The Cherry Orchard

by Anton Chekhov, Simon Stephens (Adapter)

The funny thing is the harder I work the more clearly I understand things. When I'm worn out after a day's work then it's like my brain relaxes. And sometimes then I get it. The meaning of my life. My purpose on this earth. How many people ever get to say that? And you know what? It doesn't matter. Doesn't change anything. It is not important.

In Chekhov's tragi-comedy - arguably his most popular play - the Gayev family is torn by powerful forces deeply rooted in history and the society in which they live. Their estate is hopelessly in debt. Urged to cut down their beautiful cherry orchard and sell the land for holiday cottages, the family struggles to act decisively.

Vigorous and profound, this new version of Chekhov's classic play by Olivier award-winner Simon Stephens, from a literal translation by Helen Rappaport, is an anguished and heartbreaking love letter to a society in violent transition. It received its world premiere at the Young Vic, London, on 10 October 2014.

Genres: Plays, Classics, Drama, Russia, Fiction, Russian Literature, Theatre

104 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1903

About the author

Antón Chéjov (Spanish)

Dramas, such as The Seagull (1896, revised 1898), and including "A Dreary Story" (1889) of Russian writer Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, also Chekov, concern the inability of humans to communicate.

Born ( Антон Павлович Чехов ) in the small southern seaport of Taganrog, the son of a grocer. His grandfather, a serf, bought his own freedom and that of his three sons in 1841. He also taught to read. A cloth merchant fathered Yevgenia Morozova, his mother.

"When I think back on my childhood," Chekhov recalled, "it all seems quite gloomy to me." Tyranny of his father, religious fanaticism, and long nights in the store, open from five in the morning till midnight, shadowed his early years. He attended a school for Greek boys in Taganrog from 1867 to 1868 and then Taganrog grammar school. Bankruptcy of his father compelled the family to move to Moscow. At the age of 16 years in 1876, independent Chekhov for some time alone in his native town supported through private tutoring.

In 1879, Chekhov left grammar school and entered the university medical school at Moscow. In the school, he began to publish hundreds of short comics to support his mother, sisters and brothers. Nicholas Leikin published him at this period and owned Oskolki (splinters), the journal of Saint Petersburg. His subjected silly social situations, marital problems, and farcical encounters among husbands, wives, mistresses, and lust; even after his marriage, Chekhov, the shy author, knew not much of whims of young women.

Nenunzhaya pobeda , first novel of Chekhov, set in 1882 in Hungary, parodied the novels of the popular Mór Jókai. People also mocked ideological optimism of Jókai as a politician.

Chekhov graduated in 1884 and practiced medicine. He worked from 1885 in Peterburskaia gazeta.

In 1886, Chekhov met H.S. Suvorin, who invited him, a regular contributor, to work for Novoe vremya, the daily paper of Saint Petersburg. He gained a wide fame before 1886. He authored The Shooting Party , his second full-length novel, later translated into English. Agatha Christie used its characters and atmosphere in later her mystery novel The Murder of Roger Ackroyd . First book of Chekhov in 1886 succeeded, and he gradually committed full time. The refusal of the author to join the ranks of social critics arose the wrath of liberal and radical intelligentsia, who criticized him for dealing with serious social and moral questions but avoiding giving answers. Such leaders as Leo Tolstoy and Nikolai Leskov, however, defended him. "I'm not a liberal, or a conservative, or a gradualist, or a monk, or an indifferentist. I should like to be a free artist and that's all..." Chekhov said in 1888.

The failure of The Wood Demon , play in 1889, and problems with novel made Chekhov to withdraw from literature for a period. In 1890, he traveled across Siberia to Sakhalin, remote prison island. He conducted a detailed census of ten thousand convicts and settlers, condemned to live on that harsh island. Chekhov expected to use the results of his research for his doctoral dissertation. Hard conditions on the island probably also weakened his own physical condition. From this journey came his famous travel book.

Chekhov practiced medicine until 1892. During these years, Chechov developed his concept of the dispassionate, non-judgmental author. He outlined his program in a letter to his brother Aleksandr: "1. Absence of lengthy verbiage of political-social-economic nature; 2. total objectivity; 3. truthful descriptions of persons and objects; 4. extreme brevity; 5. audacity and originality; flee the stereotype; 6. compassion." Because he objected that the paper conducted against [a:Alfred Dreyfu

Reviews

[Nayra.Hassan · Rating 4 out of 5]

هناك اسد مقبل من بعيد ليمزقك..هناك اختيارين للعقلاء..اما ان تجري كالظليم لو كنت واقعيا
او تبحث عن سلاح لتواجهه لو كنت شجاعا

لكن عندما يكون اختيارك هو أن تقف وتغني و ترقص رقصتك الأخيرة 💃اذن فانت تستحق الالتهام

وهذا ما فعلته مدام رانفسكي اكثر الشخصيات استفزازا في تاريخ الأدب الروسي..تلك الارستقراطية العاجزة عن إدراك الواقع و التكيف معه
عاشت حياتها مع زوجها في بيت أثري فسيح تحيط به🌳 أشجار الكرز الباسقة..رحل زوجها بعد ان أسرف في الاستدانة..و انطلقت هي لتعوض ما فاتها من متع الحياة ؛عاشت بباريس لسنوات مع شاب ؛ هجرها..فتعود لتجد ان املاكها تم الحجز عليها
و لكن هناك حل اخير. ..فهل تقبله؟

ام انها ستعطينا درس في العجز عن المقاومة و التحرك او الخروج من عالم الذات؟ ..
ام ستقيد نفسها بحجر اخير يهوى بها للقاع السحيق ؟🌊
بالنسبة للاسلوب و الحبكة و الشخصيات ..فانا ارى ان هناك تشيكوف✅
ثم هناك كل الاخرين معا

طوال قراءة مسرحية تشيكوف الأخيرة هذه ؛ سيكون لديك امنية واحدة :الا و هي ضرب رأس مدام رانفسكي في أقرب حائط⚡. .علها تفهم

[Kenny · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Life has gone by as if I never lived"
THE CHERRY ORCHARD ~~~ Anton Chekhov



I've read THE CHERRY ORCHARD many times, but for the first time I had the realization that it was written by a man who knew he was dying. The dying Chekhov realized he was part of a dying breed in a dying country. And while he had no idea what lie ahead, he knew change was coming to Mother Russia.

What matters in Chekhov’s last play, and in Trevor Griffiths translation, is way that chance affects our lives; the unpredictability of our lives. In THE CHERRY ORCHARD such seeming insignificances dramatically occur as: an inopportune remark about the weather; an errant stick with which Varya bashes Lopakhin on the head; many social blunders and the comedy/tragedy of humankind summons large on Chekhov’s canvass. Additionally, we discover grief over the death of a child and deep concerns over the fate of a family estate with its famous, obsolete cherry orchard as well as varying objectives and ideologies over the need for money to exist. Chekhov called his play a ‘theatre of mood with submerged life in the text’. THE CHERRY ORCHARD may have more meaning today than it has since it was first premiered.



The destruction of the cherry orchard has less to do with the unhappy removal of something once cherished, than the fact that it remaining is blocking progress on many levels. Even Madame Ranevskaya lives entirely in the past and holds onto nothing in the present. The play is also about the decline of one era and the unknown onset of another. Much like the world we live in today.

[Nataliya · Rating 4 out of 5]

For me, Anton Chekhov has always been a bright star in Russian literature. His short stories have always fascinated me - witty, clever, both funny and sad, with brilliant astute insights into human soul, with all its pettiness and smallness and loveliness. They were perhaps a bit too modern for the stuffy times he lived in. (He wrote many of the short humorous stories in his youth, and in the tradition of serious Russian literature, was heavily criticized for wasting his talent on such inconsequential things. Serious literature can be a real buzzkill.) His plays, however, have not appealed much to me when I first read them years ago, and so I decided, being older and wiser, to give them another go. And I’m glad I did.

The Cherry Orchard is Chekhov’s last play, written in 1903, a year before he died of illness at the age 44. Apparently he called it a comedy, but it’s more frequently interpreted as a tragedy, with the result being a peculiar tragicomedy that still has a strangely timeless appeal.

“I’m leaving for Paris, I will live there on the money that your grandmother from Yaroslavl sent to buy the estate - long live your grandmother! - and this money won’t last me for long.”¹

A wealthy widowed landowner Lyubov Ranevskaya returns to her ancestral estate after several years in France. The estate and its magnificent cherry orchard are about to be sold to pay off debts (it’s not cheap to lead the life of aristocracy, and it adds up when you thoughtlessly throw your money away on stupid whims) and Ranevskaya and her family clutch at the sentimental value in the orchard as a new practical rich merchant Lopakhin (a son of a former serf) proposes a valid economical solution of cutting the orchard down and (how plebeian and vulgar!) renting out the plots of land for summer villas. The estate gets sold, the orchard is chopped down, and a faithful servant to the aristocracy is left behind to die.

“If only my father and my grandfather could rise from their graves and see what is happening - how their Ermolay, beaten and barely literate Ermolay who used to go barefoot in winter, how this Ermolay bought the most beautiful estate in the world. I bought the estate where father and grandfather used to be slaves, where they weren’t even allowed in the kitchens.”¹

It’s bitterly comical without being overtly funny, bordering on tragedy and farce at the same time. When I read it in my teens, I felt very sorry for the aristocratic family losing their treasured orchard, while simultaneously feeling very annoyed and irritated by the whole frustrating lot of them. Now it’s hard not to see the wonderful interplay between satire and poignancy, humor and melancholy, intense longing for beauty and stillness of human awkwardness. People talk and soliloqulize, disorganized, scatterbrained, without ever actually listening to each other, and they are pathetic and silly and lovely at the same time, and it’s a tragicomedy indeed.

