Anton Chekhov's Play The Cherry Orchard

Categories: Play

Essay, Pages 11 (2717 words)

Views

521

'The Cherry Orchard is pessimistic in its analysis of social transition. ' Debate this statement in relation to the performance of the servants' roles in at least TWO scenes from the play. Anton Chekhov wrote The Cherry Orchard as a comedy, yet it has a duality with tragic elements as well. The Cherry Orchard is pessimistic in its analysis of social transition. This can be seen in the performance of the servants' roles. [H1] During the time Chekhov wrote the play, Russia itself was undergoing a social and political change.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Anton Chekhov’s Play The Cherry Orchard ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

This change set in motion the rise of the middle class after the abolition of serfdom in the mid-nineteenth century which was a threat to the old aristocracy. Therefore, Chekhov's play, The Cherry Orchard, symbolises this change and how it views social transition in a pessimistic perspective. [H2] Act I of The Cherry Orchard, which is set in Russia, opens in the early hours on a cold May morning. The setting is in an old nursery but the audience also is aware that the cherry trees are in bloom with their white flowers.

Lopakhin, a local merchant, and Dunyasha, a maidservant, are waiting the return of Madame Ranevsky and her seventeen-year-old daughter, Anya. The audience learns later on that Madame Ranevsky's adopted daughter, Varya, has been overseeing the estate. [H3]In the early scenes of Act I, both Lopakhin and Dunyasha are excited that Madame Ranevsky has returned. Lopakhin begins to reminisce, but beneath his memories lies his self-consciousness: "My father was a peasant.

.. ut here I am in a white waistcoat and yellow shoes... I'm rich now, with lots of money, but just think about it and examine me, and you'll find I'm still a peasant down to the marrow of my bones" (Chekhov, 2). Lopakhin reveals almost immediately his insecurities about his peasant background despite being a wealthy man. He also puts Dunyasha in her place as maidservant: "You dress like a lady and you do your hair like one. You oughtn't. You should know your place" (Chekhov, 2).

His memory reveals that Madame Ranevsky cleaned him up after his father had beaten him, yet she calls him "little peasant" to differentiate that she is aristocracy and he is nothing more than a peasant and what he takes as a term of endearment is actually an underlying condescension (Chekhov, 2). Her kindness is only that of a noblewoman to a peasant; nothing more. [H4] Dunyasha and Yasha both act above their status.

Dunyasha constantly speaks of her delicateness, and despite being reminded by Lopakhin to "remember your place" (Chekhov, 2), she still mingles with the upper class, i. . she even kisses Anya when she returns from France (Chekhov, 4). This act of affection shows her desire to be an equal with the superior class. Yet when she attempts to tell Anya about Epikhodov's proposal, she is ignored. To the upper class, Dunyasha is unimportant and insignificant, qualities which are evident in the way she is disregarded. Dunyasha attempts to combat this by trying to imitate the actions and behaviour of the upper class. This is a defensive act in the hopes that she will to blend in, but it also shows her insecurity.

Dunyasha still considers herself a lady, by constantly insinuating this: "my hands are white, white as a lady's. I'm so tender, and so delicate now; respectable" (Chekhov, 19). Dunyasha associates this type of behaviour with the upper class and, thus acting accordingly. Yasha, is very similar to Dunyasha, but is extremely arrogant. Yasha acts above his status by smoking cigars and drinking champagne, behaviour that he associates with the upper class. Being treated as a servant, Yasha has experienced inferiority but strongly refuses to accept it as part of his life[H5].

His desire to blend in with the family is expressed in actions that reflect the worst of the upper class. This insecurity makes him arrogant and disrespectful. His constant dismissal of his mother saying, "She makes me lose patience with her" (Chekhov, 43) suggests his loss of respect for the most important person in his life out of haughtiness. When asked by Anya to check on Fiers, not only did Yasha ask someone else to run the errand for him, but he was also offended, asking "what's the use of asking ten times" (Chekhov, 42).

He fails to understand that, as a servant, it is his duty to do what he is told without question - he reacts to Anya in a way that is not expected of a servant. Yasha is unashamed to approach Madame Ranevsky for a favour to take him to Paris if she returns, which is definitely not what a servant would ask of his employer (Chekhov, 36). Lopakhin is a "self-made man, a harbinger of death to the old regime[H6]" (Brown and Gupta, 36) and perhaps Madame Ranevsky realises this subconsciously. Lopakhin has worked hard to make his wealth; however, he is quite an unimportant character at the beginning of the play[H7].

