Cherry Orchard older generation. The Cherry Orchard, a debate between generations

At the center of Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard” is the question of saving the cherry orchard, the estate of the landowner Ranevskaya. It is important that the garden represents all of Russia. Thus, the playwright poses in his work the question of whether it is possible to save “old” Russia - a noble country, with its centuries-old way of life, culture, philosophy, and worldview.

We can say that throughout the entire comedy the role of savior is “tried on” to many heroes. We look especially closely at young characters, because who, if not the youth, should we rely on for the salvation of Russia?

First of all, Petya and his “follower” Anya, Ranevskaya’s youngest daughter, attract attention. These heroes are young, full of strength and energy, but they are passionate about completely different ideas - to transform the whole world, to create a wonderful future for all humanity. What do they think is old The Cherry Orchard! For Anya, he is a symbol of everything old and inert; she does not feel any warm feelings towards her mother’s estate. The girl thinks that Russian nobility guilty before common people and must atone for his guilt. This is exactly what Anya wants to devote her life to together with Petya Trofimov.

Trofimov scolds everything that slows down the development of Russia - “dirt, vulgarity, Asianism”, criticizes Russian intelligentsia, which does not search for anything and does not work. But the hero does not notice that he himself is bright representative such an intelligentsia: he speaks beautifully without doing anything. A characteristic phrase for Petya: “I will reach or show others the way to reach...” to the “highest truth.” He also doesn’t care about the cherry orchard. Trofimov’s plans are much larger - to make all humanity happy!..

But, I think, these heroes will remain at the stage of words and will not get down to business. Petya spends too much energy on abstract plans, but he is not able to do anything concrete. Let us remember that Trofimov cannot even complete the course or receive a diploma. This is a sure sign that all his affairs will also “hang in the air” and end in “zilch.”

Maybe Anya will be stronger than her " ideological inspirer"and will be able to really participate in the transformation of Russia? The character of this girl allows me to think so, but... It seems to me that Anya is in love with Trofimov, in her eyes he is romantic hero, pronouncing beautiful words, to which the girl listens with delight. So now, I think, the ideas of transformation and salvation are her true, real interest. Perhaps in the future, having matured and become stronger, she will be able to contribute to a good cause, but not now.

The most likely candidate for the role of the savior of the cherry orchard in the play is, in my opinion, Lopakhin. From the very beginning, he appears before us as a man who deeply sympathizes with the ruined Ranevskaya, attached to her since childhood.

This hero is a merchant, a representative of the formation that becomes the “masters of life” in new Russia. Lopakhin came from the peasantry, he simple origin: “My father, it’s true, was a man, but here I am in a white vest and yellow shoes. With a pig's snout in a Kalash line... Only he's rich, he has a lot of money, but if you think about it and figure it out, he's a man..."

Thanks to his enterprise and acumen, Lopakhin was able to “make” himself a decent fortune. His rational brain is aimed primarily at obtaining benefits. Lopakhin does not understand any “sentiments, tenderness”, sublime feelings due to his make-up and level of education. He advises Ranevskaya to cut down the trees and rent out the garden to summer residents, dividing it into plots.

The merchant is, of course, right; this is exactly what should be done in the current situation from an economic point of view. But... in this case, the old cherry orchard, that is, the old Russia, will fade into oblivion and sink into oblivion. This is what happens in the finale. And Lopakhin even rejoices at the departure of old Russia.

Indeed, what good did he see under serfdom? His father and grandfather were slaves there, and the same fate awaited him. And in new country Lopakhin rose to prominence, became a respected man, and even gained power over his former owners. Therefore, this hero will not save old Russia. But will he save the new one? I think yes. From history we know that before the events of 1917, Russia was one of the world leaders in economic and cultural development. The country was gradually rebuilt, preserving old traditions, but, of course, introducing new trends into it. And only October Revolution 1917 radically changed everything.

Thus, there are several young heroes in the play, but among them there is no character capable of saving the old, former Russia. But there is a hero who is the future. In my opinion, this is businessman Lopakhin.