It’s a story of decline of old aristocracy and emergence of a new, middle-class, seemingly more crass and less refined way of life. The decline of the old way of life with its leisure and serenity that inherited wealth and “gentle” refined upbringing brought may seem sad, but is also inevitable. The parasitic existence of refined and cultivated nobility, although beautiful and seductive, runs smack into the middle of enterpreneual pragmatism of the new middle class, and this clash and crash is that proverbial trainwreck that is both sad and funny to watch.

(Side note: Unlike many contemporary Russian writers, Anton Chekhov did not come from aristocracy. His grandfather was a serf who bought freedom for himself and his family. Chekhov had to work for a living, and trained to be a medical doctor.)

But Chekhov does not take sides very much. He really pokes fun at everybody. The old clueless aristocracy, completely unprepared to survive in the changing world decades after the serfs were freed, used to effortlessly comfortable existence. The “eternal student”, full of grandiose well-meaning ideas striking in his impracticality and naïveté:

“What she can’t get into her narrow mind is that we are above love. To bypass the small and illusory things that prevent us from freedom and happiness - that’s the goal and the meaning of our lives. Forward! We are unstoppably heading towards the bright star that is burning so far ahead! Forward! Keep up, my friends!”¹

The new vulgar class of servants, with overinflated egos due to their self-perceived importance by “association” with old ruling classes. The new self-made middle class, whose practicality and pragmatism, although obviously successful, can easily seem crass in the face of the old aristocratic refinery and gloss. The former serf, now a devoted servant, who is so unable to move on from the life he remembers and idolizes, that he seems content to meekly lie down and die when abandoned by his masters. They all are targets of his wit and satire, and you, the reader, can make out whatever suits you out of this.

Lopakhin: “You know, I get up at five in the morning, work all day, always deal with money, mine and others’, and I see how people are. You just need to start doing anything and you’ll realize how few of honest, honorable people there are. Sometimes, when I can’t sleep, I think - dear Lord, you have us enormous forests, unmeasurable fields, deepest horizons, and living here we should have been giants…”

Lyubov Andreevna: “What do you need giants for?.. They are only fine in fairytales, and otherwise are frightening.”¹

Chekhov is really good at understanding people, the good and bad and annoying in them, the dangers and ridiculousness of mundane vulgarity, banality and smallness of the soul, and the casual cruelty we so easily and rudely throw at each other. The people in his play are all a bit contemptible, pathetic, laughable - and yet there’s something mesmerizing about this whole thing.

And also - there IS a gun in the play, but unlike the whole idea of the proverbial Chekhov’s gun, it’s never fired. It’s the axe to the trees instead, and a sad little party while the orchard is being sold.

And then the Russian Revolution will rage through the land a decade and a half later, taking Trofimov’s ideas quite a few steps further than intended, putting an end to the new way of life that ended the aristocracy way of life, and many more orchards will meet the axe.

4 stars.
————
————
¹ As always, translations from Russian are mine, so they certainly may sound different from what you may have read.

[BookHunter M ُH َM َD · Rating 3 out of 5]

تقفز الى الذهن فورا صورة تيتانيك و هى تغرق بينما العازفين مستمرين فى العزف و كأنهم لا يعنيهم شىء مما يحدث حولهم أو كأنهم موظفى كوارث كرجال الإنقاذ تماما و العزف هو جزء من جهود الإنقاذ و بث الأمل فى الغارقين

كان البعض كذلك فى المسرحية بينما كان البعض الأخر كعاصم المقامر الغنى الفاشل فى كل شىء و الذى ينتظر من شبيهه جميز أن يحل له كل مشاكله عن طريق المقامره مع الدائنين و الرهان على رقم تسعه الذى جعلهم يخسرون حتى ملابسهم



فى النهاية ضاعت الضيعه و اجتث المشترى أشجار الكرز ليقيم مكانها فيلات للمصطافين تماما كما يحدث لدينا الأن كل يوم

فقط هم سبقونا فى الضياع بمائتى عام

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s true what they say. Chekhov’s got guns!

This is a great play about the decline of the Russian aristocracy, its implications for the working class rising to fill the vacancies left by those cash-stricken families, and the complications propagated by these changes, namely the social inadequacies of those who get sucked into this newfound vacuum.

I read Three Sisters recently and while I did like the play, it did not shake my maracas as much as I had hoped it would. There are intertwining themes between the two plays (and perhaps among Chekhov’s plays in general), such as the emphasis placed on working—as both a route to happiness as well as a practical method by which to quantify one’s worth—but I think overall The Cherry Orchard has more going on, and has characters that are (to me) more interesting.

Take Lubov Andreyevna, for example. Lubov is the matriarch of the high-society family which is about to lose its beloved cherry orchard (along with the rest of the estate, too, but they all seem to be concerned only with the pretty trees) on account of a cash flow shortage that prevents them from paying their mortgage. These solvency problems are reflected in the predicaments of other landowners in the play, as well, like those of Simeonov-Pischin, who is constantly seeking a loan. Lubov has difficulty facing the gravity of the situation, having lived all her life in general ease and comfort, not having to work, and assumes things will naturally work themselves out in her favor. (They do not, by the way.) And yes there are tears and sadness but the tears are reigned in quickly, and Lubov demonstrates some surprising resolve at her capacity to adapt.

There are also other characters I liked. Lopahkin is the former peasant who represents the “new money” in turn-of-the-century Russia, though he does not always know the best way to handle his fun status bump. Fiers, a servant of the older generation, is at a complete loss to absorb the changes occurring around him while Yasha, his young counterpart, is almost embarrassing in his insolence, clearly not knowing his place (Fiers’s view) or perhaps percipient in recognizing what is happening and putting his native chameleonic qualities to good use.

In the end, I empathized with most of the characters in this play, feeling the acute twinges of pain in seeing the symbolic orchard meet its inevitable fate, but it is a pain swiftly assuaged. These characters reconcile themselves to their respective futures, and do so stoically, choosing to view the loss of the orchard not as an end per se, but as merely a different bud from which their new lives will thenceforth germinate.

[Leonard Gaya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tchekhov écrit La Cerisaie dans les toutes premières années du XXème siècle. Ce sera sa dernière pièce et l’une des plus célèbres de son œuvre, avec La Mouette, Oncle Vania et Les Trois Sœurs. Le sujet est en apparence simplissime : la Cerisaie est un noble domaine familial couvert de cerisiers. Cependant, Lioubov et Gaïev, les derniers héritiers de la propriété sont criblés de dettes et acculés à la vente. En abattant les arbres, le domaine pourra être démembré pour en faire un vaste lotissement pavillonnaire… Triste perspective.

Cette situation est l’occasion pour Tchekhov de brosser le portrait d’une société qui bascule de manière feutrée dans un nouveau monde : les vieux aristocrates sont ruinés et les fils de moujiks sont devenus immensément riches. L’orage de la révolution n’est pas encore là, mais le fond de l’air s’est déjà considérablement rafraichi.

Pourtant, Tchekhov reste à l’écart des grandes fresques sociales à la Tolstoï. On a bien un pistolet à un moment de la pièce, mais contrairement au fameux principe du fusil de Tchekhov, il n’est jamais utilisé. Ici, la touche du dramaturge est plus légère, plus douce, plus subtile, plus précise, plus proche du réel et plus bienveillante que jamais.

Au fond, il s’agit de montrer la vie telle qu’elle est, avec ses moments drôles et ses moments tristes qui se succèdent sans solution de continuité : moments d’amour, de solitude, de soucis d’argent, de temps qui passe et nous achemine imperceptiblement vers la mort. Et, comme dans la vie, les personnages parlent de petits sujets futiles, périphériques, bifurquent tout le temps, tournent autour du pot, se retiennent tant qu’ils peuvent d’aborder et même de songer aux sujets qui les font souffrir ou les motivent à agir. La Cerisaie est un chef-d’œuvre du sous-texte et du sous-entendu.

La Cerisaie est aussi et surtout une des pierres fondatrices du théâtre et de la littérature du XXème siècle. Il y a, tout au long de cette œuvre, quelque chose de mélancolique qui semble annoncer The Dead chez Joyce ou Le Temps retrouvé chez Proust, voire Koltès et la saga familiale du Retour au désert. Plus encore, les derniers moments du drame, avec le vieux valet Firs abandonné de tous, qui attend la mort dans une pièce vide, alors que, dehors, on entend le bruit sourd des haches cognant contre le tronc des cerisiers, préfigurent déjà les scènes vaguement comiques et cauchemardesques du théâtre de Beckett

[Brina · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have chosen to begin my 2018 reading year with a number of shorter yet significant reads. I noticed that my 2017 began in a similar matter so I am noticing that I use January to ease into my reading for the year. A square on classics bingo is to read a classic play so I selected Anton Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard, a play in four acts which wrote within a year of his death. In this timeless and still often performed drama, Chekhov details the dichotomy between Russian social classes on the dawn of the revolutionary era as he poignantly creates classic archetypes.

Already a premier playwright with the success of The Three Sisters and The Seagull, Chekhov was asked to write a comedic play to be performed during Moscow's 1903 theater season. My version of the play contains excerpts of letters written by Chekhov to both his wife and the play's future director and producer. In this correspondence, he writes of the illness that would take his life within a year and also of his struggles to produce a comedy. He wrote certain characters with specific actors and actresses in mind and aimed for a three act play that ended up being four. In the end, The Cherry Orchard, his work about the potential sale of a summer estate, resulted as a drama, rather than the comedy that his producers had aimed for. This moving piece may have had a few comedic moments, but the play was hardly a light hearted story.

