Lecture: Genre originality of Chekhov's plays. Introduction

What does a drama writer need? Philosophy, dispassion, state thoughts of a historian, quick wits, liveliness of imagination, no prejudice of a favorite thought. Freedom.
A. S. Pushkin

By staging plays by A.P. Chekhov on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater, K.S. Stanislavsky developed a new theatrical system, which is still called the “Stanislavsky system”. However, this original theatrical system appeared thanks to new dramatic principles embodied in Chekhov's plays. It is not for nothing that a seagull is painted on the curtain of the Moscow Art Theater, reminiscent of the first play of the innovative playwright.

The main principle of Chekhov's dramaturgy is the desire to overcome the theatrical conventions that go back to the 18th century from the theater of classicism. Chekhov's words are known that everything on the stage should be like in life. The Cherry Orchard is based on the most common everyday event - the sale of an estate for debts, and not a struggle of feeling and duty that tears apart the soul of a character, not a catastrophic clash of kings and peoples, heroes and villains. That is, the playwright renounces the outward attraction of the plot. It shows that the everyday state of a person is internally conflicted.

Chekhov strives to create in his plays not conditional theatrical heroes-carriers of the idea, but living, complex images of ordinary modern people. The image of the merchant Lopakhin can serve as proof. He is a sincere man, memory of good: he did not forget how affectionately Ranevskaya treated him when he was a boy. Lopakhin from the bottom of his heart offers her and Gaev his help in saving the estate - he advises to break the cherry orchard into summer cottages. He constantly lends money to Lyubov Andreevna, although he is well aware that she will never repay these debts. At the same time, none other than Lopakhin buys a cherry orchard at auction and gives the order to cut down trees without waiting for the departure of the former owners. He doesn't even know what heartache this can bring Ranevskaya and Gaev. Another one bright detail in the image of Lopakhin - his mention of a recent visit to the theater, where he watched a funny play (II). It can be assumed that the merchant is referring to W. Shakespeare's tragedy "Hamlet" (!), because later phrases from this play teases Varya. And at the same time, the hero remembers with admiration how his poppy fields bloomed, not forgetting to mention that he earned forty thousand that year selling poppies. Thus, in the soul of a merchant, lofty feelings, noble impulses, a craving for beauty, on the one hand, and at the same time business acumen, cruelty, and ignorance, on the other hand, are combined.

Chekhov refuses formal theatrical receptions. He excludes long monologues, since in ordinary life people are limited to phrases in dialogue. Instead of replicas "to the side", which in classical play convey the thoughts of the hero, the playwright develops special reception psychologism, which V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko called "undercurrent", or subtext. “Undercurrent” is, firstly, “the double sound of each character” and, secondly, a special construction of dialogue so that the viewer can understand what the characters are thinking about when discussing everyday issues. The above reasoning about the complex character of Lopakhin can serve as proof of the "double sounding of the protagonist". An example of a special construction of a dialogue is the explanation of Varya and Lopakhin in the fourth act. They should talk about their feelings, but they talk about foreign objects: Varya is looking for something among things, and Lopakhin shares his plans for the coming winter - a declaration of love did not work out.

If in plays before Chekhov the heroes manifest themselves mainly in actions, then in Chekhov they manifest themselves in experiences, which is why the “undercurrent” is so important in his plays. Ordinary pauses are filled with deep content in The Cherry Orchard. For example, after the failed explanation of Varya and Lopakhin, Ranevskaya enters the room, sees Varia crying and asks a short question: “What?” (IV). After all, tears can equally mean both joy and sorrow, and Lyubov Andreevna is waiting for an explanation. There is a pause. Varya is silent. Ranevskaya understands everything without words and is in a hurry to leave. In the last act, Petya Trofimov talks about his happy fate: "Humanity is moving towards higher truth to the highest happiness that is possible on earth, and I am in the forefront! To Lopakhin's ironic question: "Will you get there?" Petya replies with conviction: “I will. (Pause) I will reach or show others the way how to reach. The pause here shows that Petya does not accept the irony of the interlocutor, but speaks quite seriously, maybe not even for Lopakhin, but for himself.

Of particular importance in Chekhov's plays are theatrical techniques that were traditionally considered secondary: author's remarks, sound writing, symbols. The playwright in the first act describes in detail the scenery - the room where everyone is waiting for the arrival of Ranevskaya. Particular attention in the remark is given to the garden, which is visible through the closed window: cherry trees are strewn with white flowers. The reader and viewer have a sad premonition that all this beauty will soon die. In the remark before the second act, it is noted that telegraph poles and the outskirts of the city are visible from the garden in the distance. In addition to its direct meaning, this decoration, as often happens with Chekhov, acquires symbolic meaning: the industrial age, the new order are advancing on the “noble nest” of the Gaev-Ranevskys and, of course, will crush it.

Sound plays an important role in the play. This is a sad waltz at the ball, which Ranevskaya for some reason arranged just on the day of the auction; the sound of billiard balls indicating Gaev's favorite game; the sound of a broken string, disturbing the peace and charm of a summer evening in the park. He unpleasantly struck Lyubov Andreevna, and she hurried home. Although Lopakhin and Gaev give a very real explanation for the strange sound (the bucket in the mine broke off, or maybe the bird is screaming), Ranevskaya perceives it in her own way: her usual life collapses ("breaks"). Symbolic, of course, is the knock of an ax at the end of the play: the cherry orchard, the beauty of the earth, will be destroyed, as Lopakhin promised.

Even the details in the play are symbolic and significant. Varya always appears on stage in a dark dress and with a bunch of keys on her belt. When Lopakhin declares at the ball that he has bought the estate, Varya throws the keys at his feet, thereby showing that he is giving the whole household to the new owner. The finale of the play becomes a sad symbol of the end of manor Russia: everyone leaves the house, Lopakhin locks the front door until spring, and the sick Firs, the last guardian of the "noble nest", appears from the far rooms. The old man lies down on the sofa and, as the remark says, “freezes” (IV), it becomes clear: this is the death of local Russia, along with its most faithful guardian.

Before Chekhov, plays were usually built on one cross-cutting event, around one intrigue, with one or two main characters. The play showed the clash of these heroes, striving for opposite goals (for example, Chatsky and famous society in A.S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit”). Fate was decided in traditional conflict actors, the victory of one over the other was depicted, and in The Cherry Orchard the main event (the sale of the estate at auction) was generally behind the scenes. The play presents a “smoothed” plot, which is difficult to divide into supporting elements (setting, climax, etc.). The pace of action slows down, the play consists of successive scenes that are loosely connected to each other.

Such a “weakened” plot is explained by the fact that instead of traditional external conflicts, Chekhov depicts the internal conflict of a situation unfavorable for the characters. Main conflict develops in the souls of the characters and does not consist in a specific struggle for the garden (there is practically none), but in the dissatisfaction of the characters with their lives and themselves, in the inability to combine dream and reality. Therefore, after buying a cherry orchard, Lopakhin does not become happier, but exclaims in despair: “Oh, I wish all this would pass, our awkward, unhappy life would change somehow” (III). There are no main characters in Chekhov's play; the blame for the disorder of life, according to the playwright, lies not with individual people, but with all together. The Chekhov Theater is an ensemble theater where central images, and episodic.

Chekhov's dramatic innovation also manifested itself in the unusual genre of the play, in the interweaving of the dramatic and the comic. "The Cherry Orchard" is a lyrical philosophical comedy, or "new drama", as M. Gorky defined it in the article "On Plays" (1933). The Cherry Orchard combines dramatic pathos (the author clearly regrets that the garden is dying, the fate of many heroes is collapsing) and comic pathos (nude - in the images of Epikhodov, Simeonov-Pishchik, Charlotte, etc.; hidden - in the images of Ranevskaya, Gaev , Lopakhin, etc.). Outwardly, the characters are inactive, but behind this passive behavior lies a subtext - a complex internal action-thinking of the characters.

Summing up what has been said, it must be emphasized once again that Chekhov's dramaturgy is innovative in the full sense of the word, and The Cherry Orchard is the last play in which the author expressed his own dramatic principles in the most vivid way.

Chekhov does not show events that capture the imagination of the reader-spectator, but recreates everyday situations in which he discovers the deep, philosophical content of contemporary Russian life. The heroes of the play have complex, contradictory characters and therefore cannot be unambiguously attributed to either positive or negative characters. negative characters as is often the case in life. Chekhov does not use a clear composition, long monologues, replicas "aside", the unity of action, but replaces them with the free construction of the play, actively uses the technique of "undercurrent", which allows the character and inner experiences of dramatic characters to be most reliably described.

