The Cherry Orchard by Chekhov - Book Report/Review Example

Anton Chekhov is the creator of new form of drama, which is characterised by novelty of conflict, refusal of an external intrigue, combination of drama, comic and lyrical basis, the great role of the subtext created by notes of the author, pauses, and pictures of the nature. Let us refer to one of his best works 'The Cherry Orchard', which has been written in the very end of his life. Karlinsky in the book 'Anton Chekhov's Life and Thought: Selected Letters and Commentary' writes: "The reading public is aware that his days are numbered, and every new work is received with a sort of tender gratitude, with the realization that it was written with the remainder of his dwindling strength"1. There are variety of issued, which has been considered by Chekhov in this great play. Sara Haslam identifies a range of issues investigated in Chekhov's play: - marital dissolution; - sexual frustration; - political idealism; - patrician love of land and property; - the rights of the masses to what the few had enjoyed in Russia; - social loneliness for those who cross class divides; - the role of servants as society 'progresses'2 Let us consider one of those issues, political idealism. As is it known, the play 'The Cherry Orchard' is a 'grand total' of Chekhov's creative way, his last word turned to a reader. The orchard, which is simultaneously a background of action, a character, and a universal symbol, may be considered in three basic aspects: an orchard as an image and a character, an orchard as time, and an orchard as symbolical spaces. Poeticized by Chekhov and idealized by the characters connected with it, the cherry orchard undoubtedly is one of characters of the play. It takes its own place in the system of images. The orchard is presented simultaneously as a charge (it emphasizes irresponsibility) and the justification (sense of beauty, keeping traditions, memory) of all other characters. The orchard sets the top moral plane (that for Chekhov is a norm, but for his heroes by virtue of distortion of a world order and their own inferiority, becomes an ideal), the same as Yasha, the complete scoundrel sets the bottom plane. There are no verticals, which should connect these planes. Therefore all other characters stay between, in the middle, as if being in free fall, not touching any of planes. They have deflected from the norm, but have not come down finally. They reflect these planes and are reflected in them; from here come ambiguity and many-sided nature of images. Chekhov considered the Cherry Orchard to be a comedy. He insisted on its characters "being ridiculous in thinking themselves idealists, fighters for freedom, beauty lovers and the unmerciful destiny victims"3. Aspiration to naturalness and vital truth representation urged Chekhov to create the play of not cleanly drama or comic, but rather complex genre. The dramatic nature is harmoniously combined with comic, and comic is shown in an organic interlacement with drama. It is 'a comedy and a farce and a tragedy in the sense in which life is all these things, being made up of change and loss, and a certain sparkling recovery, and a grimly ludicrous, ironic, riotous play of unknown forces over it all'4. Haslam claims that 'the focus rather than being on individuals and their fate (which tends to belong more to tragedy), becomes humanity's inclination to take itself too seriously, and its reluctance to adapt to changing circumstance. In keeping with this focus, the humour of The Cherry Orchard is, actually, rarely of a farcical kind: it tends to provoke wry smiles instead of belly laughs; it does not preclude seriousness. Most importantly, the comedy works in conjunction with the play's tragic aspects: as we have seen, it is the balance of this mixture that is the crucial thing'5.Chekhov considered the Cherry Orchard to be a comedy. He insisted on its characters "being ridiculous in thinking themselves idealists, fighters for freedom, beauty lovers and the unmerciful destiny victims"6. Social and political events, which promoted the fast growth of political consciousness of workers and peasants, revolutionized all country, and had a great influence on Chekhov. Chekhov was notable for his deep feeling of the validity, and the revolutionary ferment, which affected one way or another all sections of the population, could not but cause his response. The general atmosphere of an imminent 'social storm' aggravated his attention to political and social issues. Chekhov with enthusiasm keep up with politics and the rise of liberation movement, he was pleased with growth of national consciousness. Chekhov had a great