Read The Cherry Orchard by Anton Chekhov TomMurphy Online


Published to tie in with the world premiere at the Abbey Theatre, DublinIn Chekhov's tragi-comedy - perhaps his most popular play - the Gayev family is torn by powerful forces, forces rooted deep in history and in the society around them. Their estate is hopelessly in debt: urged to cut down their beautiful cherry orchard and sell the land for holiday cottages, they struggPublished to tie in with the world premiere at the Abbey Theatre, DublinIn Chekhov's tragi-comedy - perhaps his most popular play - the Gayev family is torn by powerful forces, forces rooted deep in history and in the society around them. Their estate is hopelessly in debt: urged to cut down their beautiful cherry orchard and sell the land for holiday cottages, they struggle to act decisively. Tom Murphy's fine vernacular version allows us to re-imagine the events of the play in the last days of Anglo-Irish colonialism. It gives this great play vivid new life within our own history and social consciousness....

Title : The Cherry Orchard
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780413774033
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 96 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

The Cherry Orchard Reviews

  • Nayra.Hassan
    2019-01-31 17:15

    هناك اسد مقبل من بعيد ليمزقك ..هناك اختيارين للعقلاء ..اما ان تجري كالظليم لو كنت واقعيا..او تبحث عن سلاح لتواجهه لو كنت شجاعا لكن عندما يكون اختيارك هو أن تقف وتغني و ترقص رقصتك الأخيرة 💃اذن فانت تستحق الالتهام وهذا ما فعلته مدام رانفسكي اكثر الشخصيات استفزازا في تاريخ الأدب الروسي..تلك الارستقراطية العاجزة عن إدراك الواقع و التكيف معه...عاشت حياتها مع زوجها في بيت أثري فسيح تحيط به🌳 أشجار الكرز الباسقة. .رحل زوجها بعد ان أسرف في الاستدانة..و انطلقت هي لتعوض ما فاتها من متع الحياة ؛ عاشت بباريس لسنوات مع شاب ؛ هجرها. ..فتعود لتجد ان املاكها تم الحجز عليهاو لكن هناك حل اخير. .فهل تقبله؟ ام انها ستعطينا درس في العجز عن المقاومة و التحرك او الخروج من عالم الذات؟ ..ام ستقيد نفسها بحجر اخير يهوى بها للقاع السحيق ؟🌊بالنسبة للاسلوب و الحبكة و الشخصيات ..فانا ارى ان هناك تشيكوف✅ ..ثم هناك كل الاخرين معا طوال قراءة مسرحية تشيكوف الأخيرة هذه ؛ سيكون لديك امنية واحدة :الا و هي ضرب رأس مدام رانفسكي في أقرب حائط⚡. .علها تفهم

  • Ahmad Sharabiani
    2019-02-02 20:21

    Вишнёвый сад = Vishnevyi sad = The Cherry Orchard, Anton ChekhovThe play concerns an aristocratic Russian landowner who returns to her family estate (which includes a large and well-known cherry orchard) just before it is auctioned to pay the mortgage. Unresponsive to offers to save the estate, she allows its sale to the son of a former serf; the family leaves to the sound of the cherry orchard being cut down. The story presents themes of cultural futility – both the futile attempts of the aristocracy to maintain its status and of the bourgeoisie to find meaning in its newfound materialism.[citation needed] It dramatises the socio-economic forces in Russia at the turn of the 20th century, including the rise of the middle class after the abolition of serfdom in the mid-19th century and the decline of the power of the aristocracy.Characters: Anya Andreyevna Ranevskaya, Varia, fiica adoptiva a Ranevskaiei, Gaev Leonid Andreevici, fratele Ranevskaiei, Lopahin Iermolai Alexeevici, negustor, Trofimov Piotr Sergheevici, student, Simeonov-Piscik Boris Borisovici, mosier, Charlotta Ivanovna, guvernanta, Epihodov Simion Panteleevici, contabil, Duniasa, fata in casa, Firs, lacheu, Iasa, tinar lacheu, Lyubov Andreyevna Ranevskayaتاریخ نخستین خوانش: اکتبر سال 1973 میلادیعنوان: باغ‌ آل‍ب‍ال‍و: ن‍م‍ای‍ش‍ن‍ام‍ه‌ در چ‍ه‍ار پ‍رده‌؛ نوش‍ت‍ه‌: آن‍ت‍ون‌ چ‍خ‍وف‌؛ مترجم: بزرگ علوی؛ عنوان: باغ‌ آل‍ب‍ال‍و: ن‍م‍ای‍ش‍ن‍ام‍ه‌ در چ‍ه‍ار پ‍رده‌؛ نوش‍ت‍ه‌: آن‍ت‍ون‌ چ‍خ‍وف‌؛ مترجم: سیم‍ی‍ن‌ دان‍ش‍ور؛ مشخصات نشر: انتشارات نیل، 1347؛ در 94 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: شراره یوسفی؛ 1362، در 103 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: اصفهان، نشر اسپادانا، 1370، در 103 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، قطره، 1383؛ در 110 ص؛ چاپ چهارم 1385؛ چاپ پنجم 1387؛ چاپ ششم 1388؛ شابک: 9643412482؛ چاپ نهم 1391؛ شابک: 9789643412487؛ چاپ دهم 1392؛ چاپ یازدهم 1393؛ موضوع: نمایشنامه های نویسندگان روسی - قرن 19 معنوان: باغ‌ آل‍ب‍ال‍و: ن‍م‍ای‍ش‍ن‍ام‍ه‌ در چ‍ه‍ار پ‍رده‌؛ نوش‍ت‍ه‌: آن‍ت‍ون‌ چ‍خ‍وف‌؛ مترجم: بهروز تورانی؛ تهران، فاریاب، 1362، در 91 ص؛ ترجمه از برگردان انگلیسی کاتلین کوک؛عنوان: باغ‌ آل‍ب‍ال‍و: ن‍م‍ای‍ش‍ن‍ام‍ه‌ در چ‍ه‍ار پ‍رده‌؛ نوش‍ت‍ه‌: آن‍ت‍ون‌ چ‍خ‍وف‌؛ مترجم: ناهید کاشیچی؛ تهران، جوانه توس، 1386، در 76 ص؛ شابک: 9789649552443؛ چاپ دوم 1387؛ چاپ سوم 1388؛ چاپ هفتم 1392؛ این نمایش‌نامه را مترجمانی همچون: بزرگ علوی، سیمین دانشور، بهروز تورانی، و ناهید کاشیچی به فارسی برگردانده اند؛ نمایش‌نامه داستان یک زن اشراف‌زادهٔ روس و خانواده‌ ی اوست که باغ آلبالوی خاطره‌ انگیزشان در گرو بانک است، و چون خانواده درآمدی ندارند، قرار شده باغ و ملکشان حراج شود. خانواده هیچ کاری برای نجات از ورشکستگی و جلوگیری از فروش باغ انجام نمی‌دهند، و در پایان، باغ آلبالو به یک دهقان‌زادهٔ تازه به ثروت رسیده، فروخته می‌شود، و خانوادهٔ رانوسکی باغ را ترک می‌کنند، در حالی‌که صدای تبری به گوش می‌رسد که درخت‌های باغ را قطع می‌کند. ... خوانش باغ آلبالو خاطرات دوران کودکیم را برایم زنده میکند و ...؛ ا. شربیانی