"Ostrovsky Plays" - Predecessors of A.N. Ostrovsky: D. I. Fonvizin, A. S. Griboyedov, A. S. Pushkin, N. V. Gogol. Folklore moments in the plays of A.N. Ostrovsky. Features of Ostrovsky's style. Festive sleep - before dinner Shines, but does not warm His people - let's settle. Homework. Ostrovsky's mother, Lyubov Ivanovna, nee Savvina, was the daughter of a priest.

"Inspector" - Luka Lukich Khlopov superintendent of schools. But what about bribes? 2. Name the hero. Popular proverb. Ammos Fedorovich Lyapkin-Tyapkin judge. Khlestakov about himself: “After all, you live on that to pick flowers of pleasure.” Ivan Alexandrovich Khlestakov is a lower 14th class official from St. Petersburg. The house of the city administration, in which the Governor could manage the affairs.

"Gogol the Inspector" - 1842 - the final version of the play. 1851 - the author made the last changes to one of the replicas of the 4th act. Characters. “I decided to put together everything bad in Russia” N.V. Gogol. School library. Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol (1809-1852). "Inspector". "A very intelligent person in his own way." Anton Antonovich draft - dukhanovsky, mayor (head of the city).

"Gogol Inspector Literature" - Vegetable shop - petty shop. Which institutions in tsarist Russia called godly? France. Romantic idyll " Ganz Küchelgarten". Name the birthplace of the playwright Beaumarchais, who wrote the comedy The Marriage of Figaro. Podkatilovka. There is nothing to blame on the mirror if the face is crooked. Who said, having visited the premiere: “Well, a play!

"Literature Inspector" - Very helpful and fussy. Dobchinsky is a little taller and more serious than Bobchinsky, but Bobchinsky is bolder and livelier than Dobchinsky. Do you have a loan of money - four hundred rubles? I confess that I exist in literature. The plot of The Inspector General was suggested to Gogol by Pushkin. The performance was a huge success. So it is known: the house of Ivan Alexandrovich.

"Lessons Gogol Inspector" - Binary lesson. The topic of the binary lesson in literature and law (grade 8): Binary lesson in literature and law “Power and society in the comedy of N.V. Gogol "The Government Inspector" (Grade 8). Why binary lessons are needed: BINARY LESSON - a training session that combines the content of two subjects of one cycle (or educational field) in one lesson.

• Introduction
• Chapter 1.The main genres of dramaturgy
• 1.1 Genre Definition
• 1.2 Characteristics of the genres of dramaturgy
• Chapter 2. Genre features of the play A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"
• 2.1 Innovation A.P. Chekhov in dramaturgy
• 2.2 Features of the genre of the play A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"
• Conclusion
• List of used literature

Introduction

"The Cherry Orchard" (1903) - the last play by A.P. Chekhov. By the time it was written, Chekhov was already a well-known playwright, the author of such plays as "The Seagull", "Uncle Vanya", "Three Sisters". Even during the life of the writer, M. Gorky called his plays "a new kind of dramatic art."

The play, conceived by Chekhov in 1901, was written, printed and staged at the Moscow Art Theater three years after the idea was born. In a letter to V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, the playwright wrote: “... I didn’t get a drama, but a comedy, in some places even a farce.” But, as with Chekhov's previous plays, the directors and the audience first of all heard the dramatic sound, and the great director K.S. Stanislavsky even convinced the author that he was mistaken, did not understand his own plan: “This is not a comedy, not a farce, as you wrote, this is a tragedy, whatever the outcome a better life you didn't open in the last act." Chekhov was irritated and in one of his letters he was indignant because his play was called a drama. And he summed up the sad result: "Stanislavsky ruined my play."

Thus, from "the very moment of writing to this day, disputes about the genre of this Chekhov's work continue" [Gromov, 1989:53]. In the "Big School Encyclopedia" of 2001, the genre is defined, for example, as a psychological drama. To solve the genre question is quite difficult. And the problem that was relevant for fans of Chekhov's work at the beginning of the 20th century is still relevant today. What genre should the play "The Cherry Orchard" be attributed to? What is its genre identity.

To answer these questions, we need to turn to the theory of literature, as well as to the analysis of the work under study.

Subject our work - genre originality.

An object of our work - a play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"

Target our work is to explore the genre features of the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard".

The goal led to the formulation of the following tasks:

Define the genre

Describe the main genres of dramaturgy.

To reveal the ideological originality of the plays by A.P. Chekhov.

Explore the play "The Cherry Orchard" and try to determine its genre.

AT this study we will use the descriptive method.

Work structure. This work consists of an introduction, the main part (two chapters), a conclusion and a list of references.

Chapter 1. The main genres of dramaturgy

1.1 Genre Definition

Literary criticism, being one of the most ancient and "venerable" areas of art criticism, has a high authority and traditionally is a kind of "arsenal" of methods and research techniques, theories and approaches that are based, borrowed and applied by other, younger, areas of art history, for example , cinematography. With a direct “transfer” from literary criticism to film criticism, for example, a drama should correspond to a film drama, a novel to a film novel, an epic to an epic film, etc. However, already at the very first stages of analyzing the problem of genres in cinema, it is clear that such a classification of films is not entirely successful . And, even if we agree that extrapolations from the field of literary criticism are inevitable in the theory of cinema, it remains unclear what to borrow and how exactly to transfer.

That is why it seems necessary to us to identify the main ideas about the genre that are available in literary criticism. To do this, consider what are the most established ideas about the genre that are available there. Even at the first address to the doctrine of literary genres found to be far from perfect. Firstly, one can immediately notice rather sharp divergences in the meanings of the word “genre” itself, and the divergences are so significant that some understand the genus as genre, while others understand the type of literature, while still others use all three terms as having different meanings. This is, of course, incompatible with the status of a scientific term.

“In modern literary criticism, the term is used in different values. Some scholars, in accordance with the etymology of the word, call literary genera in this way: epic, lyrics and drama. Others under this term mean the literary types into which the genus is divided (novel, story, short story, etc.) ”[Kalacheva, Roshchin, 1974: 82] .

« Key Concepts"kind", "species" and "genre" due to etymology French word genre, denoting both species and genus, are terminologically unstable; different literary scholars interpret them in their own way, sometimes diametrically opposite” [Fedotov, 2003:144]. And many more similar quotes from literary works could be cited.

Secondly, the division of literature into genera is not carried out on a single basis, thereby not fulfilling one of the fundamental requirements for any classification. For example, “objectivity and subjectivity of the representation of the world” seems to be put forward as a criterion, due to which epic and lyrics are distinguished, and then a new criterion arises to determine the genre of drama, which does not work at first - “conflict”. “The division of literature into genera can be traced from the most ancient epochs, it is caused by the need for a different approach to depicting the main forms of manifestation of the human personality: objectively, in interaction with other people and events, in all the complexity of life processes (epos), subjectively in experiences and thoughts ( lyrics) and, finally, in action, in conflict (drama)" [Kalacheva, Roshchin, 1974:81].

Thirdly, it turns out that within each genus, the division into species is not subject to a single criterion, but each time to a new one, that is, the most important classification criterion is not observed - the unity of the basis. “The principles of division into types in the epic are determined mainly by the nature of the depiction of the life process, the level of its complexity (the subject of the epic is an important event for the whole people, the subject of the story is a separate episode), in the lyrics - by the peculiarities of the expressed feeling (triumph is a hymn, sadness is an elegy) , in drama - the nature of the relationship to the depicted (sublime actions - a tragedy, ridicule - a comedy)" [Khalizev, 2005:56].

Further, in addition to these two main meanings of the word “genre”, a third meaning is also widely used to indicate the genre affiliation of a work, which is realized in the phrase “genre form”: “But the types are not yet the final concrete forms of literary works. Each time preserving the common generic characteristics and structural features of the species, each literary work also carries peculiar features dictated by the demands of life, the characteristics of the material and the characteristics of the writer's talent, that is, it has a unique "genre form"

And finally, another drawback of the traditional understanding of the genre is the vagueness of the criterion for defining the genre as such: it turns out that this is “the unity of content and form with the leading role of content” [Tynyanov, 1977:52]. Note that this formula itself goes back to Hegelian philosophy and in a modified (materialistic) interpretation was actively used in Marxist aesthetics.

It seems that such miscalculations in the formation of the concept of one of the basic literary phenomena, as a result of which it does not meet the simplest logical requirements, cannot be working, cannot be fruitful. And another conclusion - in this form it cannot be effectively borrowed, cannot be extrapolated to other types of art.

