Why+Vanya?

When I was thinking back over the play, I wondered why Chekhov would name the whole play, "Uncle Vanya." Sure, Vanya was in nearly every scene, or he wheedled his way in, but I was never particularly sympathetic to him. Maybe this was just because of the way the actor played him--ie, obnoxious and whiny--but I thought the play focused on the plight of the family as a whole. Chekhov chose to focus the Cherry Orchard on the family and setting as a whole by naming the play after the place rather than a person. Why wouldn't he do that in this play also?

I just found it strange that he would center an entire play around one of the more pathetic members of the household. Of course, I must take into account the actor's technique, so do you think that Vanya could be played differently, to a different effect of the play as a whole? 1205452575

I also was not sure why Vanya received the title. But after looking back on the movie I think it is safe to say that Vanya had the most insight in the play. He saw everything and had a deeper understanding for everything and everyone in the play. During the scene where the estate was talked about Vanya is the one who got up and protested. Sonya was still in shock from the doctor not loving her, so she couldn't say anything. Vanya stormed on about his life on this estate and everything he has had to do. Every time Vanya was on stage (or screen) he had something profound to say. In the end, it was he who held the gun and tried to kill the professor. This play revolved around the life at the estate, but in the middle of it all was Vanya, just as in the Cherry Orchard, the orchard was in the middle of it all. 1205454298

Vanya probably received the title because he is the perfect representation of the problem that is plaguing everyone else in the play to one degree or another, and that is the fact that their lives are meaningless and that they are beggining to despair about them. Plus just because you don't like or are sympathetic to the main character dosn't mean that they aren't a good main character. Liking a main character has no bering on how good the character is. The only thing that shows how good the actor was in playing the character or how effective the character was is if the character was able to convey the main idea or effect that the character was meant to convey and I think that the actor for Vany did a standup job of it. The despair and meaninglessness of a lifetime lost and a lifetime still left to live was conveyed perfectly in this character with few if any flaws. While it may seem strange to focus on such an unassuming and whiny character such as uncle Vanya it makes sense when you realize that the conflict in the play in having to live a life against meaninglessness is mainly the conflict of Vanya. Even though others are going through the same sort of conflict no one is going through it as much as Vanya and this thus makes him a good character to represent the entire play in the title. user:DGr-c

I was also a little confused about this title, but I think that if I had to choose one character to call the "main character" I would say Varnya. It seems that most of the scenes he is either present in or they affect him. Much of the play was centered around his love for Yelana and how he regrets not marrying her when he had the chance. He is also depressed because the professor is ruining Vanya's life with the estate and by not paying him anything. I think the play centers around Vanya's depression and maybe that is where the title comes from. It does seem like the play is more about the family as a whole, but I think that Vanya is effected most by the events of the play.1205455450

I think titling it “Uncle Vanya” was a good idea. In fact, I can’t really think of anything else to really call this play. “Living a meaningless life” is far too depressing and gives too much away, “how to be really creepy around young, attractive women” is too long, and “the estate” is even more boring than “uncle Vanya.” I think he is a good of a main character as we are gonna get in Chekov’s works. He actually did a lot in this play and he was one of the only characters who introduced any real action into the play by attempting to kill the professor by firing a gun. As for the question about the actor doing a good job portraying Uncle Vanya I think that we really don’t have enough information to make a sound judgment on that one. If we had read the play and got a feel for the character, maybe gotten a little more input from Br tom, and read all the stage directions and what not, we probably would have had a better understanding of the character and would be able to decide if the actor did a good job. But, seeing how we didn’t do any of that, I guess we really can’t judge him that harshly. But, if Uncle Vanya was supposed to come off as a creep, the actor did a great job. 1205457603

I believe the reason that the play is named Uncle Vanya is thatb Vanya is the one with the most problems. Uncle Vanya is the perfect stereotype of the tortured soul: his whole life was spent working for a man who did not care for him and paid Vanya barely enough to get buy in their large shanty would Alexander remained removed from their plight. Not only that, Vanya was unable to find love, and the one opportunity he finally does is denied him by the very man who happens to step over him. The woman that he so dearly loves is married to man that he hates so much. This constrast reflects directly to the conflicts that he is experiencing in his life. As Faulkner states the trials of the human heart are the only things worth writing about, and Vanya has definitely the most troubles in his life.1205461849

Just a little side note: the //movie's// actual title was //Vanya on 42nd Street// if I remember correctly, probably in account of the format of the movie where the actors walked off the street and into their characters. But anyways. I think Chekhov's central message comes across through Vanya. And unlike LSi, I felt a great sympathy for Vanya! Vanya unselfishly gave his inheritance for the estate. It was sad that his own parents seemed to prefer Alexander over him. His unrequited love for Helena was a little sad too. But Vanya stands up for himself. He may not be of the upper class, but he doesn't let himself be walked all over by Alexander. I think Vanya has courage. He deserves to have the title of the play. I don't think Uncle Vanya is a creep! He is just lonely, helpless, in need of love. But again, Chekhov's message on society lies in Vanya. Compared to the doctor and Alexander, Vanya is golden. 1205463437

Though I agree that Vanya is the center of the play, I would not say that he is "golden". As I recall, Uncle Vanya is a fairly delusional character who acts as though he actually has realistic shot at a women as beautiful as Yelena at this stage of his life. Uncle Vanya is actually quite similar to the doctor in that both feel life to be meaningless. For both days drudge on and on, the only respite being more delirium thanks to vodka. To a certain extent, all the characters in this play are suffering from a meaningless existence, from which they try to construct meaning out of. Sophia has no lover, Yelena is married to an old egotistical jerk, and the old egotistical jerk, the retired professor, is also dealing with the reality of being virtually finished with his career over, a reality he deals with with excessive grumpiness and contempt for almost everyone, even the doctor who tries to help him. Uncle Vanya's misery is more prominent, his misery is at the forefront of a play about misery, as he is the one who must deal with the themes of exploitation and failed romance the most. The scene where he comes in with the bouquet of roses is the epidimy of a let-down. As such, it is only fitting that the character who embodies the theme of the play the most should be the title of the play, just as Oedipus Rex is titled for Oedipus, Hamlet for Hamlet, Invisible Man for Invisible Man, and so on and so forth.

As for the Cherry Orchard, it is the object that is viewed differently by so many characters because it's existence, which correlates to the existence of the landed aristocracy, is clearly in a state of flux in Russia, represented by the views of Trophimof and Lopakin. 1205465094