Characteristics of the Ranevskaya cherry orchard. Characteristics of Ranevskaya

So many research papers have been written about this play, which 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 to prove that this is a comedy, moreover, a lyrical comedy can be any sane director who has an idea about the theory of conflict. And there is no need to mislead anyone about 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 everything and embodied it. 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 is quite clearly described by many eminent people. But about the intrigue on which this comedy is built, I personally knew not so much until recently.

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

The love triangle of Yasha-Dunyash-Epikhodov does not even need to be looked for: it is visible from the first pages of the play. Dunyasha immediately tells Lopakhin that the clerk Epikhodov proposed to her. Then he shares it with Anya. But neither Lopakhin nor Anya take this seriously: they say, "you're all about one thing." And the average reader doesn't take it seriously either. But this is the author's hint! This is a hint that there should be a love-lyrical relationship in the play. So, you need to look for them in the relationship between other characters.
So, in this modest love triangle, consisting of servants, we see the classic scheme: a successful lover - she - an unsuccessful 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. So, the main love affair should be looked for around her. In addition, her name is not Masha, not Olya and not 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”. So the name matters.

Alexander Minkin's article http://mk.ru/numbers/1947/article66159.htm (hereinafter thanks to Sergei Raisky for the links) says that the protagonist 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 whom, how - for me this is news. And the news is important, because I never thought about Lopakhin's love for Ranevskaya.
But I drew attention to the possibility of love for Ranevskaya by another character, namely Petya Trofimov. Remember how Trofimov rushes to meet Ranevskaya, passionately kisses her hand, as he admits that he did not have the patience to wait until morning, although Varya ordered. Moreover, Chekhov focuses on this meeting.

Trofimov: Lyubov Andreevna! She looked back at him.

The author clearly prescribes the moment of evaluation. The actors have to play it. So it's necessary.
But Trofimov knows that Ranevskaya does not love him and he has nothing to hope for. Therefore, he strives to be near, but does not want to embarrass her: he arrived, but lives in a bathhouse; just met and said: "I'll just bow - and then I'll leave."

From this point of view, the dialogue between Ranevskaya and Trofimov in the third act reads completely differently: she flirts with him, he loves her and hopes. When she realizes that she has played too much, she fights back. He is offended. Notice that he didn’t offend her with his careless statements, but she did, and not only offended him, but sealed him so that he screamed: “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 succumbing to emotions.

Then, it should be noted that all the heroes of the play address Trofimov by name, and an incomplete name, they call him “Petya” in a childish way. And Chekhov signs Petya's lines "Trofimov". This means that this character is equal in value 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 have not just an ideological dispute, they have a struggle for a woman! Hence all these insults to each other, teasing and bullying.

In addition, Chekhov gives this love triangle the possibility of a happy resolution. He introduces two more heroines - the daughters of Ranevskaya. Varya, the eldest, may go to Lopakhin, and the younger Anya to Trofimov. Due to the fact that the text of the play talks 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 riveted to Ranevskaya and does not notice this intrigue.

We have one more 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, 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 this information came from in my head, perhaps something was postponed from the course of theater studies, which was read to us by a wonderful teacher Irina Yakovlevna Dorofeeva.

But there is proof 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 her departure to Paris, after she squanders the fifteen thousand received from the Yaroslavl grandmother. Therefore, if there is a connection between these images, we must follow the attitude of the heroes of the play not only to the main character, 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 characters has their own idea of ​​the cherry orchard. For Lopakhin, this is “an estate where father and grandfather were slaves”, for Ranevskaya it is “life and youth”, for Trofimov it is “all of Russia”.
Lopakhin is a merchant, originally from peasants. Trofimov is a homegrown impoverished intellectual. And the main character Ranevskaya, a woman named Love, is the personified cherry orchard, the very subject of the dispute.