However, there is a completely different approach to genres, developed in the works of M. Bakhtin and Yu. Tynyanov, saturated with many cultural ideas, built on a different methodological basis and, in our opinion, more adequate to the complexity of the issue.

Bakhtin's doctrine of genres has a great originality. It has two interrelated parts. One part (conditionally) refers to the connection between style and genre, the second part - the actual doctrine of the genre, in close relationship with the analysis of the novel as special genre and his history.

And it is here that the most important characteristic of his thinking is felt - this is the connection of internal, at first glance, purely literary problems with cultural ones. Bakhtin linked not only the genre of the novel with a special, novelistic word, but also the emergence of the latter - with the broadest sociocultural context. So, he writes: “the novelistic word was born and developed not in the narrow literary process of the struggle of directions, styles, abstract worldviews, but in the complex centuries-old struggle of cultures and languages” [Bakhtin, 1975: 446].

Already at the very beginning of his scientific activity, Bakhtin believed that the center of the philosophical analysis of language should be nothing more than a statement, since it is in the form of single concrete statements (oral and written) that the use of language in society is carried out. Such statements reflect the specific conditions and goals of each area. human activity, in which we use the language, not only by its content and linguistic style, that is, by the selection of vocabulary, phraseological and grammatical means, but, above all, by its compositional construction. All these three points - thematic content, style and compositional construction - are inextricably linked in the statement and are equally determined by the specifics of this sphere of communication. Although each utterance is individual, unique in form, nevertheless, there are relatively stable types of such utterances, which Bakhtin called speech genres.

Speech genres are extremely heterogeneous - this Bakhtin explained the great difficulty of their general study. A large place in his doctrine of genres is occupied by the idea he introduced of primary and secondary genres, on the one hand, closely related to each other, and on the other, different. Primary genres are these types of statements spontaneously formed in everyday use of the language - various types of everyday dialogue, everyday story, writing, a short military command and a detailed order, etc. Secondary (complex) speech genres are novels, Scientific research various kinds, large journalistic genres, etc. - are formed in conditions of a more complex (and predominantly written), highly developed cultural communication. In the process of their formation, they absorb and process the primary genres, which, entering the structure of the secondary ones, are transformed and lose their direct relation to reality.

The problem of speech genres, according to Bakhtin, is of great importance for all areas of philology, but its role is especially important for stylistics. Actually, Bakhtin's position lies in the fact that the very definition of style in general and individual style in particular requires a deeper study of both the nature of the utterance and speech genres.

The organic, inextricable connection between style and genre is also clearly revealed in the problem of so-called functional styles. Essentially, according to Bakhtin, functional styles is nothing but genre styles of certain spheres of human activity and communication. Each sphere has its own genres that meet the specific conditions of this sphere; certain styles correspond to these genres. A certain function (scientific, technical, journalistic, business, everyday) and certain conditions of speech communication, specific for each sphere, give rise to certain genres, that is, relatively stable thematic, compositional and stylistic types of statements. Style is inextricably linked with certain thematic unities and - which is especially important - with certain compositional unities: with certain types of construction of the whole, types of its completion, types of the speaker's attitude to other participants in speech communication (to listeners or readers, partners, to someone else's speech, etc.). P.).

Perhaps the main "lesson" of this part of Bakhtin's concept is the connection between genre, on the one hand, and style, language, on the other. Tynyanov also insisted that style (language) and genre form a systemic unity. So, in particular, he wrote: “It is no longer possible to speak of a work as a “totality” of its known aspects: plot, style, etc. These abstractions have long since departed: plot, style, etc. are in interaction.. (7, p. 227).

Historicity is another important feature of the thinking of Bakhtin and Tynyanov. And it is fully realized in their works. It is no coincidence that in order to analyze the novel, Bakhtin introduces the concept of “chronotope” as a representation of time and space in an artistically processed form, within the phenomena of art: “We will call the essential connection of temporal and spatial relations artistically mastered in literature

And Tynyanov managed to trace how a moment snatched from the history of literature, with its definite system of correlation of genres, is being destroyed ... in order to immediately form a new, at that time quite stable unity.

The work, he insists, does not exist as something separate, it enters the system of literature, correlates with it in style and genre.

Genre as a system can fluctuate. It arises (from attacks and rudiments of other systems) and subsides, turning into the rudiments of other systems. “In the era of the decomposition of a genre, it moves from the center to the periphery, and in its place from the little things of literature, from its backyards and lowlands, a new phenomenon floats into the center” [Tynyanov, 1977: 142-143].

Tynyanov's observations regarding the hierarchy of genres in this historical and cultural context are also of great interest. He keenly felt that the genres were not located on a plane, but formed a complex pyramid of value preferences, in which their complex relationships were formed.

And values, as you know, are formed in culture. Thus, the consciousness of the value of the ode genre, which Tynyanov speaks about, is, of course, connected with the idea of ​​the social purpose of literature - to sing of power.

Therefore, the ode is the most convenient form in which literature can fulfill its purpose.

1.2 Characteristics of the genres of dramaturgy

The main genres of dramaturgy are: tragedy, comedy and drama itself. (Sometimes the term drama is used as a synonym for the neutral word "play", which refers to any work of dramaturgy, and does not carry any genre definition.)

In turn, the main genres of dramaturgy are subdivided into more fractional ones. So, for example, within the comedy genre there are differences: comedy of positions, lyrical and satirical comedy, vaudeville, farce, etc.

Each genre is a very lively, mobile entity, historically evolving and changing. While retaining their main features, the genres of dramaturgy acquire (or lose) additional features, responding to the development of general aesthetic principles associated with the socio-cultural processes taking place in society. There is also a constant process of merging genres, the formation of new ones or the withering away of the old ones. So, for example, the extremely popular formerly genres of mystery, morality, miracle, honeycombs and many others have gone into the past. Fundamentally new features in silver age acquired the genre of the farce; etc.

Modern drama is especially characterized by a tendency to mix genres. So, in the 20th century. Tragicomedy, which had previously been more of an additional, intermediate genre, began to be attributed to the main genres of dramaturgy. This trend is associated with a stable modern tradition of designation in the play of the so-called. author's genre (for example, Vs. Vishnevsky's optimistic tragedy).

Tragedy (literally - goat song (Greek) - one of the main genres of theatrical art. Tragedy is a dramatic or stage work that depicts an irreconcilable conflict of the individual with the forces opposing it, inevitably leading to the death of the hero.

Tragedy, as can be seen from the term itself, arose from a pagan ritual, accompanied by the so-called. dithyramb (choral chant) in honor of the ancient Greek god Dionysus. The dithyramb included the rudiments of a dialogue between the choir and the lead singer, and it was the dialogue that later became the main form of organization of all genres of dramatic and stage art.

An obligatory constituent element of the tragedy is the scale of events. It always deals with lofty matters: justice, love, principles, moral duty, and so on. That is why the heroes of tragedy often become characters occupying a high position - monarchs, generals, etc.: their actions and destinies have a decisive influence on historical development society. The heroes of the tragedy solve the cardinal issues of life. At the same time, the inevitable death of the hero in the final does not at all mean the pessimistic nature of the tragedy. On the contrary, the desire to resist the prevailing circumstances gives a heightened sense of the triumph of the moral imperative, exposes the heroic principle of human essence, causes an awareness of the continuity and eternal renewal of life. This is what allows the viewer to achieve the so-called. catharsis (purification), and shows the deep relationship of tragedy with the theme of cyclical dying and renewal of nature.

Comedy (Greek, a procession with phallic chants in honor of the god Dionysus), one of the main genres of theatrical art. Based on formal features, comedy can be defined as a work of dramaturgy or stage art that excites the laughter of the audience. However, it is difficult to find another term that has caused so much theoretical controversy in art history, aesthetics and cultural studies throughout the history of its existence.

The term "comedy" is closely related to the philosophical and aesthetic category of the comic, in the understanding of which there are at least six main groups of theoretical concepts: the theory of negative quality; degradation theories; theories of contrast; theories of contradiction; theories of deviation from the norm; theories of social regulation; as well as mixed-type theories. At the same time, within each of the groups one can single out the theories of objectivism, subjectivism and relativism. Even this simple enumeration gives an idea of ​​the richness and diversity of the nature of laughter.

It is worth mentioning the most important function of the comic (and, accordingly, comedy), which is an integral part of any theory: the heuristic, cognitive function in mastering reality. Art in general is a way of knowing the surrounding world; heuristic functions are inherent in any of its types, including theatrical, in each of its genres. However, the heuristic function of comedy is especially evident: comedy allows you to look at ordinary phenomena from a new, unusual point of view; shows additional meanings and contexts; activates not only the emotions of the audience, but also their thoughts.