Madame Ranevskaya has returned to Russia from Paris with her daughter Anya upon learning from her brother Leonid Gaev that their family estate needs to be sold as the family fortune has been used up and they have no rubles left to live on. The estate holds both positive and sad memories for Ranevskaya as both her husband and son passed away there, yet, the cherry orchard on its property holds a place near and dear to her heart. Ranevskaya would rather not sell her estate as it has been in the family for generations and both her family and the serfs who have lived on it known no other existence. Yet, Ranevskaya lives a rich woman's life either in Russia or abroad and her lifestyle can not maintain the upkeep of her family's home for the long term. She desires to marry off her daughters Anya and Varya even though neither has expressed an interest in doing so, in hopes that their marriages will decrease her expenditures, allowing her to keep her estate.

Although Chekhov has created love interests for both Anya and Varya, their futures are left to the reader's imaginations. Perhaps, in a more modern retelling of the play, the girls' futures are decided, but in Chekhov's original, that aspect of the play is left hanging. Meanwhile, a local merchant named Yermolai Alexeyevich Lopahin, a former servant whose family has worked for the Ranevskaya family for generations, desires to buy the estate for himself to keep it within the family. His dream is to create a number of summer homes on the property in order to generate funds for the Ranevskayas so that they do not have to sell their heirloom to outsiders. Yet, Lopahin's plan comes with one caveat: to chop down the cherry orchard which will always hold special memories for Madame Ranevskaya. This tension between the serfs and upper classes, epitomized in this sale of the estate, lasts the duration of the play and plays out as the tragedy that Chekhov desired. As a result, I found the play to be heartfelt, which would not have had this effect if Chekhov had indeed penned the comedy that his producer had originally demanded.

With a week gone by in 2018 and many quality shorter reads behind me, I am ready to move full steam into my reading year. As I am a mood reader, I still do not know where this year will take me, but I have many potential memorable reads lined up. Moving through the board for classics bingo is a good start, and The Cherry Orchard has been a memorable play to read indeed. I hope to revisit Chekhov's other plays in the future as they have been well received and performed countless times over the last century.

4 stars

[Dave Schaafsma · Rating 5 out of 5]

4/22/23: I reread The Cherry Orchard and listened again to the recorded LATW production of the play as I got tickets to famed Goodman Theater director Robert Falls’s last show. It’s interesting that my experience of listening to this play a couple years ago and rereading it bears little resemblance to my sense of the play this time. As I say below Chekhov was dying of cancer during the writing of this, seen as his greatest play. My sense this time is that it is a play about endings; the family has to leave, having lost the cherry orchard and house and adjoining property.

Written in 1903, it’s also about the end of the Russian aristocracy at a time in which the serfs have risen up, as part of the Russian revolution. The emancipation of the serfs happened officially in 1861, but it was a process; the first Russian Revolution happened in 1905, and then a second one in 1917, so it is fair that the snapshot we get of aristocracy in one rural place anticipates much of the social uphreaval that was taking place there. Chekhov was dead by late 1904, after the first production buyt the famed Russian director, Stanislavski, though Chekhov hated the production. Stanislavski thought it was a tragedy, and Chkhov thought it was a comedy. The Falls production acknowledged the deep sadness in the story, but the full-page ad for the play in The Chicago Tribune shows three of the man characters laughing uproariously.

In short, my reading/viewing of the play this time is much closer to Stanislavski's interpretation.. The play as I see it is about these self-satisfied and self-delusional aristocrats who are in denial about huge changes that are coming. They are not prepared for the coming disaster. I thought of our world facing climate change and the attendant droughts, wars, and refugee crisis. In one section they seem to admit the coming doom they are aware of--they have to sell the cherry orchard and leave--the emancipated serfs are coming--but never quite face:

Lubov: I keep on waiting for something to happen, as if the house is going to collapse over our heads.
Gaev: [Thinking deeply, playing pool] Double red in the corner . . . across the middle. . . .
Lopakhin: I know exactly the potential of the people around here. They have the potential to lie. They have the potential to deceive. They have the potential to inveigle. They’ll change nothing. Sometimes, when I can’t sleep, I lie awake thinking, my God! We have so much. We have these huge forests. We have boundless open fields. We can see the deepest, furthest horizons. Look around you. Look. We should be giants. We really, really aren’t.
Lubov:. You want giants, do you ? . . . They're only good in stories, and even there they frighten one.
Gaev: O Nature, thou art wonderful, thou shinest with eternal radiance! Oh, beautiful and indifferent one, thou whom we call mother, thou containest in thyself existence and death, thou livest and destroyest. . . .
Trofimov: You'd better double the red into the middle.
Gaev: I'll be quiet, I'll be quiet.

And the symbolism of the orchard? At one point someone speaks for Chekhov: “All Russia is our orchard.”

I thought that almost all the people were ludicrously in denial. I was reminded of the musicians playing for dancers as the Titanic was sinking. Very sad. Chekhov makes these characters lively and amusing and interesting and he cares about them, but only Lopakhin--the son of serfs who wins the cherry orchard in an auction--is realistic about what is coming to them and to Russian society.

I loved Falls' production, great ensemble acting, melancholy. We need to be giants in the face of the many challenges, but we really, really have not yet been lately.

My original review, 1/12/19:

I had a couple hours in a car and so I picked something short to listen to, Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard, one of his four great plays, including The Sea Gull, Three Sisters and Ivanov. I am reading his collected stories at the rate of about one a month, it seems, but I wanted to revisit his plays, which I have seen. In 2018, after reading a late Roth that features it, I had reread The Seagull, so I thought I would try this, his last play, written while he was dying from tuberculosis, first produced in 1904, the year he died. He called it a comedy with elements of farce, but Stanislavski first produced it as a tragedy, and that tension between the comic and tragic has been part of most productions ever since.

The play features an aristocratic Russian landowner, Ranevskaya, who returns to her family estate (which includes a large and well-known cherry orchard) just before it is auctioned to pay the mortgage. Unresponsive to offers to save the estate, she allows its sale to the son of a former serf; the family leaves to the sound of the cherry orchard being cut down. In a larger cultural sense it is about the end of the reign of the Russian aristocracy at the turn of the 20th century. Ranevskaya is a woman who lives in the past, contrasted with the speeches of the student Trofimov, which were later seen as early manifestations of Bolshevik ideas.

Chekhov is known in his writing as not judging, not preaching about ideas or his characters. He’s a humanist, not an ideologue. He's a slice-of-life writer. In his work you see a wide range of Russian individuals, from rich to poor. In place of a concern for plot Chekhov is known for his "theatre of mood," slice-of-life come to stage, with an almost ethnographic attention to the feel of the times. Reminds me, too, of Studs Terkel in focusing on character and how people talk. And then there is this sort of wistful aspect that permeates the play, of course, without it being emphasized, the sense of serious change coming, as Chekhov is dying. I saw a production somewhere in Michigan in the eighties, and a 1987 production at The Stratford (Ontario) Festival.

[Piyangie · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Cherry Orchard is a story that portrays the end of an era of landed gentry in Russia. With the fall of the nobility, there rises a new middle class. And the land ownership passes from the failing gentry to the wealthy middle class. Madame Ranevsky represents the declining nobility; Lopakhin, a merchant, represents the emerging new wealthy middle class. And interestingly, Loparkhin is a descendant of former serfs who toiled in the very same lands he was purchasing.

Thematically, Chekhov was bringing to light the socio-economic changes that underwent in Russia after the abolition of serfdom in 1861. These changes are very subtly portrayed in the play through the Cherry Orchard. The proud existence of the cherry orchard represents the once rich and powerful nobility; their fall is signified by the cherry orchard being cut. This symbolic presentation was very beautifully done.

As a secondary theme, I felt that Chekhov was keenly observing the personalities and psychologies of these two different classes and questioning whether real changes have taken place in Russia through all these reforms. The declining nobility represented by Madam Revensky, her brother, and another aristocrat, is shown as a frivolous lot; so is Lopakhin, the wealthy merchant. Chekhov shows that it is only the ownership and wealth that are changed hands and not any real social and economic changes have taken place. Written more than a decade earlier the Russian revolution, one can almost think that Chekhov saw that further changes would take place in the future, which he was unable to witness.

While all were good, some incidental characters that were used in this play disturbed the main thematic flow of the play. I did not understand the role they played, except perhaps for the dramatic effect on the stage. But when reading, they disturbed the flow and it was with some effort that I had to steer my way through the main storyline.

This is my first read of a play by Chekhov. And although I was not fully pleased with the way the story/play was presented, I still liked it. I greatly admire his thinking. It is no wonder that he is named as one of the greatest Russian short fiction writers.

