Chekhov's+Message+on+Society

I found a big similarity between //The Cherry Orchard// and //Uncle Vanya// to be the negative portrayal of the upper class in society. Towards the end of the movie, the argument that takes place between Vanya and Alexander is very important. Vanya gave up his inheritance to cancel the debt on the estate. He and Sonya worked relentlessly in that house. I think this stress is part of what makes Vanya so haywire toward the end. Yet despite their hard work, Alexander was thinking of selling the estate and making money off of their toil. The rich were made to look bad. Vanya, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of work. He told Alexander, "You understand nothing about art." Peter Trophimof made a similar comment about work and the upper class in //The Cherry Orchard:// "They...understand little or nothing about art" (24). I'm supposing that Chekhov had similar feelings about society and the upper class as he put in his plays. The similar social commentary is to obvious for me to ignore in both of these examples. Is this fair to presume? Did anyone else notice the negative light shed on the upper class? 1205191532

I did notice the bad portrayal of the upper class, but towards the end the good portrayal of the lower class is more predominant. Especially the last soliloquy of Sonya, where she says, "All we can do is live...and when we come to die, we'll die submissively...but just wait, only wait, Uncle. We shall rest." The lower class bore the pain of being subservient rather well, whereas people who should have been subservient in //The Cherry Orchard// did not take it so well. I mean, Firs managed quite well, but we do not see the strong repremand from any upper class character to any lower class character as we see from the Professor to Uncle Vanya. In //The Cherry Orchard//, Lopakhin was able to rise in society after the liberation, but Sonya and Vanya are still sort of serfs at the end. Vanya even says himself after talking to the Professor (smiling), "Everything will be as it was before." And that's a good thing? He stood up for himself, went to resolve the problem peaceably, and comes out right back where he started. It was his own fault. He could have affected change. In this way the rich are not seen as completely terrible.

Another way the rich do not look as much like villians as in //The Cherry Orchard// is that in the movie, the doctor and Yelena are involved in the same bad love situation as Vanya and Sonya. They all struggle with the same problems. Not to mention they are all related (except for the doctor), and Sonya could be considered rich. They're just not as wealthy in high spirits. But the movie showed a weak side to the rich, Yelena with her temptation, the professor with his sleep, and the Doctor with his drinking, that I don't think we necessarily saw so much of in //The Cherry Orchard//. Though I do agree that both plays have some of the same underlying themes. 1205197706

First of all, I want to say that I don't necessarily think that stress is what made Vanya go haywire. I think that it has more to do with his emotional, financial, and long-term attachment to the estate, which could be taken away from him at any time. I wouldn't consider that to be stress because I think that stress comes more from outside sources, but this emotional attachment is within him, and therefore, more of an emotional trauma than stress. Anyways, I think that the fact that Chekhov included the faults of the wealthy is a significant factor in trying to decipher what Chekhov is saying about the upper class. Because he included these people's faults, it shows us two things: 1) they are human/not perfect and 2) that they are not better than anyone else. Chekhov is trying to tell us that their money does, but should not, determine how they are treated as people, because the rich and the poor are the same, but the rich have nicer clothes. 1205201045

KGa mentioned how Vanya emphasized the importance of hard work. This reminded me of Lopakhin in //The Cherry Orchard. //Both characters value hard work in order to earn your wealth, but their situations are in some ways opposite. Vanya had wealth or was going to inherit it, but gave it up because of his love for his family. He then had to work hard for years and years in order to regain some wealth. On the other hand, Lopakhin never had any wealth to begin with. His family members were poor peasants when he was growing up. His hard work earned him the wealth that he never knew as a child. Which character more accurately values work? Does Lopakhin have a better understanding because he knows how to make something out of nothing or does Vanya because he understands how hard work can be bring redemption.1205201242

When reviewing material for the essay on Firs I really started to notice how much commentary he included on the society through the different characters. It is different because Chekhov does't really use their actions (he does sometimes...) but the characters themselves and the things they say are really what makes up his commentary. Uncle Vanya is a great example when he argues with Alexander about the importance of work. I think that there is a lot of commentary in the plays, but Chekov makes it not extremely visible through the use of drama, love, hatred, jealousy, and so on. 1205281610

