Table of contentsIntroductionThe different points of view of Chekhov and StanislavskyInterpretation of the playChekhovian comedySoviet reception and beyondComic charactersChekhov's attitude and comedyConclusionIntroductionAnton Chekhov embarked on the premiere of his theatrical masterpiece, The Cherry Orchard, in December 1902. Originally intended as a farce in four acts, Chekhov worked on this project while battling the debilitating challenges of emphysema. It took almost a year before he submitted it to Konstantin Stanislavski and the Moscow Art Theater, where it was eagerly awaited. Much to Chekhov's surprise and initial dismay, Stanislavsky's reaction was far from what he had imagined. After reading the play, Stanislavsky sent a telegram to Chekhov expressing his deep admiration: "Just read the play... shaken... cannot come to his senses in unprecedented ecstasy... sincerely congratulate the genius of the author." This overwhelming reaction troubled Chekhov, as he had not expected a prank to evoke such intense emotions (Hingley, New Life, 300). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayThe Different Viewpoints of Chekhov and StanislavskyWhen the initial disparity between Chekhov's intentions and Stanislavsky's interpretation became evident , it marked the beginning of a substantial divergence in their views regarding The Cherry Orchard. Stanislavski was adamant about staging the play as a realistic and tragic portrait of the aristocracy in decline, a perspective that deviated significantly from Chekhov's original vision (Benedetti 190). This disparity in their performances became more pronounced during the rehearsal phase, leading to growing discontent within Chekhov. Chekhov's dissatisfaction with the tragic overtones of The Cherry Orchard intensified as the play gained attention. He expressed his frustration in a letter to his wife, Olga, stating: “Why do they persist in calling my play a drama on posters and in press announcements? Nemirovitch and Stanislavski absolutely do not see in my play what I really wrote, and I am ready to give my word in any terms you wish, even if none of them has ever read my play attentively” (Benedetti 190 ) When Chekhov finally arrived at rehearsals, he was disheartened to find his play mired in melancholy and desolation. In an attempt to rectify the situation, Chekhov made changes to the production, leading Stanislavsky to lament: “the flowers were just beginning to appear when the author came along and ruined everything for us” (Simmons 612) The brevity of the fourth act, as envisioned by Chekhov, turned into a prolonged, tearful episode. With a running time of forty minutes, despite their divergent views, Chekhov and Stanislavsky felt obliged to compromise to keep rehearsals moving forward, albeit with a growing sense of skepticism about the play's prospects. Chekhov himself admitted to a friend, “I don’t expect any particular success…things are going badly” (Priestley 58). Even after the premiere, Chekhov's feelings remained unchanged, as evidenced by his letter to a friend: “My play was performed yesterday and therefore I am not in a particularly cheerful mood today” (Magarshack, A Life, 382). Attempting to attribute some of Chekhov's frustration to a man's impatience with his own mortality, his concerns were rooted in real grievances. During the rehearsal process, Chekhov engagedin heated arguments with Stanislavski and Nemirovich-Danchenko over their different interpretations of the play. In a letter to Nemirovitch, he asked: “Why do you say that there are many people crying in my room? I feel depressed. I often use "through her tears" in my stage directions, but that only indicates the character's mood, not actual tears. There is no cemetery in the second act” (Karlinsky 460). Donald Rayfield, addressing the issue of tears in comedy, observed that characters such as Ranevsky, Anya, Varya, Gaev, and Pishtchik shed tears, but they did so "for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time." The music of the play does not harmonize with their tears: the ball of act 3 is a series of quadrilles and waltzes unrelated to the comic” (Evolution, 220). This discord between Chekhov's intentions and the execution of the emotional elements of the play illustrates the division between the playwright and the director Stanislavski. Interpretation of the play In the context of late 19th and early 20th century Russian history, it is tempting to view The Cherry Orchard as a dark tale of loss, with Madame Ranevsky and her family in the lead role. victims of the uprising of the industrial classes. When the play premiered in January 1904, Russia was in the grip of the socialist movement, with Lenin's revolutionary writings including "What to Do and "The State and the Revolution?" an elite party of educated rebels to lead the working class. This backdrop invites two possible interpretations of the play: as a call to arms for revolution or as a poignant tribute to a doomed upper class (Hirsch). However, Chekhov himself emphasized the importance of considering the play as a whole. Lopahin, the character who buys the estate, does not conform to the stereotypical archetype of the “bad owner” who ruthlessly drives the family out of their comfortable existence. Similarly, Trofimov, a revolutionary, is depicted as a disillusioned and cynical student, blinded by vain adoration. Meanwhile, Ranevsky plays a complacent elitist who, although passively, contributes to her own downfall. The upheaval depicted in the play is just another chapter in the grand scheme of history. Chekhov places his work in the context of the emancipation of Tsar Alexander II's serfs in 1861, which was also initially seen as an impending disaster that would engulf the nation (Hirsch). Yet, as is the case in Chekhov's work, life persists, marked by almost imperceptible but deeply felt patterns of hopes and disappointments, of comings and goings. Had