  • Jason
    2019-02-02 21:15

    It’s true what they say. Chekhov’s got guns!This is a great play about the decline of the Russian aristocracy, its implications for the working class rising to fill the vacancies left by those cash-stricken families, and the complications propagated by these changes, namely the social inadequacies of those who get sucked into this newfound vacuum.I read Three Sisters recently and while I did like the play, it did not shake my maracas as much as I had hoped it would. There are intertwining themes between the two plays (and perhaps among Chekhov’s plays in general), such as the emphasis placed on working—as both a route to happiness as well as a practical method by which to quantify one’s worth—but I think overall The Cherry Orchard has more going on, and has characters that are (to me) more interesting.Take Lubov Andreyevna, for example. Lubov is the matriarch of the high-society family which is about to lose its beloved cherry orchard (along with the rest of the estate, too, but they all seem to be concerned only with the pretty trees) on account of a cash flow shortage that prevents them from paying their mortgage. These solvency problems are reflected in the predicaments of other landowners in the play, as well, like those of Simeonov-Pischin, who is constantly seeking a loan. Lubov has difficulty facing the gravity of the situation, having lived all her life in general ease and comfort, not having to work, and assumes things will naturally work themselves out in her favor. (They do not, by the way.) And yes there are tears and sadness but the tears are reigned in quickly, and Lubov demonstrates some surprising resolve at her capacity to adapt.There are also other characters I liked. Lopahkin is the former peasant who represents the “new money” in turn-of-the-century Russia, though he does not always know the best way to handle his fun status bump. Fiers, a servant of the older generation, is at a complete loss to absorb the changes occurring around him while Yasha, his young counterpart, is almost embarrassing in his insolence, clearly not knowing his place (Fiers’s view) or perhaps percipient in recognizing what is happening and putting his native chameleonic qualities to good use.In the end, I empathized with most of the characters in this play, feeling the acute twinges of pain in seeing the symbolic orchard meet its inevitable fate, but it is a pain swiftly assuaged. These characters reconcile themselves to their respective futures, and do so stoically, choosing to view the loss of the orchard not as an end per se, but as merely a different bud from which their new lives will thenceforth germinate.

  • Brina
    2019-02-02 22:02

    I have chosen to begin my 2018 reading year with a number of shorter yet significant reads. I noticed that my 2017 began in a similar matter so I am noticing that I use January to ease into my reading for the year. A square on classics bingo is to read a classic play so I selected Anton Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard, a play in four acts which wrote within a year of his death. In this timeless and still often performed drama, Chekhov details the dichotomy between Russian social classes on the dawn of the revolutionary era as he poignantly creates classic archetypes.Already a premier playwright with the success of The Three Sisters and The Seagull, Chekhov was asked to write a comedic play to be performed during Moscow's 1903 theater season. My version of the play contains excerpts of letters written by Chekhov to both his wife and the play's future director and producer. In this correspondence, he writes of the illness that would take his life within a year and also of his struggles to produce a comedy. He wrote certain characters with specific actors and actresses in mind and aimed for a three act play that ended up being four. In the end, The Cherry Orchard, his work about the potential sale of a summer estate, resulted as a drama, rather than the comedy that his producers had aimed for. This moving piece may have had a few comedic moments, but the play was hardly a light hearted story.Madame Ranevskaya has returned to Russia from Paris with her daughter Anya upon learning from her brother Leonid Gaev that their family estate needs to be sold as the family fortune has been used up and they have no rubles left to live on. The estate holds both positive and sad memories for Ranevskaya as both her husband and son passed away there, yet, the cherry orchard on its property holds a place near and dear to her heart. Ranevskaya would rather not sell her estate as it has been in the family for generations and both her family and the serfs who have lived on it known no other existence. Yet, Ranevskaya lives a rich woman's life either in Russia or abroad and her lifestyle can not maintain the upkeep of her family's home for the long term. She desires to marry off her daughters Anya and Varya even though neither has expressed an interest in doing so, in hopes that their marriages will decrease her expenditures, allowing her to keep her estate.Although Chekhov has created love interests for both Anya and Varya, their futures are left to the reader's imaginations. Perhaps, in a more modern retelling of the play, the girls' futures are decided, but in Chekhov's original, that aspect of the play is left hanging. Meanwhile, a local merchant named Yermolai Alexeyevich Lopahin, a former servant whose family has worked for the Ranevskaya family for generations, desires to buy the estate for himself to keep it within the family. His dream is to create a number of summer homes on the property in order to generate funds for the Ranevskayas so that they do not have to sell their heirloom to outsiders. Yet, Lopahin's plan comes with one caveat: to chop down the cherry orchard which will always hold special memories for Madame Ranevskaya. This tension between the serfs and upper classes, epitomized in this sale of the estate, lasts the duration of the play and plays out as the tragedy that Chekhov desired. As a result, I found the play to be heartfelt, which would not have had this effect if Chekhov had indeed penned the comedy that his producer had originally demanded.With a week gone by in 2018 and many quality shorter reads behind me, I am ready to move full steam into my reading year. As I am a mood reader, I still do not know where this year will take me, but I have many potential memorable reads lined up. Moving through the board for classics bingo is a good start, and The Cherry Orchard has been a memorable play to read indeed. I hope to revisit Chekhov's other plays in the future as they have been well received and performed countless times over the last century.4 stars

