In Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard, Anya and Petya are not the main characters. They are not directly connected with the garden, like other characters; for them it does not play such a significant role, which is why they, in some way, fall out of the general system of characters. However, in the work of a playwright of Chekhov's stature there is no room for accidents; therefore, it is no coincidence that Petya and Anya are isolated. Let's take a closer look at these two heroes.
Among critics, there is a widespread interpretation of the images of Anya and Petya depicted in the play “The Cherry Orchard” as a symbol of the younger generation of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; generation, which is replacing the long-outdated “Ranevskys” and “Gayevs”, as well as the “Lopakhins”, creatures of a turning point. In Soviet criticism, this statement was considered undeniable, since the play itself was usually viewed in a strictly defined manner - based on the year of writing (1903), critics associated its creation with social changes and the brewing revolution of 1905. Accordingly, the understanding of the cherry orchard as a symbol of “old”, pre-revolutionary Russia, Ranevskaya and Gaev as images of the “dying away” noble class, Lopakhin - of the emerging bourgeoisie, Trofimov - of the common intelligentsia, was affirmed. From this point of view, the play was seen as a work about the search for a “savior” for Russia, in which inevitable changes are brewing. Lopakhin, as the bourgeois master of the country, should be replaced by the commoner Petya, full of transformative ideas and aimed at a bright future; The bourgeoisie must be replaced by the intelligentsia, which, in turn, will carry out a social revolution. Anya here symbolizes the “repentant” nobility, which takes an active part in these transformations.
Such a “class approach,” inherited from ancient times, reveals its inconsistency in the fact that many characters do not fit into this scheme: Varya, Charlotte, Epikhodov. We do not find any “class” subtext in their images. In addition, Chekhov was never known as a propagandist, and most likely would not have written such a clearly decipherable play. We should not forget that the author himself defined the genre of “The Cherry Orchard” as a comedy and even a farce - not the most successful form for demonstrating high ideals...
Based on all of the above, it is impossible to consider Anya and Petya in the play “The Cherry Orchard” solely as an image of the younger generation. Such an interpretation would be too superficial. Who are they for the author? What role do they play in his plan?
They have no vested interest in the auction and the garden, and there is no clear symbolism associated with it. For Anya and Petya Trofimov, the cherry orchard is not a painful attachment. It is the lack of attachment that helps them survive in the general atmosphere of devastation, emptiness and meaninglessness, so subtly conveyed in the play.
The general characterization of Anya and Petya in The Cherry Orchard inevitably includes a love line between the two heroes. The author outlined it implicitly, half-hintly, and it is difficult to say for what purposes he needed this move. Perhaps this is a way to show the collision of two qualitatively different characters in the same situation. We see young, naive, enthusiastic Anya, who has not yet seen life and at the same time full of strength and readiness for any transformation. And we see Petya, full of bold, revolutionary ideas, an inspired speaker, a sincere and enthusiastic person, moreover, absolutely inactive, full of internal contradictions, which is why he is absurd and sometimes funny. We can say that the love line brings two extremes together: Anya is a force without a vector, and Petya is a vector without force. Anya's energy and determination are useless without a guide; Petya’s passion and ideology without inner strength are dead.
In conclusion, it can be noted that the images of these two heroes in the play today, unfortunately, are still viewed in a traditional “Soviet” way. There is reason to believe that a fundamentally different approach to the system of characters and Chekhov’s play as a whole will allow us to see many more shades of meaning and will reveal many interesting points. In the meantime, the images of Anya and Petya are waiting for their unbiased critic.
Work test
“The Cherry Orchard” is Chekhov’s last play, his “swan song.” In this work, the playwright united all the main characters in a cherry orchard, which he made a symbol of the beautiful, unchanging and indestructible in life. The Cherry Orchard is a symbol of Russia.
The play was written in 1903, at the turn of the era. At this time, the author is full of the feeling that Russia is on the eve of dramatic changes. Like any person, Chekhov dreamed of the future, of a new life that would bring people something bright, pure and beautiful. It is this motive of expectation of a better life that sounds in the play.
The playwright felt that the old life was gradually leaving, and the new one was just emerging. How did Chekhov see the future? What kind of future did he dream of? The heroes of The Cherry Orchard will help answer these questions.
In the play, Chekhov expressed his hopes for the future. Therefore, the leitmotif here is the idea of the collision of dreams and reality, of the discord between them. Behind the ordinary conversations of the heroes of the work, behind their calm attitude towards each other, we see a lack of understanding of the events taking place around them. The reader often hears out-of-place remarks from the characters and feels distant glances. They don’t hear each other, they are each in their own world, they dream and suffer alone. The ending of the play is indicative, when the old servant is simply forgotten, locked up in the estate and left, perhaps, to starve to death...
So the past in the play is discarded, forgotten and not comprehended.
Therefore, the main conflict of the play “The Cherry Orchard” can be characterized as follows: misunderstanding of generation by generation. It seems as if the past, present and future intersected at one point in the play. These three generations each live in their own time, but they only talk and cannot do anything to change life.
