Throws the knot into place.) So please find me a place. I can't do this. Lopakhin: We’ll find it, Charlotte Ivanovna, don’t worry.

Like this: I “bought” Ranevskaya, and “bought” Charlotte, who still needs to be placed somewhere. It is not without reason that Chekhov writes this episode with a child: we remember that Ranevskaya had a son who drowned and for whom she laments throughout the play. And Charlotte is a parody of Ranevskaya, her “old age”.

Those who claim that the play has a tragic ending and call it a tragicomedy have something to object to.
The main conflict of the play is the struggle for the cherry orchard, the struggle for the woman, Ranevskaya, who personifies this orchard. She is the main character. Tragedy is a genre where the main conflict is insoluble, and the main character must inevitably die. The cherry orchard perishes under the blows of an ax. But the main character does not die. She is dooming herself to death. Lopakhin gave money to Ranevskaya. This means that if she takes them and buys herself a new, small estate, she will be able to live quite tolerably. The heroine has a way out of the situation. Let it be not this “cherry orchard”, not this estate, but some other, another “cherry orchard” - she can buy it. But Ranevskaya prefers wandering in a foreign land.
However, we see: there is a way out. And for the main character it is not connected with death, inevitable death. This means there is no tragic ending here. The nature of the conflict is dramatic, not tragic. And in drama and comedy, we will resolve the conflict.

The death of Firs in the finale only emphasizes that Lopakhin, who bought the cherry orchard, did not win, but lost. Firs has served the gentlemen living on this estate all his life; he is also a symbol of the cherry orchard, an old orchard doomed to be cut down, and therefore no longer needed by anyone. Restless Charlotte and dead Firs - that's what Lopakhin bought. Firs' death is not tragic, but comic: they were so worried about the elderly grandfather, so anxious to send him to the hospital, that they completely forgot about him. And he just died. The unnecessary Firs is forgotten as an unnecessary cherry orchard.

Comedy is a light genre. Comedy is almost always based on a love affair. The love affair is obvious. So what if the heroes talk about the eternal, about the fate of Russia and rush about in their “tragic loneliness”? The structure of the play is comedic. We will resolve the main conflict. "The Cherry Orchard" is a comedy.
Moreover, if the director ignores the described structure and does not see the love affair between Lopakhin-Ranevskaya-Trofimov, then the entire comedic basis falls apart. The play turns into a drama - into anything but a comedy.

If a person who has read this analysis wants to say that all this has been known for a long time and is far from “know-how,” I will ask you to indicate the sources: articles, books, name the authors. I would be happy to get acquainted with this material.
In addition, if anyone has seen productions of “The Cherry Orchard” in which the intrigue I described is present, please let me know, please be so kind. It will be extremely interesting to see.

My attitude towards Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya

Only those works remain to live for centuries and become a universal property in which the writer most accurately and deeply recreated his time and revealed the spiritual world of the people of his generation, his people. In my opinion, A.P.’s play also belongs to such works. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard", created by the author back in 1904, it still enjoys considerable popularity today.

One of the most striking images of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is the image of Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. We meet her already at the beginning of the play: everyone is waiting for her arrival from Paris. But the reason for her return is completely sad: her home with a beautiful cherry orchard is about to be sold for debts. For Lyubov Andreevna, the cherry orchard is a symbol of childhood, a symbol of happiness, a symbol of the homeland. This is, after all, her way of life. Everything dear and dear to her was connected with the house and the cherry orchard. And suddenly all this should disappear. “My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye,” the heroine says excitedly. And in human terms it can be understood. Even regret it, because her fate is bitter and hopeless. Lyubov Andreevna suffers, because, losing the cherry orchard, she loses the country of her childhood, maternal affection, beauty, poetry. But my attitude towards the heroine is ambiguous. Yes, she is a kind, sincere, sympathetic, delicate woman. Everyone loves and appreciates her. But at the same time, she is very frivolous: she throws money away, keeps a parasite and lackeys, fell in love with evil and a carefree man who only needs money from her. Tender, caring, selfless in love, she is ready to do anything for her beloved. Wonderful impulses! But why doesn’t she take care of her children - Anya and Varvara, whose lives are completely unsettled. I understand her and sympathize with the death of her son Grisha. Trying to forget this terrible tragedy, she goes to Paris. But at what cost? She spends the money that Anya’s grandmother, Lyubov Andreevna’s former mother-in-law, gave her not on her daughter, not on family needs, but on her lover, who robbed her and abandoned her. Or is this a reasonable decision for a woman who has children and is responsible for their future?

And when she loses the cherry orchard, does she understand that this is also her fault: after all, she is responsible for everything that happened around her. On the one hand, I perceive Lyubov Andreevna as a bearer of wonderful traditions, high spiritual culture, and on the other hand, it is quite obvious that the death of the cherry orchard is on her conscience, because thanks to her wastefulness, inaction, and ambition, she is losing her family nest.

Could his fate have turned out differently?

I think I could. If only she weren't so frivolous, weak-willed, irresponsible. Then she would not have gotten confused in her personal life, and perhaps the family estate would have been preserved. But then, of course, it would not be that Chekhov heroine Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, in whom good and evil, sensitivity and indifference, sacrifice and selfishness coexist.

Chekhov's mature plays, built on concrete everyday material, at the same time have a generalizing, symbolic meaning. The meaning of “The Cherry Orchard” (1903) is also not at all limited to the story of how the old owners of the estate, the nobles, were replaced...