The title of the play is symbolic. “All of Russia is our garden,” Chekhov said. This last play was written by Chekhov at the cost of enormous effort. physical strength, and simply rewriting the play was an act of the greatest difficulty. Chekhov finished “The Cherry Orchard” on the eve of the first Russian revolution, in the year of his early death (1904).

Thinking about the death of the cherry orchard, about the fate of the inhabitants of the ruined estate, he mentally imagined all of Russia at the turn of the era.

On the eve of grandiose revolutions, as if feeling the steps of a formidable reality near him, Chekhov comprehended the present from the standpoint of the past and future. The far-reaching perspective imbued the play with the air of history and imparted a special extent to its time and space. In the play “The Cherry Orchard” there is no acute conflict, everything seems to go on as usual and there are no open quarrels or clashes between the characters in the play. And yet the conflict exists, but not openly, but internally, deeply hidden in the seemingly peaceful setting of the play. The conflict lies in the misunderstanding of a generation by a generation. It seems as if three times intersected in the play: past, present and future. And each of the three generations dreams of its own time.

The play begins with Ranevskaya’s arrival at her old family estate, with a return to the cherry orchard, which stands outside the windows all in bloom, to people and things familiar from childhood. A special atmosphere of awakened poetry and humanity arises. As if in last time flashes brightly - like a memory - this living life on the verge of dying. Nature is preparing for renewal - and hopes for a new one awaken in Ranevskaya’s soul, clean life.

For the merchant Lopakhin, who is going to purchase the Ranevskaya estate, the cherry orchard also means something more than just the object of a commercial transaction.

In the play, representatives of three generations pass before us: the past - Gaev, Ranevskaya and Firs, the present - Lopakhin and representatives of the future generation - Petya Trofimov and Anya, Ranevskaya’s daughter. Chekhov not only created images of people whose lives occurred at a turning point, but captured Time itself in its movement. The heroes of “The Cherry Orchard” turn out to be victims not of private circumstances and their own lack of will, but of the global laws of history - the active and energetic Lopakhin is as much a hostage of time as the passive Gaev. The play is based on a unique situation, which has become a favorite for drama XX centuries, - situations“threshold”. Nothing like this is happening yet, but there is a feeling of an edge, an abyss into which a person must fall.

Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya - a representative of the old nobility - is an impractical and selfish woman, naive in her love interest, but she is kind and sympathetic, and her sense of beauty does not fade, which Chekhov especially emphasizes. Ranevskaya constantly recalls her best young years spent in an old house, in a beautiful and luxurious cherry orchard. She lives with these memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, and she doesn’t even want to think about the future. Her immaturity seems funny. But it turns out that the entire old generation in this play thinks the same way. None of them are trying to change anything. They talk about beauty old life, but they themselves seem to resign themselves to the present, let everything take its course and give in without a fight.

Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a hero of the present time. This is how Chekhov himself defined his role in the play: “The role of Lo-akhin is central. After all, this is not a merchant in the vulgar sense of the word... he is a gentle man... a decent man in every sense...” But this gentle man is a predator, he lives for today, so his ideas are smart and practical. Combination selfless love towards beauty and a merchant's spirit, peasant simplicity and a subtle artistic soul merged together in the image of Lopakhin. He has lively conversations about how to change life for the better, and seems to know what to do. But in fact, he is not the ideal hero of the play. We feel his lack of self-confidence.

The play intertwines several storylines. A dying garden and failed, even unnoticed love are two cross-cutting, internally connected themes of the play. The line of the failed romance between Lopakhin and Varya ends before anyone else. It is built on Chekhov’s favorite technique: they talk most and most willingly about what does not exist, discuss details, argue about the little things that do not exist, without noticing or deliberately hushing up what exists and is essential. Varya is waiting for a simple and logical course of life: since Lopakhin often visits a house where there is unmarried girls, of which only she is suitable for him. Varya, therefore, must get married. Varya doesn’t even have the thought to look at the situation differently, to think whether Lopakhin loves her, is she interesting to him? All Varina’s expectations are based on idle gossip that this marriage would be successful!