The diversity of the nature of the comic naturally determines the existence in comic culture a huge number of tricks and artistic means: exaggeration; parody; grotesque; travesty; understatement; exposure of contrast; unexpected convergence of mutually exclusive phenomena; anachronism; etc. The use of a variety of techniques in the construction of plays and performances also determines the huge variety of genre varieties of comedy: farce, pamphlet, lyrical comedy, vaudeville, grotesque comedy, satire, adventurous comedy, etc. (including such complex intermediate genre formations as "serious comedy" and tragicomedy).

There are many generally accepted principles of intra-genre classification of comedy, built on the basis of certain structural components of a theatrical work.

So, based on social significance, comedy is usually divided into “low” (based on farcical situations) and “high” (dedicated to serious social and moral issues). Medieval French farces Lohan and Lawyer Patlen, as well as, for example, F. Koni's vaudevilles, belong to the works of "low" comedy. The classic examples of "high" comedy are the works of Aristophanes (Akharnyans, Wasps, etc.) or A. Griboedov's Woe from Wit.

Based on the subject and social orientation, comedy is divided into lyrical (built on mild humor and filled with sympathy for its characters) and satirical (aimed at derogatory ridicule of social vices and shortcomings). Based on this principle of classification, lyrical comedies include, say, The Dog in the Manger by Lope de Vega or Filumena Morturano Eduardo de Filippo, as well as numerous Soviet comedies of the 1930s-1980s of the 20th century. (V.Shkvarkin, V.Gusev, V.Rozov, B.Laskin, V.Konstantinov and B.Ratser and others). Vivid examples satirical comedy- Tartuffe J.B. Molière or A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylin case.

Putting architectonics and composition at the head of the classification, they distinguish between a comedy of positions (where comic effect arises predominantly from unexpected turns plot) and the comedy of characters (in which the clash of mutually repulsive personality types becomes the source of the comedic action). So, among the works of Shakespeare one can find both sitcoms (Comedy of Errors) and comedies of characters (The Taming of the Shrew).

The classification of comedy based on the typology of the plot is also widespread: everyday comedy (for example, Georges Danden J. B. Molière, The Marriage of N.V. Gogol); romantic comedy (P. Calderon in his custody, Old-fashioned comedy by A. Arbuzov); heroic comedy (Cyrano de Bergerac by E. Rostana, Til Gr. Gorina); fabulously symbolic comedy (W. Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, E. Schwartz's Shadow), etc.

Drama (Greek drama - action), one of the main genres of modern theatrical art (along with comedy and tragedy) [Fedotov, 2003:40].

Drama is the youngest of the major genres. If the first theoretical study of tragedy and comedy known to us dates back to the 4th century. BC. (Poetics of Aristotle), the drama in separate genre was isolated only in the 18th century. The theoretical substantiation of the new genre is associated with the name of the famous French encyclopedist Denis Diderot.

Being a materialist philosopher and at the same time a writer, playwright, Diderot in his theoretical and practical work proceeded from the postulate that art is an imitation of life. Because he came up with a program of radical transformation French theater, sharply objecting to the contemporary aesthetic trend of classicism. The strict canon of the classicist tragedy, with its elevated pathetic style, depiction of "ennobled nature", one-dimensional and static characters, coming from antique samples, was criticized by Diderot for being limited and isolated from life. In addition, Diderot's principled position also played a significant role in his social views, which determined his demands for the democratization of theatrical art (On Dramatic Poetry, 1758; Paradox about the Actor, 1770-1773, etc.).

The need for the democratization of the theater and the destruction of strict formal canons of drama was the imperative of the time - it was not for nothing that the same principles were developed almost simultaneously in other European countries (in England - J. Lillo and E. Moore; in Germany - G. E. Lessing, etc.) .

Before Diderot, in theoretical works on dramaturgy, the class affiliation of genres was not questioned: tragedy tells about the life of the upper classes, comedy - of the lower; these genres are strictly demarcated, and behind the tragedy in the 17th century. the designation of the "high" genre was assigned, for the comedy - "low". Diderot actually created a new theory of dramaturgy, not only denying the aesthetic or ideological hierarchy of genres, but also developing a new genre of “philistine drama” intermediate between tragedy and comedy, in the center of which are representatives of the third estate, “honest bourgeois” (later on the definition of a new genre, the term “drama” was fixed, the epithet could change depending on the problems and characters: “moral drama”, “philosophical drama”, “social drama”, etc.). It was this hero, whose experiences and suffering the author, and therefore the audience, take seriously and with sympathy, determined the fundamental novelty of the genre.

The new hero also entailed a change in the scale of the events depicted. If the heroes of the tragedy solve the cardinal problems of life, and their actions and destinies influence the development of society, then the events of the drama are more local. Its heroes can experience a true tragedy, but a personal, subjective tragedy that does not have a wide public resonance, but does not become less difficult or scary because of this. These principles undoubtedly brought dramaturgy closer to real life, in fact laying the foundation for psychological theater (and, therefore, bringing the art of the actor to a fundamentally new level), as well as the formation and development of additional genres of dramaturgy (melodrama, tragicomedy) and various aesthetic trends(sentimentalism, naturalism, realism). Today, drama is perhaps a comprehensive theatrical genre with formal boundaries and attributes that are difficult to define. In the theater, the term "drama" is often used in a broader sense - in application to any play, regardless of its genre. In addition, in theater studies and theater criticism, the term is often used as a synonym for the word “drama.” In everyday language, the word “drama” is used to define any out of the ordinary events of high intensity, usually unhappy, accompanied by a great surge of emotions.

genre dramaturgy composition

Chapter 2. Genre features of the play by A. P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"

2.1 Novato A.P. Chekhov in dramaturgy

Brilliant artists find a special form for their works, most faithfully expressing the spirit of the times, and they are spoken of as reformers of art forms, founders of new trends, and so on. A.P. Chekhov is rightly considered an innovator in the field of drama, but he, first of all, did not think about the transformation of art forms, but about improving the living conditions of Russian society. Chekhov's first major play, Ivanov (this book includes the final version completed in 1889 after the first version was staged in 1887) was written, in general, "in the traditional form" [Kuleshov, 1983:100]. But already here in the main thing - in the content, in the socio-psychological problems inherent in it - one can see fundamental difference Chekhov's dramaturgy from the contemporary entertainment theater of melodrama and vaudeville. Here the protagonist is a representative of an entire “tired” generation, and his drama is typical of a Russian intellectual of the 1980s: “Ivanov, a nobleman,” the author wrote, “is a university man, unremarkable; nature is easily excited, hot, strongly inclined to hobbies, honest and direct, like most of the educated nobles ... His past is beautiful, like most Russian intelligent people. There is hardly any Russian gentleman or university man who does not boast about his past. The present is always worse than the past. Why?. People like Ivanov do not solve problems, but fall under their weight. They get lost, shrug their shoulders, get nervous, complain, do stupid things and, in the end, giving free rein to their loose, loose nerves, they lose ground under their feet and enter the category of “broken” and “misunderstood”. While working on Ivanov, Chekhov did not write the play for the entertainment of readers and the public, but in the form of a play he investigated and showed a serious life phenomenon. It would seem that there is nothing complicated here, but look at the history of the theater: against the background of conditional, invented characters, illustrating common truths, a full-blooded artistic image barely appears, which has grown on the basis of reality, and great dramaturgy immediately arises. In Ivanov, the author presented not only the central character, but also other characters with the same social clarity. For example, about Lvov, the second most important character in the play, Chekhov wrote: “This is the type of an honest, direct, hot, but narrow and straightforward person ... Lvov is honest, direct and cuts off the shoulder, not sparing his stomach. If necessary, he will throw a bomb under the carriage, hit the inspector in the snout, let the scoundrel go.

And yet, Ivanov is a traditional play in many respects: all the action, as in a Shakespearean tragedy, unfolds around the central character, each episode is a means of his artistic disclosure, the main and only intrigue is built on the love relationship of the hero, his tragic end is suicide in the finale. And Chekhov himself, with his usual modesty, defined The Seagull, which opened a new dramaturgy, as a play written "contrary to all the rules of dramatic art." He is not alone in this: Euripides, Moliere, and Shakespeare wrote contrary to the “rules of dramatic art” that existed in their time, trying to understand and reveal the laws of reality.

But why were “new forms” needed? First of all, because the life depicted by the artist did not fit into the traditional rules for constructing dramatic works. For example, the same Ivanov occupies an exceptional, central place in the play, completely inconsistent with his role in reality.