KLe, I was rather confused by the following statement: "I mean, Firs managed quite well, but we do not see the strong repremand from any upper class character to any lower class character as we see from the Professor to Uncle Vanya. In //The Cherry Orchard//, Lopakhin was able to rise in society after the liberation, but Sonya and Vanya are still sort of serfs at the end. Vanya even says himself after talking to the Professor (smiling), "Everything will be as it was before." And that's a good thing? He stood up for himself, went to resolve the problem peaceably, and comes out right back where he started. It was his own fault. He could have affected change. In this way the rich are not seen as completely terrible."

First of all, the strong reprimand from upper class characters to lower class characters does indeed occur in the Cherry Orchard: multiple times Lopakin, a wealthy businessman who is only getting richer, tries to assert his dominance over Trophimof, the self-described “perpetual student”, who is clearly having a tough time making ends meet as a "perpetual student"(Act I, 13). In act II, Lopakin declares mockingly, “He'll soon be fifty, and he's still a student” (23), ridiculing Trophimof for living a life clearly less-centered on money and practicality. In fact, here's the entire sequence of events, which clearly illustrates the upper class represented by Lopakin putting the lower class down. LOPAKHIN. Our eternal student is always with the ladies.

TROFIMOV. That's not your business.

LOPAKHIN. He'll soon be fifty, and he's still a student.

TROFIMOV. Leave off your silly jokes!

LOPAKHIN. Getting angry, eh, silly?

TROFIMOV. Shut up, can't you.

LOPAKHIN. [Laughs] I wonder what you think of me?

The other element of your statement, kLe, that I have a problem with is your misunderstanding of the end. Vanya actually ends up a landowner in the end. "Everything will be as it was before": before translates to before Vanya's father sold the land, or at least, that's what I thought. Nonetheless, Vanya's life still is boring, mundane, and, for all intents and purposes, almost not worth living.

Chekov's overall contempt for the upper class is clearly illustrated in Trofimof's contempt for the upper class in the Cherry Orchard: Act II: "Meanwhile in Russia only a very few of us work. The vast majority of those intellectuals whom I know seek for nothing, do nothing, and are at present incapable of hard work. They call themselves intellectuals, but they use "thou" and "thee" to their servants, they treat the peasants like animals, they learn badly, they read nothing seriously, they do absolutely nothing, about science they only talk, about art they understand little. They are all serious, they all have severe faces, they all talk about important things. They philosophize, and at the same time, the vast majority of us, ninety-nine out of a hundred, live like savages, fighting and cursing at the slightest opportunity, eating filthily, sleeping in the dirt, in stuffiness, with fleas, stinks, smells, moral filth, and so on. . . And it's obvious that all our nice talk is only carried on to distract ourselves and others. Tell me, where are those créches we hear so much of? and where are those reading-rooms? People only write novels about them; they don't really exist. Only dirt, vulgarity, and Asiatic plagues really exist. . . . I'm afraid, and I don't at all like serious faces; I don't like serious conversations." Act III: "Barbara: "But, mamma, I can't propose to him(Lopakin) myself. . . . He's making money; he's always busy; he can't be bothered with me. If I only had some money, even a little, en ten pounds, I would give everything up and go right away. I would go into a nunnery." Trophimof [mockingly]: what bliss!" Act II: TROFIMOV. I think, Ermolai Alexeyevitch, that you're a rich man, and you'll soon be a millionaire. Just as the wild beast which eats everything it finds is needed for changes to take place in matter, so you are needed too.

