Old and new owners of the cherry orchard (Based on the play by A.P. Chekhov “The Cherry Orchard”). Old and new owners of the cherry orchard Old and new owners of the cherry orchard

The main themes of the play “The Cherry Orchard,” written in 1904, are: the death of a noble nest, the victory of an enterprising merchant-industrialist over the obsolete Ranevskaya and Gaev, and the theme of the future of Russia associated with the images of Petya Trofimov and Anya.

The farewell of the new, young Russia to the past, to the obsolete, aspiration to the tomorrow of Russia - this is the content of “The Cherry Orchard”.

Russia of the past, becoming obsolete in the play, is represented by the images of Ranevskaya and Gaev. The cherry orchard is dear to both heroes, dear as a memory of childhood, youth, prosperity, an easy and graceful life. They are crying about the loss of the garden, but it was they who ruined it, putting it under the ax. At the same time, they remained true to the beauty of the cherry orchard, and that is why they are so insignificant and funny.

Ranevskaya was a former rich noblewoman who had a dacha even in the south of France in Menton, the owner of an estate, “more beautiful than which there is nothing in the world.” But with her lack of understanding of life, her inability to adapt to it, her lack of will and frivolity, the owner brought the estate to complete ruin, to the point that the estate was to be sold at auction!

Lopakhin, an enterprising merchant-industrialist, offers the estate owners a way to save the estate. He says that all you need to do is set up a cherry orchard for dachas. But although Ranevskaya sheds streams of tears over the loss of her garden, although she cannot live without it, she still refuses Lopakhin’s offer to save the estate. Selling or renting out garden plots seems unacceptable and offensive to her. But the auction takes place, and Lopakhin himself buys the estate.

And when “trouble” struck, it turned out that there was no drama for the owner of the cherry orchard. Ranevskaya returns to Paris to her absurd “love”, to which she would have returned anyway, despite all her words that she cannot live without her homeland. The drama with the sale of the cherry orchard is not a drama at all for its owner. This happened only because Ranevskaya did not have any serious experiences at all. She can easily move from a state of preoccupation and anxiety to cheerful animation. That's what happened this time too. She quickly calmed down and even told everyone: “My nerves are better, it’s true.”

And what is her brother like, Leonid Andreevich Gaev? He is much smaller than his sister. He is able to say simple, sincere words, realizing with shame his own vulgarity and stupidity. But Gaev's shortcomings reach caricature proportions. Remembering the past, Ranevskaya kisses her favorite closet. Gaev makes a speech in front of him. Gaev is a pathetic aristocrat who spent his fortune on candy.

The failure of the noble liberal intelligentsia in the past determined the dominance in the present of people like Lopakhin. But in fact, Chekhov connects future prosperity with the younger generation (Petya Trofimov and Anya), it is they who will build a new Russia, plant new cherry orchards.

The play “The Cherry Orchard” is Chekhov’s last work. In the eighties, Chekhov conveyed the tragic situation of people who had lost the meaning of their lives. The play was staged at the Art Theater in 1904. The twentieth century comes, and Russia finally becomes a capitalist country, a country of factories, factories and railways. This process accelerated with the liberation of the peasantry by Alexander II. The features of the new relate not only to the economy, but also to society, people’s ideas and views are changing, and the previous system of values ​​is being lost.

The connection of times has broken down...

W. Shakespeare

In one of the books dedicated to the work of A.P. Chekhov, I read that the image of Hamlet helped him understand a lot about the appearance of his contemporaries. Literary scholars have paid a lot of attention to this issue, but I will note what struck me in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” this “swan song” of the great playwright: like the Prince of Denmark, Chekhov’s characters feel lost in the world, bitter loneliness. In my opinion, this applies to all the characters in the play, but above all to Ranevskaya and Gaev, the former owners of the cherry orchard, who turned out to be “superfluous” people both in their own home and in life. What is the reason for this? It seems to me that every hero of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is looking for support in life. For Gaev and Ranevskaya, it is the past, which cannot be a support. Lyubov Andreevna will never understand her daughter, but Anya will never truly understand her mother’s drama. Lopakhin, who passionately loves Lyubov Andreevna, will never be able to understand her disdainful attitude towards the “practical side of life,” but Ranevskaya does not want to let him into the world of her feelings: “My dear, forgive me, you don’t understand anything.” All this brings a special drama to the play. “An old woman, nothing in the present, everything in the past,” is how Chekhov characterized Ranevskaya in his letter to Stanislavsky.

