It's a Cold, Cold World

[YEPIKHODOV crosses the back of the stage playing his guitar.]

MRS. RANEVSKY. [Pensively.] There goes Yepikhodov. 

ANYA. [Pensively.] There goes Yepikhodov. G

AYEV. The sun has set, my friends.

TROFIMOV. Yes. 

GAYEV. [In a quiet voice, as if giving a recitation.] Nature, glorious Nature, glowing with everlasting radiance, so beautiful, so cold — you, whom men call mother, in whom the living and the dead are joined together, you who give life and take it away — 

VARYA. [Imploring him.] Uncle dear! 

ANYA. Uncle, you’re off again. 

TROFIMOV. You’d far better pot the red in the middle. 

GAYEV. I am silent. Silent.

When facing this really lame ending, I desperately went back to previous Acts searching for answers. I expected a really cool deux ex machina, a revelation, the second coming of our savior Jesus Christ, something, nothing. As skimming the pages with a certain feeling of defeat, I find this (apparently) normal excerpt, where Yepikhodov gruesomely describes the sundown. Suddenly I watched with my own eyes how the catharsis miraculously emerged from the II act, way before the ending, in an obscure and secretly fashion. The truth is the characters all were directly or indirectly accepting the idea of eventually loosing the orchard way before the orchard was actually lost. Gayeb, the character wich most conflicted with this conception, actually comes at ease when saying "you who give life and take it away..." Yepikhodov gives out the anagnorisis in the form of a metaphor... Very realistic.

The Absurd

The reader cannot be completely certain of the Cherry Orchard being funny, but it can state that its definitely absurd. And, well, absurd is funny to a certain extent. Pishchick is an interesting character to analyze in this III act, considering his childish and easy-going persona is comical, despite seeming somewhat stingy. Charlotta reveals his naive being, turning him into a child, making him look foolish.

These sociological relationships continue throughout the whole act; Lyubov and Trofimov, Varya and Lopakhin. All seem illogical, absurd. However, the act itself is not, since the sudden frenzy of the situation builds up a well structured plot, growing in a crescendo when Lopakhin confesses he bought the orchard. Tension predominates and again the juxtaposition of the ball room and Lyubovs state do not homogenize, turning it again, into absurd. On a personal basis, I perceived the storyline as deeply dramatic, since this discordance is cruel in many aspects, is realistically satiric.  Nicholas Martin comes up with a strong theory regarding the play, stating that the time period in which the play gestates is gruesome, the beginning of the 20th century is characterized by deep, sardonic plays such as Awake and Sing! Which Chekhov despised. The characters in the Cherry orchard are to be aware of the "inherit comedy of life itself, which marks the aphoristic development of the play. 

Dunyasha

*The woman above is not Dunyasha

"I read all sort of remarkable books, but I am in no way able to make out my own inclinations, what it is I really want, whether strictly speaking, to live or to shoot myself; nevertheless, I always carry a revolver on me. Here it is."

Characterization is key in Act II of The Cherry Orchard. Charlotte, Yepikhodov, Dunyasha, Anya, Trofimov etc. I find it hard to see these characters in real life tough, whatever the reason, it goes beyond my comprehension. Maybe is because I still find paradoxical to employ play, comedy and realism in the same context, since in literal terminology, they contradict, or really don't match up with one another.

Charlotte for example, seems to be as an exaggerated character, her personality is vague, and this lack of structure is hard to assimilate. Who doesn't know his own age? I mean that just ridiculous. On the other hand, Lyubov Andreyevna seems like a realistic woman, her characteristics are clear and somewhat plain: disfunctional, rich madwoman, acting according to her role. Dunyasha caught my attention due her naive being, she would be someone I would like, and that seems innocent, real enough. Despite being exaggeratedly overwhelmed with Yashas classiness, both transmit reality in an universal theme. Throughout the evolution of the act, characters seem more real. I don't want to take into account the symbol of the orchard, which acquired significant magnitude thanks to Trofimovs rethoric. I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to the play, considering it is bonded to "reaity".

Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus

Yesterday's rose endures in its name, we hold empty names

Two characteristics from Act I specifically called my attention. The cherry orchard (off course), and the past as a dominating aspect of the ambiance. The setting acquires certain degree of relevance from the beginning. Due to the condition of the piece of being a play, the set precedes all the action in the plot line. This means, the fact that the events take place in spring and that the cherry orchard is just in bloom immediately add up extra meaning to the mere story. However, and considering this is a text within the realistic movement, I disregarded any type of intentional symbolism. It is hard tough, since the symbolism related with the "cherry orchard" is strongly sexual and in some way it did correlate to certain characters in the story, mainly to Dunyasha. As I moved on, I decided to accept the cherry orchard as an undeniable element of relevance within the story. But with a different essence. Since this was part of Ranevskayas past, it may seem as if the orchard were part of this past and simultaneously part of the present of the characters lives.

This highlighted the juxtaposition of the setting and the characters in the plot. From Simon Yephikodov to Peter Trofimov, all their participation in the play covered in certain degree some portion of the past, let it be memories from Grisha or a short incident.

Cherry Orchard