That part of the intelligentsia that Chekhov knew and portrayed became disillusioned with the former ideals, lost the true goals of life, and, having freed themselves from the recently broken shackles of religious and family traditions, for which many of Ostrovsky's characters stood up, gained only the freedom of decay and disastrous loneliness.

Therefore, "in subsequent Chekhov's plays, the central character disappears, uniting the action into entering, in accordance with the rules of the old dramaturgy, into a dramatic conflict with other characters, with the environment, with the era" [Kuznetsova, 1978:65]. On the pages of plays, and then on the stages of theaters, there appeared faces equal to each other in value, or rather, in insignificance, not only not connected by any family or social ties, but often not believing in the possibility and necessity of any human connections. Let's look at the characters of "The Seagull" - who are they? What links them to each other? One of the main characters, Treplev, ironically says about himself: “... according to my passport, I am a Kyiv tradesman,” and this further emphasizes his complete loneliness next to a selfish and narrow-minded mother, next to a girl who betrays his love, among people who do not understand him; neither Arkadina, nor Trigorin, nor Zarechnaya have any living human attachments. True, there are two married couples among the characters of The Seagull, but both of them internally broke up long ago: both Shamrayeva and her daughter are ready to leave their families at any moment and go to those they love. The same is true in other plays: one cannot seriously talk about the family attachments of Elena Andreevna in Uncle Vanya, Vershinin, Andrei and Masha in Three Sisters. Equally lonely, equally suffering from loneliness and not able, or even not wanting to get rid of it, the characters of Chekhov's plays appear before the reader. And this makes each of them a kind of “hero” of the play, the words of each of them sound equivalent, each episode becomes equally important.

Only brilliant playwright instead of official conversations of lackeys or squires who introduced the audience into the stage situation, he could endow each character with his exact word, creating a certain image, necessary in the play, as each instrument is necessary in the orchestra. The footman Firs in The Cherry Orchard, the same footman who in the old theater was used at the exits with the remark “the meal is served.”, for whom Chekhov has a role for a page, is in no way inferior in his significance in the play central characters, which is especially emphasized by the finale, and his statements, which at first glance seem to be semi-nonsense, are perhaps deeper and more interesting than Gaev's rantings.

In The Three Sisters, the title itself declares the equivalence of the three central heroines of the play. And in fact: the sad fate of lonely Olga, forced to leave her home, and the dramatic romance of married Masha, and the unfortunate attempt to arrange her life by the younger Irina embody with equal persuasiveness the painful futility and meaninglessness of existence in the Russian backwoods of the end of the century.

Hence the absence in Chekhov's last plays of an artificially constructed plot based on a single central action that connects all the characters and is resolved sharp conflicts and spectacular scenes. This does not mean that Chekhov's plays are plotless and devoid of dramatic episodes. There is also a suicide in the final (“The Seagull”), and the ruin of a native nest (“The Cherry Orchard”), and a duel with fatal(“Three Sisters”), and an assassination attempt (“Uncle Vanya”), but these events are purely external. Chekhov strove to get away from theatricality, and he was guided not by the desire to write a “good”, that is, appropriate certain rules play, but to present life in the form of a play, where, as he himself said, “people dine, just dine, and at this time their happiness is added up and their lives are broken ...” As in The Seagull, for example, Treplev’s life is broken much earlier what the final shot sounds like: the scene of the failure of his play and the scene with Nina and the murdered seagull in the second act - this is where the drama happens, the drama of the human soul. Or the brilliant finale of Uncle Vanya, which has become a textbook, when after the shots, the suicide attempt, the heated dialogues, it turns out that Voinitsky’s life catastrophe is expressed not in these spectacular stage actions, but in Astrov’s unexpected words: “But, it must be in this very Africa now the heat is a terrible thing! ”, In the clicking of accounts, in household records: “February 2nd - vegetable oil 20 pounds ...” In “Three Sisters” the reader does not see the duel, does not hear her shots and does not lose anything in the sense of understanding the work : the tragedy of Tuzenbach is revealed in a brief farewell conversation with Irina, and his exclamation "Irina!", followed by a feigned everyday request; “I didn’t drink coffee today. You tell me to cook ... ”shocks much more than some pathetic dying monologue.

Very often, the innovation of dramaturgy also influenced the genre originality of A.P. Chekhov's plays.

2.2 Features of the genre of the play A. P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard"

The remarkable merits of The Cherry Orchard and its innovative features have long been unanimously recognized by progressive critics. But when it comes to the genre features of the play, this unanimity is replaced by dissent. Some see the play "The Cherry Orchard" as a comedy, others as a drama, others as a tragicomedy. What is this play - drama, comedy, tragicomedy?

Before answering this question, it should be noted that Chekhov, striving for the truth of life, for naturalness, created plays not of purely dramatic or comedic, but of very complex formation.

In his plays, "the dramatic is realized in an organic mixture with the comic" [Byaly, 1981:48], and the comic is manifested in an organic interweaving with the dramatic.

Chekhov's plays are a kind of genre formations that can be called dramas or comedies, only keeping in mind their leading genre trend, and not the consistent implementation of the principles of drama or comedy in their traditional sense.

A convincing example of this is the play "The Cherry Orchard". Already completing this play, Chekhov on September 2, 1903 wrote Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko: “I will call the play a comedy”

On September 15, 1903, he informed M.P. Alekseeva (Lilina): “I didn’t get a drama, but a comedy, in some places even a farce”

Calling the play a comedy, Chekhov relied on the comic motives prevailing in it. If, answering the question about the genre of this play, we keep in mind the leading trend in the structure of its images and plot, then we must admit that it is based on not a dramatic, but a comedic beginning. Drama presupposes the dramatic nature of the positive characters of the play, that is, those to whom the author gives his main sympathies.

In this sense, such plays by A.P. Chekhov as "Uncle Vanya" and "Three Sisters" are dramas. In the play The Cherry Orchard, the main sympathies of the author belong to Trofimov and Anya, who do not experience any drama.

Recognizing The Cherry Orchard as a drama means recognizing the experiences of the owners of the Cherry Orchard, Gaev and Ranevsky, as truly dramatic, capable of evoking deep sympathy and compassion for people who are not going back, but forward, into the future.

But this in the play could not be and is not. Chekhov does not defend, does not affirm, but exposes the owners of the cherry orchard, he shows their emptiness and insignificance, their complete incapacity for serious experiences.

The play "The Cherry Orchard" cannot be recognized as a tragicomedy either. To do this, she lacks neither tragicomic heroes, nor tragicomic situations that run through the entire play, defining its through action. Gaev, Ranevskaya, Pishchik are too small as tragicomic heroes. Yes, besides, in the play the leading optimistic idea comes through with all distinctness, expressed in positive images. This play is more correctly called a lyrical comedy.

The comedy of The Cherry Orchard is determined, firstly, by the fact that its positive images, such as Trofimov and Anya, are shown by no means dramatic. Dramaticity is unusual for these images either socially or individually. Both in their inner essence and in the author's assessment, these images are optimistic.

The image of Lopakhin is also clearly undramatic, which, in comparison with the images of the local nobles, is shown as relatively positive and major. The comedy of the play is confirmed, secondly, by the fact that of the two owners of the cherry orchard, one (Gaev) is given primarily comically, and the second (Ranevskaya) in such dramatic situations, which mainly contribute to showing their negative essence.

The comic basis of the play is clearly visible, thirdly, in the comic-satirical depiction of almost all the minor characters: Epikhodov, Pishchik, Charlotte, Yasha, Dunyasha.

The Cherry Orchard also includes obvious vaudeville motifs, even farce, expressed in jokes, tricks, jumps, dressing up Charlotte. In terms of the issues and the nature of its artistic interpretation, The Cherry Orchard is a deeply social play. It has very strong motives.

Here the most important questions for that time were raised: the liquidation of the nobility and estate economy, its final replacement by capitalism, the growth of democratic forces, etc.

With a clearly expressed socio-comedy basis in the play "The Cherry Orchard", lyrical-dramatic and socio-psychological motives are clearly manifested: lyric-dramatic and socio-psychological motives are most complete in the depiction of Ranevskaya and Vari; lyrical and socio-psychological, especially in the image of Anya.

The originality of the genre of The Cherry Orchard was very well revealed by M. Gorky, who defined this play as a lyrical comedy.

“A.P. Chekhov, he writes in the article “0 plays”, “created ... a completely original type of play - a lyrical comedy” (M. Gorky, Collected Works, vol. 26, Goslitizdat, M. , 1953, p. 422).