The older generation includes Gaev, Ranevskaya, Firs. To the present - Lopakhin, and representatives of the future are Petya Trofimov and Anya.
Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, a noblewoman by blood, constantly talks about her best young years spent in an old house, in a beautiful and luxurious cherry orchard. And the entire old generation in this play thinks the same way. None of them are trying to change anything. They talk about the “wonderful” old life, but they themselves seem to resign themselves to the present, let everything take its course, and give in without fighting for their ideas.
Ranevskaya lives only with memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, and she does not want or cannot think about the future... Her pessimism seems funny to the reader. We understand that there is no return to the past, and is it necessary to return there? But Lyubov Andreevna and her brother do not want to understand this. Their dreams will remain dreams... And that’s why Chekhov condemns them.
Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a hero of the present. He lives for today. It should be noted that his ideas are smart and practical. He has lively conversations about how to change life for the better, and seems to know what to do. But all these are just words. Therefore, Lopakhin is not an ideal hero. We feel his lack of self-confidence. And at the end of the action, this hero seems to give up, and he exclaims: “If only our awkward, unhappy life would change!”
It is generally accepted that Anya and Petya Trofimov are the author’s hope for the future. But can a person like Petya Trofimov, an “eternal student” and a “shabby gentleman,” change this life? After all, only smart, energetic, self-confident people, “active people,” can put forward new ideas, enter the future and lead others. And Petya, like the other heroes of the play, talks more than he acts, he generally behaves somehow ridiculously.
Anya is still too young, she doesn’t know life yet to change it. And yet, Anya is the image of spring, a new, bright future. It is she who, it seems to me, embodies Chekhov’s dream of a new life. Her sensitive soul is capable of turning life around, because she will be able to catch the slightest fluctuations in the world around her. Even if this is a little naive and funny, but if anyone can reach, together with all of humanity, the highest truth, the highest happiness, then it is Anya Trofimova: “Farewell, old life. Hello, new life. »
Thus, the question of the relationship between dreams and reality in the play “The Cherry Orchard” was also reflected in the debate about the genre. It is known that Chekhov himself called the play a comedy, but Stanislavsky staged it as a drama. Still, let’s listen to the author’s opinion. This play is more of a sad thought about the fate of Russia than a revolutionary call, as they sometimes try to present it. What the author portrayed as funny is in fact worthy of the most bitter tears, but it is funny, just as everything pitiful is funny.
So, the main tragedy of the play lies not only in the sale of the garden and estate in which people spent their youth, with which their best memories are associated, but also in the inability of these same people to change anything to improve their situation. They dream, but do nothing to fulfill their dreams, because they do not feel this world.
0
Read an essay on the topic of the Dispute of Generations in the play The Cherry Orchard by Chekhov for free
Dispute between generations
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is unusual and amazing. Unlike other works of the playwright, it places not a person at the center of all events, but the lyrical image of a beautiful cherry orchard. He is like the personification of the beauty of Russia of old times. Several generations are intertwined in the work and, accordingly, the problem of differences in thinking and perception of reality arises. The Cherry Orchard plays a fundamental role. It becomes a meeting place for the past, present and future of a country that is on the verge of tremendous change.
This drama is a completely new phenomenon in Russian art. There are no acute social conflicts in it, none of the main characters enters into an open dispute, and yet the conflict exists. What is it connected with? In my opinion, this is a dispute between generations who do not hear or do not want to hear each other. The past appears before us in the form of Ranevskaya and Gaev. These are inveterate nobles who are unable to change their habits even to save the estate that belonged to their parents and ancestors. Ranevskaya has long squandered her fortune and continues to waste money. Gaev hopes to receive an inheritance from a rich aunt living in Yaroslavl.
Will such people be able to keep their property - the family estate and the luxurious cherry orchard? Judging by this characteristic, no. One of the most prudent characters in the play is the representative of the current generation Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin. This is the son and grandson of serfs, who suddenly became rich and became a wealthy merchant. This hero achieved everything himself, through his work and perseverance, and therefore deserves respect. Unfortunately, he cannot be considered a happy person, since he himself is not happy about the opportunity to buy out Ranevskaya’s beloved cherry orchard. For this reason, at the very beginning of the play, he recommends that she divide it into plots and rent it out to summer residents, but the frivolous bourgeoisie do not want to hear about this.
The third generation, the so-called “future” of the country, is represented by Ranevskaya’s seventeen-year-old daughter and her son’s former teacher. Anya and Petya are fighters for a “new life”, and therefore they are little concerned about the fate of the cherry orchard. They believe that they can plant a new garden better than the previous one. Trofimov is a talented student, but, alas, he talks more than he does, and therefore the future with such young people frightens the older generation. Anya appears to us as the brightest and most unclouded character. She adopted the best traits from the nobility and continued to confidently move with the times towards change. The confidence in a positive outcome never left her. It is through her that the author expresses his hopes for a bright future.
Three generations in Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard"
The title of the play is symbolic. “All of Russia is our garden,” Chekhov said. This last play was written by Chekhov at the cost of enormous physical effort, and simply rewriting the play was an act of the greatest difficulty. Chekhov finished “The Cherry Orchard” on the eve of the first Russian revolution, in the year of his early death (1904).