Here it 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 relationship of the heroes changes after this event: the physical victory goes to Lopakhin. He bought a cherry orchard, moreover, he threw money at Ranevskaya, having slapped an extra debt of 90 thousand, which means that Ranevskaya can receive a large amount after paying off the debt. More about this is written in the article by Alexander Minkin http://mk.ru/numbers/1946/article66094.htm
In fact, Lopakhin "bought" Ranevskaya. And he is a winner. Trofimov is on the losing side. 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, from her former "cherry orchard"!
Ranevskaya will not take money from Lopakhin: she is a noble woman, a noblewoman, and she cannot “sell out” to a peasant. She is Love itself! And love is not for sale. The man "cut it down to the root", but did not 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 stay with? What did he buy then? And he won't marry Varya...
Charlotte (takes a bundle that looks like a rolled up baby): My baby, bye, bye... The cry of a child is heard: "Wah, wah! ..." Shut up, my good, my dear boy. "Wah!.. wah!.." I feel so sorry for you! (Throws the knot back.) So you please find me a place. I can't do that. Lopakhin: We'll find it, Charlotte Ivanovna, don't worry.

Like this: I “bought” Ranevskaya, but “bought” Charlotte, who still needs to be attached somewhere. It is not for nothing that Chekhov writes this episode with a child: we remember that Ranevskaya had a son who drowned and for whom she laments during the play. And Charlotte is a parody of Ranevskaya, her "old age".

Those who assure that the play has a tragic denouement 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 a woman, Ranevskaya, who personifies this garden. She is the main character. Tragedy is a genre where the main conflict is unresolvable, and the main character must inevitably die. The cherry orchard dies under the blows of an ax. But the main character does not die. She is dooming herself to death. Lopakhin Ranevskaya threw money. So, 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. Let not this "cherry garden", not this estate, but some other, another "cherry garden" - she can buy. But Ranevskaya prefers wandering in a foreign land.
However, we see that there is a way out. And for the main character, he is not connected with death, inevitable death. So, there is no tragic outcome here. The nature of the conflict is dramatic, not tragic. And in drama and comedy - the conflict is resolved.

The death of Firs in the finale only emphasizes that Lopakhin, who bought the cherry orchard, did not win, but lost. Firs all his life serves the masters who live in this estate, he is also a symbol of the cherry orchard, the old garden, doomed to be cut down, and therefore no longer needed by anyone. The restless Charlotte and the dead Firs - that's what Lopakhin bought. The death of Firs is not tragic, but comical: they were so worried about the elderly grandfather, they were so baked to send him to the hospital, that they completely forgot about him. And he took and died. An unnecessary Firs is forgotten like an unnecessary cherry orchard.

Comedy is a light genre. Comedy is almost always based on a love affair. A love affair is evident. 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. Let's resolve the main conflict. The Cherry Orchard is a comedy.
Moreover, if the director ignores the described structure, does not see the Lopakhin-Ranevskaya-Trofimov love affair, then the whole comedic basis falls apart. The play becomes a drama—anything but a comedy.

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

"The Cherry Orchard". The landowner who squandered her fortune and was left without money. A kind and trusting, but unrestrained woman in spending, who cannot get rid of the habit of overspending. Mother of two daughters. The heroine's estate is put up for auction for debts.

History of creation

The Cherry Orchard is the last of Anton Chekhov's plays, on which the writer finished a year before his death. The first sketches belong to the beginning of 1901, and in September 1903 the work was already completed. The play was first staged at the Moscow Art Theater under direction in January 1904. The role of Ranevskaya in this first production was played by Chekhov's wife, an actress. The role of the brother of the main character was played by Stanislavsky himself.

The play "The Cherry Orchard"

The full name of the heroine is Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, nee Gaeva. The age of the heroine is not indicated in the play, but it can be assumed that Ranevskaya is about forty years old. The heroine has two daughters - adopted, Varya, 24 years old; dear, Anya, 17 years old. The years have not spoiled the heroine, those around Ranevskaya say that she looks just as great as before, and even prettier. The heroine has "touching" eyes, and she dresses "in Parisian style".