[AiK · Rating 5 out of 5]

Вишневый сад – несомненно, символ. Трофимов говорит, что «вишневый сад – вся Россия». Но мне кажется, что вишневый сад – еще и символ «старой» жизни, привольной, не ради дохода, а барской усадебной жизни, как культурного явления, как образа жизни, мышления, когда заказываешь самое дорогое, и на чай лакеям по рублю, и прохожим-попрошайкам по золотому, когда людей в имении кормить нечем. «У меня тоже не осталось ни копейки, едва доехали. И мама не понимает!», - жалуется Аня. Вишневый сад изначально был обречен на вырубку - ибо дела зашли плохо так далеко, что не осталось никаких способов спасти его. Обречено было дворянство. В каком-то смысле, обречена была и Россия, сначала 1905 год, потом революция 1917 года.
Любовь Андреевна – тоже символ, и она символ вырождающегося класса, дворянства. Она, как это часто происходит не только в России, но и во всех постсоветских странах и не только с дворянами, горячо любит родину, но предпочитает жить в Европе (отчасти из-за трагедии с сыном, но в целом, вообще с уложившейся традицией). Ее переполняют чувства «Видит бог, я люблю родину, люблю нежно, я не могла смотреть из вагона, все плакала. (Сквозь слезы.)» Порой она сентиментальна. « Я не могу усидеть, не в состоянии. (Вскакивает и ходит в сильном волнении.) Я не переживу этой радости… Смейтесь надо мной, я глупая… Шкафик мой родной… (Целует шкаф.) Столик мой.» И все-таки любовь к родине у нее – любовь к тому, с чем связаны ее личные воспоминания, личные вещи. Эту мысль подтверждает и реплика Гаева: «Дорогой, многоуважаемый шкаф! Приветствую твое существование, которое вот уже больше ста лет было направлено к светлым идеалам добра и справедливости; твой молчаливый призыв к плодотворной работе не ослабевал в течение ста лет, поддерживая (сквозь слезы) в поколениях нашего рода бодрость, веру в лучшее будущее и воспитывая в нас идеалы добра и общественного самосознания.» Эту реплику можно было бы принять за шутку, если бы не слезы, и если бы потом он не стеснялся своей речи шкафу. Дворянство вырождается и превращается в мещанство, привязанное к милым сердцу вещам.
Лопахин руководствуется не просто меркантильными интересами, он испытывает благодарность и вполне искренен в своих чувствах «Мой отец был крепостным у вашего деда и отца, но вы, собственно вы, сделали для меня когда-то так много, что я забыл все и люблю вас, как родную… больше, чем родную.» Он предлагает ей план спасения – разбить вишневый сад и землю по реке на дачные участки, сдать в аренду и получать по двадцать пять тысяч дохода за десятину.»
Но его не слушают, Любовь Андреевна прерывает его аргументом, что «Если во всей губернии есть что-нибудь интересное, даже замечательное, так это только наш вишневый сад», а дачи она называет пошлостью. Лопахин ее понимает, не понимает сама Любовь Андреевна, что торги уже назначены, и если, она сама не вырубит сад под дачи, то новый собственник это будет вынужден сделать, чтобы окупить свои инвестиции.
Члены семьи мыслят категориями чудесного обогащения. Гаев вздыхает, хорошо бы выдать нашу Аня за богатого, хорошо бы поехать в Ярославль и попытать счастья у тетушки-графини. Но сам же поправляется, что тетушка их не любит, потому что вышла замуж не за дворянина. «Она хорошая, добрая, славная, я ее очень люблю, но, как там ни придумывай смягчающие обстоятельства, все же, надо сознаться, она порочна. Это чувствуется в ее малейшем движении.» Что же порочного, помимо выхода замуж за не дворянина, она совершила, Гаев и Чехов нам не открывают. Скорее всего ничего. Сословные предрассудки у них очень сильны.
План Гаева по спасению имения также нерационален: Любовь Андреевна будет просить Лопухина (чем же он сможет помочь? – ничем, поскольку у банка все права на залог. Он и помог в конце, выкупив имение по завышенной цене, и излишек полагался бывшему собственнику – Любови Андреевне), Аня поедет в Ярославль к бабушке (тоже маловероятный результат, тем более, что Аня признается, что бабушку не любит), а он сам будет пытаться устроить заем под залог векселей (если доходов нет, то это просто отсрочка с увеличением долга в будущем). Наивная Аня успокаивается.
И все же Чехов ставил перед собой задачу показать не столько экономическую необоснованность воззрений умирающего класса, не отвыкшего сорить деньгами, не соизмерять доходы и расходы, не мыслить рационально (корни этого лежат в крепостном праве, которое еще не забыто даже самим бывшими крепостными, коими является и сам Лопухин, и Фирс, и все остальные в доме, поскольку во время крепостного права доходы шли не от рационального, экономически выгодного хозяйствования, а от подневольного труда крепостных. Именно поэтому рецепт сушки вишни, которым зарабатывало некогда имение, был забыт – не осталось крепостных работников, кто бы занимался этим). Трофимов подтверждает, что проблема умирания русского дворянства связано именно с крепостным правом: «Владеть живыми душами — ведь это переродило всех вас, живших раньше и теперь живущих, так что ваша мать, вы, дядя уже не замечаете, что вы живете в долг, на чужой счет, на счет тех людей, которых вы не пускаете дальше передней… Мы отстали по крайней мере лет на двести, у нас нет еще ровно ничего, нет определенного отношения к прошлому, мы только философствуем, жалуемся на тоску или пьем водку. Ведь так ясно, чтобы начать жить в настоящем, надо сначала искупить наше прошлое, покончить с ним, а искупить его можно только страданием, только необычайным, непрерывным трудом. Поймите это, Аня.» Устами Лопухина он дает этому классу исчерпывающую характеристику: «Простите, таких легкомысленных людей, как вы, господа, таких неделовых, странных, я еще не встречал. Вам говорят русским языком, имение ваше продается, а вы точно не понимаете.»
Чехов ставил задачу показать, с какими душевными муками, этот прекрасный, возвышенный аристократический класс, умирает, показать весь этот эмоциональный надрыв, который и смешон, и жалок, и достоин сочувствия.
В этом и парадокс. Сочувствие испытываешь к тем, в отношении которых совершается несправедливость. Но почему мы испытываем сочувствие к этим «легкомысленным, странным, неделовым», не замечающим, что живут в долг, людям? Наверное, потому, что Любовь Андреевна – ненамеренно легкомысленна, она такой уродилась вследствие перерождения класса, владеющего крепостными душами. Потому что она добра, и весь ее грех в том, что она не понимает, откуда берутся деньги. Даже если у нее их нет, она попросит у Лопухина, который не потребует их назад.
Еще одна цель этой пьесы – показать разные слои общества России, почему Россия обречена. Чехова беспокоит и то, что интеллигенция слишком слаба, многословна и бездеятельна. «У нас, в России, работают пока очень немногие. Громадное большинство той интеллигенции, какую я знаю, ничего не ищет, ничего не делает и к труду пока не способно. Называют себя интеллигенцией, а прислуге говорят «ты», с мужиками обращаются, как с животными, учатся плохо, серьезно ничего не читают, ровно ничего не делают, о науках только говорят, в искусстве понимают мало. Все серьезны, у всех строгие лица, все говорят только о важном, философствуют, а между тем у всех на глазах рабочие едят отвратительно, спят без подушек, по тридцати, по сорока в одной комнате, везде клопы, смрад, сырость, нравственная нечистота… И, очевидно, все хорошие разговоры у нас для того только, чтобы отвести глаза себе и другим. Укажите мне, где у нас ясли, о которых говорят так много и часто, где читальни? О них только в романах пишут, на деле же их нет совсем. Есть только грязь, пошлость, азиатчина… Я боюсь и не люблю очень серьезных физиономий, боюсь серьезных разговоров. Лучше помолчим!» Кстати, мне не нравится слово «азиатчина».
Грустью отзываются слова Лопухина. «Знаете, я встаю в пятом часу утра, работаю с утра до вечера, ну, у меня постоянно деньги свои и чужие, и я вижу, какие кругом люди. Надо только начать делать что-нибудь, чтобы понять, как мало честных, порядочных людей. Иной раз, когда не спится, я думаю: господи, ты дал нам громадные леса, необъятные поля, глубочайшие горизонты, и, живя тут, мы сами должны бы по-настоящему быть великанами…» От них веет безысходностью, если даже деятельные, предприимчивые люди видят, как мало честных, порядочных людей, сколько с такими ресурсами можно было бы сделать, а толку все мало..

И совсем гадко звучат слова лакея Яшки: «Что ж там говорить, вы сами видите, страна необразованная, народ безнравственный, притом скука, на кухне кормят безобразно, а тут еще Фирс этот ходит, бормочет разные неподходящие слова.»

Любовь Андреевна уезжает в Париж с деньгами от ярославской родственницы на выкуп имения, зная, что они кончатся очень быстро, оставляя Аню самой устраивать свою жизнь. Так ли она добра? В ее доброте есть что-то удалое, на публику, пустое и нелепое бахвальство. И это, если хотите, пошло. Вырождение аристократического класса зашло так далеко, что их существование стало не просто обыденным и бесцельным, но и пошлым, глупым и обременительным для всех, кто находится рядом с ними. Фирс – олицетворение народа, остается забыт и он покорен своей судьбе.

И все же Чехов оптимистичен. Его герои мечтают о счастье. Лопухин мечтает о счастье на земле, приносящей доход. Трофимов мечтает: «Человечество идет к высшей правде, к высшему счастью, какое только возможно на земле, и я в первых рядах!» Только, пожалуй, Чехов в этом ожидании счастья ошибся.

Остается неразрешенный вопрос: Раневская прямо и недвусмысленно просит Лопухина повременить с рубкой сада до ее отъезда, еще раз эту просьбу повторяет Аня. Но в финальной сцене, когда она еще в усадьбе, уже раздается стук топора. Мы видели искренность Лопухина на словах и на деле. Неужели проникновенные слова: «и люблю вас, как родную… больше, чем родную» - просто слова. А может «больше, чем родную» означают его любовь к ней, как к женщине? Я не верю в интерпретацию, что стук топора в момент отъезда объясняется меркантильностью и его черствая практичность укладывается в категорию «время-деньги». Не такой он и двуличный. Очевидно, что такой поступок можно назвать словосочетанием «делать назло». Только почему он вдруг изменил свое отношение? А изменил он его в момент, когда пришел известием, что он в жесточайшей борьбе на повышение цены выиграл аукцион. Этому предшествовал разговор:
«Любовь Андреевна. Пойдемте, господа, пора. А тут, Варя, мы тебя совсем просватали, поздравляю.
Варя (сквозь слезы). Этим, мама, шутить нельзя.
Лопахин. Охмелия, иди в монастырь…»
Очевидно, Лопахин любил Любовь Андреевну, он и ее хотел «купить». Но она все Варю сватала за него, он для нее был бывший крепостной, она его просто не принимала всерьез. Поэтому топор зазвучал в момент отъезда.