What's in the past? Youth, family life, a blooming cherry orchard - it was all over. The husband died, the estate fell into disrepair, and a new tormenting passion arose. And then the irreparable happened: son Grisha died. For Ranevskaya, the feeling of loss was combined with a feeling of guilt. She runs away from home, from memories, that is, she tries to abandon the past. However, there was no new happiness. And Ranevskaya takes a new step. She returns home, tears up a telegram from her lover: it’s over with Paris! However, this is just another return to the past: to your pain, to your melancholy, to your cherry orchard. But at home, where five “Parisian years” were faithfully waiting for her, she is a stranger. Everyone condemns her for something: for frivolity, for loving a scoundrel, for giving a coin to a beggar.

In the list of characters, Ranevskaya is designated by one word: “landowner.” But this landowner never knew how to manage her estate and could not save her beloved cherry orchard from destruction. The role of the landowner is “played out.”

But Ranevskaya is also a mother. However, this role is also in the past: Anya leaves for a new life, where there is no place for Lyubov Andreevna, even gray Varya managed to settle down in her own way.

By returning to stay forever, Ranevskaya is only completing her past life. All her hopes that she would be happy at home (“God knows, I love my homeland, I love dearly, I couldn’t watch from the carriage, I kept crying”), that she would be lifted “from my shoulders... a heavy stone,” are in vain. The return did not take place: in Russia she is superfluous. Neither the generation of modern “business people”, nor the romantic youth, all looking to the future, can understand it. Returning to Paris is, albeit imaginary, but still salvation, although it is a return to yet another past. And in Ranevskaya’s favorite cherry orchard the ax is knocking!

Gaev is another character who can be classified as “extra people”. Leonid Andreevich, an elderly man who has already lived most of his life, looks like an old boy. But all people dream of preserving their young soul! Why is Gaev sometimes annoying? The fact is that he is simply infantile. It was not his youth with its romance and rebellion that he retained, but his helplessness and superficiality.

The sound of billiard balls, like a favorite toy, can instantly heal his soul (“With a doublet... of yellow in the middle...”).

Who is the real master of life in this world?

Unlike the previous owners of the cherry orchard, whose feelings are directed to the past, Lopakhin is entirely in the present. “Boor,” Gaev unambiguously characterizes him. According to Petya, Lopakhin has a “subtle and gentle soul,” and “fingers like an artist.” Interestingly, both are right. And in this correctness lies the paradox of Lopakhin’s image.

“A man is a man,” despite all the wealth that he earned through sweat and blood, Lopakhin works continuously and is in constant business fever. The past (“My dad was a man..., he didn’t teach me, he only beat me when he was drunk...”) echoes in him with stupid words, inappropriate jokes, falling asleep over a book.

But Lopakhin is sincere and kind. He takes care of the Gaevs, offering them a project to save them from ruin.

But it is precisely here that a dramatic conflict ensues, which lies not in class antagonism, but in a culture of feelings. When uttering the words “demolish”, “cut down”, “clean”, Lopakhin cannot even imagine the emotional shock he plunges his former benefactors into.

The more actively Lopakhin acts, the deeper the gap becomes between him and Ranevskaya, for whom selling the garden means death: “If you really need to sell, then sell me and the garden.” And in Lopakhin there is a growing feeling of some kind of deprivation, incomprehension.

Let us remember how clearly the former and new masters of life appear in the third act of the play. Lopakhin and Gaev left for the city for the auction. And there's fun in the house! A small orchestra plays, but there is nothing to pay the musicians. The fate of the heroes is decided, and Charlotte shows tricks. But then Lopakhin appears, and under the bitter cry of Ranevskaya, his words are heard: “I bought it!.. Let everything be as I wish!.. I can pay for everything!...”. The “master of life” instantly turns into a boor who boasts of his wealth.

Lopakhin did everything to save the owners of the cherry orchard, but he did not have enough basic emotional tact to preserve their dignity: after all, he was in such a hurry to clear the “past” from the site for the “present.”

But Lopakhin’s triumph is short-lived, and now something else is heard in his monologue: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.”

So the life of the cherry orchard ended to the “sound of a broken string, fading and sad,” and the immortality of the “sad comedy” of the great Russian playwright began, exciting the hearts of readers and spectators for a hundred years.

Among the galaxy of great European playwrights
Chekhov shines like a star of the first magnitude.
Contemporary

Play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" is dedicated to the life of Russia at the turn of two centuries. The comedy poses several problems, but the main one, perhaps, is the theme of the destruction of the noble way of life. The collapse of the nobility "nest" illustrated by the fate of the garden and its owners.

Chekhov does not introduce a single categorical villain into the narrative, but he does not single out heroes with a completely pure heart, or angels. Anton Pavlovich

“I didn’t bring out a single villain, not a single angel (although I couldn’t refrain from making jokes), I didn’t accuse anyone, I didn’t justify anyone.”

His work is a vivid example of where one can meet "good bad" People. That is, people who combine contradictory, and moreover, mutually exclusive character traits.