It would seem that Anya and Petya Trofimov are the author’s hope for the future. The romantic plan of the play is grouped around Petya Trofimov. His monologues have much in common with the thoughts of Chekhov's best heroes. On the one hand, Chekhov does nothing but put Petya in ridiculous positions, constantly compromising him, reducing his image to the extremely unheroic - “ eternal student" And " shabby gentleman”, whom Lopakhin constantly stops with his ironic remarks. On the other hand, Petya Trofimov’s thoughts and dreams are close to Chekhov’s own state of mind. Petya Trofimov does not know specific historical paths to a good life and his advice to Anya, who shares his dreams and premonitions, is naive to say the least. “If you have the keys to the farm, then throw them into the well and leave. Be free like the wind." But a radical change has ripened in life, which Chekhov foresees, and it is not the character of Petya, the degree of maturity of his worldview, but the doom of the old that determines the inevitability.

But can a person like Petya Trofimov change this life? After all, only smart, energetic, self-confident people, active people, can come up with new ideas, enter the future and lead others. And Petya, like the other heroes of the play, talks more than he acts, he generally behaves somehow ridiculously. Anya is still too young. She will never understand her mother’s drama, and Lyubov Andreevna herself will never understand her passion for Petya’s ideas. Anya still doesn’t know enough about life to change it. But Chekhov saw the strength of youth precisely in freedom from prejudice, from the sheer nature of thoughts and feelings. Anya becomes like-minded with Petya, and this strengthens the motif of the future in the play. have a wonderful life.

On the day of the sale of the estate, Ranevskaya throws a ball that is completely inappropriate from the point of view of common sense. Why does she need him? For the living Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, who is now fiddling with a wet handkerchief in her hands, waiting for her brother to return from the auction, this ridiculous ball is important in itself - as a challenge to everyday life. She snatches a holiday from everyday life, snatches from life that moment that can stretch a thread to eternity.

The property has been sold. "I bought!" - triumphant new owner, rattling the keys. Ermolai Lopakhin bought an estate where his grandfather and father were slaves, where they were not even allowed into the kitchen. He is ready to take an ax to the cherry orchard. But in supreme moment After the celebration, this “intelligent merchant” suddenly feels shame and bitterness about what has happened: “Oh, if only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change.” And it becomes clear that for yesterday’s plebeian, a person with tender soul and thin fingers, the purchase of a cherry orchard is, in essence, an “unnecessary victory.”

Ultimately, Lopakhin is the only one who offers a real plan to save the cherry orchard. And this plan is realistic, first of all, because Lopakhin understands: the garden cannot be preserved in its previous form, its time has passed, and now the garden can be preserved only by rearranging it in accordance with the requirements new era. But a new life means, first of all, the death of the past, and the executioner turns out to be the one who sees the beauty of the dying world most clearly.

So, the main tragedy of the work lies not only in the external action of the play - the sale of the garden and estate, where many of characters spent their youth, with which their best memories are associated, but also in internal contradiction - the inability of the same people to change anything to improve their situation. The absurdity of the events taking place in the play is constantly felt. Ranevskaya and Gaev look ridiculous with their attachment to old objects, Epikhodov is ridiculous, and Charlotte Ivanovna herself is the personification of uselessness in this life.

The last act, as always with Chekhov, is a moment of parting, farewell to the past. Sad for the old owners of the “cherry orchard”, troublesome for the new businessman, joyful for young souls with their reckless Blok-like readiness to abandon everything - home, childhood, loved ones, and even poetry.” nightingale garden” - in order to shout with an open, free soul: “Hello, new life!” But if from the point of view of the social future “The Cherry Orchard” sounded like a comedy, then for its time it sounded like a tragedy. These two melodies, without merging, appeared simultaneously in the finale, giving birth to a complex tragicomic outcome of the work.