Thinking about the death of the cherry orchard, about the fate of the inhabitants of the ruined estate, he mentally imagined all of Russia at the turn of the era.
On the eve of grandiose revolutions, as if feeling the steps of a formidable reality near him, Chekhov comprehended the present from the standpoint of the past and future. The far-reaching perspective imbued the play with the air of history and imparted a special extent to its time and space. In the play “The Cherry Orchard” there is no acute conflict, everything seems to go on as usual and there are no open quarrels or clashes between the characters in the play. And yet the conflict exists, but not openly, but internally, deeply hidden in the seemingly peaceful setting of the play. The conflict lies in the misunderstanding of a generation by a generation. It seems as if three times intersected in the play: past, present and future. And each of the three generations dreams of its own time.
The play begins with Ranevskaya’s arrival at her old family estate, with a return to the cherry orchard, which stands outside the windows all in bloom, to people and things familiar from childhood. A special atmosphere of awakened poetry and humanity arises. As if for the last time this living life on the verge of dying flashes brightly - like a memory. Nature is preparing for renewal - and hopes for a new, pure life awaken in Ranevskaya’s soul.
For the merchant Lopakhin, who is going to purchase the Ranevskaya estate, the cherry orchard also means something more than just the object of a commercial transaction.
In the play, representatives of three generations pass before us: the past - Gaev, Ranevskaya and Firs, the present - Lopakhin and representatives of the future generation - Petya Trofimov and Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter. Chekhov not only created images of people whose lives occurred at a turning point, but captured Time itself in its movement. The heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” turn out to be victims not of private circumstances and their own lack of will, but of the global laws of history - the active and energetic Lopakhin is as much a hostage of time as the passive Gaev. The play is based on a unique situation that has become a favorite for 20th-century drama - the “threshold” situation. Nothing like this is happening yet, but there is a feeling of an edge, an abyss into which a person must fall.
Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya - a representative of the old nobility - is an impractical and selfish woman, naive in her love interest, but she is kind and sympathetic, and her sense of beauty does not fade, which Chekhov especially emphasizes. Ranevskaya constantly recalls her best young years spent in an old house, in a beautiful and luxurious cherry orchard. She lives with these memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, and she doesn’t even want to think about the future. Her immaturity seems funny. But it turns out that the entire old generation in this play thinks the same way. None of them are trying to change anything. They talk about the wonderful old life, but they themselves seem to resign themselves to the present, letting everything take its course and giving in without a fight.
Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a hero of the present time. This is how Chekhov himself defined his role in the play: “The role of Lo-akhin is central. After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word. he is a gentle person. a decent person in every sense. “But this gentle man is a predator, he lives for today, so his ideas are smart and practical. The combination of a selfless love for beauty and a merchant's spirit, peasant simplicity and a subtle artistic soul merged together in the image of Lopakhin. He has lively conversations about how to change life for the better, and seems to know what to do. But in fact, he is not the ideal hero of the play. We feel his lack of self-confidence.
The play intertwines several storylines. A dying garden and failed, even unnoticed love are two cross-cutting, internally connected themes of the play. The line of the failed romance between Lopakhin and Varya ends before anyone else. It is built on Chekhov’s favorite technique: they talk most and most willingly about what does not exist, discuss details, argue about the little things that do not exist, without noticing or deliberately hushing up what exists and is essential. Varya is waiting for a simple and logical course of life: since Lopakhin often visits a house where there are unmarried girls, of whom only she is suitable for him. Varya, therefore, must get married. Varya doesn’t even have the thought to look at the situation differently, to think whether Lopakhin loves her, is she interesting to him? All Varina’s expectations are based on idle gossip that this marriage would be successful!
It would seem that Anya and Petya Trofimov are the author’s hope for the future. The romantic plan of the play is grouped around Petya Trofimov. His monologues have much in common with the thoughts of Chekhov's best heroes. On the one hand, Chekhov does nothing but put Petya in ridiculous positions, constantly compromising him, reducing his image to the extremely unheroic - “eternal student” and “shabby gentleman”, whom Lopakhin constantly stops with his ironic remarks. On the other hand, Petya Trofimov’s thoughts and dreams are close to Chekhov’s own state of mind. Petya Trofimov does not know specific historical paths to a good life, and his advice to Anya, who shares his dreams and premonitions, is naive, to say the least. “If you have the keys to the farm, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free like the wind." But a radical change has ripened in life, which Chekhov foresees, and it is not the character of Petya, the degree of maturity of his worldview, but the doom of the old that determines the inevitability.
But can a person like Petya Trofimov change this life? After all, only smart, energetic, self-confident people, active people, can come up with new ideas, enter the future and lead others. And Petya, like the other heroes of the play, talks more than he acts, he generally behaves somehow ridiculously. Anya is still too young. She will never understand her mother’s drama, and Lyubov Andreevna herself will never understand her passion for Petya’s ideas. Anya still doesn’t know enough about life to change it. But Chekhov saw the strength of youth precisely in freedom from prejudice, from the sheer nature of thoughts and feelings. Anya becomes like-minded with Petya, and this strengthens the motif of a future wonderful life that sounds in the play.
