Cherry_Orchard

The cherry orchard The cherry orchard was written by Cherkov. It is about a Russian clan during the pre revolution period in Russian. It is actually mainly about the Russian society during the time of changes, but was represented by the family who was the landowner. But what seems to be the most debatable topic of the play is the theme of itself. Cherkov said that the play is a comedy. To most people it does not seem that way. It looks more like a tragedy since the story is full of sadness. For instances, those sad memories the characters were not able to forget, such as the drowning of the son of Mrs. Ranevsky. To say the play is comedy, it is said that the play shows the stupidity of the characters. Mrs. Ranevsky did not want to change the orchard; instead, she waited for help from the far away aunt. I think the play is both tragedy and yes, it is comedy. Mrs. Ranevsky seems to be the silliest character to me. She was having an affair with a guy in France since before the death of her husband. But what the guy did was just robbing her money. She still could not forget the guy even when she was back in Russia. It could be seen as the power of love. It showed how much she loved the guy, but at least she could be smart enough of what was going on. She was about to lose everything including her social status. Despite that, when she was in Paris with Anya, she spent money like it will never run out. This really shows how stupid she was. It seems like she did not want to admit the situation. She was not able to do a thing because she was to stick with the orchard. The reasons for that were so unacceptable for a normal person. It could also be that the place reminds her of her dead son. It was the memory that she could not forget. However, doing nothing she won’t be able to step forward instead, she is going to lose everything. The way she act and how she sorted things out were silly that it makes the play comedy. But what was sad in the action is what she tried but was not able to, that is to forget those bad memories. The fact that her son died and just before that was her husband who passed away also makes the play tragedy. Many characters in the play stuck in the past. They were not able to forget the nightmares. Moreover, they could not move forwards. (This is tragedy, the actions that follow such doing nothing is stupid) However, they also did not want to admit the present. (this is what i considered one of the actions that follow and is stupid.) They know what was going but managed to just wait for the money and ignore the useful plan of Lopakhin. They even insulted him. They wanted to live like what is was before and they will continue to live like this forever. Of course this is only their point of view which we know that it is impossible. They keep on talking about the past. I think if there were no such accidents, they would even want to go back there. This is stupid, thus it is comedy. One example of the above explained stuffs is Fir, the old servant. This man, throughout the play, he seems to be talking only about the past. He likes saying for example, how the orchard was before, what did it gives. It gives out jam but everyone had forgotten the recipe. So what' It does not help a thing. This character represents the old Russia that could do nothing and is going to be replaced by the new. Just like Fir himself, who at the end of the play, he was forgot and died. Yasha did not sent him to the hospital the other was told. I think this could probably represent the idea that the old idea has to be repair or to say, to fix or to adapt in order to survive in the new world. However, it did not, therefore, it died, same as what happened to Fir. Lopakhin also had an unforgettable memory. It is his childhood, he was not a rich in the first place. His grandfather and father were the servants at the orchard. With his effort, he grew up a rich man and finally bought the orchard. I do not find anything comedy in this character actually. I find some tragedy though. This man was not able to forget his past. He does not look happy at all to me throughout the story. The part when he was reproaching mrs. Ranevsky for not listening to him gives him a bad image. But i have some feeling that he actually is a good man otherwise he would not gave an advice to the family. But that he was reproaching; i think it could be the feeling excitement mixed with those from the oppressed part that let him to the action. He also failed to propose to Varya. One important thing is also found at the end of the play. It depends on how people view. If they were on the side of Lopakhin, this play will be a happy ending. Lopakhin was able to step up while those stupid people got what they deserved. On the other hand, being on the family side, this play will have a sad ending when the whole family had to move out together with losing their social status and money. Actually, i would say that Lopakhin’s success is nothing but a failure of the family. With the first view, the play could be even more comedy, though with some sadness form those memories. But with the second one, the play would be more on tragedy, though it contains some stupidities. To conclude i would say that the theme depends on how the audience view the play. To me, it is more on comedy thought it did not make me laugh. But by looking back to what was going, it is just funny. I think the main part is funny while the sadness is laid in the memories which semms to be the minor part. I would like to compare the play to Mr. Bean, where the man stupidity shows funny stuff while his background (that he is stupid or even the story about his car and girlfriend, etc.) sometimes give out sad feeling. The difference was just how the characters perform the actions and what were we actually looking forward to see in the story.