interest in political questions, in struggle of broad masses for the rights. The main characters of this play may be divided on three groups. The first group of characters reflects a social status, characters and customs of landlord class nobility in the period of its final collapse. It is Ranevksy, Gayev, Boris Simeonov-Pischik. Solving the primary goal that is critics of all way of life, all those times social system, Chekhov has wittingly taken not the worst representatives of dominated at that time classes. The belonging to dominated classes of socially and politically faulty system defines the negativity of socially-typical behaviour even of people possessing positive moral qualities - that is of the main Chekhov's ideas, which is performed in the play. Ranevksy, Gayev, Boris Simeonov-Pischik are inherent such individual features as honesty, kindness, simplicity, frankness in attitute to people. Ranevksy also has aesthetic inclinations expressed in love for nature and music. But marking individual positive features, good characteristics of nobility representatives of his play, Chekhov convincingly shows that these people, being representatives of the parasitic class, which is becoming obsolete, are negative in their defining typical essence. Thus, Chekhov applies a principle of the exposing representation, special and rather complex representation. The second group of the basic characters of 'The Cherry Orchard' as a matter of fact is presented by the onle image - the image of merchant Yermolay Lopakhin. If the nobility is represented by Chekhov as a class, which has already become obsolete, leaving, finally losing its public value, the bourgeoisie in the person of Lopakhin is represented as a public force, which has come to take nobility's place. Chekhov clearly understood the exploiter essence of bourgeoisie. People represented in the person of Lopakhin are the people, who dispose of economic riches of the country. They are "owners" of life, the great ones of this world. The bourgeoisie in comparison to nobility is thought by Chekhov as positive public force. It is practical, enterprising, efficient, and vigorous. It is full of aspiration to bring technical progress in the life of the country, to strengthen an economic exchange, to use riches of the country in the best way. Proceeding from socially-typical essence of Lopakhin as a representative of a rising bourgeoisie, Chekhov makes him effective, vigorous. Lopakhin is active in the deeds, words, decisions. Lopakhin works in contrast to Ranevksy and Gayev. Lopakhin, as he said, get up 'at five every morning' and work 'from morning till evening'. But on Chekhov's opinion, being in comparison with Ranevksy and Gayev positive, people such as Lopakhin were not that public force, which was capable to change radically a life and to bring in it the basis of true justice and beauty. People such as Lopakhin, replacing people such as Ranevksy and Gayev, carry out rather progressive role. They are historically inevitable, but they are not capable to bring the essential changes leading to destruction of exploitation of a person by the other person, poverty of millions, and lack of culture. The matter is that people such as Lopakhin in their activity are guided first of all by personal interests, instead of work for the common good. Their huge energy, sober mind, practical, economic keenness of wit, vital tenacity are directed on satisfaction of personal profit interests, personal prosperity. Their basic aspiration is the aspiration to enrichment. Words of Trofimov Chekhov has emphasized that ideals of Lopakhin are the ideals of owner, deprived of socially-conscious aspirations, unable to bring the common good to people the true. "You know", Trovimov says to Lopakhin, "we may not meet each other again, so just let me give you a word of advice on parting: "Don't wave your hands about! Get rid of that habit of waving them about. And then, building villas and reckoning on their residents becoming freeholders in time--that's the same thing; it's all a matter of waving your hands about"(Act four). Lopakhin belongs to other class, than people like Gayev. People such as Lopakhin in many respects are distinct from people like Gayev. But their public practice is the same. Both those and other are exploiters. Thus people like Lopakhin are exploiters more practical, vigorous, and rough. Showing this rough force Lopakhin shouts: "Do just as I want you to! [Ironically] The new owner, the owner of the cherry orchard is coming! [He accidentally knocks up against a little table and nearly upsets the candelabra] I can pay for everything!" (Act three). The third group of the basic