On the day of the sale of the estate, Ranevskaya throws a ball that is completely inappropriate from the point of view of common sense. Why does she need him? For the living Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who is now fiddling with a wet handkerchief in her hands, waiting for her brother to return from the auction, this ridiculous ball is important in itself - as a challenge to everyday life. She snatches a holiday from everyday life, snatches from life that moment that can stretch a thread to eternity.
The property has been sold. "I bought!" - the new owner triumphs, rattling the keys. Ermolai Lopakhin bought an estate where his grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. He is ready to take an ax to the cherry orchard. But at the highest moment of triumph, this “intelligent merchant” suddenly feels the shame and bitterness of what has happened: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” And it becomes clear that for yesterday’s plebeian, a person with a gentle soul and thin fingers, the purchase of a cherry orchard is, in essence, an “unnecessary victory.”
Ultimately, Lopakhin is the only one who offers a real plan to save the cherry orchard. And this plan is realistic, first of all, because Lopakhin understands: the garden cannot be preserved in its previous form, its time has passed, and now the garden can be preserved only by rearranging it in accordance with the requirements of the new era. But a new life means, first of all, the death of the past, and the executioner turns out to be the one who sees the beauty of the dying world most clearly.
So, the main tragedy of the work lies not only in the external action of the play - the sale of the garden and estate, where many of the characters spent their youth, with which their best memories are associated, but also in the internal contradiction - the inability of the same people to change anything for improving your situation. The absurdity of the events taking place in the play is constantly felt. Ranevskaya and Gaev look ridiculous with their attachment to old objects, Epikhodov is ridiculous, and Charlotte Ivanovna herself is the personification of uselessness in this life.
The last act, as always with Chekhov, is the moment of parting, farewell to the past. Sad for the old owners of the “cherry orchard”, troublesome for the new businessman, joyful for young souls with their reckless Blok-like readiness to abandon everything - home, childhood, loved ones, and even the poetry of the “nightingale orchard” - in order to openly, with a free soul to shout: “Hello, new life!” But if from the point of view of the social future “The Cherry Orchard” sounded like a comedy, then for its time it sounded like a tragedy. These two melodies, without merging, appeared simultaneously in the finale, giving birth to a complex tragicomic outcome of the work.
The young, cheerfully, calling to each other invitingly, run forward. Old people, like old things, huddled together, they stumble over them without noticing them. Suppressing tears, Ranevskaya and Gaev rush to each other. “Oh my dear, my tender, beautiful garden. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye. Goodbye. “But the music of farewell is drowned out by the “knock of an ax on wood, sounding lonely and sad.” The shutters and doors are closed. In the empty house, the sick Firs remains, unnoticed in the bustle: “But they forgot the man. “The old man is alone in a locked house. “As if from the sky the sound of a broken string” is heard, and in the silence the ax dully knocks on the wood.
The symbolism of “The Cherry Orchard” spoke of the approach of grandiose social cataclysms and changes in the old world.
This work reflects the problems of the passing nobility, the bourgeoisie and the revolutionary future. At the same time, Chekhov depicted the main conflict of the work in a new way - the conflict of three generations.
50812 people have viewed this page. Register or log in and find out how many people from your school have already copied this essay.
Past, present, future in the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard"
“All of Russia is our garden!” (based on A.P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard”).
Who is to blame for the death of the cherry orchard? (based on A.P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard”)
/ Works / Chekhov A.P. / The Cherry Orchard / Three generations in Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard”
See also the work “The Cherry Orchard”:
We will write an excellent essay according to your order in just 24 hours. A unique essay in a single copy.
The main conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard”
Conflict in a dramatic work
One of the features of Chekhov’s dramaturgy was the absence of open conflicts, which is quite unexpected for dramatic works, because it is conflict that is the driving force of the entire play, but it was important for Anton Pavlovich to show people’s lives through a description of everyday life, thereby bringing the stage characters closer to the viewer. As a rule, the conflict finds expression in the plot of the work, organizing it; internal dissatisfaction, the desire to get something, or not to lose, pushes the heroes to commit some actions. Conflicts can be external and internal, and their manifestation can be obvious or hidden, so Chekhov successfully hid the conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard” behind the everyday difficulties of the characters, which is present as an integral part of that modernity.
The origins of the conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard” and its originality
To understand the main conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” it is necessary to take into account the time when this work was written and the circumstances of its creation. Chekhov wrote “The Cherry Orchard” at the beginning of the twentieth century, when Russia was at the crossroads of eras, when revolution was inevitably approaching, and many felt the impending enormous changes in the entire habitual and established way of life of Russian society. Many writers of that time tried to comprehend and understand the changes taking place in the country, and Anton Pavlovich was no exception. The play “The Cherry Orchard” was presented to the public in 1904, becoming the final play in the work and life of the great writer, and in it Chekhov reflected his thoughts about the fate of his country.