  • James
    2019-02-12 18:58

    Book Review4 out of 5 stars to The Cherry Orchard, a tragedy and comedy all rolled into one, published in 1904 by a great Russian, Anton Chekhov. I'd heard of this play during my high school years, but never actually read it. In college, I had a course in modern drama and theatre, where this was one of the 16 plays we read: 1 per week for the 4 month course. Our school also performed a theatrical version a later semester where I participated in some backstage work. We also did a video and literary analytical comparison. I know the play well. Commentary on society. Discussion of values. Choices. Understanding what you will give up for what you need to have. The themes in this one are so large, it's often hard to discuss them without getting animated. Additionally, The Cherry Orchard was the piece that I did my technical and textual analysis on, so I had strong opinions and theories about the characters and the action. When I saw the video, I was a bit shocked at some things, but I also realized that many things were done in the way that I would have done them. The whole discussion/argument about the play being a comedy or a tragedy is one that comes to mind. I thought while reading the piece that it was mostly a tragedy. The Ranevskys were losing their estate and cherry orchard. I had sympathy and pity for them. Then, I thought more about how it was played in the video, and what the narrator had to say. I also recalled the action in the play and realized that the action is external, and therefore, it depends on the way that characters are played by the actors. It was the acting, at least for me, which showed the tragic side of the play in the video. When Lopakhin is announcing at the end that he is now the owner of the estate and the orchard, the staging and directing was brilliant. The entire stage was silent, and the characters all stood around Lopakhin. The orchestra was playing a little bit also, and Lopakhin began his speech. He was somewhat hysterical, but also vindicated. Watching this scene is what convinced me that the play was more tragic than comic.The actress who played Madame Ranevsky was a great actress. When she broke down about losing the estate with her brother Gayev, there were more tragic tones to the play. It was hard to decide exactly how I felt about the piece because there were the interruptions to let the narrator talk for awhile. Overall, I liked the version because it appeared very classic. By classic, I mean in the lines and the dark colors. I wish that I saw the actual orchard. I felt a little deprived because the orchard was the focus of the piece. There were parts that were left out also that I wish I could have seen acted. In my opinion, the entire play should have been put on, and then afterwards, the narrator should have commented on it. They could have held flashbacks and then remind us of specific scenes that were played in a certain way, etc. The end was good when Firs was left alone. I like that part. He was on the couch and I wondered what was going to happen. When I read the play, I thought that he was going to die, but I was unsure about his character in the film. There was a lot of discussion about the sounds of the piercing harp string and the axe at the end when the orchard was being cut down. This discussion was very interesting because it helped me to understand the importance of the sounds before I gave my textual analysis.About MeFor those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by.

  • Duane
    2019-01-26 21:14

    Chekhov described The Cherry Orchard as a comedy, but as a reader it's hard to view it in any way other than a tragedy. It's another work of literature that depicts the declining Russian aristocracy which would end 13 years later with the Russian Revolution, and made permanent in 1918 with the murder of the Royal Family.The play opened in theater to great success in Jan. 1904, but Chekhov would die 6 months later at the age of 44, cutting short a life and career that would leave us with some of the best plays and short stories ever written.

  • Florencia
    2019-01-28 19:18

    This play was an enjoyable read for me. It is about a once aristocratic family, now impoverished and forced to sell everything, including their beautiful cherry orchard, that seemed to be the main thing they cared about, the reason of their pride. Even though they were about to lose everything they owned, they were in some sort of denial because they didn't (or couldn't) do anything to solve that situation. And while this family was in decline, a new kind of rich people arose: the once serfs were making their own money and gaining their place in society. “New money”, like Rose DeWitt's stuck-up mother would say. Rich people in decline trying to save their social position can be really unpleasant. They are willing to do anything to maintain their status. However, this family just stayed there, doing nothing... Some friends gave them possible solutions for their problem, and they did nothing.The characters are likable, each one in their own way. The main one is Lyubov, a widowed landowner that also lost a son. She's a mixture of different kind of emotions and apparently unwilling to let go the past (something I can relate to, very much). Her brother, Leonid, adds a comedy element that I always enjoy. This play can be funny, witty and also heartbreaking. It has several things to consider that makes it an interesting book to read.Nov 25, 13* Also on my blog.

  • Lyn
    2019-02-12 00:22

    Checkov's Cherry Orchard delves into themes and ideas of cultural futility amidst political and cultural change.First produced in 1904, Checkov is documenting the in-between time, between the dying aristocracy of the past and the post-industrial age of the future, and though he is not quite an apologist for the old times, he is inclined to lament the way things are going. Yet the change is inevitable as beautifully symbolized by the portrait crashing own on the man. A brilliant study of the contrast between old and new Russia.

  • Mohammed-Makram
    2019-02-08 18:17

    تقفز الى الذهن فورا صورة تيتانيك و هى تغرق بينما العازفين مستمرين فى العزف و كأنهم لا يعنيهم شىء مما يحدث حولهم أو كأنهم موظفى كوارث كرجال الإنقاذ تماما و العزف هو جزء من جهود الإنقاذ و بث الأمل فى الغارقينكان البعض كذلك فى المسرحية بينما كان البعض الأخر كعاصم المقامر الغنى الفاشل فى كل شىء و الذى ينتظر من شبيهه جميز أن يحل له كل مشاكله عن طريق المقامره مع الدائنين و الرهان على رقم تسعه الذى جعلهم يخسرون حتى ملابسهمفى النهاية ضاعت الضيعه و اجتث المشترى أشجار الكرز ليقيم مكانها فيلات للمصطافين تماما كما يحدث لدينا الأن كل يومفقط هم سبقونا فى الضياع بمائتى عام

  • FeReSHte
    2019-01-24 16:54

    باغ آلبالو آخرین اثر چخوف، نمایشنامه ی پرشخصیتیه. سعی شده تا شخصیت های اثر طیف وسیعی از طبقات مختلف جامعه ی اون زمان روسیه رو به تصویر بکشه داستان از اینجا شروع میشه که باغ آلبالوی معروف منطقه متعلق به یکی از خانواده های اشرافی که سالیان دست به دست چرخیده و از نسلی به نسل بعد منتقل شده گرو بانکه و با بالا رفتن بدهی ها، به مزایده گذاشته شدهبا وجود نزدیک بودن مصیبت از دست دادن این آخرین با قیمانده دوره اشرافیتشون -باغ آلبالوی زیبا و افسانه ای - ولی واکنش صاحبان این باغ دیدنیه. انگار که با همچین پیشینه ای ، وقوع چنین عاقبتی رو باور ندارند. دست روی دست گذاشتند ، اراده ی نداشته شون فلج شده و تسلیم تقدیر و سرنوشتند. نه می جنگند نه تلاش می کنند نه به دنبال راه حل هستند و نه از خودشون دفاع می کنند. دور هم جمع میشن و همچنان با بی فکری پول نداشته رو خرج می کنند...خیال بافی می کنند. سعی می کنند فراموش کنند و یا غصه روزهای گذشته رو می خورند و یا اون روزهای پرشکوه رو پرستش می کنندقهرمان داستان برای من "لوپاخین" بود. لوپاخین فرزند یکی از کارگران باغ آلبالو بوده حالا در نتیجه ی تلاش و کار زیاد به ثروت رسیده ولی لحظه ای گذشته ی خودش رو فراموش نمی کنه. می دونه از لحاظ فرهنگی فقیره و شخصیت خیلی وفاداریه و از دوز و کلک هم به دوره. با این که توانایی خرید باغ رو داره ولی همه ی تلاشش رو می کنه تا با پیشنهاداتش، اربابان قدیمی در خواب غفلت فرو رفته ش رو از این مصیبت نجات بدهباغ آلبالو نگارنده قطعه ی خاصی از تاریخ روسیه ست.داستان زوال اشرافیت خو کرده به رفاه، بدون فکر و بدون تلاش است و به قدرت رسیدن طبقه ای که یاد گرفته برای رسیدن باید تلاشگر بودآخرین پرده ، مقایسه عکس العمل لوپاخین و اربابان پیشین به نظرم جالب اومد.وقتی جرات تغییر شرایط رو نداشته باشیم ناخودآگاه تقدیرگرا و خرافاتی میشیم -هرچه پیش آید خوش آید- عکس العملی که از اربابان پیشین می بینیم تا اون حد که خیلی راحت تر از حد انتظارمون با از دست دادن باغ و تخلیه ی اون کنار میان و در مقابل شادی و ذوق بی حد و اندازه لوپاخین از خرید باغ رو در نظر بیارین...کسی که وقتی همه خواب بودند تلاش کرده و حالا صاحب باغ آلبالوی افسانه ای شده و حتی خودش هم این اتفاق رو باور نمی کنه