Chekhov had access to modern literary terminology, he might have described The Cherry Orchard as a "black comedy" or "problem play", similar to the way Shakespeare's "Measure for Measure" has been categorized more recently (Moorty , para. 1). .Chekhovian comedyThe Cherry Orchard challenges conventional comedy in its own way. In ancient Greek theater, "comedy" referred to stories centered on the daily lives of ordinary individuals, contrasting with tragedies centered on great characters brought down by fate. Aristotle characterized comedy as “an imitation of characters of an inferior type who are not bad in themselves but whose faults possess something ridiculous” (Magarshack, Dramatist, 272). In this sense, The Cherry Orchard aligns with this definition of comedy, in that the loss of the orchard is a consequence of the characters' own mistakes rather than a twist of fate. However, The Cherry Orchard sometimes crosses the fine line between comedy and pathos. , the audience's empathy for the characters being thedetermining factor. Madame Ranevsky, a sympathetic character, comes close to the category of tragic hero because she remains insensitive to the play's omnipresent irony, which distances the audience from the other characters. Yet the emotional engagement differs significantly from that which one might encounter in a tragedy, primarily due to the limited impact of the protagonists' actions on their society. In a comedy, the central characters lack the transformative power seen in tragedies like “Romeo and Juliet,” where the death of the star-crossed lovers reshapes Verona. In contrast, the protagonists of a comedy deal with the everyday struggles of ordinary people. This relative's insignificance in The Cherry Orchard led publications like the Daily Express to call the play a "silly, dull, boring comedy... There is no plot. The Cherry Orchard is for sale, and some annoying people are upset because it has to be sold” (Rayfield, Cherry Orchard, 23). Additionally, it should be noted that much of Chekhov's humor lay in nuances that do not always translate. This linguistic challenge may partly explain why foreign audiences sometimes have difficulty perceiving The Cherry Orchard as a comedy. For example, no translation has been able to capture the subtlety of Epihodov's response in the first act. he presents a bouquet of flowers to Dunyasha, intending to say: "Let me communicate with you Yet the Russian word he uses, "prisovokupit", is a play on words implying "so." ..” and “copulate” (Rayfield, Cherry Orchard, 52-3). Soviet Reception and Beyond In the 1930s, Soviet audiences had difficulty perceiving The Cherry Orchard as anything other than a comedy due to the perceived triviality of family problems. Even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, satirist Viacheslav Pietsukh's work featured a character who exclaimed: "The waverers, the bastards, they had a bad life, didn't they? I bet they 'they wore excellent overcoats, drank Worontsoff vodka with caviar, mixed with pretty women... philosophizing from morning to night for lack of anything to do – and then they say they have a bad life, you See, you son of a bitch should be in a planned economy... they I'll show you what a cherry orchard was!” (Rayfield, Cherry Orchard, 21). In this regard, the Soviets had a valid argument. Although the play ends on a somewhat somber note, with Ranevsky alive and well, she arguably finds herself in a better situation, with the chance to embark on a new future with a new lover in Paris. It could also be argued that Lopahin, the descendant of a serf, improved his situation. In the third act, he proudly proclaims: "I bought the estate where my father and grandfather were slaves, where they were not even allowed in the kitchen.... Everything must be as I wish. Behold the new master., the new owner of the cherry orchard” He exudes hope and newfound confidence. Anya also reminds her mother that “a new life is beginning”, and even Gaev exclaims: “Everything is fine now. . Before the sale of the cherry orchard, we were all worried and miserable, but afterward, when the question was asked permanently, irrevocably settled, we all felt calm and even joyful. . Chekhov perceived comedy to have more to do with the idea that there was an opening to the future, a facet that tragedies, especially Greek tragedies, could not offer (Gilman 200). However, Stanislavski did not agree with this perspective. In an October 1903 letter to Chekhov, Stanislavsky asserted that The Cherry Orchard was, in essence, a tragedy, "whatever the escapetowards a better life that you could indicate in the last act”. Chekhov was well aware that Stanislavsky's views were deeply rooted in tradition, and upon his arrival in Moscow for rehearsals his ill health prevented him from mounting a substantial counterargument (Magarshack, A Life, 380). have comical traits. Stanislavsky's interpretation of the "comic character" was at odds with Chekhov's, as he perceived comic characters as individuals solely responsible for keeping the audience in perpetual laughter, a view which was not always true. A good example is Falstaff, an undisputed comic character whose downfall in "Henry IV" is one of the most tragically poignant scenes in the play. Likewise, The Cherry Orchard presents characters who, despite evoking sympathy and compassion, are fundamentally comic in nature. With the possible exception of Anya, all of the characters in the play exhibit a sense of ridiculousness that characterizes them as comic characters. Gaev, Ranevsky's brother, embodies this comic quality. He treats life with the same seriousness that he reserves for his imaginary pool games, despite his apparent ignorance of the sport (a fact that Chekhov himself admitted). One of the play's most famous exchanges occurs when Gaev delivers an emotional monologue praising a closet in the first act, a moment so absurd that it elicits laughter. Gaev's comedic