He is left behind by the others and apparently forgotten about. By buying the estate in Act III effectively turns the tables on the Ranevskys. The Ranevskys no longer hold the wealth or the power; Lopakhin does (Chekhov, 48). [H8] When Madame Ranevsky first arrives, everyone is too excited to sleep. Lopakhin announces that he has a solution to saving the estate from auction. He states that the until recently, no one lived in the countryside except for the aristocracy and peasants, yet now there is an increase of holiday-makers, townspeople, professionals, and rich merchants - the new middle class - who make their summer homes in the country.

To take advantage of this, Lopakhin states that the solution is, "the cherry orchard and the land by the river be broken up into building lots and are then leased off for villas" (Chekhov, 9). [H9]Both Gaev and Madame Ranevsky look down upon Lopakhin's suggestion as being "absurd" and put more importancet on the cherry orchard than what is actually worth, despite their financial predicament. Now, Chekhov created Lopakhin to reflect Russia at the current time - "what use is a cherry orchard that no longer produces cherries, or a political system that privileges those who have a childish attitude to money" (Brown and Gupta, 36). H10]Lopakhin cannot understand the reaction of Gaev and Madame Ranevsky and soon leaves when he is insulted by Gaev. In Act II, it shows Lopakhin again discussing his suggestion for Madame Ranevsky's situation: "I say the same thing every day. Both the cherry orchard and the land must be leased off for villas and at once, immediately" (Chekhov, 21). This statement is met, again, by outrage by both Madame Ranevsky and Gaev: "It's so vulgar" (Chehkov, 21). Even when Lopakhin starts to leave, Madame Ranevsky stops him since it is "nicer" when he is there.

Yet, when he tries to tell of an "awfully funny thing at the theatre" he saw, Madame Ranevsky informs him he should not attend play but to "go and look at yourself". This is implied as an underhanded insult. She is telling Lopakhin that he is still a peasant and should not be making out that he is anything but that. Lopakhin's response is to degrade himself due to his insecurities. Throughout the entire play, servants are treated as beneath the Ranevskys, but none more so than Fiers, the elderly footman. Fiers has been with the family for decades and has served them loyally and faithfully without question.

Even when serfdom was abolished, Fiers was quite happy to stay: "I didn't agree with the Emancipation and remained with my people" (Chekhov, 23). When asked by Madame Ranevsky of his intention after the orchard was sold, he said, "I'll go wherever you order me to go" (Chekhov, 35). This act shows Fiers' inferiority to the Ranevskys[H11]; he does not feel he is worthy enough to make a decision for himself. When Fiers is left behind by the family when they leave the house, it shows how unimportant and insignificant he is to them, so much so that they could afford to forget about him (Chekhov, 49).

He is also constantly looked down upon, told to "be quiet, Fiers" or insulted, being referred to as "a nuisance" (Chekhov, 23). This shows a lack of respect that the Ranevskys have for Fiers. It also shows his lowliness and unimportance to them. Fiers sees himself as a servant and nothing more, choosing to serve rather than have freedom. Although this choice meant being constantly looked down upon, he understands his place in the family and knows what is expected of him, accepting his role without question.

However, not all the servants know their place like Fiers does, such as Yasha. H12] Fiers, Yasha, and Dunyasha symbolise the different stages of Russian society and its evolution, which is brought out in the way in which they are treated. As a result of the abolition of serfdom, the servants' identities as individuals change, too. Only when serfdom was abolished did these people have their own identity. Some, like Fiers, cannot accept this change and thus continue to serve and be seen as being beneath the old aristocracy. Others, like Dunyasha and Yasha, are struggling to accept their identity in the new society when the poor can now become wealthy and vice versa.

Then there are those like Lopakhin - the nouveau riche - who now hold the power while the old aristocracy has lost theirs. [H13] Chekhov's style of language in the play is also very useful in establishing the characters, their views and personalities and the overall period of the play. Ranevsky and Gaev's language is old-fashioned, which shows their outdated views and unwillingness to change, whilst the servants speak in a more informally style. This identifies the very distinctive class divisions that exist both in the play and in the rest of Russia at this time.

Richard Eyre's production of The Cherry Orchard helps convey the style of language in the play, although, the production does not follow the text as rote, yet provides adequate function, setting, and dramatic effect. [H14] Chekhov wrote what he saw and experienced in everyday life. The Cherry Orchard was one of the results. The rise of the middle class and decline of the aristocracy in the early twentieth century Russia was at the forefront when the country was on the brink of a revolution.