The decline of the nobility, caused by changes in the social structure and the inability to adapt to new conditions; separation from their roots not only of landowners, but also of peasants who began to move to the city; the emergence of a new bourgeois class that came to replace the merchants; the appearance of intellectuals who came from the common people - and all this against the backdrop of the emerging general discontent of life - this is, perhaps, the main source of the conflict in the comedy “The Cherry Orchard”.
Sensing the impending changes, Chekhov tried to convey his feelings to the viewer through the originality of the conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard,” which became a new type, characteristic of all his drama. This conflict does not arise between people or social forces, it manifests itself in the discrepancy and repulsion of real life, its denial and replacement. And this could not be played, this conflict could only be felt. By the beginning of the twentieth century, society was not yet able to accept this, and it was necessary to rebuild not only the theater, but also the audience, and for a theater that knew and was able to reveal open confrontations, it was practically impossible to convey the features of the conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard.” That's why Chekhov was disappointed with the premiere show. After all, out of habit, conflict was designated as a clash between the past, represented by impoverished landowners, and the future. However, the future is closely connected with Petya Trofimov and Anya does not fit into Chekhov’s logic. It is unlikely that Anton Pavlovich connected the future with the “shabby gentleman” and “eternal student” Petya, who was unable to even monitor the safety of his old galoshes, or Anya, when explaining whose role, Chekhov placed the main emphasis on her youth, and this was the main requirement for performer.
Lopakhin is the central character in revealing the main conflict of the play
Why did Chekhov focus on the role of Lopakhin, saying that if his image fails, then the whole play will fail? At first glance, it is Lopakhin’s confrontation with the frivolous and passive owners of the garden that is a conflict in its classical interpretation, and Lopakhin’s triumph after the purchase is its resolution. However, this is precisely the interpretation that the author feared. The playwright said many times, fearing the roughening of the role, that Lopakhin is a merchant, but not in his traditional sense, that he is a soft man, and in no case can one trust his image to a “screamer”. After all, it is through the correct disclosure of the image of Lopakhin that it becomes possible to understand the entire conflict of the play.
So what is the main conflict of the play? Lopakhin is trying to tell the owners of the estate how to save their property, offering the only real option, but they do not heed his advice. To show the sincerity of his desire to help, Chekhov makes it clear about Lopakhin’s tender feelings for Lyubov Andreevna. But despite all attempts to reason with and influence the owners, Ermolai Alekseevich, “man by man,” becomes the new owner of a beautiful cherry orchard. And he is happy, but this is joy through tears. Yes, he bought it. He knows what to do with his acquisition in order to make a profit. But why does Lopakhin exclaim: “If only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change!” And it is these words that serve as a pointer to the conflict of the play, which turns out to be more philosophical - the discrepancy between the needs of spiritual harmony with the world and reality in a transitional era and, as a result, the discrepancy between a person and himself and with historical time. In many ways, this is why it is almost impossible to identify the stages of development of the main conflict of the play “The Cherry Orchard”. After all, it arose even before the beginning of the actions described by Chekhov, and never found its resolution.
Essay “Generation Dispute: Together and Apart”
Here we will try to collect for you all the useful material in the direction of “Dispute between generations: together and apart.”
You will find all general information in the “Final essay 2015” section.
Below we will present specific topics for these areas, recommendations for preparation, lists of literature and specific examples of good essays.
When turning to reflection on the topics of this direction, first of all remember all the works that show the relationship between “fathers” and “children”. This problem is multifaceted.
1. Perhaps the topic will be formulated in such a way as to make you talk about family values. Then you should remember works in which fathers and children are blood relatives. In this case, we will have to consider the psychological and moral foundations of family relationships, the role of family traditions, disagreements and continuity between generations within the family.
2. A possible formulation option is topics that suggest considering the conflict between the morals of representatives of different generations in general, regardless of family ties. In this case, significant attention should be paid to the views of people, determined by belonging to different eras, formation in different social conditions.
3. When talking about a generational dispute, we can mean an ideological conflict, i.e. a clash of ideologies between people with different political views. The antagonists of a given conflict may be the same age, but their ideological principles may reflect the ideology of certain social strata.
4. Relations between generations are not only conflict, but also continuity, the desire to pass on one’s own system of values, to surround oneself with close people. Does this always work out?