The young, cheerfully, calling to each other invitingly, run forward. Old people, like old things, huddled together, they stumble over them without noticing them. Suppressing tears, Ranevskaya and Gaev rush to each other. “Oh my dear, my tender, beautiful garden. My life, my youth, my happiness, goodbye!.. Farewell!..” But the music of farewell is drowned out by “the sound of an ax on wood, sounding lonely and sad.” The shutters and doors are closed. In the empty house, the sick Firs remains unnoticed in the bustle: “But they forgot the man...” The old man is alone in the locked house. “As if from the sky the sound of a broken string” is heard, and in the silence the ax dully knocks on the wood.

The symbolism of “The Cherry Orchard” spoke of the approach of grandiose social cataclysms and changes in the old world.

This work reflects the problems of the passing nobility, the bourgeoisie and the revolutionary future. At the same time, Chekhov depicted in a new way main conflict works - a conflict of three generations.

With his play, the author poses the question - who is destined to be the creator of a new life. Neither the author nor life itself gives an answer to this question, but Chekhov emphasizes the readiness for the new in two heroes - Anya and Petya. Where Petya talks about the unsettled nature of his old life and calls for a new life, the author sympathizes with him, for this is the thought of Chekhov himself. But in Petya’s reasoning there is no personal strength, no ability to implement what was said. Like all the klutzes in the play, he is incompetent and powerless in front of new life, but the words of his speech can excite listeners, in particular Anya, in whose image youth and inexperience are emphasized above all. Anya is also ready to change her life and the foreboding of the coming revolution is maturing in society and finding a response in the souls of people like Anya.

Each character has its own significance for understanding the problems of the work: Semyonov Pishchik - based on his example, a different fate of a nobleman is given. His fate is not for sale yet, but his well-being rests on chance. In the image of Charlotte, fate is absurd and paradoxical, emphasizing the role of chance in a person’s life. Epikhodov is a man who does not live his own life. For him, who pretended to be educated and elevated in his feelings, fate had only 22 misfortunes in store for him. The character traits of the old masters of life are exaggerated in the images of the servants. Firs is heavenly devotion to masters and a forgotten personality, a manifestation of the remnants of the serfdom era. Firsa is the fault of owners who treat people as things. Main image play, its center is the Cherry Orchard. This image combines the concrete and the eternal (youth, memories, purity, happiness). The essay on the topic of the future of Russia is connected with this image. Around the image Cherry Orchard All the characters are located and each of them has their own garden. It highlights the spiritual capabilities of each of the characters. The garden deepens philosophical problem plays - the loneliness of unloved characters in the eternal cycle of life.

In the play there is no traditional, pronounced confrontation between the parties and the clash of various life positions. The source of drama is not in the struggle for the Cherry Orchard, but in the subjective dissatisfaction with life that ALL the heroes experience. Life goes on awkwardly and awkwardly, bringing no joy or happiness to anyone, and therefore all the heroes have a sense of the temporary nature of their stay in the world.

Chekhov: “What I came out with was not a drama, but a comedy, sometimes even a farce.” Outwardly, the events are dramatic, but in Chekhov the sad turns out to be comical, sometimes farcical ( theatrical play light playful content with external comic effects).

It is interesting that Pavlovich Chekhov himself grew a garden in Melikhovo. In Crimea, the writer laid out a southern garden near his house on a high hill, which became his brainchild. He raised him according to a well-thought-out plan and created him as a work of art.

The Cherry Orchard in the play is the embodiment of everything beautiful, the personification of beauty and poetry. This is one of the heroes of the play. He appears in her constantly, as if reminding her of himself. Introduced into the characters' lines, the garden becomes a participant in the action.

The magnificent Chekhov's garden is connected in the play with the destinies of three generations: past, present and future. Thus, Chekhov very widely expands the time captured in his play. The garden itself embodies past culture and beauty. This is how Ranevskaya and Gaev perceive him. For them it is associated with childhood. According to Ranevskaya, “happiness woke up” with her every morning when she looked out the window at these trees.