Chekov's contempt for the upper class is also illustrated in Uncle Vanya through the professor who tries to initially deny Vanya's right to the land. 1205293259

I do think that Chekhov made the upper class out to be pretty bad, but I don't think it's necessarily because they're in the upper class. I think it has more to do with the fact that the upper class is more likely to be conservative and unreceptive to change. The rootedness they show is the more dominant issue. For example, Firs is left to die at the end because he is also not open to change, and he isn't in the upper class but rather is a former serf who wants to keep his place in society. We can also look at Lopakhin and his ability to transform himself and make the best of changes; he comes out of this novel very well with more property and prosperity than the people who used to be above him.1205358448

I definitely agree that Chekhov portrayed the rich as bad in both of his plays. I think that the reasoning behind this is because Chekhov is reflecting the attitudes of the time towards the Russian aristocracy. Chekhov wrote both of these plays around the beginning of the 20th century, a time in Russia that was dominated by the poor rioting and rising up against the elite class. This class had treated the peasantry much like Alexander had treated Vanya: they took all the peasants had without offering nearly anything in return, and they ultimately stole the lives of peasants for their own idle pursuits. This was also less than two decades away from the communist revolution in Russia, the ultimate revolt against the corrupt Russian elite. Writing is a reflection of the times, and in Chekhov's plays the reflections of the roots the October Revolution of 1917 are clearly visible. 1205369774

How come it is that the rich always seem to be portrayed as unhappy, yet the poor sometimes are portrayed as the happiest people, the most content with their life? That seems almost backwards to us. I think it's because when you are rich and a member of the upper class of society, there are pressures to put importance on materialistic things and hold your head up high regardless of how you truly think and feel, instead of when you don't have money at your expense, you can appreciate the finer things in life not of monetary value. It was very clear in the moive, I mean you could see it in the way amost everybody acted, they way they looked at each other, and the words exchanged between them, that nobody was satisfied with their life. They all wanted something more. Were they ever really truly honest with anyone else and even themselves unless it was some desperate plea in hopes of getting a kiss? That's at least how it seemed to me. When we watched "Uncle Vanya," is was almost upsetting. I was in disgust of how they talked at one another, instead of with. Did anyone else feel this way? It was the same way with the Chekov's play. I remember one day that we were reading aloud in class and Brother Tom commented on the fact that they almost seem to be talking past one another. They are only interested in themselves. Isn't there evidence of this is our world today? Yes, Chekov was making a statement about the Russian aristocracy, but what about expanding it to the wealth more close to home? 1205411181

I don't think that this is all a negative portrayal of the upper class although I definently think that there are alot of criticism of the upper class in Uncle Vanya in the The Cherry Orchard we are almost made to feel sorry for this group of upper classman. In Uncle Vanya the upper class are people who take advantage of each other, drink to excess, try to break wedding vows, and nearly go crazy so I would definently say that yes Uncle Vanya does have a decidedly negative tone towards the upper class. Especially when compared to the happiness that is found in the simpler lives of the Nanny the wretched lives of the upper class seem wasted when they could be doing so much to help other people. Yet in The Cherry Orchard there seems to be a sadness as a group of what was the upperclass is replaced by the raising surfs who buy out their home and cut down one of the most beutiful things on their property which is the Cherry orchard. While it is clear that the poor forsight of the class lead to their downfall the constant reminders from Firs of how much better the old life used to be and the portrayal of some of the characters that embrace the new way as predators waiting for the old to die so that they can make a profit on their misfortune. Here he describes the old way, through Firs, as a way that led to abuse but as a way that at least everyone knew their place in comparison to the immorality that seems to perpetrate around in that time period of Russia. Although there is definently alot of criticism of the upper class the lower classes definently get criticized as well. user:DGr-c

Yeah, we went into some detail on this in another thread, that of T's speech, but that's the idea. I see him as using three main channels for portraying his feelings on society. a) actions of upper class, (or inaction) b) T's outburst pointing out what was there c) Firs talking about the past and present, again, talking about what others were too blind to see sometimes. The main things he was concerned about? I think distribution of wealth, perhaps, or at least the management of it (Madame R's wanton expenditures) The rule of one class over another, and the irony, as L, who would have been a serf, eventually earned enough to buy out the Orchard and estate. Also, the idleness of the upper classes which ruled Russia, and the need to either think properly, be productive and work sharing the benefits between others. And he also points out the sacrifices of the lower classes for the upper ones, and their ingratitude. 1205467786