  • Lea
    2019-02-01 17:08

    "Oh, will you understandMy soul's deep restlessness?"The last play in my book of three Chekhov’s plays. I don’t quite understand how is The Cherry Orchard Chekhov’s most famous play because I found it less appealing than Three Sisters, which was my favorite, or Uncle Vanya. The characters seem less developed and the classic themes that are explored in each play didn’t hit the note with me as the others, even though I can see a great value in this one too.The most dominating subject of the play was the relativity of any one's position in society during the time of great economic and political changes. The play portrays the slow downfall of the aristocracy as their position is replaced with people from lower class that now have new opportunities. From reading about Chekhov’s life, it is evident why that theme interested him, as he himself was coming from the family that didn’t have high social status, and made it with his own talent and effort. He financed himself during medical school and became a doctor and in time one of the most famous Russian writers.Lopakhin was the character that portrays perfectly Chekhov personal struggles. Chekhov father was very strict, fanatic and came from a lower class in society. I think this dialogue can reveal the way Chekhov felt in some sense, his escape in art and his haunting feeling of low self-esteem coming from a tyrannical father and his social status, that couldn't be eradicated even with highest education.LUBOV. I'm quite sure there wasn't anything at all funny. You oughtn't to go and see plays, you ought to go and look at yourself. What a grey life you lead, what a lot you talk unnecessarily.LOPAKHIN. It's true. To speak the straight truth, we live a silly life. [Pause] My father was a peasant, an idiot, he understood nothing, he didn't teach me, he was always drunk, and always used a stick on me. In point of fact, I'm a fool and an idiot too. I've never learned anything, my handwriting is bad, I write so that I'm quite ashamed before people, like a pig!My dear friend from medical school adores Chekhov’s short stories, so she recommended his work to me, and I’m glad she did. These plays were only an introduction as I really want to read his complete opus. This style, wit, and cleverness in describing human thought are indeed brilliant and inspiring to me. His philosophy seems so close to my perspective on life and my love for existentialism. Nothing but respect for my fellow doctor that became a giant of Russian literature. Looking forward to spending more time with him.To escape all the petty and deceptive things which prevent our being happy and free, that is the aim and meaning of our lives. Forward! We go irresistibly on to that bright star which burns there, in the distance! Don't lag behind, friends!

  • Foad
    2019-01-25 17:59

    شما شجاع تر و شريف تر و عميق تر از ما هستيد. شما مى دانيد كه حقيقت كجا هست و كجا نيست. شما تمام مشكلات مهم را با دل و جرئت حل مى كنيد، ولى بگوييد ببينم، آيا اين امر به علت آن نيست كه شما هنوز جوانيد و هيچ مشكلى از سر نگذرانده ايد؟شما به آينده با جرئت نگاه مى كنيد، اما آيا اين امر به علت آن نيست كه هيچ چيز وحشتناكى نمى بينيد، زيرا زندگى هنوز از چشمان جوانتان پنهان است؟

  • Issa Deerbany
    2019-01-30 17:56

    عندما يتجمد الإحساس بالمسؤولية وعندما يغلب الطبع التطبع، لا تستطيع ان تكون الا ارستقراطية تنفق بلا حساب بيتها وأراضيها (بستان الكرز) سيتم بيعه ولا تجد حلا تعود من مغامرتها في باريس بعد ان انفقت على عشيقها ما تملكه واستدامته ايضا.بيع البستان بالمزاد ورسم المزاد على من كان خادما وأباه كان خادما عند اصحاب القصر. تمثل هذه المسرحية التحولات الاجتماعية التي بدأت تحدث في روسيا وان الطبقة الأرستقراطية أصبحت لا تستطيع الحفاظ على أملاكها امام صعود البرجوازيين الجدد. الذين يعملون في النهار والليل لجمع المال.انتهت المسرحية بانهيار الحياة القديمة والبدء بحياة جديدة ولكن ليس كاستقراطية بل كفرد من أفراد الطبقة العامة.

  • Pavel
    2019-02-09 23:21

    Here is simple question, usually avoided by bad directors: for what EXACT reason Ranevskaya comes back to Russia, to her old dying estate? Yes, we know she had issues with her man in Paris, but that's not the reason to come across whole Europe and hang out in a run-down place with nothing to do. It's rather obvious from the text, that she does't belong in the estate anymore and wants to leave almost from the very beginning of her comeback. Too often this question is getting lazy, pseudo-poetic answer: she is an old, nostalgia-driven woman, who is saying final good-byes to her homeland, remembering happy past days. Well, this is bullshit, I'm sorry. First of all, easy calculations shows, that Ranevskaya is 38-40, 42 max. Look, her daughter Anya is 17, this is said on the first page of the play. Ranevskaya just spent 5 years abroad, this is said by Lopakhin, and her son was drowned just before that and he was 7. Ok, how this can be 60-70 years old hag, who hardly can move around the stage? Additionally, the part of Ranevskaya was written for and played by Chekhov's wife Olga Knipper, she was 35 back then. If you read the text without prejudice, you'll see it: Ranevskaya is a young woman, full of desire and rueful feelings, even if you don't believe that she has an affair with Lopakhin (I do, but that's way more obscure subject). So the nostalgia interpretation is just some sort of tradition to stage the play that way, nothing else. Lopakhin says that the Orchard contains of one thousand arpents, one arpent is 1,1 hectare, so more then 2500 acres!!! That's a huge place. The project, that Lopakhin suggests - to destroy old buildings and lease the land out - makes sense! It could have make Ranevskaya rich again and she's very broke at the moment. Why she refuses? isn't she here to get some money in the first place? This is usually played as she is some sort of stupid aristocratic idiot, who cannot understand anything and this is bullshit again. She is educated, clever woman she has no trouble understanding people. She just does't care. But why she doesn't care? Why young passionate woman is coming across Europe, abandoning her accustomed way of life for some old rural place where her son died few years ago? Why she is not caring to improve her money situation, although she is literally has no money at all? Because she is not going to need any money. Everything points out to one reason: she is coming back to The Cherry Orchard to kill herself, not being able to fight the grief about her son anymore, That's how I always pictured it, since I've read the play in a high school and it was never staged that way up until recently, when productions with different approaches to this exact vision started to appear here and there (I saw three in one year). Something has changed in an atmosphere of our society, that the story of the beautiful passionate woman, abandoning everything and everyone she has, to kill herself, because of the old loss, became as relevant as ever.