[Nazanin · Rating 4 out of 5]

سالها پیش (شاید سوم دبستان) وقتی هرگز نمیدانستم چخوف کیست کتابی از پدر هدیه گرفتم با عنوان داستان های کوتاه از مشاهیر ادبی جهان که سه نام، درشت، بر روی جلدش آمده بود : لئون تولستوی، آنتوان چخوف، آلفونس دوده....بعد ازاینکه آن اسامی نامانوس را برای خودم چند بارتلفظ کردم، به شتاب رفتم سراغ داستانها و "شرط بندی" شد اولین تجربه من از چخوف و چه تجربه ای ، چه داستانی
درست به یاد دارم که آن داستان با همه کوتاهی اش، چقدر برام عجیب بود ، تا چند روز مدام اتفاقات، تصمیمات و سرنوشت آدم هایش (البته یکی دو شخصیت بیشتر نداشت) را مرور میکردم و اینکه چرا آن طور شد؟ چرا اون فرد به اون نتیجه رسید و ... ( چندوقت پیش هم که مجموعه "دماغ" –داستان های کوتاه روسی – را میخواندم و به شرط بندی رسیدم باز هم همان حال و هوا تکرار شد).
امروز بعد از تمام شدن گشت و گذار در باغ آلبالوی چخوف ، رفتم سراغ همان کتاب خاطره انگیز با اون جلد نایلون شده ، (یک زمانی عادت داشتم کتابامو نایلون کنم) : )) ...تصور کنید بعد از سالها میرید سراغ یکی از دوست داشتنی ترین کتاب های دوران کودکی تون که همون طور نجیب ودست به سینه نشسته وخیلی دوست دارید بدونید تو فکر چیه ،به کجا نگاه میکنه یا منتظر چیه...دست به کاغذهاش می کشید و اون عطر مخصوص کاغذهای پیر با گوشه های زرد، بی هیچ ناز وادا میاد سراغتون ...دل انگیزترین عطر دنیا... (کتاب های این روزگاربه جز معدودی چندان عطری ندارند، نه؟)... و پشت سرش، متصل، ساعتها و روزهای اون عهد وقند وعسل دورانش که یاد باد...وای که اگه شیرینی خاطرات، طعم گس بعضی لحظه هامون رو عوض نمی کرد...اون قسمت از مغز که محل نگهداری یادها وخاطرات دوست داشتنی مونه، شک ندارم که باید جای خیلی قشنگ و روشنی باشه...

دور نشم

کتاب رو که ورق میزدم ، مقدمه کوتاه و مختصر مربوط به چخوف به همین "باغ آلبالو" و البته "سه خواهران" و "خواستگاری " به عنوان نمایشنامه های مطرح این نویسنده اشاره کرده و حالا بعد از سالها ،رفتم سراغ آن باغ نام آشنا
نمایشنامه ای کوتاه پر از اسم های سخت و شبیه به هم ِ روسی
ماجرا مربوط به باغی ست قدیمی مایملک وهست و نیستِ خانواده ای ظاهرا اصیل، که به علت بدهی، تا حراج و از کف رفتنش، چیزی نمانده ، گفتگوها پیرامون این موضوع هست و این میان فردی نوکیسه و تازه به ثروت رسیده (لوپاخین) که از دوستان نزدیک خانواده هم هست به دنبال گرفتن ماهی از این آب گل آلود است. در این بین نظرات افراد این داستان را می خوانیم که شاید هرکدام نماینده نوعی دیدگاه و باور هستند ... از فیرس ، پیشخدمت سالخورده تا یاشا خدمتکار جوان و تروفیموف، دانشجو و از دوستان آنیا و دیگران .آنچه که کمی عجیب به نظر می رسد ( شاید هم عجیب نباشد!) اینه که مالک اصلی باغ " لیوبف آندره یونا" علی رغم همه نگرانی هایش ، چندان تلاشی برای حفظ دارایی اش نمی کند، حتی در امور روزانه هم به رغم شرایط خاص خانواده، چندان امساکی ندارد به راحتی و حتی با بی تعهدی ، سکه های طلایش را خرج می کند تا جایی که با اعتراض دخترش هم مواجه می شود اما همچنان در حال ابراز نگرانی و گریه و ناله هست...
به نظرم باغ می تواند سمبل ارزش هایی باشد که هرچند در ظاهر فریاد پاسداشت آن سر داده می شود اما در باطن و عملا تلاشی در خور، برای حفظ آنها صورت نمی گیرد و از این رهگذر، ناچار لگدمال منفعت طلبی های سطحی و سودجویی آنهایی می شود که درک روشنی از حقیقت آن ارزش ندارند در واقع باغ یا آن ارزش به مرور قربانی بی هویتی وبی حوصلگی تدریجی مالکانش می شود که صرفا با آه و ناله شان زمان وزمین را هدر می دهند
این مفهوم ، شاید در این جملات تروفیموف که اطرافیان او را دست انداخته و دانشجوی ابدی خطابش می کنند، بیشتر جلوه کند آنجا که می گوید :
سراسر روسیه باغ ماست"
آنیا ! لحظه ای فکر کنید
به راستی آیا از هر درخت آلبالو، ...یک موجود زنده به شما نگاه نمی کند؟ آیا صدای آنها را نمی شنوید؟...به حساب کسانی دارید زندگی می کنید که روزی آنها را جلوتر از در خانه، راهشان نمیدادید...ما حداقل دویست سال عقب هستیم هنوز هیچ چیز نداریم، هیچ رابطه مشخصی نسبت به گذشته نداریم. ما فقط فلسفه بافی می کنیم."
یا در مورد روشنفکران عصر خود میگوید :
"خود را روشنفکر میدانند اما خدمه را " تو " خطاب می کنند بد تحصیل می کنند چیزی را به طور جدی نمی خوانند درباره علوم فقط حرف می زنند از هنر سررشته ای ندارند خودشان را مهم می پندارند و چهره جدی به خودشان میگیرند ، فلسفه بافی میکنند ..."

و این همان چیزی ست که در حرکات و گفتار مالکان باغ مکرر می بینیم والبته که چخوف همه چیز را حقیقی به پیش می برد هیچ کوشش بی منطقی را به زور برای یک پایان متفاوت و خوشایند به داستان تزریق نمی کند در واقع همه چیز به عنوان معلولی از رفتار ساکنان و مالکان باغ رقم می خورد.
نمی دانم این برداشتم از آن اثر چقدر درست است ولی از یک مورد اطمینان دارم اینکه چخوفی را که در مدت عمر کوتاه و چهل ساله خویش آثاری خلق کرد که ما بعد بیش از صدسال پیوسته با اشتیاق می خوانیمشان، مثل همان عهد دبستان، همچنان نمی شناسم و نخواهم شناخت.
او خود می گوید : همه اصرار دارند مرا نویسنده ای غمگین و محزون بپندارند حال آن که من زندگی را به صورت واقعی توصیف می کنم. حاضرم شرط ببندم که هیچ گاه کسی نمایشنامه های مرا با دقت نخوانده است. (به نقل از انتهای همین کتاب)

"... هدف و مفهوم زندگی ما آن است که از تمام مسائل پیش پا افتاده که مانع خوشبختی ست دوری کنیم. پس به پیش! ما بدون توقف به سوی ستاره روشنی که در دور دست می درخشد پیش می رویم! ..." تروفیموف صفحه 42

[Tawfek · Rating 3 out of 5]

مسرحيات تشيخوف مش بقوة اعماله القصصية و لكن مع ذلك مسرحيات تشيخوف فيها حاجة بتخلي الجميع مش قادرين يحطوا من قدرها الا و هي شخصيات تشيخوف المميزة و المختلفة دائمًا بين كل قصة و التانية و كل مسرحية و التانية.
و ده خلاني انا شخصيًا مخدوع في المسرحيات.
لان المسرحيات موضوعتها مش مميزة جدًا زي مواضيع القصص اللي كسرت الدنيا و اللي قوتها تخطت مئات السنين و وصلتلنا بنفس القوة.
و لكن الشخصيات فعلًا مميزة بقرأ و انا متخيل كل شخصية بتعمل ايه زي ما تشيخوف كان عايزهم يظهروا.
و مظنش حتي ان الممثلين مثلوا الشخصيات زي ما كان عايز تشيخوف الشخصيات تظهر.
كل شخصية ليها روح مميزة و كل شخصية ليها حياتها و بتعيش حتي بعد ما بتخلص المسرحية او القصة بتعيش من غير ما حد يكتب حياتها و بنسيبها بسلام
من غير ما نقتحم خصوصيتها و نقرأ عنها تاني

[Duane Parker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chekhov described The Cherry Orchard as a comedy, but as a reader it's hard to view it in any way other than a tragedy. It's another work of literature that depicts the declining Russian aristocracy which would end 13 years later with the Russian Revolution, and made permanent in 1918 with the murder of the Royal Family.

The play opened in theater to great success in Jan. 1904, but Chekhov would die 6 months later at the age of 44, cutting short a life and career that would leave us with some of the best plays and short stories ever written.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book Review
4 out of 5 stars to The Cherry Orchard, a tragedy and comedy all rolled into one, published in 1904 by a great Russian, Anton Chekhov. I'd heard of this play during my high school years, but never actually read it. In college, I had a course in modern drama and theatre, where this was one of the 16 plays we read: 1 per week for the 4 month course. Our school also performed a theatrical version a later semester where I participated in some backstage work. We also did a video and literary analytical comparison. I know the play well. Commentary on society. Discussion of values. Choices. Understanding what you will give up for what you need to have. The themes in this one are so large, it's often hard to discuss them without getting animated.