But the lyrical comedy "The Cherry Orchard" is still perceived by many as a drama. For the first time, such an interpretation of The Cherry Orchard was given by the Art Theater. October 20, 1903 K.S. Stanislavsky, after reading The Cherry Orchard, wrote to Chekhov: “This is not a comedy ... this is a tragedy, no matter what outcome to a better life you open in the last act ... I was afraid that the second reading of the play would not capture me. Where is it!! I cried like a woman, I wanted to, but I could not restrain myself ”(K, S. Stanislavsky, Articles. Speeches. Conversations. Letters, ed. Art, M., 1953 , pp. 150 - 151).

In his memoirs of Chekhov, dating back to about 1907, Stanislavsky characterizes The Cherry Orchard as "the heavy drama of Russian life" (Ibid., p. 139).

K.S. Stanislavsky misunderstood, underestimated the power of accusatory pathos directed against the representatives of the then departing world (Ranevskaya, Gaev, Pishchik), and in this regard, unnecessarily emphasized the lyric-dramatic line associated with these characters in his directorial decision of the play.

Taking seriously the drama of Ranevskaya and Gaev, unduly promoting a sympathetic attitude towards them and to some extent muffling the accusatory and optimistic direction of the play, Stanislavsky staged The Cherry Orchard in a dramatic vein. Expressing the erroneous point of view of the leaders of the Art Theater on The Cherry Orchard, N. Efros wrote:

“...no part of Chekhov's soul was with Lopakhin. But part of his soul, rushing into the future, belonged to the "mortuos", the "Cherry Orchard". Otherwise, the image of the doomed, dying, leaving the historical stage would not have been so tender ”(N. Efros, The Cherry Orchard staged by the Moscow Art Theater, Pg., 1919, p. 36).

Proceeding from the dramatic key, evoking sympathy for Gaev, Ranevskaya and Pishchik, emphasizing their drama, all their first performers played these roles - Stanislavsky, Knipper, Gribunin. So, for example, characterizing the game of Stanislavsky - Gaev, N. Efros wrote: “this is a big child, pathetic and funny, but touching in its helplessness ... There was an atmosphere of the finest humor around the figure. And at the same time, she radiated great touchingness ... all in auditorium together with Firs, they felt something tender for this stupid, decrepit child, with signs of degeneration and spiritual decline, the “heir” of a dying culture ... And even those who are by no means inclined to sentimentality, to whom harsh laws historical necessity and the change of class figures on the historical stage - even they probably gave some moments of compassion, a sigh of sympathetic or condoling sadness to this Gaev ”(Ibid., pp. 81-83).

In the performance of the artists of the Art Theater, the images of the owners of the Cherry Orchard turned out to be clearly larger, more noble, beautiful, spiritually complex than in Chekhov's play. It would be unfair to say that the leaders of the Art Theater did not notice or bypassed the comedy of The Cherry Orchard.

While staging this play, K.S. Stanislavsky used its comedic motives so extensively that he provoked strong objections from those who considered it a consistently pessimistic drama.

Dissatisfaction with the excessive, deliberate comedy of the stage performance of The Cherry Orchard at the Art Theater was also expressed by the critic N. Nikolaev. “When,” he wrote, “the oppressive present portends an even more difficult future, Charlotta Ivanovna appears and passes, leading a little dog on a long ribbon and with her exaggerated, highly comical figure causes laughter in the auditorium ... For me, this laughter - was a tub of cold water ... The mood turned out to be irreparably spoiled

But the real mistake of the first directors of The Cherry Orchard was not that they beat many of the comic episodes of the play, but that they neglected comedy as the leading beginning of the play. Revealing Chekhov's play as a heavy drama of Russian life, the leaders of the Art Theater gave place to its comedy, but only a subordinate one; secondary.

M.N. Stroeva is right, defining the stage interpretation of the play "The Cherry Orchard" in the Art Theater as a tragicomedy

Interpreting the play in this way, the direction of the Art Theater showed the representatives of the outgoing world (Ranevskaya, Gaeva, Pishchika) more inwardly rich, positive than they really are, and excessively increased sympathy for them. As a result, the subjective drama of the departing people sounded more deeply in the performance than was necessary.

As for the objectively comic essence of these people, exposing their insolvency, this side was clearly not sufficiently disclosed in the performance. Chekhov could not agree with such an interpretation of The Cherry Orchard. S. Lubosh recalls Chekhov at one of the first performances of The Cherry Orchard - sad and torn off. “In the filled theater there was a noise of success, and Chekhov sadly repeated:

Not that, not that...

What's wrong?

Everything is not the same: both the play and the performance. I didn't get what I wanted. I saw something completely different, and they couldn’t understand what I wanted” (S. Lubosh, The Cherry Orchard. Chekhov’s anniversary collection, M., 1910, p. 448).

Protesting against the false interpretation of his play, Chekhov, in a letter to O.L. Knipper wrote on April 10, 1904: “Why is my play so stubbornly called a drama on posters and in newspaper ads? Nemirovich and Alekseev positively see in my play not what I wrote, and I am ready to give any word - that both of them have never read my play attentively ”(A.P. Chekhov, Complete Works and letters, vol. 20, Goslitizdat, M., 1951, p. 265).

Chekhov was outraged by the purely slow pace of the performance, especially by the painfully drawn-out Act IV. “The act, which should last 12 minutes maximum, is with you,” he wrote to O.L. Knipper, it's 40 minutes. I can say one thing: Stanislavsky ruined my play” (Ibid., p. 258).

In April 1904, talking with the director of the Alexandrinsky Theater, Chekhov said:

“Is this my Cherry Orchard? .. Are these my types? .. With the exception of two or three performers, all this is not mine ... I write life ... This is a gray, ordinary life ... But, this is not boring whining... They make me either a crybaby, or just a boring writer... And I wrote several volumes of funny stories. And criticism dresses me up as some kind of mourners ... They invent for me from their own heads what they themselves want, but I didn’t think about it, and didn’t see it in a dream ... It starts to piss me off ”

This is understandable, since the perception of the play as a drama dramatically changed its ideological orientation. What Chekhov laughed at, with such a perception of the play, already required deep sympathy.

Defending his play as a comedy, Chekhov, in fact, defended the correct understanding of its ideological meaning. The leaders of the Art Theater, in turn, could not remain indifferent to Chekhov's statements that they were embodied in The Cherry Orchard in a false way. Thinking about the text of the play and its stage embodiment, Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko were forced to admit that they misunderstood the play. But misunderstood, in their opinion, not in its main key, but in particular. The show has changed along the way.

In December 1908 V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko wrote: “Look at The Cherry Orchard, and you will not at all recognize in this lacy graceful picture of that heavy and overweight drama that The Garden was in the first year” (V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Letter to N.E. Efros (second half of December 1908), "Theater", 1947, No. 4, p. 64).

In 1910, in a speech to the artists of the Art Theater K.S. Stanislavsky said:

“Let many of you confess that you did not immediately understand The Cherry Orchard. Years passed, and time confirmed the correctness of Chekhov. The need for more decisive changes in the performance in the direction indicated by Chekhov became clearer and clearer to the leaders of the Art Theater.

Resuming the play The Cherry Orchard after a ten-year break, the leaders of the Art Theater made major changes to it: they significantly accelerated the pace of its development; they animated the first act in a comedic way; removed excessive psychologism in the main characters and strengthened their exposure. This was especially evident in the game of Stanislavsky - Gaev, “His image,” noted in Izvestia, “is now revealed primarily from a purely comedic side. We would say that idleness, lordly daydreaming, complete inability to take on at least some kind of work and truly childish carelessness are exposed by Stanislavsky to the end. The new Gaev of Stanislavsky is a most convincing example of harmful worthlessness. Knipper-Chekhova began to play even more openwork, even easier, revealing her Ranevskaya in the same plan of “exposing” (Yur. Sobolev, The Cherry Orchard at the Art Theater, Izvestia, May 25, 1928, No. 120).

The fact that the initial interpretation of The Cherry Orchard at the Art Theater was the result of a misunderstanding of the text of the play was acknowledged by its directors not only in correspondence, in a narrow circle of artists of the Art Theater, but also before the general public. V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, speaking in 1929 in connection with the 25th anniversary of the first performance of The Cherry Orchard, said: “And this wonderful work was not understood at first .. maybe our performance will require some some changes, some permutations, at least in particulars; but regarding the version that Chekhov wrote a vaudeville, that this play should be staged in a satirical context, I say with complete conviction that this should not be. There is a satirical element in the play - both in Epikhodov and in other persons, but take the text in your hands and you will see: there - "weeping", in another place - "weeping", but in vaudeville they will not cry! Vl.I. N e mi r o v i ch-Danchenko, Articles. Speeches. Conversations. Letters, ed. Art, 1952, pp. 108 - 109).