  • Çağdaş T
    2019-01-25 20:58

    Her zamanki gibi Çehov müthiş.Yalnız bu oyunda çeviriden mi kaynaklı ya da özellikle mi böyle kurgulanmış diyaloglar arası kopukluklar hissettim. Örneğin biri diğerine hitaben soruyor ya da bir şeyler anlatıyor diğeriyse soruya cevap vermeden ya da başka bir konuda cümleler sarfediyor. Belki de kimse kimsenin umrunda değil havası verilmek istenmiştir yoksa Ergin Altay en iyi Rusça çevirmenlerinizden. Kısa birkaç alıntı:-Upuzun bir hayat yaşadım, sanki dün doğmuş gibiyim..-Hatırlıyorum altı yaşındaydım, bir kutsal üçlü yortusunda şu pencerenin içinde oturmuş, kiliseye giden babamın arkasından bakıyordum...

  • Ken Moten
    2019-02-17 18:56

    (I read the translation by Ann Dunnigan, but the quotes in this article will be of Julius West.)"Lopakhin: It's true. To speak the straight truth, we live a silly life. [Pause] My father was a peasant, an idiot, he understood nothing, he didn't teach me, he was always drunk, and always used a stick on me. In point of fact, I'm a fool and an idiot too. I've never learned anything, my handwriting is bad, I write so that I'm quite ashamed before people, like a pig!""Trofimov: All Russia is our orchard. The land is great and beautiful, there are many marvellous places in it. [Pause] Think, Anya, your grandfather, your great-grandfather, and all your ancestors were serf-owners, they owned living souls; and now, doesn't something human look at you from every cherry in the orchard, every leaf and every stalk? Don't you hear voices . . . ? Oh, it's awful, your orchard is terrible; and when in the evening or at night you walk through the orchard, then the old bark on the trees sheds a dim light and the old cherry-trees seem to be dreaming of all that was a hundred, two hundred years ago, and are oppressed by their heavy visions. Still, at any rate, we've left those two hundred years behind us. So far we've gained nothing at all--we don't yet know what the past is to be to us--we only philosophize, we complain that we are dull, or we drink vodka. For it's so clear that in order to begin to live in the present we must first redeem the past, and that can only be done by suffering, by strenuous, uninterrupted labour. Understand that, Anya."The Case For Reparations...for serfdom.This is the last play from my book The Major Plays, a book I have had since at least 2009. The impact of this play was what I was looking for when I was reading The Three Sisters. This play is often called Chekhov's best work...and now I can see why. It is the first true modern dramedy. Chekhov considered it a straight comedy but, it obviously is not (unless you are a Bolshevik). What it is, is a prophetic examination of the end of Imperial Russia, and the aristocracy's inability to adjust. The Emancipation of the Serfs, the old-order that had been a way of life in Russia for centuries came to an end and the birth of the Russian middle-class (though not as prosperous as western Europe) began. The main family of aristocrats cannot seem to realize that the "old wealth" that they have lived on for centuries has been drained away and the old estate, which includes a vast cherry orchard, is all they have left. One of their former serfs, Lopakhin, has meanwhile become a millionaire and is trying, to no avail, to convince them to act immediately to save what they have left of the estate (mainly by selling the orchard and paying the debt off for the house. The family, too captured in their old ways and nostalgia, ignore him and refuse to contemplate selling the orchard. I will spoil the ending with the final quotation, but we see the whole of the allegory play itself out. This is one of the few works of Russian literature where, I feel, the good guy got a definite win. I remember watching the movie documentary version of The Story of Film. The actor Amitabh Bachchan relates a anecdote: after the success of the film Sholay, he asked his father why he likes Bollywood films so much? his father tells, him that it is because "it is poetic justice in 2 and a half hours, most people go a lifetime without justice." I feel that here.This play is the best I have read by Chekhov, maybe the crowning achievement of his career. I was amazed by the character of Pyotr Trofimov. He is the most Dostoevskian character in all of Chekhov's work. He pretty much is an allegorical representation of the handwriting-on-the-wall. I cannot go much further without spoiling the whole of the plot, so spoiler ahead below...."Lopakhin: I bought it! Wait, ladies and gentlemen, please, my head's going round, I can't talk. . . . [Laughs] When we got to the sale, Deriganov was there already. Leonid Andreyevitch had only fifteen thousand roubles, and Deriganov offered thirty thousand on top of the mortgage to begin with. I saw how matters were, so I grabbed hold of him and bid forty. He went up to forty-five, I offered fifty-five. That means he went up by fives and I went up by tens. . . . Well, it came to an end. I bid ninety more than the mortgage; and it stayed with me. The cherry orchard is mine now, mine! [Roars with laughter] My God, my God, the cherry orchard's mine! Tell me I'm drunk, or mad, or dreaming. . . . [Stamps his feet] Don't laugh at me! If my father and grandfather rose from their graves and looked at the whole affair, and saw how their Ermolai, their beaten and uneducated Ermolai, who used to run barefoot in the winter, how that very Ermolai has bought an estate, which is the most beautiful thing in the world! I've bought the estate where my grandfather and my father were slaves, where they weren't even allowed into the kitchen. I'm asleep, it's only a dream, an illusion. . . . It's the fruit of imagination, wrapped in the fog of the unknown. . . . [Picks up the keys, nicely smiling] She threw down the keys, she wanted to show she was no longer mistress here. . . . [Jingles keys] Well, it's all one! [Hears the band tuning up] Eh, musicians, play, I want to hear you! Come and look at Ermolai Lopakhin laying his axe to the cherry orchard, come and look at the trees falling! We'll build villas here, and our grandsons and great-grandsons will see a new life here. . . . Play on, music! [The band plays. LUBOV ANDREYEVNA sinks into a chair and weeps bitterly. LOPAKHIN continues reproachfully] Why then, why didn't you take my advice? My poor, dear woman, you can't go back now. [Weeps]] Oh, if only the whole thing was done with, if only our uneven, unhappy life were changed!" Amen.