For Lopakhin, the garden is wonderful only as a good “location”. According to him, “the only remarkable thing about this garden is that it is very large.” For him, this is a business commercial area. He believes that cherries “do not bring any income now”; a poppy field is another matter! He is going to cut down the old one, and now the threat hangs over the trees like the sword of Damocles.

Lopakhin feels like the master of life. “Come everyone and watch how Yermolai Lopakhin takes an ax to the cherry orchard and how the trees fall to the ground!” There is so much cynicism and courage in these words! “We’ll set up the dachas!” - he says. At the end of the play, the threat is put into action: the ax knocks, trees fall.

Indifference to what is happening can be felt in the words of Petya Trofimov. To the eternal human value- beauty - he approaches from a narrow class position and begins to denigrate the cherry orchard, seeing for some reason a tortured slave-serf behind every tree. “The earth is great and beautiful, there are many wonderful places on it,” he reassures Anya.

Only Anya, bright, gentle and enthusiastic, focused on the future, is ready to plant new garden more beautiful than before. She alone is worthy of the beauty that lies in the cherry orchard.

The play presents, as it were, two worlds: the world of dreams and the world of reality. Ranevskaya and Lopakhin live in different worlds. That's why they don't hear each other. Lyubov Andreevna lives in dreams, she is all in her love, in her fantasies. It’s as if she’s not here: part of her remained in Paris, despite the fact that at first she doesn’t even read messages from there, and part of her returned to this house, to this garden, but not today, but to the one that she remembers from childhood . From her shell, filled with the pink ether of dreams, she sees life, but cannot experience it as it really is. Her phrase: “I know, they wrote to me,” referring to the death of the nanny, her attitude towards Varvara is not at all cruelty, not indifference. Ranevskaya is just not here, she is in her own world.

It is generally accepted that Gaev, Ranevskaya’s brother, is, as it were, a distorted image of her. There is an obvious “stretch” in this. He simply lies on the border of these two worlds. He is not an idle dreamer, but, apparently, his existence is not entirely real if at his age they talk about him as “young and green.”

But Lopakhin is, perhaps, only person from reality. But it's not that simple. Lopakhin combines both reality and dream. But his “dreams” lead to action: the memory of all the good that Ranevskaya did for him forces him to look for a way out of the situation in which they found themselves. But the matter ends with the purchase of a cherry orchard.

The comparison of director Efros, who said, while working on this play at the Taganka Theater, that all the characters in the play are children playing in a minefield, and only Lopakhin, seems very accurate. serious man, warns of danger, but the children captivate him with their play, he forgets himself, but soon remembers again, as if waking up. Only he alone constantly remembers the danger. One Lopakhin.

The question of the relationship between dreams and reality in the play “The Cherry Orchard” was also reflected in debates about the genre. It is known that Chekhov himself called the play a comedy, but Stanislavsky staged it as a drama. Still, let’s listen to the author’s opinion. Chekhov's play “The Cherry Orchard” is more of a sad thought about the fate of Russia than a revolutionary call, as they sometimes try to present it.

There are no ways to reorganize life, no specific actions in the play. It is generally accepted that Chekhov saw the future of Russia in the images of Trofimov and Anya. But the owners of the garden - hereditary nobles Gaev and Ranevskaya. This garden has belonged to their family for many, many years. And the author deeply likes these people, despite their idleness and idleness. And here the question arises about the ambiguity of the play.

Take, for example, the image of the owner of the garden herself, Ranevskaya. It is known that Chekhov worked on this role with great enthusiasm and intended it for the actress O. L. Knipper, his wife. This image has always caused controversy and has become one of Chekhov’s mysteries. In response to the question of how this image should be played, Chekhov replied: “Fingers, fingers in rings; she grabs onto everything, but everything falls out of her hands, and her head is empty.” This is the key to the image, proposed by the author himself.