Additionally, The Cherry Orchard was the piece that I did my technical and textual analysis on, so I had strong opinions and theories about the characters and the action. When I saw the video, I was a bit shocked at some things, but I also realized that many things were done in the way that I would have done them. The whole discussion/argument about the play being a comedy or a tragedy is one that comes to mind.
I thought while reading the piece that it was mostly a tragedy. The Ranevskys were losing their estate and cherry orchard. I had sympathy and pity for them. Then, I thought more about how it was played in the video, and what the narrator had to say. I also recalled the action in the play and realized that the action is external, and therefore, it depends on the way that characters are played by the actors. It was the acting, at least for me, which showed the tragic side of the play in the video. When Lopakhin is announcing at the end that he is now the owner of the estate and the orchard, the staging and directing was brilliant. The entire stage was silent, and the characters all stood around Lopakhin. The orchestra was playing a little bit also, and Lopakhin began his speech. He was somewhat hysterical, but also vindicated. Watching this scene is what convinced me that the play was more tragic than comic.

The actress who played Madame Ranevsky was a great actress. When she broke down about losing the estate with her brother Gayev, there were more tragic tones to the play. It was hard to decide exactly how I felt about the piece because there were the interruptions to let the narrator talk for awhile. Overall, I liked the version because it appeared very classic. By classic, I mean in the lines and the dark colors. I wish that I saw the actual orchard. I felt a little deprived because the orchard was the focus of the piece.

There were parts that were left out also that I wish I could have seen acted. In my opinion, the entire play should have been put on, and then afterwards, the narrator should have commented on it. They could have held flashbacks and then remind us of specific scenes that were played in a certain way, etc. The end was good when Firs was left alone. I like that part. He was on the couch and I wondered what was going to happen. When I read the play, I thought that he was going to die, but I was unsure about his character in the film. There was a lot of discussion about the sounds of the piercing harp string and the axe at the end when the orchard was being cut down. This discussion was very interesting because it helped me to understand the importance of the sounds before I gave my textual analysis.

About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.

[Flo Camus · Rating 5 out of 5]

[5.0⭐] 𝙀𝙡 𝙅𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞́𝙣 𝙙𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙨 𝘾𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙯𝙤𝙨 es una obra teatral escrita por el dramaturgo ruso Anton Chéjov, escrita en 1903 y publicada en 1904. Esta obra, también conocida como "El Huerto de los Cerezos", es una exploración de la decadencia de la aristocracia rusa y el cambio social que experimentaba el país en aquella época. La trama gira en torno a una familia aristócrata, propietaria de un hermoso jardín de cerezos que se encuentra al borde de la ruina financiera. La propiedad, además de ser un símbolo de estatus, representa los sueños y recuerdos de la familia, pero su futuro está en peligro debido a la incapacidad de adaptarse a los cambios económicos y sociales que enfrenta Rusia.


La trama es realmente fuerte y hasta algo muy común, tanto en aquellos años como en la actualidad. Temas como el dinero y la bancarrota son realidades que varios han vivido a lo largo de la historia. En este caso, el conflicto principal surge cuando la familia debe decidir si vender el jardín para pagar sus deudas o conservarlo como un legado sentimental. Esta decisión simboliza el enfrentamiento entre el pasado y el presente, entre la tradición y el cambio inevitable. Chéjov crea personajes realmente complejos y multifacéticos que luchan con sus propias esperanzas, sueños, ilusiones, miedos y decepciones. Destacan la figura de Liubov, la matriarca que regresa a la finca tras un largo exilio tras la muerte de su hijo, y Lopajin, un empresario ambicioso que propone la solución más práctica para salvar la propiedad.

Además, se puede ver claramente cómo dos generaciones tienen conflictos de interés completamente opuestos y diferentes. Las antiguas generaciones, en especial Fitz, no pueden desprenderse de este lugar que le ha traído tantos recuerdos y sueños. En cambio, las nuevas generaciones no entienden el porqué estos adultos no pueden desligarse y separarse de este terreno, ellos consideran que necesitan un nuevo cambio y una nueva vida.

También, cabe destacar el ingenio de Chejov al elegir un árbol como el de los cerezos que simboliza muchas cosas en la cultura oriental, en especial la vida y la muerte. Por ello, el jardín demuestra toda una vida y toda la historia de una familia mientras que, cuando talan los árboles, se esfuma por completo toda una tradición y se hace presente la muerte de uno de los personajes de esta obra.


Finalmente, se puede decir que a través de diálogos llenos de matices y simbolismo, Chéjov aborda temas universales como el paso del tiempo, la pérdida, la nostalgia y la inevitabilidad del cambio. Su habilidad para capturar la complejidad de la condición humana y la sociedad rusa de su época le otorga a esta obra un lugar destacado en la literatura mundial.
En sí, 𝙀𝙡 𝙅𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞́𝙣 𝙙𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙨 𝘾𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙯𝙤𝙨 es una obra teatral magistral que invita a reflexionar sobre el valor del pasado, la inevitabilidad del cambio y la fragilidad de los sueños humanos. La riqueza de sus personajes y su profundidad temática la convierten en una obra atemporal que sigue resonando con el público hasta el día de hoy.

[Gabriel · Rating 3 out of 5]

La historia va de una familia aristócrata que no quiere perder su casa y el jardín de cerezos, sin embargo, es un evento ineludible ya que el mal manejo del dinero y las deudas los han llevado hasta ese punto.

Lo primero que quiero resaltar es el humor, sería una historia un poco olvidable de no ser por ese constante tono irónico, absurdo y humorístico en varias escenas que se siente natural y acorde a la comedia.

Ahora, el tema en cuestión es mostrar la caída, la inutilidad e insostenibilidad de la aristocracia ante un presente que está obviamente lleno de progresos y cambios sociales, entre esos la instauración de la burguesía, el capitalismo y los derechos del campesinado como sistema social y económico.

Por lo que se sirve de mostrar escenas que ilustran esa nostalgia del pasado por parte de ellos que representa su hogar, mientras muestra el materialismo y superficilidad al que están sometidos que en contraposición a ellos, el comerciante Lopajin de pasado noble se advierte como un individuo más útil, inteligente y que sirve a la realidad que enfrenta, mientras la familia se ve inútil, poco productivos y llenos de vicios tontos.

[Dream.M · Rating 4 out of 5]

قبلا این نمایشنامه رو خونده بودم و اجراش رو هم توی اینترنت دیده بودم.‌
اما امشب دوباره خوتدمش، با اینکه دوباره خوندن کتابی خیلی برام کم پیش میاد، چون کادوی تولدم بود.

[Lyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Checkov's Cherry Orchard delves into themes and ideas of cultural futility amidst political and cultural change.

First produced in 1904, Checkov is documenting the in-between time, between the dying aristocracy of the past and the post-industrial age of the future, and though he is not quite an apologist for the old times, he is inclined to lament the way things are going. Yet the change is inevitable as beautifully symbolized by the portrait crashing own on the man.

A brilliant study of the contrast between old and new Russia.

[Flo · Rating 4 out of 5]

This play was an enjoyable read for me. It is about a once aristocratic family, now impoverished and forced to sell everything, including their beautiful cherry orchard, that seemed to be the main thing they cared about, the reason of their pride. Even though they were about to lose everything they owned, they were in some sort of denial because they didn't (or couldn't) do anything to solve that situation. And while this family was in decline, a new kind of rich people arose: the once serfs were making their own money and gaining their place in society. “New money”, like Rose DeWitt's stuck-up mother would say. Rich people in decline trying to save their social position can be really unpleasant. They are willing to do anything to maintain their status. However, this family just stayed there, doing nothing... Some friends gave them possible solutions for their problem, and they did nothing.

The characters are likable, each one in their own way. The main one is Lyubov, a widowed landowner that also lost a son. She's a mixture of different kind of emotions and apparently unwilling to let go the past (something I can relate to, very much). Her brother, Leonid, adds a comedy element that I always enjoy. This play can be funny, witty and also heartbreaking. It has several things to consider that makes it an interesting book to read.

Nov 25, 13
* Also on my blog.

[فايز غازي Fayez Ghazi · Rating 2 out of 5]

- المسرحية تظهر انهيار الطبقة الأرستقراطية في روسيا وبروز طبقة جديدة تبدأ بتملك الأراضي (الفلاحين)، كما تظهر حالة الإنكار التي يعيشها الإقطاعيين (بشخص لوبوف اندريفنا).

- الحب حاضر مع فاريا و آنيا، لكنه حب باهت من دون مقدمات او نتائج!

- المسرحية متوسطة المستوى!