  • Hend
    2019-02-14 17:00

    in this play a Russian aristocratic family having financial problems and sinking in a large debt, due to the social disturbances and political transformations in the early twentieth century.,were forced to sell their Cherry Orchard, ,which wasn't an ordinary Orchard but the most beautiful one in the entire estate.... while family members are busy at a ceremony inside the palace, their orchard is being sold, in this scene Chekhov emphasize the exaggerated the sensation of indifference,their Loss of orchard was clear to all of their friends , however they were busy with their ceremony .not aware of the deception and the regret they would feel,after recognizing how Yermolay was unfaithful,and that all what he cared with was the revenge....and to forget his past , his childhood memories of being a peasant .. ...and how it changed after he owned the Orchard .....the Cherry Orchard for Yermolay.was a dream that come true.....but in general i found it somehow boring,there was scenes that i think was repetitive and unnecessary and .....

  • Kelly
    2019-02-16 15:54

    This play is one of the most desperately sad things I have ever seen. It is a portrait of a family struggling in a period where old and new russia are scraping up against each other in a way that is physically painful to watch. I saw a performance of this while on study abroad at Oxford, and I went to a bookstore after the performance so I could read this over and over again to myself. These characters express so much and just accomplish so desperately little at the end of the day. Some of these people would be silly if they weren't so sad. I didn't even have the heart to get frustrated with the characters, all I could do was just watch, wistfully. Which I think is a part of the mood that Chekhov seems to want to induce, at the least. A stillness that comes over the audience as much as the characters.

  • Metin Yılmaz
    2019-02-13 18:55

    Çehov oyunlarını seyretmek sanıyorum okumaktan daha iyi. Hem yazarı anlamak hem olayları anlamak açısından bence seyredilmesi gerekli.Bu kitabı okurken aklıma hep Ferhan Şensoy’un Fişne Bahçesu adlı oyunu geldi :)

  • Trish
    2019-01-26 00:24

    Setting: Russia at the start of the 20th Century in a village some distance from a major town. Kernal: A railroad passes by land upon which grows a large and venerable cherry orchard, a cherry orchard the landowners can no longer afford. Oh my, how I love this play. Each of the characters makes sense but each of their positions is set slightly angled to all the others, overlapping perhaps, but still at odds. In the end, none but the entrepreneur Lopakhin gets his/her way. Hopes are dashed but everyone picks up and walks on. What else is there to do? One must go on.Chekhov is larger, kinder, more generous than he’s ever been. Into the mouth of the universally-loved landowner Lyubov Andreevna, he places an elegant riposte to Trofimov, the perpetual student, who himself holds the signboard for how to find meaning in a changing world. ”You look boldly forward, but isn’t that because you don’t see, don’t expect anything awful, because life is still hidden from your young eyes? You’re more courageous, more sincere, more profound than we are, but stop and think, be indulgent if only in the tips of your fingers, spare me…This is where I was born…I love this house, without the cherry orchard I couldn’t make sense of my life…Show me some pity, dear, kind man.”Lyubov Andreevna is a wise and generous soul who cannot turn from expressing her love or spending her rubles—spending it all until there is nothing left and she must borrow. Her lovers steal from her but she still gives. She will probably always manage because she inspires love and generosity in others.Trofimov is still young, but he knows already that real living is all about the struggle--the struggle to understand and move forward. There is nothing more. Money is nothing but a means to greater understanding. But it takes work, real work, constant work, to improve even a little. Hence the struggle. But his youthful idealism eclipses the importance of friends, individuals, love, kindness, warmth.What a magnificent play it is that can show these two attitudes together, and their importance in the scheme of things. There are other characters: a brother, a daughter, but I am partial to the old peasant mentioned in my review for Chekhov’s earliest collection of stories in The Prank: The Best of Young Chekhov, recently published for the first time by NYRB. Add to that a magic show (!) given by a kind of gypsy girl, Carlotta, who is working as a governess at the mansion. She thrills the guests of the last ball hosted by Lyubov Andreevna by presenting her hidden skills. Those familiar with Chekhov plays may recall his love of a pistol as a stage prop. Instant tension is created if attention should wander, action flag, or energy wane. In the hands of a sane man, the prop is a danger. In the hands a simpleton, the prop is explosive. Reading Chekhov is a great way to spend an evening. For those of you who don’t see yourselves picking up The Complete Plays anytime soon, be aware that several of the plays are available to watch for free on YouTube, some featuring great actors like Judi Dench (The Cherry Orchard) or Anthony Hopkins (Uncle Vanya), among others you will recognize.

  • Jennifer
    2019-02-08 17:10

    What a beautiful, sad little play (although Chekhov himself called it a comedy). Published in 1904, this is about an aristocratic Russian family who have gone into debt and are forced to sell their family property. It looks at all different classes of people, and at the effects of the abolition of serfdom, the fall of the aristocracy, and the general pointlessness of human existence (because Russia). This is definitely one of those books that’ll be really boring if you just read it for the words on the page – there are a boatload of characters, and every character is symbolic and begging to be analyzed. Essentially, it’s a linguistically simple read that leaves you with a lot to consider.

  • Sookie
    2019-02-16 22:20

    In early 19th century, many (European, British) aristocratic families started to see the changes in the world directly impacting their household. Rich people were now self made, laborers preferred factories and mills, and everyday things became a little more expensive. The time this little story is set is when political and cultural changes were rampant in Russia. The landowner's ancestral estate is in shambles with its pretty cherry orchard and grand house. Its buyer is a self made man, a serf, whose grandfather was once owned by the estate's landowners. Chekhov doles out karma is a neat way with a flippant matriarch and a gilded lily for a daughter. The family includes an adopted daughter and an uncle. The family is checked out from reality as they ignore the possibility of losing their estate and surround themselves with woe and music. Its frustrating to see matriarch and her brother reminiscing their youth as they ignore the future. It is also frustrating to see the daughter's vapid narcissistic conversations with her beau, the teacher, whose source of income is translation and pseudo-intellectual lectures. With no avenues to make ends meet, the adopted daughter's frustration doesn't seem to impact any of these family members. Its hard to sympathize with those who refuse to act. Its hard to like these people when they refuse to react to the problems at hand. Chekhov uses the voice of the new landowner to get to them but his efforts go in vain. An unhappy ending is evident in the way the play progresses with its characters' inability to be flexible and rational. Their inability to change and adapt is what brings them to the state they end up in though they all blame different things. Sometimes even the progress, politics and culture. The play has some fantastic dialogues with Chekhov's darker note on cultural changes and aristocracy's general apathy towards the help. Its a play that can be set in any geography at a time when aristocracy is dying. [Also, kudos for the Nietzsche reference.] Simply put, its a story about rich people money problems that could have been avoided.