It is true that The Cherry Orchard is not vaudeville. But it is unfair that vaudeville allegedly does not cry, and on the basis of the presence of crying, The Cherry Orchard is considered a heavy drama. For example, in the vaudeville "The Bear" by Chekhov, the landowner and her footman cry, and in his vaudeville "Proposal" Lomov cries and Chubukova moans. In the vaudeville "Az and Firth" by P. Fedorov, Lyubushka and Akulina cry. In the vaudeville "Teacher and Student" by A. Pisarev, Lyudmila and Dasha are crying. In the vaudeville The Hussar Girl, Koni cries Laura. It's not the presence and not even the number of crying, but the nature of crying.

When, through tears, Dunyasha says: “I broke the saucer,” and Pishchik - “Where is the money?”, This causes not a dramatic, but a comic reaction. Sometimes tears express joyful excitement: at Ranevskaya at her first entrance to the nursery upon returning to her homeland, at the devoted Firs, who waited for the arrival of his mistress.

Tears often denote a special cordiality: in Gaev, when addressing Anya in the first act (“my baby. My child ...”); at Trofimov, calming Ranevskaya (in the first act) and then telling her: “because he robbed you” (in the third act); at Lopakhin, calming Ranevskaya (at the end of the third act).

Tears as an expression of acutely dramatic situations in The Cherry Orchard are very rare. These moments can be re-read: in Ranevskaya's first act, when she meets Trofimov, who reminded her of her drowned son, and in the third act, in a dispute with Trofimov, when she again remembers her son; at Gaev - upon return from the auction; Varya's - after a failed explanation with Lopakhin (fourth act); at Ranevskaya and Gaev's - before the last exit from the house. But at the same time, the personal drama of the main characters in The Cherry Orchard does not evoke such sympathy from the author, which would be the basis of the drama of the entire play.

Chekhov strongly disagreed that there were many weeping people in his play. "Where are they? he wrote to Nemirovich-Danchenko on October 23, 1903. - Only one Varya, but this is because Varya is a crybaby by nature, and her tears should not arouse a dull feeling in the viewer. Often I meet “through tears”, but this only shows the mood of faces, not tears ”(A P. Chekhov, Complete works and letters, vol. 20, Goslitizdat, M., 1951, pp. 162 - 163) .

Similar Documents

"The Seagull" by the outstanding Russian writer A.P. Chekhov - the first play of the new Russian drama. The artistic originality of the dramaturgy of the play. Contradictions and conflicts of the play, their originality. The absence of antagonistic struggle between the characters of the play.

abstract, added 08/11/2016


Theoretical aspects of subtext in the work of playwrights. Originality of Chekhov's dramaturgy. The specifics of Ibsen's work. Practical analysis of subtext in the dramaturgy of Ibsen and Chekhov. The role of symbolism in Chekhov. Display of subtext in Ibsen's dramaturgy.

term paper, added 10/30/2015


Analysis of the originality of the interpretation of Chekhov's dramaturgy on the theatrical stage of Belarus. Stage incarnation and features of the director's interpretations of the works "Ivanov", "Uncle Vanya" and "Three Sisters". The transformation of the comedy genre "The Cherry Orchard" and "The Seagull".

thesis, added 03/14/2011


The history of the creation of the play by A.P. Chekhov "The Cherry Orchard", the main features of the work. Ideological, genre and compositional features of the play "The Cherry Orchard". General characteristics of the images of the main characters of the work: Lopakhin, Ranevskaya, Gaev and Anya.

abstract, added 04/09/2015


Brief essay life, personal and creative development Russian writer Anton Chekhov, the place of dramatic works in his legacy. Chekhov's innovation in dramaturgy and analysis inner world his heroes, the theme of love in the last plays of the writer.

abstract, added 05/07/2009


Definition of the fantasy genre, features of the genre in modern Russian literature. Relationship between the fantasy genre and other genres fantasy literature. Analysis of the trilogy by Maria Semenova "Wolfhound", mythological motifs in the trilogy, originality of novels.

abstract, added 08/06/2010


Symbol as a literary phenomenon, its concepts. Natural motifs in Chekhov's dramaturgy: images of a bird-gull, a garden and a reservoir. Geographical and real symbols, sound symbolism and color naming and their place in art system writer's plays.

thesis, added 07/27/2010


Features of Chekhov's work on the story "Three Years". The evolution of the creative genre from the "novel" to the story. Description of the system of images in the story "Three Years", its artistic originality. Literary devices used by the writer to reveal the images of the characters.

term paper, added 03/17/2011


Active search for new forms in drama and theater at the turn of the 60-80s of the twentieth century. Conflict in sociological drama. Interested attention to the psychological drama and to the possibilities of melodrama in the 70s and 80s. The development of philosophical drama in the mid-1980s

article, added 12/27/2009


The originality of the Pindaric and romantic genre of the ode. Aesthetic and political views of S.T. Coleridge. "Ode to the outgoing year": historical-literary and historical-political context. Transformations art form odes at the linguistic level.

The genre nature of The Cherry Orchard has always been controversial. Chekhov himself called it a comedy - "a comedy in four acts" (although a special type of comedy). M. Gorky called this work a "lyrical comedy." Quite often the play is defined as "tragicomedy", "ironic tragicomedy".

Chekhov wrote: "I did not come out with a drama, but a comedy, in places even a farce." The author denied the characters of The Cherry Orchard the right to drama: they seemed to him incapable of deep feelings. K.S. Stanislavsky, in his time (in 1904), staged a tragedy, with which Chekhov did not agree.

In the play there are tricks of a booth, tricks (Charlotta Ivanovna), blows with a stick on the head, after pathetic monologues farcical scenes follow, then a lyrical note appears again ... closet"), funny, inappropriate replicas and out of place answers, comic situations arising from a misunderstanding between the characters.

Chekhov's play is both funny and sad and even tragic at the same time. There are many crying people in it, but these are not dramatic sobs, and not even tears, but only the mood of faces. Chekhov emphasizes that the sadness of his heroes is often superficial, that their tears hide the usual for the weak and nervous people tearfulness.

The combination of the comic and the serious has been a hallmark of Chekhov's poetics since the first years of his work.

Play conflict.

The external plot of The Cherry Orchard is the change of owners of the house and garden, the sale of the family estate for debts. At first glance, the play clearly indicates the opposing forces that reflect the alignment of social forces in Russia at that time: old, noble Russia (Ranevskaya and Gaev), entrepreneurs gaining strength (Lopakhin), young, future Russia (Petya and Anya). It would seem that the clash of these forces should give rise to the main conflict of the play.

The characters are focused on the most important event in their lives - the sale of the cherry orchard, scheduled for August 22. However, the viewer does not become a witness of the sale of the garden itself: the seemingly climactic event remains outside the scene.

The social conflict in the play is not relevant, not social status actors is the main thing. Lopakhin - this "predator"-entrepreneur - is depicted not without sympathy (like most of the characters in the play), and the owners of the estate do not resist him. Moreover, the estate, as it were, turns out to be in his hands, against his will. It would seem that in the third act the fate of the cherry orchard is decided, Lopakhin bought it. Moreover, the denouement of the external plot is even optimistic: “Gaev (cheerfully). In fact, everything is fine now. Before the sale of the cherry orchard, we all worried, suffered, and then, when the issue was finally resolved, irrevocably, everyone calmed down, even cheered up ... I'm a bank employee, now I'm a financier ... yellow in the middle, and you, Lyuba, like - no way, you look better, that's for sure."

However, the play does not end, the author writes the fourth act, in which nothing new seems to be happening. But the motif of the garden resounds here. At the beginning of the play, the garden, which is in danger, attracts the whole family, gathered after a five-year separation. But no one is allowed to save him, he is no more, and in the fourth act everyone leaves again. The death of the garden led to the breakup of the family, scattered all the former inhabitants of the estate around the cities and villages. Silence sets in - the play ends, the motif of the garden falls silent. Takov external plot plays.

Behind everyday episodes and details, one can feel the movement of the “undercurrent” of the play, its second plan. Chekhov's theater is built on semitones, on reticence, on the "parallelism" of questions and answers without genuine communication. It has been noted that the main thing in Chekhov's dramas is hidden behind the words, concentrated in the famous pauses: in The Seagull, for example, there are 32 pauses, in Uncle Vanya - 43, in The Three Sisters - 60, in The Cherry Orchard - 32. There was no such "silent" dramaturgy before Chekhov. Pauses largely form the subtext of the play, its mood, create a feeling of intense expectation, listening to the underground rumble of impending upheavals.