Through the analysis of the servants' performances, the statement that The Cherry Orchard is "pessimistic in its analysis of social transition" is true. [H15] Thanks for this, Melissa. You have clearly discussed relevant scenes and characters from the play and approached the question of pessimism raised in the TMA title statement. For an assignment at this level you are aiming to show, through close textual analysis, that you understand wider course debates and can make an argument using them. You are not expected to take the title as unproblematic, but to engage with it argumentatively.

By stating, categorically, that the play is pessimistic in its analysis of social transition, you did not allow yourself to do this. As the guidance notes suggest in the TMA booklet, you can, 'ask yourself how far The Cherry Orchard commits itself to any kind of attitude towards social transition. ' You could have used the debate from Aestheticism &Modernism regarding comedy and tragedy to explain more fully different interpretations of the play. Your close analysis of particular scenes could have been used to show how different performances might emphasise the comic or the tragic (for example, with Firs at the end).

This would have allowed you to focus on the question of interpretation - the TMA does ask you to consider performance of the play, rather than to make general points about the text. You could have discussed Eyre's interpretation of the play and considered how different performance choices could have presented a different reading of the play. The course materials also referred to different interpretations of the play at different points in Russian history - using them would have helped you to discuss how interpretive terms like pessimistic might mean different things to different audiences in different historical contexts.

For the next TMA you should work on producing this kind of focus in your writing, which will allow you to engage more critically with course debates and build on the understanding you already have. If you can refer to course materials and use them in your argument it will help you to achieve the kind of analysis expected at this level. Helen Bibliography and References A300 (2005) DVD 1, 20th Century Literature: Texts and Debates - What Is Literature For? , The Cherry Orchard, OU, DVD00048, The Open University. Brown, R. D. and Gupta, S. (eds) (2005) Aestheticism and Modernism: Debating Twentieth-Century Literature 1900-1960.

London: Routledge in association with The Open University. Chekhov, A. (2004) The Cherry Orchard. Boston: Digireads. com. Retrieved 15 February 2007. Website: www. ebooks. com. Gupta, S. and Johnson, D. (eds) (2005) A Twentieth-Century Literature Reader. London: Routledge in association with The Open University. [H1]You are right to state your argument clearly in your intro, focussing directly on the question raised by the TMA. [H2]Is this change necessarily pessimistic? It could be argued that for the former serfs, the possibilities that this new social order offers is extremely optimistic, couldn't it?

They have the chance to control their own lives and futures in a way that previously they could not. As serfs they had the status of possessions not self-determining individuals. [H3]You don't need to include so much descriptive detail.. You can assume knowledge of the text. [H4]I think you need to explain this more fully. Could not a range of different interpretations be made of these words? One of the things the TMA is asking you to look at is this range of interpretation - hence the emphasis on performance in the title.

I think, in order to make your argument more nuanced you need to tie your analysis to specific productions of the play (Eyre's and some of the others cited in the course materials). This would allow you to show how the play could be read pessimistically, but also to show your awareness that it has been interpreted differently. [H5]Could this not be interpreted optimistically - he is refusing to accept his subservient place in the social structure. Or it could be interpreted as a satirical comment on the excesses of the aristocracy, which Yasha is aping.

Is a pessimistic interpretation the only one for Yasha and Dunyasha's behaviour? [H6]Again, couldn't this be a good thing? Is 'the old regime' held up as something to be valued in the play, or could it be seen as antiquated and iniquitous? [H7]I don't think he is. [H8]You need to explain how this relates to your argument. Also, be careful; the focus of the TMA question is the servants and, although a former serf, Lopakhin is not, now, a servant. [H9]Again, you don't need to describe the plot in so much detail. [H10]Again, doesn't this make the play more complex than simply pessimistic in its analysis of social transition.

This seems to suggest that change is both necessary and good. [H11]Is it his inferiority, or acceptance of his place within the established social order? You could develop your discussion by contrasting Fiers directly with Yasha, as representing generational differences in the servants' attitudes to 'their place'. This would allow you to develop your analysis rather than just describe the different servants' responses to social transition. [H12]This needs to be much more developed - are audiences expected to view Fiers more positively than Yasha? Does Yasha represent the inevitability of change?

Can different interpretations be given , for example, in different historical contexts. Fiers death could be interpreted as symbolic of the end of an outdated and inhuman social system, couldn't it, where the vast majority of serfs were the possessions of other people? [H13]This contains some good analysis - it would have helped your argument to use this in your intro, as it structures your discussion around the range of responses to social transition, that the characters represent. [H14]I'm not sure how this relates to your argument. [H15]I'm not sure that your analysis has shown this to be unquestionably the case, has it?