Ranevskaya has such wonderful character traits as kindness and devotion to the feeling of love. She's fussing about the device adopted daughter Varya, pitying the servant Firs, gives her wallet to the peasants who came to say goodbye to her. But sometimes this kindness is simply the result of the wealth that she possesses and which reveals itself in the sparkle of rings on her fingers. She herself admits to her extravagance: “I have always wasted money without restraint, like crazy.”

Ranevskaya does not take her care for people to its logical conclusion. Varya is left without a livelihood after the sale of her estate and is forced to go to strangers. Firs remains in a locked house because Lyubov Andreevna forgot to check whether he was sent to the hospital.

Ranevskaya is characterized by frivolity and quick changes of feelings. So, she turns to God and begs to forgive her sins, but at the same time she offers to have a “party”. The duality of experiences also affects Russia. She tenderly treats her homeland, the cherry orchard, her old house with huge windows through which unruly branches climb. But this feeling is unstable. As soon as she receives a telegram from ex-lover who robbed her, she forgets the insult and is going to Paris. It seems that Ranevskaya is devoid of an inner core. Her frivolity and carelessness lead to the fact that the garden is sold and the estate goes into the wrong hands.

/ / / Three generations in Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard”

In Chekhov's "The Cherry Orchard" three generations are clearly distinguished. The first rightfully belongs to the footman. He loves the estate where he has worked his entire adult life. The old man’s soul still lives in “serfdom”, since he himself does not want to accept new “strange” laws. He was satisfied with certainty and order in everything. Now, although he feels like a kind of “authorized” person in the estate, he still worries about the future. He is tormented by the fact that there is only uncertainty ahead, from which he, due to his age, may suffer.

The second generation includes and. They inherited the worldview, character and landowner traditions from their parents. However, neither sister nor brother calculated their strength, and the estate is in decline. Their “debt hole” is growing as well as their “lordly” demands. Life teaches heroes practically nothing. Ranevskaya had already sold her dacha near Menton, and literally supported her lover with this money. The woman herself was not averse to living large. Love, just wasted money. Even when she was forced to return to her homeland with virtually no funds, wastefulness did not leave her character.

Gaev is very dissatisfied with this behavior. The man literally reproaches his sister, but he himself leads a very “uneconomical” lifestyle. His habits have long included dinners in expensive restaurants, playing billiards in a club and other celebrations. Living on the Gaev estate, he constantly watches as Varya struggles with all her strength in order to somehow reduce expenses.

And they are the third and final generation. Lopakhin can also be included among them. He, like the girls, is “rooted” to the estate. Ermolai was the son of a simple serf "peasant". However, only he managed to literally rise from the bottom. His plans include a wedding with Varya, but the young couple still fail to explain themselves. They are both busy, both goal-oriented and their actions are very thoughtful. Will they create another generation together? Most likely no.

Despite mutual sympathy, Chekhov does not create a new “cell” of society. With Lopakhin’s indecisiveness, the author literally cuts the knot of emerging feelings and separates young people in different directions. The garden is cut down, and at the same time the history of this estate ends. Perhaps Lopakhin will get married someday, and a new generation will be born, without the old burdening memories of what he experienced. In the meantime, he is leaving " noble nest"Together with the servants, Gaev and his sister, Varya and Anna.

Anya leaves the estate with joy. She imagines her future in rainbow color. The girl has studies ahead, new discoveries and communication with Peter. It was he who showed the representative of the third generation all the “cons” of the past idea of ​​​​life. Thanks to him, the girl is not afraid of the unknown future. She boldly steps forward, trying not to look back at the felled cherry trees in the garden...

Three generations, three different views for life and one garden, in which everyone was once able to find their little happiness...