character is further emphasized by his fondness for candy, as he reveals in the second act that he consumed his food in sugar candies. This symbolizes his childish outlook on life, a characteristic that would be out of place in a tragedy. Ranevsky, too, remains a prisoner of her own immaturity. Following the deaths of her husband and son, she leaves Russia with her lover, abandoning Anya and Charlotta. When she returns, she finds her lover unfaithful and her finances exhausted, but she remains trapped in her nostalgia, looking wistfully at the garden and remembering her childhood with phrases like: "I slept here when I was little.. . (cry). And here I am, like a little child." Chekhov emphasizes that Gaev and Ranevsky have failed to evolve, while the world around them has transformed considerably. They are essentially children living in an adult world, largely unconscious of reality or unable to fully grasp it Whether immaturity is considered a tragic flaw is open to debate, but it does not have the same empathetic appeal as other tragic flaws, as we see. in characters like Othello or Hamlet, for Chekhov, immaturity does not carry the same tragic weight. In fact, the English translation sometimes hinders the conveyance of these immature qualities. For example, Ranevsky's first sentence upon entering is: “The nursery!” (“Detskaya!”), a phrase that linguistically resonates more closely with the words for “childhood” (detstvo) and “childish” (detsky) in Russian than in English (Golub, 18). minors of La Cerisaie have their own comic essence. Semienov-Pishtchik, as his name suggests, is a great comic character. Magarshack astutely notes that the first half of his name gives off an aristocratic air, while the second half is wacky—in English, this might equate to “Squeaker” (Dramatist 284). He constantly misses jokes, laughs at inappropriate times, and even forgets that the house has been sold, insisting on visiting when the family is about to leave. Epihodov, known as "Two and Twenty Misfortunes", is another minor character imbued with comedy. He embodies the classic klutz, perpetually donning squeaky boots, dropping flowers, tripping over chairs andcrushing a hatbox by placing a suitcase on top of it. Remarkably, he seems to accept these calamities, believing that this nickname is bestowed on him out of affection. Pedantic and often smug, Epihodov prides himself on his supposed cultural refinement, but remains unsure about whether or not he should end his life. His physical clumsiness reflects his master Gaev's lack of self-discipline, encapsulating the absurd traits present throughout the family. Firs, the old servant, is the only character in The Cherry Orchard who deviates from the dominant comic tone. When he is left behind at the end of the play, it symbolizes the family's abandonment of their aristocratic lifestyle for a new beginning. However, there is a common misconception that Firs' final act of lying on the ground signifies his death. David Magarshack clarifies that Firs' prostrate position does not necessarily imply death and that interpreting it as such would introduce an incongruous element into a play that Chekhov never intended to be anything other than a comedy (Dramatist 285-6) . Firs serves primarily as a symbol of the old way of life and should not be evaluated in the same framework as other characters. Nevertheless, some productions have presented him as a hopeful character, including a Utah Shakespeare Festival production (Moorty, par. 3). Chekhov's Attitude and Comedy It is crucial to emphasize that the classification of The Cherry Orchard as a comedy is not limited to the presence of numerous comic scenes and characters. John Reid argues that the play's comedy is fundamentally rooted in Chekhov's attitude toward the subject, particularly in its emphasis on survival and the acceptance of change (par. 4). Reid further argues that Chekhov's comic detachment allows the audience to discern the immaturity of the characters, such as the infantilism of the Ranevskayas and the idealistic but immature revolutionary rhetoric of Trofimov. This diagnosis, however, does not allow the audience to oversimplify the complex interplay of contradictory attitudes and emotions (para. 4). The depth of Chekhov's work becomes evident upon closer examination, transcending superficial interpretations or initial visions. A production that received praise for its portrayal of comic characters was staged by a traveling company of the Moscow Art Theater in the summer of 1964. Their repertoire included Gogol's "Dead Souls," Gogol's "Kremlin Chimes" Pogodin and The Cherry Orchard. The tour took them to prestigious locations such as New York, London and Tulane University. Harold Hobson of the Sunday Times of London praised the production, saying: "If there is any inspiration in the London Theatre, it is found in the Moscow Art Theatre's 'Cherry Orchard.' » Edith Oliver of The New Yorker praised Angelina Stepanova's portrayal of Charlotta. , noting that she gave a legitimate performance that delves into the character's loneliness while still maintaining the comedic essence of the role. Oliver's review ended with a general remark about the comedy throughout the play, emphasizing the importance of bringing out details, nuances of feeling, high and low comedy and personality traits, because these details constitute the he essence of The Cherry Orchard (Edwards 282). -85).Nevertheless, the enduring tradition of translating La Cerisaie as a tragedy remains the dominant interpretation. This aspect highlights the inherent challenge posed by Stanislavsky's misinterpretations of Chekhov's plays, particularly The Cherry Orchard. This misconception has been perpetuated by writers like George Bernard Shaw, who in his preface to "Heartbreak House" mentioned Chekhov's fatalism, wrongly attributing it to the characters' inability to extricate themselves from their circumstances. . Shaw..