characters of the play "The Cherry Orchard" make student rofimov and Anya Ranevksy. If Mrs. Lyuba Ranevsky and Guyev represented as the remains of the past, and people like Lopakhin, who got increasing economic and political authority, showed the present of then Russia and were its basic owners, Chekhov believed that Trofimov and Anya marked its future. Creating the image of Trofimov, Chekhov has put forward in him such leading features, as fidelity to common cause, aspiration to the best future for his country and propagation of struggle for it, patriotism, and adherence to principles, courage, and diligence. Trofimov considers the cherry orchard as property of all people, instead of people like Ranevsky and Gayev. He is not afraid to tell that landowners are the oppressors of people, that landowners have a parasitic way of life. Addressing to nya, he speaks: "Your mother, your uncle, and you don't notice that you are living off the labours of others--in fact, the very people you won't even let in the front door." (Act two). Considering nobility as a class, which has already historically become obsolete, Trofimov at the same time recognizes rather progressive role of bourgeoisie. But he distinctly realizes the rapacious essence of bourgeoisie and understands that this class, carrying out its vital function, is also unable to change resolutely a life and to construct it on such reasonable and truthful basis that it became free and happy for all people. In reply to Lopakhin's desire to express his opinion Trofimov speaks: "Ermolai Alexeyevitch, you're a rich man, and you'll soon be a millionaire. Just as the wild beast which eats everything it finds is needed for changes to take place in matter, so you are needed too". [All laugh.] (Act two). Trofimov opposes himself both to nobility, and to bourgeoisie. On Lopakhin's offer to lend him money, he with feeling of own superiority and advantage answers: "Even if you gave me twenty thousand I should refuse. I'm a free man. And everything that all you people, rich and poor, value so highly and so dearly hasn't the least influence over me; it's like a flock of down in the wind. I can do without you, I can pass you by. I'm strong and proud. Mankind goes on to the highest truths and to the highest happiness such as is only possible on earth, and I go in the front ranks!" (Act four). To egoism of landowners such as Ranevsky, Gayev and Lopakhin Trofimov opposes own fidelity to the common good and democratic patriotism. He was the one, who said the words full of true love to the native land and people: "All Russia is our orchard" (Act two). Trofimov emphasizes on the defining role of labour, and he calls all for work and work for the public good: "The human race progresses, perfecting its powers. Everything that is unattainable now will some day be near at hand and comprehensible, but we must work, we must help with all our strength those who seek to know what fate will bring. Meanwhile in Russia only a very few of us work. The vast majority of those intellectuals whom I know seek for nothing, do nothing, and are at present incapable of hard work" (Act two). So we may conclude that in the image of Trofimov it is possible to observe the manifestation of Chekhov's political idealism. Dominic Dromgoole, the Artistic Director of the Oxford Stage Company claims: "No one has expressed the necessity of the communist ideal more powerfully than Trofimov does in Cherry Orchard. It is easy and glib to say that these are characters talking and not the author. It is harder to admit that he is expressing his own dreams here"7. As a matter of fact it is impossible to fine any truth or happiness attractive to all people in the same way. Thus we may agree with Loehlin, who claims: "By himself, neither Lopakhin nor Trofimov is so unequivocal a character as to speak the whole truth, but somewhere between th pragmatism of the one and the idealism of the other the audience is given a glimpse of the need for human compromise"8. Works cited: "Anton Chekhov." Stpetersburg-Guide.Com. 25 Nov. 2007 . Brown, Richard Danson, and Suman Gupta. Aestheticism & Modernism Debating Twentieth-Century Literature 1900-1960. Twentieth-century literature : texts and debates. London: Routledge, 2005, p. 20. Chekhov, Anton Pavlovich, Rosamund Bartlett, and Anthony Phillips. A Life in Letters. Penguin classics. London: Penguin Books, 2004. Chekhov, A.P., Karlinsky, Simon & Michael Henry Heim. Anton Chekhov's Life and Thought: Selected Letters and Commentary. Northwestern University Press. 1997. Loehlin, James N. Chekhov The Cherry Orchard. Plays in production. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Read More