In the past, Ranevskaya was a wealthy landowner, but she squandered her fortune and was left without money. The heroine has a light and sympathetic character, others consider Ranevskaya a kind and glorious woman. The heroine is generous to the point of foolishness and easily parted with money even in a situation where there is practically no money. Daughters say about the heroin that she has not changed at all, despite the circumstances, and is still ready to give away the last money when "at home people have nothing to eat."

Ranevskaya really got used to overspend money without restraint, "like crazy", and had not yet realized her new position. The heroine does not understand how bad the financial affairs of the family are, and continues to order expensive dishes in restaurants and leave generous tips for lackeys.

Varya, the eldest daughter of the heroine, tries to save on everything, including food, while Ranevskaya herself spends money "somehow senselessly" and does not think about the future fate of the family. The heroine understands that she is acting unreasonably, calls herself stupid, but cannot or does not want to do anything with her own habits.

Ranevskaya treats others with love and affection. He loves his daughters and behaves kindly towards them, treats the old lackey with tenderness. The heroine lived abroad for some time, but at the same time she loves Russia. Ranevskaya claims that she cried on the train when she returned home.

The estate with a cherry orchard, which belongs to Ranevskaya and her brother, is put up for auction and will be sold for debts. The auction date has already been set. The merchant tries to help the heroine and advises him to cut down the old garden, demolish the old buildings that are worthless, break the vacated land into plots and give it to summer cottages in order to earn money on rent.

According to Lopakhin's calculations, in this way it is possible to gain at least twenty-five thousand a year, pay off debts and leave the estate to Ranevskaya. However, the heroine does not seem to understand that her estate is up for sale, that the situation requires urgent and decisive action. Ranevskaya remains indifferent to Lopakhin's arguments and refuses to cut down the garden. The heroine believes that "dachas and summer residents - it's gone." Lopakhin considers the heroine an unbusinesslike and frivolous woman.

Ranevskaya associates the Cherry Orchard with happy times of youth, and cutting it down for the heroine means betraying herself. As a result, neither the heroine herself nor her brother take any action to rectify the situation, and only wait for everything to somehow resolve itself. Ultimately, the merchant Lopakhin himself buys the estate at auction and orders the old cherry orchard to be cut down, as advised by Ranevskaya. The further biography of the heroine is unknown.

Screen adaptations

In 1981, a film adaptation of Chekhov's play called "The Cherry Orchard" was released in the UK. This is a drama film directed by Richard Eyre, with an actress in the role of Ranevskaya. The role of the merchant Lopakhin was played by actor Bill Paterson.

In 1999, another dramatic film adaptation of The Cherry Orchard was released, this time a co-production between France and Greece. The film was directed by Greek director Michalis Kakoyanis, who also wrote the script. The film has music. Filming took place in Bulgaria. The role of Ranevskaya was played by a British actress, and the brother of the heroine Leonid Gaev is played by actor Alan Bates.

The Russian adaptation of Chekhov's play was released in 2008 under the name "Garden" - and this is a comedy. Director and scriptwriter - Sergey Ovcharov. The role of Ranevskaya in the film is played by actress Anna Vartanyan. While working on the script, Ovcharov included only part of the material of the play, but at the same time he used in his work sketches of some of Chekhov's unwritten works, which were preserved in the writer's notebooks. The film contains elements of farce and commedia dell'arte. For example, the images of servants who have gotten away with it in the film are based on the classic characters of the Italian square theater - Harlequin, and.

Quotes

“If there is anything interesting, even remarkable, in the whole province, it is only our cherry orchard.”

“Oh my dear, my gentle, beautiful garden! .. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye! ..”

"Am I sitting here? (Laughs.) I want to jump, wave my arms. (He covers his face with his hands.) What if I'm sleeping! God knows, I love my homeland, I love dearly, I could not look out of the car, I kept crying. (Through tears.) However, you must drink coffee. Thank you, Firs, thank you, my old man. I'm so glad you're still alive."