  • Gypsy
    2019-01-23 20:08

    باید اعتراف کنم این اولین نمایشنامه ای بود که من خوندم. ینی به قصد ِ نمایشنامه خوندن، نه فقط محض خوندن. برای همین ممکنه خیلی نپخته باشه و بعداً خجالت بکشم از ریویوم. به هر حال، باغ آلبالو کلاً به نظرم اومد کار ِ ابزوردیه و من اصولاً کارهای ابزوردو دوس ندارم. اما به نسبت چیز خوبی درومده بود. شخصیت ها باورپذیر بودن، دیالوگ ها خیلی جون دار و گاهی هم به فکر فرو برنده. طنز لطیف و ظریفی هم تو بعضیاشون بود که خیلی دلچسبش کرده. اما خب در نهایت اتفاقی می افته که انتظار می ره بیوفته. ینی دید آرمانی اینه که بالآخره مادام رانوسکی( همچین اسمی داشت؟ من اصن استعداد خوبی تو اسم به خاطر سپردن ندارم.) یه حرکتی بزنه یا لوباخین دلش بسوزه و اینقد پدرسوختگی نکنه، ناسلامتی خاطرخواه دختر مادام هم هس. ولی شارلاتان تر ازین حرفاست گویا. این واقع گراییش گرچه تلخه. ولی واقعاً به کار نشسته. درگیر کلیشه نشده که انتظار داشته باشی خب الآن به عنوان خاطرخواه ِ دختر ِ مادام، آدم شه. حتی این که خواستگاری هم نمی کنه، در حالی که مادام اونو با واریا تنها می ذاره، خیلی جای فکرداره. خوبه که دید آرمانی کنار بره و اثر واقع گرا باشه. که مادام رانوسکی هم دلش بخواد بره فرانسه و با چالش هاش دست و پنجه نرم کنه. اما شاید حرص درآر باشه که هیچ اتفاقی جز حراج باغ آلبالو که انتظارشم داریم، نمیافته. ینی قطعاً مادام می ره فرانسه ولی تکلیف بچه هاش مشخص نمیشه. دو تا دختراش ازدواج نمی کنن و پسرشم انگاری خیال داره همچنان لیسانس نخونده باقی بمونه. :)) ولی ضربه ی کاری رو بازم چخوف می زنه. دقیقاً آخر نمایشنامه که لوباخین شروع میکنه به اره کردن ِ درخت های آلبالو و فیرز گریه میکنه. چیزی که در طول داستان هم سرش بحث شد و شاید نادیده گرفته شد از سمت من ِ خواننده اما با احیای قشنگش در پایان، جون گرفت.

  • Sara Kamjou
    2019-01-27 17:08

    به طور کلی فضای به نوعی سرد رمان‌های روسی با سلیقه‌ی من جور درنمی‌آید و این یک ایراد نیست، تنها سلیقه‌ی شخصی است. با اینکه ارتباط خوبی با نمایشنامه‌ها دارم اما وضع برای این نمایشنامه‌ی روسی از چخوف متفاوت نبود. البته چیزی که بیش از همه برای من آزاردهنده می‌نمود، تعدد شخصیت‌ها در باغ آلبالو بود که به لطف اسم‌های دشوار روسی وضع دشوارتر نیز می‌شد و از آنجایی که سعی کردم بی‌توجه به اسم‌ها کتاب را بخوانم، گاهی خط داستانی را گم می‌کردم.شخصا ترجیح می‌دهم در یک نمایشنامه تعداد شخصیت‌ها کم باشد و به همان‌ها عمیق پرداخته شود که این ویژگی در باغ آلبالوی چخوف به چشم نمی‌خورد.--------------------------------بخش‌های ماندگار کتاب:هر روز یک بدبختی به سراغم می‌آید ولی من هیچ شکایتی ندارم. عادت کرده‌ام. حتی به آن‌ها می‌خندم....چه‌قدر دلم می‌خواهد با کسی صحبت کنم ولی کسی را پیدا نمی‌کنم... هیچکس را ندارم....راستش را بگویم، چیزهای دیگر به من ربطی ندارد. فقط درباره خودم حرف می‌زنم و اینکه سرنوشت با من بی‌رحم است همچون رفتاری که توفان با قایقی کوچک دارد....شاید بهتر است به جای تماشای نمایش بیشتر خودتان را تماشا کنید....تا جایی که من می‌دانم، اکثریت عظیم روشنفکرانی که می‌شناسم در جستجوی هیچ کاری نیستند و هیچ کاری هم انجام نمی‌دهند، در ضمن به درد کاری هم نمی‌خورند. خود را روشنفکر می‌دانند ولی خدمه را «تو» خطاب می‌کنند، با دهاتی‌ها همچون حیوانات رفتار می‌کنند.

  • Niloufar Mosleh
    2019-01-23 21:57

    باغ آلبالوازمالکیت خانواده ی فئودال ورشکسته به پسر یک موژیک می رسد ... غم..درد ...احساس ...عشق را در میان زندگی این شخصیت ها خواهید یافت ...آنها بطور شگفت اوری واقعی هستندنه در لفاف کلمات پنهان شده اند و نه فعلی غیر معمول از آنها واقع میشودآنها خودشان هستند ..واقعی مثل زندگیﺻﺪاﻳﻰ، ﮔﻮﻳﻰ از دوردﺳﺖ آﺳﻤﺎن ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮش ﻣﻰ رﺳﺪ . ﺻﺪاﻳﻰ ﻫﻤﭽﻮن آواى ﺗﺎرى از ﻳﻚ ﺳﺎز زﻫﻰ ﻛﻪ ﻛـﺸﻴﺪه و رﻫﺎ می ﺷﻮد، ﺻﺪاﻳﻰ ﻛﻪ در ﻣﺮگ و ﺟﻨﻮن ﺧﺎﻣﻮش ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮد . ﺻﺪاى ﺿﺮﺑﻪ ﻫﺎى ﺗﺒﺮ، ﻫﻤﭽﻨﺎن از دوردﺳﺖ ﺑﺎغ ﺑﻪ ﮔـﻮش ﻣﻰ رﺳﺪﭘﺮده