A.P. Chekhov called his work “The Cherry Orchard” a comedy. Having read the play, we attribute it more to tragedy than to comedy. It seems to us tragic images Gaev and Ranevskaya, their fates are tragic. We sympathize and empathize with them. At first we cannot understand why Anton Pavlovich classified his play as a comedy. But rereading the work, understanding it, we still find the behavior of such characters as Gaev, Ranevskaya, Epikhodov somewhat comical. We already believe that they themselves are to blame for their troubles, and perhaps we condemn them for this. What genre does A.P. Chekhov's play "The Cherry Orchard" belong to - comedy or tragedy? In the play "The Cherry Orchard" we do not see a clear conflict, everything seems to flow as usual. The characters in the play behave calmly, there are no open quarrels or clashes between them. And yet we feel the existence of a conflict, but not open, but internal, hidden in the quiet, at first glance, peaceful atmosphere of the play. Behind the ordinary conversations of the heroes of the work, for their calm attitude to each other we see them. internal misunderstanding of others. We often hear lines from characters that are out of place; We often see their detached glances, as if they do not hear those around them. But the main conflict of the play “The Cherry Orchard” lies in the misunderstanding of generation by generation. It seems as if three times intersected in the play: past, present and future. These three generations dream of their time, but they only talk and can do nothing to change their life, to the past generation includes Gaev, Ranevskaya, Firs; to the present - Lopakhin, and representatives of the future generation are Petya Trofimov and Dnya. Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, a representative of the old nobility, constantly talks about her best young years spent in the old house, in the beautiful and luxurious cherry orchard. She lives only with these memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, and she does not even want to think about the future. And we find her infantilism funny. And the entire old generation in this play thinks the same way. None of them are trying to change anything. They talk about the “wonderful” old life, but they themselves seem to resign themselves to the present, let everything take its course, and give in without fighting for their ideas. And therefore Chekhov condemns them for this. Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a hero of the present. He lives for today. We can't help but notice that his ideas are smart and practical. He has lively conversations about how to change life for the better, and seems to know what to do. But all these are just words. In fact, Lopakhin is not the ideal hero of the play. We feel his lack of self-confidence. And at the end of the Work, he seems to give up, and he exclaims: “If only our awkward, unhappy life would change!” It would seem that Anya and Petya Trofimov are the author’s hope for the future. But can a person like Petya Trofimov, an “eternal student” and a “shabby gentleman,” change this life? After all, only smart, energetic, self-confident people, active people, can come up with new ideas, enter the future and lead others. And Petya, like the other characters in the play, talks more than he acts; He generally behaves somehow ridiculously. And Anya is still too young, she does not yet know life to change it. So, the main tragedy of the play lies not only in the sale of the garden and estate in which people spent their youth, with which their best memories are associated, but also in the inability of the same most people to change anything to improve their situation. We, of course, sympathize with Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, but we cannot help but notice her infantile, sometimes ridiculous behavior. We constantly feel the absurdity of the events taking place in the play. Ranevskaya and Kaev look ridiculous with their attachments to old objects, Epikhodov is ridiculous, and Charlotte herself is the personification of uselessness in this life. The main conflict of the work is the conflict of times, the misunderstanding of one generation by another. There is no connection between times in the play; the gap between them is heard in the sound of a broken string. And yet the author expresses his hopes for the future. No wonder the sound of an ax symbolizes the transition from the past to the present. And when the new generation plants a new garden, the future will come.A. P. Chekhov wrote the play "The Cherry Orchard" before the 1905 revolution. Therefore, the garden itself is the personification of Russia at that time. In this work, Anton Pavlovich reflected the problems of the passing nobility, the bourgeoisie and the revolutionary future. At the same time, Chekhov portrayed the main conflict of the work in a new way. The conflict is not shown openly in the work, but we feel internal conflict, occurring between the characters of the play. Tragedy and comedy run inextricably through the entire work. We simultaneously sympathize with the characters and condemn them for their inactivity.

Tasks and tests on the topic "Three generations in A. P. Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard"

• Morphological norm - Important Topics to repeat the Unified State Exam in Russian

  Lessons: 1 Tasks: 8

• Three declensions of nouns. Algorithm for determining declination - Noun as part of speech grade 4