The Cherry Orchard is one of the most popular and famous works written by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. It reflects many negative socio-historical phenomena of the political system of that time, such as the moral impoverishment and degradation of the nobility, the emergence of capitalism, and with it the emergence of a new class - the bourgeoisie. And no matter how sad it sounds, the main theme of the work was the fate of all of Russia, which is associated with the cherry orchard. The reader gets up from the pages of the history of the life of the people of Tsarist Russia, which invariably went to rebirth.

Feature: Lyubov Ranevskaya ("The Cherry Orchard")

In this play, Ranevskaya and her brother Gaev are representatives of the past, Lopakhin is the present, Anya and Trofim are the future.

All the events of the work take place on the estate of Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, where a cherry orchard occupies a large area of ​​land. Everything is sold because of the numerous debts of the hostess. She returned home from abroad just in time for spring, when the whole garden is in white, starlings playfully sing, the sky is blue-blue. Nature is being renewed, and with it, Ranevskaya is enveloped in hopes for a new and happy life. She admiringly admires: “All, all white! Oh my garden!

For the future owner, the merchant Lopakhin, this cherry orchard is not only an object of a bargain, but something more. He says that he has never met anything more beautiful than this estate, because his grandfather was a serf here.

Portrait characteristic of Ranevskaya from The Cherry Orchard

If we take up the description of the artistic portrait of the main character, then we get an image that at first glance seems very sweet and attractive. Ranevskaya really sincerely and touchingly rejoices, has fun, and sometimes she will cry at the memories of her childhood or her son who died.

What was Ranevskaya really like? "The Cherry Orchard" (including the characterization of the heroine) literally immediately, in just a few strokes, makes clear all the frivolity of her nature. She behaves too affectedly, so you can immediately doubt the sincerity of her experiences.

She constantly jumps up and walks, very excited, says that she cannot survive this joy, while kissing the closet and saying: “Laugh at me, I'm stupid ...”.

The characterization of Ranevskaya ("The Cherry Orchard") suggests that she is self-critical and quite smart, but accustomed to living at the expense of others. She is no longer able to change anything in herself, so she became a slave to circumstances, whims and a worthless person who robbed her.

Ranevskaya herself understands that she is a spender who quickly and senselessly spends money, while her adopted daughter Varya feeds the household with milk soup, and the old people in the kitchen are given one pea.

Love

Analyzing further the topic we touched upon, namely “Ranevskaya (“The Cherry Orchard”): characterization of the heroine”, we note that Lyubov Andreevna at first does not pay any attention to telegrams from Paris from her boyfriend and even tears them up until she finds out the name of the buyer of her estate . And then she leaves everyone to the mercy of fate (and her girls, Anya and Varya too) and leaves for Paris with the last money. In this city, she was going to live on the funds that Ani's grandmother sent to buy the estate. Everyone understands that they will be enough for her for a short time.

This behavior allegedly justifies the fact that her love for a dishonest person is to blame for everything. But this is hardly a high feeling, on the contrary, there is something base, repulsive, even somewhere funny in it.

Lopakhin

Further, the characterization of Ranevskaya ("The Cherry Orchard") indicates that she is selfish and very impractical, and she herself says that she is below love. However, there is something very feminine, light and attractive in her, she is sweet, kind and sympathetic. But gradually all this, along with a sense of beauty, fades away.

Lopakhin sincerely treats Ranevskaya, he sympathizes with her and shares her enthusiasm for the extraordinary beauty of the cherry orchard, and all because he is a very sensitive and gentle person.

Irreparable loss

However, Ranevskaya was not destined to save the garden dear to her heart, since it does not have that commercial vein and she will not be able to make it profitable again, as it was almost half a century ago. This fact is emphasized by her remark “... It used to be that dried cherries were carried in carts and sent to Moscow and Kharkov. There was money!

As a result, Ranevskaya sells the cherry orchard and the beauty that cannot protect itself. And therefore, everything must disappear, and along with this, something very important and secret is irretrievably gone.

Her brother Gaev looks just as helpless, who only in his own eyes remained an eminently aristocrat. He practically does not notice Lopakhin and considers him a boor who needs to be put in his place.