  • Maria Thomarey
    2019-02-15 19:10


  • Chiara Pagliochini
    2019-01-27 17:54

    “Perché io sono nata qui, qui sono vissuti mio padre e mia madre, mio nonno, io amo questa casa, senza il giardino dei ciliegi io non capisco più niente della mia vita, e se è proprio necessario venderlo, allora vendete anche me insieme al giardino.”Credo che questa – anzi, ne sono certa – sia la prima opera per il teatro che leggo in vita mia. L’approccio, lo debbo dire, è stato dei più foschi e ammantati di pregiudizio. Ho sempre pensato – e ancora non sono del tutto immune dal pensiero – che i testi teatrali siano una sorta di scheletro che a leggerlo si ricava la metà del loro valore. Se questo è vero, è vero anche che la metà di un grande valore è pur sempre un grande valore. E questo testo di Čechov (peraltro in una edizione splendida ed esaustiva) è magnifico. Scrive Giorgio Strehler, che lo rappresentò a teatro nel ’74, che Il giardino è come un gioco di scatole cinesi. Ci sono tre scatole e ognuna contiene l’altra. La scatola più piccola, quella che è contenuta, è la scatola della vita quotidiana, dei personaggi in scena con le loro battute tipiche, i loro tic, i loro piccoli drammi esistenziali. La seconda scatola è quella della Storia, che interpreta il testo in termini di passaggio di proprietà, della decadenza della vecchia classe aristocratica e dell’emergere di nuove forze politiche, una sorta di anticipazione della Rivoluzione d’Ottobre. La terza scatola, la più grande, è quella dell’Umanità, con i suoi temi eterni: la morte, il dolore, l’infanzia perduta, l’inesorabilità del tempo, la vita mancata. Il giardino dei ciliegi è tutte e tre le scatole, ed è questo che ne fa un’opera di grande valore. La vicenda ruota intorno a una vecchia casa che sta per andare all’asta. La proprietaria, Liubov, donna molto elegante, spendacciona, ma anche generosa e capace di grandi slanci, vi fa ritorno dopo cinque anni di assenza e ritrova tante cose che appartengono al suo passato, alla sua vita di madre e di donna sposata. Ritrova la “stanza dei bambini”, il grande armadio di cent’anni, le persone che conosceva e son cresciute e soprattutto il giardino dei ciliegi, che sembra esistere da sempre e fiorire in ogni stagione. Il giardino è simbolo di tutto ciò che c’è di caro al mondo, di quel che è radicato in noi, del posto da cui veniamo e che prima o poi, strappati dal caso o dalla violenza oppure di nostra volontà, dobbiamo abbandonare. Intorno a Liubov ruotano tanti personaggi incantevoli e fragili: le figlie Ania e Varia, la prima così proiettata verso il futuro, l’altra così incerta su quello stesso futuro; il fratello Gaiev, che parla sempre a sproposito; il servitore Firs, che è vecchio quanto il giardino; Duniascia, la cameriera innamorata che si incipria sempre il naso; Iascia, lo sprezzante valletto che all’estero s’è abituato alla bella vita; il contabile Iepichodov, che tiene sempre un revolver in tasca; la governante Charlotta, che non sa da dove viene ma conosce incredibili giochi di prestigio; l’eterno studente Trofimov, che contempla sempre la felicità ma non sembra che a parole ci si avvicini poi molto; il rampante Lopachin, contadino arricchito che rileverà la proprietà dei suoi stessi ex padroni e che farà calare l’ascia proprio sul tronco di quei ciliegi. Chi vorrà restare? Chi troverà il coraggio di andare avanti? Chi accetterà che la ruota del progresso si muove e non si incaglia mai? Impossibile stabilire cosa pensasse Čechov di quei ciliegi, se in lui ci sia più nostalgia per quei colpi di scure o più speranza per un mondo che viene. I fatti parlano da sé e così dev’essere, e sta allo spettatore o al lettore decidere se piangere o ridere di quel che vede in scena.Čechov fu certo uno scrittore sorprendente e lui stesso, di sorprese, dovette vederne un bel po’. I suoi testi, che si supponevano umoristici, finivano per far piangere gli attori alla prima lettura. E anche il pubblico, alla fine delle rappresentazioni, era tutto una lacrima. “Voi vi lamentate che i miei personaggi siano tristi e cupi! Ahimè, non è colpa mia! Questo avviene contro la mia volontà; quando scrivo, a me non pare di scrivere cose tristi, e comunque, quando lavoro, sono sempre di ottimo umore. Ma provate a osservare, e vedrete che gli uomini malinconici scrivono sempre cose allegre, e quelli che sono allegri nella vita fanno venire invece la malinconia!” Ecco, non è un uomo da sposare? E non è uno scrittore da ammirare e prendere a esempio uno il cui maggiore fine artistico è voler combinare in una stessa opera commedia e tragedia? Perché la vita non è solo una tragedia, come non è soltanto una commedia. La vita è una commistione in parti casuali di elementi tragici e comici e, se un buon libro deve rassomigliare alla vita, allora è giusto principio che ci entrino entrambi.

  • Fateme
    2019-02-14 20:24

    بعضی وقتا آدم تعبیرهای جالبی رو میخونه که تو ذهنش نقش میبنده مثل این یکی : "...اصلا چرا باید از شما مخفی کرده و سکوت کنم. کاملا روشن است که او را دوست دارم .دوستش دارم، دوستش دارم... او سنگی ست بر گردن من، با او غرق خواهم شد. او یک سنگ است. زندگی بدون این سنگ برایم ممکن نیست. "

  • Zeynep
    2019-02-09 21:03

    2,5*Vişne Bahçesi, büyük beklentilerle başladığım bir kitap oldu. Ve sanırım bu sebepten dolayı biraz hayal kırıklığına uğradım. Aslında ne sevdim, ne de sevmedim. Arada kaldım gibi bir şey oldu. Yani ne verdiğim paraya yazık dedim ne de iyiki almışım dedim. Bu yüzden de 2,5 verdim kitaba. Benim kitapta en sevdiğim şey-belkide sevdiğim tek şey(?)-, karakterlerin çok fazla açık sözlü olması ve yersiz konuşmalarıydı. O konuşmaları okurken baya şaşırdım kaldım yani. Alıştıkça da komik geldi karakterlerin yersizliği :Dİlginizi çektiyse bakın derim. Büyük beklentilerle başlamasaydım belki sevebilirdim.

  • fateme movahedi
    2019-02-18 21:14

    نمایشنامه ای که در دو ساعت خوانده می شود. روایتگر خانواده ای اشرافیست که به دلیل مشکلات مالی مجبور به فروش باغ اجدادیشان می شوند. اما بر خلاف انتظار برای حفظ آن تلاشی هم نمی کنند. در نهایت باغ را رعیت زاده ای می خرد و درختان انرا قطع کرده و زمین را تکه تکه می کند. داستان به نوعی روایتگر وضعیت شوروی قبل از فروپاشی است. اشنایی خاندان سلطنتی با اروپا، علاقه به آن ، عدم موافقتشان برای تقسیم شدن زمین و عدم تمایل برای به قدرت رسیدن رعیت ها و رفت و امد افراد فرودست به منطقه ای که تا ان زمان در انحصار اشراف بوده از جمله مواردیست که در کتاب به صورت کنایی به آن پرداخته شده است. در نهایت اتفاقی که می افتد خلاف میل خاندان سلطنتی است. باغ از انحصار آنها در می اید و رعیت ها قدرت می گیرند. این کتاب به گفته ی منتقدان پیشگویی چخوف از وضعیت شوروی است. هر چند با نظام اشرافی موافق نبوده ولی به تقسیم اراضی و قدرت رعیت ها و یا به عبارتی از بین رفتن اصالت نقد داشته است.