The motive of loneliness, misunderstanding, confusion is the leading motive of the play. He determines the mood, the attitude of all the characters, for example, Charlotte Ivanovna, who asks herself first of all: "Who am I, why am I unknown." Cannot find the “right direction” Epikhodov (“twenty-two misfortunes”): “... I just can’t understand the direction of what I actually want, to live or shoot myself.” Firs understood the previous order, “and now everything is in disarray, you won’t understand anything.” And even the pragmatic Lopakhin only sometimes “seems” that he understands why he lives in the world.

Misunderstanding, the focus of each character in the play solely on their own experiences appear with particular clarity in the following dialogue:

Lyubov Andreevna. Who is smoking disgusting cigars here...

Gaev. Here railway built, and it became convenient. We went to the city and had breakfast... yellow in the middle! I'd like to go to the house first, play one game...

Lopakhin. Only one word! (Pleading.) Give me an answer!

GAYEV (yawning). Whom?

LYUBOV ANDREYEVNA (looks in her purse). Yesterday there was a lot of money, and today there is very little ... "

There is no dialogue, replicas are random, the present seems unsteady, and the future is unclear and disturbing. A.P. Skaftymov comments: “Chekhov has many such “random” remarks, they are everywhere, and the dialogue is constantly torn, broken and confused in some apparently completely extraneous and unnecessary trifles. In them, it is not the objective meaning that is important, but the well-being of life. Everyone speaks (or is silent, and silence becomes more eloquent than words) about his own, and this own turns out to be inaccessible to others.

For Ranevskaya and Gaev, Lopakhin’s proposal to give the estate for dachas, cutting down the old cherry orchard, seems basely “material”, vulgar: “Dachas and summer residents are so common, sorry,” Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya replies. Those 25 thousand annual income that Lopakhin promises them cannot compensate the owners for something very important - the memory of the dear past, the beauty of the garden. For them, demolishing a house and cutting down a garden means losing their property. According to A.P. Skaftymov, “all the faces of the play have something emotionally dear inside, and for all of them it is shown by Chekhov as equally inaccessible to everyone around.”

Each character has something that drowns out the pain of parting with the cherry orchard (or the joy of acquisition). After all, Ranevskaya and Gaev could easily avoid ruin, for this it was only worth renting out a cherry orchard. But they refuse. On the other hand, Lopakhin, after acquiring the cherry orchard, will not escape despondency and sadness. He suddenly addresses Ranevskaya with words of reproach: “Why, why didn’t you listen to me? My poor, good, you will not return now. And in tune with the whole course of the play, the moods of all the characters, Lopakhin utters his famous phrase: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” The life of all the heroes is absurd and awkward.

The reason for the discord, the source of the conflict, is not in the struggle for the cherry orchard, but in general dissatisfaction with life, according to A.P. Skaftymov: “Life goes on and quarrels in vain for everyone for a long time, day after day. The bitterness of the life of these people, their drama, therefore, does not consist in a special sad event, but precisely in this long, ordinary, gray, one-color, daily everyday state.

But, unlike the classical drama of the 19th century, the culprit of suffering and failure in the play is not personified, not named, it is not one of the characters. And the reader turns his questioning gaze beyond the scene - into the very device, the "addition" of life, in the face of which all the characters turn out to be powerless. The main conflict of Chekhov's plays - "bitter dissatisfaction with the very composition of life" - remains unresolved.

Chekhov, in his plays, and with the greatest force in The Cherry Orchard, expressed the moods of the turn of the era, when the rumble of impending historical cataclysms was clearly felt. It is symptomatic that in the same 1904, when The Cherry Orchard was staged, a poem by the symbolist poet Z. Gippius, close in emotional sensation to reality, was written, in which dissatisfaction with modernity and knowledge of the upcoming changes were extremely expressively expressed.

In the play, everyone lives in anticipation of an inevitable impending catastrophe: parting not with a cherry orchard, but with a whole thousand-year era - a thousand-year way of Russian life. And no one knows yet, but already has a presentiment that under the ax of Lopakhin not only the garden will die, but also much of what is dear to both Ranevskaya and Lopakhin, and those who believed that “everything will be different” - Anya and Petya Trofimov. Before such a future, the plot conflict of The Cherry Orchard turns out to be illusory.

Chekhov's work is rightly called an encyclopedia of spiritual quests of its time, in which there was no general idea. In one of his letters, Chekhov wrote about his epoch of timelessness: “We have neither immediate nor distant goals, and in our soul there is even a rolling ball. We have no politics, we don’t believe in revolution, there is no god, we are not afraid of ghosts, and I personally am not even afraid of death and blindness ... It’s not my fault for my illness, and it’s not for me to treat myself, for this illness, presumably has its own good goals hidden from us and was not sent without reason ... "

©2015-2019 site
All rights belong to their authors. This site does not claim authorship, but provides free use.
Page creation date: 2018-01-08

This work amazed contemporaries with the originality of the genre, novelty and freshness. The originality of the comedy is dictated by the era in which it was created and which found such a vivid embodiment in this brilliant poem.

What was this era? It represents a milestone, a transitional period, a change of centuries. Ekaterina's age with its conservative social consciousness and the psychology of an inhabitant who adheres to old views, the old order, which ensures their peaceful existence, was leaving in the past. bright representative"the past century" is in the comedy Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov. He is the most consistent

and fiercely defends the ideology of his age.

The century of Catherine's favorites is being replaced by the "current century". The new public consciousness was awakened by the Patriotic War of 1812. There are hopes for change, for the abolition of serfdom, for the freedom and independence of the individual.

Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is represented in the comedy as a supporter of the new century and social reforms.

Genre originality The play also lies in the fact that it combines the features of the fading Enlightenment classicism and the signs of a new, realistic art. In comedy, the basic rule of classicism is observed - the principle of three unities. The unity of place and time lies in the fact that the action takes place in one day and takes place in Famusov's house. The principle of unity of action exists only formally: there is a love triangle: Sofia - Mochalin - Chatsky. The play retains the “role system” traditional for classicism. The plot is based on a love triangle. Famusov plays the role of a gullible father who is unaware of his daughter's love. Lisa plays the role of 2 soubretki ”- a servant who helps lovers. But the roles are not maintained to the end, as was customary in classicism, but are filled with a new, living meaning. For example. Famusov and Lisa also act as reasoners. A departure from tradition is the fact that Chatsky is a reasoner and a hero - a lover at the same time, moreover, in the role of a hero - a lover, he is defeated. Molchalin fits the role of a stupid lover, but it is unusual that the heroine prefers him to the smart Chatsky. Thus, it can be argued that the traditional scope of roles in comedy has been expanded. There is no happy ending in comedy, as was customary in classicism. Each of the heroes: Sophia and Chatsky - gets his own "million of torment".

Griboyedov endows his heroes with "speaking names", which is also a feature of classicism. For example, the surname "Famusov" comes from English word"famous". In this surname, the typical character of the hero is emphasized. His house is a model of lordly Moscow in miniature. "Wordless" Molchalin is consistent with his last name.

The image of Chatsky embodies the features of a romantic personality. Before us is a lone hero, forever challenging the world and forever suffering defeat from him. An ardent young man, passionately in love with Sophia, has the gift of eloquence, a sharp, mocking, caustic mind.

The originality of comedy lies in the fact that two conflicts are closely intertwined in it - social and love. Let's see how the action of the play develops.

After three years of wandering, Chatsky returns to Moscow to Famusov's house and is amazed at the beauty of Sophia and her coldness towards him. All the forces of the hero's soul are spent on resolving the "mystery" of Sophia. But gradually love conflict develops into a public one when Famusov puts forward conditions for Chatsky under which he can claim Sophia's hand:

First of all, I would say: don’t be blissful,

Name, brother, do not manage by mistake,

And, most importantly, go and serve.

But the young man aptly retorts: I would be glad to serve, it is sickening to serve. A verbal duel begins between representatives of different centuries, everyone defends his position and does not intend to give up. Famusov's fussiness in front of Colonel Skalozub irritates Chatsky: he suspects an opponent. Chatsky does not believe Sophia, who paints in best light Molchalin, takes this as a mockery.

In the ball scene, the social and love conflict culminates. Sophia, offended by Chatsky's harsh review of the object of her love, deliberately spreads slander about Chatsky's madness. Society unites in the fight against the "freethinker".

Thus, the originality of the genre of A. Griboyedov's play lies in the fact that it combines the traditional features of classicism and romanticism and at the same time is a work of a new direction - critical realism.