For example, a representative of the nobility, Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who is one of the old owners of the cherry orchard, like all the other heroes of the play, is an extremely contradictory person. She rushes between an angel and a demon and cannot choose something specific, so she remains somewhere in the middle. Lyubov Andreevna is impractical, selfish, petty and gone in her love interest, but she is also kind, sympathetic, and her sense of beauty does not fade.

One has only to remember with what delight she meets with her native people and places, how she gives the last gold to a beggar asking for alms, as it seems. That Lyubov Andreevna is infinitely sweet, kind, gentle and romantic. But what do we see next? She, who sold the latter, by this act seems to be leading her own servants (and herself) to the point that they do not have enough to eat, that is, they go hungry.

Behind this lies a certain carelessness, which is especially striking when she does not take any steps towards salvation, although the estate will soon be sold. As before "litter" money, even in the bidding process, when her fate and the fate of her family and servants are decided, she organizes a magnificent ball.

The image of Ranevskaya combines opposing character traits: on the one hand, kindness, responsiveness, and romance, and on the other, selfishness, carelessness, and weak-willedness. Trying to save her garden, she refuses Lopakhin’s offer to cut down the trees and set up a summer cottage, she at the same time ruins the lives of her daughters: Anya, Varya, because the latter is forced to become a governess. Without meaning to, she ruins their fate.

The same arrogance is shown by Leonid Andreevich Gaev, who talks rudely and dismissively to people "below" myself. He is very similar to his sister, although he lacks her attractive qualities. They are both used to living off the labor of others. Gaev loves beautiful phrases; he addresses nature and an old wardrobe with sublime speeches. But his words are devoid of sincerity and meaning. This is both funny and tragic: when he says these meaningless words, he does not realize that he is helpless, that he cannot save the situation.

The nobles in the play have no future; from the very beginning we understand that the collapse of their “empire” is assured. The sale of the cherry orchard and its transfer into the hands of Lopakhin is a logical result of the empty and worthless life of Ranevskaya and Gaev. Chekhov, in letters related to the production of the play, characterized the image of the new owner of the garden as follows:

“Lopakhin’s role is central... after all, he is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word... he is a gentle man... a decent person in every sense, he must behave quite decently, intelligently, not petty, without tricks.”

But, in my opinion, he is not so ideal; I believe that by nature Lopakhin is a predator. Petya Trofimov explains its purpose to Lopakhin:

“Just as in terms of metabolism you need a predatory beast that eats everything that comes in its way, so you are needed.”

And this gentle, decent, intelligent man "eats" The Cherry Orchard…

In the play “The Cherry Orchard” there is no clear division into good and bad, there is no such thing that a person is always funny. No: everything alternates here. The characters of the heroes change from one to another, the author shows that they all in some way combine tragic and comic features. We "laugh through tears" and this is always the case when we read Chekhov’s works.