Chekhov, who came to literature in the 80s of the 19th century, keenly felt the doom of previous forms of life and the inevitability of the emergence of new ones. This caused both hope and anxiety. Such sentiments are reflected in the playwright’s last play, “The Cherry Orchard.”

1. One French...

   New!

A.P. Chekhov wrote his last play, “The Cherry Orchard,” shortly before his death, in 1904. In this work, A.P. Chekhov tried to express his attitude towards the upcoming changes. It is difficult to find a person who does not know A. P. Chekhov’s play “Cherry...

Reading the 4th act of Chekhov's play "V.S.", you understand that the author wanted to show the noble nest represented by Ranevskaya and Gaev, the present represented by Lopakhin and the uncertain future represented by young people Petya and Anya. Before us...

A.P. Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is one of his best works. The action of the play takes place on the estate of the landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, on an estate with a cherry orchard, surrounded by poplars, with a long alley that “goes straight, straight, as if stretched out...

“The Cherry Orchard”... It is impossible to find a person who does not know this play by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. There is something surprisingly touching in the very sound of these words - “cherry orchard”. This is the writer’s swan song, the last “forgive” to a world that could...

Having started work on the play in March 1903, Chekhov sent it to the Art Theater in October, on whose stage the first performance of “The Cherry Orchard” took place on January 17, 1904. The premiere of the play coincided with the writer’s stay in Moscow, his name day and birthday, and the theater actors staged a solemn celebration of their favorite playwright.

Let's consider one of the main images of the play - the image of Ranevskaya.

The action of the play, as the author reports in the very first remark, takes place on the estate of the landowner Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya. This is a real “noble nest”, with a cherry orchard surrounded by poplars, with a long alley that “goes straight, like a stretched belt” and “glitters on moonlit nights.”

The cherry orchard is a symbolic image in the play. It brings together very different characters, each of whom has their own idea of ​​him. But the cherry garden will separate all the characters at the end of the play.

The Cherry Orchard as a wonderful home for Ranevskaya exists only in her wonderful past. The memory of childhood and youth is associated with it.

Ranevskaya appears in her house, where she has not been for five years. And this is her last, farewell visit to her homeland. The heroine comes from abroad, from a man who robbed her, but whom she still loves very much. At home, Ranevskaya thought to find peace. Nature itself in the play seems to remind her of the need for spiritual renewal, of beauty, of the happiness of human life.

Ranevskaya, devastated by love, returns to her estate in the spring. In the cherry orchard there are “white masses of flowers”, starlings are singing, the blue sky is shining above the garden. Nature is preparing for renewal - and hopes for a new, clean, bright life awaken in Ranevskaya’s soul: “All, all white! O my garden! After a dark, unhappy autumn and a cold winter, you are young again, full of happiness, the angels of heaven have not abandoned you. If only I could take the heavy stone off my chest and shoulders, if only I could forget my past!”

But the past does not allow itself to be forgotten, since Ranevskaya herself lives with a sense of the past. She is the creation of a noble culture, which before our eyes disappears from the present, remaining only in memories. In its place is a new class, new people - the emerging bourgeois, businessmen, ready to do anything for money. Both Ranevskaya and the garden are defenseless against the threat of death and ruin. When Lopakhin offers her the only real way to save the house, Ranevskaya replies: “Dachas and summer residents - it’s so vulgar, I’m sorry.”

It turns out that, on the one hand, Ranevskaya does not want to cut down the garden, since it is a symbol of her happy youth, her aspirations and hopes. Yes, besides, the garden in the spring is simply magnificent in its bloom - it would be a pity to cut down such beauty because of some dachas. But, on the other hand, the author shows us Ranevskaya’s indifference both to the fate of the cherry orchard and to the fate of loved ones. All her spiritual strength and energy were absorbed by love passion, which gradually enslaved the will of this woman and drowned out her natural responsiveness to the joys and troubles of the people around her.

Emphasizing Ranevskaya's feeling of indifference, Chekhov shows us the heroine's attitude towards telegrams from Paris. This attitude is directly dependent on the degree of threat hanging over the garden. In the first act, while they are only talking about the possibility of a sale, Ranevskaya “tears up the telegram without reading it.” In the second act, the buyer is already known - Ranevskaya reads and tears up the telegram. In the third act, an auction took place - she admits that she decided to go to Paris to the man who robbed her and abandoned her. In Paris, Ranevskaya is going to live on the money that her grandmother sent to buy the estate.

The heroine completely forgot all the insults caused to her by her former lover. In Russia, she leaves everyone to their fate. Varya, Ranevskaya's adopted daughter, is forced to become a housekeeper for the Ragulins. Lyubov Andreevna does not care at all about her fate, although she made an attempt to marry Varya to Lopakhin. But this attempt was unsuccessful.

Ranevskaya is impractical, selfish, careless. She forgets about Firs, the servant who worked for them all his life. She does not suit the life of her daughters - neither Anya nor Varya, forgetting about them in the heat of her passion. It is unknown on what whim Ranevskaya is throwing a ball while auctions are going on in the city, although she herself understands the inappropriateness of what is happening: “And the musicians came at the wrong time, and we started the ball at the wrong time... Well, nothing... (Sits down and quietly cries) "

But, at the same time, the heroine is kind, responsive, and her sense of beauty does not fade. She is ready to help everyone, ready to give her last money. So, Ranevskaya gives the last gold piece to the drunkard. But this also shows its impracticality. She knows that at home Varya feeds everyone with milk soup and the servants with peas. But this is the nature of this heroine.

The image of Ranevskaya is very contradictory; it is impossible to say whether she is good or bad. In the play, this image is not assessed unambiguously, since it is a living, complex and contradictory character.