Bibliography
1. D.I. Fonvizin. "Undergrown"
2. A.S. Griboyedov. "Woe from Wit"
3. A.S. Pushkin. “The Captain’s Daughter”, “Eugene Onegin”, “The Station Agent”, “The Peasant Young Lady”
4. M.Yu. Lermontov. "Borodino"
5. N.V. Gogol. “Taras Bulba”, “Dead Souls” (on the image of Chichikov)
6. A.N. Ostrovsky. "Storm"
7. I.A. Goncharov. "Oblomov"
8. I.S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons"
9. M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. "The Wise Minnow"
10. L.N. Tolstoy. "Childhood", "Adolescence", "War and Peace"
11. A.P. Chekhov. "The Cherry Orchard"
12. V.G. Korolenko. "In Bad Society"
13. A.M. Bitter. "Childhood"
14. M.A. Sholokhov. "Quiet Don", "Mole"
15. V.G. Rasputin. “French Lessons”, “Deadline”
16. V. Tendryakov. "Pay"
17. B. Vasiliev. "Tomorrow there was a war"
18. Yu. Bondarev. "Choice"
19. G. Shcherbakova. “You never dreamed of it”
20. L. Razumovskaya. “Dear Elena Sergeevna!”
21. W. Shakespeare. "Romeo and Juliet"
22. A. Aleksin. "Crazy Evdokia", "Steps"
23. B. Ekimov. “Night of Healing”, “A Pair of Autumn Shoes”.
Essay topics (sample):
- What should family relationships be built on?
- How to overcome the misunderstanding that sometimes arises in the relationship between parents and children?
- What is the importance of home and family in a child's life?
- Why do children suffer?
- What should a family be like?
- Why can't we forget our father's house?
- What is the danger of a lack of mutual understanding between generations?
- How should the younger generation relate to the experience of their elders?
- How does the era affect the relationship between fathers and children?
- Is conflict between fathers and children inevitable?
- What does it mean to become an adult?
- Is love and respect for parents a sacred feeling?
In the play by A.P. Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard", it would seem, there is no pronounced conflict. There are no open quarrels or clashes between the heroes. And yet, behind their usual remarks one senses the presence of a hidden (internal) confrontation.
From my point of view, the main conflict of the play is the discrepancy between times, the discrepancy between a person and the era in which he lives. The play contains three time planes: past, present and future. At first glance, the personification of the past is Gaev and Ranevskaya, the hero of today is Lopakhin, and the people of the future are Anya and Petya Trofimov. But is it?
Indeed, Gaev and Ranevskaya carefully preserve the memory of the past, they love their home, the cherry orchard, which in the work is both a specific garden and an image symbolizing something beautiful, as well as Russia. The whole play is permeated with a sad feeling from seeing the death of the cherry orchard, the death of beauty. Gaev and Ranevskaya, on the one hand, have a sense of beauty, they seem to be graceful, sophisticated people, radiating love for others. On the other hand, in fact, it was Ranevskaya who led her estate to collapse, and Gaev “ate his fortune on candy.” In fact, both of them turn out to be people who live only in memories of the past. The present does not suit them, and they don’t even want to think about the future. That’s why both Gaev and Ranevskaya so diligently avoid talking about the real plan to save the cherry orchard and do not take Lopakhin’s sensible proposals seriously - in other words, they hope for a miracle and do not try to change anything.
In a person's life, the past is the roots. Therefore, it is necessary to remember about it. But those who, living in the past, do not think about the present and the future, come into conflict with time. At the same time, a person who has forgotten about the past has no future - this, it seems to me, is the author’s main idea. This is exactly the kind of person who appears in Chekhov’s play as the new “master of life” - Lopakhin.
He is completely immersed in the present - the past does not concern him. The cherry orchard interests him only insofar as profit can be made from it. He, of course, does not think about the fact that a blooming garden symbolizes the connection between the past and the present, and this is his main mistake. Thus, Lopakhin also has no future: having forgotten about the past, he came into conflict with time, although for a different reason than Gaev and Ranevskaya.
Finally, there are young people left - Anya and Petya Trofimov. Can we call them people of the future? Don't think. Both have abandoned both their past and their present, they live only in dreams of the future - the conflict of times is obvious. What do they have besides faith? Anya doesn’t feel sorry for the garden - in her opinion, she has a whole life ahead, full of joyful work for the common good: “We will plant a new garden, more luxurious than this.” However, neither the “eternal student” Petya, nor the very young Anya know true life, look at everything too superficially, try to reorganize the world on the basis of ideas alone and, of course, have no idea how much work it takes to grow in reality (in fact , and not in words) a real cherry orchard.
Can Anya and Petya be trusted with the future they talk about so beautifully and constantly? In my opinion, this would be reckless. I think that the author is not on their side. Petya doesn’t even try to save the cherry orchard, but this is precisely the problem that worries the author.
Thus, in Chekhov’s play there is a classic conflict - like in Shakespeare, “the connection of times has been broken,” which is symbolically expressed in the sound of a broken string. The author does not yet see in Russian life a hero who could become the real owner of the cherry orchard, the guardian of its beauty.
>Essays on the work The Cherry Orchard
Dispute between generations
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is unusual and amazing. Unlike other works of the playwright, it places not a person at the center of all events, but the lyrical image of a beautiful cherry orchard. He is like the personification of the beauty of Russia of old times. Several generations are intertwined in the work and, accordingly, the problem of differences in thinking and perception of reality arises. The Cherry Orchard plays a fundamental role. It becomes a meeting place for the past, present and future of a country that is on the verge of tremendous change.