The connection of times has broken down...
W. Shakespeare

In one of the books dedicated to the work of A.P. Chekhov, I read that the image of Hamlet helped him understand a lot about the appearance of his contemporaries. Literary scholars have paid a lot of attention to this issue, but I will note what struck me in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” this “swan song” of the great playwright: like the Prince of Denmark, Chekhov’s characters feel lost in the world, bitter loneliness. In my opinion, this applies to all the characters in the play, but above all to Ranevskaya and Gaev, the former owners of the cherry orchard, who turned out to be “superfluous” people both in their own home and in life. What is the reason for this? It seems to me that every hero of the play “The Cherry Orchard” is looking for support in life. For Gaev and Ranevskaya, it is the past, which cannot be a support. Lyubov Andreevna will never understand her daughter, but Anya will never truly understand her mother’s drama. Lopakhin, who passionately loves Lyubov Andreevna, will never be able to understand her disdainful attitude towards the “practical side of life,” but Ranevskaya does not want to let him into the world of her feelings: “My dear, forgive me, you don’t understand anything.” All this brings a special drama to the play. “An old woman, nothing in the present, everything in the past,” is how Chekhov characterized Ranevskaya in his letter to Stanislavsky.
What's in the past? Youth, family life, a blooming cherry orchard - it was all over. The husband died, the estate fell into disrepair, and a new tormenting passion arose. And then the irreparable happened: son Grisha died. For Ranevskaya, the feeling of loss was combined with a feeling of guilt. She runs away from home, from memories, that is, she tries to abandon the past. However, there was no new happiness. And Ranevskaya takes a new step. She returns home, tears up a telegram from her lover: it’s over with Paris! However, this is just another return to the past: to your pain, to your melancholy, to your cherry orchard. But at home, where five “Parisian years” were faithfully waiting for her, she is a stranger. Everyone condemns her for something: for frivolity, for loving a scoundrel, for giving a coin to a beggar.
In the list of characters, Ranevskaya is designated by one word: “landowner.” But this landowner never knew how to manage her estate and could not save her beloved cherry orchard from destruction. The role of the landowner is “played out.”
But Ranevskaya is also a mother. However, this role is also in the past: Anya leaves for a new life, where there is no place for Lyubov Andreevna, even gray Varya managed to settle down in her own way.
By returning to stay forever, Ranevskaya is only completing her past life. All her hopes that she would be happy at home (“God knows, I love my homeland, I love dearly, I couldn’t watch from the carriage, I kept crying”), that she would be lifted “from my shoulders... a heavy stone,” are in vain. The return did not take place: in Russia she is superfluous. Neither the generation of modern “business people”, nor the romantic youth, all looking to the future, can understand it. Returning to Paris is, albeit imaginary, but still salvation, although it is a return to yet another past. And in Ranevskaya’s favorite cherry orchard the ax is knocking!
Gaev is another character who can be classified as “extra people”. Leonid Andreevich, an elderly man who has already lived most of his life, looks like an old boy. But all people dream of preserving their young soul! Why is Gaev sometimes annoying? The fact is that he is simply infantile. It was not his youth with its romance and rebellion that he retained, but his helplessness and superficiality.
The sound of billiard balls, like a favorite toy, can instantly heal his soul (“With a doublet... of yellow in the middle...”).
Who is the real master of life in this world?
Unlike the previous owners of the cherry orchard, whose feelings are directed to the past, Lopakhin is entirely in the present. “Boor,” Gaev unambiguously characterizes him. According to Petya, Lopakhin has a “subtle and gentle soul,” and “fingers like an artist.” Interestingly, both are right. And in this correctness lies the paradox of Lopakhin’s image.
“A man is a man,” despite all the wealth that he earned through sweat and blood, Lopakhin works continuously and is in constant business fever. The past (“My dad was a man..., he didn’t teach me, he only beat me when he was drunk...”) echoes in him with stupid words, inappropriate jokes, falling asleep over a book.
But Lopakhin is sincere and kind. He takes care of the Gaevs, offering them a project to save them from ruin.
But it is precisely here that a dramatic conflict ensues, which lies not in class antagonism, but in a culture of feelings. When uttering the words “demolish”, “cut down”, “clean”, Lopakhin cannot even imagine the emotional shock he plunges his former benefactors into.
The more actively Lopakhin acts, the deeper the gap becomes between him and Ranevskaya, for whom selling the garden means death: “If you really need to sell, then sell me and the garden.” And in Lopakhin there is a growing feeling of some kind of deprivation, incomprehension.
Let us remember how clearly the former and new masters of life appear in the third act of the play. Lopakhin and Gaev left for the city for the auction. And there's fun in the house! A small orchestra plays, but there is nothing to pay the musicians. The fate of the heroes is decided, and Charlotte shows tricks. But then Lopakhin appears, and under the bitter cry of Ranevskaya, his words are heard: “I bought it!.. Let everything be as I wish!.. I can pay for everything!...”. The “master of life” instantly turns into a boor who boasts of his wealth.
Lopakhin did everything to save the owners of the cherry orchard, but he did not have enough basic emotional tact to preserve their dignity: after all, he was in such a hurry to clear the “past” from the site for the “present.”
But Lopakhin’s triumph is short-lived, and now something else is heard in his monologue: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.”
So the life of the cherry orchard ended to the “sound of a broken string, fading and sad,” and the immortality of the “sad comedy” of the great Russian playwright began, exciting the hearts of readers and spectators for a hundred years.

The “old” owners of the cherry orchard are Gaev and Ranevskaya. The garden itself and the entire estate have belonged to them since childhood. The cherry orchard for them is just a memory of the past.

According to the story, Ranevskaya is a kind, interesting, charming, carefree woman, her flaw is indecision, because of which she does not know how to manage her estate and her life. It is because of this quality that she loses the garden and hopes that someone else will save it.

Gaev did not show himself any better. The author says about the hero: “a klutz” and constantly shows his inability to make vital and everyday decisions. The fate of the cherry orchard in his hands is destructive, and he is certainly not able to save a piece of his estate.

Under the image of the garden, Chekhov depicts Russia, and under the above-described heroes - average inhabitants, mortally and meaninglessly living their lives.

Lopakhin became the “new” owner. The writer speaks extremely positively about him - he says that he is very “decisive”. This hero is a storehouse of the best qualities collected in one person. Energetic, active, decisive. The only, as it seems to many, “minus” of Lopakhin is his position in life - “time is money.” But it is precisely because of this that the hero looks at the cherry orchard as his future property, which he is ready to protect and defend. For him there are no beautiful poppies and the scent of cherries - for him this is just the territory that he needs.

Updated: 2017-10-30

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.