[Mohammad Hrabal · Rating 4 out of 5]

من آدم روشنفکری هستم، کتاب‌های جالبی می‌خوانم، با این‌ همه نمی‌توانم مسیر افکارم را دنبال کنم و بفهمم کی هستم؛ به‌ درستی چه می‌خواهم: دوست دارم زندگی کنم، یا شاید هم گلوله‌ای توی مغزم شلیک کنم؟ صفحه‌ی ۴۷ کتاب
کسی چه می‌داند؟ تازه، مردن چه مفهومی دارد؟ آدم شاید صدها حس داشته باشد، ما فقط با پنج تا از آنها آشناییم که با مردن شخص، از بین می‌روند، اما نود و پنج تای بقیه باقی می‌مانند. صفحه‌ی ۵۹ کتاب
بشریت پیش می‌رود و نیروهایش را به سرحد کمال می‌رساند. هر چه امروز به نظرش ناممکن می‌آید، روزی برایش ساده و روشن خواهد بود، فقط باید کار کرد، باید با تمام قوا به کسانی که حقیقت را می‌جویند کمک کرد. امروزه در روسیه کسانی که کار و فعالیت می‌کنند، خیلی کم هستند. اکثریت قریب‌ به‌ اتفاق روشنفکرانی که من می‌شناسم، دنبال چیزی نیستند، اما به خدمتکارهاشان تو می‌گویند، با رعیت‌ها مثل حیوان‌ها رفتار می‌کنند؛ چیزی یاد نمی‌گیرند، کتاب‌های جدی و ارزشمند نمی‌خوانند، همه‌ چیز را مسخره می‌کنند و دست‌ کم می‌گیرند، فقط به این اکتفا می‌کنند که درباره‌ی دانش حرف بزنند، اما از هنر چی سر درمی‌آورند؟ … با این‌ همه، فقط بلدند خودشان را بگیرند، قیافه‌ای جدی داشته باشند، پرسش‌های مهم مطرح کنند، فلسفه بافی و گنده‌گویی کنند، حال آنکه در برابر چشمانشان، کارگرها به طور وحشتناکی دچار کمبود و سوء تغذیه اند، بدون متکا سرشان را روی زمین می‌گذارند و می‌خوابند، سی یا چهل نفرشان در یک اتاق زندگی می‌کنند، اتاق هم پر از ساس، رطوبت و بوی گند است و با چه ناپاکی‌های اخلاقی. صفحات ۵۹-۶۰ کتاب
گاهی وقت‌ها که خوابم نمی‌برد، به خودم می‌گویم: پروردگارا تو به ما جنگل‌های پهناور، کشتزارهای بی‌ انتها، و دوردست‌ ترین افق‌های دنیا را عطا کرده‌ای و ما که میان این‌ همه عظمت زندگی می‌کنیم باید غول‌هایی باشیم. صفحه‌ی ۶۰ کتاب
​

[Fereshteh · Rating 3 out of 5]

باغ آلبالو آخرین اثر چخوف، نمایشنامه ی پرشخصیتیه. سعی شده تا شخصیت های اثر طیف وسیعی از طبقات مختلف جامعه ی اون زمان روسیه رو به تصویر بکشه

داستان از اینجا شروع میشه که باغ آلبالوی معروف منطقه متعلق به یکی از خانواده های اشرافی که سالیان دست به دست چرخیده و از نسلی به نسل بعد منتقل شده گرو بانکه و با بالا رفتن بدهی ها، به مزایده گذاشته شده

با وجود نزدیک بودن مصیبت از دست دادن این آخرین با قیمانده دوره اشرافیتشون -باغ آلبالوی زیبا و افسانه ای - ولی واکنش صاحبان این باغ دیدنیه. انگار که با همچین پیشینه ای ، وقوع چنین عاقبتی رو باور ندارند. دست روی دست گذاشتند ، اراده ی نداشته شون فلج شده و تسلیم تقدیر و سرنوشتند. نه می جنگند نه تلاش می کنند نه به دنبال راه حل هستند و نه از خودشون دفاع می کنند. دور هم جمع میشن و همچنان با بی فکری پول نداشته رو خرج می کنند...خیال بافی می کنند. سعی می کنند فراموش کنند و یا غصه روزهای گذشته رو می خورند و یا اون روزهای پرشکوه رو پرستش می کنند

قهرمان داستان برای من "لوپاخین" بود. لوپاخین فرزند یکی از کارگران باغ آلبالو بوده حالا در نتیجه ی تلاش و کار زیاد به ثروت رسیده ولی لحظه ای گذشته ی خودش رو فراموش نمی کنه. می دونه از لحاظ فرهنگی فقیره و شخصیت خیلی وفاداریه و از دوز و کلک هم به دوره. با این که توانایی خرید باغ رو داره ولی همه ی تلاشش رو می کنه تا با پیشنهاداتش، اربابان قدیمی در خواب غفلت فرو رفته ش رو از این مصیبت نجات بده

باغ آلبالو نگارنده قطعه ی خاصی از تاریخ روسیه ست.داستان زوال اشرافیت خو کرده به رفاه، بدون فکر و بدون تلاش است و به قدرت رسیدن طبقه ای که یاد گرفته برای رسیدن باید تلاشگر بود

آخرین پرده ، مقایسه عکس العمل لوپاخین و اربابان پیشین به نظرم جالب اومد.وقتی جرات تغییر شرایط رو نداشته باشیم ناخودآگاه تقدیرگرا و خرافاتی میشیم -هرچه پیش آید خوش آید- عکس العملی که از اربابان پیشین می بینیم تا اون حد که خیلی راحت تر از حد انتظارمون با از دست دادن باغ و تخلیه ی اون کنار میان و در مقابل شادی و ذوق بی حد و اندازه لوپاخین از خرید باغ رو در نظر بیارین...کسی که وقتی همه خواب بودند تلاش کرده و حالا صاحب باغ آلبالوی افسانه ای شده و حتی خودش هم این اتفاق رو باور نمی کنه

[Beata · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chekhov masterfully presents the social and economic changes which affected Russian landed gentry after the abolition of serfdom in the 1860s.

[صان · Rating 3 out of 5]

بار اول:
مطمئنم که داستانو نفهمیدم انقد اسماشون شبیه و سخت یاد گرفتنی بود.

بار دوم:
بعد از سه سال برای بار دوم خوندم، که طبعن نسبت به دفعه اول دقت بیشتری داشتم و اون دفعه خیلی سرسری خونده بودم.

این‌بار ترجمه سروژ استپانیان رو خوندم که شنیده بودم بهتره اما بعضی جاها خیلی تحت‌اللفظی ترجمه کرده بود طوری که مثل دیالوگ‌های ابزورد بی‌معنا می‌شد.

شوخی‌های اسلپ‌استیک‌گون توی این نمایش بیشتر از ایوانف و مرغ دریایی بود و ماجرای خانواده‌ای بود که باغ‌شونو دارن از دست می‌دن و مثل تمام نمایش‌نامه‌های چخوف هیچ‌کاری نمی‌کنن و منفعل نشستن و حسرت می‌خورن و گوش‌شون رو نسبت به پیشنهاد‌های منطقی بستن و فقط به هم توهین می‌کنن و گریه می‌کنن و منتظرن که همه چیزشونو از دست بدن.

[Hosein · Rating 4 out of 5]

صد نمایشنامه (۴) | باغ آلبالو اثر آنتوان چخوف

به محض تموم کردن باغ آلبالو کتاب رو بستم، چند لحظه فکر کردم و تصمیم گرفتم از اول بخونمش. معمولا اعتقاد دارم داستان‌های روسی رو باید دوبار خوند، چون اسم‎ها به حدی غیرقابل فهم و عجیبن که بار اول من فقط باید سعی کنم شخصیت‌ها رو یادم نره. خوش‌بختانه این کار رو می‌شه با چخوف کرد، داستان‌های هفتصد صفحه‌ای داستایوفسکی این قابلیت رو ندارن.

بار دوم همه چیز خیلی واضح‌تر شد، باغِ آلبالو کاملا یک کمدیه، ولی توی فضایی روایت می‌شه که با حرف‌هاش همخونی نداره.

بذارین اول در مورد شخصیت‌ها حرف بزنیم، توی ریویوهایی که خوندم هیچ کس چندان بهشون توجه نکرده بود. قضیه اینه که ما وقتی یه کتابی رو می‌خونیم، تصور میکنیم که توی دنیای واقعی مردم نوع متفاوت و منطقی‌تری از صحبت کردن رو دارن، ولی در اصل وقتی توی یک جمع هفت-هشت نفره باشیم، مردم طوری حرف میزنن که کسی نمی‌فهمه چه خبره. در صورتی که به صورتِ گروهی در مورد چیزی بحث بشه (منظورم یک جمع عادی و خانوادگیه، نه آکادمیک) خیلی از جملات توی هوا پرواز میکنن و به گوش کسی نمی‌رسن. اما توی داستان‌ها اینطوری نیست، همه‌ی دیالوگ‌ها اثرشون رو می‌ذارن، تمام اون چیزهایی که گفته می‌شن و کسی نمی‌شنوه رو نویسنده ها (معمولا) حذف می‌کنن.
حالا برگردیم به باغ آلبالو، شخصیت‌ها انگار دارن با دیوار حرف میزنن. یکی خیلی بی‌ربط داره به بیلیارد فکر می‌کنه و حرکات توپ رو می‌گه، اون یکی بحث ازدواج رو می‌کشه جلو و کسی واکنش چندان مشخصی به رفتار بقیه نشون نمی‌ده! وقتی هم محل یکی دیگه می‌ذاره، زمانیه که مجبوره یک مسئله‌ی مهمی رو سریع از سر خودش باز کنه یا یک مسئله‌ی مسخره و ساده‌ست. امروز توی یک جمع بودم و سعی کردم به رفتارها دقت کنم، خیلی شبیه چیزی بود که چخوف توی باغ آلبالو اورده. با این تفاوت که باغ آلبالو شبیه یک پارودی از زندگی مردمیه که هر روز از کنارشون رد می‌شیم. به نظرم این اصلی‌ترین نکته‌ی نمایشنامه بود و چخوف خیلی کم بابتش تحسین می‌شه. اون دقیقا مثل یک نقاش یا انیماتور مردم رو تحلیل کرده و بعد، با توجه به خواسته‌ی خودش، اون‌ها رو عوض کرده. من اصلا ریویوهایی که می‌گفتن این شخصیت‌های مصنوعی بودن رو قبول ندارم، شخصیت‌های چخوف به حدی واقعی بودن که می‌تونستم ببینمشون. همین الان که این متن رو می‌نویسم لوپاخین جلوی چشمامه.
اینکه ما حس می‌کنیم شخصیت‌های چخوف درست به نظر نمیان، مشکل چخوف نیست، مشکل خودمونه که نتونستیم با اون دقت دنیای واقعی رو تحلیل کنیم.