This drama is a completely new phenomenon in Russian art. There are no acute social conflicts in it, none of the main characters enters into an open dispute, and yet the conflict exists. What is it connected with? In my opinion, this is a dispute between generations who do not hear or do not want to hear each other. The past appears before us in the form of Ranevskaya and Gaev. These are inveterate nobles who are unable to change their habits even to save the estate that belonged to their parents and ancestors. Ranevskaya has long squandered her fortune and continues to waste money. Gaev hopes to receive an inheritance from a rich aunt living in Yaroslavl.
Will such people be able to keep their property - the family estate and the luxurious cherry orchard? Judging by this characteristic, no. One of the most prudent characters in the play is the representative of the current generation Ermolai Alekseevich Lopakhin. This is the son and grandson of serfs, who suddenly became rich and became a wealthy merchant. This hero achieved everything himself, through his work and perseverance, and therefore deserves respect. Unfortunately, he cannot be considered a happy person, since he himself is not happy about the opportunity to buy out Ranevskaya’s beloved cherry orchard. For this reason, at the very beginning of the play, he recommends that she divide it into plots and rent it out to summer residents, but the frivolous bourgeoisie do not want to hear about this.
The third generation, the so-called “future” of the country, is represented by Ranevskaya’s seventeen-year-old daughter and her son’s former teacher. Anya and Petya are fighters for a “new life”, and therefore they are little concerned about the fate of the cherry orchard. They believe that they can plant a new garden better than the previous one. Trofimov is a talented student, but, alas, he talks more than he does, and therefore the future with such young people frightens the older generation. Anya appears to us as the brightest and most unclouded character. She adopted the best traits from the nobility and continued to confidently move with the times towards change. The confidence in a positive outcome never left her. It is through her that the author expresses his hopes for a bright future.
The title of the play is symbolic. “All of Russia is our garden,” Chekhov said. This last play was written by Chekhov at the cost of enormous physical effort, and simply rewriting the play was an act of the greatest difficulty. Chekhov finished “The Cherry Orchard” on the eve of the first Russian revolution, in the year of his early death (1904).
Thinking about the death of the cherry orchard, about the fate of the inhabitants of the ruined estate, he mentally imagined all of Russia at the turn of the era.
On the eve of grandiose revolutions, as if feeling the steps of a formidable reality near him, Chekhov comprehended the present from the standpoint of the past and future. The far-reaching perspective imbued the play with the air of history and imparted a special extent to its time and space. In the play “The Cherry Orchard” there is no acute conflict, everything seems to go on as usual and there are no open quarrels or clashes between the characters in the play. And yet the conflict exists, but not openly, but internally, deeply hidden in the seemingly peaceful setting of the play. The conflict lies in the misunderstanding of a generation by a generation. It seems as if three times intersected in the play: past, present and future. And each of the three generations dreams of its own time.
The play begins with Ranevskaya’s arrival at her old family estate, with a return to the cherry orchard, which stands outside the windows all in bloom, to people and things familiar from childhood. A special atmosphere of awakened poetry and humanity arises. As if for the last time this living life on the verge of dying flashes brightly - like a memory. Nature is preparing for renewal - and hopes for a new, pure life awaken in Ranevskaya’s soul.
For the merchant Lopakhin, who is going to purchase the Ranevskaya estate, the cherry orchard also means something more than just the object of a commercial transaction.
In the play, representatives of three generations pass before us: the past - Gaev, Ranevskaya and Firs, the present - Lopakhin and representatives of the future generation - Petya Trofimov and Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter. Chekhov not only created images of people whose lives occurred at a turning point, but captured Time itself in its movement. The heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” turn out to be victims not of private circumstances and their own lack of will, but of the global laws of history - the active and energetic Lopakhin is as much a hostage of time as the passive Gaev. The play is based on a unique situation that has become a favorite for 20th-century drama - the “threshold” situation. Nothing like this is happening yet, but there is a feeling of an edge, an abyss into which a person must fall.
Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya - a representative of the old nobility - is an impractical and selfish woman, naive in her love interest, but she is kind and sympathetic, and her sense of beauty does not fade, which Chekhov especially emphasizes. Ranevskaya constantly recalls her best young years spent in an old house, in a beautiful and luxurious cherry orchard. She lives with these memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, and she doesn’t even want to think about the future. Her immaturity seems funny. But it turns out that the entire old generation in this play thinks the same way. None of them are trying to change anything. They talk about the wonderful old life, but they themselves seem to resign themselves to the present, letting everything take its course and giving in without a fight.
Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a hero of the present time. This is how Chekhov himself defined his role in the play: “The role of Lo-akhin is central. After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word... he is a gentle man... a decent man in every sense...” But this gentle man is a predator, he lives for today, so his ideas are smart and practical. The combination of a selfless love for beauty and a merchant's spirit, peasant simplicity and a subtle artistic soul merged together in the image of Lopakhin. He has lively conversations about how to change life for the better, and seems to know what to do. But in fact, he is not the ideal hero of the play. We feel his lack of self-confidence.