Conclusion

However, whatever the characterization of Ranevskaya, Chekhov conceived The Cherry Orchard precisely as a comedy, and, perhaps, it was the theatrical and directorial production that exaggerated the colors too much. Who knows?! Or maybe life should be treated as carefree, easy and fun, as the main character did?

The fact that Alekhin and Anna Alekseevna fell in love with each other is not surprising. Two educated kind people, equally dissatisfied with the current life, could not help but see each other as a close person. But neither Alekhin nor Anna Alekseevna had the courage to abandon their usual way of life, to change something in themselves. Alekhine, an urban man, accustomed to communicating with educated people, to mental work, lives in the countryside, 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 deal with 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 the love of Anna Alekseevna, and at the same time justifies this refusal with his routine life: “She would follow me, but where? Where could I take her? It’s another 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, artist, otherwise, from one ordinary everyday situation, I would have to carry her away to another of the same or another more everyday." But Alekhine does not make any 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, unrecognized beauty. In the face of Alekhine, she finds a spiritually close, understanding being, but she cannot confess her love to him, and even more so be with him: the “case” also does not let her in. Alekhine speaks about the insignificance of a person before the conventions of society at the beginning of the story, when he conveys the love story of the cook Nicanor and Pelageya. Pelageya loves Nicanor, but does not want to marry him, because he is a drunkard and has a “violent temper”, she prefers to “live like this”. But Nikanor, referring to "piety" and "religious convictions", wants to marry Pelageya. In fact, he is afraid to go against the foundations of society, and his “piety” is fear not of God, but of human judgment. A person is driven by society into a “case”. And Chekhov demonstrates this especially well on the example of Alekhine, who, it would seem, wants to change his monotonous life, to break out of the “case”, but at the same time does not dare to part with the calmness and comforts of an 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 more understandable 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 finally has to be treated for a nervous illness. Only the upcoming separation makes Anna Alekseevna and Alekhine confess their love to each other, but they do this, realizing that their confessions can no longer change anything. After the departure of Anna Alekseevna, Alekhin continues to live as before, and he can only regret the failed happiness. Chekhov's heroes often evoke a double feeling in readers: indignation and pity. This reveals the writer's ability to portray a person in all his manifestations. Alekhine and Anna Alekseevna cannot be unequivocally defined as positive or negative heroes. The complexity of characters is characteristic of almost all Chekhov's characters.

My attitude to Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya

Only those works remain to live for centuries and become common to all humankind, in which the writer most accurately and deeply recreated his time, reveals the spiritual world of the people of his generation, his people. It is to such works, in my opinion, that the play by A.P. 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 joyless: they are about to sell her home with a beautiful cherry orchard for debts. The Cherry Orchard for Lyubov Andreevna is a symbol of childhood, a symbol of happiness, a symbol of the motherland. It is, after all, her way of life. Everything dear and dear to her was connected with the house and the cherry orchard. And all of a sudden it should all disappear. “My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye,” the heroine says excitedly. And humanly 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 scatters money into the wind, keeps a nahlіbnitsa and lackeys, fell in love with evil and a carefree person who needs only money from her. Gentle, caring, selfless in love, she is ready to do everything for her beloved. Great impulses! But why shouldn't she take care of her children - Anya and Varvara, whose life is not arranged at all. I understand her and sympathize with the death of her son Grisha. In an effort to forget this terrible tragedy, she goes to Paris. But at what expense? The money given to her by Anya's grandmother, Lyubov Andreevna's former mother-in-law, she spends not on her daughter, not on family needs, but on her lover, who robbed her and left her. Or is this a reasonable decision for a woman who has children and is responsible for their future?

And losing the cherry orchard, does she understand that this is her fault: after all, she is responsible for everything that was happening around. 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, ambition, she is losing her family nest.

Could his fate have been different?

I think I could. If only she had not been so frivolous, helpless, irresponsible. Then she would not get confused in her personal life, and, perhaps, the family estate would be saved. 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 together.