There was an interesting debate between Chekhov, the play-write, and Stanislavski, the director of the play. Chekov intended for The Cherry Orchard to be a comedy while Stanislavski directed the play as if it was a tragedy.
After reading The Cherry Orchard I feel that this play resides more as a tragedy to me. First, I viewed the ending as Liubov losing the cherry orchard (tragedy) rather than Lopakhin buying the cherry orchard (comedy). It was very sad that the family was forced to leave the estate at the end of the play and wasn't able to pay off the debt. It is uncertain what will happen to the family. Will Liubov's lover in Paris even be there when she returns? Will he even want to be with her anymore? How will Anya do in school? Will she succeed and be successful in her life? Will Gayev be successful at his new job at a bank? All these questions pop into our head as the characters all go their separate ways at the end of the play, and we do not know what will become of them. Not a very comedic (happy) sounding ending to me. Second, I didn't find the fact that the roles being reversed between poor and rich very comedic. According to lecture, an element of a comedic play is when the poor surpasses the rich. This is seen in The Cherry Orchard when the serf Lopakhin ends up buying the rich family's estate at the end of the play. I can see where comedy comes in, because it is very ironic that the poor person buys the rich person's house, but I still find it tragic that the family is forced out into the world and they don't know what to do with their lives or how to react.
No comments:
Post a Comment