Conflict in a dramatic work
One of the features of Chekhov’s dramaturgy was the absence of open conflicts, which is quite unexpected for dramatic works, because it is conflict that is the driving force of the entire play, but it was important for Anton Pavlovich to show people’s lives through a description of everyday life, thereby bringing the stage characters closer to the viewer. As a rule, the conflict finds expression in the plot of the work, organizing it; internal dissatisfaction, the desire to get something, or not to lose, pushes the heroes to commit some actions. Conflicts can be external and internal, and their manifestation can be obvious or hidden, so Chekhov successfully hid the conflict in the play “The Cherry Orchard” behind the everyday difficulties of the characters, which is present as an integral part of that modernity.
Lopakhin is the central character in revealing the main conflict of the play
Why did Chekhov focus on the role of Lopakhin, saying that if his image fails, then the whole play will fail? At first glance, it is Lopakhin’s confrontation with the frivolous and passive owners of the garden that is a conflict in its classical interpretation, and Lopakhin’s triumph after the purchase is its resolution. However, this is precisely the interpretation that the author feared. The playwright said many times, fearing the roughening of the role, that Lopakhin is a merchant, but not in his traditional sense, that he is a soft man, and in no case can one trust his image to a “screamer”. After all, it is through the correct disclosure of the image of Lopakhin that it becomes possible to understand the entire conflict of the play.
So what is the main conflict of the play? Lopakhin is trying to tell the owners of the estate how to save their property, offering the only real option, but they do not heed his advice. To show the sincerity of his desire to help, Chekhov makes it clear about Lopakhin’s tender feelings for Lyubov Andreevna. But despite all attempts to reason with and influence the owners, Ermolai Alekseevich, “man by man,” becomes the new owner of a beautiful cherry orchard. And he is happy, but this is joy through tears. Yes, he bought it. He knows what to do with his acquisition in order to make a profit. But why does Lopakhin exclaim: “If only all this would pass, if only our awkward, unhappy life would somehow change!” And it is these words that serve as a pointer to the conflict of the play, which turns out to be more philosophical - the discrepancy between the needs of spiritual harmony with the world and reality in a transitional era and, as a result, the discrepancy between a person and himself and with historical time. In many ways, this is why it is almost impossible to identify the stages of development of the main conflict of the play “The Cherry Orchard”. After all, it arose even before the beginning of the actions described by Chekhov, and never found its resolution.
Dreams and reality are the main conflict in A.P. Chekhov’s play “The Cherry Orchard.”
“The Cherry Orchard” is Chekhov’s last play, his “swan song.” In this work, the playwright united all the main characters in a cherry orchard, which he made a symbol of the beautiful, unchanging and indestructible in life. The Cherry Orchard is a symbol of Russia. The play was written in 1903, at the turn of the era. At this time, the author is full of the feeling that Russia is on the eve of dramatic changes. Like any person, Chekhov dreamed of the future, of a new life that would bring people something bright, pure and beautiful. It is this motive of expectation of a better life that sounds in the play. The playwright felt that the old life was gradually leaving, and the new one was just emerging. How did Chekhov see the future? What kind of future did he dream of? The heroes of The Cherry Orchard will help answer these questions. In the play, Chekhov expressed his hopes for the future. Therefore, the leitmotif here is the idea of the collision of dreams and reality, of the discord between them. Behind the ordinary conversations of the heroes of the work, behind their calm attitude towards each other, we see a lack of understanding of the events taking place around them. The reader often hears out-of-place remarks from the characters and feels distant glances. They don’t hear each other, they are each in their own world, they dream and suffer alone. The ending of the play is indicative, when the old servant is simply forgotten, locked up in the estate and left, perhaps, to starve to death... So the past in the play is discarded, forgotten and not comprehended. Therefore, the main conflict of the play “The Cherry Orchard” can be characterized as follows: misunderstanding of generation by generation. It seems as if the past, present and future intersected at one point in the play. These three generations each live in their own time, but they only talk and cannot do anything to change life. The older generation includes Gaev, Ranevskaya, Firs. To the present - Lopakhin, and representatives of the future are Petya Trofimov and Anya. Lyubov Andreevna Ranevskaya, a noblewoman by blood, constantly talks about her best young years spent in an old house, in a beautiful and luxurious cherry orchard. 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. Ranevskaya lives only with memories of the past, she is not satisfied with the present, and she does not want or cannot think about the future... Her pessimism seems funny to the reader. We understand that there is no return to the past, and is it necessary to return there? But Lyubov Andreevna and her brother do not want to understand this. Their dreams will remain dreams... And that’s why Chekhov condemns them. Lopakhin is a representative of the bourgeoisie, a hero of the present. He lives for today. It should be noted 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. Therefore, Lopakhin is not an ideal hero. We feel his lack of self-confidence. And at the end of the action, this hero seems to give up, and he exclaims: “If only our awkward, unhappy life would change!” It is generally accepted 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 put forward 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 doesn’t know life yet to change it. And yet, Anya is the image of spring, a new, bright future. It is she who, it seems to me, embodies Chekhov’s dream of a new life. Her sensitive soul is capable of turning life around, because she will be able to catch the slightest fluctuations in the world around her. Even if this is a little naive and funny, but if anyone can reach, together with all of humanity, the highest truth, the highest happiness, then it is Anya Trofimova: “Farewell, old life. Hello, new life!..” Thus, the question of the relationship between dreams and reality in the play “The Cherry Orchard” was also reflected in the debate 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. This play is more of a sad thought about the fate of Russia than a revolutionary call, as they sometimes try to present it. What the author portrayed as funny is in fact worthy of the most bitter tears, but it is funny, just as everything pitiful is funny. 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 these same people to change anything to improve their situation. They dream, but do nothing to fulfill their dreams, because they do not feel this world.