مورد دوم هم فضای داستانه. شخصیت‌ها خیلی وقت‌ها صحبت‌هایی می‌کنن که شبیه پیشگوییه. اما پیشگویی توی داستانی که در مورد یک خانواده‌ی بورژوای در هم شکسته‌س چندان درست به نظر نمیاد. داستان باغ آلبالو رو می‌تونین ببرین توی یک جنگل جادویی و تغییرش بدین، به طوری که یکسری الف شخصیت‌های اون باشن که دارن از آینده‌ی دنیا می‌گن. سیستمی که قرن‌ها بوده قراره از بین بره و اون الف‌ها خیلی خوب تشخیصش دادن (چون الفن به هر حال). اما یکسری انسان احمق مثل گایف نباید متوجه این باشن، اونا حتی نباید بتونن اتفاقی که جلوی چشمشونه رو بفهمن.
باغ آلبالو توی ساب تکستش حالت معنوی عمیقی داشت، مرگ، نابودی، سقوط و عشق‌های ناکام توی روایت خیلی شناورن و حرکت می‌کنن. اما آخرِ همه چخوف به طرز واضحی یک کمدی خوب نوشته. اما خواننده‌ها به حدی درگیر اسمِ بزرگ چخوف و پیش‎‌فرض‌های ذهنیشون می‌شن که نمی‌تونن شوخی‌های خلاقانه‌ی باغ آلبالو رو ببینن. نمی‌گم خنده‌دار بودن، روس‌ها خیلی توی خندوندن بقیه خوب نیستن (ودکا اون بخش مغز که مال شوخیه رو خراب می‌کنه.)، ولی شوخی‌های باغ آلبالو خوب بودن. بهترین شوخی هم دقیقا پایان داستان با حرف‌های و مرگ فیزر بود. شاید ما نخندیم، ولی چخوف احتمالا خیلی به این بخش خندیده، مشخصه.

برای پایان هم بگم ترجمه‌ی خانم دانشور افتضاح بود، زمانی که بار دوم به انگلیسی خوندم متوجه شدم که لحن و ظرافت‌های نمایشنامه رو کاملا خراب کردن. ایکاش این ترجمه هیچ‌وقت تجدید چاپ نمی‌شد، حس می‌کنم بخش بزرگی از واکنش‌های منفی و نفهمیدن‌های چخوف به لطف خانم دانشوره.

[Loretta · Rating 2 out of 5]

I went into this book expecting to really like it because so many of my Goodread friends enjoyed it. Sadly, I did not. There were too many characters in the play. I'm not sure what they were all doing there except add to the constant whining of ALL the characters. By the end of the play I couldn't care less about the outcome of the cherry orchard.

[Lea · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Oh, will you understand
My soul's deep restlessness?"

The last play in my book of three Chekhov’s plays. I don’t quite understand how is The Cherry Orchard Chekhov’s most famous play because I found it less appealing than Three Sisters, which was my favorite, or Uncle Vanya. The characters seem less developed and the classic themes that are explored in each play didn’t hit the note with me as the others, even though I can see a great value in this one too.

The most dominating subject of the play was the relativity of any one's position in society during the time of great economic and political changes. The play portrays the slow downfall of the aristocracy as their position is replaced with people from lower class that now have new opportunities. From reading about Chekhov’s life, it is evident why that theme interested him, as he himself was coming from the family that didn’t have high social status, and made it with his own talent and effort. He financed himself during medical school and became a doctor and in time one of the most famous Russian writers.
Lopakhin was the character that portrays perfectly Chekhov personal struggles. Chekhov father was very strict, fanatic and came from a lower class in society. I think this dialogue can reveal the way Chekhov felt in some sense, his escape in art and his haunting feeling of low self-esteem coming from a tyrannical father and his social status, that couldn't be eradicated even with highest education.

LUBOV. I'm quite sure there wasn't anything at all funny. You oughtn't to go and see plays, you ought to go and look at yourself. What a grey life you lead, what a lot you talk unnecessarily.
LOPAKHIN. It's true. To speak the straight truth, we live a silly life. [Pause] My father was a peasant, an idiot, he understood nothing, he didn't teach me, he was always drunk, and always used a stick on me. In point of fact, I'm a fool and an idiot too. I've never learned anything, my handwriting is bad, I write so that I'm quite ashamed before people, like a pig!

My dear friend from medical school adores Chekhov’s short stories, so she recommended his work to me, and I’m glad she did. These plays were only an introduction as I really want to read his complete opus. This style, wit, and cleverness in describing human thought are indeed brilliant and inspiring to me. His philosophy seems so close to my perspective on life and my love for existentialism. Nothing but respect for my fellow doctor that became a giant of Russian literature. Looking forward to spending more time with him.

To escape all the petty and deceptive things which prevent our being happy and free, that is the aim and meaning of our lives. Forward! We go irresistibly on to that bright star which burns there, in the distance! Don't lag behind, friends!

[Salamon · Rating 5 out of 5]

     This is the first book we picked to read together as a book club. It wasn't my suggestion. However, mine was "Ward No 6" which is another work by Chekov so I was able to read from the same author. My only issue with this was that I'd seen its play and hadn't found it intriguing. As a result, I picked the play up with some skepticism. It couldn't be more wrong to do so. Everything about this play communicates to the reader the genius of this great man. It's almost magical how much he can convey in just a few words. There is more than meets the eye at first to every character of his. Every character represents a whole detailed world whose details are not openly discussed. In this regard, the readers are assigned to do much more than they might have expected at the outset.

     To talk about different layers of the play at length would ask for the production of a long review which I'm not fit for at this time. I'll introduce the plot and main characters briefly, though:

     It is a classic play that revolves around an aristocratic Russian family facing the loss of their estate, including a beautiful and renowned cherry orchard.

### Main Characters:
- **Madame Lyubov Andreievna Ranevskaya**: The landowner who returns to her family estate after spending five years in Paris.
- **Leonid Gayev**: Ranevskaya's brother, who is also living on the estate.
- **Anya**: Ranevskaya's daughter.
- **Varya**: Ranevskaya's adopted daughter.
- **Yermolai Alexeyevich Lopakhin**: A wealthy merchant and the son of a former serf on the estate.
- **Peter Trofimov**: A student and former tutor to Ranevskaya's deceased son.
- **Firs**: An elderly servant who has been with the family for many years.
- **Dunyasha**: A maid on the estate.
- **Yasha**: A young servant who has accompanied Ranevskaya from Paris.
- **Simeonov-Pishchik**: A neighboring landowner.

Main Plot:
     The play opens with Madame Ranevskaya returning to her family estate in Russia after a long stay in Paris. She is greeted by her family and friends, who bring the sad news that the estate, including the cherry orchard, is to be auctioned off to pay the family's debts. Lopakhin, a wealthy merchant, suggests cutting down the cherry orchard and building summer cottages to generate income, but ...

     As the story unfolds, the characters grapple with their personal struggles and the impending loss of the estate. The cherry orchard becomes a symbol of the past, representing the family's heritage and the changing social landscape of Russia.

     All things considered, I believe there are prizes here for the people who can bear a lack of drama and enjoy the subtleties of a rich text.


P.S: To fully appreciate it though, one needs to read the 1903 script. In this translation and in the foreword, it is explained that how the 1904 script (partially changed and shortened in parts) could confuse us.

[پیمان عَلُو · Rating 5 out of 5]

باز هم خوانشی از چخوفِ مخوف/اینبار اولین تجربه نمایشنامه خوانی از حضرت چخوف

باغ آلبالو : نمایشنامه ای که هرچی سیم اعصابه خراب میکنه،خانواده ای اشرافی که درحال غرق شدن هستن و خودشون رو زدن به خواب...


این نمایشنامه کمدی خالص بود،کمدی از این بیشتر که سرمون رو کبک گونه کردیم زیر برف و کسی مثل لوپاخین هم که بخواد بهمون بفهمونه بهش بخندیم...

اسم های این نمایشنامه یا درکل ادبیات روسیه واقعا یکم رو مخ آدم رژه میرن،از راسکولنیکف گرفته تا اسم های این نمایشنامه،( لوپاخین،آنیا،تروفیموف،اپیخودوف،سیمیونف،گایف لئونید آندره یوویچ،)


بی اهمیت بودن آدم های مثل،رانوسکی،گایف،واریا،آدم رو موجاب میکنه بوکوفسکی گونه چند تا فحش آبدار نثار این آدم‌ها کنی!!!


شخصیت های که واقعا نمایانگر قشری از جامعه روس بودن ،یک خانواده که اسمش رو میشه گذاشت روسیه...،از فیرس که آزاد هم شده اما بازم ،نخواسته آزاد باشه تا لوپاخین و و و و ....


منم مثل دوستان دیگر بیشتر از لوپاخین خوشم اومد،شخصیتی از قشر کارگر که خیلی تلاش کرد به این خانواده کمک کنه اما این خانواده خیلی منگول تر از این حرفا بودن،حقش هم همین بود پیروزی کارگر در مقابل قشر اشراف زاده خو کرده به رفاه

[Nercs · Rating 2 out of 5]

این کتاب از اون دسته کتابا بود که وقتی نقدایی که ازش شده بود خوندم‌ اینطوری بودم که واقعاً؟ این همه حرف میخواست بزنه؟ پس چرا من هیچی دستگیرم نشد؟