The play intertwines several storylines. A dying garden and failed, even unnoticed love are two cross-cutting, internally connected themes of the play. The line of the failed romance between Lopakhin and Varya ends before anyone else. It is built on Chekhov’s favorite technique: they talk most and most willingly about what does not exist, discuss details, argue about the little things that do not exist, without noticing or deliberately hushing up what exists and is essential. Varya is waiting for a simple and logical course of life: since Lopakhin often visits a house where there are unmarried girls, of whom only she is suitable for him. Varya, therefore, must get married. Varya doesn’t even have the thought to look at the situation differently, to think whether Lopakhin loves her, is she interesting to him? All Varina’s expectations are based on idle gossip that this marriage would be successful!
It would seem that Anya and Petya Trofimov are the author’s hope for the future. The romantic plan of the play is grouped around Petya Trofimov. His monologues have much in common with the thoughts of Chekhov's best heroes. On the one hand, Chekhov does nothing but put Petya in ridiculous positions, constantly compromising him, reducing his image to the extremely unheroic - “eternal student” and “shabby gentleman”, whom Lopakhin constantly stops with his ironic remarks. On the other hand, Petya Trofimov’s thoughts and dreams are close to Chekhov’s own state of mind. Petya Trofimov does not know specific historical paths to a good life, and his advice to Anya, who shares his dreams and premonitions, is naive, to say the least. “If you have the keys to the farm, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free like the wind." But a radical change has ripened in life, which Chekhov foresees, and it is not the character of Petya, the degree of maturity of his worldview, but the doom of the old that determines the inevitability.
But can a person like Petya Trofimov change this life? After all, only smart, energetic, self-confident people, active people, can come up with new ideas, enter the future and lead others. And Petya, like the other heroes of the play, talks more than he acts, he generally behaves somehow ridiculously. Anya is still too young. She will never understand her mother’s drama, and Lyubov Andreevna herself will never understand her passion for Petya’s ideas. Anya still doesn’t know enough about life to change it. But Chekhov saw the strength of youth precisely in freedom from prejudice, from the sheer nature of thoughts and feelings. Anya becomes like-minded with Petya, and this strengthens the motif of a future wonderful life that sounds in the play.
On the day of the sale of the estate, Ranevskaya throws a ball that is completely inappropriate from the point of view of common sense. Why does she need him? For the living Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who is now fiddling with a wet handkerchief in her hands, waiting for her brother to return from the auction, this ridiculous ball is important in itself - as a challenge to everyday life. She snatches a holiday from everyday life, snatches from life that moment that can stretch a thread to eternity.
The property has been sold. "I bought!" - the new owner triumphs, rattling the keys. Ermolai Lopakhin bought an estate where his grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. He is ready to take an ax to the cherry orchard. But at the highest moment of triumph, this “intelligent merchant” suddenly feels the shame and bitterness of what has happened: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” And it becomes clear that for yesterday’s plebeian, a person with a gentle soul and thin fingers, the purchase of a cherry orchard is, in essence, an “unnecessary victory.”
Ultimately, Lopakhin is the only one who offers a real plan to save the cherry orchard. And this plan is realistic, first of all, because Lopakhin understands: the garden cannot be preserved in its previous form, its time has passed, and now the garden can be preserved only by rearranging it in accordance with the requirements of the new era. But a new life means, first of all, the death of the past, and the executioner turns out to be the one who sees the beauty of the dying world most clearly.
So, the main tragedy of the work lies not only in the external action of the play - the sale of the garden and estate, where many of the characters spent their youth, with which their best memories are associated, but also in the internal contradiction - the inability of the same people to change anything for improving your situation. The absurdity of the events taking place in the play is constantly felt. Ranevskaya and Gaev look ridiculous with their attachment to old objects, Epikhodov is ridiculous, and Charlotte Ivanovna herself is the personification of uselessness in this life.
The last act, as always with Chekhov, is the moment of parting, farewell to the past. Sad for the old owners of the “cherry orchard”, troublesome for the new businessman, joyful for young souls with their reckless Blok-like readiness to abandon everything - home, childhood, loved ones, and even the poetry of the “nightingale orchard” - in order to openly, with a free soul to shout: “Hello, new life!” But if from the point of view of the social future “The Cherry Orchard” sounded like a comedy, then for its time it sounded like a tragedy. These two melodies, without merging, appeared simultaneously in the finale, giving birth to a complex tragicomic outcome of the work.
The young, cheerfully, calling to each other invitingly, run forward. Old people, like old things, huddled together, they stumble over them without noticing them. Suppressing tears, Ranevskaya and Gaev rush to each other. “Oh my dear, my tender, beautiful garden. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye!.. Farewell!..” But the music of farewell is drowned out by “the sound of an ax on wood, sounding lonely and sad.” The shutters and doors are closed. In the empty house, the sick Firs remains unnoticed in the bustle: “But they forgot the man...” The old man is alone in the locked house. “As if from the sky the sound of a broken string” is heard, and in the silence the ax dully knocks on the wood.
The symbolism of “The Cherry Orchard” spoke of the approach of grandiose social cataclysms and changes in the old world.
This work reflects the problems of the passing nobility, the bourgeoisie and the revolutionary future. At the same time, Chekhov depicted the main conflict of the work in a new way - the conflict of three generations.
